https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/thoughts-on-the-market--7445040enInvestingCopyright gtyhttps://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/19c88ea1711633c51bfec15b9e4efe56.jpghttps://www.spreaker.com/podcast/thoughts-on-the-market--7445040Thu, 08 Oct 2026 21:33:18 +0000gtygtyfeeds@spreaker.comShort, thoughtful and regular takes on recent events in the markets from a variety of perspectives and voices within Morgan Stanley.falseed3e6ac1-eec4-5b8f-b132-59411b9416c2episodichttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/high-mortgage-rates-and-a-stuck-housing-market--75654724insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Jim, [we’re] getting a lot of questions about mortgage rates. We've been flying across the country talking to people. Are your arms tired?James Egan: I'm hoping that all the extra flapping will give them just a little bit more definition so we can show them off as we talk about adjustable-rate mortgages.Jay Bacow: And that is the definition of an ARM. Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan StanleyJay Bacow: Today, we're here to talk about mortgage rates: how quickly they've moved, why they're here, where they might go, and what it means for the mortgage and housing market.It's Thursday, October 8th, at 9am in New York.Jim, as of this recording, the 10-year is over 5.3 percent. Rates haven't closed this high since 2002. The 30-year mortgage rate is around 7.5 percent. It’s about 150 basis points up since the beginning of February.James Egan: Right. There have been quick moves in rates that has led to quick moves in mortgage rates. There are a lot of implications to that – from affordability, the housing market, mortgage market.But when we think about the relationship between mortgage rates and interest rates, Jay, there's also a feedback mechanism there. Convexity hedging is what it's typically called.Can you discuss the role that that might have played in this current episode? And what we should expect going forward?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, the biggest driver of mortgage rates is Treasury rates. And Treasury rates are driven by a number of factors, and right now most people would point to inflation expectations and geopolitical concerns.However, as Treasury rates go higher, homeowners that currently have a mortgage are less likely to move. And because they're less likely to move, that means that the average life of those mortgages that investors own gets longer.And because mortgage investors typically want to keep their duration profile constant – as the average life of those mortgages gets longer, they are then going to need to either sell those mortgages or sell Treasuries, which will cause yields to go even higher.And there's a bit of a feedback loop on that, which can pressure yields and mortgage rates even higher.But what we would say is, at this point, we don't think there's a huge mechanism of that going through at this rate level. The average mortgage rate that homeowners have in America is almost exactly 4.5 percent. Obviously, they're less likely to move as rates go up. But they're 300 basis points out of the money.So, from that point, it matters. But it didn't matter as much as when rates were a little lower. However, Jim, 7.5 percent mortgage rate – what does this do for housing affordability? Can you put that in context?James Egan: Yeah. So, if we just think about this in terms of what a 7.5 percent mortgage rate implies for the monthly payment on the median-priced home, we are now up over $325 dollars if we use that 7.5 percent – assuming home prices are where they are today, incomes are where they are today.That monthly payment's up over $325 from where we are at local lows in February; or where we were at local lows in February. That's a 17 percent increase, in terms of that monthly payment over just a seven-month period.Jay Bacow: Alright, so, 17 percent increase over a seven-month period, that's kind of scary.But as you and I have talked about in the past, given the fixed rate nature of the U.S. mortgage market, it's a tad misleading for the average homeowner in America.So, what does this do to sales? Obviously, it's scary for new homeowners, though.James Egan: Right. Look, you brought up the implications from a duration perspective, a convexity hedging perspective. All of this is just how the lock-in effect continues to have material implications for the housing market, for mortgage markets.But yes, these affordability issues – not that bad for homeowners who have an average rate below 4.5 percent. That's not changing. Over 90 percent of the balance or count of mortgages, depending on how you want to look at it, in the United States remains fixed rate. Their payments aren't changing, right?But the marginal home buyer, things are getting less affordable. I don't like to use the term demand destruction. I think that sounds a little bit too over the top here. But like we are seeing some of our higher frequency or more leading indicator demand metrics show a little bit of softening here.Pending home sales, past two months, 3 to 5 percent down year-over-year. Purchase applications, which had been very strong, in September, they were down about 10 percent year-over-year. So, look, we were seeing a little bit of demand increases this year. We were up about 2 percent year-to-date through July.It's a small increase off of a very, very low base. But we think you're going to see with rates at these levels, if we maintain these levels, is effectively the probability or any real ability of the market to escape to the upside from an activity perspective? That probability keeps coming down. And we're going to be stuck in this turnover, very range-bound, lowest level of sales as a percentage of the housing market in 40 years.Jay Bacow: So really low activity, what does that do to prices? Is there some flow through? Is there relief coming?James Egan: Look, as demand softens, the kind of first-order expectation or the heuristic should be that prices should soften as well. But again, lock-in effect; what we've actually seen is the rate of growth for existing listings at these levels has slowed. And it's slowed pretty materially.That's actually led to home price appreciation accelerating over the past few months. We've gone from just 0.7 or 0.8 percent four months ago to 1.9 percent for the data that we just received. We think that that level is kind of sustainable here, and we're going to be between like roughly 2 percent, give or take, for the remainder of this year.Now, you and I have both been mentioning the lock-in effect throughout the course of this. Yes, an overwhelming majority of the market is fixed rate right now. But the media, our conversations with clients, there's been a lot of discussion of potentially a growing share of adjustable-rate mortgages to kind of help the marginal homeowner with affordability.What are we seeing in ARMs right now?Jay Bacow: Okay. Yeah, so great question, and we are seeing a pickup in ARM issuance. If we look at the percentage of mortgages that were ARMs through the first half of this year and compare them to the percentage of ARMs in the first half of last year, it's increased by about 1 percent on aggregate issuance. It's went from about a little over 15 percent to a little over 16 percent.And so, 1 percent increase is not a huge number by itself, but when we're talking about a little over $2 trillion of expected issuance in the course of the year across the entire mortgage market, this does help on the margin. And we do think, as we said in the past, that more uptake of ARMs would likely be a little bit of a positive solution to some of the affordability challenges.But Jim, if people take out more ARMs, recognizing that most people only have two arms, should we be worrying about a repeat of the financial crisis and lending standards?James Egan: So, this is a question that we get a lot when we start talking about moving away from fixed-rate mortgages. And the point that I want to stress; that we want to stress here, is not all ARMs are created equal…Jay Bacow: Mine are stronger than yours?James Egan: Sure, we'll go with that. But also, if we control for borrower characteristics, right? Credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios, right? And then we compare performance of adjustable-rate mortgages to fixed-rate mortgages, 7-1 ARMs, 10-1 ARMs, they perform very much like fixed-rate mortgages.It's really the short-reset ARMs, what we'll call affordability products. So, they only have 24-month or 36-month fixed periods. Those are what have historically showed a much higher rate of default and something that would get us a little bit more concerned about lending standards if those were the products we're talking about.Thankfully, they're not right now. The ARM growth that we're seeing is in the 5-1, 7-1, 10-1 space. Those have historically, again, controlling for borrower performance, performed like fixed-rate mortgages. And so, we think that you can expand mortgage product into ARMs and do it responsibly.Jay Bacow: All right. Jim, always a pleasure speaking with you.James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners out there, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/70upIG3btlZMkkVlI9_DS2rt9FUfqZgOyEIF2qFxrp0Thu, 08 Oct 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyU.S. mortgage rates are hovering around their highest levels in three years. Morgan Stanley Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan examine the forces keeping homeowners locked in and buyers priced out of the housing...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Jim, [we’re] getting a lot of questions about mortgage rates. We've been flying across the country talking to people. Are your arms tired?James Egan: I'm hoping that all the extra flapping will give them just a little bit more definition so we can show them off as we talk about adjustable-rate mortgages.Jay Bacow: And that is the definition of an ARM. Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan StanleyJay Bacow: Today, we're here to talk about mortgage rates: how quickly they've moved, why they're here, where they might go, and what it means for the mortgage and housing market.It's Thursday, October 8th, at 9am in New York.Jim, as of this recording, the 10-year is over 5.3 percent. Rates haven't closed this high since 2002. The 30-year mortgage rate is around 7.5 percent. It’s about 150 basis points up since the beginning of February.James Egan: Right. There have been quick moves in rates that has led to quick moves in mortgage rates. There are a lot of implications to that – from affordability, the housing market, mortgage market.But when we think about the relationship between mortgage rates and interest rates, Jay, there's also a feedback mechanism there. Convexity hedging is what it's typically called.Can you discuss the role that that might have played in this current episode? And what we should expect going forward?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, the biggest driver of mortgage rates is Treasury rates. And Treasury rates are driven by a number of factors, and right now most people would point to inflation expectations and geopolitical concerns.However, as Treasury rates go higher, homeowners that currently have a mortgage are less likely to move. And because they're less likely to move, that means that the average life of those mortgages that investors own gets longer.And because mortgage investors typically want to keep their duration profile constant – as the average life of those mortgages gets longer, they are then going to need to either sell those mortgages or sell Treasuries, which will cause yields to go even higher.And there's a bit of a feedback loop on that, which can pressure yields and mortgage rates even higher.But what we would say is, at this point, we don't think there's a huge mechanism of that going through at this rate level. The average mortgage rate that homeowners have in America is almost exactly 4.5 percent. Obviously, they're less likely to move as rates go up. But they're 300 basis points out of the money.So, from that point, it matters. But it didn't matter as much as when rates were a little lower. However, Jim, 7.5 percent mortgage rate – what does this do for housing affordability? Can you put that in context?James Egan: Yeah. So, if we just think about this in terms of what a 7.5 percent mortgage rate implies for the monthly payment on the median-priced home, we are now up over $325 dollars if we use that 7.5 percent – assuming home prices are where they are today, incomes are where they are today.That monthly payment's up over $325 from where we are at local lows in February; or where we were at local lows in February. That's a 17 percent increase, in terms of that monthly payment over just a seven-month period.Jay Bacow: Alright, so, 17 percent increase over a seven-month period, that's kind of scary.But as you and I have talked about in the past, given the fixed rate nature of the U.S....]]>546alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1746fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-midterms-test-the-ai-investment-cycle--75644877insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what the midterms could mean for the AI investment cycle. It's Wednesday, October 7th at 10am in New York. I've spoken on this podcast before about the broader implications of the midterm elections. This time, I want to go a little deeper on what they could mean specifically for AI sentiment. We think about that through two separate channels. The first is data center opposition, where we do think the elections can be an important catalyst. The second is broader AI safety and regulation, where we think the election outcome matters much less. And that distinction is important. It suggests that the midterms are more likely to influence investor confidence in the pace and the durability of AI infrastructure spending, rather than fundamentally rewriting the rules governing AI. Let's start with data centers. Our base case is still a conditional build-out. We still expect substantial AI infrastructure investment, but increasingly subject to conditions around things like power costs, grid investment, siting, permitting, water use, and community impact. We don't expect a broad federal pause on data center development. AI compute is increasingly being viewed in Washington as strategic infrastructure, particularly when you consider competition with China. So, we think that national security framing should remain supportive of the build-out. But here's the important point for these elections. Many of the policy levers that can actually delay a project sit well below the federal level. Think about things like interconnection approvals, large load electricity tariffs, zoning, water permits, and tax abatements. Those are all generally controlled by states, utility commissions, and local governments. So, when it comes to AI infrastructure, we actually think governors, state legislatures, and public utility commissions may ultimately matter more than control of any one Senate seat in particular.And that brings us to sentiment. At the federal level, we think a Republican sweep would likely be the most constructive outcome for AI infrastructure sentiment. Now, that's because investors would likely expect fewer regulatory constraints ahead. As well as a greater likelihood of active support for permitting reform, additional power generation, and development on federal land. A divided government outcome, we think, looks closer to the status quo. It would preserve questions about the durability of the build-out, but the gridlock in D.C. would also leave many of the substantive decisions at the state and local level. And lastly, we think a Democratic sweep would be the least constructive outcome for sentiment. Now, importantly, that doesn't mean that we expect a nationwide data center moratorium, as I said. Rather, investors could interpret Democratic outperformance as increasing the probability of tighter local restrictions in the near term, and potentially much more federal scrutiny after the next 2028 elections. So that's the infrastructure side. What about AI regulation more broadly? Here, we think the midterms are actually much less consequential. Our expectation remains for incremental and fragmented regulation rather than a sweeping new federal regime. AI safety, data governance, and frontier model oversight, we think can certainly see targeted action. But we just don't think congressional composition by itself is likely to trigger comprehensive legislation – unless there's a sufficiently high-profile safety or security incident. Executive agencies are also likely to remain the more important actors on tech restrictions and model access. And that gets us to the main takeaway for investors. The midterms probably won't determine whether the AI investment cycle continues. We think the strategic case for expanding U.S. compute capacity remains intact. What they can influence, however, is the friction around that build-out. Where the projects get built, how quickly they receive approval? Who bears the cost? And ultimately, how confident investors are in the durability of AI CapEx? So, when we think about what happens in November through an AI lens, we'll be watching D.C. But in many cases, the more important signals can come from governors' races, utility commissions, and local elections – because that's where the politics of AI are increasingly meeting the physical constraints of actually building it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CGLQhSkhNALbFnQ1ziyHgiDDQqCaLLI9fzELdxfBaxIWed, 07 Oct 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe AI investment boom has been a defining force in markets. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore looks at whether the U.S. midterm elections could change the spending and policies behind it.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what the midterms could mean for the AI investment cycle. It's Wednesday, October 7th at 10am in New York. I've spoken on this podcast before about the broader implications of the midterm elections. This time, I want to go a little deeper on what they could mean specifically for AI sentiment. We think about that through two separate channels. The first is data center opposition, where we do think the elections can be an important catalyst. The second is broader AI safety and regulation, where we think the election outcome matters much less. And that distinction is important. It suggests that the midterms are more likely to influence investor confidence in the pace and the durability of AI infrastructure spending, rather than fundamentally rewriting the rules governing AI. Let's start with data centers. Our base case is still a conditional build-out. We still expect substantial AI infrastructure investment, but increasingly subject to conditions around things like power costs, grid investment, siting, permitting, water use, and community impact. We don't expect a broad federal pause on data center development. AI compute is increasingly being viewed in Washington as strategic infrastructure, particularly when you consider competition with China. So, we think that national security framing should remain supportive of the build-out. But here's the important point for these elections. Many of the policy levers that can actually delay a project sit well below the federal level. Think about things like interconnection approvals, large load electricity tariffs, zoning, water permits, and tax abatements. Those are all generally controlled by states, utility commissions, and local governments. So, when it comes to AI infrastructure, we actually think governors, state legislatures, and public utility commissions may ultimately matter more than control of any one Senate seat in particular.And that brings us to sentiment. At the federal level, we think a Republican sweep would likely be the most constructive outcome for AI infrastructure sentiment. Now, that's because investors would likely expect fewer regulatory constraints ahead. As well as a greater likelihood of active support for permitting reform, additional power generation, and development on federal land. A divided government outcome, we think, looks closer to the status quo. It would preserve questions about the durability of the build-out, but the gridlock in D.C. would also leave many of the substantive decisions at the state and local level. And lastly, we think a Democratic sweep would be the least constructive outcome for sentiment. Now, importantly, that doesn't mean that we expect a nationwide data center moratorium, as I said. Rather, investors could interpret Democratic outperformance as increasing the probability of tighter local restrictions in the near term, and potentially much more federal scrutiny after the next 2028 elections. So that's the infrastructure side. What about AI regulation more broadly? Here, we think the midterms are actually much less consequential. Our expectation remains for incremental and fragmented regulation rather than a sweeping new federal regime. AI safety, data governance, and frontier model oversight, we think can certainly see targeted action. But we just don't think congressional composition by itself is likely to trigger comprehensive legislation – unless there's a sufficiently high-profile safety or...]]>275alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1745fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/japan-s-banks-enter-a-new-era-of-opportunity--75644875insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – a once-in-30-year investment cycle is changing how investors think about Japanese banks.It’s Tuesday, October 6th, at 10am in Tokyo. For decades, Japanese companies had more cash than investment opportunities. But now it's changing. This marks a new chapter for Japanese banks. The first stage of recovery was largely about interest rates. As Japan moved away from negative rates, higher lending yields helped bank margins and earnings.This next stage is about growth in the banking business itself, driven by companies investing more and needing more external capital. In fact, we think Japan is entering its first meaningful capex cycle in nearly three decades. Investment needs are broadening, from labor-saving technology to the replacement of aging equipment. Companies are also becoming more active in reallocating capital toward businesses where they see stronger returns.For banks, the most direct opportunity is lending. We expect Japan’s domestic loan market to grow from about 588 trillion yen, or roughly 3.7 trillion U.S. dollars, in the fiscal year ending March 2026 to roughly 712 trillion yen, or about 4.5 trillion dollars, by March 2031. Loan growth could run at around 5 percent annually early in the investment cycle, then settle at about 3 to 4 percent. And the financing opportunity extends beyond loans. Take Japan’s debt capital markets, where companies raise money by issuing bonds. We expect them to grow from about 52 trillion yen, or roughly 331billion dollars, to 63 trillion yen, or about 401 billion dollars, by March 2031. We also forecast the M&A market to rise from 23 trillion yen, or roughly 146 billion dollars, to 32 trillion yen, or about 204 billion dollars, over the same period. Large projects often need several forms of financing, so lending can open the door to underwriting and advisory fees as well. This gives banks more ways to generate earnings. In the early phase, banks can benefit mainly from lending and project finance. As projects mature, fee-based businesses such as capital markets and M&A can contribute more. This makes the opportunity look less like a short-lived lending boom and more like a multi-stage financing cycle.The key measure to watch is return on equity, which shows how effectively a bank turns shareholder capital into profit. Japan’s megabanks are currently generating ROEs of roughly 10 to 11 percent. We see a path toward around 15 percent over the medium term. Structural growth in corporate financing demand alone could add about 1 to 1.5 percentage points.So, the bigger story is not simply that rates have risen. Japan may be moving from an economy defined by excess savings and underinvestment toward one where companies need capital to grow. If that transition continues, banks could have substantially more productive opportunities to deploy their balance sheets.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JEtBMTryq6ubTE0xzwdqpM-eOAEFuM9g88jWFQFQMMUTue, 06 Oct 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Japan Financials Analyst Mia Nagasaka explains why a once-in-30-year investment cycle could transform corporate financing and open a new chapter for Japanese banks.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – a once-in-30-year investment cycle is changing how investors think about Japanese banks.It’s Tuesday, October 6th, at 10am in Tokyo. For decades, Japanese companies had more cash than investment opportunities. But now it's changing. This marks a new chapter for Japanese banks. The first stage of recovery was largely about interest rates. As Japan moved away from negative rates, higher lending yields helped bank margins and earnings.This next stage is about growth in the banking business itself, driven by companies investing more and needing more external capital. In fact, we think Japan is entering its first meaningful capex cycle in nearly three decades. Investment needs are broadening, from labor-saving technology to the replacement of aging equipment. Companies are also becoming more active in reallocating capital toward businesses where they see stronger returns.For banks, the most direct opportunity is lending. We expect Japan’s domestic loan market to grow from about 588 trillion yen, or roughly 3.7 trillion U.S. dollars, in the fiscal year ending March 2026 to roughly 712 trillion yen, or about 4.5 trillion dollars, by March 2031. Loan growth could run at around 5 percent annually early in the investment cycle, then settle at about 3 to 4 percent. And the financing opportunity extends beyond loans. Take Japan’s debt capital markets, where companies raise money by issuing bonds. We expect them to grow from about 52 trillion yen, or roughly 331billion dollars, to 63 trillion yen, or about 401 billion dollars, by March 2031. We also forecast the M&A market to rise from 23 trillion yen, or roughly 146 billion dollars, to 32 trillion yen, or about 204 billion dollars, over the same period. Large projects often need several forms of financing, so lending can open the door to underwriting and advisory fees as well. This gives banks more ways to generate earnings. In the early phase, banks can benefit mainly from lending and project finance. As projects mature, fee-based businesses such as capital markets and M&A can contribute more. This makes the opportunity look less like a short-lived lending boom and more like a multi-stage financing cycle.The key measure to watch is return on equity, which shows how effectively a bank turns shareholder capital into profit. Japan’s megabanks are currently generating ROEs of roughly 10 to 11 percent. We see a path toward around 15 percent over the medium term. Structural growth in corporate financing demand alone could add about 1 to 1.5 percentage points.So, the bigger story is not simply that rates have risen. Japan may be moving from an economy defined by excess savings and underinvestment toward one where companies need capital to grow. If that transition continues, banks could have substantially more productive opportunities to deploy their balance sheets.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>259alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1744fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/canada-s-next-growth-phase--75644878insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams. Today, why Canada's economy may be closer to a new growth phase. It's Monday, October 5th at 10am in New York. Canada has been in the news recently. There have been lots of headlines related to trade, around population growth, around weak productivity, years of underinvestment. And those are real constraints, and they have weighed on the near-term outlook. At Morgan Stanley, we are more constructive on the medium-term outlook for Canada. And we recently wrote a report around this along with our strategists titled, “Canada: The Next Acceleration.” And, from our perspective, we think that the near-term uncertainty around trade is actually clouding the opportunity for global investors. There are three points that we make in the report. We estimate that the growth model in Canada over the next three to four years can actually pivot from the export-led growth story that we've seen over the past few years into one that emphasizes capital deepening and greater technological diffusion across the economy. So, it really is about the domestic build-out and the opportunity in shifting away from trade and export-led growth into a more productive economy – that's not just larger over time but can actually grow at a much faster pace as well. And so, by our estimates, we think that potential growth in Canada could feasibly rise from about 1.5 percent to closer to 1.75 percent. The way that we see it, this really doesn't require things to start from scratch. There are already large capital pipelines that are in place. But one of the things that we do note is that a lot of these pipelines are actually concentrated in a few sectors. So, about half of these are in utilities and oil and gas, transportation. These sectors together combine about 13 to 14 percent of the gross value add for the economy. But they actually account for more than half of the announced capital pipelines. And so, for the money that's going into the economy – and a lot of this is going into structures – it's not going as much into machinery and equipment. And so, while the capital build-out is going to support the widening, we also need to think about crowding in private investment into other sectors. And some of these other sectors that we've identified in the note, such as finance, information services, that have historically had much greater gains in productivity – they would need to see bigger capital intentions as well. The other opportunity that we identify for the Canadian growth model is – although the near-term population growth has been slowing, it doesn't actually change the longer run demographic picture. We looked at what the numbers would be for the working age population growth for Canada, taking 2025 as a starting point. And what we see is that Canadian working age population is going to rise by about 3 percent by 2035, by 5 percent by 2040, and 6 percent by 2045. Meanwhile, most of the developed economy peers are going to see shrinkage in their working age populations. And so that is really going to give Canada a window into the rest of the 2030s to continue to accelerate its growth model. From our perspective, the test for the next few years is going to be whether the investment that's being undertaken in a few sectors spreads beyond the big projects. And it really lifts productivity across the economy. Construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and wholesale will be especially important because they are machinery intensive, technology adoption remains low, and recent productivity gaps are large. If those sectors begin to improve, Canada could enter the 2030s with a much stronger growth engine than it has today. And in our perspective, Canada's potential growth could actually pivot from being about 1.5 percent today to entering the 2030s with close to 2 percent in potential output growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share our Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OiM3UYcH_2M1LS-ZWTA3OgAHVbaGdJWFeHEngaj5R68Mon, 05 Oct 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyRecent headlines about Canada have focused on trade uncertainty and weak productivity. But our Global Economist Arunima Sinha explains why the country may be on the cusp of a stronger, investment-led growth cycle.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams. Today, why Canada's economy may be closer to a new growth phase. It's Monday, October 5th at 10am in New York. Canada has been in the news recently. There have been lots of headlines related to trade, around population growth, around weak productivity, years of underinvestment. And those are real constraints, and they have weighed on the near-term outlook. At Morgan Stanley, we are more constructive on the medium-term outlook for Canada. And we recently wrote a report around this along with our strategists titled, “Canada: The Next Acceleration.” And, from our perspective, we think that the near-term uncertainty around trade is actually clouding the opportunity for global investors. There are three points that we make in the report. We estimate that the growth model in Canada over the next three to four years can actually pivot from the export-led growth story that we've seen over the past few years into one that emphasizes capital deepening and greater technological diffusion across the economy. So, it really is about the domestic build-out and the opportunity in shifting away from trade and export-led growth into a more productive economy – that's not just larger over time but can actually grow at a much faster pace as well. And so, by our estimates, we think that potential growth in Canada could feasibly rise from about 1.5 percent to closer to 1.75 percent. The way that we see it, this really doesn't require things to start from scratch. There are already large capital pipelines that are in place. But one of the things that we do note is that a lot of these pipelines are actually concentrated in a few sectors. So, about half of these are in utilities and oil and gas, transportation. These sectors together combine about 13 to 14 percent of the gross value add for the economy. But they actually account for more than half of the announced capital pipelines. And so, for the money that's going into the economy – and a lot of this is going into structures – it's not going as much into machinery and equipment. And so, while the capital build-out is going to support the widening, we also need to think about crowding in private investment into other sectors. And some of these other sectors that we've identified in the note, such as finance, information services, that have historically had much greater gains in productivity – they would need to see bigger capital intentions as well. The other opportunity that we identify for the Canadian growth model is – although the near-term population growth has been slowing, it doesn't actually change the longer run demographic picture. We looked at what the numbers would be for the working age population growth for Canada, taking 2025 as a starting point. And what we see is that Canadian working age population is going to rise by about 3 percent by 2035, by 5 percent by 2040, and 6 percent by 2045. Meanwhile, most of the developed economy peers are going to see shrinkage in their working age populations. And so that is really going to give Canada a window into the rest of the 2030s to continue to accelerate its growth model. From our perspective, the test for the next few years is going to be whether the investment that's being undertaken in a few sectors spreads beyond the big projects. And it really lifts productivity across the economy. Construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and wholesale will be especially important because they are machinery intensive, technology...]]>313alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1743fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-tension-between-equities-and-bonds--75644879insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, thinking about equity resilience in the face of rising bond yields. It's Friday, October 2nd at 2pm in London. The benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury yield has risen about 100 basis points this year. Global equities, at the same time, are up about 13 percent. And those two facts sit in an uncomfortable tension. After all, higher bond yields give investors better return options elsewhere, and they also make future corporate profits worth less today, which in theory should push stock prices lower.But there's a wrinkle here. That valuation theory actually has two moving parts. What we're referring to here is what we would call a dividend discount model or a Gordon Growth Model, where the value of a company today is worth the value of its dividends divided by the difference of its required rate of return and its growth rate. The higher the required rate of return, which interest rates push up, hurts a stock valuation. It increases the denominator. But a higher growth rate, well, that works in the opposite direction. That decreases the denominator. It makes the company worth more. Hopefully, this is intuitive. if a company has to meet a higher return hurdle, it will be worth less today. If a company's growing faster, all else equal, it's worth more. And that, we think, goes a long way to actually explain what's going on in markets today. Because corporate profits are growing quickly. Over the last year, profits for the S&P 500 are up about 30 percent, and the earnings growth for the median company, well, that's still up in the mid-teens. Growth in Europe, Asia, and emerging markets have also been historically strong. Indeed, if you'd told me on January 1st that the S&P 500 would be up about 13 percent, and at the same time, U.S. Treasury yields would be up about 100 basis points, I probably would have told you with reasonable confidence that stocks would look more expensive relative to bonds. But they don't. The valuation of the equity market, the P/E ratio, has fallen significantly as yields have risen. But because earnings have risen so much more, stocks are still higher. And the so-called equity risk premium, the difference between the earnings yield and the bond yield, it's pretty stable year to date. Now there's another way that higher yields could hurt the stock market. They could simply cause people to sell their stocks and buy those higher yielding bonds. But so far, we're not seeing evidence of that. The flows that we track continue to show money flowing into both stocks and bonds. And the two markets are moving in the same direction day to day. They're showing positive correlation, which is not the outcome you'd expect if people were shifting money from one to the other. There's also an interesting way that companies have a say in this debate. Investors every day look at the market and decide if these yields are high enough that they want to buy them. But companies look at the same yield and say, "Is this low enough that we would want to sell?" And so especially for the companies that are funding the AI build-out – these large technology companies with so much AI spending to do. Many of them, even at these higher yields, are still saying these are attractive levels to issue at. And are more attractive than, say, issuing more stock. The other factor that's always important to keep in mind whenever we're debating long-term valuation questions between stocks and bonds, or really any asset class, is that valuation is a slow-moving force. It is often not terribly predictive of the next six or even 12 months. Indeed, if we think about the difference between the earnings yield on the equity market, the inverse of the P/E ratio, and what the bond market yields, that difference. Well, that difference only explains about 10 percent of returns between stocks and bonds over the next month. Now, valuation is more powerful the longer you give it. And so, extend that horizon out over the next three years and that valuation gap between bonds and equities, well, explains about half the three-year outcome. Markets are not equations that are solved once a quarter. They are ongoing arguments about the future. And when growth is strong, investors are simply more willing to give growth and that future potential the benefit of the doubt. We think this goes a long way to helping to explain the equity market's resilience despite Treasury yields moving well above five percent. But it's also raising the bar. Higher yields simply leave less room for earnings disappointment. Those profits need to keep growing quickly. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-Nn15_cdA0Mee-f4d3kbjwL-VhzPnR-FrAZaGGJI6jsFri, 02 Oct 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets examines what rising rates could mean for equity valuations, earnings and investor appetite.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, thinking about equity resilience in the face of rising bond yields. It's Friday, October 2nd at 2pm in London. The benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury yield has risen about 100 basis points this year. Global equities, at the same time, are up about 13 percent. And those two facts sit in an uncomfortable tension. After all, higher bond yields give investors better return options elsewhere, and they also make future corporate profits worth less today, which in theory should push stock prices lower.But there's a wrinkle here. That valuation theory actually has two moving parts. What we're referring to here is what we would call a dividend discount model or a Gordon Growth Model, where the value of a company today is worth the value of its dividends divided by the difference of its required rate of return and its growth rate. The higher the required rate of return, which interest rates push up, hurts a stock valuation. It increases the denominator. But a higher growth rate, well, that works in the opposite direction. That decreases the denominator. It makes the company worth more. Hopefully, this is intuitive. if a company has to meet a higher return hurdle, it will be worth less today. If a company's growing faster, all else equal, it's worth more. And that, we think, goes a long way to actually explain what's going on in markets today. Because corporate profits are growing quickly. Over the last year, profits for the S&P 500 are up about 30 percent, and the earnings growth for the median company, well, that's still up in the mid-teens. Growth in Europe, Asia, and emerging markets have also been historically strong. Indeed, if you'd told me on January 1st that the S&P 500 would be up about 13 percent, and at the same time, U.S. Treasury yields would be up about 100 basis points, I probably would have told you with reasonable confidence that stocks would look more expensive relative to bonds. But they don't. The valuation of the equity market, the P/E ratio, has fallen significantly as yields have risen. But because earnings have risen so much more, stocks are still higher. And the so-called equity risk premium, the difference between the earnings yield and the bond yield, it's pretty stable year to date. Now there's another way that higher yields could hurt the stock market. They could simply cause people to sell their stocks and buy those higher yielding bonds. But so far, we're not seeing evidence of that. The flows that we track continue to show money flowing into both stocks and bonds. And the two markets are moving in the same direction day to day. They're showing positive correlation, which is not the outcome you'd expect if people were shifting money from one to the other. There's also an interesting way that companies have a say in this debate. Investors every day look at the market and decide if these yields are high enough that they want to buy them. But companies look at the same yield and say, "Is this low enough that we would want to sell?" And so especially for the companies that are funding the AI build-out – these large technology companies with so much AI spending to do. Many of them, even at these higher yields, are still saying these are attractive levels to issue at. And are more attractive than, say, issuing more stock. The other factor that's always important to keep in mind whenever we're debating long-term valuation questions between stocks and bonds, or really any asset class, is that valuation is a slow-moving force. It is often...]]>313alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1742fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-ai-and-tokenization-could-reshape-wealth-management--75644885insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research. Michael Cyprys: And I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research at Morgan Stanley. Betsy Graseck: Today, we're looking at the next phase of growth across asset and wealth management – and how tokenization, AI, and changing investor flows could reshape the industry. It's Thursday, October 1st at 9am in New York City. Assets under management, or AUM, are near record highs across the globe, with a lot changing beneath the surface. Now, much of the recent AUM growth has come from markets rather than from net new client flows. And meanwhile, fees do remain under pressure. At the same time, technologies like AI and tokenization are creating new opportunities for both asset and wealth managers. Our base case has tokenized real world assets growing from roughly [$]40 billion today to about [$]2.3 trillion by 2030. Mike, let's start with tokenization. What are the use cases that matter most near term? Michael Cyprys: So, as we think about it, there's a number of use cases that we see. The most compelling ones really are around cash treasuries and collateral. Take for example, earning yield. Some tokenized funds allow you to earn interest by the minute or the second that is invested rather than having to remain invested by that 4pm cutoff that is the case today. Another benefit is allowing collateral to move around a lot more easily, and this can help support a shift toward 24/7 markets. So, if securities can trade 24/7 – or derivatives – you may also need the cash leg of that transaction to keep pace. Right now, there are certain futures contracts that do trade over a weekend, but those positions do need to be pre-funded on Friday. So that's going to limit perhaps the full uptake for that of 24/7 until you can get the movement of the collateral to keep pace. And that's where tokenization can come in to help solve a real market need. There's also trapped collateral that's just sitting around the world, where institutions and corporates just keep pockets of liquidity in different places just in case they need it at a moment's notice. There’s a cost to that while it sits idle. But tokenization can allow for just more just-in-time movement of money, say with tokenized deposits, tokenized money funds, or stable coins. And another use case is around investors outside the U.S. that may not have as easy access to U.S. markets. But tokenization can help lower barriers, reduce frictions, and allow for greater access to U.S. market exposure. Private markets get a lot of attention, but we think that's maybe a little bit further out. So, to put some numbers around this, today there's around [$]40 billion of tokenized real-world assets. So, think tokenized stocks, bonds, funds. In our base case, we could see that growing to about [$]2.3 trillion by 2030, with a vast majority tied to these collateral mobility and reserve and treasury management use cases. Betsy Graseck: Pulling up a notch, we are expecting assets under management to reach about [$]247 trillion by 2030. But revenue growth is expected to lag asset growth. Mike, what really separates the firms that can grow above market trends you expect? Michael Cyprys: Yeah. So, as you said, most of the growth is going to be driven by market beta, right? So, we have expectation for about 9 percent growth annually in assets under management for about $160 trillion globally today to about $250 trillion by 2030. We expect about three-quarters of that growth rate comes from market beta, which leaves you around 2.5 percent for organic asset growth. So, growing just AUM with the market is not going to really be enough to differentiate. And so, as we think about, you know, how one can differentiate? First, I think it comes down to where one is positioned across the industry. We do see flows concentrating in passive solutions and selected private markets, and the economics can be pretty different there as well. Another way to differentiate is through distribution. Wealth, retirement, model portfolios, customized solutions, all of those channels are becoming much more important. And so, you want to be closer to where that asset allocation decision is actually getting made. And another point of differentiation is around operating leverage, and that's where AI comes in, which I'm sure is a topic we're going to get to in a little bit. That we think can help allow money managers to expand research coverage, can allow salespeople to cover more clients, allow for adding more products and customization without adding necessarily a lot more people and cost at the same rate. So, look, bottom line, I'd say, we think above market growth from having the right products, the right distribution, getting them in front of the right clients, and the technology to scale that just a lot more efficiently. Betsy Graseck: And how important is that AI tool going to be, in your opinion, for separating yourself from the pack? And is it more top-line generative or cost efficiency generative? Michael Cyprys: I think it's critical. It's both. I think it changes the competitive game because a lot of the economics are very different across the businesses, right? Take passive and index investing, for example, that continues to take share. It's a low-fee business, so there scale really matters. In solutions and private markets, the revenue opportunity is better, but you need more capabilities and distribution reach. And in private markets, origination is also key, as well as distribution, right? You can have private credit or an infrastructure product out there in the marketplace. But if you can't get it into a wealth or retirement or insurance channels, then you're leaving a lot of growth on the table. And then with traditional active, performance still matters, but the wrapper is key. Distribution matters more so than ever, and active ETFs are a great example of that. Betsy Graseck: And one question on AI is: How far along do you think it is in your coverage embedded already in the workflow and the processes across your group, your asset managers? Michael Cyprys: So, we're pretty early days here. A lot of firms, already have AI tools today: RFP tools, sales tools, tools within the operational and distribution side. But saving someone, you know, 10 minutes on a task doesn't necessarily show up in the P&L, right? You need to start removing entire steps from workflows. And then using that time savings to cover more clients, to launch more products, do more research, and ultimately slow the pace of hiring. And that's where we think the industry needs to move towards, away from these, sort of, point solutions into an enterprise workflow. And that is tools that connect across the entire organization, underpinned by the same data and the same controls. And our work suggests that this could be pretty meaningful over time, perhaps up to as much as 15 points worth of operating margin improvement – for the leaders over time. But we don't assume that all falls to the bottom line. We expect it to – you know, a lot of that's going to get reinvested, and a portion probably also gets competed away. And when we look at our forecasts for the money managers we cover, I'd say we have modest improvement in operating margins over the next couple of years. And, to your point, on cost versus revenue, we may actually see it on the revenue side first, as it can help allow for more client touches, broader coverage, and faster product development. Betsy Graseck: Okay. So, or as you mentioned, early days. How do you see AI and tokenization impacting either the leverage opportunities, the operating leverage opportunities, or the revenue growth opportunities? Let's start with AI. Michael Cyprys: We think that the potential here is to really improve the capacity to serve clients. As you think about today, the time that advisors spend actually not talking to clients, right? When you think about time that they're spending on meeting prep or research, notes, follow-ups, onboarding.  And that's a lot of administrative work that is wrapped up, in terms of the advisor’s relationship there. And our work suggests that call it about half of that advisor time could be freed up. Then advisor capacity could increase upwards of 30 to 40 percent on our numbers, and that can also increase the quality and the experience that the clients receive. We also see a broader opportunity beyond just the advisor. As you look across the advisor team and the organization, we see an overall cost to serve to come down quite materially. And I know this is a question you didn't ask it, but that's out there. We don't see AI replacing financial advisors, particularly at the higher end, just given the importance of that trusted relationship. And if anything, the value of that advisor probably goes up, particularly just given there's so much change happening around the world every which way you look. And then you overlay that with the aging demographic trends. We actually think there could be a bull market for advice as we look ahead. And AI could be that tool to enable the industry to execute on that market opportunity set and also help expand the TAM in terms of the ability of the industry to capture that opportunity set and bring advice to more people than was ever possible before. Betsy Graseck: And this would be incremental to your growth outlook that you indicated earlier of 7 percent? Michael Cyprys: This could be incremental… Betsy Graseck: Okay! Michael Cyprys: ... to that]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/oppmJXq2yIypz_Q7StmCxhtZ1Mkr5oqGT70sGcS0FVsThu, 01 Oct 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyBetsy Graseck and Michael Cyprys explore how AI could expand advisor capacity and tokenized assets could grow into a $2.3 trillion market by 2030.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research. Michael Cyprys: And I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research at Morgan Stanley. Betsy Graseck: Today, we're looking at the next phase of growth across asset and wealth management – and how tokenization, AI, and changing investor flows could reshape the industry. It's Thursday, October 1st at 9am in New York City. Assets under management, or AUM, are near record highs across the globe, with a lot changing beneath the surface. Now, much of the recent AUM growth has come from markets rather than from net new client flows. And meanwhile, fees do remain under pressure. At the same time, technologies like AI and tokenization are creating new opportunities for both asset and wealth managers. Our base case has tokenized real world assets growing from roughly [$]40 billion today to about [$]2.3 trillion by 2030. Mike, let's start with tokenization. What are the use cases that matter most near term? Michael Cyprys: So, as we think about it, there's a number of use cases that we see. The most compelling ones really are around cash treasuries and collateral. Take for example, earning yield. Some tokenized funds allow you to earn interest by the minute or the second that is invested rather than having to remain invested by that 4pm cutoff that is the case today. Another benefit is allowing collateral to move around a lot more easily, and this can help support a shift toward 24/7 markets. So, if securities can trade 24/7 – or derivatives – you may also need the cash leg of that transaction to keep pace. Right now, there are certain futures contracts that do trade over a weekend, but those positions do need to be pre-funded on Friday. So that's going to limit perhaps the full uptake for that of 24/7 until you can get the movement of the collateral to keep pace. And that's where tokenization can come in to help solve a real market need. There's also trapped collateral that's just sitting around the world, where institutions and corporates just keep pockets of liquidity in different places just in case they need it at a moment's notice. There’s a cost to that while it sits idle. But tokenization can allow for just more just-in-time movement of money, say with tokenized deposits, tokenized money funds, or stable coins. And another use case is around investors outside the U.S. that may not have as easy access to U.S. markets. But tokenization can help lower barriers, reduce frictions, and allow for greater access to U.S. market exposure. Private markets get a lot of attention, but we think that's maybe a little bit further out. So, to put some numbers around this, today there's around [$]40 billion of tokenized real-world assets. So, think tokenized stocks, bonds, funds. In our base case, we could see that growing to about [$]2.3 trillion by 2030, with a vast majority tied to these collateral mobility and reserve and treasury management use cases. Betsy Graseck: Pulling up a notch, we are expecting assets under management to reach about [$]247 trillion by 2030. But revenue growth is expected to lag asset growth. Mike, what really separates the firms that can grow above market trends you expect? Michael Cyprys: Yeah. So, as you said, most of the growth is going to be driven by market beta, right? So, we have expectation for about 9 percent growth annually in assets under management for about $160 trillion globally today to about $250 trillion by 2030. We expect about three-quarters of that growth rate comes from market beta, which...]]>738alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1741fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/4-market-signals-ahead-of-the-midterms--75644880insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. It's Wednesday, September 30th, at 10am in New York. As the elections inch closer, investors are increasingly asking about potential ramifications. We just put out a deep dive covering our expectations, and we arrive at four key takeaways. The first, midterms are unlikely to change the core executive-led policy agenda. As we've been noting for some time, a lot of the policy uncertainty that markets have dealt with since the beginning of 2025 has actually come from the executive branch rather than Congress. Tariffs, trade policy, deregulation, immigration, and export controls are all variables that are going to remain within the White House's authority. So even if control of Congress changes, we don't think investors should assume that those parts of the policy agenda simply go away. Where Congress actually matters more is on fiscal policy. But even there, the range of outcomes is relatively narrow. The main differences revolve around the timing of scheduled SNAP and Medicaid cuts, defense spending, and how future government funding and debt limit negotiations evolve. So, that's our first takeaway. Midterms can change the mechanics of governing, but probably not the broader direction of the executive agenda. That means policy uncertainty, at least across those vectors I mentioned, is likely to stay high. Takeaway number two, we'd be careful about treating the midterms as a direct signal for the 2028 presidential election. Historically, what we see is the issues that dominate a midterm don't necessarily translate to the next presidential race. Looking at the six midterm-to-presidential cycles since 1994, the top-ranked issue changed in five of them. And the issue that ultimately proved decisive in the presidential election was actually already visible at the midterm in only two of the six cases. What elections can tell us, however, is where some of the policy fault lines are beginning to form. We're watching four debates in particular in that context: the fiscal and Social Security debate, individual tax landscape, restrictions on data center development, and healthcare. In our view, across those variables, the useful signal isn't simply which party wins more seats. It's which versions of these policies are beginning to gain traction with voters and within the parties themselves. That actually brings us to takeaway number three. AI is one area where the midterms could matter, but mainly through data center policy rather than broad AI regulation. We think it's important to separate those two issues. So first, on data centers, we do see midterms as a catalyst. And that's because many of the most important policy levers sit at the state and local level: permitting, siting, grid interconnection, large load electricity rates, and tax incentives. So that means that the governorships, utility commissions, and state legislatures can actually have a much more immediate effect on the pace and the location of the build-out than Congress itself. In that vein, our base case remains a conditional build-out, meaning the expected level of AI CapEx can continue. But likely it's going to increasingly concentrate in locations where developers can address concerns around things like electricity costs, infrastructure, water, and community impacts. Broader AI safety regulation is different. Here, we think government configuration actually matters less, and that's because we see comprehensive federal legislation as pretty unlikely in the near term, absent a high salience event or incident. So congressional control is not necessarily the key driver. And finally, takeaway number four: for markets, we see more micro implications than macro ones. For equities, the composition and cohesion of the congressional majority can matter for individual sectors. Congress that's able to negotiate changes to scheduled SNAP or Medicaid cuts, for example, could have implications for consumer and healthcare companies. AI related sectors could also respond to changes in expectations and sentiment pertaining to data center restrictions. For rates, the key question is whether the election produces fiscal outcomes that materially change expected deficits. United Republican control would be the only outcome preserving reconciliation as a potential vehicle. Divided government, conversely, would narrow the scope for new legislation and put more emphasis on funding and debt limit negotiations. And for the dollar, our strategists see the transmission mechanism running primarily through U.S. yields and the growth outlook rather than the election itself. So, bottom line, we don't think the 2026 midterms are likely to produce a wholesale change in the policy or macro backdrop. But there will be important lessons to pick up along the way. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KKTEJJ1Aoa_-15cU7wZGK2S2eIHPuoIVb754G8IWxhQWed, 30 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs investors look toward the U.S. midterm elections, the biggest question is what could change. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore outlines the signals worth watching. Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. It's Wednesday, September 30th, at 10am in New York. As the elections inch closer, investors are increasingly asking about potential ramifications. We just put out a deep dive covering our expectations, and we arrive at four key takeaways. The first, midterms are unlikely to change the core executive-led policy agenda. As we've been noting for some time, a lot of the policy uncertainty that markets have dealt with since the beginning of 2025 has actually come from the executive branch rather than Congress. Tariffs, trade policy, deregulation, immigration, and export controls are all variables that are going to remain within the White House's authority. So even if control of Congress changes, we don't think investors should assume that those parts of the policy agenda simply go away. Where Congress actually matters more is on fiscal policy. But even there, the range of outcomes is relatively narrow. The main differences revolve around the timing of scheduled SNAP and Medicaid cuts, defense spending, and how future government funding and debt limit negotiations evolve. So, that's our first takeaway. Midterms can change the mechanics of governing, but probably not the broader direction of the executive agenda. That means policy uncertainty, at least across those vectors I mentioned, is likely to stay high. Takeaway number two, we'd be careful about treating the midterms as a direct signal for the 2028 presidential election. Historically, what we see is the issues that dominate a midterm don't necessarily translate to the next presidential race. Looking at the six midterm-to-presidential cycles since 1994, the top-ranked issue changed in five of them. And the issue that ultimately proved decisive in the presidential election was actually already visible at the midterm in only two of the six cases. What elections can tell us, however, is where some of the policy fault lines are beginning to form. We're watching four debates in particular in that context: the fiscal and Social Security debate, individual tax landscape, restrictions on data center development, and healthcare. In our view, across those variables, the useful signal isn't simply which party wins more seats. It's which versions of these policies are beginning to gain traction with voters and within the parties themselves. That actually brings us to takeaway number three. AI is one area where the midterms could matter, but mainly through data center policy rather than broad AI regulation. We think it's important to separate those two issues. So first, on data centers, we do see midterms as a catalyst. And that's because many of the most important policy levers sit at the state and local level: permitting, siting, grid interconnection, large load electricity rates, and tax incentives. So that means that the governorships, utility commissions, and state legislatures can actually have a much more immediate effect on the pace and the location of the build-out than Congress itself. In that vein, our base case remains a conditional build-out, meaning the expected level of AI CapEx can continue. But likely it's going to increasingly concentrate in locations where developers can address concerns around things like electricity costs, infrastructure, water, and community impacts. Broader AI safety regulation is different. Here, we think government configuration actually matters less, and that's because we see...]]>304alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1740fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/china-s-12-trillion-manufacturing-upgrade--75644888insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Sheng Zhong: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sheng Zhong, Morgan Stanley’s China Industrials analyst. Today – how AI and automation are transforming China’s factories, and what that could mean for global manufacturing. It’s Tuesday, September 29th, at 3 PM in Hong Kong.For decades, Made in China has been shorthand for scale, speed, and low-cost manufacturing. Now the story is shifting toward something more ambitious: using technology, productivity, and industrial know-how to shape not just what gets made, but how it gets made. We call this transition Industry 5.0. Industry 4.0 was about connecting machines and digitizing production. Industry 5.0 goes a step further, using AI to improve how factories schedule production, manage quality, and maintain equipment. China is starting from a position of enormous scale. It represents roughly 28 percent of global manufacturing value-added and covers all 666 industrial subcategories defined by the United Nations. There are already more than 30,000 basic-level smart factories and more than 100 million connected industrial devices. That industrial base also gives China a strong platform for robotics. Traditional industrial robots generally perform fixed tasks. Embodied AI could make machines more flexible, allowing them to gain new capabilities through software and updated models. That could effectively turn some physical labor into software-upgradable capital. And the numbers give you a sense of how quickly this could scale. China could go from selling about 8 million robots a year in 2025 to 29 million in 2030, and 76 million by 2035. That’s roughly a ninefold increase in annual sales in just a decade. Scaling robotics and AI across such a large manufacturing base will require a lot of capital. We estimate Industry 5.0 could generate about $12 trillion USD of incremental industrial investment in China from 2026 through 2035. Around $5.5 trillion USD would go toward factory upgrades, including robotics, smart equipment, and software, while roughly $6 trillion USD would support new industrial capacity. But that investment cycle is likely to build gradually. We expect industrial capex growth of about 4 to 5 percent annually in 2026 and 2027, before accelerating toward 6 to 7 percent from 2028 as excess capacity is absorbed, technology bottlenecks ease, and AI adoption broadens across factories. If that investment translates into higher productivity, the economic impact could be meaningful. By 2035, China’s industrial profit margin could rise to 8 percent from roughly 5 today. Industry 5.0 could lift China’s potential GDP level by around 3.5 percent, helping cushion some of the drag from an aging population. And China’s share of global manufacturing value-added could increase from about 28 percent to 30 percent. And those changes would not stop at China’s borders. Final assembly can shift to new locations, but the supplier networks, machinery and production know-how behind it are much harder to replicate. We estimate only around 40 percent of China-to-U.S. exports can be readily substituted. That means China’s role may increasingly extend beyond exporting finished goods to supplying the equipment, components and industrial systems used to make them elsewhere. That is the move from Made in China toward Made by China. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jvg8XEtQ3MzwOt8ndKGMHubkfPRReqrdA8vK5ermNKITue, 29 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur China Industrials Analyst Sheng Zhong explains how AI, robotics and a major investment cycle could transform China’s manufacturing base and its role in global supply chains.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Sheng Zhong: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sheng Zhong, Morgan Stanley’s China Industrials analyst. Today – how AI and automation are transforming China’s factories, and what that could mean for global manufacturing. It’s Tuesday, September 29th, at 3 PM in Hong Kong.For decades, Made in China has been shorthand for scale, speed, and low-cost manufacturing. Now the story is shifting toward something more ambitious: using technology, productivity, and industrial know-how to shape not just what gets made, but how it gets made. We call this transition Industry 5.0. Industry 4.0 was about connecting machines and digitizing production. Industry 5.0 goes a step further, using AI to improve how factories schedule production, manage quality, and maintain equipment. China is starting from a position of enormous scale. It represents roughly 28 percent of global manufacturing value-added and covers all 666 industrial subcategories defined by the United Nations. There are already more than 30,000 basic-level smart factories and more than 100 million connected industrial devices. That industrial base also gives China a strong platform for robotics. Traditional industrial robots generally perform fixed tasks. Embodied AI could make machines more flexible, allowing them to gain new capabilities through software and updated models. That could effectively turn some physical labor into software-upgradable capital. And the numbers give you a sense of how quickly this could scale. China could go from selling about 8 million robots a year in 2025 to 29 million in 2030, and 76 million by 2035. That’s roughly a ninefold increase in annual sales in just a decade. Scaling robotics and AI across such a large manufacturing base will require a lot of capital. We estimate Industry 5.0 could generate about $12 trillion USD of incremental industrial investment in China from 2026 through 2035. Around $5.5 trillion USD would go toward factory upgrades, including robotics, smart equipment, and software, while roughly $6 trillion USD would support new industrial capacity. But that investment cycle is likely to build gradually. We expect industrial capex growth of about 4 to 5 percent annually in 2026 and 2027, before accelerating toward 6 to 7 percent from 2028 as excess capacity is absorbed, technology bottlenecks ease, and AI adoption broadens across factories. If that investment translates into higher productivity, the economic impact could be meaningful. By 2035, China’s industrial profit margin could rise to 8 percent from roughly 5 today. Industry 5.0 could lift China’s potential GDP level by around 3.5 percent, helping cushion some of the drag from an aging population. And China’s share of global manufacturing value-added could increase from about 28 percent to 30 percent. And those changes would not stop at China’s borders. Final assembly can shift to new locations, but the supplier networks, machinery and production know-how behind it are much harder to replicate. We estimate only around 40 percent of China-to-U.S. exports can be readily substituted. That means China’s role may increasingly extend beyond exporting finished goods to supplying the equipment, components and industrial systems used to make them elsewhere. That is the move from Made in China toward Made by China. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>299alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1739fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-stock-market-s-bad-breadth--75644882insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Market’s Bad Breadth.It's Monday, September 28th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.The market is up this year. That's the good news. But over the last six weeks, I've been watching something that’s giving me pause. This rally has been carried by a shrinking group of stocks.More than half of the Russell 3000 is at least 20 percent below its June highs and the S&P 500 forward multiple has fallen to 19 times, close to a new low for the year. Meanwhile, earnings growth is still running in the mid-teens for the median stock and revisions breadth is approaching cycle highs for the S&P 500. That is not complacency. It is a market that has already done a lot of work to price higher energy costs, a tighter Fed, AI disruption, questions around returns on capital, and geopolitical risk. Last week on the podcast, I noted that this is classic mid-cycle behavior. Earnings are absorbing lower valuations, and quality is taking the baton from the early-cycle winners. Groups that have led powerfully from the rolling-recession trough have been among the weakest areas recently: Autos, Semis, and short-cycle Industrials. That is what tends to happen when the cycle matures and the Fed turns less friendly. The market stops paying for high beta. And starts rewarding free cash flow, stable margins, operating efficiency, and earnings that are still being revised higher. That is why I continue to favor large-cap quality, particularly asset-light, services-oriented, and fee-based businesses.Having said that, there is still one problem to resolve. Breadth improved through most of the summer even as crude and yields moved higher. The deterioration came after Jackson Hole. That’s when markets began discounting a more hawkish Fed reaction function. The percentage of S&P 500 stocks above their 200-day moving average fell from roughly 75 percent to below 50 percent, while the index held up much better. That divergence cannot persist forever. Either breadth catches up to price, or the index comes down to meet breadth. If bond volatility does not settle down soon, it could spill over into equity vol and we would see the S&P 500 price come down about 5 or 10 percent.  Frankly, I would welcome it. A final index-level correction is often how a multi-month correction beneath the surface ends.There has been a lot of focus on the Fed’s recent pivot to rate hikes. However, the two-year yield is already above the level implied by the Fed’s projections. To me this suggests the bond market has been leaning too hawkish in the near term. The bigger uncertainty is how the new Fed Chairman approaches liquidity and the balance sheet. He is more of a monetarist than his predecessors, and markets are still trying to understand what that means in practice. My expectation is that the Fed ultimately provides liquidity if financial conditions tighten too far. But markets may test that resolve first. Bond volatility, funding stress, and whether equity volatility follows are the key signals. If those pressures ease, breadth can catch up and drive the market higher. If they do not, the index probably has more correcting to do.There is also a new, constructive story developing for investors: AI adoption is moving from promise to practice. Companies with higher AI adoption are seeing stronger margins and earnings trends, but consensus still assumes many of those benefits fade in the out-years. We think that’s too conservative. Productivity gains tend to compound, not immediately disappear. Earnings momentum is broadening from enablers to adopters, while adopter valuations have reset to more attractive levels. That supports a barbell approach – own select enablers where earnings durability justifies the premium, but increasingly own adopters where improving fundamentals are not yet fully reflected in expectations.Bottom line, the market is not ignoring risk. It has priced the risks through lower valuations, weaker breadth, and major leadership rotations. What remains unresolved is the gap between a resilient index and a much weaker average stock. The answer is that we probably see breadth improve and the index level come in before a surge to new all time highs. That’s why, I still want to overweight large-cap quality, but use October weakness to add to riskier stocks. The market may need one more uncomfortable adjustment. But that may be exactly what sets up a stronger finish to the year. I will be here to guide you.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hkT1hdrQCCicq2HQyndyeCP1rZL0_SPQUwUzFeg3Z98Mon, 28 Sep 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyFewer companies have been driving equity market gains in 2026. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what investors should make of the narrowing rally as the year enters its final stretch. Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Market’s Bad Breadth.It's Monday, September 28th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.The market is up this year. That's the good news. But over the last six weeks, I've been watching something that’s giving me pause. This rally has been carried by a shrinking group of stocks.More than half of the Russell 3000 is at least 20 percent below its June highs and the S&P 500 forward multiple has fallen to 19 times, close to a new low for the year. Meanwhile, earnings growth is still running in the mid-teens for the median stock and revisions breadth is approaching cycle highs for the S&P 500. That is not complacency. It is a market that has already done a lot of work to price higher energy costs, a tighter Fed, AI disruption, questions around returns on capital, and geopolitical risk. Last week on the podcast, I noted that this is classic mid-cycle behavior. Earnings are absorbing lower valuations, and quality is taking the baton from the early-cycle winners. Groups that have led powerfully from the rolling-recession trough have been among the weakest areas recently: Autos, Semis, and short-cycle Industrials. That is what tends to happen when the cycle matures and the Fed turns less friendly. The market stops paying for high beta. And starts rewarding free cash flow, stable margins, operating efficiency, and earnings that are still being revised higher. That is why I continue to favor large-cap quality, particularly asset-light, services-oriented, and fee-based businesses.Having said that, there is still one problem to resolve. Breadth improved through most of the summer even as crude and yields moved higher. The deterioration came after Jackson Hole. That’s when markets began discounting a more hawkish Fed reaction function. The percentage of S&P 500 stocks above their 200-day moving average fell from roughly 75 percent to below 50 percent, while the index held up much better. That divergence cannot persist forever. Either breadth catches up to price, or the index comes down to meet breadth. If bond volatility does not settle down soon, it could spill over into equity vol and we would see the S&P 500 price come down about 5 or 10 percent.  Frankly, I would welcome it. A final index-level correction is often how a multi-month correction beneath the surface ends.There has been a lot of focus on the Fed’s recent pivot to rate hikes. However, the two-year yield is already above the level implied by the Fed’s projections. To me this suggests the bond market has been leaning too hawkish in the near term. The bigger uncertainty is how the new Fed Chairman approaches liquidity and the balance sheet. He is more of a monetarist than his predecessors, and markets are still trying to understand what that means in practice. My expectation is that the Fed ultimately provides liquidity if financial conditions tighten too far. But markets may test that resolve first. Bond volatility, funding stress, and whether equity volatility follows are the key signals. If those pressures ease, breadth can catch up and drive the market higher. If they do not, the index probably has more correcting to do.There is also a new, constructive story developing for investors: AI adoption is moving from promise to practice. Companies with higher AI adoption are seeing stronger margins and earnings trends, but consensus still assumes many of those benefits fade in the...]]>315alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1738fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-meets-the-physical-economy--75644887insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Ravi Shanker: I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's U.S. trade transportation analystDave Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's Utilities, Power & Clean Energy analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, what we learned at Morgan Stanley's Industrials Conference about the changing economics of autonomous trucking and the increasingly tight power market supporting the AI build-out.It's Friday, September 25th at 10am in New York.Now, I know we're all on the road taking meetings post-conference, so the audio might sound a little bit different, but we wanted to bring you the latest from our annual Industrials Conference that recently concluded in Laguna Beach, where two themes really stuck out. The growing physical infrastructure demands behind AI, particularly power, and the shift in autonomous trucking from proving the viability of the technology to commercializing it at scale.Ravi, after roughly a decade of development, you've said autonomous trucking is entering a critical 12 to 18-month period ahead of serial commercial production.What's changed, and why is the debate shifting from whether the technology works to whether it can be commercialized at scale?Ravi Shanker: I think for 10 years the industry has been focused on making the technology work. but with players like Aurora now putting up almost half a million miles of fully driverless revenue-generating operations, on public highways in the U.S., day and night, rain and shine, for different customers. With people like Kodiak, also running, several trucks, in revenue-generating service, for customers like Atlas, I don't think there is much debate on the technology itself.And so, I think the debate is now moving from does this work to can this work for me? Where the next steps are going to be dotting i's and crossing t's on the path to actually pressing these trucks into commercial service rather than having to prove that it works in the first place.Michelle Weaver: Your research suggests that autonomous trucking can deliver roughly a 20 percent lower cost per mile, while higher utilization could be an even bigger source of value. What are the key assumptions behind that math? And what still needs to happen operationally for fleets to capture those benefits?Ravi Shanker: Yeah, so we recently updated our TCO math, on autonomous trucks and published a North American insight, where we revised and revisited our views on autonomous trucking with a lot of proprietary data, in there as well. And part of that new TCO math, again, I think revisited some of the changes in the split of operating costs of trucking over the last several years.First of all, I'll kind of throw a huge disclaimer out there that your mileage may vary, right? Because, depending on who you are as a trucker, if you're public or private, small or large, dry van or reefer, heavy or asset light, long haul or short haul, your split of costs are going to be slightly different.But we started out, by looking at the ATRI's national average. And labor accounts for 35 to 40 percent of the P&L of the average trucker. So, when you take the driver out and substitute that with an autonomous driver, if you will. Even after paying the autonomous technology company roughly 85 cents a mile, for the autonomous operation, you will still save a significant amount of money. Versus the 40 percent of the roughly $3 per mile that it costs for labor today.In addition to that, fuel is another third of your cost structure. And there, an autonomous truck should be anywhere from 13 to 22 percent more fuel efficient. We have taken the low end of the scale to be conservative. And then you layer on insurance savings, maintenance savings on top of that. Even if you add some incremental costs, either for human drayage at both ends or for the truck itself being more expensive – we believe you will save about 20 percent per mile versus a human driver today.And I'll point out that the unit economic savings are only about a-third of the total savings with the utilization benefit driving another two-third savings on top of that.Michelle Weaver: But there, there still seems to be a notable disconnect between how much freight carriers and shippers think can be automated and how much of the network may actually be suitable to be automated. What's the industry potentially underestimating?Ravi Shanker: Yeah. We have seen this in our conversations. Again, part of our report was conducting detailed surveys and in-depth interviews with a lot of our coverage companies. And I will say that there still needs to be a lot of education, of how these trucks work, where they work, what the unit economics are going to be out there.There's still a lot of misinformation. For instance, there's this big perception that you still need human drivers at both ends of an autonomous truck move because these trucks can only operate on a highway. And here's where our AlphaWise analysis, comes in. I think it's the first of its kind analysis where we use geolocation data to pinpoint 10,000 plus of the largest commercial facilities belonging to the hundred largest commercial shippers in the U.S.And we found out that the average [00:05:00] commercial facility is less than two miles away from the nearest ramp point. And these trucks can comfortably do seven to 10 miles, if not longer, off a highway on main roads to get to their end destinations. So, I think you just need a lot of education in the industry.And that is part of the dotting of i's and crossing of t's that we think the industry needs to do in the next 12 months before we see the start of serial commercial production next year.Weaver: Thanks, Ravi. I want to bring Dave into the conversation here, and that question of turning demand into real world capacity brings us naturally to power, where the challenge is also increasingly about physical infrastructure and execution.Dave, coming out of Laguna, you describe management commentary across power equipment as notably positive. What surprised you most about what you heard on demand bookings and project activity?Arcaro: Yeah, absolutely. What surprised me most was probably how consistent the commentary was across companies, across large frame turbine providers and the smaller, on-site power equipment players, the new entrants and the more mature companies in the market. Very consistent feedback. All very positive.And I would say also what surprised me too was the lack of disruption across the board. You know, we all see the headlines about data center moratoriums, political pushback, community challenges that really, it seemed, to increase the risk of data center execution and delays out in the market.But at least with the power equipment companies, they're just not seeing it. You know, in terms of the feedback that we heard from management teams across the board at Laguna, they review project timelines actively with their customers, and that's all still intact. We haven't seen any changes in bookings or slot reservations for equipment deliveries.Still seems to be a very stable and very strong backdrop across the board.Weaver: One of the broader conference themes was the availability of power is becoming a bottleneck for AI infrastructure. How are equipment shortages, longer wait times, and customers planning further ahead affecting pricing? And how far ahead can the industry see?Arcaro: Yeah, we are seeing equipment companies booking out orders farther and farther. The large frame gas turbines, to give you a couple examples, from companies like GE Vernova, they're now in conversations to contract turbines for 2031 and 2032. Smaller equipment companies like INNIO, who make, smaller scale engines for data centers, they're in conversations with customers and taking reservations into 2029 and 2030.So, what we heard from the conference as well was that utilities, which is a big customer for this equipment, they're looking out farther and farther now into the 2030s. That's new and that's a surprisingly long time in terms of how far they're looking out. And we're also hearing data centers looking out toward the end of the decade, you know, late 2020s in terms of trying to secure their power equipment in advance.We would still consider it very much a seller's market. Pricing has been rising, and companies at the conference gave further indications that it's likely to keep rising, what looks like into the 2030s from here. We just haven't seen any signs of softening yet, really regardless of the company or the equipment type that they're selling into the market.So still farther and farther out that we're seeing visibility into the order flow, and with that is also coming firm and even rising prices into the 2030s.Weaver: Investors often frame the power debate as electricity from the grid versus smaller power sources built on-site at data centers. Based on what you heard at Laguna, how should investors think about the balance between those two approaches?Arcaro: Yeah, it's an interesting dynamic. When you talk to utilities and some of the large frame turbine companies, they all say that all this data center demand is going to the grid. Eventually, it's all going to go to the grid. When you talk to the smaller equipment manufacturers and the power as a service providers, they say nobody wants the grid.They see long-term opportunities to sell, on-site power equipment and contract it with their end cu]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tfFVIm-jOJhBVIZiHCdZ54MOCgBHkJVCDkNy4BXcjD0Fri, 25 Sep 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Ravi Shanker and Dave Arcaro discuss two industrial inflection points: how long it will be before autonomous trucking becomes a reality and why power infrastructure is racing to keep up with AI-driven...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Ravi Shanker: I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's U.S. trade transportation analystDave Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's Utilities, Power & Clean Energy analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, what we learned at Morgan Stanley's Industrials Conference about the changing economics of autonomous trucking and the increasingly tight power market supporting the AI build-out.It's Friday, September 25th at 10am in New York.Now, I know we're all on the road taking meetings post-conference, so the audio might sound a little bit different, but we wanted to bring you the latest from our annual Industrials Conference that recently concluded in Laguna Beach, where two themes really stuck out. The growing physical infrastructure demands behind AI, particularly power, and the shift in autonomous trucking from proving the viability of the technology to commercializing it at scale.Ravi, after roughly a decade of development, you've said autonomous trucking is entering a critical 12 to 18-month period ahead of serial commercial production.What's changed, and why is the debate shifting from whether the technology works to whether it can be commercialized at scale?Ravi Shanker: I think for 10 years the industry has been focused on making the technology work. but with players like Aurora now putting up almost half a million miles of fully driverless revenue-generating operations, on public highways in the U.S., day and night, rain and shine, for different customers. With people like Kodiak, also running, several trucks, in revenue-generating service, for customers like Atlas, I don't think there is much debate on the technology itself.And so, I think the debate is now moving from does this work to can this work for me? Where the next steps are going to be dotting i's and crossing t's on the path to actually pressing these trucks into commercial service rather than having to prove that it works in the first place.Michelle Weaver: Your research suggests that autonomous trucking can deliver roughly a 20 percent lower cost per mile, while higher utilization could be an even bigger source of value. What are the key assumptions behind that math? And what still needs to happen operationally for fleets to capture those benefits?Ravi Shanker: Yeah, so we recently updated our TCO math, on autonomous trucks and published a North American insight, where we revised and revisited our views on autonomous trucking with a lot of proprietary data, in there as well. And part of that new TCO math, again, I think revisited some of the changes in the split of operating costs of trucking over the last several years.First of all, I'll kind of throw a huge disclaimer out there that your mileage may vary, right? Because, depending on who you are as a trucker, if you're public or private, small or large, dry van or reefer, heavy or asset light, long haul or short haul, your split of costs are going to be slightly different.But we started out, by looking at the ATRI's national average. And labor accounts for 35 to 40 percent of the P&L of the average trucker. So, when you take the driver out and substitute that with an autonomous driver, if you will. Even after paying the autonomous technology company roughly 85 cents a mile, for the autonomous operation, you will still save a significant amount of money. Versus the 40 percent of the roughly $3 per mile that it costs for labor today.In...]]>638alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1737fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-global-diesel-problem--75644876insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: Today, the secret life of diesel and why there's so much attention on it. It's Thursday, September 24th at 2pm in London. Diesel is a fuel that I think a lot of investors may be aware of but not familiar with, so to speak. It's often the other price that you see when you're driving down the road. But Martijn, it's incredibly important for the industrial side of the economy and unusually disrupted by current geopolitical events. And so, I'd like to really start at the top, or technically the middle of the barrel, so to speak. What is diesel and what makes it so special? Martijn Rats: Yeah. When people talk about diesel at the moment, they really talk about sort of three things combined. They talk about outright diesel, as well as jet fuel and also heating oil. These are effectively part of the same pool of molecules coming out of the refinery. And so, when you look at that sort of pool of molecules, you talk about the things that fuel trucks, trains, ships, tractors in agriculture, excavators, generators, home heating. It is a molecule that has a tremendously broad range of applications. It's really the fuel of the industrial economy. One of the characteristics of diesel is that it has very high energy density. In contrast to, say, gasoline, electrifying the uses of diesel is harder because it carries so much punch. Andrew Sheets: And why has there been so much on diesel recently, given the current energy disruption in these geopolitical events? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the global refining system normally processes about 85 million barrels a day of crude oil and from that, it makes a range of products. Diesel is at the heart of it. But it's only one of many. At the moment, we are short in terms of refinery runs, i.e., the amount of crude that refineries process to the extent of about somewhere between 4 to 5 million barrels a day. So, 4 to 5 million barrels a day on a base of 85, you're talking about 5 to 6 percent. That may not sound like a lot, but in the world of commodities, where prices really depend on relatively small changes, that is actually a very large amount. That sort of 4 or 5 million barrels a day of refineries that are currently not running, they are fifty-fifty, either in the Middle East or in Russia. In the Middle East, it is a story of the Strait of Hormuz and refineries locked behind the strait, and they can't export their products. Some of them are also damaged, although information on that is hard to find. And then the other half that is out is in Russia, where they are effectively taken out by Ukrainian drone attacks. In total, that's sort of 4 to 5 million barrels a day of refining capacity that is not running. 40 percent of their output would typically be diesel, so we are missing something like 1.5 million barrels a day of global diesel supply, all into the seaborne market. Now, I mentioned the seaborne market because the seaborne market is the traded market where traders buy and sell cargoes to each other. And that is where, from a physical market perspective, price formation takes place. The global seaborne diesel market is an 8 million barrel a day market. And so given that all of the supply we're missing is also into the seaborne market, the comparison to make is to say that we're missing about, sort of, close to 1.5 million barrels out of an 8 million barrel a day traded… Andrew Sheets: A pretty large percentage, yeah. Martijn Rats: Absolutely. That is very, very large, and that is hard to offset. Every other refinery around the world that can run is running flat out. The margins are all-time highs. So, there's a lot of incentive to run very hard.But nevertheless, it's left the market very, very tight. Andrew Sheets: So, that tightness in the market shows up via price. And just talk us through a little bit about what has happened to the price of diesel and its related fuels. You know, I think a lot of listeners are probably more familiar with the price of gasoline. They're more familiar with the barrel of oil that's often the quoted benchmark in the market. But what has been happening to these diesel prices? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the way to really tell that story is to look at what we call the crack spread. So, making a barrel of refined product, including diesel, of course, you start with crude oil. So, the price of crude oil impacts the price of the refined product. So, quite often we focus more on the uplift from the price of crude to get to the price of the refined product, and we call that the crack spread. Under normal conditions, say a year ago, crude was $70, and then the price of diesel was another $20 on top of that. And so, you got to diesel being 70 plus 20 is $90 per barrel. At the moment, crude is higher. Crude is about $100 per barrel. Crude has rallied. But the increment on top of it has spiked. So, a couple of days ago we got to all-time high nominal term diesel prices over $200 per barrel. So, we're now having a situation that is [$]100 for crude plus another [$]100 to get to the diesel price. So, the crack spread is something that normally lives in a range of, like when the diesel market is weak, maybe sort of $8, $9, $10. When the market is normal, close to $20. If it's very strong, $25 to $30. Now, that incremental crack spread is $100 per barrel, and that is something that we've not seen before. It is stronger than it was in 2022, when we also had a moment of a severe diesel crisis. Didn't last very long in 2022, but the crack spread got to sort of $60, $70 per barrel. So, that highlights the extent to which the price of diesel has rallied. Andrew Sheets: So, Martijn, you mentioned this crack spread. You know, I think if we all go back to our organic chemistry, this is the refineries literally cracking a barrel of oil down into constituent distillates and other pieces. But given those very high prices for diesel, why don't the refiners just refine more? Why aren't the incentives increasing production? What's getting in the way of that? Martijn Rats: Yeah. That's just a matter of like the physical reality of the system. So, when you build a refinery, you often quite think about two things. What crudes are available to me. So, if you're in the United States, you have U.S. shale crudes, or you have crude from Mexico, Canada. And based on those, you then also think about, you know, what is my consumption, where I am likely to be.And based on that, you build a certain configuration – that converts the crudes that you can buy into the products that your specific customer set might need. You fix the configuration of the refinery at the time you build it. And once it's built, there is a little bit of flexibility to say, "Oh, well, maybe at the moment I make a little bit more diesel and a little bit less gasoline," and change the – what we call the yield of these products. Like a little bit within, you know, a few percentage points range. But that flexibility is small, so the only thing you can do to make more diesel is to run the refinery at 100 percent utilization. That is currently where we are. That has already happened. And then you put in the crude that you buy, you get the products for which your refinery is then designed, and that's it.There are no other… Andrew Sheets: You can’t just turn a big dial that says more diesel. Martijn Rats: No. You can't say, "Oh, well, I don't like my naphtha output this week, so let's not make any naphtha for the chemical industry. Let's only make diesel." It's not contained in the barrel of crude and the kits that you have – takes many years to rebuild and probably very expensive.So you're kind of then stuck. I mean, it is what it is. Andrew Sheets: So Martijn, where is this leaving the global story? You know, if we think about just the relative price of this. Again, you mentioned it's an incredibly important fuel for agriculture, for industry… What's it looking like kind of across the major regions? Martijn Rats: Yeah. Look, it leaves a very tight market at the moment. I mean, it's relatively straightforward. The price of diesel depends very heavily on how the geopolitics of the Middle East and Russia sort of play out. So, in terms of the traded price that you see on the screen every day, it swings around very heavily with how the market foresees the future with regards to these two conflicts. So, one week things flare up, the price of diesel rallies. The following week the market feels a bit more optimistic maybe around a deal, so then things sort of sell off. So, we have to live with that sort of geopolitical sort of reality. But other than that, those who can afford it pay a high price to effectively erode demand amongst sets of consumers who cannot afford these higher prices. You see a substitution, for example, what I thought was very interesting last week. Some of the train companies in the United States were talking about a truck-to-train substitution of very high levels of cargo loads on trains because simply the diesel on trucks is too expensive.So, you see those behavioral changes come through. Andrew Sheets: But that point about demand destruction is really important because, you know, a point that you've made over many years is this idea that the solution to higher prices is higher prices. That that reduces the demand for the fuel, that helps these markets recorrect. And yet, you know, we're hitting prices in diesel]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/P4avRC3Bk48APteUr50wG-mILz1ojijl-xYcNnyq_i8Thu, 24 Sep 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyDiesel is at the center of an international supply squeeze, with prices rising to historic highs. Andrew Sheets and Martijn Rats unpack why this industrial fuel matters far beyond the pump.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: Today, the secret life of diesel and why there's so much attention on it. It's Thursday, September 24th at 2pm in London. Diesel is a fuel that I think a lot of investors may be aware of but not familiar with, so to speak. It's often the other price that you see when you're driving down the road. But Martijn, it's incredibly important for the industrial side of the economy and unusually disrupted by current geopolitical events. And so, I'd like to really start at the top, or technically the middle of the barrel, so to speak. What is diesel and what makes it so special? Martijn Rats: Yeah. When people talk about diesel at the moment, they really talk about sort of three things combined. They talk about outright diesel, as well as jet fuel and also heating oil. These are effectively part of the same pool of molecules coming out of the refinery. And so, when you look at that sort of pool of molecules, you talk about the things that fuel trucks, trains, ships, tractors in agriculture, excavators, generators, home heating. It is a molecule that has a tremendously broad range of applications. It's really the fuel of the industrial economy. One of the characteristics of diesel is that it has very high energy density. In contrast to, say, gasoline, electrifying the uses of diesel is harder because it carries so much punch. Andrew Sheets: And why has there been so much on diesel recently, given the current energy disruption in these geopolitical events? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the global refining system normally processes about 85 million barrels a day of crude oil and from that, it makes a range of products. Diesel is at the heart of it. But it's only one of many. At the moment, we are short in terms of refinery runs, i.e., the amount of crude that refineries process to the extent of about somewhere between 4 to 5 million barrels a day. So, 4 to 5 million barrels a day on a base of 85, you're talking about 5 to 6 percent. That may not sound like a lot, but in the world of commodities, where prices really depend on relatively small changes, that is actually a very large amount. That sort of 4 or 5 million barrels a day of refineries that are currently not running, they are fifty-fifty, either in the Middle East or in Russia. In the Middle East, it is a story of the Strait of Hormuz and refineries locked behind the strait, and they can't export their products. Some of them are also damaged, although information on that is hard to find. And then the other half that is out is in Russia, where they are effectively taken out by Ukrainian drone attacks. In total, that's sort of 4 to 5 million barrels a day of refining capacity that is not running. 40 percent of their output would typically be diesel, so we are missing something like 1.5 million barrels a day of global diesel supply, all into the seaborne market. Now, I mentioned the seaborne market because the seaborne market is the traded market where traders buy and sell cargoes to each other. And that is where, from a physical market perspective, price formation takes place. The global seaborne diesel market is an 8 million barrel a day market. And so given that all of the supply we're missing is also into the seaborne market, the comparison to make is to say that we're missing about, sort of, close to 1.5 million barrels out of an 8 million barrel a day traded… Andrew Sheets: A pretty...]]>822alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1736fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-unexpected-investment-case-for-ai-safety--75644874insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research at Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about AI safety and regulation. It's Wednesday, September 23rd, at 10am in New York. We put out a note last week on AI frontier capability gain and the associated safety risks. Those have been in focus in recent weeks, and as a result, we've gotten a number of questions about the path forward for government regulation. So today, Mike and I are going to get into some of the newest developments, where we think things are headed, and how the midterms could shape that path. Michael Zezas: Yeah, and this is pretty important because the concern is that if AI safety scrutiny increases, it's going to slow everything down. You might have less CapEx, fewer model releases, and there's all sorts of downstream effects for the pace of U.S. growth and investment strategy in equities and throughout the AI investment theme. But Ariana, you and the team landed in a bit of a different place and are arguing that a bigger focus on AI safety could end up being a tailwind to compute spend rather than a brake on it. Can you break that down for us? Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, the way we see this playing out, is there are five potential states of the world. Some include industry self-policing; some include the prospects for heavier government intervention. Across all of them, as you mentioned, we actually think this is a pretty big tailwind to compute spend and CapEx more broadly. That's because as the labs integrate greater safety monitoring infrastructure, we think that spend is only going to accelerate, especially as LLM capabilities increases at a nonlinear rate. Similarly, on the regulation front, we think there are a few things that prevent something like a large comprehensive AI regulation bill from coming to fruition. We think there's really three, kind of, key obstacles to something like that happening. The first is the politics. So, the president himself has said he's against some sort of large-scale regulation. The second is the procedure. So mechanically speaking, there would need to be a legislative vehicle for this sort of thing to ride on. That's hard to see emerging in the very near term. And the third is precedent. So, historical precedent here tells you that usually regulation is catalyzed by some sort of high salience event. That's why our framework for government reaction here hinges on two components: incident salience, as I just mentioned, and instrument availability. Instrument availability basically reflects the extent to which the government already has a tool that it can pull in this direction. So, that's how we think about it going forward. That doesn't mean all policy action is off the table, but that supports our expectation for higher CapEx, higher compute spend over the coming years. Michael Zezas: Right. So, the idea is that the spending continues and the things that would otherwise limit that spending, you don't see as real plausible policy options at the moment. And can you break this down a little bit more? Because I know there's a lot of different proposals floating around Washington, D.C. from policymakers right now. What are you paying attention to? Ariana Salvatore: We don't expect an overarching AI regulatory authority in the near term. Now, importantly, we also don't expect sweeping open weight model regulation. The reason for that is threefold. First of all, we think the U.S. is keen on maintaining this managed stability relationship with China. We've written about the expectations around the U.S.-China summit. That's kind of a delicate balance that we think is likely to persist. So, overly restricting open weights models might throw a little bit of a wrench into that equilibrium that we see. So that's the first reason. The second reason is diffusion. We think the U.S. administration wants to see the proliferation of open weights models. We know that companies are using some sort of hybrid of open and closed weight. So, to the extent that, you know, banning these models would slow adoption, we don't think that's in the interest of the administration. And the third reason is purely mechanical. It's really hard to enforce these sorts of restrictions. Once a model weight is published online, it can be really hard to clamp down exactly who and where it's going to. Obviously, companies can download them, customize them, et cetera. So, the enforcement picture here is also really challenging. That being said, we do think that the executive can continue to lean in and, sort of, make some incremental adjustments or changes on the regulatory front. But we think it's likely less severe than some of the proposals you're seeing in Congress right now. Things like the Kill Switch Act, for example, which basically mandate that companies can maintain an ability to shut down models at a moment's notice, right? If a certain threshold is crossed. So, that's something that we see as less likely to come to fruition. But again, setting safety standards, guardrails, all of that from the administration we think is possible in the near term.Michael Zezas: What about some of the pushback that would at least appear to be rising at the state and local level around construction of data centers? Is that something that you think might materially slow the industrial build-out and the CapEx levels around AI? Ariana Salvatore: So far, what we've seen is that AI safety risks are not the top of the priority list when it comes to data center pushback, right? So, things like environmental concerns, affordability – those tend to be the main vectors of the opposition. That being said, we've gotten the question, right, to your point, of does this, sort of, risk focus mean that the data center backlash is likely to grow? We think that it could, but at the same time, we think this is a highly idiosyncratic issue, meaning that this is something to pay attention to on a very granular level. Certain states and localities will be the ones to really administer these restrictions, and we think in the aggregate, hyperscalers are going to be able to continue to mitigate. We've already seen these mitigation measures employed. We're still constructive on AI CapEx this year and next, because overall, we see the build-out really becoming more of a conditional build-out. So, that means contingent upon some of these concessions, maybe it's more expensive in certain areas. But overall, we don't think that the concerns around safety are going to derail that story. Michael Zezas: So, then when it comes to data centers, the conditions that might be being put on their construction at the state and local level, for the most part – those building out the data centers have been willing to make those concessions, so it hasn't slowed that much. Is that fair? Ariana Salvatore: That's right, and it really depends on where the pushback is coming from, right? So, in some cases, you're seeing communities push back on things like water usage, right? And we're seeing the hyperscalers come out and respond and say explicitly, you know, how much water they're using in some of these operations. Google is proposing a regulatory framework, so that's something that they're mitigating through that lens. In another example, you've got local communities pushing back on just, sort of, disruptions to quality of life, and you're seeing companies like Meta announce a fund to engage more locally there.So, it really is different. There's no one-size-fits-all solution here. But yes, I agree with you that overall, we don't think this is going to meaningfully constrain the build-out. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, it seems like the idea here is that the secular trend around AI development is going to continue in your view. Is there any way that you think the midterm elections or the outcome around that might change your thinking? Ariana Salvatore: So, I think the midterms will be important for sentiment, but when it comes to the actual policy path, we don't think they're the main driver, and there's two key reasons for that. The first is obviously the president is not changing until 2029. So, the fact that President Trump still has to be involved in any capacity – if we were to see a bill emerge from Congress to us gives a little bit of clarity on what that bill could actually look like. And so ultimately, whatever comes to fruition will have to be a product of collaboration between Democrats, Republicans in Congress, and the president. So, that's a pretty much a constant. The second reason I would say is because, as I kind of alluded to earlier, you tend to see government response when there's a high salience event. And in that case, it doesn't really matter what the government configuration is if it's reactionary. When you think back to things like the pandemic, we saw the CARES Act. In 2008-2009, you saw the ARRA. Those are all efforts that were produced in a divided government. And so, in that vein, we basically think that you need to see some sort of event catalyze a response. The key driver is not going to be government configuration. It's going to be the salience of that event specifically. Michael Zezas: Okay, got it. So, the guidance to investors on the back of all of this is what? Ariana Salvatore: So, the thematic recommendations from our team are intact, right? So, what we were talking about is basically we see these all converging towards a tailwind to CapEx]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0xJRMsAdTAwZXR43fKqUzvGneL-sEaibJ9c3Ws2xhTgWed, 23 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyTighter AI safety requirements could reshape the pace of AI investment. Ariana Salvatore and Michael Zezas dig into why the spending may shift toward more compute, not less.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research at Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about AI safety and regulation. It's Wednesday, September 23rd, at 10am in New York. We put out a note last week on AI frontier capability gain and the associated safety risks. Those have been in focus in recent weeks, and as a result, we've gotten a number of questions about the path forward for government regulation. So today, Mike and I are going to get into some of the newest developments, where we think things are headed, and how the midterms could shape that path. Michael Zezas: Yeah, and this is pretty important because the concern is that if AI safety scrutiny increases, it's going to slow everything down. You might have less CapEx, fewer model releases, and there's all sorts of downstream effects for the pace of U.S. growth and investment strategy in equities and throughout the AI investment theme. But Ariana, you and the team landed in a bit of a different place and are arguing that a bigger focus on AI safety could end up being a tailwind to compute spend rather than a brake on it. Can you break that down for us? Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, the way we see this playing out, is there are five potential states of the world. Some include industry self-policing; some include the prospects for heavier government intervention. Across all of them, as you mentioned, we actually think this is a pretty big tailwind to compute spend and CapEx more broadly. That's because as the labs integrate greater safety monitoring infrastructure, we think that spend is only going to accelerate, especially as LLM capabilities increases at a nonlinear rate. Similarly, on the regulation front, we think there are a few things that prevent something like a large comprehensive AI regulation bill from coming to fruition. We think there's really three, kind of, key obstacles to something like that happening. The first is the politics. So, the president himself has said he's against some sort of large-scale regulation. The second is the procedure. So mechanically speaking, there would need to be a legislative vehicle for this sort of thing to ride on. That's hard to see emerging in the very near term. And the third is precedent. So, historical precedent here tells you that usually regulation is catalyzed by some sort of high salience event. That's why our framework for government reaction here hinges on two components: incident salience, as I just mentioned, and instrument availability. Instrument availability basically reflects the extent to which the government already has a tool that it can pull in this direction. So, that's how we think about it going forward. That doesn't mean all policy action is off the table, but that supports our expectation for higher CapEx, higher compute spend over the coming years. Michael Zezas: Right. So, the idea is that the spending continues and the things that would otherwise limit that spending, you don't see as real plausible policy options at the moment. And can you break this down a little bit more? Because I know there's a lot of different proposals floating around Washington, D.C. from policymakers right now. What are you paying attention to? Ariana Salvatore: We don't expect an overarching AI regulatory authority in the near term. Now, importantly, we also don't expect sweeping open weight model regulation. The reason for that is threefold. First of all, we think the U.S. is keen on...]]>585alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1735fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-central-banks-are-raising-rates-again--75644890insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today, I’m going to talk about all the movement we’ve seen in central banks and how it’s changing our forecasts. It’s Tuesday, September 22, at 10 a.m. in New York. Over the past two weeks, our economists here at Morgan Stanley have revised their outlooks for the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of Japan to include more rate hikes. Each economy faces different challenges, but all three central banks have arrived at roughly the same conclusion: growth has remained remarkably resilient despite all of the shocks hitting the global economy. And renewed energy-price pressures have increased the risk that inflation proves more persistent than they had previously expected. The clearest example—and our biggest revision here—is the Fed. Now for much of this year, we had actually thought the Fed might avoid hiking interest rates altogether. But in addition to this increase that we just saw at the September FOMC meeting, we now expect two additional rate hikes—in December and in March that will bring the terminal rate up to 4.25 to 4.5 percent. While Chair Warsh has highlighted the inflationary implications of higher energy and commodity prices, for me, the more important signal was the assessment that policy is not sufficiently restrictive. So in our view, the Fed appears to be reassessing not just the inflation outlook, but the amount of restraint that is required to bring inflation sustainably back to target. But even with all of that said, we’re still looking at this shift as more of a recalibration of policy for the Fed rather than a fundamental shift in policy. And so the market may have—just may have—overestimated how much hiking is left. But the shift does have clear and important market implications. Our rate strategists expect investors to pull forward additional tightening expectations in the near term, while increasingly questioning how long policy can remain at restrictive levels before growth starts to slow.But more broadly, the Fed now appears a bit more sensitive to energy-driven inflation pressures, and that strengthens the case for a firmer dollar. Over recent months, rising energy prices have supported the euro because investors have seen the ECB respond more aggressively than the Fed. That maybe former asymmetry could be changing. Our foreign-exchange strategists therefore continue to favor dollar strength, particularly against the yen. Now Europe does face a similar inflation challenge to the Fed, though through a different mechanism. The renewed rise in natural-gas and other energy prices has led our economists to revise up their inflation forecast materially and, therefore, to add in another ECB rate hike in December. But we have got to keep in mind that it is not energy prices all by themselves that have changed the outlook. Economic activity in the euro area has also proven to be much more resilient than we had anticipated. And that reduces concerns that an additional modest tightening of policy would derail growth. And so if you take it all together, the ECB is increasingly focused on preventing higher energy costs from feeding into broader inflationary dynamics. Now Japan might seem different, but the underlying story is really surprisingly similar. For decades, the BoJ’s challenge was generating inflation. But now policymakers are now increasingly concerned about the possibility that inflation will overshoot its target. After the BoJ’s hike last week, we expect it to raise rates to 1.5 percent in December and then raise rates further, to about 1.75 percent, in March. Like the Fed and the ECB, the BoJ faces an economy that has absorbed tighter financial conditions much better than had been expected.And yet, unlike the Fed and the ECB, our strategists believe that markets have become too aggressive in pricing the eventual destination of rates. And that creates scope for expectations to be revised lower over time. As a result, while Japanese rates may continue to rise gradually, our foreign-exchange strategists still expect a broader trend of yen weakness to emerge once temporary positioning effects fade. So the common thread across all three of these central banks that I’ve discussed is that, while the energy shock has changed the inflation conversation, the resilience in growth has further changed the policy conversation.And so for investors, next year is probably going to be characterized by higher policy rates and a stronger dollar than markets expected at the beginning of the year. Well, thanks for listening. And If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NQRQJPXOkm79hlKqFA1DFC6nAmceiJbSOkF7ORPbMKoTue, 22 Sep 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyCentral banks are turning more hawkish as inflation risks increase. Our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter explains what that means for the Fed, ECB and Bank of Japan.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today, I’m going to talk about all the movement we’ve seen in central banks and how it’s changing our forecasts. It’s Tuesday, September 22, at 10 a.m. in New York. Over the past two weeks, our economists here at Morgan Stanley have revised their outlooks for the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of Japan to include more rate hikes. Each economy faces different challenges, but all three central banks have arrived at roughly the same conclusion: growth has remained remarkably resilient despite all of the shocks hitting the global economy. And renewed energy-price pressures have increased the risk that inflation proves more persistent than they had previously expected. The clearest example—and our biggest revision here—is the Fed. Now for much of this year, we had actually thought the Fed might avoid hiking interest rates altogether. But in addition to this increase that we just saw at the September FOMC meeting, we now expect two additional rate hikes—in December and in March that will bring the terminal rate up to 4.25 to 4.5 percent. While Chair Warsh has highlighted the inflationary implications of higher energy and commodity prices, for me, the more important signal was the assessment that policy is not sufficiently restrictive. So in our view, the Fed appears to be reassessing not just the inflation outlook, but the amount of restraint that is required to bring inflation sustainably back to target. But even with all of that said, we’re still looking at this shift as more of a recalibration of policy for the Fed rather than a fundamental shift in policy. And so the market may have—just may have—overestimated how much hiking is left. But the shift does have clear and important market implications. Our rate strategists expect investors to pull forward additional tightening expectations in the near term, while increasingly questioning how long policy can remain at restrictive levels before growth starts to slow.But more broadly, the Fed now appears a bit more sensitive to energy-driven inflation pressures, and that strengthens the case for a firmer dollar. Over recent months, rising energy prices have supported the euro because investors have seen the ECB respond more aggressively than the Fed. That maybe former asymmetry could be changing. Our foreign-exchange strategists therefore continue to favor dollar strength, particularly against the yen. Now Europe does face a similar inflation challenge to the Fed, though through a different mechanism. The renewed rise in natural-gas and other energy prices has led our economists to revise up their inflation forecast materially and, therefore, to add in another ECB rate hike in December. But we have got to keep in mind that it is not energy prices all by themselves that have changed the outlook. Economic activity in the euro area has also proven to be much more resilient than we had anticipated. And that reduces concerns that an additional modest tightening of policy would derail growth. And so if you take it all together, the ECB is increasingly focused on preventing higher energy costs from feeding into broader inflationary dynamics. Now Japan might seem different, but the underlying story is really surprisingly similar. For decades, the BoJ’s challenge was generating inflation. But now policymakers are now increasingly concerned about the possibility that inflation will overshoot its target. After the BoJ’s hike last week, we expect it to raise rates to 1.5...]]>302alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1734fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/market-resilience-isn-t-complacency--75644884insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the ongoing mid-cycle transition. It's Monday, September 21st at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. The S&P 500 is near record highs. That’s despite rising energy prices, two wars running in parallel and AI safety concerns back in the headlines. Meanwhile central banks are tightening. On paper, that's a lot of reasons to be nervous. So are investors just being complacent? I don't think so. More than 40 percent of the Russell 3000 has fallen at least 20 percent since June, while the S&P 500’s forward price earnings multiple has fallen back to 19 times, which is almost 20 percent lower than a year ago. At the same time, median stock earnings growth is running around 15 percent, and revisions breadth is back near cycle highs. Falling valuations alongside strong earnings growth is not complacency. It is the definition of a classic mid-cycle transition. That distinction matters because mid-cycle markets tend to frustrate almost everyone. The index can remain resilient while much of the market corrects. Earnings can stay strong while multiples fall. And leadership can change without the bull market ending. Last week’s Fed meeting fits squarely into that framework. The 25-basis-point hike was largely priced, so the real information was Chair Warsh’s willingness to follow through on his commitment to fight inflation. Recent core inflation data were firmer than expected, but the details were not uniformly hot. Some of the upside was concentrated in a handful of categories, shelter remained soft, and tariff pass-through appears to be fading. That gave the Fed room to act without forcing investors to assume we are heading into another 2022-style tightening campaign. In my view, the hike can enhance credibility. If investors believe the Fed is acting early enough to contain inflation, a higher policy rate can reduce uncertainty and term premium rather than automatically driving long-term financing costs higher. But the rate hike is not my concern. A few additional hikes over the next year are unlikely to end this bull market if earnings remain strong. The bigger unknown is how a Warsh-led Fed approaches the balance sheet, money supply, and credit growth. His philosophy has historically leaned more monetarist than prior Fed chairs. However, we still don’t know how aggressively he will apply it – or how much influence he will have over the rest of the committee. That matters because the private economy is using more capital, and an overly restrictive approach to liquidity could become more consequential than the policy rate itself. This is one reason I continue to favor large-cap quality. High free-cash-flow yield, low accruals, and operating-efficiency factors are leading, while the high-sales-per-employee factor has been one of the strongest recent performers. That also aligns closely with our preference for AI adopters rather than the enablers. Price momentum is not disappearing. But its composition is changing toward quality, services-oriented, asset-light, and fee-based businesses. That is exactly what should happen during a mid-cycle transition. The near-term swing factor remains energy prices. Another meaningful rise in crude or refined products would put upward pressure on the expected policy path, long-end yields, and bond volatility in an unhealthy way. It would also arrive during a period when midterm-election seasonality often produces a 5 to 10 percent index correction. In a worst-case near-term scenario, the S&P 500 could trade near 7100, but I would view that as a tactical correction within the bull market – not a change in our fundamental views. Either way, I remain convicted in our 8,000 year-end price target. The bottom line is that this market is behaving exactly like a mid-cycle market should: valuations are compressing, earnings are carrying the load, and leadership is moving toward quality. The index may look calm, but plenty of concern has already been priced at the stock level. The mistake would be confusing resiliency with complacency—and missing the rotation taking place in plain sight. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Nu1FRiC72ojbwhfqkv1z3tG2dNd5mFgtDo8nAcL4O0kMon, 21 Sep 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses why quality stocks, strong earnings and price momentum support his view that the bull market remains intact.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the ongoing mid-cycle transition. It's Monday, September 21st at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. The S&P 500 is near record highs. That’s despite rising energy prices, two wars running in parallel and AI safety concerns back in the headlines. Meanwhile central banks are tightening. On paper, that's a lot of reasons to be nervous. So are investors just being complacent? I don't think so. More than 40 percent of the Russell 3000 has fallen at least 20 percent since June, while the S&P 500’s forward price earnings multiple has fallen back to 19 times, which is almost 20 percent lower than a year ago. At the same time, median stock earnings growth is running around 15 percent, and revisions breadth is back near cycle highs. Falling valuations alongside strong earnings growth is not complacency. It is the definition of a classic mid-cycle transition. That distinction matters because mid-cycle markets tend to frustrate almost everyone. The index can remain resilient while much of the market corrects. Earnings can stay strong while multiples fall. And leadership can change without the bull market ending. Last week’s Fed meeting fits squarely into that framework. The 25-basis-point hike was largely priced, so the real information was Chair Warsh’s willingness to follow through on his commitment to fight inflation. Recent core inflation data were firmer than expected, but the details were not uniformly hot. Some of the upside was concentrated in a handful of categories, shelter remained soft, and tariff pass-through appears to be fading. That gave the Fed room to act without forcing investors to assume we are heading into another 2022-style tightening campaign. In my view, the hike can enhance credibility. If investors believe the Fed is acting early enough to contain inflation, a higher policy rate can reduce uncertainty and term premium rather than automatically driving long-term financing costs higher. But the rate hike is not my concern. A few additional hikes over the next year are unlikely to end this bull market if earnings remain strong. The bigger unknown is how a Warsh-led Fed approaches the balance sheet, money supply, and credit growth. His philosophy has historically leaned more monetarist than prior Fed chairs. However, we still don’t know how aggressively he will apply it – or how much influence he will have over the rest of the committee. That matters because the private economy is using more capital, and an overly restrictive approach to liquidity could become more consequential than the policy rate itself. This is one reason I continue to favor large-cap quality. High free-cash-flow yield, low accruals, and operating-efficiency factors are leading, while the high-sales-per-employee factor has been one of the strongest recent performers. That also aligns closely with our preference for AI adopters rather than the enablers. Price momentum is not disappearing. But its composition is changing toward quality, services-oriented, asset-light, and fee-based businesses. That is exactly what should happen during a mid-cycle transition. The near-term swing factor remains energy prices. Another meaningful rise in crude or refined products would put upward pressure on the expected policy path, long-end yields, and bond volatility in an unhealthy way. It would also arrive during a period when midterm-election seasonality often produces a 5 to 10 percent index correction. In a worst-case near-term...]]>299alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1733fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-xi-talks-put-trade-and-tech-in-focus--75644883insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, I'll be talking about next week's U.S.-China summit, specifically the bilateral trade relationship, what we can expect on critical minerals and rare earths, AI dialogues, and what it all means for markets.It's Friday, September 18th at 10am in New York.President Xi is scheduled to visit the White House on September 24th for his second meeting with President Trump this year, and his first White House visit in roughly a decade.The meeting follows President Trump's visit to Beijing in May, where the two sides established a framework for what they call a more constructive relationship of strategic stability. That meeting also produced new trade and investment dialogues, commitments around agricultural purchases and aircraft, and an agreement to begin a dialogue on artificial intelligence.But next week's summit comes at an important moment because several of the temporary arrangements that helped stabilize the economic relationship are due to expire later this fall.We think there are three areas to focus on.The first is trade. The current U.S.-China tariff truce is scheduled to expire in November. Now, public reporting suggests that the two governments are discussing an extension alongside potential announcements on agriculture, non-tariff barriers, and a relatively narrow set of goods that could see lower tariffs.The question for markets, therefore, is less whether next week produces a comprehensive new trade agreement and more so on whether the two sides can extend the current period of stability and prevent another significant increase in tariffs.The second area is critical minerals. This is probably one of the clearest examples of the leverage that each side has over the other.Washington, we think, wants more predictable Chinese exports of rare earths and other critical materials used across semiconductors, autos, aerospace, and defense. Beijing, meanwhile, has been pushing back against U.S. restrictions on Chinese companies' access to advanced technology.Public reporting suggests that both of these issues are part of the negotiations heading into the summit, and the timing here is really important. November 10th is an upcoming cliff affecting China's rare earth restrictions and U.S. technology controls, followed later that month by another deadline covering certain minerals. So what happens next week could determine whether those restrictions remain suspended or begin to snap back.The third area is technology, and increasingly artificial intelligence. The two leaders agreed in May to establish an AI dialogue, and President Trump has specifically said AI will be discussed next week.Reporting also shows that shared AI risks could be one area for discussion, although the broader competitive relationship makes a comprehensive agreement difficult, we think. From a policy perspective, the most important point is that technology restrictions are moving beyond advanced chips. The debate includes cloud and compute access, model distribution, procurement, and potentially the use of certain foreign AI models themselves.In other words, we think that while the summit could produce something like an agreement to keep talking on AI, the underlying shift matters more. AI sovereignty pushes both the U.S. and China toward more restrictions or heavier government involvement even over a longer period of time.We expect that a middle path is the more plausible U.S. approach. So think targeted restrictions on specific Chinese developers rather than a blanket prohibition on Chinese open weight models. But even that would reinforce what we've called the two worlds thesis, increasingly distinct U.S. and Chinese tech ecosystems with separate infrastructure, supply chains, standards, and distribution channels.There could also be a host of other issues on the agenda, specifically the U.S.-Iran conflict, which we see as a tail risk into the talks.So what does all this mean for investors?Even a constructive summit is unlikely to reverse the structural push toward technology and supply chain diversification. In fact, we argue that greater U.S.-China bifurcation will actually reinforce investment in parallel ecosystems, semiconductor capacity, data centers, cloud infrastructure, power, and critical mineral supply chains.In that sense, actually less geopolitical friction next week could reduce near-term market volatility, but without necessarily changing the underlying investment cycle.So, the key question coming out of the summit is not simply whether the relations are improving or deteriorating. It's whether the two sides can preserve enough stability to manage their competition while the longer-term process of de-risking continues underneath.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/31oxo3BYJfTMev8Mg9gpi1Q9k2Upx0rH6-cPmw7GkWsFri, 18 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs President Xi heads to Washington, trade, rare earths and AI are set to dominate the agenda. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks what the meeting could mean for supply chains, tech stocks and the broader market.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, I'll be talking about next week's U.S.-China summit, specifically the bilateral trade relationship, what we can expect on critical minerals and rare earths, AI dialogues, and what it all means for markets.It's Friday, September 18th at 10am in New York.President Xi is scheduled to visit the White House on September 24th for his second meeting with President Trump this year, and his first White House visit in roughly a decade.The meeting follows President Trump's visit to Beijing in May, where the two sides established a framework for what they call a more constructive relationship of strategic stability. That meeting also produced new trade and investment dialogues, commitments around agricultural purchases and aircraft, and an agreement to begin a dialogue on artificial intelligence.But next week's summit comes at an important moment because several of the temporary arrangements that helped stabilize the economic relationship are due to expire later this fall.We think there are three areas to focus on.The first is trade. The current U.S.-China tariff truce is scheduled to expire in November. Now, public reporting suggests that the two governments are discussing an extension alongside potential announcements on agriculture, non-tariff barriers, and a relatively narrow set of goods that could see lower tariffs.The question for markets, therefore, is less whether next week produces a comprehensive new trade agreement and more so on whether the two sides can extend the current period of stability and prevent another significant increase in tariffs.The second area is critical minerals. This is probably one of the clearest examples of the leverage that each side has over the other.Washington, we think, wants more predictable Chinese exports of rare earths and other critical materials used across semiconductors, autos, aerospace, and defense. Beijing, meanwhile, has been pushing back against U.S. restrictions on Chinese companies' access to advanced technology.Public reporting suggests that both of these issues are part of the negotiations heading into the summit, and the timing here is really important. November 10th is an upcoming cliff affecting China's rare earth restrictions and U.S. technology controls, followed later that month by another deadline covering certain minerals. So what happens next week could determine whether those restrictions remain suspended or begin to snap back.The third area is technology, and increasingly artificial intelligence. The two leaders agreed in May to establish an AI dialogue, and President Trump has specifically said AI will be discussed next week.Reporting also shows that shared AI risks could be one area for discussion, although the broader competitive relationship makes a comprehensive agreement difficult, we think. From a policy perspective, the most important point is that technology restrictions are moving beyond advanced chips. The debate includes cloud and compute access, model distribution, procurement, and potentially the use of certain foreign AI models themselves.In other words, we think that while the summit could produce something like an agreement to keep talking on AI, the underlying shift matters more. AI sovereignty pushes both the U.S. and China toward more restrictions or heavier government involvement even over a longer period of time.We expect that a middle path is the more plausible U.S. approach. So...]]>292alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1732fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-fed-may-have-further-to-go--75644894insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the Federal Reserve may have raised interest rates and yet still thinks that monetary policy is providing support.It's Thursday, September 17th at 2pm in London. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a quarter of a percent. That part was widely expected. What was more notable was how Chair Warsh described it. At the press conference following the action, he said that the Fed had removed "a dose of accommodation," and he said that both he and many of his colleagues were hard-pressed to describe broader financial conditions as restrictive. That's an important distinction that now moves to the heart of the market debate. If monetary policy is already restrictive, another rate hike means that the Fed is pressing harder on the proverbial brakes on the economy. But if policy is still accommodative, a hike is more like easing off the gas. It means the Fed is simply providing a little less support. And if that is how the committee sees the world, it suggests that there could be further to go. Following yesterday's meeting, Morgan Stanley's economists now expect two additional quarter point rate hikes in December and March, taking the Fed's target rate range from 4.25 to 4.5 percent; and we then expect those rates to remain there through the rest of 2027.Three things are driving this updated view. First is exactly that language around accommodation. The interest rates that keep the economy in balance are always a mystery when viewed in real time. But given booming earnings growth, loan growth, and corporate activity, it's not obvious that the current level of interest rates are holding back activity for the economy as a whole. The Fed may believe that as well, making higher rates a little more palpable.Second is inflation. Chair Warsh repeatedly emphasized that trends matter here more than individual data points, and on that basis, inflation still looks too high. Too many categories are still running above 3 percent. The Fed simply does not sound convinced that inflation is moving sustainably back towards its 2 percent target as fast as it would like.Third is geopolitics. Chair Warsh explicitly cited geopolitical developments as one of the things that had changed since their meeting in July. He also made it clear that the Fed is watching not just high oil prices, but so-called second-round effects. And whether higher prices for fuel translate into higher prices for things that require a lot of fuel.Airline tickets, for example, are one of the areas of the economy where prices are going up the fastest. Higher oil prices are a key reason why. And so with energy markets still severely disrupted, this remains a wild card.There is, maybe, one other wrinkle. The committee also raised its estimate of the so-called long-run neutral interest rate – the rate that it thinks we'll ultimately end up at over the long term that will keep the economy in balance. And it raised this to about 3.25 percent.This is an uncertain estimate, and Chair Warsh himself downplayed its importance. But directionally, a view that the interest rate that keeps things in balance is higher means that any given interest rate that we see today is less restrictive on economic growth.It's less elevated relative to that neutral rate than we previously thought. That, too, leans towards the case for more tightening and more rate increases rather than less.None of this is set in stone. If energy prices fall, geopolitical tensions ease, or inflation improves more quickly, the Fed could stop earlier. But for now, we think the important message from this week's meeting was not simply that the Fed raised rates. It was that even after doing so, it still doesn't think that policy is especially tight. And if that's right, there may be still more to do. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VzfmuAu25Ugv2sAn21Ym9yq-LtR_d7_iztOnbuCluH8Thu, 17 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAfter raising interest rates for the first time in more than three years, the Fed still doesn’t see policy as restrictive. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets breaks down what that could mean for the monetary policy path.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the Federal Reserve may have raised interest rates and yet still thinks that monetary policy is providing support.It's Thursday, September 17th at 2pm in London. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a quarter of a percent. That part was widely expected. What was more notable was how Chair Warsh described it. At the press conference following the action, he said that the Fed had removed "a dose of accommodation," and he said that both he and many of his colleagues were hard-pressed to describe broader financial conditions as restrictive. That's an important distinction that now moves to the heart of the market debate. If monetary policy is already restrictive, another rate hike means that the Fed is pressing harder on the proverbial brakes on the economy. But if policy is still accommodative, a hike is more like easing off the gas. It means the Fed is simply providing a little less support. And if that is how the committee sees the world, it suggests that there could be further to go. Following yesterday's meeting, Morgan Stanley's economists now expect two additional quarter point rate hikes in December and March, taking the Fed's target rate range from 4.25 to 4.5 percent; and we then expect those rates to remain there through the rest of 2027.Three things are driving this updated view. First is exactly that language around accommodation. The interest rates that keep the economy in balance are always a mystery when viewed in real time. But given booming earnings growth, loan growth, and corporate activity, it's not obvious that the current level of interest rates are holding back activity for the economy as a whole. The Fed may believe that as well, making higher rates a little more palpable.Second is inflation. Chair Warsh repeatedly emphasized that trends matter here more than individual data points, and on that basis, inflation still looks too high. Too many categories are still running above 3 percent. The Fed simply does not sound convinced that inflation is moving sustainably back towards its 2 percent target as fast as it would like.Third is geopolitics. Chair Warsh explicitly cited geopolitical developments as one of the things that had changed since their meeting in July. He also made it clear that the Fed is watching not just high oil prices, but so-called second-round effects. And whether higher prices for fuel translate into higher prices for things that require a lot of fuel.Airline tickets, for example, are one of the areas of the economy where prices are going up the fastest. Higher oil prices are a key reason why. And so with energy markets still severely disrupted, this remains a wild card.There is, maybe, one other wrinkle. The committee also raised its estimate of the so-called long-run neutral interest rate – the rate that it thinks we'll ultimately end up at over the long term that will keep the economy in balance. And it raised this to about 3.25 percent.This is an uncertain estimate, and Chair Warsh himself downplayed its importance. But directionally, a view that the interest rate that keeps things in balance is higher means that any given interest rate that we see today is less restrictive on economic growth.It's less elevated relative to that neutral rate than we previously thought. That, too, leans towards the case for more tightening and more rate increases rather than less.None of this is set in stone. If energy...]]>267alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1731fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/one-fed-hike-or-more-to-come--75644905insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, what the Federal Reserve decided at its September meeting and what it could mean for rates through the end of the year.It's Wednesday, September 16th at 4pm in New York.So, Mike, the Fed raised rates by 25 basis points at this week's meeting. What stood out to you the most in the decision? And when it comes to inflation, how do you think this 25-basis point rate hike is actually going to affect the inflation outlook?Michael Gapen: Yeah, so certainly the decision was in line with expectations. You know, obviously what we've learned in the very broad sense is that inflation isn't moving fast enough in the direction that the Fed wants. So, it's responding by tighter monetary policy. And that does set up a very interesting question which you just asked, which is: Well, is it going to work? Is this the right response to the inflation that we're seeing?So, if you do go back and reread that Jackson Hole speech, there's not a lot in there about the drivers of inflation, what's causing higher inflation. But it's clear the only response to above target inflation from the point of view of the chair was tighter monetary policy. So, the Fed is in a bit of a pickle.Most of us believe the majority of the inflation we're seeing is supply side driven from tariffs, from energy. At least in the past, let's call it supply chain disruptions, a de-globalization narrative. Some of it is demand side driven through AI. But I think we're all looking at that thinking modestly tighter rates isn't necessarily going to bring down that AI-related inflation.So, we're left to conclude that the Fed's in this uncomfortable position of saying, "Well, a lot of the inflation that we're seeing is supply side driven and from the structural AI story that we're not convinced higher rates can maybe address."So I think the answer would be, if inflation's going to come down, then higher rates will be weighing on the parts of the economy that are more interest rate sensitive and generally soft already.Matthew Hornbach: Is this a one and done? Or do you think that when the Fed actually goes ahead and hikes rates after a long pause, they are thinking about delivering more than just one rate hike?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I strongly believe the committee as a whole is thinking in terms of more than one move. Monetary policy doesn't, say, hyper-react. It reacts with a bit of a delay. So, to your point, they've been on hold for a while. When they think about changing policy, then they're thinking about a series of moves.So, I think in their mind, if they're raising rates, there's a strong probability that they will do at least one more or two more. They're never going to think that a 25-basis-point move in the funds rate will fundamentally change the macro-outlook. So, I don't think they'd ever walk into this thinking one and done.Now, it is possible we get an ex-post one and done. So, how could that come about? If it is true indeed that we're right that a lot of this inflation is supply-side driven. It is coming down. It's clear that the three- and six-month annualized rates are pointing to disinflation into year-end. We can debate whether it's fast enough or not.But if disinflation continues to happen, then the Fed will have hiked, expect to maybe do another one. But by the time we get there, inflation has improved enough, and they end up not doing it.So, they would sound like, "Oh, we're still ready. We still think we've got more work to do." But in the moment, the data just arrives in a way that they stay where they are. So you would look back and say it was a one and done, but I don't think they go into this thinking one rate hike is going to fundamentally change the story.Matthew Hornbach: Now, of course, the data that we'll get between today and the December meeting will likely have an impact on their decision-making – as well as any revisions that we end up getting.And I think one of the stories that investors have been talking about are some of the methodological changes that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is implementing into the PCE inflation data. Do you see any scope for those types of revisions to lend itself to a one and done type of a policy for this year?Michael Gapen: It is possible. There's uncertainty about what actually those revisions are going to bring. But quality adjustments to software, for example, will over time likely bring inflation lower. Some of the revisions to the other categories. So, we do think it will on average lower year-on-year rate of inflation by about 1/10 or so, maybe a little more.So, it could show up on the high side. And then you've got what looks to be a different path.So yes, I think one of the reasons to maybe go slower, think about perhaps a quarterly pace of hikes, as opposed to, "Oh, we're just going to ramp up three, four meetings in a row," is to let some of this play out. See what those revisions look like.So yes, it could contribute to a world where revisions plus softness in the incoming data mean they hike, say, in September, don't do another one after that. Or those revisions are part of the reason why they think a slower-moving cycle rather than a more aggressive one is appropriate.Matthew Hornbach: Does the labor market play any role today in monetary policy?Michael Gapen: I think it's certainly secondary, if not tertiary. I don't want to say that the committee as a whole sees the labor market just fine and we don't have any concerns there.What's super helpful from the rate hike perspective is labor income, wage income out of the labor market is still decelerating and pretty modest. It doesn't suggest that the economy's overheating and the labor market is a source of upward pressure on inflation. So, I think that's beneficial in terms of thinking of the rate hike cycle.In the other direction, I'd say we've had a number of months now of, kind of, you know, let's call it 50,000 to 70,000 jobs a month on average if you kind of smooth through some of the volatility. That's not amazing, but it's not awful either.So Matt, I'd like to turn it back to you. This is of course the economist's perspective. When we translate this into the rates market; rates market clients may have a very different view. But I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how you think the rates market is dealing with the inflation. I don't want to say impulse, but let's call it the sticky disinflation we're getting, the sources of that inflation, and how it sees monetary policy reacting.How is the rates market digesting all of this?Matthew Hornbach: So, I think actually investors are reasonably nonplussed about what's happening in the underlying rate of inflation in the country. But what has inserted itself into the conversation is the price of energy and how impulsively energy prices have risen over recent months.When we look at how market prices evolve with respect to the path for monetary policy, what we observe empirically is that if energy prices are going up in a given week or in a given month, the market reprices to a more hawkish path for Fed policy. And if energy prices come down in a given week or a given month, and we see the market pricing towards a less hawkish path for monetary policy.So, the primary driver of how the markets are pricing the future of Fed policy is, in fact, the changes in the price of energy commodities. So, Brent crude oil, WTI crude oil, gasoline prices. And so, this is something that we just can't get away from.There are, of course, other things that do influence the level of Treasury yields, but I would suggest that they are more secondary or tertiary themselves in terms of… Similar to the labor market. I would say they have less of an impact on the overall level of yields.So, with a market-implied hiking cycle from the Fed at about three hikes or so from here, given that the Fed just delivered one rate hike, you know, the 10-year treasury yield is around 5 percent. It was much lower earlier this year, and we were pricing in two rate cuts at that point in time.So, you get the sense that if the market's moving from pricing in two rate cuts to pricing in four rate hikes, and the 10-year yield goes from 4.25 percent to 5 percent, obviously there's a relationship there.One factor that investors are certainly interested in is – how does the debt stock play a role in the level of yields? And one of the things that I've been telling people to consider is that it's not the level of the debt, the amount of debt in the economy that matters most for the level of interest rates – as odd as that may be to hear for listeners. It's how quickly that debt stock grows.So, if the debt stock is going up at a certain pace, and that pace is within the bounds of investor expectations, then it typically doesn't have that big of an impact on the bond market. So, one of the factoids that may surprise people is: about four years ago, the news media was very interested in the fact that the amount of debt in the United States had breached $31 trillion. And, the 10-year treasury yield at that time had peaked at about 4.25 percent, somewhere around there.Well, earlier this year, before the conflict in Iran began, the 10-year treasury yield was also around 4.25 percent. But this is four years later, and over these four years, the U.S. has added $9 trillion to the debt.So, here again, this is a good example, I think, of t]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/D8cX4UsEFZxYFrHJBSqi5n-NhnbsPv5Q54qOHH8uZ44Wed, 16 Sep 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach joins our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen to discuss the Fed’s potential next moves and how energy prices are influencing market expectations.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, what the Federal Reserve decided at its September meeting and what it could mean for rates through the end of the year.It's Wednesday, September 16th at 4pm in New York.So, Mike, the Fed raised rates by 25 basis points at this week's meeting. What stood out to you the most in the decision? And when it comes to inflation, how do you think this 25-basis point rate hike is actually going to affect the inflation outlook?Michael Gapen: Yeah, so certainly the decision was in line with expectations. You know, obviously what we've learned in the very broad sense is that inflation isn't moving fast enough in the direction that the Fed wants. So, it's responding by tighter monetary policy. And that does set up a very interesting question which you just asked, which is: Well, is it going to work? Is this the right response to the inflation that we're seeing?So, if you do go back and reread that Jackson Hole speech, there's not a lot in there about the drivers of inflation, what's causing higher inflation. But it's clear the only response to above target inflation from the point of view of the chair was tighter monetary policy. So, the Fed is in a bit of a pickle.Most of us believe the majority of the inflation we're seeing is supply side driven from tariffs, from energy. At least in the past, let's call it supply chain disruptions, a de-globalization narrative. Some of it is demand side driven through AI. But I think we're all looking at that thinking modestly tighter rates isn't necessarily going to bring down that AI-related inflation.So, we're left to conclude that the Fed's in this uncomfortable position of saying, "Well, a lot of the inflation that we're seeing is supply side driven and from the structural AI story that we're not convinced higher rates can maybe address."So I think the answer would be, if inflation's going to come down, then higher rates will be weighing on the parts of the economy that are more interest rate sensitive and generally soft already.Matthew Hornbach: Is this a one and done? Or do you think that when the Fed actually goes ahead and hikes rates after a long pause, they are thinking about delivering more than just one rate hike?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I strongly believe the committee as a whole is thinking in terms of more than one move. Monetary policy doesn't, say, hyper-react. It reacts with a bit of a delay. So, to your point, they've been on hold for a while. When they think about changing policy, then they're thinking about a series of moves.So, I think in their mind, if they're raising rates, there's a strong probability that they will do at least one more or two more. They're never going to think that a 25-basis-point move in the funds rate will fundamentally change the macro-outlook. So, I don't think they'd ever walk into this thinking one and done.Now, it is possible we get an ex-post one and done. So, how could that come about? If it is true indeed that we're right that a lot of this inflation is supply-side driven. It is coming down. It's clear that the three- and six-month annualized rates are pointing to disinflation into year-end. We can debate whether it's fast enough or not.But if disinflation continues to happen, then the Fed will have hiked, expect to maybe do another one. But by the time we get there, inflation has improved enough, and they end up not doing it.So, they would...]]>701alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1730fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-mid-cycle-shift-equity-investors-shouldn-t-miss--75644881insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why inflation should not be a concern for equity investors.It's Tuesday, September 15th at 9 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.The markets have spent the past few months doing far more work than what most casual observers might think. Since early June, the S&P 500 has chopped sideways, but underneath the surface leadership has changed materially. The early-cycle, capital-intensive winners are giving way to higher-quality companies with stronger free cash flow, better margins with more asset-light businesses. Software, Financial Services, Insurance, and Healthcare Services are beginning to show the earnings revision strength that Semiconductors and other cyclicals enjoyed earlier this year. To me, that is the market confirming an economy moving from early to mid-cycle.While many investors are debating yesterday’s news, the market is already moving to new leadership. A good example of this is the inflation data that was released last week. The results were a bit higher than expected and elicited quite a reaction from the media and Fed watchers. However, the probability of a September interest rate hike has been rising for months and was close to 70% before the data were released. Now it’s 95%. Equities have de-rated alongside that repricing in the bond market. In short, the inflation data may have been news to some, but it wasn’t to Mr. Market.While some may view this as the Fed being behind the curve, the bond market has been expecting it for months and essentially doing the tightening for the Fed. Equity markets are well aware of this dynamic which is why valuations have fallen and the index has gone nowhere for the past few months. This is also classic mid cycle transition behavior—strong earnings growth is offset by falling valuations as the Fed starts to focus on its inflation mandate. In other words, the first hike does not mean “risk off.” However, it does reinforce the quality rotation and overall narrative we have been highlighting since June. And earnings are the reason. To remind regular listeners, the median Russell 3000 company is growing earnings in the mid-teens, the fastest since 2021; and revisions remain strong. That is the mid-cycle playbook to a T—earnings are doing the heavy lifting and the market is becoming more selective, not necessarily less constructive. More specifically, the market is demanding better cash conversion, stronger margins, and more durable growth.This is why the momentum unwind earlier this summer has been misunderstood. Some investors see it as nothing more than leverage coming out of crowded positions, but that really misses the bigger message. Semiconductors are a classic early cycle sector and it reached an extreme in earnings revisions breadth back in June. That was the fundamental trigger for the unwind, and the leverage just magnified it. The price momentum factor can recover, but the stocks and sectors that lead may look very different. That is usually how a healthy market adjusts: the baton gets passed before everyone realizes the race has changed.With regard to interest rates, I also think the mainstream explanation is incomplete. Many investors assume higher yields are simply a referendum on debt and deficits. I see stronger nominal growth as the more important driver. Nominal GDP is running close to 7% on a five-year average basis and has reaccelerated on capex incentives, compute demand, and higher velocity real economy. Equities are an inflation hedge when inflation reflects stronger revenue and earnings growth. Deflation—not inflation—is the real kryptonite for stocks.This does not mean we are completely out of the woods on the mid cycle transition that began in June. If oil continues to rise sharply from here, it will likely push interest rates higher and put pressure on growth, an unhealthy combination for stocks. This would likely lead to a 5-10% drawdown in the S&P 500 before the bull market can resume in earnest. The other risk is the midterm elections which historically have been a headwind for equities in the September and October time frame.  Bottom line, the inflation data is old news. The rotation is not. We are transitioning to a mid-cycle market where earnings durability, free cash flow, operational efficiency, and quality matter more. Investors waiting for complete clarity from the Fed may miss the message already coming from the market: leadership has moved to higher quality, asset light companies. Don’t fight it; embrace it. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/QY63pI9sUQtnwTxXgBSurWvERjRLn-1mpO1zpPWLcGQTue, 15 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson breaks down how the market is transitioning to a mid-cycle environment, with leadership shifting toward higher-quality, asset-light companies with durable earnings.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why inflation should not be a concern for equity investors.It's Tuesday, September 15th at 9 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.The markets have spent the past few months doing far more work than what most casual observers might think. Since early June, the S&P 500 has chopped sideways, but underneath the surface leadership has changed materially. The early-cycle, capital-intensive winners are giving way to higher-quality companies with stronger free cash flow, better margins with more asset-light businesses. Software, Financial Services, Insurance, and Healthcare Services are beginning to show the earnings revision strength that Semiconductors and other cyclicals enjoyed earlier this year. To me, that is the market confirming an economy moving from early to mid-cycle.While many investors are debating yesterday’s news, the market is already moving to new leadership. A good example of this is the inflation data that was released last week. The results were a bit higher than expected and elicited quite a reaction from the media and Fed watchers. However, the probability of a September interest rate hike has been rising for months and was close to 70% before the data were released. Now it’s 95%. Equities have de-rated alongside that repricing in the bond market. In short, the inflation data may have been news to some, but it wasn’t to Mr. Market.While some may view this as the Fed being behind the curve, the bond market has been expecting it for months and essentially doing the tightening for the Fed. Equity markets are well aware of this dynamic which is why valuations have fallen and the index has gone nowhere for the past few months. This is also classic mid cycle transition behavior—strong earnings growth is offset by falling valuations as the Fed starts to focus on its inflation mandate. In other words, the first hike does not mean “risk off.” However, it does reinforce the quality rotation and overall narrative we have been highlighting since June. And earnings are the reason. To remind regular listeners, the median Russell 3000 company is growing earnings in the mid-teens, the fastest since 2021; and revisions remain strong. That is the mid-cycle playbook to a T—earnings are doing the heavy lifting and the market is becoming more selective, not necessarily less constructive. More specifically, the market is demanding better cash conversion, stronger margins, and more durable growth.This is why the momentum unwind earlier this summer has been misunderstood. Some investors see it as nothing more than leverage coming out of crowded positions, but that really misses the bigger message. Semiconductors are a classic early cycle sector and it reached an extreme in earnings revisions breadth back in June. That was the fundamental trigger for the unwind, and the leverage just magnified it. The price momentum factor can recover, but the stocks and sectors that lead may look very different. That is usually how a healthy market adjusts: the baton gets passed before everyone realizes the race has changed.With regard to interest rates, I also think the mainstream explanation is incomplete. Many investors assume higher yields are simply a referendum on debt and deficits. I see stronger nominal growth as the more important driver. Nominal GDP is running close to 7% on a five-year average basis and has reaccelerated on capex incentives, compute demand, and higher...]]>322alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1729fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/patients-are-taking-the-driver-s-seat-in-healthcare--75644898insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Erin Wright: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erin Wright, US Healthcare Services Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's US BioPharma Analyst.Erin Wright: Today, how the consumer is moving into the driver's seat across healthcare.It's Monday, September 14th at 7:00 AMWe're recording in New York City, where Morgan Stanley's twenty-fourth Annual Healthcare Conference is happening this week. One of the biggest shifts we're seeing across the industry is patients gaining more choice, transparency, and control over how they access care and medicine. You can already see it in everyday behavior. In our AlphaWise survey earlier this year, thirty-four percent of US consumers said that they'd chosen to take a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years, and roughly two-thirds already own a wearable or plan to buy one.And now we're seeing the same trend reshaping how people buy medicine and choose care. So Terence, let's start with biopharma. For years, direct-to-consumer pharma meant advertising and nudging people to ask your doctor about what particular treatment is best for them. What's different this time around? And what's different in this next wave of direct access?Terence Flynn: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Erin. So for most of the industry's history, the patient sat at the end of the value chain and had really limited control over the product, the price, or the route through which the drug was obtained.Manufacturers marketed to doctors and consumers, but the transaction was itself intermediated. So we think that's starting to change here. It's no longer simply about more consumer advertising or another cash pay discount. There's a parallel access infrastructure that's building here where the patient can increasingly start the initiation of the treatment journey themselves, obtain a prescription, often digitally through a telehealth provider, and then fill this prescription through other non-traditional channels.And so there really is a shift in the model that we're starting to see here. But again, we're not talking about replacing insurance here; we're talking about areas where friction is high and where a cash pay price is viable.Erin Wright: So Obesity has been the clearest proof point, as we are seeing patients asking providers about GLP-1s. Where else are we seeing this?Terence Flynn: Yeah. So manufacturers are actually already selling over twenty-five branded drugs directly to patients at cash prices. Now, the common features of these drug classes are that they're self-administered, so essentially the patient can start and stay on treatment, and where there's limited in-person infrastructure that's needed, and where, as I mentioned, you have a lower price point or a coverage gap, meaning traditional insurance coverage doesn't exist.Now, we're seeing this in large chronic categories. You mentioned obesity. Another one is, migraine headaches. There are also other areas that are amenable to telehealth, so think oral PCSK9 therapies, topical dermatology, non-opioid pain. So again, we think as more self-administered products launch, you're gonna see the addressable DTC pool expand.Erin Wright: And ultimately what does this reveal about patient demand and gaps in reimbursement?Terence Flynn: Yeah, I think GLP-1s, as you mentioned, Erin, provided the first proof point here that this new DTC model could actually be viable. And really the reason for that is that, the US employer coverage base right now, only about fifty percent cover these obesity medications.And so for the other fifty percent, you have a gap in coverage. And that's really why people are seeking other channels for coverage. And so again, that really created this opening here for this new model. And so again, that's another consideration when you think about other medicines that could go through these channels is you have to think about the insurance coverage situation. And so for some areas like oncology, for example, insurance coverage is gonna be very high, and so those wouldn't be amenable to a DTC approach.Erin Wright: So Terence, your analysis points to roughly twenty-six billion peak US opportunity. What makes a certain therapeutic well-suited for direct-to-consumer, and where is the opportunity most concentrated?Terence Flynn: Yeah. So there are really four variables that we considered. The first is self-administration. So as I mentioned, you have to be able to administer the medicine yourself, meaning you don't have to go into the physician or hospital for an injection, for example. The second is that the diagnosis doesn't need an in-person confirmation. So think of something like a biopsy or something. So you'd have to be able to diagnose, as I said, over a remote telehealth channel. The third would be something that is a lower price point. Obviously, there are, like we mentioned, the GLP-1 medicines are at a different price point versus oncology medicines.And then the last one would be any kind of legal restrictions. So sometimes FDA has a lot of restrictions around who can prescribe a medicine. These are called REMS. And so any medicine that had restrictions like that obviously would not be amenable to DTC. So again, we think through those different variables, and then we ultimately built up this twenty-six billion dollar TAM that represents about three percent of total branded pharmaceutical spend. Of that, about half is driven by the obesity or GLP-1 medications.So Erin, that's a good bridge to healthcare services because consumerism isn't just about paying cash. What does greater consumer control actually look like?Erin Wright: You're right. It's not just about paying out of pocket for healthcare. With now consumers becoming more proactive with their healthcare and preventative care, we are seeing a whole healthcare ecosystem shift, from health insurers now offering lifestyle savings accounts empowering patients with more choice on that front, health systems and hospitals are creating a digital front door and delivery of care twenty-four/seven on that front. And also, we're seeing more direct-to-consumer pharmacies and transparent pharmacies that are gaining traction.Terence Flynn: And what does the Alpha Wise survey data tell us about consumers' willingness to pay out of pocket for care?Erin Wright: So based on our AlphaWise consumer survey, twenty-five percent of consumers report paying entirely out of pocket for at least one healthcare service over the past year. That was actually higher than what we were expecting. Most commonly, this was attributable to behavioral and mental health services, about eight percent of the cohort.Annual spend was about nine hundred and eight dollars, but maximum willingness to spend was about double that. So this suggests consumers are using out-of-pocket services and medications and are willing to spend to do so.Terence Flynn: That's very interesting. How important are digital tools, wearables, and testing in actually accelerating this shift?Erin Wright: So wearables are certainly a piece of the puzzle. What is new though here is that we're seeing wearable data align with actual biological data, where, for example, clinical laboratories are now partnering with these wearable companies and other direct-to-consumer healthcare platforms to offer subscription-based biomarker panels and other testing services. This is where this type of technology becomes more actionable from a healthcare perspective and really, frankly, empowers patients to take matters into their own hands.Terence Flynn: So as consumers take more control, as you discussed, what types of healthcare service models are best positioned to benefit?Erin Wright: There are certainly a host of companies across healthcare that are attacking this from several different angles.But if we think about who in the industry has the most touch points into the consumer, into the patient, it would be your diversified managed care companies and vertically integrated managed care companies where we view that many of these larger insurers are best able to adapt to consumerism in healthcare. We're already starting to see that happen with stepped-up technology investments helping to facilitate greater transparency and access, whether it's across insurance, provider arms, technology, or, um, or pharmacy assets as well.To sum it up, in biopharma, we're seeing a parallel access channel emerge alongside traditional reimbursement. And in healthcare services, consumers are gaining more control over how they choose access and pay for their care. Consumers aren't stepping outside of the healthcare system. They're taking a more proactive and more active role in how they navigate it.Terrence, thank you for taking the time to talk.Terence Flynn: Great speaking with you Erin.Erin Wright: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iYRlHG-a2o4JidoA4T5ESOJR67VSJ20c6NmWVrVtjqwMon, 14 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyHealthcare companies are rethinking their business models as patients gain more control over how they access care and purchase medicine. Our analysts Erin Wright and Terence Flynn unpack this shift and the emerging opportunities.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Erin Wright: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erin Wright, US Healthcare Services Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's US BioPharma Analyst.Erin Wright: Today, how the consumer is moving into the driver's seat across healthcare.It's Monday, September 14th at 7:00 AMWe're recording in New York City, where Morgan Stanley's twenty-fourth Annual Healthcare Conference is happening this week. One of the biggest shifts we're seeing across the industry is patients gaining more choice, transparency, and control over how they access care and medicine. You can already see it in everyday behavior. In our AlphaWise survey earlier this year, thirty-four percent of US consumers said that they'd chosen to take a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years, and roughly two-thirds already own a wearable or plan to buy one.And now we're seeing the same trend reshaping how people buy medicine and choose care. So Terence, let's start with biopharma. For years, direct-to-consumer pharma meant advertising and nudging people to ask your doctor about what particular treatment is best for them. What's different this time around? And what's different in this next wave of direct access?Terence Flynn: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Erin. So for most of the industry's history, the patient sat at the end of the value chain and had really limited control over the product, the price, or the route through which the drug was obtained.Manufacturers marketed to doctors and consumers, but the transaction was itself intermediated. So we think that's starting to change here. It's no longer simply about more consumer advertising or another cash pay discount. There's a parallel access infrastructure that's building here where the patient can increasingly start the initiation of the treatment journey themselves, obtain a prescription, often digitally through a telehealth provider, and then fill this prescription through other non-traditional channels.And so there really is a shift in the model that we're starting to see here. But again, we're not talking about replacing insurance here; we're talking about areas where friction is high and where a cash pay price is viable.Erin Wright: So Obesity has been the clearest proof point, as we are seeing patients asking providers about GLP-1s. Where else are we seeing this?Terence Flynn: Yeah. So manufacturers are actually already selling over twenty-five branded drugs directly to patients at cash prices. Now, the common features of these drug classes are that they're self-administered, so essentially the patient can start and stay on treatment, and where there's limited in-person infrastructure that's needed, and where, as I mentioned, you have a lower price point or a coverage gap, meaning traditional insurance coverage doesn't exist.Now, we're seeing this in large chronic categories. You mentioned obesity. Another one is, migraine headaches. There are also other areas that are amenable to telehealth, so think oral PCSK9 therapies, topical dermatology, non-opioid pain. So again, we think as more self-administered products launch, you're gonna see the addressable DTC pool expand.Erin Wright: And ultimately what does this reveal about patient demand and gaps in reimbursement?Terence Flynn: Yeah, I think GLP-1s, as you mentioned, Erin, provided the first proof point here that this new DTC model could actually be viable. And really the reason for that is that, the US employer coverage base right now, only about fifty percent cover these obesity...]]>531alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1728fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-middle-class-squeeze-is-getting-worse--75644918insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Heather Berger: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Heather Berger from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team.Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist on Morgan Stanley's Thematic and Macro Investing team in the Global Investment Office.Heather Berger: Today, the K-shaped economy, the middle class, and how AI could reshape both.It's Friday, September 11th, at 10a.m. in New York.The K-shaped economy has been a major theme this year. At its core, it describes an economy where households are experiencing very different circumstances. Those with more assets have benefited from rising wealth, while those with less wealth remain more dependent on income and more exposed to increases in essential costs. But that top versus bottom framing can miss an important part of the story: the middle class. Sarah, you recently wrote about what it takes to make it to the middle class in America. How would you define the middle class today, and how does that differ from the way that households define it themselves?Sarah Wolfe: I think the important thing here is that economists and households define the middle class very differently from each other, and, and I'll get into why that's the case.So if you're an economist, the middle class is roughly defined as two-thirds to twice the median household income, which today means if you're making around fifty-five thousand dollars a year to a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars a year, depending on where you live in the country, that is roughly the middle class. And that's where about half of Americans sit today.We've actually seen that number decline, so sixty-one percent of Americans in the 1970s were in that middle class definition by economist terms. Now it's about fifty percent, so we have seen it shrunk. But even though it's shrunk, fewer and fewer households feel like they're in the middle class, and they don't define it by necessarily income or a specific number, but they really define it by milestones, I would say.So do you own a home? Have you been able to build a family, and can you pay for childcare? Have you saved enough for retirement? Do you have an emergency fund? Are you constantly stressed about your bills? That feeling is really what the middle class is about today, and I would say that less than fifty percent of Americans actually feel like they're in the middle class once you start to put that definition around it.Heather Berger: What are the key factors that actually make a household feel financially secure?Sarah Wolfe: I think there's four things that determine household security and stability. The first, of course, is income, stable income. Do you have a job, and do you think you're going to continue to have a job six months from now? We love the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey that asks consumers this.Do you have affordable fixed costs, like housing, childcare, healthcare, and transportation? Do you own assets? This is critically important because if we look at where gains have come from from the last five years, it hasn't really been that much through the labor income channel. It's been through the asset channel, like home equity, retirement savings, are you invested in the stock market, et cetera.And then the last one is this emergency fund and a manageable debt. What is your debt load? Is it fixed rate, or is it revolving? The more of these pillars that a household has, the more financially fulfilled and comfortable they are, and the more likely they are to feel like they've made it to the middle class, but the reality is, is that fewer and fewer households are meeting these four boxes that define the middle class by historical terms.Heather Berger: And what has made that security harder to achieve? Which of those costs that you mentioned have moved the furthest out of reach?Sarah Wolfe: I think these numbers are going to maybe surprise our listeners, but in some ways feel very real to them as well. So if we look at how much inflation has risen since the 1970s, shelter, the cost of housing, has risen 6.6 times more than the overall inflation basket. Childcare costs have risen by 14 times more than the overall inflation basket, and healthcare costs have risen 10 times more.And if we dig more into childcare, we now like to call it the second mortgage. And we're not being sarcastic or anything. The reality is that to send two children to childcare in America costs more than a mortgage in 45 states, and costs more than rent in 49 states.So it's really, this reality has gotten a lot more expensive, and these baskets, these individual things like childcare, healthcare, shelter, that define the middle class, have risen more than the overall inflation basket, and certainly have risen more than income growth over this period as well.Heather Berger: Right. So the overall inflation measure can kind of understate the increases in some of these essential costs. And when people talk about a K-shaped economy, the middle class itself isn't necessarily moving as one group. You mentioned homeownership a lot. How much do homeownership, age, and geography determine who is moving up and who is getting squeezed?Sarah Wolfe: Homeownership is always incredibly important, right? Because it's this large asset that is more equally distributed across the income distribution, as opposed to if we think about equities, and you've done a lot of great work on this. That is the most highly concentrated asset across the income distribution, right? Where the top 20% is sitting on 70%, at least, of equities. So homeownership remains the best channel towards wealth accumulation. Obviously, though, timing of homeownership matters a lot. If we were all so lucky to have bought a home in 2019 and 2020, we got a low fixed-rate mortgage, and we would've benefited from the tremendous run-up in home prices over the last five years, right, over 50% home price appreciation over this entire period. So that's been really important. Also, geography, where you bought a home, did that benefit from the COVID home price appreciation? And then the geography also matters because someone living in New York versus someone living in the Midwest is living with really different fixed costs, realities of fixed costs, and that's also gonna help define do they feel financially secure, and do they feel like they're in the middle class?The other component I don't wanna leave out, though, equities is really important. And we did some work looking at the Fed's distributional financial accounts, and if you look seven years ago, Gen X was doing way better than Gen Y or the millennials were at that same age 15 years ago. But then, because the millennials were sitting on so much equity wealth because they've built up their 401Ks, they really couldn't get as successfully into homeownership, so they had more stored away in equities. They have now surpassed Gen X at this age, two and a half times. It is a tremendous reversal in wealth and in who's doing well, and it's because of what's happened in the stock market. And it's not because they were better savers. It was just a lot of timing and luck. So I would say that our fate is not prewritten, as we also think about Gen Z entering the workforce and becoming wealth builders.I want to dig in, though, to a really important part of the K-shaped economy, though, and that's AI. We can't talk about anything without talking about AI, for better or for worse. And that the common view is that white collar, high-income workers are the most exposed to displacement, and we're seeing that in some of the job numbers recently, right, where tech and financial services are shedding jobs. But your work, I think, is really unique, and it's the only thing I've seen on this that argues that that's only part of the story. So what are we missing about how AI is going to affect high-income households in the K-shaped economy?Heather Berger: Yes. Yeah, I think it's hard to talk about the economic outlook, the consumer outlook these days without thinking about AI. And as you mentioned, I think really the main focus so far has been potential white collar job loss, and this, of course, is an important channel. Labor income is really the main driver of consumer spending. But there are also several other transmission channels through which AI will affect consumer balance sheets.And so ultimately, you were just talking about equity wealth, AI will also affect asset markets, which we've already started to see. It will affect consumer prices and policy decisions, and each of these will flow through to consumer spending and consumer credit performance. And so since different subgroups of consumers differ in the types of goods and services they buy and the composition of their balance sheets, the effects will not be uniform across the spectrum.As we've seen with past innovation waves, AI has the ability to potentially widen income and wealth inequality, or it could help to close the gaps.Sarah Wolfe: Can you dig a little bit more into some of these other channels outside of the labor market? So what is the wealth channel, and how does it filter through to high-i]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pcgbpHp1gLoNhuRw_px0DjRgTul6PmDh1UJOm9-KWKIFri, 11 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyHeather Berger of the U.S. Economics Team hosts Wealth Management Senior Economist and Strategist Sarah Wolfe to discuss what it takes to define the middle class in America today. They break down how factors like rising essential costs and the...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Heather Berger: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Heather Berger from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team.Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist on Morgan Stanley's Thematic and Macro Investing team in the Global Investment Office.Heather Berger: Today, the K-shaped economy, the middle class, and how AI could reshape both.It's Friday, September 11th, at 10a.m. in New York.The K-shaped economy has been a major theme this year. At its core, it describes an economy where households are experiencing very different circumstances. Those with more assets have benefited from rising wealth, while those with less wealth remain more dependent on income and more exposed to increases in essential costs. But that top versus bottom framing can miss an important part of the story: the middle class. Sarah, you recently wrote about what it takes to make it to the middle class in America. How would you define the middle class today, and how does that differ from the way that households define it themselves?Sarah Wolfe: I think the important thing here is that economists and households define the middle class very differently from each other, and, and I'll get into why that's the case.So if you're an economist, the middle class is roughly defined as two-thirds to twice the median household income, which today means if you're making around fifty-five thousand dollars a year to a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars a year, depending on where you live in the country, that is roughly the middle class. And that's where about half of Americans sit today.We've actually seen that number decline, so sixty-one percent of Americans in the 1970s were in that middle class definition by economist terms. Now it's about fifty percent, so we have seen it shrunk. But even though it's shrunk, fewer and fewer households feel like they're in the middle class, and they don't define it by necessarily income or a specific number, but they really define it by milestones, I would say.So do you own a home? Have you been able to build a family, and can you pay for childcare? Have you saved enough for retirement? Do you have an emergency fund? Are you constantly stressed about your bills? That feeling is really what the middle class is about today, and I would say that less than fifty percent of Americans actually feel like they're in the middle class once you start to put that definition around it.Heather Berger: What are the key factors that actually make a household feel financially secure?Sarah Wolfe: I think there's four things that determine household security and stability. The first, of course, is income, stable income. Do you have a job, and do you think you're going to continue to have a job six months from now? We love the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey that asks consumers this.Do you have affordable fixed costs, like housing, childcare, healthcare, and transportation? Do you own assets? This is critically important because if we look at where gains have come from from the last five years, it hasn't really been that much through the labor income channel. It's been through the asset channel, like...]]>674alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1727fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-fed-football-and-the-price-of-ambiguity--75644889insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what American football can teach us about the value of ambiguity.It's Thursday, September 10th at 2p.m. in London.I really like this time of year. It's a little cooler outside. There's the excitement in the air of a start of a million new school years. And of course, it's finally American football season. Of the top one hundred US television telecasts in 2025, ninety were football games. In an increasingly divided world with an increasingly fragmented ecosystem for content, this unanimity is stunning. And while many factors explain football's popularity, one that I've come to appreciate more with time is its strategic complexity, especially the value of ambiguity.Not tipping whether the play is a run or a pass, disguising whether and where you're going to blitz. Coaches work hard to keep their options open until the last possible moment. And as we enter September, this strategy is not just confined to football.Take the Fed. Markets are pricing a roughly two-thirds chance of a rate hike next week, about the same chance that an NFL team passes on second and seven. Part of that uncertainty comes from exactly how you parse Fed Chair Warsh's comments at Jackson Hole. Chair Warsh said the Fed needs to be confident that underlying inflation is moving towards its objective, “clearly and at sufficient speed.” Otherwise, it has, "work to do." This was generally interpreted as a move closer to raising rates. But was it? What is sufficient speed? What counts as underlying inflation? And what does “work to do” actually mean? After all, if inflation is better in the second half of the year, as our economists expect, this framing could just as easily justify no action. We forecast the Fed to stay on hold next week. It is admittedly a close call.Then there's ambiguity in AI financing. The numbers here are enormous. Morgan Stanley analysts forecast more than 1.3 trillion dollars of spending among the six largest hyperscalers in 2027, a sixty percent increase from the record-setting levels of this year. But how all this gets financed, that's less certain. There's an increasingly rich menu of options for financing across public and private markets, from investment-grade bonds to asset-backed securities, from direct financing to guarantees. The spending seems likely, but what form it takes and how much it impacts other markets is more ambiguous. My colleagues Matthew Hornbach and Vichy Tirupattur discussed some of these ambiguities and their potential effect on Treasury yields earlier this week.Finally, ambiguity clouds the energy market. Some analysts are optimistic that oil flows are finally normalizing in the Strait of Hormuz. We are not. Coupled with major disruptions to Russian refining capacity, we've now raised our fourth quarter forecast to one hundred dollars per barrel for Brent oil and eighty-eight euros per megawatt hour for European natural gas.Across these three themes, some of this ambiguity is intentional. Some simply reflects a wide range of possible outcomes. In football and in markets, keeping your options open can be valuable when you're calling the plays, but it's less attractive when you're being asked to price them. And that, for us, is the issue. There is plenty of uncertainty. We're not sure investors are being paid enough for it. A close call September Fed meeting, adverse seasonality, and very low levels of expected volatility leave us positioned for higher volatility across macro markets and cautious on mortgage-backed securities.In credit, we think all of this issuance is a question of price, not capacity. We continue to expect record investment-grade supply this year with wider spreads as a release valve and prefer collateral-backed assets over unsecured corporates. And with oil a risk to both stocks and bonds, our US equity strategists think that energy equities offer an attractive hedge.Ambiguity has value, but when the range of outcomes is wide and the price of uncertainty is low, we think investors should demand more compensation for it.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7XSsA3-9wAYTvMbeTmCYGUl4tMgtiZtkVXvESDxhDMoThu, 10 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discusses when markets may not adequately compensate investors for uncertainty around themes like Fed policy, AI financing and energy supply.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what American football can teach us about the value of ambiguity.It's Thursday, September 10th at 2p.m. in London.I really like this time of year. It's a little cooler outside. There's the excitement in the air of a start of a million new school years. And of course, it's finally American football season. Of the top one hundred US television telecasts in 2025, ninety were football games. In an increasingly divided world with an increasingly fragmented ecosystem for content, this unanimity is stunning. And while many factors explain football's popularity, one that I've come to appreciate more with time is its strategic complexity, especially the value of ambiguity.Not tipping whether the play is a run or a pass, disguising whether and where you're going to blitz. Coaches work hard to keep their options open until the last possible moment. And as we enter September, this strategy is not just confined to football.Take the Fed. Markets are pricing a roughly two-thirds chance of a rate hike next week, about the same chance that an NFL team passes on second and seven. Part of that uncertainty comes from exactly how you parse Fed Chair Warsh's comments at Jackson Hole. Chair Warsh said the Fed needs to be confident that underlying inflation is moving towards its objective, “clearly and at sufficient speed.” Otherwise, it has, "work to do." This was generally interpreted as a move closer to raising rates. But was it? What is sufficient speed? What counts as underlying inflation? And what does “work to do” actually mean? After all, if inflation is better in the second half of the year, as our economists expect, this framing could just as easily justify no action. We forecast the Fed to stay on hold next week. It is admittedly a close call.Then there's ambiguity in AI financing. The numbers here are enormous. Morgan Stanley analysts forecast more than 1.3 trillion dollars of spending among the six largest hyperscalers in 2027, a sixty percent increase from the record-setting levels of this year. But how all this gets financed, that's less certain. There's an increasingly rich menu of options for financing across public and private markets, from investment-grade bonds to asset-backed securities, from direct financing to guarantees. The spending seems likely, but what form it takes and how much it impacts other markets is more ambiguous. My colleagues Matthew Hornbach and Vichy Tirupattur discussed some of these ambiguities and their potential effect on Treasury yields earlier this week.Finally, ambiguity clouds the energy market. Some analysts are optimistic that oil flows are finally normalizing in the Strait of Hormuz. We are not. Coupled with major disruptions to Russian refining capacity, we've now raised our fourth quarter forecast to one hundred dollars per barrel for Brent oil and eighty-eight euros per megawatt hour for European natural gas.Across these three themes, some of this ambiguity is intentional. Some simply reflects a wide range of possible outcomes. In football and in markets, keeping your options open can be valuable when you're calling the plays, but it's less attractive when you're being asked to price them. And that, for us, is the issue. There is plenty of uncertainty. We're not sure investors are being paid enough for it. A close call September Fed meeting, adverse seasonality, and very low levels of expected volatility leave us positioned for higher volatility across macro markets and...]]>302alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1726fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-the-ai-spending-boom-pay-off--75644892insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet analyst.Today, can the enormous investment behind Gen AI actually pay off?It's Wednesday, September 9th, at 9am in New York.AI has moved quickly into everyday life. It helps people write software, research purchases, automate work, find information, among myriad[s] of other use cases.But we need an infrastructure build-out of extraordinary scale to support all of this activity and more activity to come.In all, we estimate that the major cloud providers are going to spend more than $1.4 trillion on this AI build-out next year alone. But compute capacity is potentially going to quadruple from 2025 to 2028, reaching roughly 120 gigawatts.But all of the spending has raised a lot of questions for investors. One of the most common questions is: What kind of return on invested capital can these companies earn from all of these trillions of dollars of data center infrastructure investment?Well, our bottom-up work points to encouraging answers to this question.We see paths to roughly 25 to 50 percent return on invested capital, or ROIC, across three emerging AI business models. Now, ROIC is a useful way of measuring whether investments pay off. Think of it as how much after-tax operating profit can be generated relative to the capital required in the first place.The first business model we've analyzed is renting compute power. This is the infrastructure layer of the AI economy. Cloud providers build data centers filled with advanced graphics processing units, or GPUs, and rent that compute capacity to customers. In our base case, a large next-generation data center can generate a return on invested capital of roughly 30 percent simply renting AI compute power.And even if rental prices move around, our scenarios still produce returns ranging from low 20s percent to nearly 40 percent. So, despite the enormous cost of building and capital being deployed for these facilities, we think the economics here are quite attractive.The second business model we've analyzed is where an AI lab has their own model, and they also own their own infrastructure. They give access to their model through an API to consumers and enterprises who then build upon it, they utilize the model. In some cases, they build applications using that model that can be future sources of productivity or efficiency for the economy.In this scenario, we think the economics can be even stronger. When the model developer owns their own underlying infrastructure, our base case generates a roughly 75 percent incremental operating margin and a return on invested capital of 40 percent plus.These returns on invested capital are impressive, but what determines whether these returns can actually materialize?Well, two things matter a lot. The first is the price the developers are able to charge for tokens, which are the units of information that AI models process. The second factor that matters considerably is how efficient[ly] can this infrastructure process these tokens.This is why continued improvements in chips and software to drive higher token throughput – or more tokens per GPU per second – are critical to the long-term unit economics across this AI ecosystem.The third model we've analyzed is when the AI developers rent their compute infrastructure rather than owning it. So, effectively, they are paying someone else for the data centers and the GPUs that they need. While this lowers their returns on invested capital because another provider takes a piece of the unit economics, our base case still produces roughly a 30 percent incremental operating margin and 25 percent post-tax return potential.So, while the AI build-out requires enormous investment, the size of the spending alone doesn't tell the whole story about whether or not there are economic returns to come.What ultimately matters is the revenue and profit that the infrastructure can generate. And as more of the infrastructure shifts from training AI models to serving customers through emerging products and inference, we think we're going to get a much clearer answer to this question investors are asking today.Was all this spending worth it? Our research suggests: Yes.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_LzZYIxp6QPkTsvy3izP6jhuxZy8ER0QK_eooxaI6v4Wed, 09 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyBig Tech is pouring more than $1.4 trillion into AI, prompting investors to ask: Is it worth it? Our U.S. Internet analyst Brian Nowak looks at three business models that could earn 25 to 50 percent returns for Gen-AI-enabled technologies.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet analyst.Today, can the enormous investment behind Gen AI actually pay off?It's Wednesday, September 9th, at 9am in New York.AI has moved quickly into everyday life. It helps people write software, research purchases, automate work, find information, among myriad[s] of other use cases.But we need an infrastructure build-out of extraordinary scale to support all of this activity and more activity to come.In all, we estimate that the major cloud providers are going to spend more than $1.4 trillion on this AI build-out next year alone. But compute capacity is potentially going to quadruple from 2025 to 2028, reaching roughly 120 gigawatts.But all of the spending has raised a lot of questions for investors. One of the most common questions is: What kind of return on invested capital can these companies earn from all of these trillions of dollars of data center infrastructure investment?Well, our bottom-up work points to encouraging answers to this question.We see paths to roughly 25 to 50 percent return on invested capital, or ROIC, across three emerging AI business models. Now, ROIC is a useful way of measuring whether investments pay off. Think of it as how much after-tax operating profit can be generated relative to the capital required in the first place.The first business model we've analyzed is renting compute power. This is the infrastructure layer of the AI economy. Cloud providers build data centers filled with advanced graphics processing units, or GPUs, and rent that compute capacity to customers. In our base case, a large next-generation data center can generate a return on invested capital of roughly 30 percent simply renting AI compute power.And even if rental prices move around, our scenarios still produce returns ranging from low 20s percent to nearly 40 percent. So, despite the enormous cost of building and capital being deployed for these facilities, we think the economics here are quite attractive.The second business model we've analyzed is where an AI lab has their own model, and they also own their own infrastructure. They give access to their model through an API to consumers and enterprises who then build upon it, they utilize the model. In some cases, they build applications using that model that can be future sources of productivity or efficiency for the economy.In this scenario, we think the economics can be even stronger. When the model developer owns their own underlying infrastructure, our base case generates a roughly 75 percent incremental operating margin and a return on invested capital of 40 percent plus.These returns on invested capital are impressive, but what determines whether these returns can actually materialize?Well, two things matter a lot. The first is the price the developers are able to charge for tokens, which are the units of information that AI models process. The second factor that matters considerably is how efficient[ly] can this infrastructure process these tokens.This is why continued improvements in chips and software to drive higher token throughput – or more tokens per GPU per second – are critical to the long-term unit economics across this AI ecosystem.The third model we've analyzed is when the AI developers rent their compute infrastructure rather than owning it. So, effectively, they are paying someone else for the data centers and the GPUs that they need. While this lowers their returns on invested capital because another provider takes a piece...]]>307alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1725fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-debt-starts-moving-the-u-s-treasurys-market--75644928insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: I am Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, the interplay between the U.S. Treasury market and the corporate bond market.It's Tuesday, September 8th at 10am in New York.So, Vishy, what I'd like to do is start by asking you what's going on in the corporate bond market? What's coming to market? How much duration does it have? Talk to us about the theme of AI in corporate bonds.Vishy Tirupattur: So, this is what is happening. Hyperscalers have enormous CapEx needs, and they'll see opportunity for realizing return on invested capital; and in anticipation of that, the CapEx requirements for the AI infrastructure are enormous.And the key motivation that underlies is that the demand for compute vastly exceeds the supply of compute. And that as long as that demand-supply imbalance is there, there is a continuing need for CapEx, and that CapEx needs to be financed.And credit markets across the board, not just the unsecured market. You know, credit markets in public space, private, investment grade, unsecured, secured, high yield, below investment grade, leveraged loans, private credit – all of these channels of the credit markets are going to be deployed to enable that financing.Matthew Hornbach: Now, Vishy, you've written about this extensively over the course of the past year and have really been on the forefront of expecting a lot of supply. But have you even been surprised at the scale of the supply that we've gotten from these hyperscalers?Vishy Tirupattur: We are surprised, not so much by the scale of the issuance, but certainly by the breadth and the depth of these markets. And also, the ability of the markets to deal with complexity associated with this issuance. So, you know, about a year ago, we were expecting that much of this would be investment grade only; much of this would be only U.S. dollar denominated. We were wrong.We have seen issuance in seven currencies, and we have seen issuance substantially happen in investment grade, but also in high yield and in leverage loans. And a lot more in structured private investment grade credit and in securitized credit. We have been surprised by the ability of the markets to be both in their depth and the breadth and complexity; clearly been surprised.Matthew Hornbach: And one of the features of some of the issuance that may have been the most impactful on other markets has been the duration of unsecured AI-related financing. Talk to us a little bit about what's going on there.Vishy Tirupattur: So, if you look at the AI infrastructure, you can think of it in many different forms. One way of thinking about is the data centers building – the fab, the LAN, the chips and the servers. If you took the whole data centers, their expected life is something north of 20 years. And there is a lot of CapEx requirements.So initially, when you're financing the entire data center as one package, there has been issuance that went well beyond the 20-year point in the term. And keep in mind that the CapEx requirements are kind of across the board.So, it's not just been 20-plus year bonds. There have been bonds issued of various tenors, including a substantial supply of 20-plus year of duration.Now what is happening is that the focus of some of that is changing towards more shorter-term component of it. So, we've gone from financing the entire data structure, moving towards financing components, and in particular chips.The chips have a technological obsolescence factor associated with them. So, the chips need to be refinanced in about five years. So, the structures that are now increasingly emerging are towards amortizing structures that are more five-year duration, five-year maturity loans.Matthew Hornbach: So, this sounds like an interesting shift from much longer duration, longer maturity issuance to something in what the U.S. Treasury would call the belly of the curve. Kind of in the two to five-year maturity sector. Is that right?Vishy Tirupattur: So yes and no, and I'm hedging only for the following reason: Because a lot of this issuance, these issuers are relatively new in their size of these issuance, so they have not established a certain cadence of issuance.It is not that they have given up on the longer maturity, but the focus is shifting. We expect more to the five-year point of the curve.Another important thing is there has been a significant political pushback on the data centers. We have seen moratoria in the state of New York. It's a very live issue in much of the midterm elections. And opposition to data center is bipartisan, and it's very much alive.So, because of this, we may have some slowdown in the buildup of data centers, therefore slowdown in the long-term CapEx. But then near term, you know, the chips that were bought a few years ago need to be replenished and new chips need to be deployed.So, that financing focus might shift from a longer term to a shorter term. But that said, they're not going to let go entirely of the longer-term financing. Just the focus will shift towards the mid five-year term.Matthew Hornbach: That's very interesting because in the U.S. Treasury market, the focus has not been on the five-year sector. It has been further out the yield curve, where 30-year Treasury yields have been making highs for; that we haven't seen for a couple of decades now. And it hasn't been just in the nominal yield component of Treasuries; it's been in the real yield as well.And, in fact, the difference between the nominal and the real yield, the so-called break-even inflation rate, has actually been very stable throughout this move higher in overall bond yields.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Matt, let me ask you this question. For the last several weeks, we have seen long-end rates, particularly 20-plus year rates being persistently high. What is in your mind driving this persistently high yield in the 20-plus year category?Matthew Hornbach: So, this is something that Treasury Secretary Bessent alluded to in his recent interview on CNBC – that the month of August tends to be a month of lower transaction volumes in the U.S. Treasury market. And in particular, the middle of the month tends to be the lowest transaction volume period within any given month.And so, what we think might be going on is that investors who have been investing in these corporate bonds that you've talked about – may be preparing their own balance sheets for the issuance that most people tend to expect to come in September.Now, if that was the case, then it would be reasonable to assume that those investors tried to sell some of the bonds that they had. Or perhaps just stop buying any bonds in preparation for the supply that they would expect to come in September. If that was the case and the dealer community had to absorb that duration risk onto their balance sheets, they probably would want to recycle that back into the market.And the most liquid way of doing that is to sell treasuries. And so, we do think that there was very likely some selling of treasuries by the dealer community, as they were absorbing corporate bonds from the investor base.Vishy Tirupattur: So that makes sense, Matt. You know, if you think about the dealer community as well as investors, their anticipation of future; corporate bond issuance could drive their actions today.But the only point I would make is that because these are new issuers, and because they have not established a cadence, there could be substantial variability in their frequency. And periodicity that will come to the market. And in what tenor.You know, there's this change I talked about – longer term for financing needs versus component financing needs. There are all these degrees of freedom these issuers have that they can use that degrees of freedom. And the investors and the dealers don't have a lot of sense of what that might be.Matthew Hornbach: It sounds like there's going to be a lot of uncertainty, which might mean that there's going to be a lot of volatility.So, with that Vishy, thanks for sitting down and talking about the bond market with me.Vishy Tirupattur: Great to hang out with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/aC4IQYo9yrp-f_TqxrP8tgeZLXBVSGg2Ou9ywcndWxUTue, 08 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyU.S. Treasurys are the foundation of the bond market. But our strategists Matthew Hornbach and Vishy Tirupattur explain the growing impact of corporate credit as AI financing accelerates.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: I am Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Matthew Hornbach: Today, the interplay between the U.S. Treasury market and the corporate bond market.It's Tuesday, September 8th at 10am in New York.So, Vishy, what I'd like to do is start by asking you what's going on in the corporate bond market? What's coming to market? How much duration does it have? Talk to us about the theme of AI in corporate bonds.Vishy Tirupattur: So, this is what is happening. Hyperscalers have enormous CapEx needs, and they'll see opportunity for realizing return on invested capital; and in anticipation of that, the CapEx requirements for the AI infrastructure are enormous.And the key motivation that underlies is that the demand for compute vastly exceeds the supply of compute. And that as long as that demand-supply imbalance is there, there is a continuing need for CapEx, and that CapEx needs to be financed.And credit markets across the board, not just the unsecured market. You know, credit markets in public space, private, investment grade, unsecured, secured, high yield, below investment grade, leveraged loans, private credit – all of these channels of the credit markets are going to be deployed to enable that financing.Matthew Hornbach: Now, Vishy, you've written about this extensively over the course of the past year and have really been on the forefront of expecting a lot of supply. But have you even been surprised at the scale of the supply that we've gotten from these hyperscalers?Vishy Tirupattur: We are surprised, not so much by the scale of the issuance, but certainly by the breadth and the depth of these markets. And also, the ability of the markets to deal with complexity associated with this issuance. So, you know, about a year ago, we were expecting that much of this would be investment grade only; much of this would be only U.S. dollar denominated. We were wrong.We have seen issuance in seven currencies, and we have seen issuance substantially happen in investment grade, but also in high yield and in leverage loans. And a lot more in structured private investment grade credit and in securitized credit. We have been surprised by the ability of the markets to be both in their depth and the breadth and complexity; clearly been surprised.Matthew Hornbach: And one of the features of some of the issuance that may have been the most impactful on other markets has been the duration of unsecured AI-related financing. Talk to us a little bit about what's going on there.Vishy Tirupattur: So, if you look at the AI infrastructure, you can think of it in many different forms. One way of thinking about is the data centers building – the fab, the LAN, the chips and the servers. If you took the whole data centers, their expected life is something north of 20 years. And there is a lot of CapEx requirements.So initially, when you're financing the entire data center as one package, there has been issuance that went well beyond the 20-year point in the term. And keep in mind that the CapEx requirements are kind of across the board.So, it's not just been 20-plus year bonds. There have been bonds issued of various tenors, including a substantial supply of 20-plus year of duration.Now what is happening is that the focus of some of that is changing towards more shorter-term component of it. So, we've gone from financing the entire data structure, moving towards financing components, and in particular chips.The chips have a...]]>545alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1724fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-could-shake-up-markets-in-september--75644896insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, several catalysts for more volatility later this month.It's Friday, September 4th at 2pm in London.Over more than a century of market history, Septembers have tended to see more volatility than the average month. You can't exactly set your watch by it, but the trend is definitely there. As investors come back from summer and capital market activity restarts in earnest, things historically tend to move.This idea seems especially relevant this year. Despite the headlines, it was a pretty calm summer for markets. Since early June, U.S. stocks, yields, and credit were all modestly higher, and they got there with minimal movement. The realized volatility – that is how much these markets are moving on a daily basis – has been historically low.September offers a number of catalysts that could test that.First and foremost is the Fed. Inflation remains above the central bank's target, and markets are pricing a roughly two out of three chance of a rate hike at the September 16th meeting. That's more uncertainty this close to a meeting than we've had in a while – and the impact goes far beyond a single decision. Live meetings from the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank also loom in September.September is also a month that historically sees unusually heavy capital market activity. That makes sense. If you're a corporate and looking to raise money, it's often better to wait until investors are back from the summer before going out looking for those funds.But this September could be unusually active, given a growing IPO pipeline and continued funding needs from AI-related construction. And so, it's fair to say that even adjusting for September's usually heavy pace, there's an unusually wide range of outcomes around where capital market activity could land this month.Investors are also coming back from the summer with major uncertainty still hanging over global energy markets. Morgan Stanley's commodity team still sees global energy flows as severely restricted and recently raised their forecast for oil prices, seeing them reach about $100 a barrel in the fourth quarter of this year.The price of what's in that barrel is becoming even more extreme, with the price of diesel fuel in Europe up 140 percent since January 1st. And so, as inventories continue to draw down and questions around the duration of this conflict persist, both factors could drive more market movements.The good news is that while Septembers have historically been more volatile months, they're not necessarily a bellwether. And that could apply again. By month-end, we should have a much better idea of the Fed's path, the scale of capital market activity, and the state of energy supply.But until then, the level of expected volatility across many markets, particularly interest rate and foreign exchange markets, remains unusually low. Given this backdrop, we think those levels of expected volatility can rise.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/c88f7KQRR-Epgq-y_JegWV3QftUi7jnWwNBlELt2sU4Fri, 04 Sep 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyInvestors have plenty to digest this month, from economic data to central-bank decisions. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets outlines what could drive the next bout of volatility.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, several catalysts for more volatility later this month.It's Friday, September 4th at 2pm in London.Over more than a century of market history, Septembers have tended to see more volatility than the average month. You can't exactly set your watch by it, but the trend is definitely there. As investors come back from summer and capital market activity restarts in earnest, things historically tend to move.This idea seems especially relevant this year. Despite the headlines, it was a pretty calm summer for markets. Since early June, U.S. stocks, yields, and credit were all modestly higher, and they got there with minimal movement. The realized volatility – that is how much these markets are moving on a daily basis – has been historically low.September offers a number of catalysts that could test that.First and foremost is the Fed. Inflation remains above the central bank's target, and markets are pricing a roughly two out of three chance of a rate hike at the September 16th meeting. That's more uncertainty this close to a meeting than we've had in a while – and the impact goes far beyond a single decision. Live meetings from the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank also loom in September.September is also a month that historically sees unusually heavy capital market activity. That makes sense. If you're a corporate and looking to raise money, it's often better to wait until investors are back from the summer before going out looking for those funds.But this September could be unusually active, given a growing IPO pipeline and continued funding needs from AI-related construction. And so, it's fair to say that even adjusting for September's usually heavy pace, there's an unusually wide range of outcomes around where capital market activity could land this month.Investors are also coming back from the summer with major uncertainty still hanging over global energy markets. Morgan Stanley's commodity team still sees global energy flows as severely restricted and recently raised their forecast for oil prices, seeing them reach about $100 a barrel in the fourth quarter of this year.The price of what's in that barrel is becoming even more extreme, with the price of diesel fuel in Europe up 140 percent since January 1st. And so, as inventories continue to draw down and questions around the duration of this conflict persist, both factors could drive more market movements.The good news is that while Septembers have historically been more volatile months, they're not necessarily a bellwether. And that could apply again. By month-end, we should have a much better idea of the Fed's path, the scale of capital market activity, and the state of energy supply.But until then, the level of expected volatility across many markets, particularly interest rate and foreign exchange markets, remains unusually low. Given this backdrop, we think those levels of expected volatility can rise.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today. ]]>211alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1723fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-oil-prices-could-rise-to-100-again--75644899insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.Today: why the oil market is tightening, and why we now see Brent reaching $100 per barrel later this year.It’s Thursday, September 3rd, at 3pm in London.It has been an extraordinary summer for oil. Brent — the global benchmark price for crude oil and the reference point for most of the world's oil trade — traded above $110 per barrel in mid-May, fell to $71 by early June, climbed back above $100 three weeks later, and then dropped again to around $79 per barrel. More recently, prices have moved higher again. But the question now is whether that is just another temporary swing. Or whether there is a sign that the underlying market has changed.We think it has changed. Supply is tightening, inventories are falling, and some of the buffers that helped absorb earlier disruptions are fading.The clearest evidence is in inventories. Crude oil sitting on the water fell from nearly 1.3 billion barrels in mid-July to 1.1 billion barrels recently. That was a decline of about 190 million barrels. During one four-week stretch, oil-on-water fell at the unusually high rate of 5.3 million barrels a day, the fastest four-week decline since this data series began about eight years ago. Usually, when there is such a large amount of crude oil that is brought on land, it drives up onshore oil inventories. However, not on this occasion. On a global basis, onshore crude oil inventories have fallen by another 38 million barrels over the same period. That means that those offshore barrels arriving were being used straight away rather than put into land-based storage.The biggest supply issue is still the Middle East. Crude flows from the Strait of Hormuz briefly recovered to about 15 million barrels a day after the June Memorandum of Understanding. That was close to the pre-conflict level. More recently, however, they have been running again around about 7 million. Now, Red Sea exports have also fallen sharply, from about 4 - 4.5 million barrels a day in March and April to around about 1.5 million barrels a day at the moment. Therefore, total regional exports are still up from the lows in March and April, but they are sharply down from that late June peak. Another source of support is fading: strategic petroleum reserves. Globally, those releases added around 2.5 million barrels a day to supply in March and April. But that has fallen sharply, and we do not anticipate material further releases from global SPRs after September.Then China is important, too. Its seaborne crude imports are normally around 10 to 11 million barrels a day but briefly fell as low as 5 million barrels a day leaving more oil available elsewhere. Now, China's buying activity still appears low, but at a minimum it has stabilized, and there are tentative signs of an increase. If Chinese imports have stopped falling and possibly go into reverse, they can no longer free up additional barrels for buyers elsewhere, making the global oil market tighter. So why hasn’t crude become even more constrained? It's because of refineries. Global refinery outages are running 5 - 6 million barrels a day above normal. Although supply of crude oil is constrained, this means that demand for crude is also reduced. Now, the result of that is that the tightness in the system has instead shown up in refined products rather than in crude. And diesel is the clearest example of this; and the one most likely to be felt throughout the economy, since diesel prices feed straight through into trucking, freight, farming costs, and many other areas. The front-month diesel benchmark in the U.S. was recently around $195 per barrel, versus Brent at $95 per barrel. The difference between the value of a refined product and the crude used to make it is called a crack spread. For diesel, that crack spread reached around $100 per barrel, an all-time high. Over time, that gives refiners a very strong incentive to bring back capacity where they can. If they do, crude demand should rise, whilst inventories are already falling and Middle East supply so far remains constrained. We now expect a full recovery in Middle East supply to take well into 2027. On that path, oil inventories should keep falling throughout the fourth quarter of this year as well as the first quarter of next year. We now forecast Brent to average $100 per barrel in the fourth quarter.Now, for much of this year, the oil market had several shock absorbers: strategic reserves, abundant barrels at sea, and unusually weak Chinese imports all helped. Those cushions are thinner now. That leaves less room for another disruption, just as the road back to normal supply is getting longer. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JEQwITZqMLavTc6qveq11LnQ0eX0kE7F1kB8bUN0sJUThu, 03 Sep 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explains how tightening supply and shrinking buffers are pushing Brent prices up again, and what that would mean for fuel costs and energy markets.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.Today: why the oil market is tightening, and why we now see Brent reaching $100 per barrel later this year.It’s Thursday, September 3rd, at 3pm in London.It has been an extraordinary summer for oil. Brent — the global benchmark price for crude oil and the reference point for most of the world's oil trade — traded above $110 per barrel in mid-May, fell to $71 by early June, climbed back above $100 three weeks later, and then dropped again to around $79 per barrel. More recently, prices have moved higher again. But the question now is whether that is just another temporary swing. Or whether there is a sign that the underlying market has changed.We think it has changed. Supply is tightening, inventories are falling, and some of the buffers that helped absorb earlier disruptions are fading.The clearest evidence is in inventories. Crude oil sitting on the water fell from nearly 1.3 billion barrels in mid-July to 1.1 billion barrels recently. That was a decline of about 190 million barrels. During one four-week stretch, oil-on-water fell at the unusually high rate of 5.3 million barrels a day, the fastest four-week decline since this data series began about eight years ago. Usually, when there is such a large amount of crude oil that is brought on land, it drives up onshore oil inventories. However, not on this occasion. On a global basis, onshore crude oil inventories have fallen by another 38 million barrels over the same period. That means that those offshore barrels arriving were being used straight away rather than put into land-based storage.The biggest supply issue is still the Middle East. Crude flows from the Strait of Hormuz briefly recovered to about 15 million barrels a day after the June Memorandum of Understanding. That was close to the pre-conflict level. More recently, however, they have been running again around about 7 million. Now, Red Sea exports have also fallen sharply, from about 4 - 4.5 million barrels a day in March and April to around about 1.5 million barrels a day at the moment. Therefore, total regional exports are still up from the lows in March and April, but they are sharply down from that late June peak. Another source of support is fading: strategic petroleum reserves. Globally, those releases added around 2.5 million barrels a day to supply in March and April. But that has fallen sharply, and we do not anticipate material further releases from global SPRs after September.Then China is important, too. Its seaborne crude imports are normally around 10 to 11 million barrels a day but briefly fell as low as 5 million barrels a day leaving more oil available elsewhere. Now, China's buying activity still appears low, but at a minimum it has stabilized, and there are tentative signs of an increase. If Chinese imports have stopped falling and possibly go into reverse, they can no longer free up additional barrels for buyers elsewhere, making the global oil market tighter. So why hasn’t crude become even more constrained? It's because of refineries. Global refinery outages are running 5 - 6 million barrels a day above normal. Although supply of crude oil is constrained, this means that demand for crude is also reduced. Now, the result of that is that the tightness in the system has instead shown up in refined products rather than in crude. And diesel is the clearest example of this; and the one most likely to be felt throughout the economy, since diesel prices feed straight through into trucking, freight,...]]>331alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1722fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/3-policy-catalysts-to-watch-this-fall--75644908insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll look ahead to public policy catalysts that matter for investors this fall.It's Wednesday, September 2nd at 10:30am in New York.Okay, Ariana, there's a few days left in the summer, and investors are already starting to think about what's going to happen this fall. And there's a pretty heavy calendar; everything from midterm elections to some pretty important diplomatic dates. High level, what do you think people need to focus on?Ariana Salvatore: So, I'll start with probably the most consequential catalyst of the list that you mentioned, and that's the midterm elections. Obviously, not until November 3rd, but the debate is going to start to emerge over the coming weeks – in terms of if Democrats were to win just one chamber versus both chambers; if Republicans were to keep control; what could that mean for markets? And what are the durable policy themes?I think in this context, the biggest debate far and away is on data center pushback. And this has transitioned from more of a macro thematic. So, investors trying to understand the potential implications for the CapEx build-out, to more of a micro really granular question, right? Which races are the ones that we need to watch? Where are there states or jurisdictions that projects that are pending could be possibly called into question?And that's, sort of, the continuous debate that I've had recently with investors, trying to pinpoint it more precisely to figure out where exactly the build-up could be impacted.Michael Zezas: So, I hear from investors this general concern that the midterm elections will reveal that it's become a consensus preference amongst American voters and members of both parties to slow down on data center spending. Or perhaps even stop it or something more severe like that.What type of midterm election outcome would point to that as a possibility?Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would start by saying the politics here are scrambled in the sense that there's no clear fault lines when it comes to Democrats or Republicans around data center opposition, right? We are seeing some pretty notable pivots even from lawmakers that in the past were supportive of data centers. So that's why I think we have to zoom into these really specific races.And there I would say there's some governorships that matter actually more than some of the Senate races; because remember, governors also in certain states can appoint public utility commissioners. And in places like Texas, that actually could be a really consequential outcome for the 2026 midterm elections, more so than who ends up sitting in Congress on a very federal level.Michael Zezas: Okay. And so, would you say it's fair then that folks running for office who are challenging incumbents in both parties, who are expressing a desire for more regulation on data centers, that it kind of cuts across both parties? So, this is more about folks challenging incumbents than it is about one party or the other having a specific view on AI and the AI industrial build-out via data centers?Ariana Salvatore: That's right. It's hard to sort into these really generic party umbrellas, and there are a few nuances under the surface. If you look at something like Ohio. The governor's race there, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are proposing a conditional build-out, basically. So, if certain projects meet criteria, they're going to be allowed to proceed.In other races, like in Texas and Pennsylvania governorships, you're seeing the opponents basically propose a more restrictive form of the pause or directive that's already in place. So, I would say it's not very clean in terms of Democrat or Republican-led. And that just gives us conviction that this is going to persist and remain an issue even after November. Even though the federal policy incentives we don't think are likely going to change.Michael Zezas: So, we could see investors taking a signal about the AI data center build-out from an outcome where incumbents don't do particularly well.Now, I know we're still doing work on this, but what's the current thinking about – even if we were to see a result like that, how much should investors be concerned that the expectations around spending on data centers might not be realized because of new policy, other regulatory changes that would come as a result of the midterms?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say overall, we are still very constructive on AI CapEx, right? So, our internet team is still forecasting over a trillion dollars of spending for the hyperscalers next year, and there are a few reasons for that, one of which has to do with this AI sovereignty theme that we've been writing about.So, this notion that governments are increasingly wanting to control their own stack and their own AI capabilities, so that's driving a bit of the spend. On the other hand, we are starting to see mitigation measures from some of these companies to appease some of that local community backlash. And there we don't see a one-size-fits-all approach.We see very tailored solutions depending on what the source of the pushback is. Just to give a few examples. When you have communities that care about electricity price increases, for example, many hyperscalers have signed on to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. When you have communities that care about the environmental impact, you've got companies like Google who said they want to put forward a regulatory framework for water usage; Amazon also disclosing their water usage in data centers.And so, like I said, there's not really a uniformity to these responses, but enough that we think will mitigate the concern and still leaves us constructive on the overall build-out.Michael Zezas: Right. And you actually bring up a really interesting point on the idea of AI sovereignty. Some of the kind of similar concerns that are driving voter anxiety around the build-out of AI, might also reinforce some of the spending that has to happen there. To the extent that voters and policymakers are concerned that AI should be controlled and aligned with American values would require some spending to make sure that there's sufficient supply chains and other variables in play that the U.S. is in control of.Is that fair?Ariana Salvatore: That's right. That's one of the clear policy consequences we see from this shift in sovereign AI and governments seeking that control. The other one is, of course, the potential for further tech restrictions and divergence between the U.S. and China on AI specifically.Michael Zezas: So, on the topic of China and the U.S., one date that you point out here is September 24th, a date when the U.S. and China are going to be meeting again. What's on the table for discussion? What do investors need to know? Obviously, there have been concerns over the past year about the level of tariffs and trade tensions between the two.Is there anything here that we need to pay specific attention to?Ariana Salvatore: So, we think the overarching goal for both sides is to maintain this managed stability that was established in the May summit too. At that point, the clear deliverables were around trade, right? So agricultural purchases, Boeing purchases, et cetera.We think there's likely some small incremental change to those deliverables, in particular when it comes to AI dialogue. But notably, we think there's potential for escalation into that summit, again, within the bounds of what we call tactical escalation. But we do think that there's plenty of room for more policy escalation between both the U.S. and China in line with some recent action that we've seen over the past few weeks.Michael Zezas: Got it. And there's also a couple of important considerations around fiscal policy, funding, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Can you talk us through that a bit?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so fiscal's been in the headlines recently as well, just given the Treasury buybacks and crossing that $40 trillion threshold. And I think in that context, it sort of puts a renewed spotlight on government funding.There we see a potential latent risk of another shutdown come December, right? So, we saw a continuing resolution pass both the House and the Senate and sort of punt that debate until after the elections.And then the NDAA is the annual bill that funds the Pentagon. It has to be done in December on a bipartisan basis. So, the elections have the potential to shift the incentive structure for some lawmakers, and we could see these, kind of, re-emerge as really big debates towards the end of the year.Michael Zezas: Now, interestingly enough, we've got a bunch of catalysts to pay attention to: midterms, the potential for data center pushback as a consequence of it, a U.S.-China summit, which we think is going to result in the continuation of managed stability, and fiscal catalysts where, you know, the debt and the deficit have been in scope and concern, particularly for equity investors. All of that is happening against a backdrop where the historical norm going into midterm elections – is one where the equity market tends to struggle a bit. Is that fair?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, we tend to see a little bit of negative seasonality into the midterm elections, and our equity strategy team has pointed out the potential for a knee-jerk reaction if you were to see Democratic outperformance in November. We think that's not l]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/oZnDQrSuUU08yUbeDb8v22a6PTLROqvkNHGPxtimWDYWed, 02 Sep 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyMidterm elections, backlash against data centers and a U.S.-China summit. Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss themes that could test investor confidence in the coming months.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll look ahead to public policy catalysts that matter for investors this fall.It's Wednesday, September 2nd at 10:30am in New York.Okay, Ariana, there's a few days left in the summer, and investors are already starting to think about what's going to happen this fall. And there's a pretty heavy calendar; everything from midterm elections to some pretty important diplomatic dates. High level, what do you think people need to focus on?Ariana Salvatore: So, I'll start with probably the most consequential catalyst of the list that you mentioned, and that's the midterm elections. Obviously, not until November 3rd, but the debate is going to start to emerge over the coming weeks – in terms of if Democrats were to win just one chamber versus both chambers; if Republicans were to keep control; what could that mean for markets? And what are the durable policy themes?I think in this context, the biggest debate far and away is on data center pushback. And this has transitioned from more of a macro thematic. So, investors trying to understand the potential implications for the CapEx build-out, to more of a micro really granular question, right? Which races are the ones that we need to watch? Where are there states or jurisdictions that projects that are pending could be possibly called into question?And that's, sort of, the continuous debate that I've had recently with investors, trying to pinpoint it more precisely to figure out where exactly the build-up could be impacted.Michael Zezas: So, I hear from investors this general concern that the midterm elections will reveal that it's become a consensus preference amongst American voters and members of both parties to slow down on data center spending. Or perhaps even stop it or something more severe like that.What type of midterm election outcome would point to that as a possibility?Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would start by saying the politics here are scrambled in the sense that there's no clear fault lines when it comes to Democrats or Republicans around data center opposition, right? We are seeing some pretty notable pivots even from lawmakers that in the past were supportive of data centers. So that's why I think we have to zoom into these really specific races.And there I would say there's some governorships that matter actually more than some of the Senate races; because remember, governors also in certain states can appoint public utility commissioners. And in places like Texas, that actually could be a really consequential outcome for the 2026 midterm elections, more so than who ends up sitting in Congress on a very federal level.Michael Zezas: Okay. And so, would you say it's fair then that folks running for office who are challenging incumbents in both parties, who are expressing a desire for more regulation on data centers, that it kind of cuts across both parties? So, this is more about folks challenging incumbents than it is about one party or the other having a specific view on AI and the AI industrial build-out via data centers?Ariana Salvatore: That's right. It's hard to sort into these really generic party umbrellas, and there are a few nuances under the surface. If you look at something like Ohio. The governor's race there, both the Republican and Democrat candidates are proposing a conditional build-out, basically. So, if certain projects meet criteria, they're going to be allowed to...]]>627alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1721fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-33-billion-ai-security-opportunity--75644903insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Meta Marshall: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Meta Marshall, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Cybersecurity and Telecom & Network Equipment analyst. Today: AI assistants are starting to act on our behalf at work, which brings up a critical question. What should these agents be allowed to do? And how should those permissions be granted? It’s Tuesday, September 1st, at 10am in New York. More and more, AI is helping us get through the workday. We ask it to summarize documents, analyze data and take notes during meetings. Increasingly, though, these tools are moving beyond just answering questions to acting on our behalf. Suddenly, the security challenge shifts from managing a tool to governing a whole new digital workforce. In coming years, this problem should get bigger as we estimate seeing 79 AI agents and 109 machine identities for every human employee. Now, traditional identity security at work was built to answer two basic questions: Who are you, and what can you access? Think of it as your office badge. It identifies you and determines what doors you can open. AI agents, however, make that question much harder to answer. They can operate autonomously, move across applications and databases, collaborate with other agents. They take actions without direct human involvement.So, companies need to know not only what an agent can access, but why it needs access, for how long, and what it actually did. That’s the core foundation of agentic identity solutions. The risk environment from this problem is already substantial. About 80 percent of breaches in the work environment today involve stolen or misused credentials. Nine out of 10 organizations experienced an identity-related breach in the past year, and 83 percent experienced at least two. Now add potentially hundreds of machine and AI identities for every human; each operating continuously and at machine speed – and the problem is much larger.One solution to managing AI agents is zero standing privilege. Instead of giving an agent permanent access, you give it permission for a specific task and revoke that permission when the job is done. Here’s the issue though: Today, only 39 percent of privileged access is managed through this just-in-time or zero standing privilege architecture. And the reality is that humans can’t approve every request. More of those decisions will need to happen automatically, in real time, through what’s known as runtime governance. We estimate, as a result, that agentic identity alone could become roughly a $33 billion global opportunity in our base case, which brings the overall identity market opportunity to more than $60 billion in coming years. This need for agentic identity coming from AI could also push a historically fragmented industry towards a more unified platform. In one industry survey, 85 percent of organizations said fragmented identity systems delay their human response to identity threats, with respondents citing an average of 12 hours needed to respond per incident. We think that favors platforms that can manage human and machine identities together and make security decisions dynamically, overall making a more secure environment. This transition won’t happen overnight. Agentic identity products are still early, and we don’t expect an immediate financial impact. But as enterprises move from experimenting with AI agents to deploying them more broadly, spending to secure those agents could become a more meaningful growth tailwind in 2027. The longer-term growth opportunity comes down to a simple dynamic: more agents, with more autonomy, will require more control. And that could make identity security essential to scaling AI across the enterprise. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nKUyuUCYGBuVtGZ2GXcsdDBj2dU_1ME2MvvPCK6JtBMTue, 01 Sep 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs AI agents gain access to sensitive enterprise systems, companies need new ways to control what they can do. Meta Marshall breaks down the emerging market for agentic identity security.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Meta Marshall: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Meta Marshall, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Cybersecurity and Telecom & Network Equipment analyst. Today: AI assistants are starting to act on our behalf at work, which brings up a critical question. What should these agents be allowed to do? And how should those permissions be granted? It’s Tuesday, September 1st, at 10am in New York. More and more, AI is helping us get through the workday. We ask it to summarize documents, analyze data and take notes during meetings. Increasingly, though, these tools are moving beyond just answering questions to acting on our behalf. Suddenly, the security challenge shifts from managing a tool to governing a whole new digital workforce. In coming years, this problem should get bigger as we estimate seeing 79 AI agents and 109 machine identities for every human employee. Now, traditional identity security at work was built to answer two basic questions: Who are you, and what can you access? Think of it as your office badge. It identifies you and determines what doors you can open. AI agents, however, make that question much harder to answer. They can operate autonomously, move across applications and databases, collaborate with other agents. They take actions without direct human involvement.So, companies need to know not only what an agent can access, but why it needs access, for how long, and what it actually did. That’s the core foundation of agentic identity solutions. The risk environment from this problem is already substantial. About 80 percent of breaches in the work environment today involve stolen or misused credentials. Nine out of 10 organizations experienced an identity-related breach in the past year, and 83 percent experienced at least two. Now add potentially hundreds of machine and AI identities for every human; each operating continuously and at machine speed – and the problem is much larger.One solution to managing AI agents is zero standing privilege. Instead of giving an agent permanent access, you give it permission for a specific task and revoke that permission when the job is done. Here’s the issue though: Today, only 39 percent of privileged access is managed through this just-in-time or zero standing privilege architecture. And the reality is that humans can’t approve every request. More of those decisions will need to happen automatically, in real time, through what’s known as runtime governance. We estimate, as a result, that agentic identity alone could become roughly a $33 billion global opportunity in our base case, which brings the overall identity market opportunity to more than $60 billion in coming years. This need for agentic identity coming from AI could also push a historically fragmented industry towards a more unified platform. In one industry survey, 85 percent of organizations said fragmented identity systems delay their human response to identity threats, with respondents citing an average of 12 hours needed to respond per incident. We think that favors platforms that can manage human and machine identities together and make security decisions dynamically, overall making a more secure environment. This transition won’t happen overnight. Agentic identity products are still early, and we don’t expect an immediate financial impact. But as enterprises move from experimenting with AI agents to deploying them more broadly, spending to secure those agents could become a more meaningful growth tailwind in 2027. The longer-term growth opportunity comes down to a simple dynamic: more agents, with more autonomy, will require more...]]>257alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1719fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/from-coffee-to-cans-a-u-s-caffeine-shift--75644910insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Dara Mohsenian: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dara Mohsenian, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Household Products and Beverage Analyst. Today, we're going to talk about how the next generation of U.S. consumers is really redefining their daily caffeine boost. It's Monday, August 31st at 10am in New York. For generations of Americans, caffeine has been synonymous with coffee. You wake up, make a pot, or stop at a coffee shop and start your day. But the picture today is different. Younger consumers have grown up with many more choices to jumpstart their day. Walk into a convenience store, gym, or college library these days, and you'll see that energy drinks are increasingly becoming an alternative for getting their caffeine boost. The reason people are drinking more of these caffeinated beverages is pretty straightforward. They want more energy. Among consumers who increased their energy drink consumption over the prior three months, 61 percent said they needed more energy. Experimentation is important, too. 44 percent cited trying new flavors, and 37 percent said they were trying new brands. Our survey of roughly 3,000 U.S. consumers points to significant runway for energy drinks going forward. When we spoke to current energy drink consumers, a net positive 19 percent expected to increase their consumption over the next three months. That's well above our prior surveys and is true for both men and women. Perhaps more interesting is who expects to drink more. Demographics have always been a key driver of energy consumption. The younger generation is increasingly choosing energy drinks over, historically, coffee and carbonated soft drinks. In our survey, importantly, if you look at the 25- to 34-year-old and 35- to 44-year-old age groups, they actually showed the strongest forward intentions to increase consumption. This means that the consumers who embrace energy drinks at the very young ages don't appear to be aging out of the category as they become older. They're taking the habit with them, essentially. It's also important to point out that caffeinated drinks is not a zero-sum game. Yes, the generational preferences are shifting, but the total pie is really growing here. Energy drinks is the biggest share gainer within caffeinated drinks, but only 20 percent of incremental energy drink consumption in our survey came directly from switching from coffee, and 22 percent directly from switching from carbonated soft drinks. So, most of the demand is actually incremental to caffeinated drinks in general. Going forward, we do expect energy drinks to be the highest growth segment within caffeinated drinks, growing at a high single-digit rate. We're even seeing it replace areas such as alcohol and snacks as it's moved to that affordable indulgence. And that's particularly driven by GLP-1, also accentuating the need for caffeine for consumers who are losing weight and have less energy.So, we see robust high single-digit energy category growth as likely to continue. That's been the compound rate, 9 percent over the last 15 years. Going forward with the demand drivers we talked about in a rational pricing environment, we see that likely to sustain. And much of the energy top-line momentum has been supported by new products and innovations. That includes zero sugar drinks. They're perceived as better for you. They're attracting new consumers, particularly women. And also, older consumers are sticking with the products as they age. Energy drinks have also become more affordable versus other beverage categories, particularly beverages, where the price increases have been sharper. Convenience is another part of the appeal. Among consumers who recently switched from coffee to energy drinks, 57 percent cited more caffeine per beverage and 45 percent pointed to convenience. Nearly half preferred the flavor of energy drinks, while 45 percent cited greater flavor variety. There may also be room for energy drinks to show up in more places. In our survey, 47 percent of consumers said they would buy more energy drinks if they were available in vending machines, 46 percent in fast food and fast casual restaurants, 37 percent in coffee shops, and this is showing up in custom energy drinks at a lot of the coffee shops covered by my colleague Brian Harbor. Again, it's expanding the pie. It's not just about taking share from carbonated soft drinks or coffee. So, America's caffeine habit is really enduring, and it's expanding. Younger consumers, they have more flavors, more formats, more ways to fit caffeine into different parts of the day, and those caffeinated preferences don't appear to be tapering off as consumers age. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2YIuFTh3iG-GjmRJMBzWmO3_H9hCb_BszsvCamS4r18Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyYounger generations are reshaping caffeine consumption. Our U.S. Household Products and Beverage Analyst Dara Mohsenian discusses how the growing appetite for energy drinks could influence beverage habits for years to come. Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Dara Mohsenian: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dara Mohsenian, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Household Products and Beverage Analyst. Today, we're going to talk about how the next generation of U.S. consumers is really redefining their daily caffeine boost. It's Monday, August 31st at 10am in New York. For generations of Americans, caffeine has been synonymous with coffee. You wake up, make a pot, or stop at a coffee shop and start your day. But the picture today is different. Younger consumers have grown up with many more choices to jumpstart their day. Walk into a convenience store, gym, or college library these days, and you'll see that energy drinks are increasingly becoming an alternative for getting their caffeine boost. The reason people are drinking more of these caffeinated beverages is pretty straightforward. They want more energy. Among consumers who increased their energy drink consumption over the prior three months, 61 percent said they needed more energy. Experimentation is important, too. 44 percent cited trying new flavors, and 37 percent said they were trying new brands. Our survey of roughly 3,000 U.S. consumers points to significant runway for energy drinks going forward. When we spoke to current energy drink consumers, a net positive 19 percent expected to increase their consumption over the next three months. That's well above our prior surveys and is true for both men and women. Perhaps more interesting is who expects to drink more. Demographics have always been a key driver of energy consumption. The younger generation is increasingly choosing energy drinks over, historically, coffee and carbonated soft drinks. In our survey, importantly, if you look at the 25- to 34-year-old and 35- to 44-year-old age groups, they actually showed the strongest forward intentions to increase consumption. This means that the consumers who embrace energy drinks at the very young ages don't appear to be aging out of the category as they become older. They're taking the habit with them, essentially. It's also important to point out that caffeinated drinks is not a zero-sum game. Yes, the generational preferences are shifting, but the total pie is really growing here. Energy drinks is the biggest share gainer within caffeinated drinks, but only 20 percent of incremental energy drink consumption in our survey came directly from switching from coffee, and 22 percent directly from switching from carbonated soft drinks. So, most of the demand is actually incremental to caffeinated drinks in general. Going forward, we do expect energy drinks to be the highest growth segment within caffeinated drinks, growing at a high single-digit rate. We're even seeing it replace areas such as alcohol and snacks as it's moved to that affordable indulgence. And that's particularly driven by GLP-1, also accentuating the need for caffeine for consumers who are losing weight and have less energy.So, we see robust high single-digit energy category growth as likely to continue. That's been the compound rate, 9 percent over the last 15 years. Going forward with the demand drivers we talked about in a rational pricing environment, we see that likely to sustain. And much of the energy top-line momentum has been supported by new products and innovations. That includes zero sugar drinks. They're perceived as better for you. They're attracting new consumers, particularly women. And also, older consumers are sticking with the products as they age. Energy drinks have also become more affordable versus other beverage categories, particularly...]]>310alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1718fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-politics-behind-the-rising-u-s-debt--75644900insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why fiscal is back in focus and what we can learn about the broader debt trajectory from the upcoming midterm elections. It's Friday, August 28th at 10am in New York. Fiscal policy has moved back onto investors' radars following Treasury's recent buyback announcements. Those came in the same week that total U.S. debt crossed $ 40 trillion for the first time, a milestone that arrived months earlier than most people expected. As my colleague Andrew Sheets puts it, that's a big number. But the more useful question isn't the number itself. It's whether all this debt is starting to act as a brake on the economy.We don't quite yet see a credibility problem in the Treasury market, but that's exactly why fiscal is back in the conversation. And it sits against a bigger backdrop. The U.S. continues to run large deficits in an economy that isn't in a recession. Our economists expect the deficit to stay around 6 percent of GDP through 2027. And voters are clearly concerned about elevated debt levels. So why isn't fiscal austerity coming up more in DC? Simply put, we think the political incentives point the other direction. At the risk of oversimplifying, fiscal consolidation or deficit reduction means either less spending or more taxes. And the political costs of those choices land immediately. We think neither party, therefore, has the incentive to take on that type of policy change – if we don't see a meaningful cliff or a risk to existing programs, especially into an election. But what about after? We think the midterms won't in and of themselves be a catalyst to fix the debt trajectory. But they can tell us something about where this goes next. And I'd point to two things in particular. The first is Social Security. It's not likely to be the headline issue in November, but we could see a useful test case for the debt conversation more broadly because the deadline is creeping closer. The latest trustees report projects the retirement trust fund will become insolvent in the fourth quarter of 2032. And at that point, it could only cover roughly 78 percent of scheduled benefits without a change in law. Now, that's likely to matter more in 2028 than in this cycle, since whoever wins the White House that year will be in office when it hits. But the midterms can still show us where the politics are consolidating. Recent polling points to a fairly consistent pattern. Voters want lawmakers to act. They prefer raising taxes on high earners over broader benefit cuts. And they're notably more open to trimming benefits when it's targeted at the top of the income distribution. That likely explains why a number of 2026 candidates have converged on lifting the payroll tax cap, while some Republicans have largely retreated from campaigning on things like a higher retirement age. Watching which of those messages actually wins, especially in Senate races like New Hampshire or Maine, where a significant share of the electorate depends on these benefits, could provide some useful hints with respect to which of these policy changes actually resonate with voters and end up reflecting the eventual fix. The second is the broader fiscal landscape after the election. If we get a divided government in November, that typically means more fiscal noise around the recurring deadlines, like government funding and the debt ceiling. Those two matter for markets in very different ways. A shutdown's bigger effect tends to be indirect. So, think delayed or lower quality government data since agencies can end up working from smaller survey samples. That leaves investors and the Fed making decisions with less complete information for weeks at a stretch sometimes. The debt ceiling is more direct. That shows up most clearly in the Treasury bill market. Bills maturing around a potential deadline tend to cheapen relative to other short-term benchmarks as investors have to price default risk into that narrow window. And that's the case even when a resolution is still the base case. So, here's the through line: fiscal likely isn't about to become Washington's top priority just because debt crossed $40 trillion. But the midterms are a chance to see whether the political incentives are starting to shift – on Social Security specifically, and on the broader appetite for political fights around funding deadlines more generally. Either way, we think fiscal policy is set to stay in the headlines in the years to come. And especially so as we head into the 2028 presidential election season. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/vsskbSr_ZsfBKZD4I9phVME5USvL0XpXDa4uNq-QyJgFri, 28 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore looks at what the midterms may reveal about politician’s appetite for tackling the faster-than-expected increase in the U.S. debt.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why fiscal is back in focus and what we can learn about the broader debt trajectory from the upcoming midterm elections. It's Friday, August 28th at 10am in New York. Fiscal policy has moved back onto investors' radars following Treasury's recent buyback announcements. Those came in the same week that total U.S. debt crossed $ 40 trillion for the first time, a milestone that arrived months earlier than most people expected. As my colleague Andrew Sheets puts it, that's a big number. But the more useful question isn't the number itself. It's whether all this debt is starting to act as a brake on the economy.We don't quite yet see a credibility problem in the Treasury market, but that's exactly why fiscal is back in the conversation. And it sits against a bigger backdrop. The U.S. continues to run large deficits in an economy that isn't in a recession. Our economists expect the deficit to stay around 6 percent of GDP through 2027. And voters are clearly concerned about elevated debt levels. So why isn't fiscal austerity coming up more in DC? Simply put, we think the political incentives point the other direction. At the risk of oversimplifying, fiscal consolidation or deficit reduction means either less spending or more taxes. And the political costs of those choices land immediately. We think neither party, therefore, has the incentive to take on that type of policy change – if we don't see a meaningful cliff or a risk to existing programs, especially into an election. But what about after? We think the midterms won't in and of themselves be a catalyst to fix the debt trajectory. But they can tell us something about where this goes next. And I'd point to two things in particular. The first is Social Security. It's not likely to be the headline issue in November, but we could see a useful test case for the debt conversation more broadly because the deadline is creeping closer. The latest trustees report projects the retirement trust fund will become insolvent in the fourth quarter of 2032. And at that point, it could only cover roughly 78 percent of scheduled benefits without a change in law. Now, that's likely to matter more in 2028 than in this cycle, since whoever wins the White House that year will be in office when it hits. But the midterms can still show us where the politics are consolidating. Recent polling points to a fairly consistent pattern. Voters want lawmakers to act. They prefer raising taxes on high earners over broader benefit cuts. And they're notably more open to trimming benefits when it's targeted at the top of the income distribution. That likely explains why a number of 2026 candidates have converged on lifting the payroll tax cap, while some Republicans have largely retreated from campaigning on things like a higher retirement age. Watching which of those messages actually wins, especially in Senate races like New Hampshire or Maine, where a significant share of the electorate depends on these benefits, could provide some useful hints with respect to which of these policy changes actually resonate with voters and end up reflecting the eventual fix. The second is the broader fiscal landscape after the election. If we get a divided government in November, that typically means more fiscal noise around the recurring deadlines, like government funding and the debt ceiling. Those two matter for markets in very different ways. A shutdown's bigger effect tends to be indirect. So, think delayed or...]]>285alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1717fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jackson-hole-tests-the-fed-s-framework--75644943insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today, we'll be discussing the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium and Chairman Warsh's opening remarks. It's Thursday, August 27th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, let's get right into it and talk about the upcoming opening remarks by Chairman Warsh at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium that will be delivered to the public at 10 am tomorrow, Friday. How are you thinking about what to expect from those opening remarks? Michael Gapen: Well, historically, and by historically, I mean in a post-2008-2009 world, Jackson Hole has been used, not every year, but frequently as a venue to communicate to markets. The longest gap on the Fed's meeting calendar is between the July and September meetings. So, Jackson Hole falls between that and provides a useful opportunity to communicate what might be coming. That's what's normally been done. Warsh has repeatedly stated he wants the Fed to talk less and communicate less and say less. So, I don't think we will see or hear, in this case, a lot about his views about how the economy is operating today and how monetary policy may be conducted into year-end. So, I don't think we'll hear a lot about, say, the December; the outlook for the economy from September to December, and what it might imply for interest rate policy or balance sheet policy. So, little in the way of near-term forward guidance. I do think, however, he did say in the July press conference that the venue would be good to tackle some of these big questions that he has talked about, that he's created these task forces for. So, whether it is the balance sheet or the inflation framework, or communication or AI and productivity or data quality and so forth. This would provide, I think, a reasonable opportunity for him to start talking about that. I don't think maybe we'll get a lot of conclusions. But I would look for commentary that's more in the question; or in the spirit of those big questions and less about the near-term conduct of policy.So maybe not what markets want, but this is what markets will get. Matt Hornbach: Just rewinding a bit, the conference itself is on a somewhat of a niche topic. What exactly is the conference about? And, in terms of the papers that get released at the conference, do you have any sense as to where they might be headed? Michael Gapen: So, the topic of this conference, the economic symposium, as you noted, is Financial Innovation: [its] Implications for [the] Payments [system] and [monetary] Policy. So, I would expect there to be a lot of sessions for things like central bank digital currencies or stable coins or Bitcoins. Near money type innovation that has happened in recent years, which leads to things like competition for deposits from the non-financial sector vis-a-vis the financial sector. So, a competition of near moneyness to money, if you will. Its implications for the interaction between the non-financial system and the financial system, competition for deposits. Does it create risks around financial disintermediation? And therefore, how might the regulatory environment and monetary policy work in that world? So little more, I'll call it, esoteric and maybe arm's length from the day-to-day conduct of policy. But I would look at the speeches probably in that vein. Deposit competition, financial market stability, and what kind of regulatory framework might you need to ensure we can still conduct policy effectively in that world. Matt Hornbach: Sounds like an exciting set of papers… Michael Gapen: Yes. Yes. Matt Hornbach: … for professors to read through. Michael Gapen: This is why they don't often leak the schedule too far in advance, right? We all might decide not to listen. Matt Hornbach: Indeed. Well, it is the end of August, and people are probably still on holiday here and there… Michael Gapen: I'm doing my best, but you called me in today. Matt Hornbach: Yeah, the least I could do. So, you did mention that this might be an opportunity for Chairman Warsh to maybe spotlight a bit these task forces and the topics that they're tackling, one of which is the inflation framework. And that word framework, I think, is important because the investors that we've been speaking with are frustrated that the Fed has not really laid out a framework – for monetary policymaking in this new era of Chairman Warsh, and his leadership at the Fed. So, I'm curious, if we're not going to get forward guidance on monetary policy and what will happen at the next meeting. And we're also not going to get much forward guidance on the framework that the Fed is using to decide on what to do with short-term interest rates. What are we meant to think about the framework? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think ultimately, of course, we're going to need to know this, and this is what economists would refer to as the ‘difference between forward guidance and the "reaction function." So, the framework is really, you've got a set of tools, how do you intend to use them to achieve your objectives? A conventional Fed would say, "Well, if interest rates are low and inflation's too high, then we should raise rates," right? So high inflation brings high interest rates, low inflation brings low interest rates. All else equal, there's still the employment side of the mandate, of course. And the market had that view, at least initially, right? As we were in the June-July period and Warsh was talking hawkishly, the curve generally flattened. Expectations for front-end yields moved higher, and inflation-fighting credibility maybe kept the back end stable or brought the back end down. So, you could argue the markets looked at Warsh as maybe bringing a conventional reaction function and a conventional framework. But in the June and July FOMC meeting and in conversations with the press during the press conferences, Warsh – I don't want to say backtracked. He just didn't validate that and did say that we will achieve price stability. Didn't quite say how he would use the tools to do that. And even suggested maybe interest rates weren't the primary mechanism with which to influence, create, deliver price stability. So, the curve then steepened out. So, I think the market is wondering what Fed chair we have and what his reaction function is? And if inflation's running hot, is it an interest rate answer or is it a balance sheet answer? I'd also just add one last thing, Matt, is it makes a difference what the rest of the 18 people on the FOMC think. [Be]cause I think you would agree, and I'll put forward right now, I think they have a largely conventional view. Half of the committee thought it was time to raise rates in June. So, we have a balance between not knowing the chair's framework and having to intuit it. Or hope that we hear more. But then also knowing the other 18 who could band together and have greater voting power act in a largely conventional framework. I think that's the debate and the dilemma that we're all dealing with. Matt Hornbach: Yeah, I think investors, have certainly expressed frustration about the lack of guidance in any form or fashion. Perhaps with the exception of the balance sheet; we have a general idea that the balance sheet will be smaller in the future. And we have a sense from what Chairman Warsh has said in front of the House of Representatives during his semi-annual testimony that any changes would happen gradually over time. But, in terms of the pricing of the July meeting, and what happened at the July meeting, investors were very disappointed that the Fed did not go ahead and raise rates in July. Now, the market was only assigning about a one in three odds of a rate hike in July. And so, the fact that the Fed did not go ahead and raise interest rates in July was not a surprise in the sense of market pricing. But I do sense that investors were frustrated; that because they didn't get much forward guidance going into the July meeting, that the market might not have priced more probability on a July rate hike because the Fed, in fact, did not signal that they were leaning in that direction. But I see it as somewhat ironic because it seems to me, and I'd like to get your view on this. It seems to me that Chairman Warsh doesn't want to provide that type of specificity. He'd rather have the markets tell him what to do at an upcoming meeting, as opposed to him telling markets what to do at an upcoming meeting. How do you think about that? Michael Gapen: Oh, I think it's… [It] strains credibility to think that by saying nothing, you get the market's interpretation of the economy, data, and events – without the market thinking what the Fed thinks about it. I don't think that there's a world where you get the unvarnished market expectation independent of the Fed. So, I don't personally agree in the analogy of the market should play the ball and not the referee. The Fed is not a referee in markets. The Fed is a player in markets. Monetary policy acts through financial markets to achieve a set of financial conditions to deliver price stability and maximum employment. So, the Fed and markets are on the field at the same time. The Fed, in some ways, is the 800-pound gorilla on the field at the same time. So, everybody else on the field has to know what the gorilla is doing in order to do what they're supposed to do. Yes, there's always some circularity between Fed]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/beLHXBwW1d11FRhQyOPq-E3qgCm7MRMrZiTIY5cP8VcThu, 27 Aug 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyInvestors are keeping a close eye on Jackson Hole for signals on the economic outlook and the path for rates. Our Chief U.S. economist Michael Gapen joins Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach to discuss whether markets get what they want—or...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today, we'll be discussing the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium and Chairman Warsh's opening remarks. It's Thursday, August 27th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, let's get right into it and talk about the upcoming opening remarks by Chairman Warsh at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium that will be delivered to the public at 10 am tomorrow, Friday. How are you thinking about what to expect from those opening remarks? Michael Gapen: Well, historically, and by historically, I mean in a post-2008-2009 world, Jackson Hole has been used, not every year, but frequently as a venue to communicate to markets. The longest gap on the Fed's meeting calendar is between the July and September meetings. So, Jackson Hole falls between that and provides a useful opportunity to communicate what might be coming. That's what's normally been done. Warsh has repeatedly stated he wants the Fed to talk less and communicate less and say less. So, I don't think we will see or hear, in this case, a lot about his views about how the economy is operating today and how monetary policy may be conducted into year-end. So, I don't think we'll hear a lot about, say, the December; the outlook for the economy from September to December, and what it might imply for interest rate policy or balance sheet policy. So, little in the way of near-term forward guidance. I do think, however, he did say in the July press conference that the venue would be good to tackle some of these big questions that he has talked about, that he's created these task forces for. So, whether it is the balance sheet or the inflation framework, or communication or AI and productivity or data quality and so forth. This would provide, I think, a reasonable opportunity for him to start talking about that. I don't think maybe we'll get a lot of conclusions. But I would look for commentary that's more in the question; or in the spirit of those big questions and less about the near-term conduct of policy.So maybe not what markets want, but this is what markets will get. Matt Hornbach: Just rewinding a bit, the conference itself is on a somewhat of a niche topic. What exactly is the conference about? And, in terms of the papers that get released at the conference, do you have any sense as to where they might be headed? Michael Gapen: So, the topic of this conference, the economic symposium, as you noted, is Financial Innovation: [its] Implications for [the] Payments [system] and [monetary] Policy. So, I would expect there to be a lot of sessions for things like central bank digital currencies or stable coins or Bitcoins. Near money type innovation that has happened in recent years, which leads to things like competition for deposits from the non-financial sector vis-a-vis the financial sector. So, a competition of near moneyness to money, if you will. Its implications for the interaction between the non-financial system and the financial system, competition for deposits. Does it create risks around financial disintermediation? And therefore, how might the regulatory environment and monetary policy work in that world? So little more, I'll call it, esoteric and maybe arm's length from the day-to-day conduct of policy. But I would look at the speeches probably in that vein. Deposit competition, financial market stability, and what kind of regulatory...]]>729alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1716fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/when-does-higher-u-s-debt-start-to-matter--75644901insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, at what point do higher yields and higher debt actually matter? It's Wednesday, August 26th at 2pm in London. In its first 240 years, the United States of America accumulated roughly $20 trillion in federal debt. The country has borrowed another [$]20 trillion in just the last 10. The question for investors is when this debt load will act as a brake on economic activity? Or, worse, create stress that disrupts today's relative calm?So, let's start with the first question. For economic activity, the bar seems pretty high. You see, even with all the activity around AI, U.S. corporate debt as a share of the overall economy is broadly unchanged in the last decade and actually lower than where it was before the pandemic. The balance sheets of the household sector in the U.S. are even stronger. Household debt to GDP is lower than where it was prior to COVID and lower than where it was in the year 2000. And this may even understate the strength – because much of this debt is locked in at historically low mortgage rates; while household assets, the other side of the balance sheet, have soared to record levels.That may help explain why both consumers and businesses have remained more resilient than expected this year despite the higher interest rates and energy prices. This divergence of trend between public and private balance sheets is also global. Europe has also seen higher government debt offset by even more private sector de-leveraging, while Japan has seen rising public borrowing and pretty stable private sector leverage. To some degree, this divergence between the public and private sides of the economy reflects a policy choice. Governments determine how to balance taxation and spending. And many countries, not just the U.S., have reduced taxes over the last decade while allowing public borrowing to increase. A deterioration of public sector finances relative to private sector finances – it's not especially surprising given that choice. If strong balance sheets are helping U.S. households and companies be less sensitive to higher rates, where should we look for stress? Well, for all of this debt, the U.S. bond market is actually still pretty well-behaved. U.S. inflation expectations are roughly unchanged year to date. Expected bond market volatility is historically low.Indeed, one reason that recent intervention by the U.S. Treasury into the bond market was such a surprise to investors was the lack of these usual stress markers. Instead, the point at which these higher yields might have a larger market impact may be up to another factor: asset allocation. Today, 30-year Treasury bonds yield about 3 percent more than expected inflation over that period. Long-dated U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds once again yield more than 6 percent. And so, the question of when higher yields begin to matter may be less about when businesses stop borrowing or consumers stop spending. And be more about when investors decide that bonds offer better value than stocks. So far, Morgan Stanley Research is not seeing clear evidence of that shift. Fund flow data and market correlations do not suggest a significant reallocation away from equities, and strong earnings growth is helping support the equity valuation case. But these are metrics that we'll be watching. In the meantime, we think that rising U.S. debt and Treasury market intervention may weaken the U.S. dollar, especially against a high-yielding currency with much, much lower debt levels – the Australian dollar. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tbCQb9p5HiLo3sCqXuEOukmq0O-pN3aFZ-cP2IrO4L8Wed, 26 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discusses when and how higher yields and mounting U.S. debt could become more than abstract concerns.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, at what point do higher yields and higher debt actually matter? It's Wednesday, August 26th at 2pm in London. In its first 240 years, the United States of America accumulated roughly $20 trillion in federal debt. The country has borrowed another [$]20 trillion in just the last 10. The question for investors is when this debt load will act as a brake on economic activity? Or, worse, create stress that disrupts today's relative calm?So, let's start with the first question. For economic activity, the bar seems pretty high. You see, even with all the activity around AI, U.S. corporate debt as a share of the overall economy is broadly unchanged in the last decade and actually lower than where it was before the pandemic. The balance sheets of the household sector in the U.S. are even stronger. Household debt to GDP is lower than where it was prior to COVID and lower than where it was in the year 2000. And this may even understate the strength – because much of this debt is locked in at historically low mortgage rates; while household assets, the other side of the balance sheet, have soared to record levels.That may help explain why both consumers and businesses have remained more resilient than expected this year despite the higher interest rates and energy prices. This divergence of trend between public and private balance sheets is also global. Europe has also seen higher government debt offset by even more private sector de-leveraging, while Japan has seen rising public borrowing and pretty stable private sector leverage. To some degree, this divergence between the public and private sides of the economy reflects a policy choice. Governments determine how to balance taxation and spending. And many countries, not just the U.S., have reduced taxes over the last decade while allowing public borrowing to increase. A deterioration of public sector finances relative to private sector finances – it's not especially surprising given that choice. If strong balance sheets are helping U.S. households and companies be less sensitive to higher rates, where should we look for stress? Well, for all of this debt, the U.S. bond market is actually still pretty well-behaved. U.S. inflation expectations are roughly unchanged year to date. Expected bond market volatility is historically low.Indeed, one reason that recent intervention by the U.S. Treasury into the bond market was such a surprise to investors was the lack of these usual stress markers. Instead, the point at which these higher yields might have a larger market impact may be up to another factor: asset allocation. Today, 30-year Treasury bonds yield about 3 percent more than expected inflation over that period. Long-dated U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds once again yield more than 6 percent. And so, the question of when higher yields begin to matter may be less about when businesses stop borrowing or consumers stop spending. And be more about when investors decide that bonds offer better value than stocks. So far, Morgan Stanley Research is not seeing clear evidence of that shift. Fund flow data and market correlations do not suggest a significant reallocation away from equities, and strong earnings growth is helping support the equity valuation case. But these are metrics that we'll be watching. In the meantime, we think that rising U.S. debt and Treasury market intervention may weaken the U.S. dollar, especially against a high-yielding currency with much, much lower debt levels – the Australian...]]>260alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1715fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/measuring-the-market-s-megatrends--75644926insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome everyone to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research in Europe. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, Head of Asia Thematic Strategy. Walsh: And today we're discussing why thematic investing may be entering a new phase – moving from simply identifying big ideas to systematically measuring them.It's Tuesday, the 25th of August at 2pm in London. Weaver: It's 9am in New York. Blake: And it's 9pm in Singapore. Walsh: Daniel, let's kick our discussion off today. Thematic investing has become one of the most important ways for investors to think about long-term opportunities. But your latest work suggests the framework itself is evolving. So, what's changing? Blake: Well, if you look at where we've started. So thematic investing has been narrative-driven, focusing on identifying major structural trends for investors. So, at Morgan Stanley, we've identified core themes of artificial intelligence and tech diffusion, the future of energy, societal shifts, and the transition to a multipolar world. So, what's changing is that investment approaches are becoming much, much faster. So, we're now seeing clients deploy agentic AI to drive trade recommendations. And sure, AI can read a new 100-page thematic report from Morgan Stanley faster than humans. But for the right conclusions, it's important to connect these models with high-quality data sets. And we think that's going to be helpful for human investors as well. So, this is where the third phase of thematic investing comes in. The first phase was identifying secular trends that cut across markets and industries. The second phase was creating investable products around those themes. But this next phase is about measuring that exposure systematically in real time. So, this allows investors and their AI agents to identify whether a theme's importance is broadening or fading and to track individual companies' exposure to that theme over time. Walsh: So, the thematic investing is moving from narrative-driven to a higher velocity data-driven approach. And I guess that's where our thematic mapping exercise really comes in. So, Michelle, when investors hear the term thematic map, they may think it's just another screening tool. But it's much, much more than that, isn't it? Weaver: Absolutely. The easiest way to think about it is it's a research framework that sits on top of traditional sector and regional analysis. Historically, investors organize portfolios by country, sector, or industry group, and those verticals are still very important. But increasingly, the biggest investment forces cut horizontally across those boundaries. AI touches software companies, industrials names, healthcare, financials, and it's even had a huge impact on the utility sector.Thematic mapping helps us identify where those exposures exist across thousands of stocks, and importantly, how significant those exposures are – all with the help of our analyst experts. And the innovation isn't simply identifying if a company's exposed to AI, energy transition, or defense spending. It's determining whether that exposure is central to the investment thesis, just supportive or insignificant. And that's very different from traditional thematic baskets. Walsh: So, we identify the exposure, but the idea of significance seems particularly important because investors constantly hear companies talking about themes on earnings calls for example and in their public communications. But how do you separate genuine exposure from a more marketing-driven language around thematics, Daniel? Blake: This we see as the most valuable and ultimately human-driven part of the framework. So, as an example, we know that many companies are outlining their AI initiatives, and not all of them will end up being AI beneficiaries. So, the key question is how a given theme will impact revenues, margins, competitive positioning, and valuations. And this requires the deep knowledge of both the industry and the company, as well as where things are going. And so that's where our analysts come in. Across all countries, all sectors, mapping the materiality of their entire coverage, that's almost 4,000 companies, to every global theme in real time. Sp. our job in the thematic strategy team is to coordinate the framework, help identify emerging themes, and draw out the insights and recommendations. But the core insights are really coming at the analyst level, company by company. Walsh: And so, to your point, Daniel, it's about the analyst overlay in terms of significance that is really important. So, investors really shouldn't think of thematic exposure as a simple yes or no question… Blake: Exactly. That's really the new innovation in this framework, and most companies will sit somewhere along that spectrum for a given theme. And there's value in tracking how that position is changing over time. Walsh: Yeah, rate of change is clearly critical. And Michelle, one of the things I found particularly interesting is that the framework isn't just about identifying winners. It's also about identifying companies that may be challenged by structural change as well. Why don't you help our listeners understand why that's so important? Weaver: Because every major theme, yes, creates a lot of opportunity, but it also creates disruption. And I think investors naturally focus on beneficiaries. Where are we looking on the long side? But in many cases, understanding who might be negatively exposed can be just as valuable. If you think about AI, there are obvious beneficiaries, whether those are the big enablers or they're companies adopting the technology successfully. But there could also be companies facing pricing pressure, margin pressure, or broader disruption because of that same theme. And that's equally true whether we're thinking about the future of energy, societal shifts and big demographic realignments, or the multipolar world. And a complete thematic framework should help investors understand both parts of that equation. And this is becoming increasingly important as markets move from broad thematic enthusiasm towards more selective stock picking. Walsh: Absolutely. The ability of the thematic mapping to help us understand both sides the equation clearly incredibly important. Let’s bring it back to investors' portfolios. Daniel, how should investors think about thematic mapping as part of portfolio construction rather than simply stock selection? Blake: If you're looking at that portfolio construction level, whether you're a retail investor or you're one of the largest asset owners of sovereign funds, one of the biggest benefits is for revealing and managing hidden exposures.So, an investor might believe that their portfolio is diversified with positioning across many sectors and markets. But when you use the thematic map to underline, to explore the underlying thematic exposure, you might find that many of these holdings are tied to the same structural trend. So, the thematic map allows investors to better diversify portfolios while retaining the best expressions of desired themes. And as you mentioned, it's not just a screening tool. But it's pretty useful as a screening tool as well if you want to take exposure to a given theme overlay with valuations and preferences. It’s very helpful for that reason as well. Walsh: Yeah, understood Daniel. And Michelle, as we look stock markets right now, how are you seeing the opportunities via the thematic mapping work that we’ve done? Weaver: Flagging potential rotations is another key part of what this analysis offers. And if we think about your question from a valuation perspective, AI adopters currently look relatively inexpensive, but they still offer strong expected earnings growth. And we're also seeing analyst sentiment beginning to improve. You're seeing a growing number of companies having their earnings estimates revised higher. We're also seeing a similar opportunity across our societal shifts themes. Valuations here are well below their typical levels over the past decade. And at the same time, we're also seeing earnings expectations improve here. Walsh: So, perhaps the biggest takeaways are that thematic investing is becoming more measurable, more transparent, and more integrated into portfolio management. It's no longer just about spotting the next big idea. It's about understanding where that idea exists, how much it matters, and of course, how it's evolving. Michelle, Daniel, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Weaver: Great speaking with you Paul. Blake: Thanks for having us. Walsh: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/SyoUuW--cXTthSCgMePlPMZJ4-nbqp9Tnu9ha9obxwMTue, 25 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyPaul Walsh, Michelle Weaver and Daniel Blake discuss how thematic mapping can help investors separate true beneficiaries from market hype and identify risks hiding beneath the surface.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome everyone to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research in Europe. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, Head of Asia Thematic Strategy. Walsh: And today we're discussing why thematic investing may be entering a new phase – moving from simply identifying big ideas to systematically measuring them.It's Tuesday, the 25th of August at 2pm in London. Weaver: It's 9am in New York. Blake: And it's 9pm in Singapore. Walsh: Daniel, let's kick our discussion off today. Thematic investing has become one of the most important ways for investors to think about long-term opportunities. But your latest work suggests the framework itself is evolving. So, what's changing? Blake: Well, if you look at where we've started. So thematic investing has been narrative-driven, focusing on identifying major structural trends for investors. So, at Morgan Stanley, we've identified core themes of artificial intelligence and tech diffusion, the future of energy, societal shifts, and the transition to a multipolar world. So, what's changing is that investment approaches are becoming much, much faster. So, we're now seeing clients deploy agentic AI to drive trade recommendations. And sure, AI can read a new 100-page thematic report from Morgan Stanley faster than humans. But for the right conclusions, it's important to connect these models with high-quality data sets. And we think that's going to be helpful for human investors as well. So, this is where the third phase of thematic investing comes in. The first phase was identifying secular trends that cut across markets and industries. The second phase was creating investable products around those themes. But this next phase is about measuring that exposure systematically in real time. So, this allows investors and their AI agents to identify whether a theme's importance is broadening or fading and to track individual companies' exposure to that theme over time. Walsh: So, the thematic investing is moving from narrative-driven to a higher velocity data-driven approach. And I guess that's where our thematic mapping exercise really comes in. So, Michelle, when investors hear the term thematic map, they may think it's just another screening tool. But it's much, much more than that, isn't it? Weaver: Absolutely. The easiest way to think about it is it's a research framework that sits on top of traditional sector and regional analysis. Historically, investors organize portfolios by country, sector, or industry group, and those verticals are still very important. But increasingly, the biggest investment forces cut horizontally across those boundaries. AI touches software companies, industrials names, healthcare, financials, and it's even had a huge impact on the utility sector.Thematic mapping helps us identify where those exposures exist across thousands of stocks, and importantly, how significant those exposures are – all with the help of our analyst experts. And the innovation isn't simply identifying if a company's exposed to AI, energy transition, or defense spending. It's determining whether that exposure is central to the investment thesis, just supportive or insignificant. And that's very different from traditional thematic baskets. Walsh: So, we identify the exposure, but the idea of significance seems particularly important because investors constantly hear companies talking about themes on earnings calls for example and in their public communications. But how do you separate genuine exposure from a...]]>512alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1714fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/markets-faces-hotter-shorter-cycles--75644886insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Bonds may no longer provide the shelter investors have exMike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the shifting landscape in macro markets.It's Monday, August 24th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks we’ve seen large moves in rates, oil, gold and crypto. What does it mean for equities? First, investors are still treating these markets as separate stories, when they are all part of the same regime shift that began with COVID. More than six years ago, in the depths of that recession, I argued investors should prepare for the return of inflation. That was a very out of consensus view. At that time, the world was obsessed with deflation, the 10-year Treasury yield was below 1 percent, stocks had been hit hard, and gold was sitting around $1,500 an ounce. But the policy response to COVID – what I called helicopter money – changed the game. It marked the end of the 40-year disinflationary regime and a very different investment environment for investors to navigate. It is also the foundation of our run it hot thesis. In a world where inflation has returned, cycles are likely to be shorter, policy more reactive, and leadership changes more frequent. That is very different from the 1982-to-2020 period. Then falling inflation and falling rates allowed economic cycles to stretch for eight or 10 years. We are now in a world that looks more like the post-World War II era: stronger nominal GDP growth, more persistent inflation, higher economic volatility, and a bond market that is no longer the tailwind it used to be for risk assets. In short, the great secular bull market in bonds ended with COVID. This has huge implications for investors of all stripes. My near term view on rates is also different from the mainstream. A lot of investors are saying rates are rising because of debt and deficits. I am not dismissing those factors. But I think the bigger driver is strong nominal GDP growth, which really is the result of aggressive fiscal policy since the pandemic. We are in an era of fiscal dominance, and in that environment the Treasury and the Fed are forced to find ways to fund deficits without breaking markets. That is how I interpret the Treasury’s recent buyback activity. I don’t think this is quantitative easing or yield-curve control. The scale of the program is not large enough. Instead, it’s just another tool to maintain market functioning and stable financial conditions. So when I look at the large move in precious metals and crypto last week, to me it suggests that markets believe this is just a first step toward larger intervention – if financial conditions tighten further. For equities, this all reinforces the quality rotation we have been recommending. Since the peak rate of change in earnings revisions breadth in June, led by Semiconductors, the market has gone through a significant leadership change. Quality factors have started to outperform after a year of lagging, which is exactly what we would expect as a post-recession recovery matures. High free cash flow, high gross margins, stable sales growth, and low capex-to-sales factors have all been working. Some investors are frustrated that the S&P 500 barely sold off during the historic momentum unwind. But if quality is coming back into favor, that makes perfect sense. The S&P 500 is one of the highest-quality benchmarks in the world. Leadership at the stock level may continue to morph, but index leadership for the S&P is unlikely to fade – and may even get stronger. The near-term risk remains oil. Brent crude prices have moved higher over the past couple of weeks. And rising oil has historically been a much more reliable headwind for equities than falling oil has been a tailwind. Our still constructive equity view does not require crude to collapse. It simply requires crude to stop rising. If oil spikes again because the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, that could pressure input costs, push yields and bond volatility higher, and create another round of market instability. Bottom line, the run it hot regime is alive and well. It supports equities. But it also shortens cycles, increases rotations, and forces investors to be more tactical at times. I currently like large-cap quality stocks, AI adopters, and the S&P 500 over international peers. Hedge the oil risk with energy stocks and keep your head on a swivel as we navigate the next phase of this recovery and bull market. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ybsE3xHWB0LQjJmFxrcovbF9SRhO4Nqzzc_BqseDk2kMon, 24 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyBonds may no longer provide the shelter investors have expected. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson talks about the changing relationship between inflation, yields and risk.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Bonds may no longer provide the shelter investors have exMike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the shifting landscape in macro markets.It's Monday, August 24th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks we’ve seen large moves in rates, oil, gold and crypto. What does it mean for equities? First, investors are still treating these markets as separate stories, when they are all part of the same regime shift that began with COVID. More than six years ago, in the depths of that recession, I argued investors should prepare for the return of inflation. That was a very out of consensus view. At that time, the world was obsessed with deflation, the 10-year Treasury yield was below 1 percent, stocks had been hit hard, and gold was sitting around $1,500 an ounce. But the policy response to COVID – what I called helicopter money – changed the game. It marked the end of the 40-year disinflationary regime and a very different investment environment for investors to navigate. It is also the foundation of our run it hot thesis. In a world where inflation has returned, cycles are likely to be shorter, policy more reactive, and leadership changes more frequent. That is very different from the 1982-to-2020 period. Then falling inflation and falling rates allowed economic cycles to stretch for eight or 10 years. We are now in a world that looks more like the post-World War II era: stronger nominal GDP growth, more persistent inflation, higher economic volatility, and a bond market that is no longer the tailwind it used to be for risk assets. In short, the great secular bull market in bonds ended with COVID. This has huge implications for investors of all stripes. My near term view on rates is also different from the mainstream. A lot of investors are saying rates are rising because of debt and deficits. I am not dismissing those factors. But I think the bigger driver is strong nominal GDP growth, which really is the result of aggressive fiscal policy since the pandemic. We are in an era of fiscal dominance, and in that environment the Treasury and the Fed are forced to find ways to fund deficits without breaking markets. That is how I interpret the Treasury’s recent buyback activity. I don’t think this is quantitative easing or yield-curve control. The scale of the program is not large enough. Instead, it’s just another tool to maintain market functioning and stable financial conditions. So when I look at the large move in precious metals and crypto last week, to me it suggests that markets believe this is just a first step toward larger intervention – if financial conditions tighten further. For equities, this all reinforces the quality rotation we have been recommending. Since the peak rate of change in earnings revisions breadth in June, led by Semiconductors, the market has gone through a significant leadership change. Quality factors have started to outperform after a year of lagging, which is exactly what we would expect as a post-recession recovery matures. High free cash flow, high gross margins, stable sales growth, and low capex-to-sales factors have all been working. Some investors are frustrated that the S&P 500 barely sold off during the historic momentum unwind. But if quality is coming back into favor, that makes perfect sense. The S&P 500 is one of the highest-quality benchmarks in the world. Leadership at the stock level may continue to morph, but index leadership for the S&P is...]]>313alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1713fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/shifts-in-credit-markets-for-the-ai-buildout--75644907insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today: Why the summer of 2026 is all about AI Financing and the evolution of credit markets. It is Friday August 21st at 2pm in New York. The summer of 2026 may ultimately be remembered not for a new model release or a breakthrough chip, but for developments in AI financing that highlighted how quickly capital markets are adapting to the demands of the AI buildout. The starting point of our analysis remains unchanged: the demand for compute continues to outstrip supply of compute, resulting in upward revisions in AI infrastructure capex expectations as hyperscalers commit additional capital to secure future capacity. Our equity research colleagues now estimate that the total capex for the four largest hyperscalers will rise 57 percent in 2027 versus 2026. These spending plans reflect growing conviction that such investments can generate 25 percent plus returns on invested capital. At the same time, the lag between capex deployment and monetization continues to pressure near-term cash generation, with our analysts' 2027 free cash flow estimates for the four hyperscalers continuing to move lower. To a credit analyst, what this means is that the result is a widening financing gap in 2027. That means AI-related credit issuance will remain substantial and may even need to increase further before cash flows from these investments begin to catch up. Developments in credit spreads this summer have been equally telling. Credit spreads for hyperscalers have widened meaningfully. More notable even than the absolute level of widening is the divergence across financing channels. For example, spread widening was most pronounced in unsecured bonds, where issuance volumes accelerated sharply and investors remained exposed to a broader range of risks tied to the AI investment cycle. By contrast, spread widening in data center ABS and CMBS was much more modest. These structures are backed by operating assets that have already been constructed, powered, and leased, with contractual cash flows largely established. Combined with a more measured pace of issuance, these characteristics helped insulate securitized credit products from the volatility seen in unsecured credit markets. The divergence across credit markets also reflects the differences in issuer incentives and sensitivity to funding costs, which will shape issuance volumes going forward. At the higher end of the quality spectrum, the major hyperscalers, with average ratings of roughly AA, combine substantial financing needs with significant ratings flexibility. Given their ROIC expectations, these issuers are relatively insensitive to modest changes in borrowing costs. Higher funding costs alone are unlikely to materially slow capital raising by the highest-quality participants in the AI ecosystem. The opposite is true further down the quality spectrum. Lower quality hyperscalers and data center developers, including former bitcoin miners and REITs, have less balance-sheet flexibility and lower tolerance for higher funding costs. For these borrowers, wider spreads represent a more meaningful constraint, making funding costs a natural stabilizer of future supply. The next phase of AI financing is also likely to look quite a bit different as incremental capex shifts from data center shells toward compute equipment, particularly servers and chips, as well as energy assets. While some of these assets have already been financed through high-yield bonds and leveraged loans, compute infrastructure is particularly well-suited to asset-level financing, creating a larger role for private capital. The emergence of large-scale component financing is likely to be enabled by the highest-quality issuers flexing their ratings as well as balance-sheet strength. We expect these issuers to increasingly provide backstops, credit support arrangements, and residual value guarantees, helping private capital underwrite ever-larger pools of AI infrastructure assets. As AI scales from a technology cycle into a capital cycle, understanding the nuances of financing is becoming increasingly important. In the next phase of the AI buildout, understanding the flow of capital may prove nearly as important as understanding the flow of innovation itself. AI is no longer just a technology story. It is increasingly a capital markets story as well. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8aLj0HjMDPvpnlpO_7csFlUWeT580ULFPPfh3ZeFo8sFri, 21 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAI’s enormous capital requirements are reshaping the way companies tap credit markets. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur takes stock of this summer’s key financing developments. Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today: Why the summer of 2026 is all about AI Financing and the evolution of credit markets. It is Friday August 21st at 2pm in New York. The summer of 2026 may ultimately be remembered not for a new model release or a breakthrough chip, but for developments in AI financing that highlighted how quickly capital markets are adapting to the demands of the AI buildout. The starting point of our analysis remains unchanged: the demand for compute continues to outstrip supply of compute, resulting in upward revisions in AI infrastructure capex expectations as hyperscalers commit additional capital to secure future capacity. Our equity research colleagues now estimate that the total capex for the four largest hyperscalers will rise 57 percent in 2027 versus 2026. These spending plans reflect growing conviction that such investments can generate 25 percent plus returns on invested capital. At the same time, the lag between capex deployment and monetization continues to pressure near-term cash generation, with our analysts' 2027 free cash flow estimates for the four hyperscalers continuing to move lower. To a credit analyst, what this means is that the result is a widening financing gap in 2027. That means AI-related credit issuance will remain substantial and may even need to increase further before cash flows from these investments begin to catch up. Developments in credit spreads this summer have been equally telling. Credit spreads for hyperscalers have widened meaningfully. More notable even than the absolute level of widening is the divergence across financing channels. For example, spread widening was most pronounced in unsecured bonds, where issuance volumes accelerated sharply and investors remained exposed to a broader range of risks tied to the AI investment cycle. By contrast, spread widening in data center ABS and CMBS was much more modest. These structures are backed by operating assets that have already been constructed, powered, and leased, with contractual cash flows largely established. Combined with a more measured pace of issuance, these characteristics helped insulate securitized credit products from the volatility seen in unsecured credit markets. The divergence across credit markets also reflects the differences in issuer incentives and sensitivity to funding costs, which will shape issuance volumes going forward. At the higher end of the quality spectrum, the major hyperscalers, with average ratings of roughly AA, combine substantial financing needs with significant ratings flexibility. Given their ROIC expectations, these issuers are relatively insensitive to modest changes in borrowing costs. Higher funding costs alone are unlikely to materially slow capital raising by the highest-quality participants in the AI ecosystem. The opposite is true further down the quality spectrum. Lower quality hyperscalers and data center developers, including former bitcoin miners and REITs, have less balance-sheet flexibility and lower tolerance for higher funding costs. For these borrowers, wider spreads represent a more meaningful constraint, making funding costs a natural stabilizer of future supply. The next phase of AI financing is also likely to look quite a bit different as incremental capex shifts from data center shells toward compute equipment, particularly servers and chips, as well as energy assets. While some of these assets have already been financed through high-yield bonds and leveraged loans, compute...]]>315alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1712fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-new-map-of-ai-power--75644895insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Head of Global Thematic Research at Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about AI sovereignty, what it means, what countries around the world are doing to advance their own goals, and what a more fragmented AI ecosystem could mean for investors.It's Thursday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. Stephen Byrd: And it's 9pm in Helsinki. Ariana Salvatore: As AI becomes more powerful and therefore more important to the global economy, countries are asking a basic question: How much of it do we need to control ourselves? That's at the heart of AI sovereignty, making sure governments around the world can access the computing power, data, energy, and technology they need even as geopolitical tensions may rise. Stephen Byrd: And that seems to fit into a broader trend we've been talking about for some time, a more multipolar world where governments are increasingly willing to intervene in markets around strategically important technologies. Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. We describe this as a potential ‘two worlds dynamic.’ The U.S. and China have been gradually de-risking from one another, particularly in advanced technology. We've already seen policy tools, including export controls, tariffs, and incentives for domestic manufacturing. And as AI becomes more strategically important, our expectation is for policy intervention to increase rather than decrease. But what's interesting is that the U.S. and China aren't necessarily pursuing sovereignty in the same way. Stephen Byrd: So, let's unpack that. Can you start with the U.S.? What does the American approach look like? Ariana Salvatore: Yes. We think the U.S. is trying to do two things at once, basically. On one hand, it wants to preserve national security guardrails around some of the most sensitive AI capabilities. But on the other hand, it has an incentive to make sure the American AI tech stack is broadly available to allies and partners. So, there's an inherent tension there between those two objectives. Obviously, if you restrict access too much, you can encourage other countries to develop alternatives,. But if you allow unrestricted access, policymakers may begin to worry about losing control over strategically important technology. So, the way that we chart this is through a middle path. We think the direction of travel looks less like complete technological separation and more like selective access – tighter controls around sensitive capabilities alongside an effort to maintain the global reach of the U.S. AI ecosystem. Stephen Byrd: Whereas China's approach is more focused on building out an indigenous ecosystem. Specifically, we see policymakers in China pursuing greater self-sufficiency across the AI stack, from chips and computing infrastructure to cloud and models. Our China strategists argue that bifurcation could actually increase China's incentive to build a larger China-compatible AI ecosystem abroad, particularly across the Global South and other markets that aren't firmly aligned with the U.S. ecosystem. China's model emphasizes lower-cost models, open weight ecosystems, subsidized compute, cloud partnerships and infrastructure exports. So, the competition could increasingly be about not only which country has the most advanced model, but which ecosystem can achieve the widest adoption. Ariana Salvatore: That's right, and that brings us back to this idea of two worlds. So, Stephen, is the implication here that we're going to be heading toward two completely separate AI systems? Stephen Byrd: Not necessarily, I'd say. You know, the supply chains are still deeply interconnected, so our research does not suggest a sudden decoupling. But we could see greater duplication and less globally fungible infrastructure. Countries may increasingly want compute located domestically or regionally. Sensitive data may need to stay within particular jurisdictions, and companies may need different cloud cybersecurity or distribution arrangements in different markets. And that means the same global level of AI demand could require more physical infrastructure than it would in a completely integrated world. Ariana Salvatore: So, fragmentation, like other themes within multipolarity, are more economically inefficient. But potentially pretty important for the investment cycle. We think sovereign AI can make the system more redundant and more capital-intensive as a result. Our research teams think there are potential beneficiaries from that across semiconductors, data centers, networking, power, cloud, cybersecurity, and infrastructure software. Let's look at data centers specifically. If governments and enterprises increasingly require local hosting and greater control over sensitive data, you will inevitably need more geographically distributed infrastructure. Colocation operators, we think, can benefit because they provide the power, cooling, space, security, and interconnection that can allow customers to keep workloads in specific jurisdictions. So, the fragmentation we're talking about may introduce inefficiency at a system level while simultaneously creating incremental infrastructure demand.  Stephen Byrd: And there's another constraint here that we probably shouldn't overlook, which is energy. Compute ultimately needs power. So, access to reliable, affordable electricity becomes part of a country's competitive position in AI, which ties into our politics of energy theme that we outlined in January of this year. But as we've also noted, that creates a political constraint. Our thematic work has highlighted rising concern around the impact of data center growth on power prices and on local infrastructure. This has really shown up in a big way in the U.S. And that can mean more pressure to protect existing rate payers, more emphasis on low-cost power. And greater interest in behind-the-meter or off-grid power solutions that allow data centers to secure electricity without putting the same pressure on the grid. Ariana Salvatore: Which suggests that there's a cost, in fact, to AI sovereignty as well. Stephen Byrd: Absolutely. And if countries want more domestic compute, duplicated infrastructure, localized supply chains, and greater redundancy, the system may become more resilient, but potentially more expensive – and we're certainly seeing signs of it being more expensive. Compute and power are already constrained in many markets. Add to that regulatory requirements, localization, and potential restrictions on technology transfer, and reducing dependence can carry an inflationary cost. So, for investors, I think the question isn't simply whether sovereign AI increases spending. It's also where that spending has to occur, what gets duplicated, and which parts of the stack become strategically indispensable. Ariana Salvatore: So, Steven, to frame this for investors, the way we see this theme unfolding suggests that sovereign AI reinforces rather than undermines the broader AI CapEx cycle. We think competition between the U.S. and China is intensifying. Countries outside those two ecosystems increasingly will want greater national resilience and flexibility. And that combination can support additional spending on compute, data centers, networking, and power for years to come. Lastly, an increasingly important question is who controls and supplies that infrastructure, energy, standards, and supply chains that will allow those models to operate at scale? Stephen Byrd: And that may ultimately be the most important thing to watch. Sovereign AI is another example of geopolitics moving directly into the technology investment cycle and potentially changing not only where AI gets built, but how much infrastructure the world needs to build it. Ariana Salvatore: Steven, we'll leave it there. Thanks so much for joining me. Stephen Byrd: Great to be here, Ariana. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Roh0NPLBBV1RU2HwRQosJwKy4VDgwPLVKwoPfQc3AWwThu, 20 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyAI is becoming a matter of national strategy, as countries seek more control over their own technology. Our Heads of U.S. Public Policy Ariana Salvatore and Global Thematic Research Stephen Byrd look at the race for AI sovereignty and its implications...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Head of Global Thematic Research at Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about AI sovereignty, what it means, what countries around the world are doing to advance their own goals, and what a more fragmented AI ecosystem could mean for investors.It's Thursday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. Stephen Byrd: And it's 9pm in Helsinki. Ariana Salvatore: As AI becomes more powerful and therefore more important to the global economy, countries are asking a basic question: How much of it do we need to control ourselves? That's at the heart of AI sovereignty, making sure governments around the world can access the computing power, data, energy, and technology they need even as geopolitical tensions may rise. Stephen Byrd: And that seems to fit into a broader trend we've been talking about for some time, a more multipolar world where governments are increasingly willing to intervene in markets around strategically important technologies. Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. We describe this as a potential ‘two worlds dynamic.’ The U.S. and China have been gradually de-risking from one another, particularly in advanced technology. We've already seen policy tools, including export controls, tariffs, and incentives for domestic manufacturing. And as AI becomes more strategically important, our expectation is for policy intervention to increase rather than decrease. But what's interesting is that the U.S. and China aren't necessarily pursuing sovereignty in the same way. Stephen Byrd: So, let's unpack that. Can you start with the U.S.? What does the American approach look like? Ariana Salvatore: Yes. We think the U.S. is trying to do two things at once, basically. On one hand, it wants to preserve national security guardrails around some of the most sensitive AI capabilities. But on the other hand, it has an incentive to make sure the American AI tech stack is broadly available to allies and partners. So, there's an inherent tension there between those two objectives. Obviously, if you restrict access too much, you can encourage other countries to develop alternatives,. But if you allow unrestricted access, policymakers may begin to worry about losing control over strategically important technology. So, the way that we chart this is through a middle path. We think the direction of travel looks less like complete technological separation and more like selective access – tighter controls around sensitive capabilities alongside an effort to maintain the global reach of the U.S. AI ecosystem. Stephen Byrd: Whereas China's approach is more focused on building out an indigenous ecosystem. Specifically, we see policymakers in China pursuing greater self-sufficiency across the AI stack, from chips and computing infrastructure to cloud and models. Our China strategists argue that bifurcation could actually increase China's incentive to build a larger China-compatible AI ecosystem abroad, particularly across the Global South and other markets that aren't firmly aligned with the U.S. ecosystem. China's model emphasizes lower-cost models, open weight ecosystems, subsidized compute, cloud partnerships and infrastructure exports. So, the competition could increasingly be about not only which country has the most advanced model, but which ecosystem can achieve the widest adoption. Ariana Salvatore: That's right, and that...]]>477alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1711fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/el-nino-s-ripple-effects-on-markets--75644922insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Julia Rizzo, Latin America Agribusiness Analyst at Morgan Stanley. Today: how El Niño could move from the Pacific into commodity markets, grocery prices, and investor portfolios. It’s Wednesday, August 19th, at 10am in Sao Paulo.You may not follow rainfall patterns in Brazil or cocoa-growing conditions in West Africa. But you immediately notice when chocolate, groceries, or electricity cost more. And you can connect the dots to El Niño -- a warming cycle in the Pacific Ocean that disrupts weather globally. It changes where rain falls and shapes the outlook for crops, power markets, transportation, and inflation. There is now a 95 percent chance of a very strong El Niño in the fourth quarter of 2026. It could end up being among the most powerful events in more than 75 years of recorded history. Timing and location matter greatly. Crop damage often depends on whether heat or heavy rain arrives during a narrow planting, flowering, or harvest window. The most direct effects are likely to appear first in commodities. Sugar is on the list of commodities most exposed to favorable price dynamics from weather conditions. Cocoa also looks tight. Grains are more complicated. Soybeans need evidence of a net South American production loss. Problems in northern Brazil may be offset by stronger crops in Argentina or Brazil south. Corn is even more dependent on timing. The key near-term catalyst remains U.S. weather and crops. What happens next matters well beyond agricultural markets. Food is the main channel through which El Niño reaches the broader economy, and the effect usually appears after a one-year lag. That makes inflation primarily a 2027 story. In Latin America, the largest incremental inflation risks are concentrated in Peru, Brazil, and Colombia, with most of the pressure arriving in 2027. That matters for central banks. Weather shocks can fade. So, policymakers often look through an initial rise in food prices. The greater concern is that higher food costs may begin to influence inflation expectations, wages, rents, or other prices across the economy. Colombia stands out as the clearest case where those second-round effects could complicate monetary policy. India and Indonesia also face meaningful economic exposure. Agriculture accounts for a large share of output and employment in these countries. India is especially sensitive. Agriculture represents about 18 percent of the GDP, 43 to 45 [percent] of jobs, while food makes up roughly 36 percent of the consumer price basket. Record food reserves may provide some protection, though a poor growing season could still weigh on rural incomes and keep food inflation elevated. The economic consequences will vary widely. Higher agricultural prices can support farmer income and benefit some parts of the food and agricultural supply chain. They can also raise costs for households, food producers, and businesses that depend on grains and sugar. Utilities may benefit in markets where hotter or drier conditions lift electricity prices, while heavy rainfall could disrupt transport routes and airports in those exposed regions. Historical asset-price signals are limited, so this is less of a broad macro trade than a detailed assessment of local exposure. Rainfall, crop timing, inventories, and the ability to pass higher costs on to consumers will determine where the pressure lands. El Niño may begin in the Pacific, but its market footprint can travel from cocoa farms in West Africa to a grocery aisle, a power grid, or a central bank meeting. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4W4BSKG3gXq8M88mCFXcKTDnUgdB1sSKpnyy1MSL_OUWed, 19 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyFrom chocolate and sugar prices to energy markets and inflation, El Niño’s impacts may soon reach far beyond the weather forecast. Our Latin America Agribusiness Analyst Julia Rizzo maps out where the pressure could emerge first.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Julia Rizzo, Latin America Agribusiness Analyst at Morgan Stanley. Today: how El Niño could move from the Pacific into commodity markets, grocery prices, and investor portfolios. It’s Wednesday, August 19th, at 10am in Sao Paulo.You may not follow rainfall patterns in Brazil or cocoa-growing conditions in West Africa. But you immediately notice when chocolate, groceries, or electricity cost more. And you can connect the dots to El Niño -- a warming cycle in the Pacific Ocean that disrupts weather globally. It changes where rain falls and shapes the outlook for crops, power markets, transportation, and inflation. There is now a 95 percent chance of a very strong El Niño in the fourth quarter of 2026. It could end up being among the most powerful events in more than 75 years of recorded history. Timing and location matter greatly. Crop damage often depends on whether heat or heavy rain arrives during a narrow planting, flowering, or harvest window. The most direct effects are likely to appear first in commodities. Sugar is on the list of commodities most exposed to favorable price dynamics from weather conditions. Cocoa also looks tight. Grains are more complicated. Soybeans need evidence of a net South American production loss. Problems in northern Brazil may be offset by stronger crops in Argentina or Brazil south. Corn is even more dependent on timing. The key near-term catalyst remains U.S. weather and crops. What happens next matters well beyond agricultural markets. Food is the main channel through which El Niño reaches the broader economy, and the effect usually appears after a one-year lag. That makes inflation primarily a 2027 story. In Latin America, the largest incremental inflation risks are concentrated in Peru, Brazil, and Colombia, with most of the pressure arriving in 2027. That matters for central banks. Weather shocks can fade. So, policymakers often look through an initial rise in food prices. The greater concern is that higher food costs may begin to influence inflation expectations, wages, rents, or other prices across the economy. Colombia stands out as the clearest case where those second-round effects could complicate monetary policy. India and Indonesia also face meaningful economic exposure. Agriculture accounts for a large share of output and employment in these countries. India is especially sensitive. Agriculture represents about 18 percent of the GDP, 43 to 45 [percent] of jobs, while food makes up roughly 36 percent of the consumer price basket. Record food reserves may provide some protection, though a poor growing season could still weigh on rural incomes and keep food inflation elevated. The economic consequences will vary widely. Higher agricultural prices can support farmer income and benefit some parts of the food and agricultural supply chain. They can also raise costs for households, food producers, and businesses that depend on grains and sugar. Utilities may benefit in markets where hotter or drier conditions lift electricity prices, while heavy rainfall could disrupt transport routes and airports in those exposed regions. Historical asset-price signals are limited, so this is less of a broad macro trade than a detailed assessment of local exposure. Rainfall, crop timing, inventories, and the ability to pass higher costs on to consumers will determine where the pressure lands. El Niño may begin in the Pacific, but its market footprint can travel from cocoa farms in West Africa to a grocery aisle, a power grid, or a central bank...]]>275alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1710fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/korean-stocks-from-correction-to-a-healthy-recovery--75644924insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Joon Seok, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea Equity Strategist.Today: Why Korea’s equity market may be moving from a sharp reset toward a broader and more sustainable recovery.It’s Tuesday, August 18th, at 2pm in Seoul.South Korea’s stock market has delivered the kind of ride that makes even long-term investors check their phones more often than they would like. The KOSPI surged 101 percent in the first half of 2026, then fell more than 38 percent from its peak by July 30th. But the market now appears to be moving toward a more durable recovery.The first reason is valuation. Take the KOSPI’s forward price-to-earnings ratio, which compares share prices with expected profits over the next year. It fell below five times, its lowest level since 2004. Our capitulation index also dropped to minus 2.53. This index combines market momentum with the breadth of the sell-off, so it helps show whether fear has become widespread. Readings below minus two have often marked troughing territory outside the major crises.The second reason is that forced selling appears to be easing. Now, we have seen leverage as a double-edged sword as leverage helped fuel the rally, but it also made the decline sharper as investors were forced to cut positions. Assets in leveraged single-stock ETFs have fallen about 70 percent from their June peak, and margin lending has also come down. Now, hedge funds have completed roughly three quarters of a typical risk-reduction cycle. Put simply, the most intense selling may already be behind us.Still, a healthier recovery needs more than a rebound by the tech sector. Tech remains central because AI infrastructure continues to drive demand for advanced memory. Morgan Stanley Research expects global spending by large tech platforms to reach 805 billion U.S. dollars in [20]26 and 1.2 trillion dollars in [20]27. That creates a lot of opportunity – but it also keeps markets sensitive to any change in capital spending, chip pricing or competition.The broader Korean economy offers support. Real GDP growth has exceeded 3 percent for two consecutive quarters, up sharply from 1.1 percent in 2025. Full-year growth is now likely to land in the mid-3 percent range; and generally, Korea’s growth is around 2 percent. Importantly, the improvement is spreading beyond exports. Consumption is recovering, tourism has surpassed pre-pandemic levels, and the government is targeting 23 million foreign tourists this year.There are trade-offs. Inflation reached 3.2 percent in June, and the Bank of Korea raised its policy rate to 2.75 percent. A measured hiking cycle could take rates to 3.5 percent by the first quarter of 2027. Higher rates may help financial-sector earnings, but they also raise financing costs for households and businesses.The source of market liquidity is changing as well. Domestic retail investors drove much of the first-half rally, but tighter leverage rules mean foreign investors are likely to determine the next leg higher. Corporate-governance reforms and better capital management could also encourage broader international participation.We continue to see a path toward a KOSPI target of 9,000 by June 2027, with a bull case of 10,500 and a bear case of 5,500. The next phase should be steadier and more balanced. Industrials, financials, healthcare, communications, and consumer staples should also contribute alongside technology.Korea still has room to run. But the stronger signal may be quality – meaning earnings resilience, disciplined capital management and broader participation. The stock market’s initial rally was fueled by speed and concentrated leadership. The next phase will require wider and more durable support.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gSeoHIDWL2HSl_fuZQTPjeftV97x8YDxnUBXJ1fUhLYWed, 19 Aug 2026 00:30:00 +0000gtyAfter a historic rally and a sharp correction, South Korea’s equity market may be approaching a turning point. Our Chief Korea Equity Strategist, Joon Seok, explains that the next cycle will need stronger foundations and more sectors joining in.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Joon Seok, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea Equity Strategist.Today: Why Korea’s equity market may be moving from a sharp reset toward a broader and more sustainable recovery.It’s Tuesday, August 18th, at 2pm in Seoul.South Korea’s stock market has delivered the kind of ride that makes even long-term investors check their phones more often than they would like. The KOSPI surged 101 percent in the first half of 2026, then fell more than 38 percent from its peak by July 30th. But the market now appears to be moving toward a more durable recovery.The first reason is valuation. Take the KOSPI’s forward price-to-earnings ratio, which compares share prices with expected profits over the next year. It fell below five times, its lowest level since 2004. Our capitulation index also dropped to minus 2.53. This index combines market momentum with the breadth of the sell-off, so it helps show whether fear has become widespread. Readings below minus two have often marked troughing territory outside the major crises.The second reason is that forced selling appears to be easing. Now, we have seen leverage as a double-edged sword as leverage helped fuel the rally, but it also made the decline sharper as investors were forced to cut positions. Assets in leveraged single-stock ETFs have fallen about 70 percent from their June peak, and margin lending has also come down. Now, hedge funds have completed roughly three quarters of a typical risk-reduction cycle. Put simply, the most intense selling may already be behind us.Still, a healthier recovery needs more than a rebound by the tech sector. Tech remains central because AI infrastructure continues to drive demand for advanced memory. Morgan Stanley Research expects global spending by large tech platforms to reach 805 billion U.S. dollars in [20]26 and 1.2 trillion dollars in [20]27. That creates a lot of opportunity – but it also keeps markets sensitive to any change in capital spending, chip pricing or competition.The broader Korean economy offers support. Real GDP growth has exceeded 3 percent for two consecutive quarters, up sharply from 1.1 percent in 2025. Full-year growth is now likely to land in the mid-3 percent range; and generally, Korea’s growth is around 2 percent. Importantly, the improvement is spreading beyond exports. Consumption is recovering, tourism has surpassed pre-pandemic levels, and the government is targeting 23 million foreign tourists this year.There are trade-offs. Inflation reached 3.2 percent in June, and the Bank of Korea raised its policy rate to 2.75 percent. A measured hiking cycle could take rates to 3.5 percent by the first quarter of 2027. Higher rates may help financial-sector earnings, but they also raise financing costs for households and businesses.The source of market liquidity is changing as well. Domestic retail investors drove much of the first-half rally, but tighter leverage rules mean foreign investors are likely to determine the next leg higher. Corporate-governance reforms and better capital management could also encourage broader international participation.We continue to see a path toward a KOSPI target of 9,000 by June 2027, with a bull case of 10,500 and a bear case of 5,500. The next phase should be steadier and more balanced. Industrials, financials, healthcare, communications, and consumer staples should also contribute alongside technology.Korea still has room to run. But the stronger signal may be quality – meaning earnings resilience, disciplined capital...]]>277alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1709fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/when-ai-takes-over-shopping-carts--75644909insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Ruben: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Ruben, Latin America Retail and E-commerce Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Nathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Ruben: Today, what happens when the shopping cart starts thinking for itself and maybe even for you?It's Monday, August 17th at 10am in New York.As we think about trends that are driving e-commerce, which remains a share gainer within the overall retail landscape, it seems that there's a transformation that's quickly building around agentic e-commerce.So, Nathan, I think it's timely for us to talk today as agentic seems like it could be the next catalyzer of growth and innovation within the e-commerce landscape.Nathan Feather: How much bigger do we think agentic commerce could make the global e-commerce market?Andrew Ruben: Global e-commerce as we see it is a nearly [$]5 trillion market today. That implies 22 percent of retail sales. The way we see over the next five years is a $7 trillion opportunity, with growth accelerating to a 9 percent compounded rate, up from about 7 percent over the past four years. And this is partly on the tailwinds from agentic.What we see here is this broad arc of reducing friction with e-commerce over time.Think about how easy it is now to pick up your phone, search for some inventory, click, and the goods can be here within one, two days, if not same day. That's reduction of friction that we think physical retail can't match, and the improvements of agentic commerce. Having this agent that can help you search, help you discover – that should further the e-commerce opportunity.We think agentic alone could add about 6 percent to the five-year e-commerce addressable market, with about 20 percent of industry volumes having some material agent influence.So, within this opportunity, Nathan, agentic isn't one size. How should investors distinguish between AI influence shopping and fully autonomous purchasing?Nathan Feather: To your point, there's a wide different flavors that we're calling agentic commerce. And it starts really at the top of the funnel with, you know, you could go to your chatbot of choice and say, ‘I want a hiking backpack with a water bottle slot and a place to hold my keys,’ right? ‘Show me the best options in a certain price range.’And there you're capturing the top of the funnel, but as you click in, you may bounce out to a retailer and purchase on there. Or it could go even further, and maybe you complete your entire checkout within that specific chatbot.Now, right now what we're seeing is about half of consumers are starting the top of the funnel at least sometimes with a chatbot, but a very small portion are actually completing purchases. And so, as time evolves, we expect that funnel to widen and start to see a little bit more of this fully autonomous purchasing; although for the most part, we think it's really going to remain top of funnel and mid-funnel.Now, adoption does look very different across regions, partially because of different consumer behaviors. Why has AI shopping gained more traction in some markets than in others?Andrew Ruben: I think that's right, and what we see is so far to date, agentic shopping has been led by the U.S. and China. These are the two largest e-commerce markets globally, also among the highest penetration. Some data to support it: We have proprietary Morgan Stanley AlphaWise survey that show about 30 percent of China consumers shopping using AI tools over the past month. And that compares to about 12 percent in Brazil.Now, we do see some barriers in terms of the pace of companies' innovation, but I think this is more a matter of time. The example you give of that shopping journey, that does seem like it should be applicable globally.There is also a second barrier, and that would be trust. We do see that consumers are using AI search, using AI discovery, and as they get more comfortable with agentic, we think the use cases can increase over time. But as we see consumers today, they're comfortable with search, but not many are willing to let AI do the full end-to-end checkout.Ultimately, as we see it, the companies will drive the innovation, but it's consumers who determine uptake.And that raises the question of who owns the customer journey. Do retailers keep control, or do the general AI agents take the lead?Nathan Feather: To be frank, this is one of the major unanswered questions within this market. And, you know, we can speculate, but we're not going to know for a few years. So, let's go through the potential paths here.I think the first goes within the customer journey. Where does the customer want to check out? Who has the best experience as you go through that journey? And early on, it's retailers. They have your purchase history. They have your payment information. They have your shipping.To your point, they're trusted. You know if you're going to shop at one of these large retailers, you're going to get what you want. And if you don't, you're going to be able to get that refunded.And so, we think at least early on, retailers will likely keep control of that purchase journey and actually be able to innovate a lot on site. Launch on-site agents that are able to get you to the inventory they have even faster.But retailers could gain control over time. They can shop across multiple websites. They can price match. And so, it is going to be a question over time which of these ends up taking the lead. And the economics will change as a result of that.And Andrew, what determines whether agentic commerce ends up generating purchases that wouldn't have happened otherwise rather than simply shifting existing sales to a new channel?Andrew Ruben: It's a good point on the economics because let's say an agentic transaction happens on a company's site. You do still have costs, and that relates to the large language model. The conversation query going back and forth, that's going to be more expensive than a traditional keyword search.So, here's where incrementality comes in. If you're a consumer that's having this transaction on the site, we think that gives better targeting, better information, and should ultimately put the product in front of you that you want to buy. And what this translates to is incremental sales, a sale that wouldn't have happened if you only had traditional search or an experience that you couldn't match in the physical channel.So, we do think that if the sale is incremental and those model costs eventually come down, then that's the setup for an agentic sale to be profitable. I'd also mention the advertising business. It's important for e-commerce having suppliers that will pay to be one of the product listings up front.Our view is that if you're searching better, then you should get better discovery, and the value of that top real estate should hold. That should be more important for the supplier with better targeting, and they can pay up for that.But there is the risk on the other side. How real do you think the risk is that external agents divert traffic and advertising dollars away from e-commerce platforms?Nathan Feather: Well, the risk is real, and it's really dependent on the customer journey. You know, if you go to a chatbot today, you're expecting when you type in your query, you're going to get the most accurate result that they can offer. The issue with advertising is people are paying for that top slot. It's not inherently maybe the best product. It's the person who wanted to pay the most to get that top slot.When you go to, you know, a search website, it's not necessarily the expectation, right? You know that the first few results are going to be paid, and then there's going to be organic after that. And so, from a customer side of things, there's going to be a question of whether there's the permission to see advertising within that flow.If there's not, you could see advertising dollars get diverted, and that is a risk. If you look at large e-commerce retailers, especially marketplaces today, a majority or sometimes all of their profits actually come from the on-site advertising that exists. And so, it's something worth watching. Although we note early on, this ended up being less of a risk than people initially expected.Now, zooming out here, we've covered a lot of ground. So, as we think about it broadly, what are the likely factors that separate the winners here? In other words, what are the capabilities that matter most as we move into an agentic world?Andrew Ruben: Right. And to get to those capabilities, I think agentic commerce is going to improve e-commerce as a digital service. But this still surrounds the movement, the sourcing, the pricing of physical goods.So, I believe that the rules of retail and e-commerce should still hold. That's the fundamentals of do you have the broad selection, the right inventory at the right location that can get to the right consumer? Second, the ability and willingness to innovate. That's companies that have their own agents, that have partnerships, that are developing these tools we think will be better positioned.And then third, thinking about some complementary assets. If you're a marketplace platform with logistics, with loyalty, with financial services, this should support the positioning depending on how the customer journey evolves. Each of these factors we think will matter in an agentic world.And then finally, what evidence should investors watch to see whether agentic commerce has moved from experimentation to a durable growth driver?Nathan Feather:]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XTr7I0mD70CzwXIPuGOFbPdDhP2HmgsPe0Se0z4ev84Mon, 17 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Andrew Ruben and Nathan Feather discuss how AI shopping agents could transform how consumers discover, compare and buy products and the implications for eCommerce.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Ruben: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Ruben, Latin America Retail and E-commerce Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Nathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Ruben: Today, what happens when the shopping cart starts thinking for itself and maybe even for you?It's Monday, August 17th at 10am in New York.As we think about trends that are driving e-commerce, which remains a share gainer within the overall retail landscape, it seems that there's a transformation that's quickly building around agentic e-commerce.So, Nathan, I think it's timely for us to talk today as agentic seems like it could be the next catalyzer of growth and innovation within the e-commerce landscape.Nathan Feather: How much bigger do we think agentic commerce could make the global e-commerce market?Andrew Ruben: Global e-commerce as we see it is a nearly [$]5 trillion market today. That implies 22 percent of retail sales. The way we see over the next five years is a $7 trillion opportunity, with growth accelerating to a 9 percent compounded rate, up from about 7 percent over the past four years. And this is partly on the tailwinds from agentic.What we see here is this broad arc of reducing friction with e-commerce over time.Think about how easy it is now to pick up your phone, search for some inventory, click, and the goods can be here within one, two days, if not same day. That's reduction of friction that we think physical retail can't match, and the improvements of agentic commerce. Having this agent that can help you search, help you discover – that should further the e-commerce opportunity.We think agentic alone could add about 6 percent to the five-year e-commerce addressable market, with about 20 percent of industry volumes having some material agent influence.So, within this opportunity, Nathan, agentic isn't one size. How should investors distinguish between AI influence shopping and fully autonomous purchasing?Nathan Feather: To your point, there's a wide different flavors that we're calling agentic commerce. And it starts really at the top of the funnel with, you know, you could go to your chatbot of choice and say, ‘I want a hiking backpack with a water bottle slot and a place to hold my keys,’ right? ‘Show me the best options in a certain price range.’And there you're capturing the top of the funnel, but as you click in, you may bounce out to a retailer and purchase on there. Or it could go even further, and maybe you complete your entire checkout within that specific chatbot.Now, right now what we're seeing is about half of consumers are starting the top of the funnel at least sometimes with a chatbot, but a very small portion are actually completing purchases. And so, as time evolves, we expect that funnel to widen and start to see a little bit more of this fully autonomous purchasing; although for the most part, we think it's really going to remain top of funnel and mid-funnel.Now, adoption does look very different across regions, partially because of different consumer behaviors. Why has AI shopping gained more traction in some markets than in others?Andrew Ruben: I think that's right, and what we see is so far to date, agentic shopping has been led by the U.S. and China. These are the two largest e-commerce markets globally, also among the highest penetration. Some data to support it: We have proprietary Morgan Stanley AlphaWise survey that show about 30 percent of China consumers shopping using AI tools over the past month. And that compares to about 12 percent in Brazil.Now, we do see some...]]>548alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1708fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-uk-has-a-better-story-to-tell--75644925insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the UK may need better PR. It's Friday, August 14th at 2pm in London. The last decade has been rough for the United Kingdom. Brexit was a true economic earthquake, and the subsequent weakening of economic ties to mainland Europe, the UK's largest trading partner, made economic activity weaker and more complicated.Then COVID hit the economy hard. So did spiking energy prices when Russia invaded Ukraine. Political volatility has been high, with seven prime ministers in the last 10 years. And at present, UK growth is weak, inflation is too high, and debt to GDP is rising. Moreover, in a post-COVID world that's increasingly driven by the profit and power of technology, including AI, the UK market seems almost stuck in another era. Of the 10 largest companies in the U.S. stock market, eight are in technology. In the UK, none of the 20 largest companies are in tech. Safe to say, being downbeat on the prospects for the UK is one of the most consensus views that I encounter. But it can also be deceiving. Simple stories in the market rarely are.Let's start with the argument that UK markets are boring, stagnant, and being left behind by their lack of technology. It's just not true. Through early August, the S&P 500 has returned 85 percent over the prior five years. The UK market? It's returned 82 percent. And over the last twelve months, the performance of the UK and U.S. markets are also similar. In short, don't judge a book by its cover. The UK's currency, meanwhile, shows no sign of global investors shunning the island. Over the last 10 years, the UK pound has actually gained value against the U.S. dollar. Notable given how strong the performance of the U.S. economy and markets have been over that time. And that's also pretty impressive relative to its peers. Over this same timeframe, the value of the Japanese yen, the Brazilian real, the Indian rupee, and the Korean won have all fallen significantly. The UK's currency, on a relative basis, has outperformed.Now, the UK's growth is weak. Morgan Stanley forecasts growth of just 1 percent this year versus a bit over 2 percent for the United States. But it's notable just what sort of headwind the country has been dealing with. The UK household and corporate sectors are both increasing their savings rates and doing so at the same time; and more savings means less spending and economic activity. To put some context around this, U.S. households are currently saving only about 3 percent of their disposable income. In the UK, it's over 9 percent. And so, if that UK savings rate can just simply stop moving higher – or even fall – well, it would represent a big support to growth going forward. But aren't we avoiding the big question, the fiscal question? After all, we at Morgan Stanley forecast that general UK government debt to GDP will be about 96 percent this year, some of the highest levels since World War II. But this is a global market, and I do think that the relative picture matters. So, when thinking about the UK's 96 percent debt to GDP ratio, let's consider what the numbers are elsewhere. That ratio is 120 percent in China. It's 120 percent in France. It's 125 percent in the U.S. It's 138 percent in Italy, and it's 208 percent in Japan. And out of all of these countries, the UK is the only one where we think the government deficit is materially smaller in 2027 than it was in 2025. Also, year-to-date, 10-year bond yields in the UK have risen less than yields in the U.S. or Japan.A new UK Prime Minister does raise the potential for new policy, something investors will need to watch closely. The country remains sensitive to swings in global energy prices. Yet we think the underlying story is more nuanced and positive than often gets discussed. Market performance has been bearing this out, and in many cases, the bar is low. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Qh7TMBlg50ll8JQ4Y9a_ROBjMm9y5_9mwPmKVjP6FHYFri, 14 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets examines why investors might be overlooking the stability and performance of UK assets, despite persistent negative sentiment.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the UK may need better PR. It's Friday, August 14th at 2pm in London. The last decade has been rough for the United Kingdom. Brexit was a true economic earthquake, and the subsequent weakening of economic ties to mainland Europe, the UK's largest trading partner, made economic activity weaker and more complicated.Then COVID hit the economy hard. So did spiking energy prices when Russia invaded Ukraine. Political volatility has been high, with seven prime ministers in the last 10 years. And at present, UK growth is weak, inflation is too high, and debt to GDP is rising. Moreover, in a post-COVID world that's increasingly driven by the profit and power of technology, including AI, the UK market seems almost stuck in another era. Of the 10 largest companies in the U.S. stock market, eight are in technology. In the UK, none of the 20 largest companies are in tech. Safe to say, being downbeat on the prospects for the UK is one of the most consensus views that I encounter. But it can also be deceiving. Simple stories in the market rarely are.Let's start with the argument that UK markets are boring, stagnant, and being left behind by their lack of technology. It's just not true. Through early August, the S&P 500 has returned 85 percent over the prior five years. The UK market? It's returned 82 percent. And over the last twelve months, the performance of the UK and U.S. markets are also similar. In short, don't judge a book by its cover. The UK's currency, meanwhile, shows no sign of global investors shunning the island. Over the last 10 years, the UK pound has actually gained value against the U.S. dollar. Notable given how strong the performance of the U.S. economy and markets have been over that time. And that's also pretty impressive relative to its peers. Over this same timeframe, the value of the Japanese yen, the Brazilian real, the Indian rupee, and the Korean won have all fallen significantly. The UK's currency, on a relative basis, has outperformed.Now, the UK's growth is weak. Morgan Stanley forecasts growth of just 1 percent this year versus a bit over 2 percent for the United States. But it's notable just what sort of headwind the country has been dealing with. The UK household and corporate sectors are both increasing their savings rates and doing so at the same time; and more savings means less spending and economic activity. To put some context around this, U.S. households are currently saving only about 3 percent of their disposable income. In the UK, it's over 9 percent. And so, if that UK savings rate can just simply stop moving higher – or even fall – well, it would represent a big support to growth going forward. But aren't we avoiding the big question, the fiscal question? After all, we at Morgan Stanley forecast that general UK government debt to GDP will be about 96 percent this year, some of the highest levels since World War II. But this is a global market, and I do think that the relative picture matters. So, when thinking about the UK's 96 percent debt to GDP ratio, let's consider what the numbers are elsewhere. That ratio is 120 percent in China. It's 120 percent in France. It's 125 percent in the U.S. It's 138 percent in Italy, and it's 208 percent in Japan. And out of all of these countries, the UK is the only one where we think the government deficit is materially smaller in 2027 than it was in 2025. Also, year-to-date, 10-year bond yields in the UK have risen less than yields in the U.S....]]>280alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1707fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/robotaxis-1-trillion-opportunity--75644913insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Percoco: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Auto and Shared Mobility Research. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto and Shared Mobility Analyst.Andrew Percoco: Today, why robotaxis may be approaching a commercial inflection point. It's Thursday, August 13th at 8am in New York.Tim Hsiao: And 8 pm in Hong Kong.Andrew Percoco: So Tim, for years, robotaxis were really confined to limited pilot rollouts across the globe. You've done a lot of work over the last few weeks. We put out a big collaborative report on the robotaxi market and how it could be a $1 trillion TAM by 2040.What makes this moment different than some of the other robotaxi hype cycles that we've seen in the past? Tim Hsiao: We observe four things have been converging. Firstly, end-to-end AI is improving much faster. Secondly, hardware and the training costs are falling. And thirdly, more well-capitalized players can fund deployment. And last but not least, regulation is becoming clearer.The leading operators are no longer just demonstrating the technology. They are running fully driverless services around the clock and generating commercial rides. So in our view, the questions has been shifting from can it work to who can expand operating areas, raise utilization and lower costs at a much faster pace.So that's a very different setup versus the 2018 and 2021 hype cycles. Andrew, U.S. autonomous miles could rise from 116 million in [20]25 to 16 billion by 2032. But still make up only about 0.5 percent of all miles driven. How can robotaxis become a meaningful business while remaining such a small part of the market?Andrew Percoco: I would say, you know, obviously the U.S. mobility and transportation market is a massive market. So even with the rapid growth that we expect in robotaxis, it's going to take a long time to make a material impact in the overall market share of mobility. But if you think about the profit pools in this business, 16 billion miles at $2 a mile can, you know, pretty quickly become a very significant TAM and market opportunity.And I think, you know, fundamentally, if you think about a robotaxi business, I would argue you're better utilizing an asset... Or if you think about the, you know, car park, the amount of vehicles that are, you know, in the fleet today or in the U.S. today, they're sitting idle 90 percent of the time, right?So you're talking about taking a smaller amount of volume and driving a higher utilization on that fleet and driving much improved economics. So yes, it's going to take time to displace the, you know, hundreds of millions of cars that you have on the road in the U.S. and displace the penetration of miles driven. But ultimately, you know, we think that the profit pool and the opportunity in robotaxis are much more attractive for the entire value chain, as it relates to robotaxis. And I'd say there's a few things that we're watching along the way to make sure that, to your point, you know, this is not another hype cycle. And that there's real commercial backbone to this business.I'd say the first is seeing the rollouts continue to improve, and the density of the rollouts improve across the select cities that we've seen in the U.S. right now. Robotaxis are only available in a handful of cities in the U.S., so we want to see that continue to expand into more cities. But also the density of the fleet increase in the cities where they're currently present.And at the same time the safety side is still something that gets a lot of questions in making sure that it is truly safer than a human driver, across technology platforms, right? There's various players in this market with different approaches to technology. So, I think seeing that the safety curve is starting to or continues to improve is going to be very important for the viability of this market going forward.Obviously U.S. is very different from China. What have you seen in China? China has shown some impressive growth and utilization in some of the operators that are on the road in China. So just curious as to your perspective in terms of what you're seeing on the ground there. Tim Hsiao: I think China shows that there's much in operations and skill challenges as technology challenges. The fleet  in China is above 5,000 vehicles across I think more than 7500 square kilometers in key cities. And some operators average more than 20 orders per vehicle per day.So, total cost of ownership has fallen roughly 30 to 40 percent, while remote assistance ratios are moving from like one operator for like 20 to 40, even like 50 to 60 vehicles. And we think it will achieve like one for a 100. So that has produced real break-even happens, especially in some major cities like Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Wuhan – the tier one, tier two cities.So in our view, I think in China, wider operating domains, fleet density and utilization rate, as you just mentioned, reinforce one another. So make it some more like the real commercial case. Instead of just, like trials as we saw a couple years ago. If more value shifts towards the software, fleet operation, and the data, as well as the customer relations, how does that change the profit pool, across the auto industry, especially in the U.S.?Andrew Percoco: First off, I think the auto industry in general is becoming, you know, more software focused and aware. You know, it's being led by the robotaxi market where the autonomous driving software and technology is obviously the most important part about getting this technology to market.That is ultimately trickling down to personally owned cars where you're seeing more autonomous technology being deployed. Auto OEMs are able to charge subscription revenue for this software. So it expands, I'd say, the value proposition of buying a vehicle expands the profit pool for the OEMs.It changes in some ways the cyclicality, or can change the cyclicality of the industry if you've got more kind of recurring revenues, subscription like business model versus just a hardware focused OEM model, which has been kind of the predominant focus for the OEMs historically. I'd say the other angle, interesting angle here is, you know, as this business scales, there's gonna be a lot of vehicles on the road. There's gonna be a lot of fleets of vehicles on the road. Those need to be managed by somebody or some company, right? So if you think about, you know, the rental car industry, right? These companies have been in the business of managing fleets and renting out fleets for  a very long time. They know how to do that very, very well.I think there's an interesting opportunity for that part of the value chain, to participate in aiding these robotaxi fleet operators, in scaling and bringing their business to market. Charging, maintenance, reconditioning, all the things that  take a lot of time and a pretty large amount of physical infrastructure.That's an opportunity for the rental car industry to come in and leverage their existing know-how to help. And, you know, I think Tim, an important part of this commercialization process is driving down the cost structure of robotaxis. They are very sensor; heavy sensor heavy. They're very compute heavy. I think China is the clear leader on cost and supply chain. I think in China you're seeing robotaxis, you know, around $35,000 to $40,000, which is considerably lower than what we see in the U.S. today.So, how do you think that that will accelerate adoption in China, but I'd say more importantly overseas as some of these robotaxis businesses look to expand outside of China. Tim Hsiao: In our view, it could be a major accelerant because as we noticed that the depreciation is still one of the largest fixed costs for robotaxi. So, as we just mentioned, I think, $35000 to $45000 US dollars, the purpose-built robotaxi can lower the breakeven utilization threshold. And make it easier to finance fleets and open cities that could not support the $150,000 US dollar vehicle.And not only in China, because globally, I think the Chinese cost deflation can be paired with the local ride-hailing platforms in the overseas market that provide demand and regulatory access. But as we highlighted in our previous, the global reports once again, we don't think the cheap vehicle is sufficiently by their self.So in our views, on top of the competitive cost structure, registration, data localization, insurance, and local operating costs can still delay the margin curve, particularly in Europe, which we think there are still quite a lot of uncertainties. So Andrew, as we just, as we just discussed, the lower vehicle costs help, but the operating model still has to work, right? So with operating costs expected to fall and the margin potentially moving above 30 percent or even higher at scale, what are the key assumptions investors should focus on?Andrew Percoco: There’s a handful of key assumptions you need to sensitize to get to that 30 percent or more margin structure in this business. I'd say the first is going to be utilization, right? You need to be running these assets at a high utilization to essentially amortize those fixed costs over a larger number of miles driven.Number two, insurance today is probably one of the largest buckets of cost when we think about this business. Insurance is, from our perspective, a big unlock for this industry as the safety, as we mentioned before, the safety data continues to improve. We think that will be a reason to, to expect that the insurance costs associated with autonomous driving technology and robotaxis will co]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UNQE-JaqSfPWoK6eLrela_RJA5UVisGiqOjD637SdrQThu, 13 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyRobotaxis are accelerating along the road to commercial viability. Auto and Shared Mobility Analysts Andrew Percoco and Tim Hsiao discuss what this rapid development means for global investors.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Percoco: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Auto and Shared Mobility Research. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto and Shared Mobility Analyst.Andrew Percoco: Today, why robotaxis may be approaching a commercial inflection point. It's Thursday, August 13th at 8am in New York.Tim Hsiao: And 8 pm in Hong Kong.Andrew Percoco: So Tim, for years, robotaxis were really confined to limited pilot rollouts across the globe. You've done a lot of work over the last few weeks. We put out a big collaborative report on the robotaxi market and how it could be a $1 trillion TAM by 2040.What makes this moment different than some of the other robotaxi hype cycles that we've seen in the past? Tim Hsiao: We observe four things have been converging. Firstly, end-to-end AI is improving much faster. Secondly, hardware and the training costs are falling. And thirdly, more well-capitalized players can fund deployment. And last but not least, regulation is becoming clearer.The leading operators are no longer just demonstrating the technology. They are running fully driverless services around the clock and generating commercial rides. So in our view, the questions has been shifting from can it work to who can expand operating areas, raise utilization and lower costs at a much faster pace.So that's a very different setup versus the 2018 and 2021 hype cycles. Andrew, U.S. autonomous miles could rise from 116 million in [20]25 to 16 billion by 2032. But still make up only about 0.5 percent of all miles driven. How can robotaxis become a meaningful business while remaining such a small part of the market?Andrew Percoco: I would say, you know, obviously the U.S. mobility and transportation market is a massive market. So even with the rapid growth that we expect in robotaxis, it's going to take a long time to make a material impact in the overall market share of mobility. But if you think about the profit pools in this business, 16 billion miles at $2 a mile can, you know, pretty quickly become a very significant TAM and market opportunity.And I think, you know, fundamentally, if you think about a robotaxi business, I would argue you're better utilizing an asset... Or if you think about the, you know, car park, the amount of vehicles that are, you know, in the fleet today or in the U.S. today, they're sitting idle 90 percent of the time, right?So you're talking about taking a smaller amount of volume and driving a higher utilization on that fleet and driving much improved economics. So yes, it's going to take time to displace the, you know, hundreds of millions of cars that you have on the road in the U.S. and displace the penetration of miles driven. But ultimately, you know, we think that the profit pool and the opportunity in robotaxis are much more attractive for the entire value chain, as it relates to robotaxis. And I'd say there's a few things that we're watching along the way to make sure that, to your point, you know, this is not another hype cycle. And that there's real commercial backbone to this business.I'd say the first is seeing the rollouts continue to improve, and the density of the rollouts improve across the select cities that we've seen in the U.S. right now. Robotaxis are only available in a handful of cities in the U.S., so we want to see that continue to expand into more cities. But also the density of the fleet increase in the cities where they're currently present.And at the same time the safety side is still something that gets a lot of questions in making sure that it is truly safer...]]>766alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1706fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-potential-way-forward-for-the-u-s-iran-standoff--75644904insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of US Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, the latest on U.S.-Iran tensions, talks, and the path to a deal. It's Wednesday Aug 12th, at 2 p.m. in New York.The diplomatic picture in the Middle East has shifted yet again. Last week, there was growing optimism that the U.S., Iran and Oman could reach an arrangement to improve commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz. But the two sides have since hardened their positions.  This week, we've seen some bouts of escalation, and headlines have been mixed over the past few days.At the same time, the energy security picture remains complicated. The U.S. administration says the seven-day average of oil leaving Hormuz has risen to almost 9 million barrels per day. But traffic remains well below normal conditions, and the risks we think are no longer limited to the Strait. We’re beginning to see potential for disruption across multiple regional chokepoints and alternate shipping routes. That brings us back to the framework negotiated nearly two months ago. The U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding in mid-June. It was intended to create a 60-day window for negotiating a more durable agreement. That framework addressed commercial passage through Hormuz, the U.S. naval blockade, sanctions relief and frozen funds – as well as longer-term negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. But the implementation has proven much harder than agreeing on the framework itself.So where are negotiations getting stuck? First, there's the Strait itself. Iran has tied a full reopening of the Strait to a broader package that includes an end to the U.S. blockade, sanctions relief and compensation. Washington, in turn, is trying to preserve economic leverage and appears unwilling to provide those concessions upfront. Second, sanctions sequencing: The U.S. wants relief tied to clear signs of progress, while Iran is seeking confidence that any relief is durable and not easily reversed. And third, there’s the nuclear question: enrichment levels, Iran’s existing stockpile, and a longer-term verification framework. These are still to be negotiated. That’s likely to take longer than the 60-day time period. So, what’s the right framing here for investors? We think it’s not necessarily a deal or no deal binary. It’s more so a series of partial agreements, implementation tests, setbacks, and renewed negotiations. After the June deal was signed, we flagged several live paths to re-escalation: execution risk around sanctions and Strait control, a potential divergence between the U.S. and Israeli objectives, domestic political pressure in Washington, and the basic challenge of resolving core nuclear questions within such a short time frame. We think those risks are now becoming more visible, but we think both sides have strong incentives to avoid a return to a full conflict, like the type of engagement we saw back in March of this year.Moving forward, the signposts we laid out in June—maritime normalization, access for the International Atomic Energy Agency, sanctions implementation, military restraint, and rhetoric—all remain the right trackers to watch. But expect the bargaining process itself to be noisy, unstable, and non-linear. Rather than a clean transition from conflict to ceasefire to final deal, the more likely path will have fits and starts. So what should investors do with that information? On oil, our commodity strategists remain constructive on prices, given the ongoing supply uncertainty and the emergence of new chokepoints across the region. Altogether, they see those constraints keeping the market relatively tight compared to the levels we briefly saw in June when the MOU was signed. If there’s another sharp rise in oil prices, our U.S. equity strategists think that could be a key risk to the near term outlook. Our U.S. economists agree, but also think the Fed would need a bigger shock than markets previously expected to resume hiking. As a result, we expect the Fed to stay on hold this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tPldeW7y_pC1IPq72lmMYr8vhoBRliXSxQ8EDJYOoXUWed, 12 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyThe potential path to a durable U.S.–Iran agreement has twists and obstacles ahead. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore discusses current negotiations and the impact of recent developments for investors.Disclaimer: Important note...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of US Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, the latest on U.S.-Iran tensions, talks, and the path to a deal. It's Wednesday Aug 12th, at 2 p.m. in New York.The diplomatic picture in the Middle East has shifted yet again. Last week, there was growing optimism that the U.S., Iran and Oman could reach an arrangement to improve commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz. But the two sides have since hardened their positions.  This week, we've seen some bouts of escalation, and headlines have been mixed over the past few days.At the same time, the energy security picture remains complicated. The U.S. administration says the seven-day average of oil leaving Hormuz has risen to almost 9 million barrels per day. But traffic remains well below normal conditions, and the risks we think are no longer limited to the Strait. We’re beginning to see potential for disruption across multiple regional chokepoints and alternate shipping routes. That brings us back to the framework negotiated nearly two months ago. The U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding in mid-June. It was intended to create a 60-day window for negotiating a more durable agreement. That framework addressed commercial passage through Hormuz, the U.S. naval blockade, sanctions relief and frozen funds – as well as longer-term negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. But the implementation has proven much harder than agreeing on the framework itself.So where are negotiations getting stuck? First, there's the Strait itself. Iran has tied a full reopening of the Strait to a broader package that includes an end to the U.S. blockade, sanctions relief and compensation. Washington, in turn, is trying to preserve economic leverage and appears unwilling to provide those concessions upfront. Second, sanctions sequencing: The U.S. wants relief tied to clear signs of progress, while Iran is seeking confidence that any relief is durable and not easily reversed. And third, there’s the nuclear question: enrichment levels, Iran’s existing stockpile, and a longer-term verification framework. These are still to be negotiated. That’s likely to take longer than the 60-day time period. So, what’s the right framing here for investors? We think it’s not necessarily a deal or no deal binary. It’s more so a series of partial agreements, implementation tests, setbacks, and renewed negotiations. After the June deal was signed, we flagged several live paths to re-escalation: execution risk around sanctions and Strait control, a potential divergence between the U.S. and Israeli objectives, domestic political pressure in Washington, and the basic challenge of resolving core nuclear questions within such a short time frame. We think those risks are now becoming more visible, but we think both sides have strong incentives to avoid a return to a full conflict, like the type of engagement we saw back in March of this year.Moving forward, the signposts we laid out in June—maritime normalization, access for the International Atomic Energy Agency, sanctions implementation, military restraint, and rhetoric—all remain the right trackers to watch. But expect the bargaining process itself to be noisy, unstable, and non-linear....]]>268alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1705fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/show-me-the-money-market-tells-companies--75644941insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll look at an important shift in what the market wants to see from companies going forward. It's Tuesday, August 11th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.This week I am going back to our broadening thesis – but with a slightly different twist. Earlier in the year, broadening was about beta. It was about the market moving beyond a narrow set of mega-cap winners and rewarding economically sensitive areas as the rolling recovery took hold. In the last few episodes I’ve talked about how that phase is now over. And we’re moving from an early-cycle broadening into a mid-cycle quality rotation. In short, the market is no longer demanding just growth – but growth with durable earnings, strong margins, and free cash flow. To be clear, the broadening in earnings is still very much alive. Russell 3000 median stock earnings growth is running at 15 percent, the strongest since 2021; while median sales growth is at 8 percent, the best since 2023. At the same time, 87 percent of S&P 500 companies are beating earnings expectations this quarter, and earnings revisions breadth has rebounded to 23 percent, with 76 percent of industry groups showing positive revisions breadth. However, headline earnings are no longer enough for stock outperformance. The market is saying, ‘Show me the money’— and that’s exactly what should happen in a mid-cycle transition. When companies raise both earnings and free cash flow estimates, they are rewarded. When they only raise earnings and not free cash flow, the market is much less forgiving. Investors are no longer paying indiscriminately for growth. They want cash conversion. This is also why I think AI adoption remains such an important theme. The market is increasingly rewarding companies that can demonstrate real efficiency gains from AI, not just talk about the open-ended opportunity in abstract terms. That is a very different phase for the AI cycle. The first phase was about building the infrastructure. The next phase is about who uses it well. Companies that can translate AI adoption into better margins, better productivity, and better free cash flow should continue to be rewarded. In other words, AI is becoming less about the promise and more about the evidence.That framework tells us where to be positioned. I continue to favor quality and AI adopters. Within Financials, I prefer large-cap Financial Services, particularly Insurance and Capital Markets exposed businesses, where earnings revisions are inflecting and our regime analysis remains supportive. Within cyclicals, I like Discretionary Goods, where the wallet-share shift from services to goods, improved pricing, and better earnings revisions all point to catch-up potential. In Tech, I continue to prefer hyperscalers over semis. Semis can still participate tactically, especially after recent momentum unwinds, but the hyperscalers offer a better multi-month risk-reward. They have resilient core businesses, attractive relative valuation, and underappreciated optionality around AI-related ROI and adoption. Just as important, they are not only enablers of AI, but they are early adopters. They have the flexibility to spend less if the market becomes more demanding about capex discipline. In terms of remaining market risks for this year, I’m still watching interest rates and oil very closely. A gradual rise in nominal yields alongside strong economic and earnings data is not necessarily bearish. In fact, historically, that has been one of the better environments for equities because it brings back my ‘run it hot’ theme. Stronger nominal growth supports revenues and earnings. The problem is not the level of rates. It is the pace of change. If back-end yields rise too quickly, the cost of capital becomes a headwind for stock valuations.Bottom line, the broadening is still happening, but the market is raising the bar. Early-cycle beta is giving way to mid-cycle quality. Earnings are broadening, but free cash flow is also necessary to be fully rewarded. AI is still an important market driver, but the market wants measurable benefits and the leadership is becoming more selective within sectors rather than across them. This shift may make the market feel less euphoric in the short term, but also healthier and more sustainable in my view. This is not a market that is simply chasing momentum any more. It is starting to separate the companies that can simply talk about growth from the companies that can convert it into durable free cash flow and longer-term value.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EsKrLEd2IslUvZGDzqpLcfA4kmMlBowy8F-kRQEKTBATue, 11 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses a new market cycle, in which investors are demanding more than just growth from companies.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll look at an important shift in what the market wants to see from companies going forward. It's Tuesday, August 11th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.This week I am going back to our broadening thesis – but with a slightly different twist. Earlier in the year, broadening was about beta. It was about the market moving beyond a narrow set of mega-cap winners and rewarding economically sensitive areas as the rolling recovery took hold. In the last few episodes I’ve talked about how that phase is now over. And we’re moving from an early-cycle broadening into a mid-cycle quality rotation. In short, the market is no longer demanding just growth – but growth with durable earnings, strong margins, and free cash flow. To be clear, the broadening in earnings is still very much alive. Russell 3000 median stock earnings growth is running at 15 percent, the strongest since 2021; while median sales growth is at 8 percent, the best since 2023. At the same time, 87 percent of S&P 500 companies are beating earnings expectations this quarter, and earnings revisions breadth has rebounded to 23 percent, with 76 percent of industry groups showing positive revisions breadth. However, headline earnings are no longer enough for stock outperformance. The market is saying, ‘Show me the money’— and that’s exactly what should happen in a mid-cycle transition. When companies raise both earnings and free cash flow estimates, they are rewarded. When they only raise earnings and not free cash flow, the market is much less forgiving. Investors are no longer paying indiscriminately for growth. They want cash conversion. This is also why I think AI adoption remains such an important theme. The market is increasingly rewarding companies that can demonstrate real efficiency gains from AI, not just talk about the open-ended opportunity in abstract terms. That is a very different phase for the AI cycle. The first phase was about building the infrastructure. The next phase is about who uses it well. Companies that can translate AI adoption into better margins, better productivity, and better free cash flow should continue to be rewarded. In other words, AI is becoming less about the promise and more about the evidence.That framework tells us where to be positioned. I continue to favor quality and AI adopters. Within Financials, I prefer large-cap Financial Services, particularly Insurance and Capital Markets exposed businesses, where earnings revisions are inflecting and our regime analysis remains supportive. Within cyclicals, I like Discretionary Goods, where the wallet-share shift from services to goods, improved pricing, and better earnings revisions all point to catch-up potential. In Tech, I continue to prefer hyperscalers over semis. Semis can still participate tactically, especially after recent momentum unwinds, but the hyperscalers offer a better multi-month risk-reward. They have resilient core businesses, attractive relative valuation, and underappreciated optionality around AI-related ROI and adoption. Just as important, they are not only enablers of AI, but they are early adopters. They have the flexibility to spend less if the market becomes more demanding about capex discipline. In terms of remaining market risks for this year, I’m still watching interest rates and oil very closely. A gradual rise in nominal yields alongside strong economic and earnings data is not necessarily bearish. In fact, historically, that has been one of the better...]]>310alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1704fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-ai-could-simplify-the-mortgage-market--75644949insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jeff Adelson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance Analyst.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research, also working at Morgan Stanley.Jeff Adelson: Today, how AI could change the way Americans shop for, manage, and refinance their mortgages.It's Monday, August 10th at 10am in New York. The U.S. mortgage market is worth more than $14 trillion, and its performance ultimately depends on the choices millions of homeowners make. Today, refinancing still means shopping around, comparing offers, and working through a lot of paperwork. AI could make that process much easier, especially when rates begin to fall.Jay, you led this work on our AI mortgage blue paper. What's the main way AI could change the mortgage market, and why does the borrower matter so much?Jay Bacow: So we think the biggest change would be borrower adoption of using AI agents to manage their personal finance. An agent on your phone could just monitor mortgage rates, compare lenders, reduce the paperwork, and make homeowners more likely to refinance when the economics work.Let's think about what that could be. Historically, only about 30 percent of borrowers that had the ability to lower their mortgage rate by a 100 basis points did so in a given year. When a borrower went to get a mortgage quote, less than half of them asked more than one lender for a quote.That agent could go reach out to 30 lenders, ask for a variety of different mortgages, could upload all the documents, could do this all effectively instantaneously, present the homeowner with the best option. Allow the homeowner to effectively click a button and refinance. I think this could be pretty transformative for the mortgage market.Jeff Adelson: Now, as we think about this transformation, Jay, mortgage investors still rely heavily on past refinancing behavior trends. If AI makes borrowers more likely to refi[nance] when rates fall, how could that change the way these investors value mortgage-backed securities?Jay Bacow: Well, we all know that past performance is not indicative of future performance, and those models are likely to understate future prepayments. If you get a faster response, it's going to make mortgages more negatively convex.That's going to make the durations shorten. It's likely to widen mortgage spreads by about 10 basis points in our base case. And now, if that base case were to happen and we get, let's call it 100 basis point rally in the future, we think that that could cause something like a 40 percent pickup in refinance volumes versus our current expectations of what refinance volumes would look like in that 100 basis point rally.Jeff, you cover a lot of the largest mortgage lenders. What does this mean for their business model?Jeff Adelson: So, it's pretty straightforward. More borrowers refinancing means more loans for the industry to originate. Today, we're still sitting below what I would describe as normalized levels of originations. We're sitting at about $2 trillion of mortgage originations per year. As we think about normalized, we think that's somewhere in the order [of] around $2.5 trillion. So just that $600 billion alone could get us straight there. We tend to think about this more in our bull case, where we could see something in the order of $3 trillion of originations or more, still below what we saw during the peak COVID years of about $4 trillion or more. But still pretty meaningful and material for the industry.Now, for the scaled lenders, that can create meaningful operating leverage. Mortgage companies have historically had to hire aggressively when volumes rise, and then they've had to reduce headcount when the cycle turns. AI could allow them to process more loans with the same employee base, making their cost structures more flexible and reducing the need to rebuild capacity during every single refi[nance] wave.But the earnings benefit we don't think will necessarily match the dollar benefit from volumes. If AI makes it easier for borrowers to compare offers and allows every lender to process more loans, then competition could intensify and pressure gain on sale margins. So the opportunity is a larger market and better productivity.The key question for individual lenders is: how much of that volume can they capture without giving too much back through pricing? Now, as we think about automation, Jay, it could bring in more loans, but could also intensify competition and reduce the profit lenders can earn when they originate and sell a mortgage. So, how should investors in your space weigh those two effects? Jay Bacow: So, the mortgage investors are short the option to the mortgage homeowner of when they can refinance.And if the mortgage homeowner is going to be more efficient about refinancing, the mortgage investor is going to need to get paid more for that. They're going to demand wider spreads, and they're particularly going to demand wider spreads where that option that they're shorting is worth more. That's generally how it's going to play out, but there's also other aspects as well.That duration shortening, because the borrower's more likely to refinance, means that the investors that own that duration will need to buy some more duration against that. You're also going to see more demand for duration as rates rally. So it's going to be a bid for the low strike receivers, as our options experts will pay close attention to.And then if we get a further rally, you also get a more of an impact across the consumer writ large. You can imagine a world where mortgage rates are substantially lower than they are right now. An agent could sit there and say, "Why don't you consolidate your debt between your credit card, your auto loan payments, maybe your student loan payments and your mortgage?" Allowing consumers to save more and then maybe spend that in the economy.Jeff Adelson: If we maybe take it a step beyond refinancing, how could AI affect home sales, homeownership, and access to home equity?Jay Bacow: So let's just go back to thinking about this agent that's on your phone that's looking at all the opportunities.Traditionally, right now, most people are only calling up one lender, they're getting one quote. If your agent is looking at lots of different lenders and lots of different options, you're probably going to get more ability to take out a mortgage. So you're going to get an expansion of the homeownership rate.That's going to create more demand for housing. As rates rally, you're going to get home sale activity picks up more than it used to, and people are also going to be more able to take advantage of the equity they have in their house. So, you're going to get more usage of second liens and HELOCs and cash-out refinance activity.Once again, we think this is mostly going to happen three to five years down the road, but we're not really sure exactly how this is going to play out. So Jeff, what would be some of the signs that people could look at to see if it's playing out in the three to five-year timeline that we're expecting – or slower, maybe even faster?Jeff Adelson: Sure. So yeah, I mean, I think it's going to be similar to what we've already observed as consumers ourselves and what we're seeing with all the LLMs and AI tools we're adopting today. You should see some rapid advances in the ease of use and the adoption of these technologies from a forward-facing, client-facing perspective. What we all see in the websites, what we all see in the apps.It should become easier for us to engage with the mortgage process, compare rates to actually step into the process. Whereas today, you still need to maybe speak with a bank officer, a loan officer, or a mortgage broker to get deeper into the process and actually better understand what your rate means today.So that would be the first step. The second step would be closing speeds. The average originator today still takes about 40 to 45 days to close a mortgage. The biggest and largest originators that have invested the most in technology and AI today are closing at about, call it, 12 to 20 days. So, half the industry level. So, that should come down over time and make it much easier to actually apply and finish a mortgage.And then quite frankly, the most obvious answer would just be at the given level of rates that are outstanding today, we should see a step up in the level of refi[nance] volumes. That would be the most obvious one. But that'll be the outcome of everything else we've talked about rather than the actual cause.Jay Bacow: That makes sense. So faster refinancing, it's likely to make the mortgage market more responsive when rates fall and effects that are going to reach well beyond the borrower. Jeff Adelson: That could mean higher volumes for lenders, quicker prepayments for investors, and wider swings across housing and rates markets.Jay Bacow: Jeff, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jeff Adelson: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4E9NmNCBKAYxQMWoyaNz4xAkHOYvEQZZzowbO2dsG8kMon, 10 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Consumer Finance Analyst Jeff Adelson and our Co-Head of Securitized Product Research Jay Bacow explain why AI can transform the way Americans shop for, manage and refinance their mortgages.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jeff Adelson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance Analyst.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research, also working at Morgan Stanley.Jeff Adelson: Today, how AI could change the way Americans shop for, manage, and refinance their mortgages.It's Monday, August 10th at 10am in New York. The U.S. mortgage market is worth more than $14 trillion, and its performance ultimately depends on the choices millions of homeowners make. Today, refinancing still means shopping around, comparing offers, and working through a lot of paperwork. AI could make that process much easier, especially when rates begin to fall.Jay, you led this work on our AI mortgage blue paper. What's the main way AI could change the mortgage market, and why does the borrower matter so much?Jay Bacow: So we think the biggest change would be borrower adoption of using AI agents to manage their personal finance. An agent on your phone could just monitor mortgage rates, compare lenders, reduce the paperwork, and make homeowners more likely to refinance when the economics work.Let's think about what that could be. Historically, only about 30 percent of borrowers that had the ability to lower their mortgage rate by a 100 basis points did so in a given year. When a borrower went to get a mortgage quote, less than half of them asked more than one lender for a quote.That agent could go reach out to 30 lenders, ask for a variety of different mortgages, could upload all the documents, could do this all effectively instantaneously, present the homeowner with the best option. Allow the homeowner to effectively click a button and refinance. I think this could be pretty transformative for the mortgage market.Jeff Adelson: Now, as we think about this transformation, Jay, mortgage investors still rely heavily on past refinancing behavior trends. If AI makes borrowers more likely to refi[nance] when rates fall, how could that change the way these investors value mortgage-backed securities?Jay Bacow: Well, we all know that past performance is not indicative of future performance, and those models are likely to understate future prepayments. If you get a faster response, it's going to make mortgages more negatively convex.That's going to make the durations shorten. It's likely to widen mortgage spreads by about 10 basis points in our base case. And now, if that base case were to happen and we get, let's call it 100 basis point rally in the future, we think that that could cause something like a 40 percent pickup in refinance volumes versus our current expectations of what refinance volumes would look like in that 100 basis point rally.Jeff, you cover a lot of the largest mortgage lenders. What does this mean for their business model?Jeff Adelson: So, it's pretty straightforward. More borrowers refinancing means more loans for the industry to originate. Today, we're still sitting below what I would describe as normalized levels of originations. We're sitting at about $2 trillion of mortgage originations per year. As we think about normalized, we think that's somewhere in the order [of] around $2.5 trillion. So just that $600 billion alone could get us straight there. We tend to think about this more in our bull case, where we could see something in the order of $3 trillion of originations or more, still below what we saw during the peak COVID years of about $4 trillion or more. But still pretty meaningful and material for the industry.Now, for the scaled lenders, that can create meaningful operating leverage....]]>496alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1703fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-s-new-rules-of-engagement--75644906insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at how government is increasingly determining the future of AI in the U.S. – from where it's built to which technologies US companies and consumers can use. It's Friday, August 7th at 10am in New York. AI is rapidly reshaping the economy and society, so this is a pivotal moment for government to consider the rules governing that development. The first area to watch is technology restrictions, particularly in the context of U.S.-China competition. Now, for much of the past decade, the government's approach has been to restrict a relatively narrow group of technologies with clear national security implications while maintaining broader commercial ties. But as export controls spread across more sectors of the economy and AI moves from software into physical infrastructure, the definition of what qualifies as national security has become broader. The Department of Commerce could, for example, expand the entity list. That would require US cloud providers, software companies, and model marketplaces to remove or stop supporting models tied to designated Chinese developers. Congress could then make those restrictions more durable through things like the annual defense bill or other policy vehicles. We're keeping an eye on several legislative proposals, like the AI Overwatch Act, which would tighten controls and give congressional oversight around exports of the most advanced AI chips; and the MATCH Act, which would extend restrictions further upstream to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and seek closer alignment with allied producers. These measures wouldn't directly ban Americans from using a Chinese model, but they could constrain China's ability to train future frontier systems. But it's not just the US that could impose a set of restrictions. China has a parallel set of tools focused more on integration and market access. Regulators could block four models or APIs. They could require locally controlled deployment. They could impose Chinese data and content standards or use cybersecurity and entity list authorities to promote domestic substitutes. The likely result is an increasingly distinct pair of AI ecosystems. That's our two worlds thesis in practice. Over time, we think that means a bifurcated global AI market into separate technology ecosystems. That looks like the U.S. relying on export controls, allied supply chains, and largely closed frontier model platforms, while China emphasizes domestic hardware, open-weight models, subsidized compute, and localization. Over time, that bifurcation could produce different chips, models, standards, data rules, and distribution channels, while third countries navigate between the competing stacks. The second area to watch is domestic regulation. Today, the landscape is pretty fragmented. States are moving first on certain specific issues, including automated decision-making and child safety. Now, at the same time, Congress is confronting competing objectives from industry, consumer groups, and national security officials. So far, we think the evidence suggests that the administration's preference is for a light-touch approach, a largely voluntary national framework rather than a broad new licensing regime. But it's also moving toward more direct oversight of the most advanced models. That includes the possibility to play a more active role prior to model release to ensure that certain protections like cybersecurity and intellectual property are met. Publicly outlined priorities from industry seem to broadly overlap with that approach: a consistent federal framework, clearer liability standards, access to data, compute, and power, and copyright rules that don't materially limit model training. But of course, the industry isn't monolithic. There are some important nuances between frontier developers and other players. So, what does all this mean for investors? The government's reaction function will be critical to the way AI is developed and diffused throughout our society in two key ways. First, we see regulation altering not only the pace, but also the geography of AI infrastructure. At the same time, we think these constraints could strengthen the investment case for bottleneck solutions like on-site power generation, fuel cells, storage, and more. Second, greater technology bifurcation supports investment in parallel supply chains. The key takeaway here is that the government is no longer simply regulating the industry from the sidelines. It's helping to determine how fast AI develops through domestic rules, where it develops through infrastructure, permitting, and sovereign AI policy, and which technologies are accessible through export controls and market access restrictions. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/g_e2k1IgSoRJQRFj6JLtT3bltY9BbuuSIFhmWnK4_mUFri, 07 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how U.S.-China tensions, export controls and domestic regulation are reshaping where AI is built, who controls it and what investors should watch.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at how government is increasingly determining the future of AI in the U.S. – from where it's built to which technologies US companies and consumers can use. It's Friday, August 7th at 10am in New York. AI is rapidly reshaping the economy and society, so this is a pivotal moment for government to consider the rules governing that development. The first area to watch is technology restrictions, particularly in the context of U.S.-China competition. Now, for much of the past decade, the government's approach has been to restrict a relatively narrow group of technologies with clear national security implications while maintaining broader commercial ties. But as export controls spread across more sectors of the economy and AI moves from software into physical infrastructure, the definition of what qualifies as national security has become broader. The Department of Commerce could, for example, expand the entity list. That would require US cloud providers, software companies, and model marketplaces to remove or stop supporting models tied to designated Chinese developers. Congress could then make those restrictions more durable through things like the annual defense bill or other policy vehicles. We're keeping an eye on several legislative proposals, like the AI Overwatch Act, which would tighten controls and give congressional oversight around exports of the most advanced AI chips; and the MATCH Act, which would extend restrictions further upstream to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and seek closer alignment with allied producers. These measures wouldn't directly ban Americans from using a Chinese model, but they could constrain China's ability to train future frontier systems. But it's not just the US that could impose a set of restrictions. China has a parallel set of tools focused more on integration and market access. Regulators could block four models or APIs. They could require locally controlled deployment. They could impose Chinese data and content standards or use cybersecurity and entity list authorities to promote domestic substitutes. The likely result is an increasingly distinct pair of AI ecosystems. That's our two worlds thesis in practice. Over time, we think that means a bifurcated global AI market into separate technology ecosystems. That looks like the U.S. relying on export controls, allied supply chains, and largely closed frontier model platforms, while China emphasizes domestic hardware, open-weight models, subsidized compute, and localization. Over time, that bifurcation could produce different chips, models, standards, data rules, and distribution channels, while third countries navigate between the competing stacks. The second area to watch is domestic regulation. Today, the landscape is pretty fragmented. States are moving first on certain specific issues, including automated decision-making and child safety. Now, at the same time, Congress is confronting competing objectives from industry, consumer groups, and national security officials. So far, we think the evidence suggests that the administration's preference is for a light-touch approach, a largely voluntary national framework rather than a broad new licensing regime. But it's also moving toward more direct oversight of the most advanced models. That includes the possibility to play a more active role prior to model release to ensure that certain protections like cybersecurity and intellectual...]]>309alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1702fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-brick-and-mortar-banking-still-matters--75644891insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Manan Gosalia: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Manan Gosalia, Morgan Stanley's Head of US Large Cap and Mid Cap Banks Research. Today: why the bank branch you pass on your commute may matter more than you think. It's Thursday, August 6th at 10am in New York. When was the last time you went to your bank? You probably do most of your daily banking online and maybe go to the local branch for occasional transactions, like getting a certified check or talking to a financial advisor. So, you might think that bank branches are fading into the background. But America's biggest banks are actually accelerating their investments in physical locations. That shift could reshape the competition for your deposits. In our research, we looked at where 12 large U.S. banks are expanding their footprints, and we identified 57 target markets. 34 of those markets are being pursued by multiple banks, and nine of those markets are being pursued by five or more banks.Since mid 2025, about 80 percent of these banks' new branches have opened in those markets. Most of the expansion is happening in the Southeast and Texas, with additional activity in the Midwest and several major metropolitan areas. 95 percent of the target markets have either above median projected population growth or they have ranked in the top 10 percent for deposit growth. That helps explain why Nashville and Atlanta are each targeted by seven of the banks, while Miami, Dallas, and Denver are targeted by six. These are places where households and businesses are growing and where banks see an opportunity to build relationships that could last for decades. The central question is whether physical branches still attract deposits. The evidence suggests that they do. From 2022 to 2025, 90 percent of the time when a large bank increased their branch share in the market, their deposit share also increased. But to become a real contender, a few scattered branches are not enough. Banks generally need at least a mid-single-digit share of local branches to compete effectively. At 10 percent or more branch share, deposit share exceeds branch share by a median 3.5 percentage points. So, density, not just presence, is what matters. Most large banks that we looked at have not reached that level. 60 percent of their positions in expansion markets remain below 5 percent market share. And so, this build-out looks like the beginning of a long competitive cycle. Even then, the pressure is already visible in what banks are paying for deposits now. The highest offered retail certificate of deposit rates are higher in the South compared to the Northeast. Higher rates do make deposits more expensive for banks to fund. In fact, evidence from the recent earnings reports suggest that this may already be happening. And we expect higher funding and branch costs to pressure bank margins and lift expenses into 2027. This means the cost of gathering core deposits could move structurally higher. And the lesson is surprisingly old school. You can do almost everything on an app, but a branch on the corner still carries weight. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RSi1GNkFLUU1jT7Fn_h02GuokGp2HL0TuTRVFW-NgskThu, 06 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAmerica’s biggest banks are opening more local branches. Our Head of U.S. Large Cap and Mid Cap Banks Research Manan Gosalia looks at the merits of physical locations.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Manan Gosalia: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Manan Gosalia, Morgan Stanley's Head of US Large Cap and Mid Cap Banks Research. Today: why the bank branch you pass on your commute may matter more than you think. It's Thursday, August 6th at 10am in New York. When was the last time you went to your bank? You probably do most of your daily banking online and maybe go to the local branch for occasional transactions, like getting a certified check or talking to a financial advisor. So, you might think that bank branches are fading into the background. But America's biggest banks are actually accelerating their investments in physical locations. That shift could reshape the competition for your deposits. In our research, we looked at where 12 large U.S. banks are expanding their footprints, and we identified 57 target markets. 34 of those markets are being pursued by multiple banks, and nine of those markets are being pursued by five or more banks.Since mid 2025, about 80 percent of these banks' new branches have opened in those markets. Most of the expansion is happening in the Southeast and Texas, with additional activity in the Midwest and several major metropolitan areas. 95 percent of the target markets have either above median projected population growth or they have ranked in the top 10 percent for deposit growth. That helps explain why Nashville and Atlanta are each targeted by seven of the banks, while Miami, Dallas, and Denver are targeted by six. These are places where households and businesses are growing and where banks see an opportunity to build relationships that could last for decades. The central question is whether physical branches still attract deposits. The evidence suggests that they do. From 2022 to 2025, 90 percent of the time when a large bank increased their branch share in the market, their deposit share also increased. But to become a real contender, a few scattered branches are not enough. Banks generally need at least a mid-single-digit share of local branches to compete effectively. At 10 percent or more branch share, deposit share exceeds branch share by a median 3.5 percentage points. So, density, not just presence, is what matters. Most large banks that we looked at have not reached that level. 60 percent of their positions in expansion markets remain below 5 percent market share. And so, this build-out looks like the beginning of a long competitive cycle. Even then, the pressure is already visible in what banks are paying for deposits now. The highest offered retail certificate of deposit rates are higher in the South compared to the Northeast. Higher rates do make deposits more expensive for banks to fund. In fact, evidence from the recent earnings reports suggest that this may already be happening. And we expect higher funding and branch costs to pressure bank margins and lift expenses into 2027. This means the cost of gathering core deposits could move structurally higher. And the lesson is surprisingly old school. You can do almost everything on an app, but a branch on the corner still carries weight. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>247alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1701fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-long-can-the-fed-hold-on--75644932insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today: Can the Fed hold the line? It's Wednesday, August 5th at 2pm in London. The Federal Reserve has a difficult job. The U.S. economy is a complex and varied ecosystem that covers everything from brain surgery to your burger order. The Fed is asked to keep prices stable and people employed using, for the most part, just one simple tool. A short-term interest rate, and without any control over what government policy or global events might bring. Currently, the Fed probably feels pretty good about its success with one half of this – in the job market, given that the unemployment rate is near historical lows. But it probably feels less successful about price stability. Over the last five years, overall prices in the U.S. economy have risen over 20 percent based on the Fed's preferred inflation measure. That's roughly double the increase that a goal of 2 percent annual inflation would otherwise bring. Into this complexity steps a new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh. He has emphasized two changes for his tenure. First, that inflation is too high and needs to come down. And second, that the Fed has historically communicated too much with the market, which Chair Warshkeep thinks has helped contribute to investors potentially taking too much risk while also restricting the Fed's options to act. What markets are now processing is a potential tension between these two goals. After all, high inflation is an immediate issue. In a world where the Fed is hoping to keep price increases at about 2 percent per year, their preferred measure, PCE inflation, is rising more than 3 percent on an annualized basis over the last three, six, and 12 months. In the latest ISM Manufacturing Survey, [the] measure of price increases among manufacturers is well above normal. In the face of that, one option for the Fed to combat this inflation would have been to raise interest rates. It didn't do that. Another would be to suggest that it was very close to taking action and likely to move soon. It didn't do that either. Indeed, our economists think that the market took Chair Warsh's lack of guidance and action at the most recent Fed's meeting to suggest a pretty high bar for rate hikes; and even the potential to redefine the Fed's 2 percent inflation target in favor of something more general and unspecified. The result was a market reaction that would suggest less focus on inflation. The prospects for rate hikes were reduced, the yield curve steepened, led by a sell-off of long-end yields, measures of expected inflation rose, and the U.S. dollar weakened. In the days since, markets have settled a bit. But the result is going to be a market that is now going to be much more sensitive to incoming inflation data. If that inflation data moderates in the second half of this year, as we at Morgan Stanley expect, then the Fed's approach could look justified – as the data suggests that neither action nor more communication about what they're going to do is necessary. But if inflation doesn't cooperate, the challenge becomes immediate. Christopher Waller, another member of the Fed, recently said that "Sternly staring at inflation until it melts before our withering gaze is not an option." The market will expect action and expect a framework explaining that action. Until that point, our rate strategists think that yield curves will continue to steepen. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AMoMGPCGSPM2BfZ4CzGnQn91FjYFsvMbs3IFh4nOQDsWed, 05 Aug 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyFrom short-term interest rates to long-term bond yields, the Fed's credibility is being tested. Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets discussed inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh's outlook, and the options ahead.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today: Can the Fed hold the line? It's Wednesday, August 5th at 2pm in London. The Federal Reserve has a difficult job. The U.S. economy is a complex and varied ecosystem that covers everything from brain surgery to your burger order. The Fed is asked to keep prices stable and people employed using, for the most part, just one simple tool. A short-term interest rate, and without any control over what government policy or global events might bring. Currently, the Fed probably feels pretty good about its success with one half of this – in the job market, given that the unemployment rate is near historical lows. But it probably feels less successful about price stability. Over the last five years, overall prices in the U.S. economy have risen over 20 percent based on the Fed's preferred inflation measure. That's roughly double the increase that a goal of 2 percent annual inflation would otherwise bring. Into this complexity steps a new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh. He has emphasized two changes for his tenure. First, that inflation is too high and needs to come down. And second, that the Fed has historically communicated too much with the market, which Chair Warshkeep thinks has helped contribute to investors potentially taking too much risk while also restricting the Fed's options to act. What markets are now processing is a potential tension between these two goals. After all, high inflation is an immediate issue. In a world where the Fed is hoping to keep price increases at about 2 percent per year, their preferred measure, PCE inflation, is rising more than 3 percent on an annualized basis over the last three, six, and 12 months. In the latest ISM Manufacturing Survey, [the] measure of price increases among manufacturers is well above normal. In the face of that, one option for the Fed to combat this inflation would have been to raise interest rates. It didn't do that. Another would be to suggest that it was very close to taking action and likely to move soon. It didn't do that either. Indeed, our economists think that the market took Chair Warsh's lack of guidance and action at the most recent Fed's meeting to suggest a pretty high bar for rate hikes; and even the potential to redefine the Fed's 2 percent inflation target in favor of something more general and unspecified. The result was a market reaction that would suggest less focus on inflation. The prospects for rate hikes were reduced, the yield curve steepened, led by a sell-off of long-end yields, measures of expected inflation rose, and the U.S. dollar weakened. In the days since, markets have settled a bit. But the result is going to be a market that is now going to be much more sensitive to incoming inflation data. If that inflation data moderates in the second half of this year, as we at Morgan Stanley expect, then the Fed's approach could look justified – as the data suggests that neither action nor more communication about what they're going to do is necessary. But if inflation doesn't cooperate, the challenge becomes immediate. Christopher Waller, another member of the Fed, recently said that "Sternly staring at inflation until it melts before our withering gaze is not an option." The market will expect action and expect a framework explaining that action. Until that point, our rate strategists think that yield curves will continue to steepen. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market...]]>239alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1700fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/when-a-data-center-comes-to-town--75644953insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Michelle Weaver: I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist with Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Ariana Salvatore: Today: the politics, economics, and market implications of America's AI data center build-out. It's Tuesday, August 4th at 10am in New York. AI infrastructure spending is becoming a major force in the U.S. investment cycle. But as you've heard on this podcast in recent weeks, local resistance to data centers is growing, and projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars are being canceled or delayed. More than 300 local moratoria have passed since 2023, and restrictions now touch 40 states. Now, most are temporary pauses, not outright bans, but the community opposition is tangible. For investors, the key question is how these local pressures shape the broader build-out. So, I wanted to talk to you both because, Sarah, you've looked at this on the local level, and Michelle, you've been leading some of our thematic work on this topic. So, Sarah, maybe we'll start with what happens when a data center comes to town. How does a large project ripple through a local economy, especially when so much of the expensive hardware is imported? Sarah Wolfe: I think we need to look at the data center build-out from two lenses. First, at the national level, and then what's really happening at the local level, county by county. So, at the national level, the headline investment can actually overstate the contribution to GDP because a lot of the components that go into data centers – think chips, servers, networking equipment – most of that is imported. So, it's actually an offset in the GDP accounting.But when we analyze the AI build-out at a local level, we see that the town experiences the project very differently. A data center still needs a physical shell, concrete, steel, electricians, construction workers, and then the restaurants that feed the construction workers. So, the local multiplier depends on how much of that spending around the data center stays nearby. Workers are going to get paid, local suppliers win contracts, and nearby businesses will see more demand. And then importantly, governments may collect more property and business tax revenue. When we look at county-level research on the AI data center build-out, we do see positive effects on employment, business formation, wages, income, and tax returns. So, these data centers are significant. They do have significant multipliers. But we need to dig a little bit deeper and look at how it affects different counties. Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like there are some local economic benefits. How durable do you think those are? Sarah Wolfe: Some of the effects are durable and some aren't. The largest and most important effects come through employment in the near term. If we look at the construction phase of these projects, let's look at a data center that's 250,000 square foot, in Virginia. That supports more than 1,500 workers during construction. But then, if we look at what happens after construction is done, there's only about 50 full-time workers once it's operating. And I will say I think that's a high-end estimate. If you look at how many workers these data centers employ state by state, some numbers are 10, some numbers are 20, and some are 30 employees. So, 50 is maybe on the higher end. So, the bottom line is that the labor market multiplier actually fades after the facility comes online. What does persist, are the smaller share of data center processing jobs, ongoing supplier and service activity, and then importantly, of course, the property tax base. But even that fiscal benefit depends on how the incentive package is designed. If a locality, for example, grants a very large, long-lived sales or property tax exemption, it may give away much of the revenue that made the project attractive in the first place. So, the job story is real, but it's much more front-loaded. And then the tax revenue story is real too, but it really matters on how the locality negotiated the incentive package. Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like there are some benefits and some potential drawbacks. How do you think communities should judge whether a trade-off like that is worth it? Sarah Wolfe: I think communities should be asking this question of how much spending and tax revenue actually stays local after all the incentives? How many jobs remain after construction? Who pays for new generation transmission, water system, and roads? And who bears the spillovers through utility bills, housing costs, or land use? The evidence does suggest that data center growth can lift incomes and expand the tax base. But it also raises home prices. And as we know, it raises electricity prices as well. A typical AI data center may use as much electricity as 100,000 homes, so cost allocation is critical. The strongest agreements make benefits durable and costs explicit through transparent reporting, sunset dates or claw backs on incentives, infrastructure cost-sharing, and protections that keep the household from subsidizing this build-out. The test is really whether the community captures enough lasting value to justify the demands on land, power, water, housing, and public finances. Ariana Salvatore: Michelle, I want to bring you in here. The local picture that Sarah describes helped explain why the politics can be so uneven. How are moratoria and other local restrictions changing the pace and the location of the build-out, maybe on a national scale? Michelle Weaver: I think you have to think about just the different type of moratoria themselves even. So, we're not seeing them uniform across different states in what's been proposed.However, the majority of moratoria are a pause, not a[n] outright ban on construction. So, they might say, "Okay, we want one year," or "We want three years to do local impact studies and, and think about the way these data centers are going to impact communities." So, the primary risk is really to the pace of the build-out, and as more and more of these moratoria pop up, you have to start to think about how that could shift the geography and the location of where these data centers will ultimately be built. We are seeing a shift towards more data centers being placed in rural locations. This also has implications for the international data center build-out. You're seeing more and more of these data centers go up in Canada and in Australia to serve U.S. needs. Ariana Salvatore: The polling data show us that voters are increasingly skeptical of AI. Specifically, they're worried about electricity prices and local costs. How should investors read that concern? Michelle Weaver: Well, there's a couple things we have to unpack here. First is really around perception. So, in certain areas where you have both high data center activity as well as unregulated utility markets; yes, it's true, there is some of this raised cost ending up on consumer power bills from data center activity. But in other areas with unregulated utility markets and lower data center activity, you don't see the same link between consumer power bills and what's going on with data center electricity consumption. But perception is what really drives politics and given that this perception is becoming spread across different states with both regulated and unregulated utility markets, politicians are reacting to it. And the second thing this gets at is affordability. Consumers have been stressed by inflation for years now and elevated prices. And given that they think that data center costs are now winding up on their power bills, it's not surprising that you're seeing this big reaction, and that anything having to do with affordability has become a huge issue for voters. Ariana Salvatore: Translating that into how we think things evolve from here, what industry and financing trends do you think matter most going forward? Michelle Weaver: We recently identified the three main bottlenecks for the data center build-out as power, people, and politics. This whole episode has been about that third P, politics, but let's unpack power and people. On power, we still think there's a potential shortfall of around 38 gigawatts needed through 2028. So, power is going to remain a huge bottleneck, and as the politics layer gets placed on top of the power layer, you're seeing more and more of an issue there. And so, what that really argues for is for data centers to be off grid. That way they can say, "Okay, there's no way we can potentially impact consumer power bills if we're not even connected to the grid." The second P, people, is another big bottleneck, and we're seeing a very tough time for data centers to get skilled laborers. It's very hard to find electricians right now and other skilled laborers needed to set up these data centers. Ariana, that brings us to the policy debate. Why is data center opposition moving from town halls into state houses and Congress? And what does this mean for a conditional build-out? Ariana Salvatore: Yes, I think the points that you both touched on really explain why we're seeing this sort of pushback evolve, right?Local communities are concerned about their electricity prices. Again, we see that on more a regional than a national basis. They're concerned about quality-of-life concerns. They]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IRTqZxJjQZmAENtX7sQu1B3cJT2LvhuBwBm3yAxw_-cTue, 04 Aug 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyHead of US Public Policy Strategy Ariana Salvatore and US Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver, alongside Senior Economist and Strategist in Morgan Stanley’s Private Wealth Management Sarah Wolfe, examine the economics of the AI datacentre boom, the...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Michelle Weaver: I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist with Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Ariana Salvatore: Today: the politics, economics, and market implications of America's AI data center build-out. It's Tuesday, August 4th at 10am in New York. AI infrastructure spending is becoming a major force in the U.S. investment cycle. But as you've heard on this podcast in recent weeks, local resistance to data centers is growing, and projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars are being canceled or delayed. More than 300 local moratoria have passed since 2023, and restrictions now touch 40 states. Now, most are temporary pauses, not outright bans, but the community opposition is tangible. For investors, the key question is how these local pressures shape the broader build-out. So, I wanted to talk to you both because, Sarah, you've looked at this on the local level, and Michelle, you've been leading some of our thematic work on this topic. So, Sarah, maybe we'll start with what happens when a data center comes to town. How does a large project ripple through a local economy, especially when so much of the expensive hardware is imported? Sarah Wolfe: I think we need to look at the data center build-out from two lenses. First, at the national level, and then what's really happening at the local level, county by county. So, at the national level, the headline investment can actually overstate the contribution to GDP because a lot of the components that go into data centers – think chips, servers, networking equipment – most of that is imported. So, it's actually an offset in the GDP accounting.But when we analyze the AI build-out at a local level, we see that the town experiences the project very differently. A data center still needs a physical shell, concrete, steel, electricians, construction workers, and then the restaurants that feed the construction workers. So, the local multiplier depends on how much of that spending around the data center stays nearby. Workers are going to get paid, local suppliers win contracts, and nearby businesses will see more demand. And then importantly, governments may collect more property and business tax revenue. When we look at county-level research on the AI data center build-out, we do see positive effects on employment, business formation, wages, income, and tax returns. So, these data centers are significant. They do have significant multipliers. But we need to dig a little bit deeper and look at how it affects different counties. Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like there are some local economic benefits. How durable do you think those are? Sarah Wolfe: Some of the effects are durable and some aren't. The largest and most important effects come through employment in the near term. If we look at the construction phase of these projects, let's look at a data center that's 250,000 square foot, in Virginia. That supports more than 1,500 workers during construction. But then, if we look at what happens after construction is done, there's only about 50 full-time workers once it's operating. And I will say I think that's a high-end estimate. If you look at how many workers these data centers employ state by state, some numbers are 10, some numbers are 20, and some are 30 employees. So, 50 is maybe on the...]]>823alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1699fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/quality-matters-again--75644916insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the ongoing transition in the economic recovery from early to mid-cycle.It's Monday, August 3rd at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So, let’s get after it.Following on from my podcasts the past few weeks, I want to reiterate our key call that the economy and the market are moving from early to mid-cycle. That may sound like strategist jargon, but it has very real implications for leadership, positioning, and how one should think about the next phase of this bull market.For much of the past year, the market was rewarding early-cycle characteristics and behavior. Lower-quality, higher beta stocks, and the most explosive earnings revision stories led the way. That made sense. We were coming out of a rolling recession, operating leverage was improving rapidly, and earnings revisions were accelerating off of depressed levels. But as the business cycle matures, the market typically becomes more discerning. It starts to ask a harder question: not just who can grow, but who can sustain that growth with stable earnings, strong margins, and free cash flow generation.In other words, quality starts to matter again.That’s exactly where we are now. The rotation towards quality has begun, and I don’t view that as a bearish development for the broader market even if it’s bad for some of the former leaders. The S&P 500 is a very high-quality, large cap index. So, while the market may continue to consolidate in the near term, the quality rotation should ultimately support index resilience and help the S&P 500 work its way toward our 8000 year-end target.The big market event last week was the capitulation in the historic momentum unwind. Momentum sold off hard, and semiconductors were at the center of it. That shouldn’t surprise anyone who has followed our work over the past several months. We’ve been using the Silver stock analog to think about semis, and remarkably, the semi index bottomed almost exactly where that analog suggested.That argues for a tradable bounce in semiconductors over the next few weeks. However, the more important point is that semis may struggle to reclaim leadership for the rest of the year. Semis are a classic early-cycle group, and this is increasingly becoming a mid-cycle, quality-led market. The Silver stock analog would support the same conclusion.The provocative way to say it is this: the AI cycle is not over, but the easy money in the most crowded AI beneficiaries may be. The AI investment cycle still has plenty of runway, but the market is no longer rewarding capex blindly. It’s asking for evidence of return on invested capital, adoption, monetization, and operational discipline. Last week’s performance gap between Microsoft and Meta was a perfect example. It wasn’t random. It was about capex discipline. The market is rewarding more prudent spending, and that could translate into a real overhang for the capex beneficiaries, in line with my views for the past several months.That is why I still prefer hyperscalers over semis, with one important caveat: dispersion within the hyperscalers is rising. The group has already outperformed semis by 30% over the past four weeks, and I think it can continue over the next several months. Hyperscalers have resilient core businesses, exposure to the AI application layer, and an underappreciated ability to use AI to reduce operating expenses if needed. They’re both enablers and adopters. But the market will no longer treat them all the same. The winners will be the companies that can show return on investment, communicate capex discipline, and preserve earnings quality.This is also why AI adoption is becoming so important. The next leg of the story is not just about who builds the infrastructure. It’s about who can use it more effectively. Our work shows that companies where AI is material to the investment thesis and pricing power is neutral to strong, are already seeing margin expectations improve. Relative net margins for that group have expanded by 50 basis points in just three months, and they now sit nearly 400 basis points above the broader market. That’s not hype. That’s operating leverage with a new engine.The Fed is the other major piece of the puzzle. Chair Warsh stayed on hold last week, but he remains tight-lipped about his reaction function. Markets are still adjusting to a Fed that wants to rely less on forward guidance and more on unfiltered market signals. I think that’s a healthy development over the longer term, but transitions are rarely smooth. The biggest risk to this consolidation turning into a correction is if the 10-year yields rise above 5%. Such a rise could weigh on equity multiples and force the Fed to either revert to its old ways of guiding the markets or provide more liquidity to calm rate markets.Bottom line, the bull market is not over, but it is changing. As we move from early to mid-cycle in this recovery, the equity market wants higher quality. Semis may bounce, but they are unlikely to be the leader again. Meanwhile, hyperscalers will likely continue to trade better, with the best ones exhibiting more capital discipline. More importantly, AI adoption is moving from promise to measurable margin benefit. This is what mid-cycle looks like: less forgiving, more discerning, but still constructive for investors who follow the rotation rather than fight it.Thanks for tuning in, I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Kkri9ufPj5a57AdOfhChRl4EJ_lhDXCPWsc6T9KG0n8Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors should favor quality as the market moves from early-cycle momentum to more disciplined, mid-cycle leadership.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the ongoing transition in the economic recovery from early to mid-cycle.It's Monday, August 3rd at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So, let’s get after it.Following on from my podcasts the past few weeks, I want to reiterate our key call that the economy and the market are moving from early to mid-cycle. That may sound like strategist jargon, but it has very real implications for leadership, positioning, and how one should think about the next phase of this bull market.For much of the past year, the market was rewarding early-cycle characteristics and behavior. Lower-quality, higher beta stocks, and the most explosive earnings revision stories led the way. That made sense. We were coming out of a rolling recession, operating leverage was improving rapidly, and earnings revisions were accelerating off of depressed levels. But as the business cycle matures, the market typically becomes more discerning. It starts to ask a harder question: not just who can grow, but who can sustain that growth with stable earnings, strong margins, and free cash flow generation.In other words, quality starts to matter again.That’s exactly where we are now. The rotation towards quality has begun, and I don’t view that as a bearish development for the broader market even if it’s bad for some of the former leaders. The S&P 500 is a very high-quality, large cap index. So, while the market may continue to consolidate in the near term, the quality rotation should ultimately support index resilience and help the S&P 500 work its way toward our 8000 year-end target.The big market event last week was the capitulation in the historic momentum unwind. Momentum sold off hard, and semiconductors were at the center of it. That shouldn’t surprise anyone who has followed our work over the past several months. We’ve been using the Silver stock analog to think about semis, and remarkably, the semi index bottomed almost exactly where that analog suggested.That argues for a tradable bounce in semiconductors over the next few weeks. However, the more important point is that semis may struggle to reclaim leadership for the rest of the year. Semis are a classic early-cycle group, and this is increasingly becoming a mid-cycle, quality-led market. The Silver stock analog would support the same conclusion.The provocative way to say it is this: the AI cycle is not over, but the easy money in the most crowded AI beneficiaries may be. The AI investment cycle still has plenty of runway, but the market is no longer rewarding capex blindly. It’s asking for evidence of return on invested capital, adoption, monetization, and operational discipline. Last week’s performance gap between Microsoft and Meta was a perfect example. It wasn’t random. It was about capex discipline. The market is rewarding more prudent spending, and that could translate into a real overhang for the capex beneficiaries, in line with my views for the past several months.That is why I still prefer hyperscalers over semis, with one important caveat: dispersion within the hyperscalers is rising. The group has already outperformed semis by 30% over the past four weeks, and I think it can continue over the next several months. Hyperscalers have resilient core businesses, exposure to the AI application layer, and an underappreciated ability to use AI to reduce operating expenses if needed. They’re both enablers and adopters. But the market will no longer treat them all the same....]]>354alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1698fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-structural-forces-moving-capital--75644923insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Michael Zezas: I'm Michael Zezas, co-director of the Morgan Stanley Institute and Deputy Global Head of Morgan Stanley Research.Jessica Alsford: And I'm Jessica Alsford, Morgan Stanley's Chief Sustainability Officer, and also co-director of the Morgan Stanley Institute.Michelle Weaver: Today: how AI, energy, geopolitics, and industrial investment are competing for scarce resources – and what that competition could mean for markets.It's Friday, July 31st at 10am in New York.Jessica Alsford: And 3 pm in London.Michelle Weaver: Mike and Jess, as co-directors, you speak with people across the firm to identify the biggest questions facing companies and investors, especially the important ones that may not have clear answers yet. And to understand how those questions are shaping client conversations. Mike, what's one of the questions that you think investors are wrestling with the most right now?Michael Zezas: So, one of the biggest questions is how several major investment cycles can happen at the same time. AI, energy infrastructure, manufacturing, and defense may all be competing for the same power, the same skilled labor, equipment, and capital. So, investors need to look beyond each theme in isolation and ask where constraints could delay projects, raise costs, or redirect spending, and which companies are best positioned to manage all of that.Michelle Weaver: Since the institute began, you've examined a number of topics, including AI, energy resilience, and geopolitical fragmentation, just to name a few. Jess, which topic has been the most compelling to you?Jessica Alsford: It's difficult to pick one because, to be honest, for me, it's really the way that AI, energy resilience, and geopolitics have all really become one story. If you think about the energy transition, which has been playing out for a number of years. But now we also have the AI build-out, and that depends on reliable and affordable power. And then geopolitical shocks, which are demonstrating the need for countries to have energy security.So, if you put all of this together and you can really see that there is a huge need to scale the global energy system, but using all types of power available to us, including renewables and nuclear.Michelle Weaver: Mike, how is that intersection that Jess spoke about between AI, energy, and geopolitics altering the way that companies are thinking about investing?Michael Zezas: So, geopolitical shocks, they're more norm than exception now. The situations in Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela, they all reflect an evolving international order where the U.S. is less interested than it used to be in preserving global security and trade standards.And that's a particular problem in a world where companies and governments spent much of the last 50 years optimizing to benefit from globalization. So basically, looking for the lowest cost way to produce things, sourcing materials and labor in the most efficient way possible, presuming that the frictions in international goods and services trade would just keep getting lower.That's obviously not the case now, and whether it's a good idea or not, the trend is toward governments leaning into industrial policy to prioritize supply chain security and protect whatever it sees as their national competitive advantages. And really that's correlated with higher trade barriers. So, that means that while companies are still focused on efficiency, they have to build resilience through more regional supply chains, greater redundancy, and investment in strategically important capacity. So, the practical message from our teams is to map critical dependencies, diversify where possible, and be realistic about the extra cost of resilience rather than assuming the old globalization model will simply return.Michelle Weaver:  One of the clearest constraints on the AI build-out is energy. Our thematic research team is estimating a nearly 40-gigawatt shortfall in power needed for data centers. For context, this is multiple New Yorks worth of power. Jess, how significant of a limiting factor is power becoming?Jessica Alsford: Power is definitely becoming a strategic constraint. If you think about grid connections, these can take years to set up. And so, access to power really is going to determine where facilities are built and how quickly they're able to come online. And it looks like there won't be one universal solution.You've got natural gas, nuclear, renewables, storage, microgrids. They're all going to need to play a role. And for companies, that means that they really are going to have to be planning power alongside the site and financing. For investors, it means focusing on reliability, affordability, and permitting, not just headline demand.Michelle Weaver: So, AI, energy, and geopolitics can no longer be considered in isolation. As countries and companies rethink where they source, build, and invest, where do you see the biggest opportunities emerging?Jessica Alsford: The opportunity is likely to be broader than any single sector, to be honest. and the institute has shown that capital really needs to be flowing towards more resilient supply chains as well as new productive capacity and also the infrastructure that supports both of these. And this covers power, grids, automation, logistics, as well as data. I'd also say that location matters, too. And companies need to be able to weigh political stability as well as skilled labor, reliable energy, and policy support. And investors should be looking for markets and businesses that can turn those advantages into durable returns.Michelle Weaver: The institute has also looked at founders as a source of economic information. Jess, what can their decisions reveal before those changes appear in traditional economic data?Jessica Alsford: So, founders are often making decisions at the leading edge of growth and capital formation, and so their behavior can provide an early read on both at-risk appetite and also financing conditions. If we take the current macro environment as an example of this, the institute has shown that many founders are adapting rather than simply waiting, and this means extending fundraising timelines, spawning investor conversations, and considering private credit, structured equity or tender offers. For companies, the takeaway really is to preserve financing flexibility. And for investors, it's to watch how those choices can reshape private market liquidity.Michelle Weaver: Mike, to bring this back to where we started, if power, labor, and capital are all becoming more constrained, what should investors be watching most closely?Michael Zezas: Yeah. I'd watch whether capital spending plans are being delayed or resized or redirected in some way, and I think importantly, what the reasons would be for any of those things happening.Is there a constraint around power or labor or equipment permitting or financing? Those details help distinguish whether you'd be looking at temporary setbacks or a structural shift. So, something that would signal that we've built too much capacity in AI or manufacturing relative to demand. And that's the type of thing that would be a real headwind to the economic outlook and potentially create problems in the credit markets.But to be clear, we don't see demand flagging anytime soon. And so, for investors, it's less about whether to be bullish or bearish on the outlook for the markets and the economy, and it's more about looking for companies that are durable beneficiaries of these trends. So those are ones with secure inputs, flexible balance sheets, and realistic return thresholds.Michelle Weaver:  Absolutely. As Mike said, we don't see demand slowing, and we're seeing a lot of encouraging data points around AI adoption. One analysis we did recently shows that around 25 percent of S&P companies are now quantifying the benefits they're seeing from AI adoption. And this diffusion story is only going to continue to grow.Mike, Jess, thanks for joining me.Michael Zezas: Thanks Michelle.Jessica Alsford: It’s great speaking with you both.Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for tuning in. If this is all piquing your interest, you can find the institute's articles, roundtables, and future work on Morgan Stanley's website. And as always, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast with a friend or colleague.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kwHlrDT5_Dy9NfRxJ9_urDZiSgnq__LDpKZlTbZwe8gFri, 31 Jul 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Strategist Michelle Weaver talks to Michael Zezas and Jessica Alsford, Co-Directors of the Morgan Stanley Institute, about how AI, energy resilience and industrial policy are changing investment decisions.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Michael Zezas: I'm Michael Zezas, co-director of the Morgan Stanley Institute and Deputy Global Head of Morgan Stanley Research.Jessica Alsford: And I'm Jessica Alsford, Morgan Stanley's Chief Sustainability Officer, and also co-director of the Morgan Stanley Institute.Michelle Weaver: Today: how AI, energy, geopolitics, and industrial investment are competing for scarce resources – and what that competition could mean for markets.It's Friday, July 31st at 10am in New York.Jessica Alsford: And 3 pm in London.Michelle Weaver: Mike and Jess, as co-directors, you speak with people across the firm to identify the biggest questions facing companies and investors, especially the important ones that may not have clear answers yet. And to understand how those questions are shaping client conversations. Mike, what's one of the questions that you think investors are wrestling with the most right now?Michael Zezas: So, one of the biggest questions is how several major investment cycles can happen at the same time. AI, energy infrastructure, manufacturing, and defense may all be competing for the same power, the same skilled labor, equipment, and capital. So, investors need to look beyond each theme in isolation and ask where constraints could delay projects, raise costs, or redirect spending, and which companies are best positioned to manage all of that.Michelle Weaver: Since the institute began, you've examined a number of topics, including AI, energy resilience, and geopolitical fragmentation, just to name a few. Jess, which topic has been the most compelling to you?Jessica Alsford: It's difficult to pick one because, to be honest, for me, it's really the way that AI, energy resilience, and geopolitics have all really become one story. If you think about the energy transition, which has been playing out for a number of years. But now we also have the AI build-out, and that depends on reliable and affordable power. And then geopolitical shocks, which are demonstrating the need for countries to have energy security.So, if you put all of this together and you can really see that there is a huge need to scale the global energy system, but using all types of power available to us, including renewables and nuclear.Michelle Weaver: Mike, how is that intersection that Jess spoke about between AI, energy, and geopolitics altering the way that companies are thinking about investing?Michael Zezas: So, geopolitical shocks, they're more norm than exception now. The situations in Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela, they all reflect an evolving international order where the U.S. is less interested than it used to be in preserving global security and trade standards.And that's a particular problem in a world where companies and governments spent much of the last 50 years optimizing to benefit from globalization. So basically, looking for the lowest cost way to produce things, sourcing materials and labor in the most efficient way possible, presuming that the frictions in international goods and services trade would just keep getting lower.That's obviously not the case now, and whether it's a good idea or not, the trend is toward governments leaning into industrial policy to prioritize supply chain security and protect whatever it sees as their national competitive advantages. And really that's correlated with higher trade barriers. So, that means that while companies are still focused on efficiency, they have to build resilience...]]>521alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1697fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/blind-spots-in-the-ai-infrastructure-selloff--75644915insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Today: Are investors misreading the AI infrastructure selloff?It’s Thursday, July 30th, at 10am in New York.The recent selloff in AI infrastructure stocks has raised a familiar question: Is the buildout running ahead of real demand? The market is pulling back and we think that reflects profit-taking, crowded positioning, and forced selling by investors. This is not about weaker fundamentals. But the selloff has brought to light three key concerns, which we think the market is overplaying.The first concern is how much enterprises are willing to pay for AI. The median enterprise employee currently generates less than $11 a month in token spending. That’s the fee paid when an AI model processes a request and generates a response.We think there is room for that to increase. From the employer’s perspective the economics are compelling. Across workplace applications, the cost to execute the economic task would be $2-$5. And that could save an enterprise $55. That to us suggests companies are likely to spend more, not less, on AI over time.The second debate centers on efficient models, including competitive models developed in China.  And here, policy responses both from the U.S. and China can have an impact as well. Some investors worry that better efficiency means less computing demand. But we see the opposite risk. This is a classic example of Jevons paradox: When something becomes cheaper or more efficient to use, people use more of it. In AI, lower costs can attract more users, encourage more frequent use, and make complicated applications more economical. The scale is striking. Industry leaders estimate that compute demand could double every six months, which would amount to more than a thousand-fold increase in compute over five years. Hyperscalers could quadruple available power capacity to roughly 120 gigawatts by 2028, from about 30 gigawatts in 2025.And that leads to the third debate – whether data centers can secure enough power to keep expanding. It’s a valid concern. In the U.S., facilities under construction and contracted grid capacity cover about 30 gigawatts. That’s less than half the 68 gigawatts of power that data centers are likely to need from 2026 through 2028. Grid connections can take five to seven years in some regions. Skilled electricians, welders, and pipefitters are in short supply. And local opposition is increasing as communities debate electricity bills, tax incentives, and who should pay for grid upgrades.These are real obstacles, but we view them as delays rather than dead ends. Onsite generation, fuel cells, energy storage, natural gas turbines, and the conversion of existing high-power sites could close the gap, at least partially.We believe much of the recent weakness in AI infrastructure has been driven by technical factors rather than a change in the underlying fundamentals. As AI becomes more capable and cheaper to use, demand for intelligence, compute, and power is likely to keep rising. The global market is fragmented as policy decisions in the U.S. and China shape how growth unfolds. But strong economics should support continued investment.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IgpFkmVYTA1flN30fHKakyaNNC2YsFyUlp1Ps8eCdBQThu, 30 Jul 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd explains why the recent AI infrastructure selloff may reflect technical pressures, not weakening fundamentals.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Today: Are investors misreading the AI infrastructure selloff?It’s Thursday, July 30th, at 10am in New York.The recent selloff in AI infrastructure stocks has raised a familiar question: Is the buildout running ahead of real demand? The market is pulling back and we think that reflects profit-taking, crowded positioning, and forced selling by investors. This is not about weaker fundamentals. But the selloff has brought to light three key concerns, which we think the market is overplaying.The first concern is how much enterprises are willing to pay for AI. The median enterprise employee currently generates less than $11 a month in token spending. That’s the fee paid when an AI model processes a request and generates a response.We think there is room for that to increase. From the employer’s perspective the economics are compelling. Across workplace applications, the cost to execute the economic task would be $2-$5. And that could save an enterprise $55. That to us suggests companies are likely to spend more, not less, on AI over time.The second debate centers on efficient models, including competitive models developed in China.  And here, policy responses both from the U.S. and China can have an impact as well. Some investors worry that better efficiency means less computing demand. But we see the opposite risk. This is a classic example of Jevons paradox: When something becomes cheaper or more efficient to use, people use more of it. In AI, lower costs can attract more users, encourage more frequent use, and make complicated applications more economical. The scale is striking. Industry leaders estimate that compute demand could double every six months, which would amount to more than a thousand-fold increase in compute over five years. Hyperscalers could quadruple available power capacity to roughly 120 gigawatts by 2028, from about 30 gigawatts in 2025.And that leads to the third debate – whether data centers can secure enough power to keep expanding. It’s a valid concern. In the U.S., facilities under construction and contracted grid capacity cover about 30 gigawatts. That’s less than half the 68 gigawatts of power that data centers are likely to need from 2026 through 2028. Grid connections can take five to seven years in some regions. Skilled electricians, welders, and pipefitters are in short supply. And local opposition is increasing as communities debate electricity bills, tax incentives, and who should pay for grid upgrades.These are real obstacles, but we view them as delays rather than dead ends. Onsite generation, fuel cells, energy storage, natural gas turbines, and the conversion of existing high-power sites could close the gap, at least partially.We believe much of the recent weakness in AI infrastructure has been driven by technical factors rather than a change in the underlying fundamentals. As AI becomes more capable and cheaper to use, demand for intelligence, compute, and power is likely to keep rising. The global market is fragmented as policy decisions in the U.S. and China shape how growth unfolds. But strong economics should support continued investment.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>249alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1696fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-oil-market-s-billion-barrel-problem--75644936insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today – talking about the recent volatility and the direction ahead for oil.It's Wednesday, July 29th at 2pm in London.Martijn, it's great to talk to you again. We haven't talked for a little while on this program. But oil is once again back in the headlines and it's moving around.So maybe to just jump right into things, as you look at the lay of the land in global energy markets at the moment, what's been happening? What are you telling clients?Martijn Rats: Okay. Well, we've had a large amount of volatility, over the last couple of weeks. If you roll the clock back, sort of, to the beginning of June. In the beginning of June, it started to become clear that already some more oil was leaking out of the Strait of Hormuz than perhaps, many of us anticipated at the time.But that data has been confirmed since then. And then, of course, in the middle of June, we got the memorandum of understanding. And after that, roughly 100-150 million barrels a day or so that was behind the Strait of Hormuz got cleared. And that…Andrew Sheets: These were tankers that were stuck there during the conflict, all came out.Martijn Rats: Absolutely. Laden tankers that were there; had just basically turned into floating storage for a good couple of months. They all cleared out, and that actually created a bit of a glut, in the sense that all of a sudden, the refiners of this world had a lot of crude to absorb. And we saw many indications of physical looseness in the market, physical differentials, calendar spreads.All sorts of indicators pointed that physically there was a lot of oil, temporarily to be absorbed. And the spot price of Brent fell to $70. And that looked to be the new direction of travel. In principle, the world is not short of oil if you take the geopolitics out of it.So, for a while it, it looked bearish. But then a new set of disruptions came, and the military conflict restarted, and we've had 13 days of overnight bombing. And with that also the flow through the Strait of Hormuz diminished again. And we are back in the last, sort of, week, 10 days to very, very low levels. The same levels we had in March.The flow through the strait is not exactly zero. But it's sort of 2-3 million barrels a day, sort of, down 80 percent to 90 percent of what it was before the conflict. And with that, prices have rallied. But on top of that, last week it looked like the military activity could really scale up. And for a couple of days, the markets priced that in.But then we have other choke points to take into account now. Not only Hormuz, but the Bab el-Mandeb, the CPC terminal, the issues in global refining. Altogether, it's been a tremendously volatile period. So, we're on the whole leaning towards the constructive side because there are so many disruptions in the system. But it's a very hard one to call at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So Martijn, let's talk about those other disruptions besides just the Strait of Hormuz. Because yeah, it's not just the Strait of Hormuz anymore. We have issues in the Red Sea. You have ongoing issues with Russian energy infrastructure that's being attacked by Ukraine. Just what are these other factors that are out there? And how much do they matter relative to, you know, how many ships are passing through the Strait of Hormuz?Martijn Rats: Yeah. They matter a lot, and you can see that expressed in the price of refined product more than the price of crude. If you look at the main global benchmark for the price of diesel, which is arguably the ICE gas-oil contract, which are diesel barges delivered in Rotterdam or in the wider ARA area, it's trading at about $1,200 a ton, which is sort of $150-$160 per barrel.That's where you see the tightness. And so out of the total end user price, the refiners are capturing more at the moment than the crude suppliers. But what end users pay is not $85 per barrel for Brent crude oil, it's $1,200 a ton for diesel. And that is a very high price. Now, that is a result effectively of four major issues that the oil market has to deal with.One of them is Hormuz, as just discussed. But then we come to these other three. And these other three are the Bab el-Mandeb, which is the strait on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula that provides entry and exit to the Red Sea. That strait has gained in importance because Saudi Arabia has been redirecting about 4 million barrels a day of crude oil supply that was previously exported via Hormuz. Now through the East-West Pipeline to a terminal near a city called Yanbu, from where it is loaded and mostly sails down south through the Bab el-Mandab to refineries in Asia.The Bab el-Mandab is a strait that is effectively controlled by the Houthis, which is an Iran-aligned group that controls much of Yemen. And already in [20]24, earlier in [20]25, they've been very effective, controlling tanker traffic through that strait. And in the last sort of week or so, they have said that they will no longer allow Saudi tankers to sail out. And also, that group has executed drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure near the Jazan refinery, near the Yanbu terminal, and overnight also the Abqaiq facility, which is a large oil processing plant.So, this whole Red Sea situation puts at risk something like an incremental 3.5 million barrels a day of crude.Then we've had to deal with issues at the CPC terminal, which is again, also a very large oil export terminal. About 1.5-2 million barrels a day of crude is exported from CPC, which is a terminal near the Russian city of Novorossiysk.Ukraine has been executing drone attacks on tankers that have been trying to load from the CPC terminal. Much of last week, the CPC terminal was out. Over the last 24 hours, a few tankers have loaded again, but it's very unreliable. It's on again, off again. It's a very disrupted flow. In and of itself, a single terminal loading 1.5-2 million barrels a day is very, very large. So, we care.And then the third issue that the oil market has been dealing with, and this also comes back to this issue about these refined product prices, is very severe tightness in the global refining system. That is an issue of some refineries can't export because they're behind the Strait of Hormuz again.So, you can say, "Well, isn't that; that's sort of the same problem?" But nevertheless, it expresses it somewhere else. It's partly a problem of, sort of, the Chinese refinery system running very low. But it's recently mostly been driven by Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries. And by now, something like 60 percent of the Russian refining system is out.And with that, exports of refined products have declined very significantly. There's a gasoline export ban. There's a diesel export ban from Russia. Russia used to be a very large diesel exporter. That is now down to practically zero. And with that, refined product markets have rallied severely on top of the price of crude.Andrew Sheets: And I think that's interesting [be]cause when we think about the economic impact of oil, while, you know, the price of oil per barrel is often the most kind of visible marker that we have – it's often the refined product that we actually use. You know, a truck is running on diesel. It's not running on crude oil.And, you know, that cost of diesel, of jet fuel, of gasoline, you know, that is the thing that can often really affect business margins. And the ability to operate and move product around. So, I mean, just give a sense like how much have those diesel prices gone up? And how much further could they rise if you're operating, you know, a trucking company in Europe?Martijn Rats: Yeah. Look, when supply is inherently scarce, we often ask the question – what is the demand destruction price, right? If you can't supply the stuff quick enough, the physical oil market, be it crude or refined product, must balance.There are a finite number of molecules in the system, and we can store them for a bit. We can take them out of storage. But when you take storage into account, molecules can't disappear out of nowhere. And they can't create it out of nowhere either. So, the system must balance. And if you can't supply it quick enough, the only way to balance sometimes is through demand destruction.And then we ask the question, what is the price that effectively causes that to happen? And if you look historically, that is often expressed in crude, something like $140-$150 a barrel. We've seen that before. But those were occasions where refining was not an issue. And then crude needs to do the heavy lifting to drive prices higher.What we're having at the moment is that refined products need to do it. And so, from experience earlier in the year, back in 2022, some other occasions, the price that destroys diesel demand is probably in the order of $1,400 a ton. In the diesel market, we use tons rather than barrels for historical reasons. Just to make it easy.But it's about $1,400 a ton, which is about sort of, you know, like $180-$190 per barrel. That really stops diesel demand in its track. At the moment, we're $1,230-$1,240, that sort of level. And so, we are getting close. There is probably a little bit more to go, like another 5 percent, 10 percent, that sort of thing, before you really hit some exceptionally high levels.But the diesel price, I would argue, is doing exactly]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AKQc53RyHwcX_AX6a8zJNP3ZZaFExErexlGr3UjpD0QWed, 29 Jul 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyHow much runway does the world’s energy market still have? Our Head of Commodity Research Martijn Rats joins our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets to explain what’s causing pressure beyond renewed tensions in the Middle East.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today – talking about the recent volatility and the direction ahead for oil.It's Wednesday, July 29th at 2pm in London.Martijn, it's great to talk to you again. We haven't talked for a little while on this program. But oil is once again back in the headlines and it's moving around.So maybe to just jump right into things, as you look at the lay of the land in global energy markets at the moment, what's been happening? What are you telling clients?Martijn Rats: Okay. Well, we've had a large amount of volatility, over the last couple of weeks. If you roll the clock back, sort of, to the beginning of June. In the beginning of June, it started to become clear that already some more oil was leaking out of the Strait of Hormuz than perhaps, many of us anticipated at the time.But that data has been confirmed since then. And then, of course, in the middle of June, we got the memorandum of understanding. And after that, roughly 100-150 million barrels a day or so that was behind the Strait of Hormuz got cleared. And that…Andrew Sheets: These were tankers that were stuck there during the conflict, all came out.Martijn Rats: Absolutely. Laden tankers that were there; had just basically turned into floating storage for a good couple of months. They all cleared out, and that actually created a bit of a glut, in the sense that all of a sudden, the refiners of this world had a lot of crude to absorb. And we saw many indications of physical looseness in the market, physical differentials, calendar spreads.All sorts of indicators pointed that physically there was a lot of oil, temporarily to be absorbed. And the spot price of Brent fell to $70. And that looked to be the new direction of travel. In principle, the world is not short of oil if you take the geopolitics out of it.So, for a while it, it looked bearish. But then a new set of disruptions came, and the military conflict restarted, and we've had 13 days of overnight bombing. And with that also the flow through the Strait of Hormuz diminished again. And we are back in the last, sort of, week, 10 days to very, very low levels. The same levels we had in March.The flow through the strait is not exactly zero. But it's sort of 2-3 million barrels a day, sort of, down 80 percent to 90 percent of what it was before the conflict. And with that, prices have rallied. But on top of that, last week it looked like the military activity could really scale up. And for a couple of days, the markets priced that in.But then we have other choke points to take into account now. Not only Hormuz, but the Bab el-Mandeb, the CPC terminal, the issues in global refining. Altogether, it's been a tremendously volatile period. So, we're on the whole leaning towards the constructive side because there are so many disruptions in the system. But it's a very hard one to call at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So Martijn, let's talk about those other disruptions besides just the Strait of Hormuz. Because yeah, it's not just the Strait of Hormuz anymore. We have issues in the Red Sea. You have ongoing issues with Russian energy infrastructure that's being attacked by Ukraine. Just what are these other factors that are out there? And how much do they matter relative to, you know, how many ships are passing through the Strait of Hormuz?Martijn Rats: Yeah. They matter a lot, and...]]>788alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1695fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fed-in-july-a-weaker-case-for-hiking--75644971insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, will the Fed hold or hike? It's the question in the market right now. It's Tuesday, July 28th at 9:30am in New York. Will the Fed display patience, or has it run out of patience? That's the question hanging over the July FOMC meeting currently underway. We believe the former. We expect the Fed to keep the target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.5 to 3.75 percent. The statement will probably also remain unchanged, reiterating the ample reserve policy, economic activity expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty. So, Mike, what's your assessment of the situation beyond that? Michael Gapen: Our assessment of the July FOMC meeting is actually the case for hikes is not as persuasive now as it was in June. And I think when we say that and when we come to the decision the Fed will stay on hold this week, we're basing it mainly on the data that has come in since the June FOMC meeting. And two important pieces on that front are employment growth moderated. So, in the June meeting, the three-month average payroll gain was running at about 188,000 per month. And I think it gave the sense that the labor market was really accelerating and there was downside risk to the unemployment rate. The subsequent employment data changed that view. Now it looks like there is much less of an acceleration in hiring and momentum has slowed. So, the labor market doesn't look quite as robust. Second, there was a lot of information, we think, a lot of signal about disinflation. So yes, recent volatility in the Middle East did push oil prices temporarily higher. We'll see where that goes. But underneath the hood, there was significant softness in goods inflation and services inflation, particularly related to housing. So, we do think that there was a lot of evidence that disinflation is here. So, with those two things in mind, we think there's less of a case to hike in July than there was in June. So, we think the right thing... Or what we think the Fed will do is to skip July, try and buy a little more time, get a little more information. If disinflation is indeed here, the Fed stays on hold. If not, and inflation stays firm, well, they can move to rate hikes later this year. But we think the case to hike in July is less compelling than it was in June. Matthew Hornbach: Well, they certainly will get a lot more information between the July meeting and the September meeting. If memory serves, at least two more rounds of all of the major economic data points… Michael Gapen: That’s right. Matthew Hornbach: Payroll, CPI, and so on. Michael Gapen: That's right. The gap between the July FOMC meeting and the September FOMC meeting is the longest on the Fed's calendar. Of course, in part, that makes room for Jackson Hole in August, which if the Fed were moving to a tightening cycle, could be a venue to lay out the case for that. But you're right, they will see multiple employment and inflation reports before they meet again in September. Matthew Hornbach: If they really wanted to get ahead of that data and move at this meeting, what is the case for hiking rates in July? How would you think about that perspective? Michael Gapen: I think you could make a couple of cases to hike now. One is recent volatility and conflict in the Middle East has pushed oil prices higher. Maybe it convinces you – you're in a prolonged oil risk premium scenario, and inflation will not dissipate. Second, I think you could argue, well, it's a balance of risks argument. And we think risks have just shifted in the direction of inflation, where last year they were in the direction of a weaker labor market. We eased last year. Let's just reverse those risk management rate cuts this year. So, it's not about inflation in hand, it's about your view of risks around inflation. Another, I think, and to me, this is the most important one, is maybe Warsh wants a regime change in the reaction function. In other words, he emphasizes price stability and achieving the 2 percent target. Well, at some point, words are words and actions are actions. And maybe what he desires is a more hawkish reaction function and kind of a higher interest rate all else equal to guide inflation down to 2 percent more quickly. So, I think, Matt, if we're wrong this week, I think the main reason we're wrong is I'm thinking under an older reaction function, and Warsh is bringing a new one. And right now, we don't exactly know what his reaction function is. And he could reveal it this week as being in a direction where he really wants to concentrate on the inflation side of the mandate to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Matthew Hornbach: Well, I don't think that's lost on markets at all. And in fact, I think that the rise in yields we've seen in the bond market concentrated in the real yield component of the 10-year Treasury bond tells you a lot about how investors are thinking the Fed will react to higher energy prices. As energy prices have gone up, so have bond yields. The relationship between those two asset prices are very strong. And usually what that suggests is if the real yield is going up more than the break-even inflation rate is going up as energy prices rise, it's telling you that investors think the Fed will not look through the rise in energy prices. If you have the opposite happen, where your break-even inflation rate is going higher, more so than the real interest rate is going higher, that would suggest investors think the Fed will look through the energy price increase. That just hasn't been the case, and so I think investors are very much attuned to what they think is the right reaction function for the Fed. But I guess we'll see. Only time will tell. And I think in order to help us tell what the right reaction function is – we'll need some communication from the Fed. And maybe that's where I want to go next with you – is on communication. It does seem like there have been fewer FOMC participants speaking to the public since Chairman Warsh began his tenure as chairman. Is that your impression? How do you think about communication? And since we are in the midst of this FOMC meeting, the press conference… What do you think about press conferences going forward? Michael Gapen: I do think you're right. I haven't counted up the literal official FOMC communications. I do think there have likely been fewer speeches and/or interviews given recently. And whether or not that's a function of Kevin Warsh as the chairman or it's summer and things move a little slower, I don't know. I will say, though, that when participants have spoken, I think we're getting the same, say, normal communication that they brought in the past. So far, I don't read participants as unwilling to provide their view about the outlook for the economy and for monetary policy. On the press conference, boy, would that be a change. I've been of the view that you probably will not get what I'll call a major change to the SEPs or the press conferences in terms of their frequency until the task force on communications has run its course, where I think the deadline is ultimately later this year. So, I don't think the schedule of press conferences will change until 2027, if it changes at all. But if we don't have them… The way that I would look at that, Matt, is to say, if the Fed's speaking less, there will be a vacuum out there to some degree. So, if the Fed's giving its view on the outlook and monetary policy less frequently, something else will fill that narrative, whether it's markets or the private sector or whatever it is. Vacuums are going to get filled. The Fed's speaking less, somebody else will speak more. Maybe that drives volatility more. I guess it would depend on the situation, but I think pulling press conferences would be a major surprise. I don't think it's in market expectations, and my belief is it would probably lead to some increase in volatility over time.How would you read it? Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. I think the void has already begun to be filled by investors and how they think about the Fed's reaction function, rightly or wrongly. Which is why I think we've seen real yields move in a very positively correlated way with energy prices. Investors are intuiting a certain reaction function to higher energy prices. Whether or not that is the correct view, only time will tell. If we do have a press conference at this upcoming meeting, which looks very likely, investors are going to pay attention to every nuance and every shift in the chairman's tone. How he chooses to address certain questions versus others—or whether he chooses to address them at all—will be important for market participants and how they invest in the bond and currency markets. With that, Mike, thanks again for taking the time to talk. I look forward to catching up with you again in late August around the Jackson Hole symposium. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Thanks for having me on. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VIuqMqDtkBqQwGAbjp5e1RjVSyg_sRhwBDPSSMlWwo0Tue, 28 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen unpack what is likely to influence this week’s interest rate decision by the Fed.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, will the Fed hold or hike? It's the question in the market right now. It's Tuesday, July 28th at 9:30am in New York. Will the Fed display patience, or has it run out of patience? That's the question hanging over the July FOMC meeting currently underway. We believe the former. We expect the Fed to keep the target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.5 to 3.75 percent. The statement will probably also remain unchanged, reiterating the ample reserve policy, economic activity expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty. So, Mike, what's your assessment of the situation beyond that? Michael Gapen: Our assessment of the July FOMC meeting is actually the case for hikes is not as persuasive now as it was in June. And I think when we say that and when we come to the decision the Fed will stay on hold this week, we're basing it mainly on the data that has come in since the June FOMC meeting. And two important pieces on that front are employment growth moderated. So, in the June meeting, the three-month average payroll gain was running at about 188,000 per month. And I think it gave the sense that the labor market was really accelerating and there was downside risk to the unemployment rate. The subsequent employment data changed that view. Now it looks like there is much less of an acceleration in hiring and momentum has slowed. So, the labor market doesn't look quite as robust. Second, there was a lot of information, we think, a lot of signal about disinflation. So yes, recent volatility in the Middle East did push oil prices temporarily higher. We'll see where that goes. But underneath the hood, there was significant softness in goods inflation and services inflation, particularly related to housing. So, we do think that there was a lot of evidence that disinflation is here. So, with those two things in mind, we think there's less of a case to hike in July than there was in June. So, we think the right thing... Or what we think the Fed will do is to skip July, try and buy a little more time, get a little more information. If disinflation is indeed here, the Fed stays on hold. If not, and inflation stays firm, well, they can move to rate hikes later this year. But we think the case to hike in July is less compelling than it was in June. Matthew Hornbach: Well, they certainly will get a lot more information between the July meeting and the September meeting. If memory serves, at least two more rounds of all of the major economic data points… Michael Gapen: That’s right. Matthew Hornbach: Payroll, CPI, and so on. Michael Gapen: That's right. The gap between the July FOMC meeting and the September FOMC meeting is the longest on the Fed's calendar. Of course, in part, that makes room for Jackson Hole in August, which if the Fed were moving to a tightening cycle, could be a venue to lay out the case for that. But you're right, they will see multiple employment and inflation reports before they meet again in September. Matthew Hornbach: If they really wanted to get ahead of that data and move at this meeting, what is the case for hiking rates in July? How would you think about that perspective? Michael Gapen: I think you could make a couple of cases to hike now. One is recent volatility and conflict in the Middle East has pushed oil prices higher. Maybe it convinces you – you're in a prolonged oil risk premium scenario, and inflation will not...]]>650alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1694fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-more-selective-stock-market--75644929insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the transition from early- to mid-cycle and what that means for your portfolio.It's Monday, July 27th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Our broadening call for the market has been about moving beyond the narrow leadership of the mega-cap winners and into more economically sensitive areas. That made sense in the context of our rolling recovery thesis, a period when revenue growth returns to lean cost structures, and operating leverage emerges across many sectors of the economy.But now, I think that early-cycle phase of the rolling recovery is ending, and the market is starting to rotate toward quality. That’s not bearish, but it is different and can affect portfolios at the stock level. As the cycle matures, investors stop rewarding low quality beta and start focusing more on free cash flow, balance sheet strength, margins, and earnings stability. The market is not abandoning the recovery. It is becoming more selective about the best way to own it. This setup reminds me of early-to-mid 2021. After the initial post-COVID rebound, leadership shifted away from lower-quality and more speculative areas and toward higher-quality companies. The S&P 500 kept rising, but the leadership changed. I think we’re seeing something similar today. The S&P itself is already a quality-heavy benchmark, with high-quality cohorts representing roughly 42 percent of the index versus about 28 percent for low quality. That should help keep the index resilient, even as the market continues to digest this transition. Could we still see near-term volatility? Absolutely. If the war escalates further or the Fed surprises us with a rate hike this week, the market can continue to correct. I continue to think 7000 on the S&P 500 is important support if investors remain uneasy about the Fed transition or the geopolitical backdrop. However, the bigger message is that leadership is changing, not that the bull market is ending.One of the most important drivers of this shift is AI adoption. Earlier in the cycle, margin expansion was about classic operating leverage: sales recovering faster than costs. From here, margin expansion will depend more on companies using AI effectively, running leaner, and turning productivity into revenue growth as well. This is why quality matters. Companies with strong pricing power, strong balance sheets, or the ability to translate AI adoption into real growth are likely to be rewarded disproportionately.Companies where AI is material to the investment thesis and pricing power is neutral to strong are seeing forward net margin expectations improve nearly 400 basis points above the median stock. Our transcript work also shows that roughly 25 percent of S&P 500 companies cited measurable benefits from AI adoption in the second quarter, up from 14 percent a year ago. That’s operating leverage with a new engine. This also feeds into the AI leadership rotation. I still think semis are likely to underperform hyperscalers from here, even if both can be under pressure during the next leg of consolidation. Semis are a classic early-cycle group, and they’ve already seen a peak rate of change in earnings revisions. The hyperscalers, by contrast, have high quality core businesses, exposure to the agentic application layer, and an underappreciated ability to take costs out through AI-driven efficiencies.  In terms of the overall S&P 500, the two variables I’m watching most closely are interest rates and oil. The bond market is pricing a meaningful probability of a Fed hike, but my base case remains that the Fed stays on hold. A hike would be a hawkish surprise and a risky maneuver, but I think even that would delay rather than derail a positive finish to 2026 with earnings growth remaining strong.  Oil is the other wildcard. A sustained rise in oil is not priced into equities, and just another reason to move one’s portfolio up the quality ladder.Bottom line, the broadening is not over, but it is changing shape and leadership. We’re moving from early-cycle beta toward mid-cycle quality as the market seeks not only growth, but companies that can convert that growth into durable free cash flow and margin expansion. The recent elevation of quality factors has been evolving for the past month and now it’s time to fully embrace it.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LElU8EpyYlvjOa8l-iTiR0AEonW_odWDzXcYm-O2jV0Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he thinks the bull market has entered a new phase, with more focus on quality.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the transition from early- to mid-cycle and what that means for your portfolio.It's Monday, July 27th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Our broadening call for the market has been about moving beyond the narrow leadership of the mega-cap winners and into more economically sensitive areas. That made sense in the context of our rolling recovery thesis, a period when revenue growth returns to lean cost structures, and operating leverage emerges across many sectors of the economy.But now, I think that early-cycle phase of the rolling recovery is ending, and the market is starting to rotate toward quality. That’s not bearish, but it is different and can affect portfolios at the stock level. As the cycle matures, investors stop rewarding low quality beta and start focusing more on free cash flow, balance sheet strength, margins, and earnings stability. The market is not abandoning the recovery. It is becoming more selective about the best way to own it. This setup reminds me of early-to-mid 2021. After the initial post-COVID rebound, leadership shifted away from lower-quality and more speculative areas and toward higher-quality companies. The S&P 500 kept rising, but the leadership changed. I think we’re seeing something similar today. The S&P itself is already a quality-heavy benchmark, with high-quality cohorts representing roughly 42 percent of the index versus about 28 percent for low quality. That should help keep the index resilient, even as the market continues to digest this transition. Could we still see near-term volatility? Absolutely. If the war escalates further or the Fed surprises us with a rate hike this week, the market can continue to correct. I continue to think 7000 on the S&P 500 is important support if investors remain uneasy about the Fed transition or the geopolitical backdrop. However, the bigger message is that leadership is changing, not that the bull market is ending.One of the most important drivers of this shift is AI adoption. Earlier in the cycle, margin expansion was about classic operating leverage: sales recovering faster than costs. From here, margin expansion will depend more on companies using AI effectively, running leaner, and turning productivity into revenue growth as well. This is why quality matters. Companies with strong pricing power, strong balance sheets, or the ability to translate AI adoption into real growth are likely to be rewarded disproportionately.Companies where AI is material to the investment thesis and pricing power is neutral to strong are seeing forward net margin expectations improve nearly 400 basis points above the median stock. Our transcript work also shows that roughly 25 percent of S&P 500 companies cited measurable benefits from AI adoption in the second quarter, up from 14 percent a year ago. That’s operating leverage with a new engine. This also feeds into the AI leadership rotation. I still think semis are likely to underperform hyperscalers from here, even if both can be under pressure during the next leg of consolidation. Semis are a classic early-cycle group, and they’ve already seen a peak rate of change in earnings revisions. The hyperscalers, by contrast, have high quality core businesses, exposure to the agentic application layer, and an underappreciated ability to take costs out through AI-driven efficiencies.  In terms of the overall S&P 500, the two variables I’m watching most closely are interest rates and oil. The bond...]]>311alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1693fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-odyssey-through-market-history--75644897insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what can Odysseus teach us about investing? It's Friday, July 24th at 2pm in London.Like many of you, this week I saw The Odyssey. The enduring appeal of this story more than 2,700 years after it was composed is a reminder that some themes are universal. Pride, resourcefulness, determination, self-control, or the lack thereof, mattered to both an ancient Greek dinner party and resonate with anybody investing today.But drawing lessons from the past is also tricky. We do not have that much financial history, and markets contain too many variables for the same combination to align twice. Some judgment, art, and dare we say storytelling is always involved in deciding which historical periods best describe the present. Those disclaimers aside, we've argued in our year ahead outlook that 1997 to 1998 and 2005 to 2006 are some of the most useful templates for the current backdrop.That remains our view. They suggest a cycle that has further to run, equities outperforming credit, and a preference to own volatility. Both of these periods were defined by a sharp rise in corporate activity. That is certainly what we're seeing today.We forecast U.S. capital expenditure to rise 23 percent in 2026, and 26 percent in 2027. AI is the biggest driver of this spending but build-outs in energy infrastructure are also playing a role. And increased corporate CapEx is certainly a global story, especially in Asia.Then there's M&A, which also rose significantly in these two past historical periods. As recently as early 2024, global M&A volumes were unusually depressed, some of the lowest levels in over 30 years, adjusted for economic size. But that's no longer the case. And more recently, M&A is currently running up 64 percent relative to a year ago.Important current macroeconomic data also looks somewhat similar to these past two periods. The current levels of U.S. core PCE inflation, the unemployment rate, and the 10-year yield are pretty close to the averages seen in 1997, 1998, 2005, and 2006.And the U.S. 2s10s yield curve, well, it broadly flattened then, and it has broadly been flattening today. A third similarity, maybe less obvious but no less important, is deregulation. Both 1997 and 1998 and 2005 to 2006 saw significant financial deregulation. And we're seeing that again now. From the Basel Endgame to NAIC risk weights to Solvency II changes to savings reforms in Europe, Korea, and elsewhere, the current trend appears to be on a firmly deregulatory path.Even more simply, 1997 and 1998 and 2005 to 2006 provide interesting narrative bookends to two ways that I often hear the current environment being described. The late '90s? Well, that was defined by rising excitement around a transformational new technology – then the internet – and the prospect of a more productive future. Sound familiar? And the mid-2000s? Well, that was defined by a very unequal economy and rising consumer stress – but growth that was still supported by a seemingly inexhaustible investment demand from a rising market force. Then that force was emerging markets. Today, it's AI. Again, somewhat familiar. If these periods serve as a guide, the cycle probably has further to run, and corporate aggression should favor equities over credit.But if we learn anything from the trials of Odysseus, the journey can throw up plenty of surprises along the way. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HFdhoFY-1zPvMj4LjxEwDiW-3hQaDC_ArhrcgROKL-0Fri, 24 Jul 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyLooking at clues from the past, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets examines how the recurring themes – from deregulation to volatility – are shaping markets and why every cycle still takes its own path.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, what can Odysseus teach us about investing? It's Friday, July 24th at 2pm in London.Like many of you, this week I saw The Odyssey. The enduring appeal of this story more than 2,700 years after it was composed is a reminder that some themes are universal. Pride, resourcefulness, determination, self-control, or the lack thereof, mattered to both an ancient Greek dinner party and resonate with anybody investing today.But drawing lessons from the past is also tricky. We do not have that much financial history, and markets contain too many variables for the same combination to align twice. Some judgment, art, and dare we say storytelling is always involved in deciding which historical periods best describe the present. Those disclaimers aside, we've argued in our year ahead outlook that 1997 to 1998 and 2005 to 2006 are some of the most useful templates for the current backdrop.That remains our view. They suggest a cycle that has further to run, equities outperforming credit, and a preference to own volatility. Both of these periods were defined by a sharp rise in corporate activity. That is certainly what we're seeing today.We forecast U.S. capital expenditure to rise 23 percent in 2026, and 26 percent in 2027. AI is the biggest driver of this spending but build-outs in energy infrastructure are also playing a role. And increased corporate CapEx is certainly a global story, especially in Asia.Then there's M&A, which also rose significantly in these two past historical periods. As recently as early 2024, global M&A volumes were unusually depressed, some of the lowest levels in over 30 years, adjusted for economic size. But that's no longer the case. And more recently, M&A is currently running up 64 percent relative to a year ago.Important current macroeconomic data also looks somewhat similar to these past two periods. The current levels of U.S. core PCE inflation, the unemployment rate, and the 10-year yield are pretty close to the averages seen in 1997, 1998, 2005, and 2006.And the U.S. 2s10s yield curve, well, it broadly flattened then, and it has broadly been flattening today. A third similarity, maybe less obvious but no less important, is deregulation. Both 1997 and 1998 and 2005 to 2006 saw significant financial deregulation. And we're seeing that again now. From the Basel Endgame to NAIC risk weights to Solvency II changes to savings reforms in Europe, Korea, and elsewhere, the current trend appears to be on a firmly deregulatory path.Even more simply, 1997 and 1998 and 2005 to 2006 provide interesting narrative bookends to two ways that I often hear the current environment being described. The late '90s? Well, that was defined by rising excitement around a transformational new technology – then the internet – and the prospect of a more productive future. Sound familiar? And the mid-2000s? Well, that was defined by a very unequal economy and rising consumer stress – but growth that was still supported by a seemingly inexhaustible investment demand from a rising market force. Then that force was emerging markets. Today, it's AI. Again, somewhat familiar. If these periods serve as a guide, the cycle probably has further to run, and corporate aggression should favor equities over credit.But if we learn anything from the trials of Odysseus, the journey can throw up plenty of surprises along the way. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market...]]>269alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1692fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/data-centers-political-battle--75644912insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about why we still expect robust AI capital spending in spite of some rising political pushback. It's Thursday, July 23rd at 10am in New York. It should be no surprise to our listeners that data center pushback, a topic that we've been following for some time, has been growing louder. But in 2026, it's accelerated meaningfully. Data we track suggests that an estimated $156 billion of projects were canceled or delayed in 2025. This year alone, in just the first quarter, we've seen almost that same exact number. The opposition is coming from several directions.Communities are raising concerns about rising electricity bills, environmental pressures related to water use, and the local quality of life effects of large-scale construction. But it's also coming from lawmakers across the aisle. State legislatures with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been advancing this type of policy.At the same time, we're forecasting a little less than a trillion dollars of AI CapEx this year alone, and we think it's an increasingly important component of the macroeconomic growth outlook.So how do we square that circle? First, and most importantly, we think this is primarily a supply-side risk rather than a demand-side one. We don't expect the backlash to materially reduce projections for compute demand. Instead, it could widen the gap between that demand and the industry's ability to bring new capacity online through things like permitting delays, grid interconnection constraints, and local opposition.Despite that more difficult political and infrastructure environment, our internet team, led by Brian Nowak, remain constructive on AI capital spending. Our broader thematic estimate for total AI CapEX, including the neo cloud providers, stands at approximately $870 billion in 2026, and we actually see risks skewed even higher from here.So why is spending still increasing as the environment for building data centers becomes more challenging? There are a few reasons.First, the AI ecosystem remains compute constrained. The urgency to invest has not diminished. In fact, growing social opposition and political uncertainty ahead of the 2028 presidential election may actually be encouraging hyperscalers to begin projects earlier, which our credit strategists outline as a potential scenario here. A pull forward of demand before the political and execution risk grows even louder.Second, the timelines associated with data center construction have become longer. From groundbreaking to operational launch, projects can now take as long as three years or even more. That gives companies a strong incentive to begin developing future capacity well in advance, even if the political pushback is strong.And third, the underlying demand signal is not slowing. Global weekly token usage, which our analysts view as an important proxy for compute demand, has increased since early January. It's rising and continues to do so throughout the course of this year. So, in short, the pushback is real, but it appears to be reshaping the build-out rather than stopping it. That's why our base case is for a conditional build-out. We think projects are likely to face greater scrutiny, we think projects are likely to face greater scrutiny, longer delays, and more requirements related to environmental impact and community benefits.But ultimately, we still think they cross the finish line. That could mean higher costs, it could mean longer development timelines, and greater geographic dispersion of projects away from the largest existing data center markets. It could also accelerate the shift toward on-site and behind-the-meter power generation. Fuel cells, turbines, and energy storage are becoming increasingly important as operators look for ways to reduce their reliance on these lengthy grid interconnection processes, and that can benefit companies that are able to bring those solutions to the forefront. Meanwhile, our U.S. equity strategy team maintains a relative preference for hyperscalers over semiconductors over the next several months. As you heard our CIO and Chief Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explain yesterday, that's because the team sees the hyperscalers as early in discounting the market's renewed focus on CapEx discipline. Putting it all together, we see the growing pushback against data centers as representing a genuine risk to the pace, cost, and geography of the AI infrastructure build-out. But again, this isn't just a demand story, it's a supply story. And somewhat paradoxically, the scarcity and the uncertainty created by these constraints could actually end up pulling capital spend forward rather than reducing it.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YOHYnzd6z-kSJFwbynxM5PvEpFgIgl3JpJwUv7mPrGIThu, 23 Jul 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyDespite growing political resistance, investment in data centers isn't slowing. Ariana Salvatore explains why supply constraints may actually accelerate AI capital spending.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about why we still expect robust AI capital spending in spite of some rising political pushback. It's Thursday, July 23rd at 10am in New York. It should be no surprise to our listeners that data center pushback, a topic that we've been following for some time, has been growing louder. But in 2026, it's accelerated meaningfully. Data we track suggests that an estimated $156 billion of projects were canceled or delayed in 2025. This year alone, in just the first quarter, we've seen almost that same exact number. The opposition is coming from several directions.Communities are raising concerns about rising electricity bills, environmental pressures related to water use, and the local quality of life effects of large-scale construction. But it's also coming from lawmakers across the aisle. State legislatures with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been advancing this type of policy.At the same time, we're forecasting a little less than a trillion dollars of AI CapEx this year alone, and we think it's an increasingly important component of the macroeconomic growth outlook.So how do we square that circle? First, and most importantly, we think this is primarily a supply-side risk rather than a demand-side one. We don't expect the backlash to materially reduce projections for compute demand. Instead, it could widen the gap between that demand and the industry's ability to bring new capacity online through things like permitting delays, grid interconnection constraints, and local opposition.Despite that more difficult political and infrastructure environment, our internet team, led by Brian Nowak, remain constructive on AI capital spending. Our broader thematic estimate for total AI CapEX, including the neo cloud providers, stands at approximately $870 billion in 2026, and we actually see risks skewed even higher from here.So why is spending still increasing as the environment for building data centers becomes more challenging? There are a few reasons.First, the AI ecosystem remains compute constrained. The urgency to invest has not diminished. In fact, growing social opposition and political uncertainty ahead of the 2028 presidential election may actually be encouraging hyperscalers to begin projects earlier, which our credit strategists outline as a potential scenario here. A pull forward of demand before the political and execution risk grows even louder.Second, the timelines associated with data center construction have become longer. From groundbreaking to operational launch, projects can now take as long as three years or even more. That gives companies a strong incentive to begin developing future capacity well in advance, even if the political pushback is strong.And third, the underlying demand signal is not slowing. Global weekly token usage, which our analysts view as an important proxy for compute demand, has increased since early January. It's rising and continues to do so throughout the course of this year. So, in short, the pushback is real, but it appears to be reshaping the build-out rather than stopping it. That's why our base case is for a conditional build-out. We think projects are likely to face greater scrutiny, we think projects are likely to face greater scrutiny, longer delays, and more requirements related to environmental impact and community benefits.But ultimately, we still think they cross the finish line. That could mean higher costs, it could mean longer development timelines, and...]]>301alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1691fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/more-stocks-join-the-bull-market--75644919insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I will explain why the recent volatility in markets makes sense. It's Wednesday, July 22nd at 2 p.m. in New York. So, let’s get after it. The broadening trade is back and it’s gaining steam. We established this thesis last week. Importantly, there’s a key reason this broadening trade is likely to continue. One of the more crowded areas of the market—semiconductors—has lost its momentum. As I’ve also noted before, this is not a call that the AI cycle is over. However, stocks do trade on the rate of change in growth, and expectations often reach a place where they can no longer surprise on the upside. Earnings revisions tend to get too stretched, and capital starts looking for the next place where fundamentals are improving but positioning is still light. This is no different than what happened to other leadership groups earlier this year in areas like precious metals and energy stocks. Remember, I first made the call for market broadening in our November outlook. My view is that the economy had moved into a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in April 2025. Markets were starting to catch on before the Iran conflict interrupted that trend. Investors piled back into the AI trade—especially semis—as oil prices jumped and Fed expectations shifted more hawkish. Back in June, I noted that those earnings revisions were likely nearing their peak. Hyperscale stocks starting to lag was the first indication. Since semis ultimately depend on hyperscaler spending, that divergence usually doesn’t last. It doesn’t mean the buildout is ending. However, the spenders may be moving from blind enthusiasm to a more disciplined phase as a means of addressing the market’s concerns about falling cash flows. We’ve seen this pattern before. Since ChatGPT launched, this ebbing and flowing between the hyperscaler and semiconductor stocks has happened three times. This is the fourth such adjustment, during which the hyperscaler stocks are likely to outperform the semis. Since a few weeks back, hyperscalers have outperformed semiconductors by almost 30 percent. Another consequence is that the major averages may trade lower in the near term. When a crowded, large-cap leadership group is unwinding, the index can look choppy even as the market underneath is improving. That’s the key distinction. The index may struggle, but the broadening can still work. Over the next month, don’t be surprised if the S&P 500 trades as low as 7000 before it makes a move to 8000 by year-end. Use this weakness to add to equity positions. I continue to like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. Discretionary Goods remains one of the cleaner expressions of the broadening thesis. Wallet share is shifting from services back toward goods, goods pricing is improving, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports continue to show improving revisions as volumes stabilize and pricing gets better. Biotech is one of the more attractive lower-rate beneficiaries, especially if policy expectations are too hawkish, as I think they are. On that last point, the Fed backdrop matters. The June FOMC meeting told us forward guidance is going to be limited, and the inflation path is going to drive policy. The softer-than-expected inflation data last week should allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hiking. It may take the bond market a few more data points to fully re-price this view. Bottom line, the broadening is in gear, but it may not feel comfortable because it’s happening while the crowded momentum trade unwinds, a process that is likely unfinished. That’s usually how rotations in market leadership work. Like spring, it’s often: in like a lion and out like a lamb. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0QDRcBTbvQEBXf-miKFlOjVoKeqzU9QqKUDrJIanIgEWed, 22 Jul 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why market leadership is rotating beyond semiconductors and where investors may find opportunities despite near-term volatility.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I will explain why the recent volatility in markets makes sense. It's Wednesday, July 22nd at 2 p.m. in New York. So, let’s get after it. The broadening trade is back and it’s gaining steam. We established this thesis last week. Importantly, there’s a key reason this broadening trade is likely to continue. One of the more crowded areas of the market—semiconductors—has lost its momentum. As I’ve also noted before, this is not a call that the AI cycle is over. However, stocks do trade on the rate of change in growth, and expectations often reach a place where they can no longer surprise on the upside. Earnings revisions tend to get too stretched, and capital starts looking for the next place where fundamentals are improving but positioning is still light. This is no different than what happened to other leadership groups earlier this year in areas like precious metals and energy stocks. Remember, I first made the call for market broadening in our November outlook. My view is that the economy had moved into a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in April 2025. Markets were starting to catch on before the Iran conflict interrupted that trend. Investors piled back into the AI trade—especially semis—as oil prices jumped and Fed expectations shifted more hawkish. Back in June, I noted that those earnings revisions were likely nearing their peak. Hyperscale stocks starting to lag was the first indication. Since semis ultimately depend on hyperscaler spending, that divergence usually doesn’t last. It doesn’t mean the buildout is ending. However, the spenders may be moving from blind enthusiasm to a more disciplined phase as a means of addressing the market’s concerns about falling cash flows. We’ve seen this pattern before. Since ChatGPT launched, this ebbing and flowing between the hyperscaler and semiconductor stocks has happened three times. This is the fourth such adjustment, during which the hyperscaler stocks are likely to outperform the semis. Since a few weeks back, hyperscalers have outperformed semiconductors by almost 30 percent. Another consequence is that the major averages may trade lower in the near term. When a crowded, large-cap leadership group is unwinding, the index can look choppy even as the market underneath is improving. That’s the key distinction. The index may struggle, but the broadening can still work. Over the next month, don’t be surprised if the S&P 500 trades as low as 7000 before it makes a move to 8000 by year-end. Use this weakness to add to equity positions. I continue to like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. Discretionary Goods remains one of the cleaner expressions of the broadening thesis. Wallet share is shifting from services back toward goods, goods pricing is improving, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports continue to show improving revisions as volumes stabilize and pricing gets better. Biotech is one of the more attractive lower-rate beneficiaries, especially if policy expectations are too hawkish, as I think they are. On that last point, the Fed backdrop matters. The June FOMC meeting told us forward guidance is going to be limited, and the inflation path is going to drive policy. The softer-than-expected inflation data last week should allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hiking. It may take the bond market a few more data points to fully re-price this view. Bottom line, the broadening is in gear, but it may not feel...]]>258alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1690fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-global-rate-debate--75644986insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And once again today, I am joined by Morgan Stanley's chief regional economists: Michael Gapen, the Chief U.S. Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist, and on the other side of the world, Chetna Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist. Yesterday, we talked about what's supporting growth around the world, especially AI spending in the U.S. and some government spending in Europe, and Asia's role in making all of this happen. Today, we're going to try to dig deeper and go into policy. It's Tuesday, July 21st at 10 am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since the last time we did this in mid-April, I will say the debate around central banks has probably become more complicated. Global growth has held up, probably better than many people expected. And inflation, which picked up a lot, started to recede. But it has not gone away. And some of the forces helping to shape the economy, the AI spending, government spending, that possible upswing in manufacturing, that could keep demand strong, and it might keep pushing inflation higher. So, the question today is, if growth remains resilient, how much room really do central banks have to navigate? Mike, let me start with you because your call for the Fed here in the U.S. is out of consensus, or at least at odds with where the market is pricing things. We talked about the demand going from AI. You pointed out that imports are actually limiting how much domestic demand there is. So, what is the underlying story for inflation in the U.S.? And what does it mean for the Fed? Michael Gapen: So, our view is that inflation will come down in the U.S. So, we think disinflation will be driven by some payback in energy prices. Some payback from tariffs, which have pushed up goods prices over the last year. And some further diminishment in housing-related inflation, namely shelter. So, we think on a broad-based perspective, inflation has already peaked and will start moving lower. And we think we've seen evidence of this in recent inflation prints. A risk to that, though, is from the demand side of the economy and AI-related inflation in two parts. One, higher software prices, chipflation. So, the pass-through of some of the AI pricing components. Fortunately, here, they're about less than 1 percent of the consumer basket. So, we don't think that there's a great risk, a strong risk, a high risk of AI-related inflation in the consumer bundle. I think the real risk is that maybe we underestimate broad-based demand, animal spirits. And so, you might just see a broad-based increase in inflation from stronger demand. That'll be a little bit harder to see in real times. But our expectation is that inflation moves lower to about 3 percent, by the end of this year and closer to 2.5 percent next year. Seth Carpenter: All right. Thanks, Mike. And in fact, the most recent inflation report that we just got confirms your perspective that inflation should be coming down. And so, I guess the question then remains: What would it take for the Fed to hike this year if inflation has come down like we've seen? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the answer there is that inflation wouldn't come down in line with our expectations. So, if the view is that energy prices, tariffs, and shelter inflation should provide plenty of offset and bring inflation down, I think the answer is you don't get payback. Explicitly, core goods prices stay elevated. Maybe we get ongoing disruptions in the Middle East that push energy prices higher and create second-round effects. So, I think inflation just lingering at elevated levels could mean the Fed gets brought in to raise rates in September or later this year. We think if they're patient enough, they'll see enough disinflation to keep them on the sidelines. But the risk is disinflation forecast is too optimistic, inflation stays firm, the Fed needs to raise rates. Seth Carpenter: All right, Jens, what about for you and the ECB? They've already raised interest rates once this year. I think you've got a forecast for them raising interest rates again in September. What could make you wrong about that forecast? What's going to make you convinced that you're right about that forecast? And is there a similar tension that the ECB is wrestling with that Mike talked about for the Fed? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah. I mean, starting with the last part of your question, I think no doubt, very similar tension. Just that, of course, it's less obvious. It's essentially a nuanced European version instead of the loud American version that we always stereotypically think the world looks like. So, essentially, we have here clearly not an AI boom. That, I mean, there's no question. And we have discussed that yesterday. Still, there is certainly the notion that the world demand is not really weak, and some of this will also arrive in Europe. And so, you have that tension between maybe there's more resilience than we had thought, and so inflation will not come down through to slack as much. And so, we might actually add something here in terms of monetary restrictiveness. Now, the other thing that is often forgotten, even though it's blatantly obvious, the starting point is just different. The ECB is running neutral monetary policy by all accounts. I mean, you could say 2 percent is neutral, and now they are 2.25. But, you know, there are ranges of uncertainty around any estimate. And the latest that they published runs – goes from 1.75 to 2;2.5. So basically, even if they were to increase rates to 2.5 in September, you could go with the microphone around the governing council, and you would probably find a lot of people saying, "Well, this is still a neutral policy." That's probably not the case for the U.S. So, I guess this matters here for that debate too. Seth Carpenter: All right. Yesterday we talked about lots of different things, but for Europe, we brought up fiscal policy. How do you think about fiscal policy and how it affects monetary policy? And so, I'm thinking about two channels. One, how much does the ECB care that if they keep pushing up interest rates, they're going to increase the debt service burden for countries that are already facing high debt costs? And second, is fiscal policy going to be the extra impetus for inflation that forces even more rate hikes from the ECB? Jens Eisenschmidt: I guess it depends on who you ask. Certainly, more concerned members in the governing council that would point to exactly that fiscal stimulus as a reason why interest rates have to be increased further from here. The other answer I would give is – probably for now at least, the view on fiscal policy is really model-based. You look at what type of increase in interest rate gets you essentially more fiscal restraint because there's an increase in interest rate bill and so less spending somewhere else. And that gets you basically less stimulus or less growth, I mean, very roughly speaking. I don't think it's a major concern for now. We haven't reached yet interest rates where this would start to play a role. I guess, again, Europe being fragmented as it is, with all the political risk that's around the corner. Think about the elections in France and Italy and Spain next year. That will very likely find itself expressed in spreads. And so, the higher the interest rates are, the larger the spreads could become. Seth Carpenter: So, for each of you, there's clearly a role for inflation. One of the risks we'll talk about maybe is inflation expectations and how maybe there's a big shift in what's going on with inflation. But Chetan, that brings me to you and Asia, because one economy where there unquestionably has been a fundamental shift in inflation and inflation expectation over the past several years is Japan. The Bank of Japan is on this normalization path where they're raising interest rates. Interest rates had been negative and then zero, and now they're gradually raising things up. Inflation has come back to Japan. Markets are looking at what the Bank of Japan is likely to do. Can you tell us a little bit about what our view is for the Bank of Japan this year and next? And what might make them hike interest rates faster than we think? And is there any risk that in fact they hike interest rates slower than we think? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we are expecting BoJ to hike twice from here. The first rate hike is coming up in December of this year, and then another one coming up in June of next year. And then we think that, you know, the underlying inflation trend in Japan is not really that strong. So, while market pricing is for about three more rate hikes instead of two that we are building in our base case. And some of the macro investors are even talking about four more rate hikes. We think the underlying inflation trend warrants a caution and BoJ to go slowly than what the market is pricing in and what the macro investors are saying in. And the key part of our framework on thinking about Japan's inflation is that bulk of the explanation to inflation rise in Japan lies in currency moves. And secondarily, you can look at also the other drivers are more from supply side, which is higher energy prices or food prices. Whereas it's not driven so much by demand. To elaborate further on why it is not driven by demand, when you look at Japan's consumption trend, and if you i]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/QLfEz3KojhbMvMr14H9wJLDoy2j3Lecr6_tfo3mIuY0Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyIn the second part of our economic roundtable, Michael Gapen, Jens Eisenschmidt and Chetan Ahya join Seth Carpenter to discuss how central banks are balancing sticky inflation, resilient growth and regional policy trade-offs.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And once again today, I am joined by Morgan Stanley's chief regional economists: Michael Gapen, the Chief U.S. Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist, and on the other side of the world, Chetna Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist. Yesterday, we talked about what's supporting growth around the world, especially AI spending in the U.S. and some government spending in Europe, and Asia's role in making all of this happen. Today, we're going to try to dig deeper and go into policy. It's Tuesday, July 21st at 10 am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since the last time we did this in mid-April, I will say the debate around central banks has probably become more complicated. Global growth has held up, probably better than many people expected. And inflation, which picked up a lot, started to recede. But it has not gone away. And some of the forces helping to shape the economy, the AI spending, government spending, that possible upswing in manufacturing, that could keep demand strong, and it might keep pushing inflation higher. So, the question today is, if growth remains resilient, how much room really do central banks have to navigate? Mike, let me start with you because your call for the Fed here in the U.S. is out of consensus, or at least at odds with where the market is pricing things. We talked about the demand going from AI. You pointed out that imports are actually limiting how much domestic demand there is. So, what is the underlying story for inflation in the U.S.? And what does it mean for the Fed? Michael Gapen: So, our view is that inflation will come down in the U.S. So, we think disinflation will be driven by some payback in energy prices. Some payback from tariffs, which have pushed up goods prices over the last year. And some further diminishment in housing-related inflation, namely shelter. So, we think on a broad-based perspective, inflation has already peaked and will start moving lower. And we think we've seen evidence of this in recent inflation prints. A risk to that, though, is from the demand side of the economy and AI-related inflation in two parts. One, higher software prices, chipflation. So, the pass-through of some of the AI pricing components. Fortunately, here, they're about less than 1 percent of the consumer basket. So, we don't think that there's a great risk, a strong risk, a high risk of AI-related inflation in the consumer bundle. I think the real risk is that maybe we underestimate broad-based demand, animal spirits. And so, you might just see a broad-based increase in inflation from stronger demand. That'll be a little bit harder to see in real times. But our expectation is that inflation moves lower to about 3 percent, by the end of this year and closer to 2.5 percent next year. Seth Carpenter: All right. Thanks, Mike. And in fact, the most recent inflation report that we just got confirms your perspective that inflation should be coming down. And so, I guess the question then remains: What would it take for the Fed to hike this year if inflation has come down like we've seen? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the answer there is that inflation wouldn't come down in line with our expectations. So, if the view is that energy prices, tariffs, and shelter inflation should provide plenty of offset and bring inflation down, I think the answer is you don't get...]]>756alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1689fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-spending-a-new-engine-for-the-global-economy--75644921insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist. Seth Carpenter: And today is going to be our third quarter economic roundtable taking a wide-angle view on the global economy and all the key forces shaping our outlook and the economy. Seth Carpenter: It's Monday, July 20th at 10am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since our last roundtable in April, the global economy has continued to face all sorts of shocks, a mix of resilience and friction. Inflation pressures have not disappeared. Energy and geopolitical risks have come up, they've receded, they've come back, they've receded all over the place But there is one underlying source of momentum that we have to talk about. And that is the AI-driven CapEx cycle. Michael, let me turn to you because the U.S. is a real focal point of all of this. Tell me a little bit about where Morgan Stanley Research is thinking about hyperscaler CapEx. How big it is? And then for you, when you think about the U.S. economy, just how big of a driver is it for what we're looking for in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, we continue to revise higher our estimates for hyperscaler and AI-related CapEx in the U.S. economy. We were thinking a little over a trillion for 2027. Now we're more like 1.2 - 1.3 trillion, maybe as high as 1.4 trillion in 2028. So, the level of hyperscaler spending continues to keep rising. The growth rate and its effect on the economy is likely to slow. But as you noted, it's still a major driver of momentum in the U.S. You would look at that headline number and think, "Wow, that's, you know, 3.5 percent or so of GDP. Must be a massive source of momentum for GDP growth." But roughly about 60 percent of that hyperscaler CapEx spending goes to items like computers and peripherals, equipment spending categories that have a very, very high import content. We still get a significant number that AI CapEx is probably contributing around 40 basis points to growth this year. Be a similar-sized amount perhaps next year.So, for an economy that's growing somewhere a little bit above 2 percent right now, maybe closer to 2.5 percent next year, that's a non-trivial amount. We just have to remember it's fueling growth around the world, just not here in the U.S. Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that's a really great point because I have seen some estimates where people say, "Well, if it wasn't for AI CapEx, the U.S. economy wouldn't have grown at all." And that's clearly wrong, as you point out. But U.S. imports are necessarily exports from somewhere else. And, Chetan, if I can pull you into the story then, U.S. firms are buying a lot of AI-related equipment from Asia. What does that mean in your part of the world? And in particular, I'm thinking about Korea, Taiwan, and maybe some other economies in Asia. What's the critical story there? Chetan Ahya: So, for Asia, this has definitely been a big boon. If you look at Asia's exports, they have been booming, and particularly for the ones which are exporting semiconductors to the U.S. They are seeing semiconductor exports growing by 90 percent. And when we go back in time and compare Asia's semiconductor exports, it's very tightly linked to the U.S. IT CapEx. And it's not surprising when Mike Gapen mentions about the imports going up. It's on the other side, helping Asia's exports quite meaningfully. So, so far, we've seen this benefiting Korea, number one, Taiwan, and also Japan. All these three are big beneficiaries of U.S. AI CapEx. And of course, also not just U.S., but the other countries which are doing any little amount of CapEx on AI front, that's also helping these three economies in the region. Seth Carpenter: You've been doing a lot of work, Chetan, recently about how much the story can actually broaden out, that the AI CapEx cycle has really contributed to Asian growth, but it doesn't tell the whole story that there's a broader industrial cycle. Can you give us a little bit of a flavor of that story? Chetan Ahya: That's right, Seth. So, we are actually highlighting that there is a CapEx and industrial super cycle that is underway in Asia, and there are four components to this story. AI and semiconductors CapEx, which we just briefly discussed. Number two is energy. Number three is defense. And number four is industrial supply chain onshoring related CapEx. I know that everybody still thinks that AI is the most important part of this story, but when I give you the numbers and the breakup of that... So, for Asia, AI and semiconductor companies CapEx is about $380 billion in 2026, but energy CapEx is going to be $900 billion. So, this is a far broader story than just AI for Asia. Seth Carpenter: Mike, let me come back to you and to the U.S. then. So, isn't the growth story also broader than that as well domestically? So, what's going on in terms of consumer spending in the U.S., and is there a broader CapEx story in the U.S. as well? Michael Gapen: I would say, is it broader than that? I think maybe you could argue also it's narrower than that. Here's what I mean by that. As I noted AI CapEx contributing about 40 basis points to growth, it's certainly underpinning equity valuations in the U.S. and underpinning strong wealth creation. So about [$]180 trillion in household net worth in the U.S. About [$]55 trillion of that has been created in just the last five years alone, underpinned in part by AI-related spending and optimism about future profitability. That's really supported spending by upper income households. So, I think it's both investment-led and consumer-led, but they're inextricably linked. So, the positive for the U.S. is that it's providing a lot of resilience. The negative component of that is it feels like momentum in the U.S. is narrowly driven. Jens Eisenschmidt: Let me maybe jump in here from Europe to provide some perspective from the other side. So, I think it's a fair summary to say that AI investment is not yet, or maybe will never get there, dominating the business cycle. What we do have instead is an unusually consumption-driven expansion. That has to do not so much with an extraordinary strength of consumption, but more of an absence of other factors. Now, prospectively looking forward, we think the fiscal expansion might help lifting us a little bit. And then it is really the debate how much AI investment can arrive in Europe. For now, I would say it's probably a factor of 20 that separates European investment plans from the plans we know that exist for the U.S. Seth Carpenter: Let me stick with you then in Europe because you brought up fiscal as one of the factors going on here and where it's going… You and your team recently wrote a blue paper talking about what the outlook is for fiscal policy in Europe, and in particular, we had this era of cheap debt. Interest rates in Europe were low, at times negative. It was super easy to borrow. Not as much happened then. There's been a shift towards more fiscal expansion at the same time that interest rates have gone up, causing the cost of debt to go up. Feels like there's a lot of push and pull going on. Can you unpack for us a little bit what was in that paper you wrote, what's going on with fiscal policy in Europe, especially in Germany? And what it might mean over time for Euro-area countries? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, so I think fiscal policy in Europe really is looking at a regime shift. So, there is this very famous, probably in the U.S. even more so than here, notion that the Europeans have built a very comfortable welfare state. And that's true if you just look at the accounting from a GDP perspective. It's close to 50 percent that, you know, budgets are actually extended on welfare spending. And now you have three structural headwinds for any type of fiscal spend. So, one is aging related costs, you mentioned it already. Defense spending has to increase significantly, and the interest rate costs will also rise significantly. All of that means there will be very hard choices to be made. The one thing that actually could help here is growth. Growth is the one thing that's, for now at least, missing, at least in comparison to the U.S. It's probably half what we expect, what the U.S. colleagues think is in stake for the U.S., and a quarter or even less than that of what is there in Asia. So, growth is really the key, the solution, the answer to everything in Europe. More growth than just 1 percent, which is potential, would help solving that fiscal challenge. For now, it looks really, really like an uphill battle. Returning to Germany, it's the one country that has a very good fiscal starting position. They are pushing a lot but they're to some extent pushing a string. So, even with the German huge fiscal package, given that private sector investments so far are absent, doesn't get us a ton of growth. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, maybe I'll come back to you before we close part one of this roundtable. The AI CapEx cycle started with AI, broadened out further. How long do you expect this cycle to last? How durable can it be? And how might it compare to previous CapEx cycles? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we think this will be a multi-year CapEx cycle. And when we are thinking about the duration of the cycle, there are two things that I would keep in mind]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/PRNgVWtYGYEE_S633iuQdF0HNEtPFu7-GPUfNU3IhPkTue, 21 Jul 2026 00:30:00 +0000gtyAI investment is reshaping the global outlook. In part one of this economic roundtable, our panel explores where the momentum is strongest — and where investment still needs to catch up.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist. Seth Carpenter: And today is going to be our third quarter economic roundtable taking a wide-angle view on the global economy and all the key forces shaping our outlook and the economy. Seth Carpenter: It's Monday, July 20th at 10am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since our last roundtable in April, the global economy has continued to face all sorts of shocks, a mix of resilience and friction. Inflation pressures have not disappeared. Energy and geopolitical risks have come up, they've receded, they've come back, they've receded all over the place But there is one underlying source of momentum that we have to talk about. And that is the AI-driven CapEx cycle. Michael, let me turn to you because the U.S. is a real focal point of all of this. Tell me a little bit about where Morgan Stanley Research is thinking about hyperscaler CapEx. How big it is? And then for you, when you think about the U.S. economy, just how big of a driver is it for what we're looking for in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, we continue to revise higher our estimates for hyperscaler and AI-related CapEx in the U.S. economy. We were thinking a little over a trillion for 2027. Now we're more like 1.2 - 1.3 trillion, maybe as high as 1.4 trillion in 2028. So, the level of hyperscaler spending continues to keep rising. The growth rate and its effect on the economy is likely to slow. But as you noted, it's still a major driver of momentum in the U.S. You would look at that headline number and think, "Wow, that's, you know, 3.5 percent or so of GDP. Must be a massive source of momentum for GDP growth." But roughly about 60 percent of that hyperscaler CapEx spending goes to items like computers and peripherals, equipment spending categories that have a very, very high import content. We still get a significant number that AI CapEx is probably contributing around 40 basis points to growth this year. Be a similar-sized amount perhaps next year.So, for an economy that's growing somewhere a little bit above 2 percent right now, maybe closer to 2.5 percent next year, that's a non-trivial amount. We just have to remember it's fueling growth around the world, just not here in the U.S. Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that's a really great point because I have seen some estimates where people say, "Well, if it wasn't for AI CapEx, the U.S. economy wouldn't have grown at all." And that's clearly wrong, as you point out. But U.S. imports are necessarily exports from somewhere else. And, Chetan, if I can pull you into the story then, U.S. firms are buying a lot of AI-related equipment from Asia. What does that mean in your part of the world? And in particular, I'm thinking about Korea, Taiwan, and maybe some other economies in Asia. What's the critical story there? Chetan Ahya: So, for Asia, this has definitely been a big boon. If you look at Asia's exports, they have been booming, and particularly for the ones which are exporting semiconductors to the U.S. They are seeing semiconductor exports growing by 90 percent. And when we go back in time and compare Asia's semiconductor exports, it's very tightly linked to the U.S. IT CapEx. And it's not surprising when Mike Gapen mentions about the imports going up. It's on...]]>779alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1688fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-your-medical-bill-is-so-high--75644914insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, a discussion into one of the biggest mysteries in one of the biggest sectors of the economy. We're talking about healthcare costs. It's Friday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Mark Schmidt: At 9am in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, we're talking today about healthcare, which represents roughly a fifth of the U.S. economy, the bulk of job creation over the last several years, and in my view, honestly, one of the biggest inflation paradoxes that we see in the market. On the one hand, the high cost of healthcare is taken as a given, and it's something that many Americans still struggle with financially. But if you look at the official inflation data in the U.S., healthcare costs have been lower than normal, and that's been true now for a number of years. So, what's going on? How do we tie this together? And Mark, you just wrote a report that tries to do exactly that. So, what did you hope to accomplish with this report? Mark Schmidt: You're absolutely right. It's hard to underline enough just how large healthcare is to the U.S. economy overall. Americans spend nearly $6 trillion on healthcare. That's more than the GDP of the entire country of Germany. And if we think about prices, Americans pay more. A knee replacement, for example, costs $25,000 in the United States. That same procedure costs just $6,000 in France. Common heart treatments that would cost $3,000 in Germany or $10,000 in Australia cost $34,000 in the U.S. It also matters for everyone's local community. Healthcare jobs have been growing twice as fast as the rate of job growth in the economy overall. And those are good jobs. They pay above average wages. For many Americans these days, the most secure path to the middle class is a career in healthcare. Now, this may seem a little bit arcane, but it probably hits close to your portfolio as well. Earlier in the year, when we took a look at how equity separately managed accounts invest, they typically have a core overweight to healthcare. And even though American prices may seem like an American issue, many of the largest and most profitable healthcare companies in the world are actually headquartered in Europe. So, whether you're sitting in New York or sitting in London, the price of American healthcare probably matters to you. But as you noted, Andrew, it does feel like a paradox because although Americans cite healthcare costs as one of their top concerns, and although healthcare spending is growing at 6 percent a year or more, the official inflation data says that healthcare prices are in check. And at one point earlier in the year, healthcare inflation, according to official data, even dipped below 3 percent. It just didn't make a lot of sense, and that's why we got together with our colleagues across equities, fixed income research, public policy, and economics to dig into what was actually going on. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, let's dig right into that. I mean, it seems like a perfect encapsulation of the so-called Main Street versus Wall Street perception of the economy. So, what's going on? How does one kind of square those two numbers? Mark Schmidt: The easiest way to understand it is that you can't walk through a grocery store and figure out the price of a knee replacement. And that's true both for you and me. It's also true for the government. They have to survey hospitals and health insurance companies. The trouble is that the prices that health insurance companies pay hospitals, well, those are trade secrets. So, at any given point in time, even for the best government economists, it's not entirely clear what the price trends are. And that's why when you look at the official data, healthcare inflation typically has relatively lumpy jumps in the series. You could see several months of 0.1 or 0.2 percent official growth in healthcare inflation. Or as earlier this week, you could see certain categories jump to 0.4 or even 0.8. Andrew Sheets: Another element, Mark, that you talked about in the report is that people are also consuming more healthcare. So, talk a little bit about that. How that factors into this dynamic, and again, is that just going to be the new normal as the population ages and we tend to spend more on healthcare as we get older? Mark Schmidt: That's right. The good news is that we're living longer lives. The bad news is that means that we have more chronic healthcare conditions to deal with. The good news is that more procedures can be done in outpatient settings, and those, generally speaking, are cheaper. The bad news is that inpatient care, inpatient prices go up as the complexity of procedures that actually happen in a hospital setting increase significantly. When you balance it all out, it's a situation where, thankfully, the United States and most Americans have the means and the wealth to pay more for healthcare. The flip side of that is that they are paying more for healthcare, and that's why we think that the recent softness in healthcare inflation is actually too good to be true. Andrew Sheets: Something that jumped out at me from this report, Mark, was just how important hospitals are in this equation. And the experience of the patient and the experience of the hospital can be different economically. And that difference can also matter for how this shows up in official inflation and government statistics.So, you know, it would be helpful maybe just to walk the listener through. If I go into the hospital and I need knee surgery. You know, how does that look like from my perspective in terms of paying for it, assuming I have health insurance through my employer? How could that look like to the hospital? And how could that look like coming out the other end into the official government statistics? Mark Schmidt: Well, of course, Andrew, the first thing that you do when you break your leg is you call six hospitals and shop around for the cheapest price, right? Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Of course. Mark Schmidt: So that's actually the problem because when you get care, you're not in a place to ask about the price. And frankly, even if you asked your doctor or nurse what the price is, they probably wouldn't know. Not only is it not their job to know the price, but all of those negotiations happen after the fact – with the prices that the insurance companies negotiate with the hospitals. After COVID, hospitals had a lot more costs to spread out among the people who were coming in the door, and so they raised prices across the board, not just for procedures that were related to respiratory illness. Naturally, insurance companies noticed that, and they started to push back. So long after you get a cast for your broken leg – and by the way, I wish you a speedy recovery – insurance companies end up going back and forth negotiating with your doctors for exactly how much they should pay you. And although these prices were loosely set well before you walked in the door, the exact way it gets billed and coded? Well, let's just say there's a lot of back and forth. For a well-run hospital, the cost of talking to and ultimately getting reimbursement from your insurance company, that alone could be 2 to 4 percent of revenue. And in especially complex cases, that whole negotiation can eat up 5 to 7 percent of the total bill. You're also right to flag that hospitals really are still the central point of the U.S. healthcare system. Americans spend $2 trillion in a hospital setting. And hospitals overwhelmingly coordinate care for both primary, specialty, and pharmacy services. Andrew Sheets: Mark, another issue I wanted to ask you about was the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and how those programs fit into the story? Mark Schmidt: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included a variety of measures to slow the overall growth rate of healthcare. Now, for all the reasons we just discussed, that's probably warranted. The Affordable Care Act is another wrinkle. Enhanced subsidies, which were already set to expire – did in fact expire at the end of last year. And as a result, more Americans are now uninsured. It remains to be seen how that impacts overall costs. In the United States, when you have a health emergency, a hospital is legally obligated to treat you because of a 1990s law called EMTALA. Even if you can't pay, the system eventually does. Historically, uncompensated care costs have been passed on to individuals and companies with insurance. For now, however, it remains to be seen whether these changes in law and in the overall number of people with insurance will cause healthcare prices to rise or fall. Andrew Sheets: And Mark, just for the broad-based implications of this, right? It's fair to say that in any health insurance system, there are some people who consume a lot more healthcare. They're unhealthy or they're unlucky. And there are some who consume a lot less. And, you know, this is something where that overall coverage question matters. Because if you have things that reduce the number of otherwise healthy people who are in those healthcare pools, it can raise the cost for everybody else. Those people who were in some ways subsidizing the higher consumers of healthcare are no longer there. Is that a fair way to frame it, do you think? And are there potential changes given some of these legislative actions that could lead to changes of what the pool looks like – and what overall costs could look like? Mark]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tdFF81cqbkdwjSHFyUMp702iNWuw8IIJY2wQROf8TaEFri, 17 Jul 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Andrew Sheets and Mark Schmidt unpack why U.S. healthcare feels so expensive and the potential impacts of rising hospital costs.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, a discussion into one of the biggest mysteries in one of the biggest sectors of the economy. We're talking about healthcare costs. It's Friday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Mark Schmidt: At 9am in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, we're talking today about healthcare, which represents roughly a fifth of the U.S. economy, the bulk of job creation over the last several years, and in my view, honestly, one of the biggest inflation paradoxes that we see in the market. On the one hand, the high cost of healthcare is taken as a given, and it's something that many Americans still struggle with financially. But if you look at the official inflation data in the U.S., healthcare costs have been lower than normal, and that's been true now for a number of years. So, what's going on? How do we tie this together? And Mark, you just wrote a report that tries to do exactly that. So, what did you hope to accomplish with this report? Mark Schmidt: You're absolutely right. It's hard to underline enough just how large healthcare is to the U.S. economy overall. Americans spend nearly $6 trillion on healthcare. That's more than the GDP of the entire country of Germany. And if we think about prices, Americans pay more. A knee replacement, for example, costs $25,000 in the United States. That same procedure costs just $6,000 in France. Common heart treatments that would cost $3,000 in Germany or $10,000 in Australia cost $34,000 in the U.S. It also matters for everyone's local community. Healthcare jobs have been growing twice as fast as the rate of job growth in the economy overall. And those are good jobs. They pay above average wages. For many Americans these days, the most secure path to the middle class is a career in healthcare. Now, this may seem a little bit arcane, but it probably hits close to your portfolio as well. Earlier in the year, when we took a look at how equity separately managed accounts invest, they typically have a core overweight to healthcare. And even though American prices may seem like an American issue, many of the largest and most profitable healthcare companies in the world are actually headquartered in Europe. So, whether you're sitting in New York or sitting in London, the price of American healthcare probably matters to you. But as you noted, Andrew, it does feel like a paradox because although Americans cite healthcare costs as one of their top concerns, and although healthcare spending is growing at 6 percent a year or more, the official inflation data says that healthcare prices are in check. And at one point earlier in the year, healthcare inflation, according to official data, even dipped below 3 percent. It just didn't make a lot of sense, and that's why we got together with our colleagues across equities, fixed income research, public policy, and economics to dig into what was actually going on. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, let's dig right into that. I mean, it seems like a perfect encapsulation of the so-called Main Street versus Wall Street perception of the economy. So, what's going on? How does one kind of square those two numbers? Mark Schmidt: The easiest way to understand it is that you can't walk through a grocery store and figure out the price of a knee replacement. And that's true both for you and me. It's also true for the government. They have to survey hospitals and health insurance companies. The trouble is that the prices...]]>740alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1687fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-test-for-capital-markets-funding-ai--75644942insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst at Morgan Stanley. Anish Shah: And I'm Anish Shah, Global Head of Debt Capital Markets at Morgan Stanley. Lindsay Tyler: Today, how issuers and investors are approaching the rapidly evolving world of AI financing. It's Thursday, July 16th at 10am in New York. As AI demand accelerates, credit markets are being asked to finance infrastructure on a scale that used to be associated with utilities, telecom, or energy. That raises a central question for issuers and investors: How much debt can the AI ecosystem absorb? And at what price? Anish, can you walk our listeners through the key products in your purview? Anish Shah: Certainly, in my nearly twenty years at Morgan Stanley, this is probably the most incredible time period I've ever seen in the credit markets. I've had the privilege of working across a number of different roles in capital markets and lending. And a couple of years ago, we integrated the debt underwriting business across both investment-grade and leverage finance franchises in recognition of how interconnected the whole credit ecosystem has become. In addition to our core activities helping clients raise capital for their strategic priorities, two of the big focus areas that we've had have been finding ways to harness the power of the private credit universe and also delivering best-in-class capabilities in funding this incredible growth in AI spend. Lindsay Tyler: AI financing has certainly been a theme we've also been focused on in research. Our equity research colleagues project that a handful of key players could add more than 30 gigawatts of capacity over a two-year timeframe, driving around [$]2 trillion of aggregate cash CapEx in that period. And to put that into context, a single gigawatt of data center capacity can require roughly $12 billion for the shell, and then often more than double that for chips and racks. So, from your vantage point, what inning are we in? And what gives you confidence that credit markets can continue funding this opportunity at scale? Anish Shah: I mean, Lindsay, the numbers certainly are staggering, as you note. And if you just observe the CapEx estimates for the hyperscalers and broadly for AI infrastructure, we're certainly in the early innings. Lindsay Tyler: Mm-hmm. Anish Shah: The largest tech companies have historically, as you know, raised very little debt. In fact, many of these companies have not even needed a credit facility. As CapEx projections were materially increased in the second half of last year, we saw the beginning of scaled capital raises. Hyperscaler issuance has quickly gone from less than one percent of the investment-grade market to more than 10 percent of the market. You know, as I look ahead, based on what we're seeing on the ground, we think that AI-related funding, whether it's for data center development or financing compute capacity, could top 15 percent of the total issuance across all credit products. This has been an unprecedented test for the capital markets, both in terms of the depth of capacity and the breadth of product. The teams have been on the forefront of deep investor dialogue and product innovation. This spans corporate investment grade, first of their kind financings in high-yield and leveraged loan markets, and new takes on asset-backed financing. And each of these areas has seen material issuance both in public and private markets. Lindsay Tyler: Great backdrop. Let's dig first into investment-grade corporate debt, an area you know well from your time previously leading the investment-grade team. Can you help frame the scale and the significance of this financing bucket and how AI-related debt is scaling within it? Anish Shah: Well, you know, as you know, the investment-grade bond market, specifically in dollars, is the deepest, most liquid pool of capital in the world. Volumes have grown materially over the last few years and are likely to eclipse $2 trillion in issuance this year. Hyperscalers are among the very best credits in the world, and they have the ability to come in and out of markets with relatively quick twitch, little to no pre-marketing, and in fairly large size. You know, $20 billion-plus deals used to be rare in the investment-grade market, now happen multiple times a quarter. This is why we've seen the predominance of AI-driven capital raising take place in the investment-grade market. For the most part, investors have digested that supply very well. While we've seen some modest widening credit spreads for hyperscalers and some of the other tech issuers, I'd say it's de minimis relative to their expected ROI. Lindsay, I've talked a lot about supply dynamics and issuance. What other factors are you and investors considering when assessing fair value for investment-grade rated technology bonds? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. It's prudent to really weigh a mix of technicals, fundamentals, and relative value. You know, as you discussed on the technical side, and related to my discussions with debt and equity investors, I've been focused on scale of buildouts, market capacity, digestibility across currencies, positioning along the curve, implications of equity issuance, and whether AI financing could crowd out other areas of TMT credit. But moving more to the fundamental side of things, you mentioned ROI, and for the players that are scaling compute capacity, there are a handful of key monetization and return questions that keep coming up. How quickly can these companies bring new capacity online? Once it's live, how does it translate into durable revenue and cash flow? Is that capacity supporting internal products, proprietary models, broader cloud offerings, or compute leased to third parties? And then how fungible is the capacity across those use cases if demand or returns shift? Further on the fundamental side, we've done some differentiated work around growing long-term commitments. We've seen that high-quality hyperscalers and a few of the semis companies are anchoring the AI ecosystem through leases, guarantees, other obligations. These commitments really extend beyond vanilla bond issuance. So, I encourage investors to look beyond the funded debt and really understand the accounting and the ratings implications here of some of those commitments. And this ties nicely into the next topic that I wanted to raise, which is project finance debt. I've noticed that, you know, a lot of the commitments that we're seeing from IG players support another layer of financing. Lease commitments can underpin project finance debt, an area of sizable issuance and innovation. The public high-yield market has emerged as a new funding source in this way for data center construction, with more than 30 billion priced across 15 deals, since fall 2025. Can you walk us through, Anish, the innovation behind these structures, and how are these high yield deals different than other ways to, kind of, raise project finance debt? Anish Shah: Yeah, it's incredibly interesting. I mean, the bulk of the issuance, as I noted has come in the investment grade market, but I would say the bulk of the innovation has come in the sub-investment grade market. You know, historically, for very capital-intensive sectors like energy and power or real estate, the project loan market was the most efficient source of initial funding. The developer would tap banks to underwrite a highly structured construction loan. Once the project is up and running, you could then refinance that loan with the predictable cash flows into a more institutional financing, like the investment grade bond market or the term loan B or securitization markets.That product may still be very viable in many sectors, but we felt early on that bank-provided construction loans would not meet the capacity needs of the AI investment cycle. The market really needed an institutional credit product that bypassed the need for construction loans. The key innovation came in the form of first-of-its-kind high-yield bonds that funded the development of a new data center complex. Given the relatively short construction period and the "offtake" supported by some of the highest quality credits in the world, we felt like this financing structure would be incredibly well-received in the high-yield market. The win here is that the developer accesses fixed rate long-term capital and maintains flexibility to call the bonds and refinance at a lower cost. Judging by how these financings have gone, there's a strong level of investor enthusiasm. I think that they've only scratched the surface, and I would expect that we see much more of this. And potentially even expand it to other products in the leverage finance markets given the tremendous level of investor demand. Lindsay Tyler: Yeah. It's certainly been exciting to follow many of those deals. Beyond the public space, we're also seeing a wave of innovation in private credit and asset-backed finance. Anish, how do companies decide whether capital is best raised in the public or the private markets? Anish Shah: Well, I'm glad you raised the whole avenue of private markets because it may be the most significant change in the credit markets over the last few years, broadening the scope of private credit from directly lending into leverage buyouts to now financing large investment-grade projects. There are great examples in the world of GPU and TPU financing, where we structure loans secured by the asset and the cash flows, or in data center development.Lindsay, from your perspective, what are]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MXMKAldV8jwc4NdP4GOYnOqx3VrnVrItKaFH-o6mUNMThu, 16 Jul 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyCredit markets are stepping in to fund the surging demand for AI. Our experts Lindsay Tyler and Anish Shah explore the opportunities and risks behind this record financing wave.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst at Morgan Stanley. Anish Shah: And I'm Anish Shah, Global Head of Debt Capital Markets at Morgan Stanley. Lindsay Tyler: Today, how issuers and investors are approaching the rapidly evolving world of AI financing. It's Thursday, July 16th at 10am in New York. As AI demand accelerates, credit markets are being asked to finance infrastructure on a scale that used to be associated with utilities, telecom, or energy. That raises a central question for issuers and investors: How much debt can the AI ecosystem absorb? And at what price? Anish, can you walk our listeners through the key products in your purview? Anish Shah: Certainly, in my nearly twenty years at Morgan Stanley, this is probably the most incredible time period I've ever seen in the credit markets. I've had the privilege of working across a number of different roles in capital markets and lending. And a couple of years ago, we integrated the debt underwriting business across both investment-grade and leverage finance franchises in recognition of how interconnected the whole credit ecosystem has become. In addition to our core activities helping clients raise capital for their strategic priorities, two of the big focus areas that we've had have been finding ways to harness the power of the private credit universe and also delivering best-in-class capabilities in funding this incredible growth in AI spend. Lindsay Tyler: AI financing has certainly been a theme we've also been focused on in research. Our equity research colleagues project that a handful of key players could add more than 30 gigawatts of capacity over a two-year timeframe, driving around [$]2 trillion of aggregate cash CapEx in that period. And to put that into context, a single gigawatt of data center capacity can require roughly $12 billion for the shell, and then often more than double that for chips and racks. So, from your vantage point, what inning are we in? And what gives you confidence that credit markets can continue funding this opportunity at scale? Anish Shah: I mean, Lindsay, the numbers certainly are staggering, as you note. And if you just observe the CapEx estimates for the hyperscalers and broadly for AI infrastructure, we're certainly in the early innings. Lindsay Tyler: Mm-hmm. Anish Shah: The largest tech companies have historically, as you know, raised very little debt. In fact, many of these companies have not even needed a credit facility. As CapEx projections were materially increased in the second half of last year, we saw the beginning of scaled capital raises. Hyperscaler issuance has quickly gone from less than one percent of the investment-grade market to more than 10 percent of the market. You know, as I look ahead, based on what we're seeing on the ground, we think that AI-related funding, whether it's for data center development or financing compute capacity, could top 15 percent of the total issuance across all credit products. This has been an unprecedented test for the capital markets, both in terms of the depth of capacity and the breadth of product. The teams have been on the forefront of deep investor dialogue and product innovation. This spans corporate investment grade, first of their kind financings in high-yield and leveraged loan markets, and new takes on asset-backed financing. And each of these areas has seen material issuance both in public and private markets. Lindsay Tyler: Great backdrop. Let's dig first into investment-grade corporate debt, an area you know well from your time previously...]]>713alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1686fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-as-a-sovereign-power--75644979insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today: Why sovereign AI is becoming a policy priority around the world.It’s Wednesday, July 15th, at 10am in New York.The AI controls debate used to be focused on chips. Cutting edge semiconductors are essential to train large AI models, after all. But over the past year, the debate has moved well beyond that narrow focus. The policy conversation has broadened beyond things like which advanced semis can be sold to China.The bigger question now is who controls the full AI stack — chips, cloud infrastructure, frontier models, data centers, cybersecurity standards, and the energy systems that support all of it.That’s what we mean when we talk about sovereign AI. At the simplest level, it's a country’s ability to develop and deploy artificial intelligence using its own infrastructure, data, workforce, and technology ecosystem. But sovereign AI is also about reducing strategic dependence on foreign platforms and foreign-controlled supply chains.That echoes a trend toward multipolarity that we’ve been writing about since back in 2018. Countries around the world are prioritizing national security over economic efficiencies. We see that theme applying to AI as well.So, what does this all mean for markets?First, sovereign AI turns AI infrastructure into a matter of national industrial policy. Data centers, power availability, and grid reliability are just a few examples of components that are becoming strategic assets. That means governments are likely to play a larger role in deciding several aspects of the AI buildout. Where it’s built? Who finances it? And which countries get access to the most advanced parts of the stack?Second, sovereign AI reinforces the shift toward derisking and a more fragmented international order. The U.S. is trying to promote the export of an American AI technology stack to allies and partners. At the same time, it’s preserving national security guardrails around the most sensitive capabilities. Meanwhile, we see China trying to indigenize as much of the technology as possible, from chips to cloud to model deployment. Other countries are navigating between the two.Third, and importantly, sovereign AI is also an energy story. Who gets to build and benefit from AI increasingly depends on access to low-cost, reliable power. That makes energy availability a competitive advantage — and it also makes energy affordability a political constraint.That dovetails with one of our thematic predictions heading into this year: the politics of energy. We see rising power costs as a more visible political issue. That’s led to backlash against data center development. There’s more local opposition to new projects, and greater pressure on policymakers and utilities to make sure that existing ratepayers are not subsidizing AI-driven grid investment.We think that could push AI infrastructure in a few directions. One is toward a conditional build-out. Here, offsets like large-load tariffs and other cost-allocation mechanisms are designed to protect households and small businesses.Another direction is policy support for the lowest-cost sources of energy, even where that might create tension with emissions objectives. And the third direction is more off-grid or behind-the-meter power solutions. That would include things like fuel cells, storage, and other time to power strategies — so data center developers can secure electricity without intensifying local affordability concerns.The pursuit of sovereign AI comes with many questions around inflationary impacts: compute & power are both constrained, regulation remains uncertain, and there could be more limitations on things like tech transfers if the government sees a national security edge. So, to the extent that countries want to reduce their dependencies, it may cost more to get there. There are, however, companies that can benefit in this environment.But there’s also a policy risk. We are left with a more reactive policy environment. Selective access in some areas, tighter controls in others, and ongoing uncertainty around how Washington will treat advanced chips, cloud infrastructure, and frontier model deployment. Now that uncertainty matters because it affects corporate planning, cross-border investment, and the shape of global AI alliances.So what does this all mean for investors?More and more, governments view AI capability as a source of economic power and geopolitical leverage. That means the AI race is moving from a question of who builds the best model to who controls the infrastructure, standards, supply chains, and energy systems that allow those models to scale.In our view, that means sovereign AI is one of the most important themes to watch in the next phase of the AI buildout.And we’ll be coming back to this topic soon. In the coming weeks, Stephen Byrd and I will talk about sovereign AI in more depth, particularly around what it means for power demand, data center investment, energy affordability, and the broader infrastructure required to support the next stage of AI adoption.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uSEl_AXQNSlcpQiBrHRRsteTw1Ka7t-Chml2BtNmNfkWed, 15 Jul 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyAI has become a strategic policy priority as governments race to secure their technological future. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explores what’s driving the shift and the implications for markets.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today: Why sovereign AI is becoming a policy priority around the world.It’s Wednesday, July 15th, at 10am in New York.The AI controls debate used to be focused on chips. Cutting edge semiconductors are essential to train large AI models, after all. But over the past year, the debate has moved well beyond that narrow focus. The policy conversation has broadened beyond things like which advanced semis can be sold to China.The bigger question now is who controls the full AI stack — chips, cloud infrastructure, frontier models, data centers, cybersecurity standards, and the energy systems that support all of it.That’s what we mean when we talk about sovereign AI. At the simplest level, it's a country’s ability to develop and deploy artificial intelligence using its own infrastructure, data, workforce, and technology ecosystem. But sovereign AI is also about reducing strategic dependence on foreign platforms and foreign-controlled supply chains.That echoes a trend toward multipolarity that we’ve been writing about since back in 2018. Countries around the world are prioritizing national security over economic efficiencies. We see that theme applying to AI as well.So, what does this all mean for markets?First, sovereign AI turns AI infrastructure into a matter of national industrial policy. Data centers, power availability, and grid reliability are just a few examples of components that are becoming strategic assets. That means governments are likely to play a larger role in deciding several aspects of the AI buildout. Where it’s built? Who finances it? And which countries get access to the most advanced parts of the stack?Second, sovereign AI reinforces the shift toward derisking and a more fragmented international order. The U.S. is trying to promote the export of an American AI technology stack to allies and partners. At the same time, it’s preserving national security guardrails around the most sensitive capabilities. Meanwhile, we see China trying to indigenize as much of the technology as possible, from chips to cloud to model deployment. Other countries are navigating between the two.Third, and importantly, sovereign AI is also an energy story. Who gets to build and benefit from AI increasingly depends on access to low-cost, reliable power. That makes energy availability a competitive advantage — and it also makes energy affordability a political constraint.That dovetails with one of our thematic predictions heading into this year: the politics of energy. We see rising power costs as a more visible political issue. That’s led to backlash against data center development. There’s more local opposition to new projects, and greater pressure on policymakers and utilities to make sure that existing ratepayers are not subsidizing AI-driven grid investment.We think that could push AI infrastructure in a few directions. One is toward a conditional build-out. Here, offsets like large-load tariffs and other cost-allocation mechanisms are designed to protect households and small businesses.Another direction is policy support for the lowest-cost sources of energy, even where that might create tension with emissions objectives. And the third direction is more off-grid or behind-the-meter power solutions. That would include things like fuel cells, storage, and other time to power strategies — so data center developers can secure electricity without intensifying local affordability concerns.The pursuit of sovereign...]]>310alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1685fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-fueling-stocks-after-the-ai-trade--75644931insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing our broadening thesis and the near-term risks to monitor. It's Tuesday, July 14th at 11:30 am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. The broadening trade is now playing out. It’s showing up in stock prices, relative performance and earnings revisions. It’s also making investors question the sustainability of the most crowded areas of the market, and consider other near-term risks.  I first made the broadening call late last year based on my view that the economy had entered a new expansion after completing the rolling recession in April of 2025. In a new expansion, earnings growth tends to be much better than expected because revenue growth returns to companies that have already become more cost efficient. That’s classic operating leverage. The market began to anticipate that dynamic late last year, but then the Iran conflict interrupted the move. Oil surged, rate-cut expectations disappeared, and investors crowded back into the most obvious AI capex beneficiaries led by semiconductors and memory, in particular. Since mid May, that interruption has faded with oil prices falling sharply and the broadening trade has begun to work again. Importantly, the market is not abandoning AI. It is simply rotating within AI and beyond AI. And that distinction matters. Semiconductors have had a historic run, supported by earnings revisions. But even great stories get exhausted in the short term. When earnings revisions breadth is pressing against historical highs and the trade becomes one of the most crowded areas of the market, the bar for upside gets very high. At that point, the issue is not whether the story is good. The issue is whether the rate of change can keep improving. That is a very different question. The underperformance of the hyperscalers was probably the first warning sign. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex. So when the spenders start lagging the beneficiaries, that divergence usually resolves one way or another. And now we’re starting to see it. Meta’s decision to sell excess capacity to outside customers may not mean the AI capex cycle is over. But it does tell you the market is beginning to ask harder questions about the path and pace of that spending. Credit spreads and stock prices of these hyperscalers provide the feedback loop to managements that maybe they should curtail the pace of spend. We’ve had multiple corrections inside this AI cycle already. This looks like another one – not the end of the cycle, but a reset. That reset is what gives the rest of the market room to work. Our preferred ways to express the broadening remain Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. These are not the areas investors have been excited about. In fact, positioning and sentiment remain subdued. But that’s exactly why I like them. The risks to the story in the short term are two-fold. First, uncertainty about the full re-opening of the strait remains high, with pivots on both sides. This is keeping oil prices volatile in the short term even if the primary trend remains lower.  Second, interest rate volatility is picking up again with the entire curve shifting higher in both nominal and real terms. If this doesn’t stabilize, it will have a negative impact on stocks both at the index level and even for stocks that should benefit from our broadening call. With the inflation data coming in today softer than expected, this should reduce some of the recent upward pressure on rates.  However, the new Fed Chair and board remain resolute to make sure inflation doesn’t rear its head again. In the end, dealing with this risk up front is a good thing in my view even if it means uncertainty for markets. Bottom line, equity markets have been consolidating and correcting for the past several months. This is the result of the peak rate of change in earnings revisions and a reaction function shift at the Fed to focus more on the inflation mandate than growth.  With the recent rollover in semiconductors, heavy supply of equity and credit issuance, and a transition of leadership at the Fed, expect more volatility and corrective activity in stocks before the next leg of the bull market resumes.  Don’t chase momentum. Instead, add to risk on down days to areas that will benefit from a broadening in the economy and earnings growth.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/og2S_nP2H1mJPgn1c2I5PajsdP9kfwPtHSpbwe0OiqsTue, 14 Jul 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses where investors may find opportunity beyond the AI sector and risks that could slow market gains.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing our broadening thesis and the near-term risks to monitor. It's Tuesday, July 14th at 11:30 am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. The broadening trade is now playing out. It’s showing up in stock prices, relative performance and earnings revisions. It’s also making investors question the sustainability of the most crowded areas of the market, and consider other near-term risks.  I first made the broadening call late last year based on my view that the economy had entered a new expansion after completing the rolling recession in April of 2025. In a new expansion, earnings growth tends to be much better than expected because revenue growth returns to companies that have already become more cost efficient. That’s classic operating leverage. The market began to anticipate that dynamic late last year, but then the Iran conflict interrupted the move. Oil surged, rate-cut expectations disappeared, and investors crowded back into the most obvious AI capex beneficiaries led by semiconductors and memory, in particular. Since mid May, that interruption has faded with oil prices falling sharply and the broadening trade has begun to work again. Importantly, the market is not abandoning AI. It is simply rotating within AI and beyond AI. And that distinction matters. Semiconductors have had a historic run, supported by earnings revisions. But even great stories get exhausted in the short term. When earnings revisions breadth is pressing against historical highs and the trade becomes one of the most crowded areas of the market, the bar for upside gets very high. At that point, the issue is not whether the story is good. The issue is whether the rate of change can keep improving. That is a very different question. The underperformance of the hyperscalers was probably the first warning sign. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex. So when the spenders start lagging the beneficiaries, that divergence usually resolves one way or another. And now we’re starting to see it. Meta’s decision to sell excess capacity to outside customers may not mean the AI capex cycle is over. But it does tell you the market is beginning to ask harder questions about the path and pace of that spending. Credit spreads and stock prices of these hyperscalers provide the feedback loop to managements that maybe they should curtail the pace of spend. We’ve had multiple corrections inside this AI cycle already. This looks like another one – not the end of the cycle, but a reset. That reset is what gives the rest of the market room to work. Our preferred ways to express the broadening remain Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. These are not the areas investors have been excited about. In fact, positioning and sentiment remain subdued. But that’s exactly why I like them. The risks to the story in the short term are two-fold. First, uncertainty about the full re-opening of the strait remains high, with pivots on both sides. This is keeping oil prices volatile in the short term even if the primary trend remains lower.  Second, interest rate volatility is picking up again with the entire curve shifting higher in both nominal and real terms. If this doesn’t stabilize, it will have a negative impact on stocks both at the index level and even for stocks that should benefit from our broadening call. With the inflation data coming in today softer than expected, this should reduce some of the recent upward pressure on rates.  However, the new Fed Chair and board remain...]]>296alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1684fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lower-prices-bigger-market-the-next-phase-of-glp-1-drugs--75644990insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. Thibault Boutherin: And I'm Thibault Boutherin, Morgan Stanley's Europe Pharmaceuticals Analyst. Terence Flynn: Today, how cheaper GLP-1 obesity medicines could reshape access, pricing, and supply chains; and what the first generic markets may signal for Europe and the U.S. It's Monday, July 13th at 10am in New York. Thibault Boutherin: And it's 3 pm in London. Terence Flynn: Around one billion people live with obesity worldwide, including over a 100 million in the U.S. Right now, the introduction of the first lower cost generics of semaglutide, a GLP-1 medicine, in some international markets, could have consequences on affordability and demand. Thibault, what are the first countries seeing the introduction of sema generics? What are the current dynamics, and why should global investors pay attention? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, so far generics are being introduced this year in three countries: in India, Canada and Brazil. And if we look at India, this is the first market where the generics are being introduced. The patent for semaglutide expired in March 2026, and 13 companies have launched 26 generics across different formulations: autoinjectors, vials, and pills, which price is lower than the branded drug. And because the India market was quite under-penetrated for GLP-1, we are seeing affordability driving volume expansion. In Canada, two generics have been launched so far. Four other generics are waiting for approval, and more are being filed. And finally, in Brazil, one generic was approved last month, and we are expecting these generics to be launched in Brazil in July. And 17 other generics are in different stage of regulatory review in Brazil, and we would expect more to enter the market by the end of this year. And the reason why we focus on these markets is because we believe they could provide a blueprint for what could happen later in the U.S. and in Europe; in particular for Canada, which shares some characteristics with Europe and the U.S. And the patent for semaglutide will expire in Europe in 2031 and in the U.S. from 2032. Terence Flynn: Great. Maybe on the India front, I know that's at the leading edge. What happened with patient demand when price came down? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, what we saw in India is a surge in volume when generics were launched, and the volume in April 2026 were already six times higher than the volume in February. And that expansion has been driven mostly by these generics launch, which captured 80 percent of semaglutide volume in April. And our India team expect that the GLP-1 market in India will actually expand in value from $125 million in [20]25 to more than $1 billion by 2030, despite lower prices as we see better, you know, greater volume and greater adoption of GLP-1s in India. Terence Flynn: The other thing, you know, you and I have discussed is the supply chain, and one of the questions is the ability of some of the generic manufacturers to scale semaglutide. So, maybe talk to us about the current capabilities. And could we see bottlenecks in the supply chain formation here? Thibault Boutherin: Yeah, sure. So, there are three key elements to watch on the supply chain. The first is the active pharmaceutical ingredient or API, and that's the semaglutide molecule itself. The second element is the device and the device components, and the third element is the fill and finish, which is basically putting all of these things together. On the API side, so semaglutide molecule, we believe there will be no bottleneck in supplying for generics as we see a handful of large Chinese companies, out of China, building multi-ton capacity for semaglutide. So, we believe there will be no shortage of API to supply the generic supply chain for injectables. On the device, these are the same device companies that are supplying the branded version of semaglutide, and other GLP-1s for the device that are also supplying the generic makers. And we are seeing meaningful investments being made, so we don't believe there will be a bottleneck here. Where we could see a bottleneck emerging is on the fill and finish side. Fill and finish requires highly controlled clean room space to minimize contamination. It requires regulatory approval, and it takes up to three years to build fill and finish capacity. And so, that's where if there is not more investment being made over the next few years, there could potentially [be] a bottleneck emerging for the generic companies. Terence, while semaglutide generics will definitely represent a challenge for the existing branded version of this GLP-1, there are some insights in these emerging dynamics that suggest that tirzepatide, the other GLP-1, could be less at risk. Can you touch a bit on some of these dynamics? Terence Flynn: Absolutely. So, just to remind listeners that semaglutide targets a pathway called GLP-1. Tirzepatide actually targets two pathways. The first is GLP-1, and the second is GIP. And there are some data comparing these molecules, both in Type 2 diabetes and obesity. And tirzepatide gives not only better efficacy but also improved tolerability. And so, what you're seeing in some of the ex-U.S. markets is segmentation, where there are some consumers that are willing to pay a premium price for tirzepatide. Our team in Brazil has done a lot of work on this front looking at this dynamic and, you know, we expect that to play out in many geographies. So, despite the entry of lower-cost generic versions, we think you will still see segmentation of the market between differentiated brand and the lower-cost generics. And that as a result, you will continue to see branded growth.In the U.S. right now, market share is about 60 percent in favor of tirzepatide. And so again, you're seeing a differentiation between these two molecules. Thibault Boutherin: And beyond the introduction of generics GLP-1s, there are other dynamics in the industry that are driving this market. And the introduction of oral drugs this year has been a big topic. Terence, what are your views on the role that orals could play on the market? Terence Flynn: Yes, as a lot of people are probably aware, the many of the existing GLP-1 medicines are injectable. And so those are delivered once a week with a needle. But there are now additional oral options of these GLP-1 medicines. They started off first for Type 2 diabetes, but they have now broadened into obesity as well, following some recent FDA approvals. And what we're seeing is that the introduction in the U.S. so far is expanding the market. So, the majority of people that are taking the oral versions of these medicines are new users to GLP-1s. So again, you're getting market expansion. When you think about the orals as well, one of the other questions is capacity. I know, Thibault, you were talking about the supply chain. There are similar questions for these oral medicines because not all of the oral medicines are the same. Some are easier to manufacture than others, and as a result, that's another variable to consider. So, some of these are what's called peptide-based orals, and some of these are non-peptide-based orals. And the non-peptide-based orals are much easier to scale, for a larger global market. And so that's definitely another variable that we're monitoring and that I think investors need to consider. Thibault Boutherin: And beyond the pill versions of these GLP-1s, we are seeing more innovation in the drug pipeline of the industry, which could be a key driver of differentiation against the competition from the generics. So, what are we seeing emerging today from diabetes and obesity pipelines, which could be exciting for the future of the category? Terence Flynn: So, as we see time and time again in pharmaceutical markets, the key players continue to innovate to try to improve profiles of the existing medications. So, there are, you know, kind of two areas. One would be efficacy; another would be safety tolerability. And so, there are a number of players that are working first to develop longer acting medication. So, as I mentioned, the existing injectable drugs are dosed once weekly. But there are a number of companies that are working to develop potentially monthly or less frequent injections. So, that's one area that we're monitoring closely. And then the second, and again, this plays into what I discussed on tirzepatide, is additional pathways that are involved here in diabetes and obesity, and a number of players are working to target additional pathways beyond GLP-1 and GIP. And so, some of the leading pathways that are being studied are something called amylin and glucagon, and there are a number of medications that are in the late-stage pipeline that are coming along, which have some pretty interesting data. And so that's another area that we're watching. And again, the goal there would be to either improve efficacy and/or improve tolerability versus the existing medications. Thibault Boutherin: Great. And maybe we can also take this opportunity to talk about some of the short-term drivers in the market that are not facing generic today, like the U.S. So, what could be, you know, the key drivers for growth of GLP-1s and the overall obesity and diabetes category over the next five years? Terence Flynn: Yeah, obviously the key one is seeing additional uptake of these medicines. I think right now we estimate, again, obesity in particular, there's]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/keqyk1zL6HzyYri3e2wuXc7jJm7cMfEVRqy39epT6hwMon, 13 Jul 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyCheaper obesity medicines could unlock broader demand, while supply-chain bottlenecks and premium-drug innovation may also shape how the market evolves. Our analysts Terence Flynn and Thibault Boutherin break down the investor implications.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. Thibault Boutherin: And I'm Thibault Boutherin, Morgan Stanley's Europe Pharmaceuticals Analyst. Terence Flynn: Today, how cheaper GLP-1 obesity medicines could reshape access, pricing, and supply chains; and what the first generic markets may signal for Europe and the U.S. It's Monday, July 13th at 10am in New York. Thibault Boutherin: And it's 3 pm in London. Terence Flynn: Around one billion people live with obesity worldwide, including over a 100 million in the U.S. Right now, the introduction of the first lower cost generics of semaglutide, a GLP-1 medicine, in some international markets, could have consequences on affordability and demand. Thibault, what are the first countries seeing the introduction of sema generics? What are the current dynamics, and why should global investors pay attention? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, so far generics are being introduced this year in three countries: in India, Canada and Brazil. And if we look at India, this is the first market where the generics are being introduced. The patent for semaglutide expired in March 2026, and 13 companies have launched 26 generics across different formulations: autoinjectors, vials, and pills, which price is lower than the branded drug. And because the India market was quite under-penetrated for GLP-1, we are seeing affordability driving volume expansion. In Canada, two generics have been launched so far. Four other generics are waiting for approval, and more are being filed. And finally, in Brazil, one generic was approved last month, and we are expecting these generics to be launched in Brazil in July. And 17 other generics are in different stage of regulatory review in Brazil, and we would expect more to enter the market by the end of this year. And the reason why we focus on these markets is because we believe they could provide a blueprint for what could happen later in the U.S. and in Europe; in particular for Canada, which shares some characteristics with Europe and the U.S. And the patent for semaglutide will expire in Europe in 2031 and in the U.S. from 2032. Terence Flynn: Great. Maybe on the India front, I know that's at the leading edge. What happened with patient demand when price came down? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, what we saw in India is a surge in volume when generics were launched, and the volume in April 2026 were already six times higher than the volume in February. And that expansion has been driven mostly by these generics launch, which captured 80 percent of semaglutide volume in April. And our India team expect that the GLP-1 market in India will actually expand in value from $125 million in [20]25 to more than $1 billion by 2030, despite lower prices as we see better, you know, greater volume and greater adoption of GLP-1s in India. Terence Flynn: The other thing, you know, you and I have discussed is the supply chain, and one of the questions is the ability of some of the generic manufacturers to scale semaglutide. So, maybe talk to us about the current capabilities. And could we see bottlenecks in the supply chain formation here? Thibault Boutherin: Yeah, sure. So, there are three key elements to watch on the supply chain. The first is the active pharmaceutical ingredient or API, and that's the semaglutide molecule itself. The second element is the device and the device components, and the third element is the fill and finish, which is basically putting all of these...]]>706alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1683fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-new-chapter-for-north-american-trade--75644987insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy at Morgan Stanley Research.Today, I'll be talking about the USMCA review – what happened on July 1st, what it means for North American trade, and how investors should be thinking about the road ahead. It's Friday, July 10th at 10am in New York. Last week, the six-year review deadline for the USMCA came and went. And as we'd anticipated, the U.S. declined to extend the agreement for another sixteen-year term. U.S. Trade Representative Greer stated that the U.S. did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form, pointing to shortcomings and trade deficits with both Canada and Mexico, much of which echoed his testimony in front of Congress in December of last year. So, what happens next? This decision triggers an annual review process that could continue until the agreement's scheduled expiration in 2036. So, that means effectively the new deadline for negotiations is now July of 2027. And if we get to that point and see a similar outcome, this procedure repeats until the deal is terminated in 2036. Now, importantly, the agreement itself remains fully in force during this period. The current tariff regime, rules of origin, investment protections, and dispute settlement mechanisms are all unaffected for now. That's actually in line with the expectation that we laid out earlier this year. In short, we anticipated an outcome in which negotiations stall and the deal moves to annual reviews. We thought that was becoming more likely than an ambitious expansion of the agreement in its current form. That being said, there are some important implications of this outcome. First, we think North American trade is being reshaped by a transition from a rules-based framework – where tariff schedules and preferential access anchored trade decisions – toward a more discretionary, sector-specific approach tied to industrial policy objectives. That, of course, increases uncertainty around exemptions, sector treatment, and consequently investment decisions for corporates. Second, we think two bilateral deals may not be off the table. While it's still our base case that the trilateral framework remains intact, reporting seems to suggest that negotiations are progressing much more substantively with Mexico than with Canada. A third round of U.S.-Mexico negotiations is scheduled for the week of July 20th, while substantive text-based negotiations between Canada and the U.S. have not yet begun. That asymmetry could mean that bilateral issues between the U.S. and Mexico are resolved more easily, while outstanding frictions like Canada's dairy market quota system could prove to be an overhang in those bilateral talks. Third, the structural divergence between Mexico and Canada is accelerating, which is something my colleagues have highlighted in their recent work. If we think about Canada's manufacturing export base – autos, metals, machinery, energy, and transportation equipment – that actually overlaps with the areas that the U.S. government is increasingly defining as strategic. And therefore, necessitating more government involvement through, in things like Section 232 tariffs. Canada accounts for only a negligible share of U.S. imports across computers, semiconductors, communications equipment, and advanced electronics. Those are actually the sectors where Mexico has become deeply integrated, particularly through assembly and re-export activity linked to AI servers, electronics, and industrial hardware. Mexico now supplies roughly 35 percent of U.S. IT hardware imports and nearly 50 percent of U.S. server imports. And the North in particular has emerged as a vital interconnection hub between Latin America and the U.S. That's been driven by nearshoring trends, AI adoption, and multi-cloud strategies, as my colleagues Nik Lippmann and Fernando Sedano highlight. That means the scope and the objectives of the bilateral talks between the U.S. and Mexico and the U.S. and Canada may diverge even more from here. So where does that leave us? The USMCA is still intact, but the annual review process means North American trade policy is now a recurring negotiation, not yet a settled framework. And that will likely remain the case if policymakers agree next July to punt the issue yet another year. The primary risk, in our view, stems less from the possibility of a full USMCA collapse and more from the prolonged uncertainty around implementation details, sector-specific trade measures, and Section 232 tariffs. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TrsCrhHBjvrxAfphjVHAa_zcdhnde8BznuXgLPpaAUkFri, 10 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe USMCA review is underway, with implications beyond tariffs. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore breaks down the key issues shaping the road ahead.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy at Morgan Stanley Research.Today, I'll be talking about the USMCA review – what happened on July 1st, what it means for North American trade, and how investors should be thinking about the road ahead. It's Friday, July 10th at 10am in New York. Last week, the six-year review deadline for the USMCA came and went. And as we'd anticipated, the U.S. declined to extend the agreement for another sixteen-year term. U.S. Trade Representative Greer stated that the U.S. did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form, pointing to shortcomings and trade deficits with both Canada and Mexico, much of which echoed his testimony in front of Congress in December of last year. So, what happens next? This decision triggers an annual review process that could continue until the agreement's scheduled expiration in 2036. So, that means effectively the new deadline for negotiations is now July of 2027. And if we get to that point and see a similar outcome, this procedure repeats until the deal is terminated in 2036. Now, importantly, the agreement itself remains fully in force during this period. The current tariff regime, rules of origin, investment protections, and dispute settlement mechanisms are all unaffected for now. That's actually in line with the expectation that we laid out earlier this year. In short, we anticipated an outcome in which negotiations stall and the deal moves to annual reviews. We thought that was becoming more likely than an ambitious expansion of the agreement in its current form. That being said, there are some important implications of this outcome. First, we think North American trade is being reshaped by a transition from a rules-based framework – where tariff schedules and preferential access anchored trade decisions – toward a more discretionary, sector-specific approach tied to industrial policy objectives. That, of course, increases uncertainty around exemptions, sector treatment, and consequently investment decisions for corporates. Second, we think two bilateral deals may not be off the table. While it's still our base case that the trilateral framework remains intact, reporting seems to suggest that negotiations are progressing much more substantively with Mexico than with Canada. A third round of U.S.-Mexico negotiations is scheduled for the week of July 20th, while substantive text-based negotiations between Canada and the U.S. have not yet begun. That asymmetry could mean that bilateral issues between the U.S. and Mexico are resolved more easily, while outstanding frictions like Canada's dairy market quota system could prove to be an overhang in those bilateral talks. Third, the structural divergence between Mexico and Canada is accelerating, which is something my colleagues have highlighted in their recent work. If we think about Canada's manufacturing export base – autos, metals, machinery, energy, and transportation equipment – that actually overlaps with the areas that the U.S. government is increasingly defining as strategic. And therefore, necessitating more government involvement through, in things like Section 232 tariffs. Canada accounts for only a negligible share of U.S. imports across computers, semiconductors, communications equipment, and advanced electronics. Those are actually the sectors where Mexico has become deeply integrated, particularly through assembly and re-export activity linked to AI servers, electronics, and industrial hardware. Mexico now supplies roughly 35 percent of U.S. IT hardware imports and nearly 50...]]>287alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1682fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ai-divide-between-the-u-s-and-japan--75644960insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Robert Feldman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Robert Feldman: Today, we'll discuss why the U.S. and Japanese economies may react differently to the AI productivity test. It's Thursday, July 9th at 8 pm in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And 9 am in New York. Robert Feldman: AI is the biggest theme around the world right now, but AI will play out differently in different economies. Take the cases of the U.S. and Japan. In the U.S., it's already a catalyst in investment, imports, productivity, and the labor market outlook. But here in Japan, it's seen as a savior for an economy with an intense labor shortage, low unemployment, and very little room to raise labor force participation. Mike, in the U.S., AI's contribution to real GDP growth will rise from about 0.05 percentage points in 2024 to an estimated 0.43 percentage points in 2027. What does that mean for markets? Michael Gapen: Well, Robby, I think it, it means a number of things, but, you know, I'm an economist, so the answer is always, "It depends." I think the real crux of the issue over time in the U.S., and therefore what it means for financial markets, is ultimately whether AI is labor replacing – and pushes the unemployment rate higher. Or it acts like a more traditional general-purpose technology that's labor augmenting. So, if, that's the case, meaning it looks similar to the internet and digital era, then it would mean faster output growth, stronger productivity growth, but still an economy that's running at or near full employment. That would be very beneficial in our estimation for risk assets, equity markets, credit markets, and it would probably mean that we stay in an interest rate environment that's certainly higher than it was during the post GFC period. But if – AI is a very different technology than we've seen in the past, and it displaces labor, and we get increases in the unemployment rate as AI diffuses through the economy. Then it could be very different for markets. Maybe returns to capital and equity markets are supported, but that might be more narrowly for technology stocks and not broader, say, consumer discretionary stocks. So, the answer, of course, is it depends. We don't know. And I think, ultimately, we come down on the side of thinking that AI will not create dystopian outcomes in the labor markets, that employment will hold up. So, we have a fairly constructive view, perhaps an optimistic view. And we think, ultimately it'll benefit markets greatly, similar to what we saw from the mid-90s to the early 2000’s. Robert Feldman: Well, in your model, you have a particular variable that captures the speed of diffusion. But your baseline has AI spreading twice as fast as the internet did. But without that rise of employment. Is that really manageable? And if it's not, what economic indicators would warn us, if we're crossing into the danger zone? Michael Gapen: This is really the tricky part as, as you know. We have a new technology. We have to model how it diffuses through the economy. And I would say I think there's an argument here that penetration rates and usage rates are very different than what economists think about diffusion, which is how the production process is reshaped because of this new technology. And so most economists look at the internet and digital era and think it took 20-25 years to fully diffuse. Mass penetration in maybe 10 years, but full diffusion in more like 20-25 years. And so, each innovation cycle tends to happen more rapidly. So, I do think AI will spread more rapidly. And even by saying it spreads twice as fast as the internet did still means that it'll take roughly a decade, maybe 10-12 years for this to fully diffuse. So, our argument here would be that that is enough time for a flexible economy and a flexible labor market, like we have in the U.S., to rebalance labor. But if we're wrong, then Robby, what I think you will see is that as AI rolls through, it diffuses faster. And what we would see then is increases in rates of job separation and layoffs that would overwhelm the labor market's ability to reallocate workers. So, I think we would see two things – or three things: scale layoffs, a rise in the unemployment rate, and probably a significant amount of underemployment. Those who get rebalanced may be rebalanced into work that's not, say, consistent with the skill of that worker. So, I think we would see a very disrupted labor market in the process. But if it takes a decade, maybe 10-12 years, we think ultimately the U.S. economy is flexible enough to rebalance labor without large scale layoffs. Robert Feldman: Now, people are afraid of a lot of things, but one other thing is that AI might create new kinds of jobs, new kinds of tasks, have different impacts on people's wealth, and different responses from policymakers as well. How do these knock-on effects change the AI labor story? Michael Gapen: Yeah. That's right. I think you make a very good point there that I think it's easy to fall into what an economist would call a partial equilibrium trap. So, for example, we look at occupations exposed to AI task replacement, and we say, "Wow, if all these tasks are replaced, we might lose 10 million workers or 20 million workers." But that's too simplistic, in our view. Because as you note, AI may destroy some tasks or replace some tasks, but it's also going to create new ones. So, it may eliminate some types of occupations but create others. And in addition, if people are, say, laid off because of AI, you get a loss in labor market income for the economy. But AI will likely create returns to capital, say, stronger equity performance, and that's an indirect wealth effect. So, our model kind of, looks at, say, three wedges or three horse races in the economy then. It's about the speed of diffusion of AI against the ability of the labor market to rebalance. It's task destruction or task replacement versus new task creation. And then third, it's we might have weakness in labor market income in the short run, but there are indirect wealth effects. So, thinking about it this way in a richer general equilibrium context, these feedback effects matter a lot. So, the combination of if the labor market's disrupted, we get easing in monetary policy, maybe a fiscal response. There are new tasks, new jobs that are created for workers to rebalance to over time. And overall demand in the economy gets held up because wealth effects can offset some lost income. All of that is extremely important in our view that ultimately the U.S. economy can rebalance and handle the AI diffusion in a manageable way. We could be wrong, of course, but our main point here is you have to think about this in a richer context. You can't just simply, say, stack up workers and occupations and say, "Oh, we're going to lose a lot of employment." That's not the way innovation waves have worked in the past. We don't think they're going to work that way in the future. Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. That's fascinating because the situation in the United States is so different from that in Japan, largely because of the demographic situation. Here in Japan, the key element is how much AI can ease the labor shortage. In fact, in some labor-intensive jobs now, we're seeing 6 percent wage increases, and that's great. As long as productivity rises fast enough that price hikes aren't necessary. Michael Gapen: So Robby, in your scenarios for Japan, the same 10 percent productivity gain can lead to very different outcomes. Deflation and weaker employment in one case. More inflation, higher wages, and more employment in another. What do you think drives the difference? Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. Well, the crucial element really is the flexibility of goods and labor markets. With high flexibility, you get higher GDP, higher employment, and moderate inflation. With low flexibility, you may get a bit higher GDP, but employment plunges, and there's deflation of both prices and wages – more in wages. Now, in Japan, over the last two decades, we've seen monopoly power in key markets go down. For example, agriculture and energy. Labor markets are more flexible too, but lifetime employment system still applies to about two-thirds of the economy. And that deters people from trying to find better jobs and even from acquiring the skills needed for a new job. Michael Gapen: What conditions are needed for AI to be additive to Japan's economy? Robert Feldman: We need more reskilling. Japan is lucky because people are healthy, and they want to work into their 70s and beyond. But acquiring the skills to remain productive is a challenge, even though Japan's workforce is well-educated and still has a strong work ethic. So, to sum up, in the U.S., the race is between diffusion and absorption. But in Japan it's between labor scarcity and productivity. Is that fair? Michael Gapen: It is fair, and we come down on the side of optimism. We think diffusion will happen fast, but it'll happen at a pace that the U.S. economy can handle. So, we come down having a positive view overall. We do not lean in the direction of dystopian labor market outcomes. Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. I agree with that as well for Japan. So, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Robby-san. Robert Feldman: And thanks for listening, everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7Z9a4ccEIzuP6tb21mCyaoK-DVYGvbfBg3R_WH2PoOsThu, 09 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyRobert Feldman and Michael Gapen discuss how AI could reshape growth, labor markets and productivity in the U.S. and Japan.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Robert Feldman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Robert Feldman: Today, we'll discuss why the U.S. and Japanese economies may react differently to the AI productivity test. It's Thursday, July 9th at 8 pm in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And 9 am in New York. Robert Feldman: AI is the biggest theme around the world right now, but AI will play out differently in different economies. Take the cases of the U.S. and Japan. In the U.S., it's already a catalyst in investment, imports, productivity, and the labor market outlook. But here in Japan, it's seen as a savior for an economy with an intense labor shortage, low unemployment, and very little room to raise labor force participation. Mike, in the U.S., AI's contribution to real GDP growth will rise from about 0.05 percentage points in 2024 to an estimated 0.43 percentage points in 2027. What does that mean for markets? Michael Gapen: Well, Robby, I think it, it means a number of things, but, you know, I'm an economist, so the answer is always, "It depends." I think the real crux of the issue over time in the U.S., and therefore what it means for financial markets, is ultimately whether AI is labor replacing – and pushes the unemployment rate higher. Or it acts like a more traditional general-purpose technology that's labor augmenting. So, if, that's the case, meaning it looks similar to the internet and digital era, then it would mean faster output growth, stronger productivity growth, but still an economy that's running at or near full employment. That would be very beneficial in our estimation for risk assets, equity markets, credit markets, and it would probably mean that we stay in an interest rate environment that's certainly higher than it was during the post GFC period. But if – AI is a very different technology than we've seen in the past, and it displaces labor, and we get increases in the unemployment rate as AI diffuses through the economy. Then it could be very different for markets. Maybe returns to capital and equity markets are supported, but that might be more narrowly for technology stocks and not broader, say, consumer discretionary stocks. So, the answer, of course, is it depends. We don't know. And I think, ultimately, we come down on the side of thinking that AI will not create dystopian outcomes in the labor markets, that employment will hold up. So, we have a fairly constructive view, perhaps an optimistic view. And we think, ultimately it'll benefit markets greatly, similar to what we saw from the mid-90s to the early 2000’s. Robert Feldman: Well, in your model, you have a particular variable that captures the speed of diffusion. But your baseline has AI spreading twice as fast as the internet did. But without that rise of employment. Is that really manageable? And if it's not, what economic indicators would warn us, if we're crossing into the danger zone? Michael Gapen: This is really the tricky part as, as you know. We have a new technology. We have to model how it diffuses through the economy. And I would say I think there's an argument here that penetration rates and usage rates are very different than what economists think about diffusion, which is how the production process is reshaped because of this new technology. And so most economists look at the internet and digital era and think it took 20-25 years to fully diffuse. Mass penetration in maybe 10 years, but full diffusion in more like 20-25 years. And so, each innovation cycle tends to happen more rapidly. So, I do think AI will...]]>668alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1681fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/3-things-that-could-break-the-summer-rally--75644927insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, discussing three things that could disrupt a quiet summer. It’s Wednesday, July 8th at noon in New York. As markets turn the page toward the second half of the year, there are lots of reasons for optimism. Global growth remains solid. Earnings growth is strong, and broadening across more companies. Capital markets remain open and deal activity is robust. We continue to think that the best analogy for current conditions is something like 1997 through 1998 or 2005 through 2006 – periods where corporate aggression was increasing, and had further to go, leading to equities outperforming credit. Even more immediately, July also happens to be one of the best months of the year for markets. And while one should never base their entire investment strategy on how far the earth has travelled around the sun, this month has been the best month for the U.S. High Yield returns, by far, over the last 15 years. The last time the S&P 500 fell in the month of July was 2014. So given all that, what could go wrong? Well, here are three things that are on our mind. First, a key part of our most optimistic view is that U.S. inflation will be lower than the Federal Reserve expects in the second half of this year, leading them to leave interest rates unchanged, rather than raise rates as the market expects. The risk is that this assumption is just wrong, perhaps soon. There is certainly an argument that, if the Fed is worried about inflation, it shouldn’t wait to act, and the market is currently placing roughly 1-in-3 chance that the Fed hikes rates on July 29th. If that happens – and again, our base case is it does not – it could drive volatility. Second is earnings season, which kicks off next week. While the general trend of earnings is important, the bigger focus is likely to be on the results of large U.S. tech companies, and in particular, how much they plan to spend building out AI infrastructure. Over the last several quarters, almost like clockwork, these spending estimates have been revised higher and higher. And that has helped boost confidence in AI – as the spending is a sign that the technology holds promise – as well as boosting the broader earnings outlook; since all of this spending is becoming other company’s revenue. Our base-case remains that this AI spending cycle has further to run, with capex from the major U.S. hyperscalers rising from over $800bn of spending this year to roughly $1.2 trillion of spending next year. But the risk would be that second quarter earnings now show more hesitation to spend, maybe because the share prices of some of these big spenders have been recent underperformers. And given how much the current growth and earnings story is linked to AI, and how popular AI exposure is with investors, that would create a risk. Finally, there’s Iran. Our base case assumes a gradual renormalization of flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and we forecast Brent oil at about $75/bbl in 12 months time, which is pretty similar to current levels. But as of this recording there were reports of renewed hostilities, and the ceasefire may be fragile. The U.S. has already drawn down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest-ever levels, potentially reducing some ability to absorb shocks if the conflict re-escalates. Historically, July tends to be strong, and markets have a number of helpful tailwinds at their back. But an unexpected rate hike, an unexpected reduction in Hyperscaler Capex, and a resumption of the Iran conflict are three factors that are not in our base-case – and could disrupt that. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YS9hZGhfmfpyKQHzfVnUz4msIXCsoTd89UuAo5wRtL0Wed, 08 Jul 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets outlines what could potentially go wrong and disrupt markets’ optimism this summer.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, discussing three things that could disrupt a quiet summer. It’s Wednesday, July 8th at noon in New York. As markets turn the page toward the second half of the year, there are lots of reasons for optimism. Global growth remains solid. Earnings growth is strong, and broadening across more companies. Capital markets remain open and deal activity is robust. We continue to think that the best analogy for current conditions is something like 1997 through 1998 or 2005 through 2006 – periods where corporate aggression was increasing, and had further to go, leading to equities outperforming credit. Even more immediately, July also happens to be one of the best months of the year for markets. And while one should never base their entire investment strategy on how far the earth has travelled around the sun, this month has been the best month for the U.S. High Yield returns, by far, over the last 15 years. The last time the S&P 500 fell in the month of July was 2014. So given all that, what could go wrong? Well, here are three things that are on our mind. First, a key part of our most optimistic view is that U.S. inflation will be lower than the Federal Reserve expects in the second half of this year, leading them to leave interest rates unchanged, rather than raise rates as the market expects. The risk is that this assumption is just wrong, perhaps soon. There is certainly an argument that, if the Fed is worried about inflation, it shouldn’t wait to act, and the market is currently placing roughly 1-in-3 chance that the Fed hikes rates on July 29th. If that happens – and again, our base case is it does not – it could drive volatility. Second is earnings season, which kicks off next week. While the general trend of earnings is important, the bigger focus is likely to be on the results of large U.S. tech companies, and in particular, how much they plan to spend building out AI infrastructure. Over the last several quarters, almost like clockwork, these spending estimates have been revised higher and higher. And that has helped boost confidence in AI – as the spending is a sign that the technology holds promise – as well as boosting the broader earnings outlook; since all of this spending is becoming other company’s revenue. Our base-case remains that this AI spending cycle has further to run, with capex from the major U.S. hyperscalers rising from over $800bn of spending this year to roughly $1.2 trillion of spending next year. But the risk would be that second quarter earnings now show more hesitation to spend, maybe because the share prices of some of these big spenders have been recent underperformers. And given how much the current growth and earnings story is linked to AI, and how popular AI exposure is with investors, that would create a risk. Finally, there’s Iran. Our base case assumes a gradual renormalization of flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and we forecast Brent oil at about $75/bbl in 12 months time, which is pretty similar to current levels. But as of this recording there were reports of renewed hostilities, and the ceasefire may be fragile. The U.S. has already drawn down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest-ever levels, potentially reducing some ability to absorb shocks if the conflict re-escalates. Historically, July tends to be strong, and markets have a number of helpful tailwinds at their back. But an unexpected rate hike, an unexpected reduction in Hyperscaler Capex, and a resumption of the Iran conflict are three factors that are not in our base-case...]]>256alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1680fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-s-next-stress-test--75644958insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Thomas Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tom Wigg, Morgan Stanley's Head of Americas Specialty Sales. Stephen Byrd: I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Thomas Wigg: Today, the rally in AI CapEx beneficiaries has taken a breather in recent weeks on concerns of competition from open-source models, backlash to token-maxxing, and growing political opposition to data center builds. It's Tuesday, July 7th at 10am in New York. Let's start with you, Stephen. There's a lot of discussion recently around a backlash at token-maxxing. Essentially, enterprises trying to curtail their high spending on AI tokens from the frontier labs, and, in many cases, shifting to cheaper open-source China models. Can you first offer some perspective here on the value of tokens for enterprises? I know you have a popular token factory model that walks through the economics of agents. Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Tom, we do have this model that really walks through token economics, both from the adopter side as well as the hyperscaler side. So, let's do the adopter side. So, there's a study out that shows a whole range of enterprise use cases of AI, and the average single use case that they identify would save a company about $55 or provide that much benefit. And while we don't know exactly how many tokens it will require, we can make some educated guesses as to a typical token usage to achieve that $55 outcome. And we know that a typical American model, though this varies a lot, you can think of as the cost per million tokens being in the range of $5 per million. Some will be lower, some will be higher. So, for a few dollars of token cost, an enterprise can generate benefit of $55. So that doesn't make me overly concerned about token spend and concerns about token-maxxing. I know we're going to get into that, but the foundation here is really good in the sense that enterprise use cases are very much in the money. Thomas Wigg: How do you think market share ultimately shakes out on tokens? Do the cheaper models overtake the frontier AI labs? Do tokens bifurcate based on the complexity of workloads? How do you think this plays out? Stephen Byrd: What we continue to see is this relentless pace of innovation and cost reduction. So, the frontier keeps going out – meaning model capabilities continue to increase, and, with that, we see enterprise adoption growing quite a bit. Long way to say there is a role for both the frontier as well as these open-source models, and we'll continue to see both flourish. What I see is a lot of tokens will be spent on open-source models. A lot of the value will be in the higher end models because that's where enterprises are going to go. Let me give you an example. I was speaking with one of our programmers about a recent project, and he used a very high-end coding tool, an American coding tool. And for him, that incremental cost of the tokens was very much worth it. And here's a very practical example as to why it makes sense for many enterprises to use the higher end models. If a coding tool gets one of the thousands of lines of code wrong, the cost to remediate is very, very high. In other words, that incremental cost – in this example I'm thinking of, it's a few dollars incremental cost – is so worth it because if the quality is not there, the cost to any enterprise to go back and remediate is so high. And that's true in a lot of enterprise use cases, but not in every use case. And what we are seeing is these open-source models that are cheaper will be very good for a variety of more mundane use cases that are still very valuable. That said, what we've seen in data from places like OpenRouter is dollar-weighted, meaning valued by enterprise spend, the vast majority is still the proprietary models. But even within proprietary models, we could have more expensive and less expensive models. You do not need to go to the frontier. Where I come out on all this is that I'm very confident that the demand for compute is going to exceed the supply. What is difficult to exactly know is who are the winners, what is the exact mix. But the fundamentals of the demand for compute look extremely strong. Thomas Wigg: So, I think you just gave me the answer, but I do want to bring this all back to AI CapEx. Now, last year, when the market sold off on Deep Seek concerns, the concept of Jevons paradox ultimately prevailed, where the cheaper pricing led to even greater demand and CapEx went higher.Do you think the same plays out here? Stephen Byrd: It does look that way very much. And the Jevons paradox dynamic is what we still see today in the sense that as the models get better, what we can do with the models increase, the cost of tokens will keep dropping, the cost of compute will keep dropping.But let's talk about what might derail that, just to make sure we're thinking about all the risks. If somehow commoditized models could perform at the same level as proprietary models in all situations, then I would feel differently. But I don't see that. What I see is that these newer models really do have capabilities that are fairly breathtaking and that are worth that extra money. But if somehow, we hit a wall where these models aren't getting better and therefore the sort of the open models are going to catch up, then I'd feel differently about that. This is where Ariana will, will come in in terms of policy and, you know, this comes up a lot when we think about U.S. versus China. How do we think about, you know, access to different models? How do we think about the cost of different models? What about the risk of appropriation of capabilities by the Chinese firms, for example? That comes up a lot in policy circles. But the base case that I have is this just looks more like Jevons paradox, and there's going to be continued innovation, continued reduction in the cost of producing these services from these models. That looks like more of the same. Thomas Wigg: Let's shift to Ariana to talk about the political angle here. The cover of Barron's over the weekend was a guy wearing a no data centers T-shirt. And this does seem to be one of the few bipartisan issues of agreement heading into the midterms.The stat that the article gave was that 75 data center projects worth $130 billion were blocked or delayed in 1Q26, which is equal to the total number for 2025. This is according to Data Center Watch. Now, most of this is in blue states like New York, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota considering a statewide moratorium, but you're also seeing Pennsylvania, Arizona, Ohio, parts of Texas restricting tax incentives here. So as this gets louder into the midterms, how do you think this plays out? Ariana Salvatore: So, this is definitely one of the big wedge issues, not just for the midterm elections, but for 2028. And to your point, it's expanding into something that's got bipartisan momentum behind it. Our view is that as long as the Trump administration is in power, something like a federal ban is unlikely to come to fruition. That's because we think the administration is still broadly supportive of the AI data center build-out. And I think even if you were to see a Democrat in office further down the road, that position is the same. And the reason is, it's just too difficult to imagine the U.S. giving up that strategic imperative relative to China. So, while it is true that voters are against AI, while it is true that you are seeing these sorts of local efforts pick up steam, it's also the case that China is accelerating its own AI build-out – not just domestically, but around the rest of the world too. It's also the case that they are kind of tweaking some export restrictions on inputs for some of these data centers, and those geopolitical realities, I think, are hard to ignore. So, at the end of the day, there is a broader strategic imperative here that both Democrats and Republicans kind of recognize and get behind. Now, what does that mean in the near term for the build-out? I think it's not that you're going to see a real pushback or moratorium so much as a conditional build-out.That means you're going to see data centers have to incorporate things like grid modernization in their contracts, agree to longer term investments, for example. Do something that benefits the communities or give it back in some way. And I think that's kind of the policy trajectory in addition to the administration continuing to lean on tech companies to basically, you know, square the circle here and find some way to make this more affordable for, you know, local constituents. Thomas Wigg: Stephen, let me get your take on this too, because I know you live in the D.C. area, and you have a lot of political conversations like you referenced earlier. How do you think this plays out? Is it a red state versus blue state dynamic? And if what Ariana says comes to fruition, where it's a conditional build-out in terms of either giving back to the community or ensuring certain prices or certain technologies behind the meter, in front of the meter, does that have implications for certain areas of the market? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. First, I think Ariana's points were all spot on. I just want to, kind of, build on that and, and dive into it a little more detail. A few things. The politics are, from my perspective, not being the ex]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5TwPkZN923Od7YI5Rujmw9mtxd9BIAixRaQX19C11ScTue, 07 Jul 2026 22:00:00 +0000gtyThe biggest AI stocks have had a remarkable run – but questions still remain. Our Head of Americas Specialty Sales, Thomas Wigg, speaks with Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Global Head of Public Policy Research...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Thomas Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tom Wigg, Morgan Stanley's Head of Americas Specialty Sales. Stephen Byrd: I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Thomas Wigg: Today, the rally in AI CapEx beneficiaries has taken a breather in recent weeks on concerns of competition from open-source models, backlash to token-maxxing, and growing political opposition to data center builds. It's Tuesday, July 7th at 10am in New York. Let's start with you, Stephen. There's a lot of discussion recently around a backlash at token-maxxing. Essentially, enterprises trying to curtail their high spending on AI tokens from the frontier labs, and, in many cases, shifting to cheaper open-source China models. Can you first offer some perspective here on the value of tokens for enterprises? I know you have a popular token factory model that walks through the economics of agents. Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Tom, we do have this model that really walks through token economics, both from the adopter side as well as the hyperscaler side. So, let's do the adopter side. So, there's a study out that shows a whole range of enterprise use cases of AI, and the average single use case that they identify would save a company about $55 or provide that much benefit. And while we don't know exactly how many tokens it will require, we can make some educated guesses as to a typical token usage to achieve that $55 outcome. And we know that a typical American model, though this varies a lot, you can think of as the cost per million tokens being in the range of $5 per million. Some will be lower, some will be higher. So, for a few dollars of token cost, an enterprise can generate benefit of $55. So that doesn't make me overly concerned about token spend and concerns about token-maxxing. I know we're going to get into that, but the foundation here is really good in the sense that enterprise use cases are very much in the money. Thomas Wigg: How do you think market share ultimately shakes out on tokens? Do the cheaper models overtake the frontier AI labs? Do tokens bifurcate based on the complexity of workloads? How do you think this plays out? Stephen Byrd: What we continue to see is this relentless pace of innovation and cost reduction. So, the frontier keeps going out – meaning model capabilities continue to increase, and, with that, we see enterprise adoption growing quite a bit. Long way to say there is a role for both the frontier as well as these open-source models, and we'll continue to see both flourish. What I see is a lot of tokens will be spent on open-source models. A lot of the value will be in the higher end models because that's where enterprises are going to go. Let me give you an example. I was speaking with one of our programmers about a recent project, and he used a very high-end coding tool, an American coding tool. And for him, that incremental cost of the tokens was very much worth it. And here's a very practical example as to why it makes sense for many enterprises to use the higher end models. If a coding tool gets one of the thousands of lines of code wrong, the cost to remediate is very, very high. In other words, that incremental cost – in this example I'm thinking of, it's a few dollars incremental cost – is so worth it because if the quality is not there, the cost to any enterprise to...]]>732alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1679fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/next-leg-of-the-bull-market--75644902insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll discuss why I think the broadening out in equity markets can continue. It's Monday, July 6th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Let’s talk about a market dynamic that’s becoming harder to ignore. The broadening trade is back, and it’s gaining momentum partly because one of the most crowded areas of the market – Semiconductors – is finally starting to lose some of its own. To be clear, this doesn’t mean the AI cycle is over. However, trends don’t move in straight lines, and leadership can ebb and flow; especially if there are fundamental reasons supporting it. In fact, we’ve seen this happen several times already over the past couple of years with the hyperscalers and semiconductors ebbing and flowing. This is based on positioning, the rate of change on expectations for capex and the returns on that capex.  Meanwhile, our broadening call goes back to last November. Back then, we argued the economy had entered a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in the April of 2025. That view was based on a classic early-cycle setup where revenue growth returns to companies that had become cost efficient. That is the definition of operating leverage and that always leads to better than expected earnings growth – the core differentiation to our original outlook this year.  The market started to discount that broadening late last year and into early this year. Then, the Iran war interrupted it. Oil prices surged, and the bond market went from pricing Fed cuts to pricing hikes, and investors crowded back into the obvious AI capex winners – especially Semiconductors. That made sense for a while. The revisions in Semis were spectacular. But when earnings revisions breadth gets pressed against historical extremes, the question becomes less about whether the story is good and more about whether the rate of change can keep improving. That’s a much higher bar. And over the past few weeks, the market seems to be asking that question with semiconductor stocks fading. The underperformance in the hyperscalers was probably the first signal. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex, so when the spenders start to lag the beneficiaries, that divergence can’t last forever. It usually ends up reconciling with hyperscalers’ tempering capex guidance or indicating they are more focused on getting a return on that investment. META’s announcement last week that it would begin selling excess capacity to outside customers fits right into that discussion. It doesn’t kill the AI buildout, but it does change the market’s perception of how linear that buildout will be. What matters for investors is how they should trade it. First, the market should continue to broaden out. Second, we continue to favor Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, Regional Banks, and now Biotech as part of that rotation. Discretionary Goods remains the cleanest expression, in my view, because the wallet-share shift from services back to goods is underway, goods pricing is improving, oil prices have fallen, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports are also showing better revisions, and Regional Banks still benefit from the broader recovery, improving loan growth dynamics and our call for a re-steepening of the yield curve. Biotech deserves more attention here, too. It is also one of the most rate-sensitive areas of the market, and our work shows it has historically done very well in falling-rate regimes. If the market’s policy expectations are too hawkish – and I think they are – then Biotech offers an attractive risk-reward setup, particularly with an M&A cycle that continues to build. The Fed is part of this story as well. Chair Warsh’s comments last week that inflation risks have come down should matter, especially after the weaker labor data that came out Thursday. The market had become too hawkish on policy. If falling energy prices and contained core inflation allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hike, that should help lower rate expectations and further support broader leadership in equity markets. Bottom line, the major averages may stay choppy because Semis are a large part of the index and crowded. But, the message is improving beneath the surface. The broader market performance indicates a broader economic and earnings recovery may just be beginning. The best news is that this view is still out of consensus, which means the opportunity for investors remains significant.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/flauJLr7MI9JV8yLS9OXluuAcbqv3n_EVviSz3iYKg0Mon, 06 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyA changing macro backdrop is creating new opportunities across the equity market. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what's driving the shift and where it may lead next.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll discuss why I think the broadening out in equity markets can continue. It's Monday, July 6th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Let’s talk about a market dynamic that’s becoming harder to ignore. The broadening trade is back, and it’s gaining momentum partly because one of the most crowded areas of the market – Semiconductors – is finally starting to lose some of its own. To be clear, this doesn’t mean the AI cycle is over. However, trends don’t move in straight lines, and leadership can ebb and flow; especially if there are fundamental reasons supporting it. In fact, we’ve seen this happen several times already over the past couple of years with the hyperscalers and semiconductors ebbing and flowing. This is based on positioning, the rate of change on expectations for capex and the returns on that capex.  Meanwhile, our broadening call goes back to last November. Back then, we argued the economy had entered a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in the April of 2025. That view was based on a classic early-cycle setup where revenue growth returns to companies that had become cost efficient. That is the definition of operating leverage and that always leads to better than expected earnings growth – the core differentiation to our original outlook this year.  The market started to discount that broadening late last year and into early this year. Then, the Iran war interrupted it. Oil prices surged, and the bond market went from pricing Fed cuts to pricing hikes, and investors crowded back into the obvious AI capex winners – especially Semiconductors. That made sense for a while. The revisions in Semis were spectacular. But when earnings revisions breadth gets pressed against historical extremes, the question becomes less about whether the story is good and more about whether the rate of change can keep improving. That’s a much higher bar. And over the past few weeks, the market seems to be asking that question with semiconductor stocks fading. The underperformance in the hyperscalers was probably the first signal. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex, so when the spenders start to lag the beneficiaries, that divergence can’t last forever. It usually ends up reconciling with hyperscalers’ tempering capex guidance or indicating they are more focused on getting a return on that investment. META’s announcement last week that it would begin selling excess capacity to outside customers fits right into that discussion. It doesn’t kill the AI buildout, but it does change the market’s perception of how linear that buildout will be. What matters for investors is how they should trade it. First, the market should continue to broaden out. Second, we continue to favor Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, Regional Banks, and now Biotech as part of that rotation. Discretionary Goods remains the cleanest expression, in my view, because the wallet-share shift from services back to goods is underway, goods pricing is improving, oil prices have fallen, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports are also showing better revisions, and Regional Banks still benefit from the broader recovery, improving loan growth dynamics and our call for a re-steepening of the yield curve. Biotech deserves more attention here, too. It is also one of the most rate-sensitive areas of the market, and our work shows it has historically done very well in falling-rate regimes. If the market’s policy expectations are too...]]>309alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1678fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/america-s-frontier-market-origin-story--75644917insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, markets are closed for the observance of 4th of July. But as America approaches its 250th anniversary, we take a look back to look forward at early America as a frontier market.It's Friday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.If you were a global investor at the end of the 18th century looking for a stable, low-risk home for your capital, it would have been entirely reasonable to avoid the newly minted United States of America. By the standards of modern finance, the young republic was not a developed market in waiting. It was a frontier economy: volatile, debt-burdened, institutionally fragile, resource-rich, politically combustible, and astonishingly unequal.Its currency had collapsed. Its public finances were suspect. Its citizens resisted taxation, and its growth prospects were extraordinary. In 1810, 70 percent of the country was under the age of 25.That is one of the revelations of Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty, which focuses on the early days of the new country from 1789 to 1815.Wood's America is not the marble republic of statues and myth. It is speculative, messy, and full of motion. The United States succeeded not by escaping the dysfunctions that we associate with emerging or frontier markets, but by turning them into sources of strength.Start with capital. Early America needed it desperately. Roads, canals, land purchases, and government all required credit, and there was never enough of it. The country was rich in land and poor in liquidity, a classic emerging market mismatch.What the young country couldn't borrow or invent, it misappropriated, lifting intellectual property from its former masters in Britain. What Alexander Hamilton understood was the importance of confidence given this challenge; that debts would be honored, contracts enforced, and taxes, however unpopular, collected.His financial program was an attempt to solve the emerging market problem before the phrase existed. How to persuade investors that a new state, born in revolution and nearly bankrupted by war, could be trusted. To Hamilton, public credit was the foundation of independence.To many Jeffersonians, however, this system looked like an attempt to smuggle a British financial order back into the country that had just fought to expel it.The early republic's debates over debt, banks, speculation, and taxation sound contemporary because the underlying question is perennial in frontier markets: Can a society embrace credit and foreign capital without being captured by it?The U.S. was not starting from zero. It inherited legal traditions, habits of self-government, and a culture of contract and property. Those foundations gave confidence that disputes could be adjudicated, debts pursued, and rules would not be arbitrary.Early America was risky, but it was not lawless. And still, it did not go smoothly. There was no Federal Reserve, FDIC, or even a uniform national currency. Business was conducted with foreign coins, notes issued by private banks, IOUs, and blind optimism.Bank failures were common. In 1808, the Farmers Exchange Bank of Rhode Island issued over $600,000 of notes against less than $90 of gold in its vaults. You almost have to admire the audacity.Yet the same instability that made early America risky also made it unusually open. Land was the country's great asset class, a source of migration, ambition, speculation, and opportunity, at least for white settlers. It also produced bubbles, administrative strain, the expansion of slavery, and the violent dispossession of Native peoples.The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was a risky, leveraged acquisition of distressed real estate, doubling the scale of the American experiment before anyone had quite figured out how the original version was supposed to work. Wood is especially good on the familiar energy unleashed by this world.The engine of U.S. growth was not an aristocracy of polished grandees, but the "middling sort." Shopkeepers, artisans, tavern owners, mechanics, farmers, merchants, and speculators – many convinced that in America, birthright mattered less than hustle.Commentators of the time complained about the degraded press, political polarization, hostility to expertise, and the vulgarity of a society obsessed with getting ahead. None of this sounds especially distant.What saved America from the usual traps of frontier economies was not immaculate stability. It was adaptability. Its constitution was amended. Political power changed hands despite animosity.Bankruptcy laws allowed for failure. Competition was ferocious, and economic power was generally too diffuse to be easily monopolized. The early republic's genius lay less in solving its contradictions than in creating ways to fight over them without destroying the whole.That is a useful lesson for America at 250. We tend to look backwards for reassurance, imagining that the country once possessed a unity, prudence, and institutional solidity that we have since lost. Wood suggests something different, that the United States was turbulent from the start.Its legacy was contested, its finances distrusted, its politics venomous, its expansion intertwined with slavery and Native dispossession, and its future uncertain. Emerging markets become developed markets not because they stop having crises, but because they build credibility through them. They learn which institutions matter, which bargains endure, which debts must be paid, and which moral liabilities compound when deferred.America was not born orderly, rich, or secure. It was born in the mud, financed on fragile credit, driven by speculation, and sustained by an almost irrational confidence in the future.So, enjoy the fireworks – and let them be a reminder that national maturity is not the absence of volatility. It's the capacity to turn that volatility into renewal.A postscript: Gordon S. Wood died in early June of this year. As a professor, author, and one of the preeminent scholars of the American Revolution, he brought fresh insight and deep humanization to the country's founding. For anyone looking for a better understanding of America as it celebrates a big anniversary, we'd wholeheartedly recommend his workThank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LcctHt_Ca-19MtVWJY2ph03ObRMPpF3sGKjjacD4O5MFri, 03 Jul 2026 13:00:00 +0000gtyAs America nears its 250th birthday, our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets looks back at the early republic as a volatile frontier market, and what its path from credit risks to durable institutions can teach investors today.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, markets are closed for the observance of 4th of July. But as America approaches its 250th anniversary, we take a look back to look forward at early America as a frontier market.It's Friday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.If you were a global investor at the end of the 18th century looking for a stable, low-risk home for your capital, it would have been entirely reasonable to avoid the newly minted United States of America. By the standards of modern finance, the young republic was not a developed market in waiting. It was a frontier economy: volatile, debt-burdened, institutionally fragile, resource-rich, politically combustible, and astonishingly unequal.Its currency had collapsed. Its public finances were suspect. Its citizens resisted taxation, and its growth prospects were extraordinary. In 1810, 70 percent of the country was under the age of 25.That is one of the revelations of Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty, which focuses on the early days of the new country from 1789 to 1815.Wood's America is not the marble republic of statues and myth. It is speculative, messy, and full of motion. The United States succeeded not by escaping the dysfunctions that we associate with emerging or frontier markets, but by turning them into sources of strength.Start with capital. Early America needed it desperately. Roads, canals, land purchases, and government all required credit, and there was never enough of it. The country was rich in land and poor in liquidity, a classic emerging market mismatch.What the young country couldn't borrow or invent, it misappropriated, lifting intellectual property from its former masters in Britain. What Alexander Hamilton understood was the importance of confidence given this challenge; that debts would be honored, contracts enforced, and taxes, however unpopular, collected.His financial program was an attempt to solve the emerging market problem before the phrase existed. How to persuade investors that a new state, born in revolution and nearly bankrupted by war, could be trusted. To Hamilton, public credit was the foundation of independence.To many Jeffersonians, however, this system looked like an attempt to smuggle a British financial order back into the country that had just fought to expel it.The early republic's debates over debt, banks, speculation, and taxation sound contemporary because the underlying question is perennial in frontier markets: Can a society embrace credit and foreign capital without being captured by it?The U.S. was not starting from zero. It inherited legal traditions, habits of self-government, and a culture of contract and property. Those foundations gave confidence that disputes could be adjudicated, debts pursued, and rules would not be arbitrary.Early America was risky, but it was not lawless. And still, it did not go smoothly. There was no Federal Reserve, FDIC, or even a uniform national currency. Business was conducted with foreign coins, notes issued by private banks, IOUs, and blind optimism.Bank failures were common. In 1808, the Farmers Exchange Bank of Rhode Island issued over $600,000 of notes against less than $90 of gold in its vaults. You almost have to admire the audacity.Yet the same instability that made early America risky also made it unusually open. Land was the country's great asset class, a source of migration, ambition, speculation, and opportunity, at least for white settlers. It also produced bubbles,...]]>437alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1676fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investors-focus-shifts-to-rates-and-ai--75644950Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy Research at Morgan Stanley.And today, I'm bringing you a debrief from my investor meetings across Europe and Asia, and the key debates around AI and the Fed.It's Thursday, July 2nd at 10am in New York.The last two weeks, I have been traveling in Europe and Asia to meet with investors to discuss Morgan Stanley's latest views. Two themes dominated nearly every room I walked into.The first is the Federal Reserve and monetary policy path in the U.S. Many investors had interpreted Chair Kevin Warsh's June FOMC meeting, his first at the helm, as unambiguously hawkish. What market investors at my meetings pointed out is that [the] Fed's Summary of Economic Projections – commonly shortened to SEP, which details policymakers' forecasts for macro metrics like GDP growth, inflation, and the federal funds rate – added a hike in 2026 and pushed out rate cuts, implying more restrictive policy.Now, Morgan Stanley's economists think that hikes implied by SEP at the June FOMC meeting should be interpreted with caution. The projections appeared conditioned on elevated near-term inflation and may not capture the disinflation from a straight reopening. We actually anticipate a lower path for core inflation given a combination of a reversal in travel-related inflation and tariff payback, which lead to our call that the Fed remains on hold through 2026.The second recurring theme in meetings with investors across regions is, unsurprisingly, AI. While in every single meeting investors believe firmly in the secular story of ongoing AI CapEx cycle, there was some unease – especially since AI is now also becoming an inflation story on the macro side and a funding story on the micro side.Chipflation is a new word in town, with markets still debating whether it can be one of the things that derail the AI CapEx cycle. In our economists’ and sector analysts’ views, it's more nuanced. While memory price is up sixfold over the past year, we think chipflation is more likely to reprice and ration AI infrastructure than derail the cycle. AI demand is scaling across three layers at once, more memory per chip, more chips per system, and more systems per cluster, while hyperscalers remain first in the allocation queue. Now, the key risk is CapEx efficiency. Memory is becoming a larger share of the AI system cost, but the cycle, we think, remains intact.As for AI funding needs, the debate with investors has been how much more can it accelerate? It's worth noting that the majority of corporate bond issuance quarter-to-date has been related to funding construction of data centers.Hyperscale’s have been broadening their investor base through non-dollar issuances. They have collectively issued around $25 billion of debt in other currencies like euro, Swiss franc, and the [Japanese yen] in May.Our credit strategy colleagues forecast nearly another $600 billion of AI-related global issuance in 2026; meaning for U.S. IG corporate bonds alone, we expect one trillion of net issuance, a reason for our view that the asset class can underperform this year. With our equity colleagues estimating hyperscaler cash CapEx to surpass $1 trillion in 2027, we expect issuance to accelerate.Bringing it all together, investors globally are all grappling with the same uncertainties around the Fed and AI CapEx, which will likely continue to be key debates to come. But Morgan Stanley's base case view of lower inflation driving the Fed to stay on hold and a strong AI CapEx cycle that remains intact means we recommend investors should still stay constructive on risk assets.Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. And if you enjoyed the podcast, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/boRyNk1HN6JSsjXdHh2btmHydeAcPk796kOy13cXjPEThu, 02 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyFollowing meetings across Europe and Asia, our Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy Research, Serena Tang, discusses two of the main themes on investors' minds: uncertainty around U.S. monetary policy and increasing caution toward AI despite its...Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy Research at Morgan Stanley.And today, I'm bringing you a debrief from my investor meetings across Europe and Asia, and the key debates around AI and the Fed.It's Thursday, July 2nd at 10am in New York.The last two weeks, I have been traveling in Europe and Asia to meet with investors to discuss Morgan Stanley's latest views. Two themes dominated nearly every room I walked into.The first is the Federal Reserve and monetary policy path in the U.S. Many investors had interpreted Chair Kevin Warsh's June FOMC meeting, his first at the helm, as unambiguously hawkish. What market investors at my meetings pointed out is that [the] Fed's Summary of Economic Projections – commonly shortened to SEP, which details policymakers' forecasts for macro metrics like GDP growth, inflation, and the federal funds rate – added a hike in 2026 and pushed out rate cuts, implying more restrictive policy.Now, Morgan Stanley's economists think that hikes implied by SEP at the June FOMC meeting should be interpreted with caution. The projections appeared conditioned on elevated near-term inflation and may not capture the disinflation from a straight reopening. We actually anticipate a lower path for core inflation given a combination of a reversal in travel-related inflation and tariff payback, which lead to our call that the Fed remains on hold through 2026.The second recurring theme in meetings with investors across regions is, unsurprisingly, AI. While in every single meeting investors believe firmly in the secular story of ongoing AI CapEx cycle, there was some unease – especially since AI is now also becoming an inflation story on the macro side and a funding story on the micro side.Chipflation is a new word in town, with markets still debating whether it can be one of the things that derail the AI CapEx cycle. In our economists’ and sector analysts’ views, it's more nuanced. While memory price is up sixfold over the past year, we think chipflation is more likely to reprice and ration AI infrastructure than derail the cycle. AI demand is scaling across three layers at once, more memory per chip, more chips per system, and more systems per cluster, while hyperscalers remain first in the allocation queue. Now, the key risk is CapEx efficiency. Memory is becoming a larger share of the AI system cost, but the cycle, we think, remains intact.As for AI funding needs, the debate with investors has been how much more can it accelerate? It's worth noting that the majority of corporate bond issuance quarter-to-date has been related to funding construction of data centers.Hyperscale’s have been broadening their investor base through non-dollar issuances. They have collectively issued around $25 billion of debt in other currencies like euro, Swiss franc, and the [Japanese yen] in May.Our credit strategy colleagues forecast nearly another $600 billion of AI-related global issuance in 2026; meaning for U.S. IG corporate bonds alone, we expect one trillion of net issuance, a reason for our view that the asset class can underperform this year. With our equity colleagues estimating hyperscaler cash CapEx to surpass $1 trillion in 2027, we expect issuance to accelerate.Bringing it all together, investors globally are all grappling with the same uncertainties around the Fed and AI CapEx, which will likely continue to be key debates to come. But Morgan Stanley's base case view of lower inflation driving the Fed to stay on hold and a strong AI CapEx cycle that remains intact means we recommend investors should still stay constructive on risk assets.Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think by...]]>317alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1677fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-to-watch-ahead-of-the-midterms--75644967insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about the consumer and what recent data could imply for the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, July 1st at 10am in New York. Last week, Mike Zezas and I caught up on the consumer while he was down at our Consumer Captains Conference. This week, Michelle, I want to talk to you about what your data are saying and get into the implications of all of this for the midterm elections. So, maybe we start with the AlphaWise data. What are our surveys picking up when it comes to how the consumer feels about the outlook in the aggregate? Michelle Weaver: We run a monthly proprietary survey of around 2,000 U.S. consumers, and it's diversified by age, gender, and region, and we ask questions around sentiment, spending plans, and other special topics. Our survey recently showed a continued gradual recovery in consumer confidence in the U.S. economic outlook. We're not off to the races by any means, but we did see the net outlook score improve to -10 percent, up from -14 percent a month ago and a low of -18 percent two months ago, when concerns around oil prices were at their peak. Overall, more consumers feel negatively about the economy versus positively, hence that net score is negative. But we are seeing signs of improvement, so things are improving on a rate of change basis. Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense given the MOU that was signed between Iran and the U.S. Now, looking forward, what does the survey tell us about spending plans? Michelle Weaver: Broadly, consumer spending plans remain stable. They expect to spend more on essentials categories. This includes things like groceries, gas, and household items, while they're expecting to spend less on discretionary categories. We saw the weakest spending intentions within the consumer electronics category, and consumers are not likely to see much price relief in that category. Many consumer electronics makers are now taking their prices up because of the high price of memory chips that goes into those products. Ariana Salvatore: One of the most important components of the survey is the question that you ask on top areas of concern. What are you guys seeing there? Michelle Weaver: Inflation is still the number one concern for consumers, and we actually saw the percent of consumers citing it among their top concerns tick up again last month. So, now that's at 60 percent, up from 59 percent last month, and a low of 53 percent in January. People are also worried about the U.S. political environment. That was cited by 42 percent of consumers, up from about 39 percent last wave. Concern around geopolitical conflicts rounds out the top three, but that level's been pretty stable around 25 percent. But Ariana, can consumers expect any relief on prices from the policy front? Consumers got a nice boost from tax refunds. Is there anything else in the pipeline? Ariana Salvatore: So, we've gotten this question a lot into the midterm elections, and our view is basically that there are a number of obstacles in the way of something like another reconciliation package to give direct stimulus to consumers, whether that's procedural, whether it's the political perception. One of the most important is actually the deficit concerns, right? So, we don't expect something additional for the consumer through the legislative angle, aside from what we've already seen, like the Road to Housing Act. And that's also against a backdrop of what we've been seeing on the economic side and what your data is reflecting, which is that the consumer sentiment metrics are actually ticking up slightly from their lows. And that, of course, maps directly onto what our U.S. econ team has been saying. Their view is that the consumer story in 2026 has turned more neutral. Real consumption growth is still expected to decelerate to about 1.7 percent. That's below last year, but again, not falling off a cliff. The core dynamic is that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act had this fiscal boost from last year, tax refunds running about 17 percent higher year-over-year, but the oil shock basically mitigated that and essentially neutralized the fiscal impulse. But that's not hitting everybody equally. Goods spending tends to bear the brunt. Our econ team estimates that the oil shock takes 30 basis points off consumption entirely from goods rather than services. Low- and middle-income households are most exposed since energy makes up over 8 percent of spending for the bottom income quintile versus under 5 percent for the top. And that broadening out story from just the high-income consumer driving spending is probably going to be a little bit delayed just given the oil shock.But maybe let's drill in a little bit more on that income bifurcation. How does that manifest in your view across spending intentions? Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Overall, short-term spending intentions – so spending plans over the next month – are net +20 percent this month. That's still above the historical average of around +16 percent, but it is down somewhat from 23 percent last month. And the divergence is really driven by income. Upper-income consumers remain meaningfully more optimistic, while lower-income households are still under stress. So, we're still seeing the K economy very much in place. And the economy and inflation are almost always top issues for voters. How are you expecting the dynamics we've been talking about to impact the midterms? Ariana Salvatore: So, data are showing an uptick, obviously, which should on net benefit Republicans all else equal, albeit off a low base. And that's because there are other data points to consider here. So, things like the generic ballot, things like historical precedent, things like the presidential favorability ratings – all of those things are painting a more constructive backdrop for Democrats heading into November. But also, to put a finer point on it, we're seeing the AlphaWise data that you're citing reflected across other surveys as well. So, we saw the UMich data from last week show the year ahead inflation outlook drop to 4.6 percent from 4.8 percent. And of course, that's a reflection of the expectation that gas prices are going to moderate into November too. Now, on that front, it's about rate of change, right? So, not the absolute level. But again, I would just remind our listeners that this is one factor in the context of many. So, net-net, we definitely still see a slight advantage for Democrats heading into November, especially when we drill into some of the trends that we've been seeing across the primaries. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of those trends you've been picking up from the primaries? Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I would say is that we're cautious to extrapolate too much from primaries to the general election, but really maybe two key points here. The first is turnout seems to be an early indicator in favor of Democrats. So, enthusiasm is up. We're seeing more participation and more engagement relative to prior elections. The second point I would make is that the primaries have been showing a mixed bag in terms of candidates for November. So, in some states like New York and Colorado, you saw more progressive candidates win their races. And all else equal, that could translate to more of what we call a fragile instead of a cohesive majority come November. So, think more political noise around fiscal deadlines, things like appropriations and the debt ceiling. But of course, we still have less than 50 percent of the primaries, so plenty to watch heading into the fall. Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Thanks for having me. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7g-HWThMzXdjMmpcKDCtrVe22GWRpgiaKRD8xvGxJBQWed, 01 Jul 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyWith voters focused on prices and the economy, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver discuss the consumer trends that could matter most heading into November’s elections.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about the consumer and what recent data could imply for the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, July 1st at 10am in New York. Last week, Mike Zezas and I caught up on the consumer while he was down at our Consumer Captains Conference. This week, Michelle, I want to talk to you about what your data are saying and get into the implications of all of this for the midterm elections. So, maybe we start with the AlphaWise data. What are our surveys picking up when it comes to how the consumer feels about the outlook in the aggregate? Michelle Weaver: We run a monthly proprietary survey of around 2,000 U.S. consumers, and it's diversified by age, gender, and region, and we ask questions around sentiment, spending plans, and other special topics. Our survey recently showed a continued gradual recovery in consumer confidence in the U.S. economic outlook. We're not off to the races by any means, but we did see the net outlook score improve to -10 percent, up from -14 percent a month ago and a low of -18 percent two months ago, when concerns around oil prices were at their peak. Overall, more consumers feel negatively about the economy versus positively, hence that net score is negative. But we are seeing signs of improvement, so things are improving on a rate of change basis. Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense given the MOU that was signed between Iran and the U.S. Now, looking forward, what does the survey tell us about spending plans? Michelle Weaver: Broadly, consumer spending plans remain stable. They expect to spend more on essentials categories. This includes things like groceries, gas, and household items, while they're expecting to spend less on discretionary categories. We saw the weakest spending intentions within the consumer electronics category, and consumers are not likely to see much price relief in that category. Many consumer electronics makers are now taking their prices up because of the high price of memory chips that goes into those products. Ariana Salvatore: One of the most important components of the survey is the question that you ask on top areas of concern. What are you guys seeing there? Michelle Weaver: Inflation is still the number one concern for consumers, and we actually saw the percent of consumers citing it among their top concerns tick up again last month. So, now that's at 60 percent, up from 59 percent last month, and a low of 53 percent in January. People are also worried about the U.S. political environment. That was cited by 42 percent of consumers, up from about 39 percent last wave. Concern around geopolitical conflicts rounds out the top three, but that level's been pretty stable around 25 percent. But Ariana, can consumers expect any relief on prices from the policy front? Consumers got a nice boost from tax refunds. Is there anything else in the pipeline? Ariana Salvatore: So, we've gotten this question a lot into the midterm elections, and our view is basically that there are a number of obstacles in the way of something like another reconciliation package to give direct stimulus to consumers, whether that's procedural, whether it's the political perception. One of the most important is actually the deficit concerns, right? So, we don't expect something additional for the consumer through the legislative angle, aside from...]]>438alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1675fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-market-shift-investors-may-be-missing--75644985insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the changing equity market leadership.It's Tuesday, June 30th at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.Something is happening in plain sight but still isn’t fully appreciated by investors. The market’s leadership is changing. And as usual, by the time everyone agrees that it’s happening, the easier money will probably have already been made.Coming into this year, the primary differentiation to our view was that the economic and earnings outlook were much stronger than the consensus believed. That view was built around a few simple, but powerful ideas: easy comparisons after a three year rolling recession, lean cost structures, pent-up demand, fiscal support from capex incentives and tax cuts, deregulation for the banks, and a monetary backdrop that was increasingly supportive through the liquidity channel.Putting those together, the setup looked like a classic early cycle. Revenue growth returning on top of lean cost structures leads to strong operating leverage and well above trend earnings growth.Fast forward to today, and that’s exactly what has happened. The median stock in the S&P 1500 is now growing earnings at a double-digit pace, the fastest since the post-COVID boom. Revenue growth has returned, with the median stock growing its top line by 7 percent. That is a rolling recovery showing up where many investors still aren’t looking.For much of this year and particularly the past few months, most investors didn’t want to hear that story. The Iran conflict pushed oil sharply higher. Rate-cut expectations turned into hike expectations. Faced with these headwinds, investors crowded back into the AI trade especially semiconductors and memory in particular. To be clear, the earnings revisions in semiconductors have been spectacular. The move wasn’t irrational. But when something becomes the most owned, most loved, and most obvious area of the market, it becomes harder to surprise on the upside.That’s where I think we are now. The hyperscalers have started to underperform, and that may be an early warning sign for semis, which are the key beneficiaries of the AI spending boom. Earnings revision breadth for semis is pressing against historical extremes. Again, this does not mean the AI cycle is over. But it does mean that the rate of change may be peaking, and when price momentum starts to fade in a crowded trade, it can lead to significant set-backs. It can also give other parts of the market room to breathe. In short, the broadening trade is back!The equal-weighted index and small caps are outperforming again. More importantly, the groups we have been recommending – Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks – have already started to show relative strength over the past six weeks, even though positioning and sentiment remain neutral to negative. That’s the kind of combination I like: better price action, improving earnings, and investors still skeptical.One reason I’ve been more constructive on the consumer than others is that I’ve also been more bearish on oil. That view was not dependent on a grand deal between the U.S. and Iran, although that obviously helps. The signals were already there. The Brent-WTI spread narrowed, and energy stocks began underperforming from the day the conflict started.The market was telling us something before the headlines confirmed it. And longer term, I think the conflict has put the world on notice: this choke point around the Strait of Hormuz must be solved. It’s no longer a risk that the world is willing to tolerate. New routes, new supply, and new energy strategies are likely coming. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I would not underestimate the world’s ability to adapt.A less problematic oil backdrop helps the broadening trade too. So does the Fed, at least on rates. The June FOMC meeting told us two things: forward guidance is going to be diminished, and the reaction function is now focused more squarely on inflation.My view is that falling energy prices, peaking tariff-related inflation, and contained services and housing inflation keep the Fed on hold rather than hiking this year. If that’s right, lower than expected real rates could be a positive surprise for equities and another tailwind for the broadening of performance.The key variable to watch at this point is liquidity. This Fed is unlikely to be as proactive with balance sheet support, just as the real economy needs more capital for capex and the markets are dealing with more equity and credit supply. That’s the near-term real risk, especially for popular momentum trades.Bottom line, the market may look choppy and even weak at the index level, over the next month, but the message underneath is improving. Earnings are broadening, oil is falling. The shift is already under way with crowded momentum trades wobbling, and the under-owned areas of the market starting to lead.Investors can either wait for it to become more certain – or position before it becomes obvious and fully priced.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wXldK6ayTe0B-LL57H5JwISi5q7UnVuBQrf0tsSjWOETue, 30 Jun 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains that gains in the stock market are expanding to more sectors and why investors should position quickly.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the changing equity market leadership.It's Tuesday, June 30th at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.Something is happening in plain sight but still isn’t fully appreciated by investors. The market’s leadership is changing. And as usual, by the time everyone agrees that it’s happening, the easier money will probably have already been made.Coming into this year, the primary differentiation to our view was that the economic and earnings outlook were much stronger than the consensus believed. That view was built around a few simple, but powerful ideas: easy comparisons after a three year rolling recession, lean cost structures, pent-up demand, fiscal support from capex incentives and tax cuts, deregulation for the banks, and a monetary backdrop that was increasingly supportive through the liquidity channel.Putting those together, the setup looked like a classic early cycle. Revenue growth returning on top of lean cost structures leads to strong operating leverage and well above trend earnings growth.Fast forward to today, and that’s exactly what has happened. The median stock in the S&P 1500 is now growing earnings at a double-digit pace, the fastest since the post-COVID boom. Revenue growth has returned, with the median stock growing its top line by 7 percent. That is a rolling recovery showing up where many investors still aren’t looking.For much of this year and particularly the past few months, most investors didn’t want to hear that story. The Iran conflict pushed oil sharply higher. Rate-cut expectations turned into hike expectations. Faced with these headwinds, investors crowded back into the AI trade especially semiconductors and memory in particular. To be clear, the earnings revisions in semiconductors have been spectacular. The move wasn’t irrational. But when something becomes the most owned, most loved, and most obvious area of the market, it becomes harder to surprise on the upside.That’s where I think we are now. The hyperscalers have started to underperform, and that may be an early warning sign for semis, which are the key beneficiaries of the AI spending boom. Earnings revision breadth for semis is pressing against historical extremes. Again, this does not mean the AI cycle is over. But it does mean that the rate of change may be peaking, and when price momentum starts to fade in a crowded trade, it can lead to significant set-backs. It can also give other parts of the market room to breathe. In short, the broadening trade is back!The equal-weighted index and small caps are outperforming again. More importantly, the groups we have been recommending – Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks – have already started to show relative strength over the past six weeks, even though positioning and sentiment remain neutral to negative. That’s the kind of combination I like: better price action, improving earnings, and investors still skeptical.One reason I’ve been more constructive on the consumer than others is that I’ve also been more bearish on oil. That view was not dependent on a grand deal between the U.S. and Iran, although that obviously helps. The signals were already there. The Brent-WTI spread narrowed, and energy stocks began underperforming from the day the conflict started.The market was telling us something before the headlines confirmed it. And longer term, I think the conflict has put the world on notice: this choke point around the Strait of Hormuz must be solved. It’s...]]>347alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1674fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/comeback-for-europe-s-bull-market--75644920insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Products here in Europe. Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist. Paul Walsh: And today, we're looking at whether European equities have more room to broaden – as markets assess the implications of a potential U.S.-Iran deal and a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.It's Monday, June the 29th at 10am in London. Marina, it's always great having you on. And for our listeners out there, I think they'd be interested to hear that if we look at Europe's performance year-to-date, it's now on a par to the S&P. So, both indices are up somewhere between 7 and 8 percent year-to-date. So, Europe is starting to stage something of a comeback from the conflict lows. And so, what's driving this? And are we beginning to see inflows into Europe again? Marina Zavolock: So, I'm going to give a two-part answer to this. Firstly, Europe has a lot of the same exposure as the U.S., so that is part of the reason… I know that Europe has this kind of reputation for not having a lot of tech exposure; but we do have tech exposure… Paul Walsh: We do. Marina Zavolock: Not to the same degree as the U.S., but, let me just give you some numbers here. So, we have a number of sectors heavily exposed to the AI CapEx boom. These are led primarily by the semis sector in Europe, tech hardware, cap goods, and metals and mining; specifically, copper has a link to AI as well. And those sectors, let's say roughly they make up at this point about 15 percent weight of our index. And if you look at that year-to-date performance that's on par with the U.S., almost 90 percent of it is made up from these sectors.Paul Walsh: Yes. Marina Zavolock: So, these sectors have moved just as aggressively as many of the AI pockets within the U.S. That's the answer that's kind of similar to the U.S. The answer that's a bit different is that we get from time to time, over the years actually, but we had a very big one earlier this year. We get these waves of interest in Europe because investors start to think about diversification. So… Paul Walsh: That’s right. The broadening. Marina Zavolock: Yes. So, they... And we've called for broadening recently on the back of this, Iran-U.S. MOU. But this broadening has other drivers as well. So when we felt this wave of interest in diversification, and we saw the flows coming into Europe earlier this year, the driver was initially because the Mag7 was kind of going choppy and sideways. So, that just drove diversification out of Mag7 and into equal-weighted S&P, but that also always benefits Europe. Or tends to benefit Europe. But also, we had this wave of interest in real assets earlier this year; and Europe has a higher share of real assets than the U.S. Now, at this moment, I am sensing that we are getting that pickup in broadening interest once again from my feedback with investors. You had this MOU, which was the initial trigger. You have oil prices, broadly, they're falling. That's helpful as well. But I think the biggest driver of what's driving this diversification interest at this moment is actually the volatility that we're seeing in the AI complex. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: So, what a lot of the feedback I'm getting these days from investors that are coming back to Europe after focusing primarily on the U.S. is, ‘Look, I have a lot of AI in my portfolio. I like my AI exposure. I'm not looking to get rid of it or to sell it, but incrementally, I'm a little bit worried about this volatility. And I'm looking to broaden my exposure. What do you like in Europe to help me diversify away from this kind of volatility that we're seeing now?’ Paul Walsh: And I think that's a great segue, Marina, to my second question, because with Europe having really kept pace with the S&P year-to-date, the question that really is going to be asked is the sustainability of that relative performance. And when we think about a backdrop here in Europe of pretty low economic growth, the market continues to be worried about rate hikes given recent inflationary dynamics. And as you've articulated there, tech has played a very significant role here in Europe as well in terms of driving markets higher. So, you've alluded to it in a few of your comments already, but how sustainable do we see this as being? Marina Zavolock: It depends on AI, to be honest with you. So, if AI starts to really move up at an aggressive pace like it was earlier this year, then it's hard for Europe to outperform given our exposure. But if that starts to move up at a more moderate pace, Europe has a chance to do very well. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: I think there's a lot of misperceptions when it comes to European equities. And outside of AI, actually there's quite a lot of strength. So, misperception one, you've mentioned it, which is basically: Oh, look at our PMIs, look at our GDP growth. Why bother with European equities? I think this is maybe what some U.S. investors may think. But just like in the U.S., the equities market, and maybe even more so, the equities market in Europe – it is not the economy. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: So, we just published our global exposure guide over this past weekend, which Morgan Stanley has been running 29 iterations of this guide. Europe's exposure to Europe is pretty much at historical lows over decades. Europe's exposure to Europe as a percent of revenues is now 45 percent of revenues …  Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock:  ... is European exposed. The rest is very global, including the U.S. Um, Europe, uh, Of that 45 percent domestic, a lot of that is banks, some defensive sectors. Only a very small sliver is actually consumer-oriented sectors that would see earnings downgrades on the back of ECB hiking, for example. So, I think people may also be surprised to know that consensus earnings growth for Europe this year is over 16 percent. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: It's really healthy. Paul Walsh: It’s pretty healthy. Marina Zavolock: I know the U.S. is over 20, but Europe is over 16 percent. These kinds of ideas of, you know – we have a shortage of energy and therefore our earnings are going to be down – they're misperceptions. Because actually, as long as oil doesn't spike to, I don't know, [$]150. If it stays within a healthy range, call it [$]70 to 90, that's actually a very good environment for Europe because we have a lot of real assets. We have the banks which benefit from higher inflation because they trade on the steepness of the curve. And we have some AI exposure. If you add up those three things, which all benefit from inflation, that's 60 percent of our earnings pie.Paul Walsh: Right. Marina Zavolock: Hence, Europe's actually doing really well. And I'll just mention one other thing. Earlier this year, we broke out of a structural downtrend discount; that range that we were trading in versus the U.S. So, for almost 10 years, Europe's discount was just going wider and wider and wider and wider. And as of January 1st, this year, on a like-for-like basis, so sector neutral excluding Mag7, we broke out of that structural downtrend, and we keep seeing a narrowing. Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock: So, if you're going to broaden, it actually makes a lot of sense to look at Europe, where we have these discounts, and we have value, and we have growth. Paul Walsh: Yeah. So, the point there being the relative valuation discount of Europe to the U.S. has been actually closing a little bit more recently. Final question from my side. You have obviously recently refreshed your sector model. We have talked about the broadening in our conversation today. What are you advocating to your clients out there in terms of relative sector preferences? Marina Zavolock: Yeah. So, we run a data-driven model. Just briefly, we look at things like earnings revisions breadth – works really well as a leading indicator in Europe; a leading indicator for future earnings as well. Consensus price target revisions breadth, balance sheet measures. We look at a number of different things, AI exposure. And basically, I'll just give you the top sectors in our model now. Semis number one, metals and mining number two, led by copper. Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm. Marina Zavolock: Banks number three. I think banks, for me, it's a key diversification play. Paul Walsh: Yes. Marina Zavolock: A big differentiator. And trading on 10 times PE with very high distributions, buybacks and dividends, low teens earnings growth upgrades. Front of the line on AI adoption and seeing that ROI coming through. Cap goods, number four, that's also led by AI exposure. Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock: And then I'll just mention lastly, utilities is an overweight as well. That's also a little bit AI linked, but very, very under-owned; lagging the trends we've seen in the U.S. And broader based in terms of the positives there because we also have this drive for renewables, which is coming back. Paul Walsh: Marina, always, we value your insights highly. Thanks as always for taking the time to talk. Marina Zavolock: Great speaking with you, Paul. Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And please do share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Fql3Ye_e1-R4GjI-pwXYjl7aK9s6Cbyc8wcu4aUqHDgMon, 29 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyEurope's equity rally has surprised many investors. Our Europe Head of Research Product Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock discuss potential outcomes of the broadening market.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Products here in Europe. Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist. Paul Walsh: And today, we're looking at whether European equities have more room to broaden – as markets assess the implications of a potential U.S.-Iran deal and a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.It's Monday, June the 29th at 10am in London. Marina, it's always great having you on. And for our listeners out there, I think they'd be interested to hear that if we look at Europe's performance year-to-date, it's now on a par to the S&P. So, both indices are up somewhere between 7 and 8 percent year-to-date. So, Europe is starting to stage something of a comeback from the conflict lows. And so, what's driving this? And are we beginning to see inflows into Europe again? Marina Zavolock: So, I'm going to give a two-part answer to this. Firstly, Europe has a lot of the same exposure as the U.S., so that is part of the reason… I know that Europe has this kind of reputation for not having a lot of tech exposure; but we do have tech exposure… Paul Walsh: We do. Marina Zavolock: Not to the same degree as the U.S., but, let me just give you some numbers here. So, we have a number of sectors heavily exposed to the AI CapEx boom. These are led primarily by the semis sector in Europe, tech hardware, cap goods, and metals and mining; specifically, copper has a link to AI as well. And those sectors, let's say roughly they make up at this point about 15 percent weight of our index. And if you look at that year-to-date performance that's on par with the U.S., almost 90 percent of it is made up from these sectors.Paul Walsh: Yes. Marina Zavolock: So, these sectors have moved just as aggressively as many of the AI pockets within the U.S. That's the answer that's kind of similar to the U.S. The answer that's a bit different is that we get from time to time, over the years actually, but we had a very big one earlier this year. We get these waves of interest in Europe because investors start to think about diversification. So… Paul Walsh: That’s right. The broadening. Marina Zavolock: Yes. So, they... And we've called for broadening recently on the back of this, Iran-U.S. MOU. But this broadening has other drivers as well. So when we felt this wave of interest in diversification, and we saw the flows coming into Europe earlier this year, the driver was initially because the Mag7 was kind of going choppy and sideways. So, that just drove diversification out of Mag7 and into equal-weighted S&P, but that also always benefits Europe. Or tends to benefit Europe. But also, we had this wave of interest in real assets earlier this year; and Europe has a higher share of real assets than the U.S. Now, at this moment, I am sensing that we are getting that pickup in broadening interest once again from my feedback with investors. You had this MOU, which was the initial trigger. You have oil prices, broadly, they're falling. That's helpful as well. But I think the biggest driver of what's driving this diversification interest at this moment is actually the volatility that we're seeing in the AI complex. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: So, what a lot of the feedback I'm getting these days from investors that are coming back to Europe after focusing primarily on the U.S. is, ‘Look, I have a lot of AI in my portfolio. I like my AI exposure. I'm not looking to get rid of it or to sell it, but incrementally, I'm a little bit worried about this volatility. And I'm...]]>550alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1672fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-warsh-effect-on-mortgages--75644957insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today, the glow has maybe worn off the championship of the Knicks, so we can talk about the impact of Warsh on the mortgage and housing market. It's Friday, June 26th at 10am in New York. James Egan: If we have to stop talking about the Knicks, we can stop talking about the Knicks. But Jay, I think one of the things, if we take a little bit of a step back in mortgage markets, in housing markets, in fixed income markets more broadly – from the beginning of the year to now, we've gone from the market pricing in 2.5 cuts from the Fed by the end of 2026, to the market pricing in roughly 1.5 hikes. 100 basis point difference in market expectations over the course of the past five and a half months. Now, that's happened at different times, with different levels of velocity and severity. But one of the key talking points we have now is – we have a new Fed chair. We had the first FOMC meeting and his press conference after that last Wednesday. What do you think that means for mortgage markets, for volatility? How are you thinking about this? Jay Bacow: look, Jim, it's a great question, and we've got asked that by a number of different investors. Chair Warsh has been pretty clear that he thinks people should do more of what they're good at and less of what they're not good at. And so, he's felt like the Fed should keep their communication on future guidance relatively short. And so, with less forward guidance from the Fed, the market has more uncertainty, and more uncertainty translates into more volatility. And more volatility is generally bad for the mortgage market, given that investors are short the option to the homeowner to refinance. Furthermore, shifting from expectations of the Fed cutting to expectations of the Fed hiking generally makes it a little bit less favorable environment for investors like banks and overseas investors to come to the mortgage market. James Egan: Alright. Now, we've been on this podcast several times this year where we've talked about, you mentioned banks... We've talked about deregulation. We've talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs – them buying mortgages, that being constructive for our mortgage view.Is that still the case, or how are you layering that into your thought process? Jay Bacow: now? That's definitely still the case. Those things haven't changed. The deregulation is still flowing through the markets. That longer term should be supportive of bank demand in aggregate, although obviously there are a number of different regulations going through. The GSEs are still forecasted to buy 200 billion mortgages on behalf of President Trump's initiative. So, that's why we're just sort of tactically negative – those technicals are very strong in an environment where there really has not been much supply. Now, some of that supply is because mortgage rates are still in the context of 6.5 percent. Some of that is because with mortgage rates at 6.5 percent, there hasn't been that much housing activity. So, Jim, turning it to you, what is the outlook for the housing market in a world where they are expecting the Fed to hike and rates to stay elevated? James Egan: Right. So, the main thing that we focus on from a housing market perspective is less specifically Fed action and more the 5- and 10-year part of the curve.So, when you start to say something like you're tactically negative mortgage-backed securities here – how can I interpret that from a mortgage rate perspective? Jay Bacow: If we're tactically negative, it's more of a small move than some massive move. And as you said, and we've talked about on this call beforehand, realistically, the mortgage rate is a little bit less dependent on the Fed policy rate and more around the belly of the Treasury curve. And, you know, what's going to happen with the belly of the Treasury curve is going to be dependent on sort of market expectations along with what's happening in the geopolitical situation. So realistically, if you've written down that the mortgage rate is 6.5 percent right now, our view probably doesn't change things too much. James Egan: And if that's the case, then affordability in the housing market, as we've been talking about, is going to continue to be challenged. And what we think that means from a housing activity perspective is any upside that we really thought would have been there gets pretty significantly capped. But the same side of this token – or the other side of this token, if you will, we do think that the current level is well-supported here. There's some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where affordability is, and we think we found that. We're at 40-year lows from a turnover perspective. From the fourth quarter of 2023 through now, we've been roughly at the same level. That's 11 consecutive quarters now. We think this is the kind of base level for people that need to transact regardless of where mortgage rates are. So, the more that the rate environment remains challenged, the more that we kind of hang in this low to mid 6 percent mortgage rate environment. We just think that that continues to curtail upside. So, it's a housing market and a housing activity space that continues to very much just remain stuck in neutral. Jay Bacow: Alright. So, if we're in this new environment and the Fed might be hiking, it's not great locally for mortgage valuations. Housing market more broadly, probably kind of stuck in neutral here. Jim, always a pleasure speaking with you. James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Jay Bacow: And go smash that subscribe button.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Y-n7vbjEmxkgWRwkX5mpbwRsNrcLbTiJ4SV2CH36SUMFri, 26 Jun 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyAlthough markets may recalibrate to a different policy playbook under the new Fed chair Kevin Warsh, housing could remain in a holding pattern. Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today, the glow has maybe worn off the championship of the Knicks, so we can talk about the impact of Warsh on the mortgage and housing market. It's Friday, June 26th at 10am in New York. James Egan: If we have to stop talking about the Knicks, we can stop talking about the Knicks. But Jay, I think one of the things, if we take a little bit of a step back in mortgage markets, in housing markets, in fixed income markets more broadly – from the beginning of the year to now, we've gone from the market pricing in 2.5 cuts from the Fed by the end of 2026, to the market pricing in roughly 1.5 hikes. 100 basis point difference in market expectations over the course of the past five and a half months. Now, that's happened at different times, with different levels of velocity and severity. But one of the key talking points we have now is – we have a new Fed chair. We had the first FOMC meeting and his press conference after that last Wednesday. What do you think that means for mortgage markets, for volatility? How are you thinking about this? Jay Bacow: look, Jim, it's a great question, and we've got asked that by a number of different investors. Chair Warsh has been pretty clear that he thinks people should do more of what they're good at and less of what they're not good at. And so, he's felt like the Fed should keep their communication on future guidance relatively short. And so, with less forward guidance from the Fed, the market has more uncertainty, and more uncertainty translates into more volatility. And more volatility is generally bad for the mortgage market, given that investors are short the option to the homeowner to refinance. Furthermore, shifting from expectations of the Fed cutting to expectations of the Fed hiking generally makes it a little bit less favorable environment for investors like banks and overseas investors to come to the mortgage market. James Egan: Alright. Now, we've been on this podcast several times this year where we've talked about, you mentioned banks... We've talked about deregulation. We've talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs – them buying mortgages, that being constructive for our mortgage view.Is that still the case, or how are you layering that into your thought process? Jay Bacow: now? That's definitely still the case. Those things haven't changed. The deregulation is still flowing through the markets. That longer term should be supportive of bank demand in aggregate, although obviously there are a number of different regulations going through. The GSEs are still forecasted to buy 200 billion mortgages on behalf of President Trump's initiative. So, that's why we're just sort of tactically negative – those technicals are very strong in an environment where there really has not been much supply. Now, some of that supply is because mortgage rates are still in the context of 6.5 percent. Some of that is because with mortgage rates at 6.5 percent, there hasn't been that much housing activity. So, Jim, turning it to you, what is the outlook for the housing market in a world where they are expecting the Fed to hike and rates to stay elevated? James Egan: Right. So, the main thing that we focus on from a housing market perspective is less specifically Fed action and more the 5- and 10-year part of the curve.So, when you start to say...]]>363alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1671fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/consumer-confidence-and-the-u-s-midterms--75644956insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Mike Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be discussing the consumer outlook, policy catalysts, and what it could mean for the 2026 midterm elections.  It's Thursday, June 25th at 9am in New York.  Mike, you're on the road, obviously not in New York City this week. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the conference that you're at, and then we can get into some of the topics that have come up in your conversations.  Michael Zezas: Yeah. I'm down in South Carolina at Morgan Stanley's Captains of the Consumer Industry Conference, where we put together investors and leadership of key consumer companies in the U.S. to learn about each other in a more informal way, brainstorm… And it's been really interesting. We've had a lot of meetings with leadership from different prominent consumer companies throughout the U.S. And it's been really fascinating to hear how the consumer's been quite resilient. But in general, one pattern that sticks out is rising concern about lower-income consumers' behavior starting to lag in meaningful way higher-income consumers' behavior.  You're starting to see substitution and sort of more selectivity amongst lower-income households, a pattern that began a bit last year as a lot of these companies would report with higher tariffs. That seems to have continued with higher gas prices driven by the conflict in the Middle East.  So, there's a lot of discussion and concern about how durable it is. And in particular, if there are some policy choices here that might alleviate some of that pressure and bring some fundamental strength to what is a challenged segment of the consumer market right now.   Ariana Salvatore: Let's talk a little bit more about tariffs. It's our economists’ view that we've mostly gotten through the tariff pass-through. Is that the sentiment that you're hearing from corporates and the clients that you're talking to? Michael Zezas: It is. Well, it's certainly the hope. And I guess the follow-up questions here are: once some of the temporary tariff authority that was put into place after the Supreme Court struck down the use of IEEPA, will there be a restoration of those tariff levels? And will the USMCA negotiations create higher tariffs? So, Ariana, what's your thoughts there? Is there any concern for companies that they're going to start needing to deal with a re-escalation of tariff costs relative to what we experienced, say, last year?  Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I think to answer that question, we need to dig into this under the surface a little bit and understand what types of tariffs that we're talking about. So, to your question on the USMCA, we see that largely as a story of continuity, right? So, the USMCA exemption has been in place since the deal was signed, right? And since Trumpimposed those Section 301 tariffs, we think that's likely to stay the case. That means the vast majority of the goods trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is right now not subject to the 301 tariffs.  Now, on the other hand, we have existing Section 232 tariffs in place on not just sectors like steel and aluminum, but a bunch of other goods, too, and we're supposed to get more of those investigations wrapped up in the next week or so. So, on that front, I do think there could be some potential room for escalation, but more broadly speaking, we think the direction of travel is relatively stable, if not slightly lower, because, as you mentioned, the IEEPA tariffs that were replaced by the Section 122s have to get replaced again end of July, right? So that Section 122 authority was a temporary authority. The president is going to have to replace that with a mix of Section 232 and 301. It's been our view that when that happens, there could be some alleviation for very specific pockets of goods that fall into really neither bucket, right? So,they're not necessarily critical for national security, and they're coming from countries that are difficult to maintain a Section 301 investigation on. So, it's actually very nuanced under the surface. I would say in the aggregate level, what we think is that you're going to see the tariff rate stay somewhere around 8 to 9 percent on a headline basis; if not directionally, maybe a little bit lower throughout the course of this year.  Michael Zezas: Got it. And I think that message has been music to the ears of a lot of these companies. And I’ve been doing these meetings with our chief economist, Michael Gapen, who has said that that's contributing to what he forecasts as being a meaningfuldeceleration in inflation into the end of the year. Certainly an inflation level lower than what the aggregate Fed forecast isat the moment. Another question that comes up is whether or not the recent decrease in oil prices, which should feed through into lower gasoline prices, is durable. If that's something that could be counted on, because obviously these companies are thinking about it being a potential tailwind to demand going into the second half of the year. How do you think about that, Ariana?  Ariana Salvatore: The MOU that the U.S. and Iran signed, I would say was a welcome development for markets. But that being said, there are a number of paths to re-escalation, in our view. Really four things to keep an eye on, kind of outstanding questions or uncertainties.  The first is on execution risk of the MOU itself. It's very light on details. We need to see more about how exactly the Strait of Hormuz is going to reopen, if there's going to be a servicing fee, a tolling regime, et cetera. That was a red line of the United States. But again, implementation there is a big question.  The second is on the calibration or divergence between the U.S. and Israel in terms of their objectives. We identified that early in the conflict as a potential indicator of how long this could possibly last, and I think it's equally as important in assessing how long the ceasefire or the MOU could stay in place.  The third thing I would say we need to learn more about is the role of Congress in all of this. So, some Republican lawmakers actually pushed back against the MOU, saying it didn't go far enough to advance U.S. interests. Now Congress has a more limited role when it comes to the actual MOU implementation itself. Remember, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, didn't go through Congress either. But Congress can exert some more power come the fall when we start talking about defense appropriations, right? The Pentagon is asking for $1.5 trillion. [$]300 billion of that is supplemental war funding. And so, I think if you see Republicans push back, that's going to be an easy forum for them to do so.  And the last point is on the negotiations themselves. So, the MOU is a 60-day ceasefire throughout which both parties are supposed to be discussing the nuclear question. Now, looking back at historical context here, the JCPOA took about 20 months to negotiate start to finish. This is a very compressed timeframe, and again, obviously potential risk for escalationas we see these negotiations go on the next few months.  So, Mike, I would say, like I said before, markets are definitely seeing this as a welcome development, but that doesn't mean it's without execution risk. Across the board, our outlook actually expected a normalization of flows by the end of June, so we're kind of pulling things up by about two weeks.  That means that the outlook basically remains intact, but with marginal upside as this is a slightly more constructive outlook. Michael Zezas: Got it. So net net, there's still plenty of execution risk going on, but the trend is at least towards easing of some of these policy pressures that have been impacting the consumer. And it's also been interesting that a lot of the conversations have led to questions about artificial intelligence.  Now, at this conference last year, a lot of the discussion about artificial intelligence was around how these companies were implementing it to create new marketing opportunities, create efficiencies inside of their operations. This year, a lot of the discussion is actually about the macro trend around artificial intelligence, the acknowledgment of the industrial build-out around this new technology and how that is buoying investment and employment – and therefore consumption. And so, the policy concern or consideration from some of these companies is whether or not there are upcoming electoral issues, either in the midterms or in the next election cycle, that might change the dynamic around the AI industrial build-out. Are there signs that would show that a tougher regulatory regime? Data center construction bans that these things might take on a bipartisan flavor? And so right now, I think that's a very difficult question to answer.  There is obviously some level of concern about if policy might change this dynamic around the AI industrial build-out that really has kind of helped the economy deal with some other external shocks from policy, namely what's going on in the Middle East and trade policy changes before that Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, to that point, this question around AI pushback, especially on data center build-out, has been a big theme in the elections. Thus far, it's really been dealt with on more of a state and local level. But our view is that it's been kind of bubbling up to the national level. Efforts there are nascent, but I don't think they're going]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JjrG1SwK7ziqSd0MgQu06HI9iUe1O9p6_YcdWhnvJhEThu, 25 Jun 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore joins our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas to consider the consumer outlook and how it may impact the November midterm elections. Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Mike Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be discussing the consumer outlook, policy catalysts, and what it could mean for the 2026 midterm elections.  It's Thursday, June 25th at 9am in New York.  Mike, you're on the road, obviously not in New York City this week. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the conference that you're at, and then we can get into some of the topics that have come up in your conversations.  Michael Zezas: Yeah. I'm down in South Carolina at Morgan Stanley's Captains of the Consumer Industry Conference, where we put together investors and leadership of key consumer companies in the U.S. to learn about each other in a more informal way, brainstorm… And it's been really interesting. We've had a lot of meetings with leadership from different prominent consumer companies throughout the U.S. And it's been really fascinating to hear how the consumer's been quite resilient. But in general, one pattern that sticks out is rising concern about lower-income consumers' behavior starting to lag in meaningful way higher-income consumers' behavior.  You're starting to see substitution and sort of more selectivity amongst lower-income households, a pattern that began a bit last year as a lot of these companies would report with higher tariffs. That seems to have continued with higher gas prices driven by the conflict in the Middle East.  So, there's a lot of discussion and concern about how durable it is. And in particular, if there are some policy choices here that might alleviate some of that pressure and bring some fundamental strength to what is a challenged segment of the consumer market right now.   Ariana Salvatore: Let's talk a little bit more about tariffs. It's our economists’ view that we've mostly gotten through the tariff pass-through. Is that the sentiment that you're hearing from corporates and the clients that you're talking to? Michael Zezas: It is. Well, it's certainly the hope. And I guess the follow-up questions here are: once some of the temporary tariff authority that was put into place after the Supreme Court struck down the use of IEEPA, will there be a restoration of those tariff levels? And will the USMCA negotiations create higher tariffs? So, Ariana, what's your thoughts there? Is there any concern for companies that they're going to start needing to deal with a re-escalation of tariff costs relative to what we experienced, say, last year?  Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I think to answer that question, we need to dig into this under the surface a little bit and understand what types of tariffs that we're talking about. So, to your question on the USMCA, we see that largely as a story of continuity, right? So, the USMCA exemption has been in place since the deal was signed, right? And since Trumpimposed those Section 301 tariffs, we think that's likely to stay the case. That means the vast majority of the goods trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is right now not subject to the 301 tariffs.  Now, on the other hand, we have existing Section 232 tariffs in place on not just sectors like steel and aluminum, but a bunch of other goods, too, and we're supposed to get more of those investigations wrapped up in the next week or so. So, on that front, I do think there could be some potential room for escalation, but more broadly speaking, we think the direction of travel is relatively stable, if not slightly lower, because, as you...]]>589alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1670fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-a-quieter-fed-could-mean-for-markets--75644934insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the Fed could do less than expected and why that could still lead to more volatility. It's Wednesday, June 24th at 2pm in London. Last week saw the first meeting of the Federal Reserve under its new chair, Kevin Warsh. It didn't disappoint. The Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections saw significantly higher inflation than the last iteration in March, and in turn, a much stronger case to raise interest rates, perhaps multiple times. The Fed's statement, which laid out its views around the economy and its reasons for action, was changed dramatically – and also significantly shortened. We don't think the Fed will ultimately follow through on the interest rate rises that were flagged in this meeting and will choose instead to remain on hold this year. But we think this scenario of them staying on hold can still lead to more volatility. I'll try to address each side of this apparent contradiction. First, the Fed is clearly worried about inflation, which has been elevated for a considerable period of time. But working through the numbers, Morgan Stanley economists forecast lower inflation over the rest of this year than the Fed now expects. And so, while we think it would be entirely reasonable for the Fed to expect to raise interest rates based on the high inflation that they have penciled in, we think they could reach a different conclusion if our lower estimates are ultimately correct. Supporting our case, at least in our view, is that energy prices have fallen significantly in recent weeks since some of these Fed forecasts were set, as markets have moved to believe not only would existing oil production resume in the Persian Gulf, but Iran could increase exports materially under its new agreement with the United States. That would greatly reduce a source of underlying inflationary pressure in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. With inflation set to come in lower than feared, we think the Fed's most natural option will be to remain on hold this year rather than raise rates. But if the Fed's not doing anything, how exactly is that going to drive volatility? Our answer to that question lies in another thing that it's not going to be doing – providing as much information about where it thinks monetary policy is going next. Indeed, since the financial crisis, the Fed often went out of its way to give so-called forward guidance and significant detail about when and how they may change policy in the future. Proponents saw this as a way to avoid surprises and smooth the transmission of this policy, but critics saw it as limiting and potentially giving markets a false sense of certainty. The new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is one of these critics and has promised to give a lot less forward guidance. That lack of handholding by the Fed about what they might do next is a big change. Coupled with the potential for a smaller Fed balance sheet and big questions around the path of inflation and the impact of AI and productivity, every data point now has more potential to shift the market's thinking. My strategy colleagues think that this will lead to higher volatility in two-year interest rates, as well as more volatility in currencies. I'd also note that here in the UK, this paradox is not nearly as puzzling. Here, the Bank of England's target rate has been the same level since mid-December. But that hasn't stopped the UK two-year bond yield from trading in an over 100 basis point range. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Ai6sCogDLxGFbT-wEoB1XQtYqpXBIjboLka9Jv3zJOIWed, 24 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyIn his first meeting as Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh signaled restraint in providing guidance. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at possible impacts of the new approach.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why the Fed could do less than expected and why that could still lead to more volatility. It's Wednesday, June 24th at 2pm in London. Last week saw the first meeting of the Federal Reserve under its new chair, Kevin Warsh. It didn't disappoint. The Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections saw significantly higher inflation than the last iteration in March, and in turn, a much stronger case to raise interest rates, perhaps multiple times. The Fed's statement, which laid out its views around the economy and its reasons for action, was changed dramatically – and also significantly shortened. We don't think the Fed will ultimately follow through on the interest rate rises that were flagged in this meeting and will choose instead to remain on hold this year. But we think this scenario of them staying on hold can still lead to more volatility. I'll try to address each side of this apparent contradiction. First, the Fed is clearly worried about inflation, which has been elevated for a considerable period of time. But working through the numbers, Morgan Stanley economists forecast lower inflation over the rest of this year than the Fed now expects. And so, while we think it would be entirely reasonable for the Fed to expect to raise interest rates based on the high inflation that they have penciled in, we think they could reach a different conclusion if our lower estimates are ultimately correct. Supporting our case, at least in our view, is that energy prices have fallen significantly in recent weeks since some of these Fed forecasts were set, as markets have moved to believe not only would existing oil production resume in the Persian Gulf, but Iran could increase exports materially under its new agreement with the United States. That would greatly reduce a source of underlying inflationary pressure in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. With inflation set to come in lower than feared, we think the Fed's most natural option will be to remain on hold this year rather than raise rates. But if the Fed's not doing anything, how exactly is that going to drive volatility? Our answer to that question lies in another thing that it's not going to be doing – providing as much information about where it thinks monetary policy is going next. Indeed, since the financial crisis, the Fed often went out of its way to give so-called forward guidance and significant detail about when and how they may change policy in the future. Proponents saw this as a way to avoid surprises and smooth the transmission of this policy, but critics saw it as limiting and potentially giving markets a false sense of certainty. The new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is one of these critics and has promised to give a lot less forward guidance. That lack of handholding by the Fed about what they might do next is a big change. Coupled with the potential for a smaller Fed balance sheet and big questions around the path of inflation and the impact of AI and productivity, every data point now has more potential to shift the market's thinking. My strategy colleagues think that this will lead to higher volatility in two-year interest rates, as well as more volatility in currencies. I'd also note that here in the UK, this paradox is not nearly as puzzling. Here, the Bank of England's target rate has been the same level since mid-December. But that hasn't stopped the UK two-year bond yield from trading in an over 100 basis point range. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find...]]>233alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1669fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-obstacles-to-buying-a-first-home--75645025insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Strategy.Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist within Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.James Egan: And today, why first-time homebuyers are facing a tougher path to ownership.It's Tuesday, June 23rd at 10am in New York.Buying a first-time home has always been a big step, but for a growing number of first-time buyers today, the goal can really seem insurmountable.Mortgage rates might be down from where they were in the second half of 2023, but they're significantly higher than they were for the several years before that. Monthly payments have roughly doubled for a median-priced home. And my colleague Jay Bacow and I have talked several times on this podcast about how many homeowners feel like they're locked into those lower rates.And they're staying put because they just don't want to give up a two or three-handle mortgage rate for something that has a six in front of it. But Sarah, as we know, this is bigger than just first-time buyers. Now, they often start the housing transaction chain, and when they can't buy, current owners may not be able to sell and trade up.That slows turnover across the market, and it also reduces activity tied to housing – from mortgages and renovations to moving and furniture. And it can keep would-be buyers renting for longer, which adds pressure to rental demand.So, how do you see this situation? Is this just another affordability squeeze, or has the housing market reset to a higher barrier to entry?Sarah Wolfe: I do think that we're on the upper bound of affordability pressures. This is about as bad as it's going to get. But as we discussed in our recent publication of The Economy Explained, unfortunately, we do think that the housing market is resetting at a structurally higher barrier to entry. There's a lot of reasons for that.The first is higher interest rates. Yes, mortgage rates are sitting around 6.5 percent, and they should come down from here, but maybe not better than 5.5 percent, right, in an optimistic scenario. The second is demographic pressures. Remember, we have this tremendous aging population of baby boomers. All of their children are now entering their prime home-buying years, so there's a lot of demand for ownership.The third and fourth ones are land regulation and permitting, which is at the state and local level, really hard to change. And the last one is climate risk. It's just raising insurance pricing and making it much more difficult to buy a home.So overall, we see a world where, yes, mortgage rates come down a bit, improve affordability marginally, but we think neutral and other interest rates at the longer end of the curve are going to be higher than the post-financial crisis period. And what we're going to see is that those forces are going to widen the divide between who can own a home and who cannot. And who gains from that wealth accumulation and who does not.James Egan: Right. So now, you mentioned where mortgage rates are today, above that 6 percent rate. Rates did briefly – in February, we got below 6 percent before they bounced back up here. Why did that short-lived relief matter so much?Sarah Wolfe: I think that short-lived relief showed us that moves in the mortgage rate make a difference, but things are so unaffordable that it didn't make that much of a difference.So, the dip below 6 percent was very exciting. It happened this past February. It was the first time that mortgage rates fell below 6 percent since 2022, and we saw a few things happen. First, it lowered the monthly payment for first-time homebuyers from about two point two thousand dollars a month to one point nine thousand.So makes a bit of a difference. And it lowered the share of income that goes towards monthly mortgage payments from about 26 percent of income to 22 percent, from peak to trough. So, that is a notable improvement. But what we saw in the new home sales data and the existing home sales data, that it did not drive people back into the housing market.I want to turn it back to you though, Jim, because you've actually done a lot of interesting work on this. And how this change in mortgage rates has changed the monthly cost that people have to pay for a median-priced home. Can you tell us a little bit more?James Egan: Sure. So, we talk about the lock-in effect a lot, and it's kind of easy to point to: Well, there are a lot of people with mortgage rates that are around 3 percent or 3.5 percent, and the prevailing rate's at 6 percent, and that's a lot higher, so they're locked in.But when we look at the actual numbers in terms of what we're asking a homeowner to do – to list their home for sale and move to another home today, pay off that existing mortgage, take out a new one. When you take into account how much higher home prices are today…You bought a home in 2016, for instance, right? Let's assume you refinanced in 2020 or 2021 if you still live there, right? Most homeowners did. So, you've actually taken your monthly payment, and it is lower today than it was when you bought your home in 2016. If we assume that your income has risen alongside just median household income over that time period, your monthly payment as a share of your income today is probably sub 8 percent.If you bought over the past three years, your monthly payment is a share of your income. You mentioned some numbers earlier. It's low to mid 20 percent. From a dollar amount perspective, if you were to pay off that 2016 mortgage, as an example, and take out one today, your payment is probably [$]13[00] or $1400 higher. It's like a 200 percent increase. That's very difficult economically for a lot of households, and that's the kind of physical manifestation of that lock-in effect.Now, Sarah, given this significant change in housing math, what does that mean for who is actually able to buy in this market?Sarah Wolfe: It's making who's able to buy into the market a lot more selective. So, what we're seeing is that first-time home buyers today are actually not meaningfully older. They're still about 36 years old, but they are a much more selective group financially. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York put out a great analysis on this recently, and they basically found that the first-time home buyer profile today is taking out a mortgage that's nearly $350,000, compared to $240,000 in 2019 and $200,000, a decade ago. So, significant increase in mortgage balances.At the same time, credit standards have tightened significantly, so that average credit score to get a mortgage has risen quite a bit over the last 5 to 10 years. And what this is doing is it's shifting who can buy and also where they can buy. So, we're seeing higher-quality home buyers moving to lower-income zip codes. So, buying cheaper homes in lower-income metro areas, and so it's wealthier buyers in lower-income areas.And that's the really big shift that we're seeing. It's a demand resorting story. And what we're also seeing, and we hear this a lot when we talk to our financial advisors and their clients, is that family is increasingly helping their other family members put that down payment down; in particular, parents helping their children buy that first home.So, we're seeing that first-time buyers may be feeling this pressure, right, when it comes to rates. How much of this affordability issue, though, is being driven by the locked-in effect specifically?James Egan: So, look, it's clearly playing a role. We just talked about some of the math behind that. But then when you look at what that means on a nationwide basis when it comes to inventory, when it comes to so many other aspects of this, that homeowner who's unwilling to give up that lower mortgage rate, that lower payment, right, their homes are off the market.Existing inventories for sale, they've picked up from historic lows in 2023, but they're still very, very low on a long-run basis. The fewer homes there are for sale, the more upward pressure or the absence of downward pressure that's going to put on home prices, right?We saw affordability plummet in 2022 and 2023 when rates backed up. We saw existing home sales really, really come down as a result. But home prices remained at record highs. They continued to set new record highs. For home prices to actually come down, right, you need people who are willing to sell at lower home prices.Sarah, you just mentioned that lending standards themselves remain tight.Sarah Wolfe: Mm-hmm.James Egan: Those forced sales, those tend to be distressed transactions. We don't see that distress in the market providing the inventory and the motivated inventory to lead to softer home prices. So, it's really that lack of inventory which we think is in large part driven by the lock-in effect that's kept home prices. And as a result, that piece of the affordability equation kind of stuck at these higher levels.Sarah Wolfe: I mean, it's really this vicious cycle, the locked-in effect making it difficult for entry-level buyers to get into the market – and then fewer existing homeowners sell or trade up or relocate. So, on and on it goes.Are there broader implications of this freeze?James Egan: Right. So, we just talked about what that means from an inventory perspective. And then if you think about affordability remaining challenged, lending standards themselves remaining tight, inventory remaining as low as it]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/M3DzBBqzV1cwPHrmxA5njnw5Wva6Bl6PDoDBSAwkppsTue, 23 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyFirst-time homebuyers may get short windows of relief, but our co-head of Securitized Products Research James Egan and Senior Economist and Strategist in Morgan Stanley's Private Wealth Management Sarah Wolfe say the bigger story is a housing market...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Strategy.Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist within Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.James Egan: And today, why first-time homebuyers are facing a tougher path to ownership.It's Tuesday, June 23rd at 10am in New York.Buying a first-time home has always been a big step, but for a growing number of first-time buyers today, the goal can really seem insurmountable.Mortgage rates might be down from where they were in the second half of 2023, but they're significantly higher than they were for the several years before that. Monthly payments have roughly doubled for a median-priced home. And my colleague Jay Bacow and I have talked several times on this podcast about how many homeowners feel like they're locked into those lower rates.And they're staying put because they just don't want to give up a two or three-handle mortgage rate for something that has a six in front of it. But Sarah, as we know, this is bigger than just first-time buyers. Now, they often start the housing transaction chain, and when they can't buy, current owners may not be able to sell and trade up.That slows turnover across the market, and it also reduces activity tied to housing – from mortgages and renovations to moving and furniture. And it can keep would-be buyers renting for longer, which adds pressure to rental demand.So, how do you see this situation? Is this just another affordability squeeze, or has the housing market reset to a higher barrier to entry?Sarah Wolfe: I do think that we're on the upper bound of affordability pressures. This is about as bad as it's going to get. But as we discussed in our recent publication of The Economy Explained, unfortunately, we do think that the housing market is resetting at a structurally higher barrier to entry. There's a lot of reasons for that.The first is higher interest rates. Yes, mortgage rates are sitting around 6.5 percent, and they should come down from here, but maybe not better than 5.5 percent, right, in an optimistic scenario. The second is demographic pressures. Remember, we have this tremendous aging population of baby boomers. All of their children are now entering their prime home-buying years, so there's a lot of demand for ownership.The third and fourth ones are land regulation and permitting, which is at the state and local level, really hard to change. And the last one is climate risk. It's just raising insurance pricing and making it much more difficult to buy a home.So overall, we see a world where, yes, mortgage rates come down a bit, improve affordability marginally, but we think neutral and other interest rates at the longer end of the curve are going to be higher than the post-financial crisis period. And what we're going to see is that those forces are going to widen the divide between who can own a home and who cannot. And who gains from that wealth accumulation and who does not.James Egan: Right. So now, you mentioned where mortgage rates are today, above that 6 percent rate. Rates did briefly – in February, we got below 6 percent before they bounced back up here. Why did that short-lived relief matter so much?Sarah Wolfe: I think that short-lived relief showed us that moves in the mortgage rate make a difference, but things are so unaffordable that it didn't make that much of a difference.So, the dip below 6 percent was very exciting. It...]]>774alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1668fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-warsh-may-let-markets-tough-it-out--75644946insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing my views on the New Fed Chair and how to interpret his FOMC meeting last week.It's Monday, June 22nd at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.I want to spend today on what I think was one of the more important market events of the year so far. Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting as the Chair. Specifically, he is trying to fortify credibility at a very delicate moment. The economy is stronger than many expected. Inflation is still running above target. And markets have become accustomed to central banks telling them exactly what to think.Back in February, when Warsh was nominated, I argued that this was the right choice if the goal was to lift market credibility. At that time, precious metals were rising parabolically. To me that was a bad signal that markets were questioning whether policy makers could really run the economy hot without creating a disorderly move in the dollar or a broader inflation problem.Since Warsh’s nomination, the S&P 500-to-gold ratio is up close to 40 percent, and I view that as a powerful vote of confidence from the markets. It suggests investors are giving Warsh the benefit of the doubt – that he can shake up the Fed, reduce reliance on the balance sheet as a policy tool, and solidify discipline that gives the administration some breathing room.But here’s the catch. Enhancing credibility is not always painless. In fact, credibility must be earned by doing something markets don’t immediately like. And last week had some of that flavor. Stocks weakened, the yield curve bear-flattened, the dollar strengthened, and precious metals sold off. From my perspective, that is not a failed first meeting. That is a good and necessary first step. What stood out to me most was Warsh’s emphasis on the inflation mandate. He made it very clear that the Fed’s primary responsibility is price stability – not managing every wiggle in the labor market, not smoothing every risk asset drawdown, and not hand-holding investors through every data point. And frankly, after five years of missing the inflation target, that message was overdue.The stronger economy and improving private payroll data give the Fed room to lean into that message. I don’t think this means the Fed is about to hike rates immediately, or even necessarily this year. But it does mean the reaction function has changed, and markets do not like uncertainty around the Fed path.The other major shift was communication. Warsh appears to be moving away from excessive forward guidance, and I think that’s a very healthy development. For years, I’ve argued that the Fed became too influential in shaping not only market behavior, but also how investors interpreted the data. When markets are only trying to guess what the Fed will say next, the Fed loses the value of market prices as an independent signal. That’s backwards. Markets should be reacting to incoming information, and the Fed should be learning from those reactions – not vice versa.A little less Fed hand-holding may be uncomfortable, but ironically it is necessary to get to a more stable place. Investors may not like it in the short term, but the system works better when market prices are less impeded by policy manipulation. The wisdom of crowds is often better than the wisdom of committees.The near-term risk for equities is not rate hikes or even uncertainty. It’s liquidity. Balance sheet support has already started to fade. The Reserve Management Program is down roughly 75 percent from its peak, Treasury buybacks have been reduced by 50 percent. And at the same time lending growth is accelerating because the real economy is using more capital. That combination means liquidity is tightening, and our work suggests that could remain a headwind for stocks into July.Bottom line, the market may test Warsh’s resolve. That’s what markets do. The key question is whether the Fed tolerates some short-term pain in order to strengthen longer-term credibility. My guess is that it tries to do exactly that, until funding markets, credit markets, or bond volatility forces its hand to add more liquidity and loosen financial conditions again. That argues for choppy and even corrective price action in equity markets in the near term until the earnings led bull market has its next leg higher. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1DOLsubMkgSPtUolNDK5e6cD-2MIazHKEIknxoJdeV8Mon, 22 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson reacts to Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting, explaining why the new chair’s credibility may require letting markets experience some short-term pain.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing my views on the New Fed Chair and how to interpret his FOMC meeting last week.It's Monday, June 22nd at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.I want to spend today on what I think was one of the more important market events of the year so far. Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting as the Chair. Specifically, he is trying to fortify credibility at a very delicate moment. The economy is stronger than many expected. Inflation is still running above target. And markets have become accustomed to central banks telling them exactly what to think.Back in February, when Warsh was nominated, I argued that this was the right choice if the goal was to lift market credibility. At that time, precious metals were rising parabolically. To me that was a bad signal that markets were questioning whether policy makers could really run the economy hot without creating a disorderly move in the dollar or a broader inflation problem.Since Warsh’s nomination, the S&P 500-to-gold ratio is up close to 40 percent, and I view that as a powerful vote of confidence from the markets. It suggests investors are giving Warsh the benefit of the doubt – that he can shake up the Fed, reduce reliance on the balance sheet as a policy tool, and solidify discipline that gives the administration some breathing room.But here’s the catch. Enhancing credibility is not always painless. In fact, credibility must be earned by doing something markets don’t immediately like. And last week had some of that flavor. Stocks weakened, the yield curve bear-flattened, the dollar strengthened, and precious metals sold off. From my perspective, that is not a failed first meeting. That is a good and necessary first step. What stood out to me most was Warsh’s emphasis on the inflation mandate. He made it very clear that the Fed’s primary responsibility is price stability – not managing every wiggle in the labor market, not smoothing every risk asset drawdown, and not hand-holding investors through every data point. And frankly, after five years of missing the inflation target, that message was overdue.The stronger economy and improving private payroll data give the Fed room to lean into that message. I don’t think this means the Fed is about to hike rates immediately, or even necessarily this year. But it does mean the reaction function has changed, and markets do not like uncertainty around the Fed path.The other major shift was communication. Warsh appears to be moving away from excessive forward guidance, and I think that’s a very healthy development. For years, I’ve argued that the Fed became too influential in shaping not only market behavior, but also how investors interpreted the data. When markets are only trying to guess what the Fed will say next, the Fed loses the value of market prices as an independent signal. That’s backwards. Markets should be reacting to incoming information, and the Fed should be learning from those reactions – not vice versa.A little less Fed hand-holding may be uncomfortable, but ironically it is necessary to get to a more stable place. Investors may not like it in the short term, but the system works better when market prices are less impeded by policy manipulation. The wisdom of crowds is often better than the wisdom of committees.The near-term risk for equities is not rate hikes or even uncertainty. It’s liquidity. Balance sheet support has already started to fade. The Reserve Management Program is down...]]>292alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1667fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/inside-the-ai-debt-surge--75645030insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Carolyn Campbell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Carolyn Campbell, Morgan Stanley's Asset-Backed Securities Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Corporate Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: Today, how fixed income markets are helping fund the AI build-out. It's Thursday, June 18th, at 10am in New York. Let's get right into it, Vishwas. We've both come on this podcast before to talk about how credit markets are financing the AI build-out. And over the last ten months, I think it's fair to say that things are faster, broader, deeper than we perhaps expected initially. This investment now spans investment-grade corporate bonds, high yield loans, and a range of securitized products. From your seat in corporate credit, why does AI infrastructure matter so much, to investors right now? Vishwas Patkar: This is a big talking point in our client discussions. it's also telling that less than a year ago, we wrote about this topic for the first time, identifying a $1.5 trillion financing gap that credit markets could help bridge. At that time, data center debt was not something that investors were really focused on. Yet less than 12 months forward, this, I think, is the number one theme dominating both your and my market. And why it's important, I would say, is across, three key vectors. First, just the scale. So, if you look at overall AI-related debt issuance so far this year, we're close to $250 billion. For the balance of the year, we expect that number to double, so about $500 billion of total AI debt financing for 2026. Increasingly the second vector, I think, is around the complexity of deals. So initially, while AI financing was dominated by vanilla investment-grade corporate bond deals, we are now seeing that broaden out into project finance style deals in the high-yield market. We have seen an uptick in chip financing across the different credit silos. And that's important for investors, as identifying value across these different options does require deep credit expertise. And third, as this investment cycle rolls along, it's also important to be cognizant of risks that are building. Not just from a very broad top-down sense around the demand for compute. But also, what are some of the nuances in these different structures – whether it is in data center construction or is in chip financing that investors will need to monitor. So, it's across these three themes that we think data center debt financing is gaining importance. Carolyn Campbell: Now, the underlying demand for AI infrastructure is very strong. That doesn't necessarily mean that every bond tied to this theme is automatically going to be attractive. And as you mentioned, [$]500 billion of supply for the year; a large amount of complexity between those structures.How should credit investors think about the various risks within these different structures? Vishwas Patkar: So, in investment grade, the story is a bit simpler. So, we have had unsecured hyperscaler bond issuance. We have had issuance from semiconductor names. And then we've had some, what we call, private style data center deals. But the vast majority still comes from hyperscaler investment grade rated bonds. For this market, our focus is less on fundamentals because fundamentals are very strong. And then hyperscaler are some of the more most creditworthy companies that we've seen in the history of the market. Our emphasis more is on just the quantum of supply. So, year to date, we have had north of [$]100 billion of hyperscaler debt in the dollar market. We've had north of [$]50 billion being issued in other currencies. If you look at the overall investment grade market, supply is up almost 25 percent versus last year. That's consistent with our call for a year of record issuance this year. And increasingly, if you look forward and then map these issuance numbers to our CapEx estimates, where we could very much be on track for another record to be hit next year. So, the issue of the investment grade market is not around the fundamentals of the companies or these deals. It's more about the quantum of supply, which we think eventually will test the demand capacity of this market. And our base case for the investment grade space is similar to 1997-1998, where credit was starting to finance the business cycle, spreads widened modestly, and IG could underperform other risk assets. But over a longer time horizon, spreads still look historically very low. Carolyn Campbell: Now, what about further down the credit spectrum into the non-investment grade portion? What about that part of the issuance spectrum for AI? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, what we're seeing in the sub-investment grade space, especially in high yield, is very different. There, the growth in data center financing has happened around project finance deals for data center construction. In many cases, these have come from crypto miner companies that effectively provide what we call speed to power solutions. We've also had some unsecured issuance from neo clouds, although that's relatively small. But this sector has expanded from effectively zero billion around the fall of last year to about [$]40 billion this year. We expect to see another [$]20 billion of issuance by the end of 2026. And the way they fit into this whole ecosystem is – these project finance deals we think are interesting diversifiers for regular credit investors. They do come with construction risks, especially initially for the first two to three years till the data center is up and running. But on the flip side, you do get a lot of structural enhancements and creditor protections, which is something you don't see in the vast majority of the high yield market. So, I think a key shift in the framework that investors have to do for these deals is focus on asset-level risk, which is again, I think a big divergence from how the vast majority of the credit market trades, which is largely unsecured corporate-level risk that investors have been used to. Carolyn Campbell: All right. You just brought up construction risks. Do you think that's the biggest risk facing the high-yield investors today? Vishwas Patkar: Yes. I think for the high-yield deals in particular, construction risk is the dominant vector that investors are focused on. Because it's important to remember a lot of the debt issuers are first-time borrowers. And they have a limited track record of construction in the past. So, you could see potential delays and things like cost overruns that can affect sentiment on the sector. Or at least on specific bond deals. And this will be especially important to monitor going into the second half of the year, as we have some of the first delivery dates coming up for the deals in the sector that were announced last year. That being said, you know, even though some of the tenants have termination rights, if delays go beyond 180 days, our view is that given the structural power constraints, these termination rights are unlikely to be exercised. So, while construction milestones can affect sentiment and short-term valuations, we would look at any blips as buying opportunities in the space. Alright. So Carolyn, let me throw this back to you. So, construction risk clearly very important for the corporate credit market, especially for high yield investors. Is that something ABS investors or commercial mortgage-backed investors care about? And in what other ways are these asset classes different from corporate credit? Carolyn Campbell: Okay. So first and foremost, the biggest difference is that in securitized products, the assets are stabilized, they're cash flowing, they're online. We don't have that first vector of construction risk in our space. The second biggest difference is while in high yield and IG we've mostly seen – or we've entirely seen single campus, single tenant data centers; in securitization issuance, it's mostly multi-tenant, multi-asset, multi-regional, deals that have come to market. And so, it's a very different risk profile. And as a consequence, investors are focused not just on who is behind this one single lease and what are the termination rates, but what does the landscape look like in general for compute? How does that affect vacancy and churn rates? And then lastly, the issuers themselves are different. You talked about the crypto companies. You get a little bit more of the data center, data center construction. Whereas in securitized products, these are companies that have been around for 5, 10, 20 years. They're accustomed to managing a fleet of assets, dozens if not hundreds of tenants. They've got a little bit more of a track record for the most part, than the types of issuers we're seeing in the credit market. Vishwas Patkar: Your market post-construction, more leverage to the thematic of demand for compute – and how the AI investment cycle is playing out. Versus the corporate credit market, which is largely exposed to construction risks as the data centers get built out. So that's a very important difference.That being said, one theme that ties both our markets are just healthy fundamentals, but at the same time heavy supply. So, I talked about how we see that affecting our view on investment grade. How is that same tension showing up in securitized products? Carolyn Campbell: So exactly as you said, the fundamental story is very strong. We don't see deterioration in performance of the assets either that has happened yet or that we expect to come in the near term. So, it really is a technically driven story. Supply in this space,]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/GmzC_0ZbLHA9BrUh5fdxrNB0oRUopAr5megsR5Y8VCIThu, 18 Jun 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyAs AI investment keeps growing, our strategists Carolyn Campbell and Vishwas Patkar discuss the many ways tech infrastructure gets financed and the opportunities for investors.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Carolyn Campbell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Carolyn Campbell, Morgan Stanley's Asset-Backed Securities Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Corporate Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: Today, how fixed income markets are helping fund the AI build-out. It's Thursday, June 18th, at 10am in New York. Let's get right into it, Vishwas. We've both come on this podcast before to talk about how credit markets are financing the AI build-out. And over the last ten months, I think it's fair to say that things are faster, broader, deeper than we perhaps expected initially. This investment now spans investment-grade corporate bonds, high yield loans, and a range of securitized products. From your seat in corporate credit, why does AI infrastructure matter so much, to investors right now? Vishwas Patkar: This is a big talking point in our client discussions. it's also telling that less than a year ago, we wrote about this topic for the first time, identifying a $1.5 trillion financing gap that credit markets could help bridge. At that time, data center debt was not something that investors were really focused on. Yet less than 12 months forward, this, I think, is the number one theme dominating both your and my market. And why it's important, I would say, is across, three key vectors. First, just the scale. So, if you look at overall AI-related debt issuance so far this year, we're close to $250 billion. For the balance of the year, we expect that number to double, so about $500 billion of total AI debt financing for 2026. Increasingly the second vector, I think, is around the complexity of deals. So initially, while AI financing was dominated by vanilla investment-grade corporate bond deals, we are now seeing that broaden out into project finance style deals in the high-yield market. We have seen an uptick in chip financing across the different credit silos. And that's important for investors, as identifying value across these different options does require deep credit expertise. And third, as this investment cycle rolls along, it's also important to be cognizant of risks that are building. Not just from a very broad top-down sense around the demand for compute. But also, what are some of the nuances in these different structures – whether it is in data center construction or is in chip financing that investors will need to monitor. So, it's across these three themes that we think data center debt financing is gaining importance. Carolyn Campbell: Now, the underlying demand for AI infrastructure is very strong. That doesn't necessarily mean that every bond tied to this theme is automatically going to be attractive. And as you mentioned, [$]500 billion of supply for the year; a large amount of complexity between those structures.How should credit investors think about the various risks within these different structures? Vishwas Patkar: So, in investment grade, the story is a bit simpler. So, we have had unsecured hyperscaler bond issuance. We have had issuance from semiconductor names. And then we've had some, what we call, private style data center deals. But the vast majority still comes from hyperscaler investment grade rated bonds. For this market, our focus is less on fundamentals because fundamentals are very strong. And then hyperscaler are some of the more most creditworthy companies that we've seen in the history of the market. Our emphasis more is on just the quantum of supply. So, year to date, we have had north of [$]100 billion of hyperscaler debt in the dollar market. We've had north of [$]50...]]>669alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1666fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-policy-solve-ai-s-chipflation--75644976insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.  Today, I'll be talking about chipflation and what policy tools can or can't be used to address the memory bottleneck. It's Wednesday, June 17th, at 10am in New York. Last week, you heard my colleague Shawn Kim talk about chipflation and the surging cost of memory. Today, I'll get into what policymakers can and can't do about it. As listeners will know, memory chips are becoming an increasingly strategic resource because AI infrastructure depends on them. And when a resource becomes strategic, governments tend to get involved. The challenge is that policy can help at the margin but probably can't solve the problem quickly. There are three reasons for that. First, many U.S. policy tools all take time. Direct subsidies, tax credits, procurement guarantees, and faster permitting are all things that can support new fabrication plants, packaging facilities, and testing capacity. But memory supply is not going to appear overnight. This new capacity has to be built, equipped, qualified, and ramped – and that process can take years. Second, China may be able to add some supply in conventional memory markets, but not enough to close the broader gap created by AI demand. That's especially true for high bandwidth memory, the more strategic type of memory for frontier AI systems. Supply there still remains highly concentrated, technically complex, and difficult to scale. Third, our base case is that U.S. policy remains more restrictive, not less. We don't expect a broad loosening of export controls given the strategic imperative of this technology. Instead, we think policymakers are likely to continue to prioritize supply chain resilience, trusted capacity, and geopolitical de-risking over the near-term price relief. Now, from a policy perspective, we think it's important to split memory into two categories. The first is AI strategic memory, high bandwidth and advanced DRAM. That's the memory that enables the most advanced AI systems. And for that reason, we think policy here is likely to focus on protecting strategic capability, limiting geopolitical vulnerability, and expanding trusted supply across the U.S. and its allied countries. The second category is commodity or legacy memory. That's the memory that you can think of as being used in autos, industrial systems, consumer electronics, and other non-frontier applications. Now here, we think policymakers could consider more flexible options, like differentiated licensing or targeted support for critical sectors. But even then, the limits are practical: permitting, workforce, tools, qualification cycles, and production lead times. China is the other major variable. Chinese producers are expanding in conventional DRAM and NAND. In some consumer-grade applications, that supply could act as a relief valve for buyers that have been crowded out by AI-related demand. But still, there are limits. Chinese producers face yield and technology gaps, even if policy is supportive. And China alone will not solve the high-bandwidth memory bottleneck. The regulatory backdrop reinforces that point.Some Chinese memory producers remain subject to U.S. restrictions or even heightened scrutiny. Access to the most advanced lithography tools also remains a hard ceiling. Without that access, scaling leading-edge memory becomes much more difficult. So, the bottom line is this: policy can mitigate chipflation, but it's unlikely to end it in the near term. For AI strategic memory, policymakers are more likely to defend access, deepen allied coordination, and encourage trusted capacity than to loosen restrictions. For commodity memory, there may be room for some targeted flexibility. But of course, geopolitics and timing still matter. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/U2HJdRhd2Qpl5fpjUAWNm5aUA96UzZP5EzG29s_4FQMWed, 17 Jun 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyAI’s appetite for memory has turned chips into an inflationary factor. Our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore looks at what policymakers could do to reduce that pressure.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.  Today, I'll be talking about chipflation and what policy tools can or can't be used to address the memory bottleneck. It's Wednesday, June 17th, at 10am in New York. Last week, you heard my colleague Shawn Kim talk about chipflation and the surging cost of memory. Today, I'll get into what policymakers can and can't do about it. As listeners will know, memory chips are becoming an increasingly strategic resource because AI infrastructure depends on them. And when a resource becomes strategic, governments tend to get involved. The challenge is that policy can help at the margin but probably can't solve the problem quickly. There are three reasons for that. First, many U.S. policy tools all take time. Direct subsidies, tax credits, procurement guarantees, and faster permitting are all things that can support new fabrication plants, packaging facilities, and testing capacity. But memory supply is not going to appear overnight. This new capacity has to be built, equipped, qualified, and ramped – and that process can take years. Second, China may be able to add some supply in conventional memory markets, but not enough to close the broader gap created by AI demand. That's especially true for high bandwidth memory, the more strategic type of memory for frontier AI systems. Supply there still remains highly concentrated, technically complex, and difficult to scale. Third, our base case is that U.S. policy remains more restrictive, not less. We don't expect a broad loosening of export controls given the strategic imperative of this technology. Instead, we think policymakers are likely to continue to prioritize supply chain resilience, trusted capacity, and geopolitical de-risking over the near-term price relief. Now, from a policy perspective, we think it's important to split memory into two categories. The first is AI strategic memory, high bandwidth and advanced DRAM. That's the memory that enables the most advanced AI systems. And for that reason, we think policy here is likely to focus on protecting strategic capability, limiting geopolitical vulnerability, and expanding trusted supply across the U.S. and its allied countries. The second category is commodity or legacy memory. That's the memory that you can think of as being used in autos, industrial systems, consumer electronics, and other non-frontier applications. Now here, we think policymakers could consider more flexible options, like differentiated licensing or targeted support for critical sectors. But even then, the limits are practical: permitting, workforce, tools, qualification cycles, and production lead times. China is the other major variable. Chinese producers are expanding in conventional DRAM and NAND. In some consumer-grade applications, that supply could act as a relief valve for buyers that have been crowded out by AI-related demand. But still, there are limits. Chinese producers face yield and technology gaps, even if policy is supportive. And China alone will not solve the high-bandwidth memory bottleneck. The regulatory backdrop reinforces that point.Some Chinese memory producers remain subject to U.S. restrictions or even heightened scrutiny. Access to the most advanced lithography tools also remains a hard ceiling. Without that access, scaling leading-edge memory becomes much more difficult. So, the bottom line is this: policy can mitigate chipflation, but it's unlikely to end it in the near term. For AI strategic memory, policymakers are more likely to...]]>261alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1665fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/warsh-s-opening-act-at-the-fed--75644982Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, markets are watching the Fed's next move. Are rate cuts delayed or could hikes possibly be back on the table? It's Tuesday, June 16th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, the FOMC meeting today and tomorrow is likely more about reading the signal rather than announcing a rate change. Markets will focus on inflation forecasts, the unemployment rate, and the growth outlook. But, of course, this will also be the first meeting after Powell ended his term as Fed chair in May. All eyes will be on Warsh. So, what are your thoughts before the press conference? Michael Gapen: A lot of thoughts, actually, before the press conference. I do think it's basically a foregone conclusion that the Fed will be changing its easing bias in favor of more neutral language. Seems clear the committee wants to do that, probably wanted to do that at the last meeting. And it does fit, I think, Warsh's preference for less communication, less guidance from the Fed. So, I do think that's largely a foregone conclusion, although obviously we need to see whether that happens and whether there are dissents. I think, as you noted, the forecasts will be important, but I think what's really important from my perspective – more than the modal outlook or the baseline that participants have – is their assessment of the balance of risks around the dual mandate. And I say that because obviously a year ago, the Fed eased policy when it felt that there were downside risks to the labor market that outweighed upside risk to inflation. This year, that seems to have flipped, where the labor market appears to have stabilized, labor demand has picked up a little bit, and it is inflation that looks persistent. So, if the Fed cut last year on downside risk to the labor market, I think the concern for markets is – maybe they hike in 2027 or later this year based on a changing balance of risks in the direction of firmer inflation. So, for me, that's really kind of key. In addition to what they're saying about growth inflation in the labor market, what is their assessment of the distribution of risks around that modal forecast? Matthew Hornbach: There's definitely going to be a lot of investor interest in the press conference itself. What exactly may result from the opening statement. Presumably, Chair Warsh will give an opening statement. How are you thinking about the back and forth between Warsh and the reporters that are asking questions? Are there certain questions that you would anticipate him getting asked, and how do you think he might respond? Michael Gapen: Well, I think certainly that if we are correct, and I think markets are correct, that they do change forward guidance in the statement to more neutral bias, that certainly opens up the possibility that the Fed will be hiking. So, the obvious first question is – is this the first step in the direction of hiking? What would get you to raise rates? Should investors be thinking about that? Is that the course of travel here? Now Warsh may not want to answer that if he, kind of, is consistent in the view of saying the Fed shouldn't give a lot of forward guidance. So maybe get some popcorn, Matt. It could be a situation where he gets asked questions about the future path of monetary policy, and maybe he decides, ‘I don't want to take that up right now. The data will tell us, and we'll do what's necessary.’ And second, I think as you're noting and getting to about the structure of the press conference and what he might say is; past Federal Reserve chairs, let's say from Bernanke on, have found the press conference – the press conference statement, the questions, the format, the venue – as a way to control the narrative. And I think what will be interesting is to see whether Warsh has the same design. The risk, of course, is perhaps that he doesn't and pulls back the amount of communication guidance that he wants to give. And then we'll see what fills that vacuum. What narrative fills that vacuum? And is he okay with that? So, it may be that there's a new sheriff in town, and he chooses that there's some questions I'll answer, others I won't. And so, I do think that interaction with the press corps will be interesting. Hard to know exactly where it's going to come down until we see it in real time. Matthew Hornbach: During Chair Warsh's testimony to Congress, he alluded to the idea that potentially the Fed may not do a press conference at every meeting going forward. How are you thinking about that in the context of this idea that if you leave a void, somebody else may fill it? Michael Gapen: Obviously, the Fed used to not have press conferences at all, and then they moved to having them quarterly or four times a year. And they found that that was a little suboptimal because it became harder to make decisions and changes in the off-press conference meetings [be]cause they didn't have a venue to explain what they were doing and what they were thinking. So, they migrated to eight meetings. So, I think it’s kind of twofold. Yes, it would mean that they speak less and therefore maybe their word doesn't carry as much weight. Or there's longer gaps for other narratives to come in. Like, do we lose forward guidance from the Fed, and is that replaced by forward guidance from the Treasury, for example? How do markets weigh those signals? And but then also I would say would that ultimately box in the Fed to only make decisions on quarterly meetings rather than eight times a year? Would the chair, for example… Let's assume that at some point in the future, the Fed decides it does want to raise interest rates. Historically, the Fed does not surprise on rate hikes. It's perfectly willing to surprise on rate cuts, when it comes to that. But if there is a world where the Fed does decide, ‘Hey, we do need to raise rates, but we don't have a press conference to explain our view.’ Would they take the decision at that meeting or would they wait? So, does it reduce their opportunity set? Matthew Hornbach: I think this issue would certainly be an interesting one for investors to think about, which is why I'm bringing it up with you. Because to the extent that the plan going forward is to hold a press conference only once a quarter, as you alluded to – investors may interpret that as the Fed not being willing to raise rates at every single meeting going forward, which would certainly affect the pricing in the very short end of the interest rate market. But more broadly, on communication strategy, do you think that that would be something that Chair Warsh would take upon himself? Or do you think it would be more likely for him to organize a committee to discuss communications? Michael Gapen: I think the right thing to do… Again, our job is to say what we think he will do – not what he should do. But I'm going to answer this one in the question of what I think he should do. I do think he should create, say, a subcommittee on communication and reevaluate what the Fed does. [Be]ause as chair, he has almost unilateral control over communications. But obviously you work within a committee, the committee operates with consensus. So, I do think it would make sense to, kind of, work through a committee and try and get as much consensus as you can. And, here, what I would hope where they, kind of, ultimately land is – Warsh has been critical in the past of the Fed's forecast, the forecast being incorrect, providing maybe incorrect forward guidance. And I would argue that it's not really the sole job of the SEPs – the Summary of Economic Projections – to provide a forecast. But what you get out of them is more than just a forecast. You get a hint of the committee's reaction function. That if data are above or below certain thresholds on growth, inflation, and unemplyment, then expect our policy path to look different. So, is there a way that he could review the communication strategy, tamp down the elements that are, say, a pure forecast, but keep the items that communicate to the market what a reaction function is? That's where I think a review committee could be useful in reforming or revamping what they do. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. In terms of the things that are really the purview of the committee, can you walk us through what those are in the context of Chair Warsh coming in having to ultimately make decisions on monetary policy – both interest rate policy as well as balance sheet policy? What are the purview of the committee itself? Michael Gapen: Yeah. The two main tools of monetary policy, in this case interest rate policy and balance sheet policy, is both of those are under the purview of the Federal Open Market Committee. So, to change interest rates, to reduce the size of the balance sheet, to change the rollover rate, to buy assets, to sell assets – all of that is an FOMC decision. There are subcomponents of that world where the board can make certain decisions. Now, the Fed views communication broadly as a tool, but in this case, communication is not an FOMC decision. The evolution of the communication strategy grew kind of organically out of '08, '09. Chairman Bernanke kind of started that process. It continued through, through Yellen. And that's been more of what I'll call a consensus operation, but there's no formal vote. So, the chair has a lot of control over how the Fed communicat]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iDc72fuY48bgLTZOxS7c_ZjGq-SUYgr3YtR_3ciuuaUTue, 16 Jun 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the signals investors will be seeking from the new Fed Chair leading his first monetary policy meeting and possible implications for markets. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, markets are watching the Fed's next move. Are rate cuts delayed or could hikes possibly be back on the table? It's Tuesday, June 16th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, the FOMC meeting today and tomorrow is likely more about reading the signal rather than announcing a rate change. Markets will focus on inflation forecasts, the unemployment rate, and the growth outlook. But, of course, this will also be the first meeting after Powell ended his term as Fed chair in May. All eyes will be on Warsh. So, what are your thoughts before the press conference? Michael Gapen: A lot of thoughts, actually, before the press conference. I do think it's basically a foregone conclusion that the Fed will be changing its easing bias in favor of more neutral language. Seems clear the committee wants to do that, probably wanted to do that at the last meeting. And it does fit, I think, Warsh's preference for less communication, less guidance from the Fed. So, I do think that's largely a foregone conclusion, although obviously we need to see whether that happens and whether there are dissents. I think, as you noted, the forecasts will be important, but I think what's really important from my perspective – more than the modal outlook or the baseline that participants have – is their assessment of the balance of risks around the dual mandate. And I say that because obviously a year ago, the Fed eased policy when it felt that there were downside risks to the labor market that outweighed upside risk to inflation. This year, that seems to have flipped, where the labor market appears to have stabilized, labor demand has picked up a little bit, and it is inflation that looks persistent. So, if the Fed cut last year on downside risk to the labor market, I think the concern for markets is – maybe they hike in 2027 or later this year based on a changing balance of risks in the direction of firmer inflation. So, for me, that's really kind of key. In addition to what they're saying about growth inflation in the labor market, what is their assessment of the distribution of risks around that modal forecast? Matthew Hornbach: There's definitely going to be a lot of investor interest in the press conference itself. What exactly may result from the opening statement. Presumably, Chair Warsh will give an opening statement. How are you thinking about the back and forth between Warsh and the reporters that are asking questions? Are there certain questions that you would anticipate him getting asked, and how do you think he might respond? Michael Gapen: Well, I think certainly that if we are correct, and I think markets are correct, that they do change forward guidance in the statement to more neutral bias, that certainly opens up the possibility that the Fed will be hiking. So, the obvious first question is – is this the first step in the direction of hiking? What would get you to raise rates? Should investors be thinking about that? Is that the course of travel here? Now Warsh may not want to answer that if he, kind of, is consistent in the view of saying the Fed shouldn't give a lot of forward guidance. So maybe get some popcorn, Matt. It could be a situation where he gets asked questions about the future path of monetary policy, and maybe he decides, ‘I don't want to take that up right now. The data will tell us, and...]]>750alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1664fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-bull-case-after-the-pullback-in-stocks--75644983insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today: Possible opportunities to look out for in the equity correction over the past few weeks.It's Monday, June 15th at 1:30pm in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Sometimes the market changes direction or leadership not because the story has broken. Instead, it just needs to digest how quickly the story has evolved. Over the past few weeks, equities had their biggest correction since the important bottom in March. I don’t view this as the end of the bull market though. I view it as a pause after an unsustainable acceleration in two key factors driving stocks higher this year: earnings revisions and liquidity. In my view, the market wasn’t questioning the earnings bull market as much as it is questioning the speed at which earnings have been revised higher. These revisions have been particularly strong in leading sectors like semiconductors, which also corrected the most. When earnings revisions breadth gets north of 70 percent, it’s reasonable to ask whether the second derivative is about to slow. That doesn’t mean earnings estimates are going down. Instead, it means the rate of improvement is probably peaking, and in markets, it’s always about the second derivative in growth. Such decelerations create corrections, not crashes. That distinction is important. Earnings revisions breadth may pause or roll over from extreme levels, but the next twelve-month earnings estimates are still likely to rise as we move through the year and roll forward toward 2027 numbers. That’s why I remain convicted in our year-end S&P 500 target of 8000, even if the next few weeks remain choppy. Markets can correct while the earnings story remains intact. In fact, that’s often exactly how healthy bull markets reset.The second part of this adjustment is liquidity. Earlier this year, liquidity was flowing strongly through the system as a means of regaining financial stability. Between the Fed’s Reserve Management Program, reduced bank capital requirements, and Treasury buybacks, more than half a trillion dollars of liquidity was effectively added. But that pace is now slowing. The Reserve Management Program has fallen from roughly $40 billion a month in April to about $10 billion today; while Treasury buybacks have also slowed from the March and April highs. This rate of change slowdown matters at the margin, especially for crowded momentum trades that have been supported by abundant liquidity. Take note of these corrections in momentum because they often bring a change in leadership and that’s the real opportunity. We’ve already seen a few leadership rotations this year – from precious and base metals, to rare earths, to energy and finally to semiconductors. Now I think the market may be ready to broaden again, much like it did late last year and in the first six weeks of this year.Importantly, our preferred sectors of Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks are all up more than 10 percent over the past month while the S&P 500 was down modestly. Yet, sentiment toward these areas is still muted. That’s exactly the kind of setup I like: improving fundamentals, better relative price action, and investors still skeptical.Another piece that should help this broadening. Macro variables that have been holding lower quality cyclicals back include interest rates, crude, and the dollar – they may all now be peaking. That fits nicely with the announced deal to reopen the Straits of Hormuz last night. If oil pressure eases and the bond market walks back the Fed hike it is currently pricing, interest rate sensitive groups should have room to extend their recent outperformance. Finally this week’s Fed meeting matters too because it’s Kevin Warsh’s first as the Chair. I’ll be watching less for the rate decision itself and more for how the bond market reacts. The key markers are still the same for me: 4.5 percent on the 10-year, while bond volatility and funding market stress need to remain calm. If the Iran deal holds, I think the Fed can lean less hawkish on rates – but I don’t expect a proactive pivot to add more liquidity.Bottom line, markets have been digesting the peak rate of change in growth acceleration and liquidity. But that’s far from the end of the cycle. The earnings driven bull market remains intact, but the leadership may be changing. As usual, the best opportunities may be hiding in the places investors don’t believe in, yet.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uL0k4oSUgAQili536mA1Vw36-k2ibneZ92GAZLgclOoMon, 15 Jun 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why the recent equity correction may be more reset than reversal and where investors may find the next opportunities.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today: Possible opportunities to look out for in the equity correction over the past few weeks.It's Monday, June 15th at 1:30pm in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Sometimes the market changes direction or leadership not because the story has broken. Instead, it just needs to digest how quickly the story has evolved. Over the past few weeks, equities had their biggest correction since the important bottom in March. I don’t view this as the end of the bull market though. I view it as a pause after an unsustainable acceleration in two key factors driving stocks higher this year: earnings revisions and liquidity. In my view, the market wasn’t questioning the earnings bull market as much as it is questioning the speed at which earnings have been revised higher. These revisions have been particularly strong in leading sectors like semiconductors, which also corrected the most. When earnings revisions breadth gets north of 70 percent, it’s reasonable to ask whether the second derivative is about to slow. That doesn’t mean earnings estimates are going down. Instead, it means the rate of improvement is probably peaking, and in markets, it’s always about the second derivative in growth. Such decelerations create corrections, not crashes. That distinction is important. Earnings revisions breadth may pause or roll over from extreme levels, but the next twelve-month earnings estimates are still likely to rise as we move through the year and roll forward toward 2027 numbers. That’s why I remain convicted in our year-end S&P 500 target of 8000, even if the next few weeks remain choppy. Markets can correct while the earnings story remains intact. In fact, that’s often exactly how healthy bull markets reset.The second part of this adjustment is liquidity. Earlier this year, liquidity was flowing strongly through the system as a means of regaining financial stability. Between the Fed’s Reserve Management Program, reduced bank capital requirements, and Treasury buybacks, more than half a trillion dollars of liquidity was effectively added. But that pace is now slowing. The Reserve Management Program has fallen from roughly $40 billion a month in April to about $10 billion today; while Treasury buybacks have also slowed from the March and April highs. This rate of change slowdown matters at the margin, especially for crowded momentum trades that have been supported by abundant liquidity. Take note of these corrections in momentum because they often bring a change in leadership and that’s the real opportunity. We’ve already seen a few leadership rotations this year – from precious and base metals, to rare earths, to energy and finally to semiconductors. Now I think the market may be ready to broaden again, much like it did late last year and in the first six weeks of this year.Importantly, our preferred sectors of Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks are all up more than 10 percent over the past month while the S&P 500 was down modestly. Yet, sentiment toward these areas is still muted. That’s exactly the kind of setup I like: improving fundamentals, better relative price action, and investors still skeptical.Another piece that should help this broadening. Macro variables that have been holding lower quality cyclicals back include interest rates, crude, and the dollar – they may all now be peaking. That fits nicely with the announced deal to reopen the Straits of Hormuz last night. If oil pressure eases and the bond market walks back...]]>299alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1663fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/india-s-next-market-phase--75644984insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: Today, the biggest takeaways from our India Investment Forum in Mumbai. From the shifting outlook for India's markets and flows to the sectors driving the next phase of corporate earnings and CapEx.It's Friday, June 12th at 7PM in Hong Kong.Ridham Desai: And 4:30PM in Mumbai.Chetan Ahya: Ridham, the Morgan Stanley's India Investment Forum took place in Mumbai last week, and I was there with you. These events are a great opportunity to speak with investors who come across from the globe to attend. Now that we have had a few days to process the conversations, what stood out to you? What was the biggest shift in investor sentiment that you picked on?Ridham Desai: So, Chetan, I think it's been the case of a continuing story about India. Domestic investors look that they are bullish, and foreign investors continue to stay rather cautious on the Indian markets. We could see that in the overall attendance. In contrast, I think domestic investors were looking for the next stock that they wanted to buy. They were seeking opportunities, and there was a lot of interest in meeting companies.Before we get into markets, let me turn back to you from a macro side. India's growth story remains strong, but relative growth appears to be cooling. This is in contrast to markets like Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and the US. How should investors think about India's macro positioning in that context?Chetan Ahya: So, Ridham, when I look at the macro data in India, they're all indicating a meaningful upside in the growth trend. So I'll just cite two key cyclically sensitive macro data points. One is the banking system credit growth, and number two is the auto sales, particularly the passenger vehicle. So bank credit growth is growing as of the last biweekly data point that we got. It's growing at seventeen point seven percent year-on-year, and car sales are growing at twenty-seven percent in the month of May.But as you were mentioning earlier, the relative growth opportunity is a challenge for India and to just share the numbers on the earnings growth for the first quarter that we saw across the region. So we saw Korea's earnings growth at one hundred and seventy percent. We saw Taiwan's earnings growth at forty-eight percent year on year. Japan at thirty-three percent. The US has seen a growth of about twenty-seven percent year on year.So in that context, when India is reporting thirteen percent growth, it's becoming a challenge for investors to look for opportunities in India relative to other markets. Either they are more focused on the other markets than India. So let me come back to you, Ridham. Staying with the investment implications, India projects stable valuations and strong corporate earnings, but its relative growth advantage has narrowed. How should investors reconcile this contradiction?Ridham Desai: If I go back thirty-five years, as long as we have the MSCI index series, and as far as I have been in this industry, this is the lowest relative multiple that India has traded at. And indeed, growth last year was weak. But if you see QOQ, we have started to accelerate. The broad market earnings growth trajectory has shown a doubling in the quarter that ended March over the quarter that ended December.But it underscores the point you made about the relative growth complex. It's clearly not in India's favor. And a lot of the capital in the world is short-term oriented, and it cares for what growth is gonna come in the next quarter or two. And that's the state of the market right now.However, what I would say is that equities is a quintessential long-duration asset class. In the long run, what matters is terminal growth. I don't really think India's terminal growth has moved much. It remains far superior to a lot of other countries around the world. And therefore, I think this does present itself as a great opportunity for a long-term investor while the markets are digesting this relative growth disadvantage that India seems to have over the next, say, three or four quarters.Chetan Ahya: And Ridham, another theme from the forum was policy action to attract capital. Policymakers announced a number of measures right as our conference ended and they aimed to withdraw withholding tax on debt investors, also providing banks with an incentive to take up more dollar borrowing. How central are these measures to sustaining foreign inflows into Indian markets?Ridham Desai: I think the measures taken by policymakers are very important, probably amongst the most important policy actions this year. The removal of taxation on debt investors will make a difference. The provision for hedging to external commercial borrowings as well as to foreign currency deposits will make a difference.It should boost flows into India over the next twelve months. That said, these measures may not help the equity flows because the equity flows, I think, are going to depend on the relative growth situation. Now, there's only that much India can do to lift its growth. It may accelerate to the high teens. So growth elsewhere needs to decelerate for equity investors to return. Or India needs to see the start of a major IPO cycle because in primary issuances, foreigners do come to buy, and that may change the net picture on FBI flows in the equity markets.But as far as the debt markets are concerned, I think the measures taken last week are going to prove to be quite potent, and India should see the benefits accruing over the next few weeks and months.Chetan, from your perspective, how important is the policy backdrop right now in determining whether India can keep attracting long-term global capital despite more competitive returns elsewhere in the short run?Chetan Ahya: So Ridham, I think the key focus for the policymakers had been with these measures to boost short-term capital inflows to stabilize the currency. There has been a balance of payment deficit. So from that perspective, the short-term capital inflow augmentation effort as you mentioned, has been the correct move. But from the long-term perspective, we think that the government needs to boost competitiveness of the Indian manufacturing. Because in the context in which AI could affect India's services exports, there is a need to augment more export receipts from the manufacturing sector. At the same time, if they improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector, it will help India to attract more capital inflows from long-term investors for the purpose of FDI.And the good news is that the government is on it. They are taking a number of measures to boost that competitiveness in the manufacturing. But we think that there is more action needed and hopefully in the intention to improve the balance of payment dynamics and exports from manufacturing sector, we will see more actions from the government in the coming months.Ridham Desai: Chetan, you've also written extensively about the structural capital spending cycle in Asia and India. Can you walk us through the key details here, especially in the Indian context?Chetan Ahya: I think the key story that we are observing, it's sort of more or less global, but definitely very clearly seen in Asia, that there seems to be a super cycle for CapEx as well as industrial activity. This CapEx cycle is effectively driven by spending in four key sectors, and that is AI and AI-related digital infrastructure, energy, defense, and industrial onshoring-related CapEx.Now, as far as India is concerned, we are seeing investments in all the four segments that I just mentioned. In fact, it's seeing a significant amount of activity in the space of energy. And, similarly, we are seeing a lot of policy measures, I mentioned earlier, in terms of boosting manufacturing competitiveness.But at the heart of it is government's effort to onshore industrial supply chain. So India's CapEx has also inflected higher. Having said that, the difference between India and, let's say, North Asia, which is Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China, is that they are also a big player in the export market for capital goods when there is global CapEx cycle upswing happening. Nevertheless, India will see the benefit of this CapEx cycle in terms of its own growth push, as well as improvement in productivity.So Ridham, how would you think about the sectoral opportunity within the Indian markets?Ridham Desai: We see a lot of interest in some of these sectors which you mentioned. But actually, I would like to start off with financials. I see the banks in a very sweet spot. Balance sheets are in pristine condition. The interest rate cycle has troughed, which means margins for the banks have also bottomed and credit growth is finally accelerating. If this CapEx cycle unfolds like the way you are describing it, I think financials will stand to gain the most.And interestingly, the valuations are quite good, both on an absolute as well as on a relative basis. Also, of course, investors can go directly into those sectors which are doing this capital spend. Energy to start with, semiconductors, fertilizers, data centers and aerospace.The only thing to note here is that not everywhere are the valuations attractive enough because in some cases the market has recognized the coming growth cycle and has started to price that in. So we have to be careful about the valuations. But I think financials and industrials are clearly gre]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IlebqJISpcqGdmp20KoCvxuELEmHlN6Fj7-CFuNGUj8Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyChief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya joins Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai to break down India’s macro outlook, capital flows and sector opportunities.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: Today, the biggest takeaways from our India Investment Forum in Mumbai. From the shifting outlook for India's markets and flows to the sectors driving the next phase of corporate earnings and CapEx.It's Friday, June 12th at 7PM in Hong Kong.Ridham Desai: And 4:30PM in Mumbai.Chetan Ahya: Ridham, the Morgan Stanley's India Investment Forum took place in Mumbai last week, and I was there with you. These events are a great opportunity to speak with investors who come across from the globe to attend. Now that we have had a few days to process the conversations, what stood out to you? What was the biggest shift in investor sentiment that you picked on?Ridham Desai: So, Chetan, I think it's been the case of a continuing story about India. Domestic investors look that they are bullish, and foreign investors continue to stay rather cautious on the Indian markets. We could see that in the overall attendance. In contrast, I think domestic investors were looking for the next stock that they wanted to buy. They were seeking opportunities, and there was a lot of interest in meeting companies.Before we get into markets, let me turn back to you from a macro side. India's growth story remains strong, but relative growth appears to be cooling. This is in contrast to markets like Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and the US. How should investors think about India's macro positioning in that context?Chetan Ahya: So, Ridham, when I look at the macro data in India, they're all indicating a meaningful upside in the growth trend. So I'll just cite two key cyclically sensitive macro data points. One is the banking system credit growth, and number two is the auto sales, particularly the passenger vehicle. So bank credit growth is growing as of the last biweekly data point that we got. It's growing at seventeen point seven percent year-on-year, and car sales are growing at twenty-seven percent in the month of May.But as you were mentioning earlier, the relative growth opportunity is a challenge for India and to just share the numbers on the earnings growth for the first quarter that we saw across the region. So we saw Korea's earnings growth at one hundred and seventy percent. We saw Taiwan's earnings growth at forty-eight percent year on year. Japan at thirty-three percent. The US has seen a growth of about twenty-seven percent year on year.So in that context, when India is reporting thirteen percent growth, it's becoming a challenge for investors to look for opportunities in India relative to other markets. Either they are more focused on the other markets than India. So let me come back to you, Ridham. Staying with the investment implications, India projects stable valuations and strong corporate earnings, but its relative growth advantage has narrowed. How should investors reconcile this contradiction?Ridham Desai: If I go back thirty-five years, as long as we have the MSCI index series, and as far as I have been in this industry, this is the lowest relative multiple that India has traded at. And indeed, growth last year was weak. But if you see QOQ, we have started to accelerate. The broad market earnings growth trajectory has shown a doubling in the quarter that ended March over the quarter that ended December.But it underscores the point you made about the relative growth complex. It's clearly not in India's favor. And a lot of the capital in the world is...]]>778alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1662fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/inflation-relief-ahead--75644935insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, why is everything still so expensive?It's Thursday, June 11th at 2pm in London.The Federal Reserve has a so-called dual mandate, tasked with keeping the labor market healthy and prices stable. It is currently having much more success with the former than the latter.Let's start with that good news.Last Friday saw solid data from the U.S. jobs market, reducing some of the fears from earlier this year that artificial intelligence and other factors would lead companies to make do with fewer workers. The U.S. unemployment rate sits at just 4.3 percent, a historically low level. Measures like initial jobless claims indicate no large uptick in firings.Yet the success within the U.S. labor market is mirrored by struggles with inflation. The Fed tries to keep inflation, the annual increase in a broad set of prices, to about 2 percent per year. Their preferred measure of these prices, so-called PCE inflation, well, it's been materially above this target over the last three months, six months, twelve months, and indeed, the last five years.As for another key measure of inflation that was reported yesterday, CPI, overall prices increased more than 4 percent. While that was close to expectations, it still represents prices that are rising much faster than the Fed would prefer.This leads to a dilemma. One diagnosis of what's going on is that elevated inflation is a sign that conditions are simply too loose and too accommodative at these levels of interest rates. Corporate capital expenditure and merger activity is surging, regulation is being eased, and the U.S. government is spending a lot more than it's taking in. All of these are consistent with a hot economic cycle, which in the past would've warranted higher interest rates to bring the economy back down to a more sustainable speed.But it might not be that simple.The surging spend that we're seeing on AI data centers feels pretty unique and almost insensitive to other dynamics. Indeed, we've seen a 700 percent increase in the price of memory over the last year. Yet it's done little to slow demand for this construction as the large, well-capitalized companies behind the AI buildout see it as so essential to their future success.U.S. consumers are also still spending, boosted perhaps by record levels of household wealth. As just one example of this, my colleagues in Equity Research note that the price of airline tickets has gone up 25 percent over the last year, yet there's been no sign of people flying less.Now, the positive story would be that while there are some high-profile categories like computer memory or airfare that are seeing these large price increases, the broader inflation picture is actually set to get better as the year goes on, and costs for things like housing and tariff-impacted goods moderate. That is our view at Morgan Stanley, where our economists think that inflation will ultimately be lower over the next twelve months – and lower than many in the market expect.But there's definitely uncertainty.This month, June, is one where central banks may appear to have a renewed commitment towards inflationary pressures; with the ECB hiking rates today and our expectation that the Bank of Japan will hike rates next week, while the Fed will remove their easing bias. And our more benign economic base case for inflation does assume that oil will start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz pretty soon. It may not, and that could also lead to more sustained inflationary pressure.The big story on inflation has not gone away. Our assumption that pressures could ease in the second half of the year is a key and differentiated input to our forecast for lower bond yields and higher stock prices in 12 months' time. But it does rely on a change of the status quo.As of now, inflation is still too high.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HBT7S2f1KtmR1I9A-FLcJQ4aG_giCF087G5Kmd7rI-QThu, 11 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains our differentiated view of a potential benign outlook for inflation, despite the recent acceleration.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, why is everything still so expensive?It's Thursday, June 11th at 2pm in London.The Federal Reserve has a so-called dual mandate, tasked with keeping the labor market healthy and prices stable. It is currently having much more success with the former than the latter.Let's start with that good news.Last Friday saw solid data from the U.S. jobs market, reducing some of the fears from earlier this year that artificial intelligence and other factors would lead companies to make do with fewer workers. The U.S. unemployment rate sits at just 4.3 percent, a historically low level. Measures like initial jobless claims indicate no large uptick in firings.Yet the success within the U.S. labor market is mirrored by struggles with inflation. The Fed tries to keep inflation, the annual increase in a broad set of prices, to about 2 percent per year. Their preferred measure of these prices, so-called PCE inflation, well, it's been materially above this target over the last three months, six months, twelve months, and indeed, the last five years.As for another key measure of inflation that was reported yesterday, CPI, overall prices increased more than 4 percent. While that was close to expectations, it still represents prices that are rising much faster than the Fed would prefer.This leads to a dilemma. One diagnosis of what's going on is that elevated inflation is a sign that conditions are simply too loose and too accommodative at these levels of interest rates. Corporate capital expenditure and merger activity is surging, regulation is being eased, and the U.S. government is spending a lot more than it's taking in. All of these are consistent with a hot economic cycle, which in the past would've warranted higher interest rates to bring the economy back down to a more sustainable speed.But it might not be that simple.The surging spend that we're seeing on AI data centers feels pretty unique and almost insensitive to other dynamics. Indeed, we've seen a 700 percent increase in the price of memory over the last year. Yet it's done little to slow demand for this construction as the large, well-capitalized companies behind the AI buildout see it as so essential to their future success.U.S. consumers are also still spending, boosted perhaps by record levels of household wealth. As just one example of this, my colleagues in Equity Research note that the price of airline tickets has gone up 25 percent over the last year, yet there's been no sign of people flying less.Now, the positive story would be that while there are some high-profile categories like computer memory or airfare that are seeing these large price increases, the broader inflation picture is actually set to get better as the year goes on, and costs for things like housing and tariff-impacted goods moderate. That is our view at Morgan Stanley, where our economists think that inflation will ultimately be lower over the next twelve months – and lower than many in the market expect.But there's definitely uncertainty.This month, June, is one where central banks may appear to have a renewed commitment towards inflationary pressures; with the ECB hiking rates today and our expectation that the Bank of Japan will hike rates next week, while the Fed will remove their easing bias. And our more benign economic base case for inflation does assume that oil will start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz pretty soon. It may not, and that could also lead to more sustained inflationary pressure.The big story...]]>278alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1661fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-owns-travel-loyalty--75644991insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Airlines analyst. Jeff Adelson: And I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance analyst. Ravi Shanker: Today, who really owns your travel loyalty? The airline, the bank, the rewards platform, or you? It's Wednesday, June 10th at 7am in New York. Jeff Adelson: So, Ravi, you just came from your annual travel conference, and I'm about to head into the second day of Morgan Stanley's 17th Annual Financials Conference here in New York, where we're hosting roughly 135 corporates.A lot of themes are coming up there: retail engagement, product innovation, regulatory change, AI digital assets, capital markets recovery, and so on. All of these connect back to a bigger question. Who owns the customer relationship? Ravi Shanker: And that's exactly where travel co-branded cards come in. They sit at the crossroads of premium consumer spending, loyalty, and the competition for wallet share. They've become a more important revenue stream across travel, banking, and hospitality.But it's not as simple as more travel means more co-brand growth. Most customers still want flexibility, cashback, and low fees. Premium travelers and loyal airline customers behave differently. Let's start with the cardholder. Most consumers have a credit card, but travel co-branded cards are still a much smaller piece of the overall wallet. So, how big is the opportunity here, and how hard is it to get consumers to switch? Jeff Adelson: So, what's actually interesting, Ravi, is that travel co-branded cards are still relatively under-penetrated. In our survey, about 90 percent of cardholders have a general purpose card, while only about 22 percent have an airline card, and 12 percent have an hotel co-brand card. So, on the surface, the runway for growth does look significant. The upshot is also that once you get these consumers in the door, they are much higher spending and drive a ton of volume and incremental card economics for both the banks and their co-brand travel partners. The challenge is that consumers are pretty loyal to their cards or airlines that they already use, so most people aren't actively looking to switch. They tend to add a new card only when the value proposition is compelling enough. And sometimes given these one-time nature of the signup bonuses, it results in some churning without keeping the customer for the long term. So ultimately, what this all means is issuers and travel brands aren't just competing with each other, they're competing against habit. So, to win, they need to offer something that's meaningfully better than what's already in the consumer's wallet. Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, consumers seem to care most about value, fees, rates, and reward. Cashback still leads by a wide margin. So where do travel-specific rewards fit in? Jeff Adelson: The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate. The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate. Ravi Shanker: So, the premium consumer looks different. Why is that customer so important to card issuers? Jeff Adelson: So, higher income consumers frankly just spend a lot more. They're more loyal, they carry more cards, and they're more willing to pay a higher annual fee if they feel like they're getting the value from the card back after they pay that fee. In our survey, consumers earning over [$]150,000 per year of income spent roughly twice the amount on their primary card, and they were willing to pay almost twice the annual fee as other income cohorts. They're also attractive from a credit standpoint, from a, you know, delinquency perspective. These customers are more likely to pay their balances in full each month, and as a result, have lower credit risk. And often they keep long-standing relationships with their banks or their airline partner. That's why premium card and travel partnerships remain such an important customer acquisition tool for a bank. It has a really long lifetime value. The battle isn't really for the average card holder; it's for the affluent consumer who's driving a disproportionate share of spend in the U.S. economy.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, the banks and travel brands are partners today. But they're also starting to potentially compete more directly for the same customer. What should investors watch to see whether this stays a partnership or becomes more of a tug-of-war? Jeff Adelson: So historically, this has been a successful partnership, especially in recent years as high-income consumer spending pie has grown in the U.S. How this works is airlines provide loyalty and travel experiences. Banks provide the card issuance, distribution scale, and share back those card economics to the airlines. Everybody wins when the travel spend grows. But we're starting to see some things overlap. Banks are building their own premium travel ecosystems. That includes things like flexible rewards points with the ability to transfer to any airline you want, proprietary lounges away from the airlines, and travel benefits that increasingly compete with airline loyalty programs. So, what investors should watch from here, in our view, are two things. Number one, is the high-income consumer and the travel pie continuing to grow? That's really what's held everything up and frankly, driven the airlines that you cover to realize that they hold this golden ticket. They hold the access to that consumer, so they've begun negotiating for more of the economics away from the card issuers. The second thing we think that you need to watch out for is whether consumers really continue to value these airline-specific rewards enough to justify the existing partnership model. Our survey indicated that most consumers still prefer flexible rewards over points tied to a single airline. But among frequent travelers and airline loyalists, the airline ecosystem does remain powerful. So, the future does seem to depend in part on whether these travel brands can continue to deliver on experiences that the consumers really can't get elsewhere. So, Ravi, maybe switching to you. For the airlines, the question I have for you is a little different. How do you turn loyalty into a durable, profitable revenue stream without losing sight of the core travel product? Ravi Shanker: That's exactly it. Kind of you referenced the strength of the travel ecosystem in your previous response, and I think that's exactly what the airlines need to focus on. I think the takeaways for the airlines from the survey is very clear. You cannot have a co-brand revenue opportunity in isolation. It is just a layer on top of your core revenues. You cannot build an incredible loyalty or co-brand franchise without having a very strong core airline product. The analogy we use in our report is that it's sort of like the restaurant business.Most restaurants usually make the bulk of their profitability off of the wine menu or the liquor menu, even though you're going there primarily for the food and the ambiance and the service. If you don't have really good food and ambiance and service, you can't make money off of the wine menu. Similarly, we think the airlines need to continue to focus on their core product, whether it's their network or their reliability, their safety, where they fly, the quality of the product in the sky, the lounges, as you mentioned. And once you get all of that in order, then you can tap into the co-brand revenue opportunity over time. Jeff Adelson: So maybe just running with that analogy on, you know, co-branded revenues becoming a more meaningful part of the airline business. Why are they so strategically important in your view? Why should the consumer pay for that bottle of wine that they can get? Ravi Shanker: Look, we, we don't have a full disclosure from the airlines just yet, but we have some nuggets that tell you that this is a very attractive revenue opportunity, right? So, look at some of the numbers we do have. We think that this business has been growing at a low double-digit CAGR for the industry, which is much faster than core revenue growth. We think it has already grown to be about low double-digit percentage of overall revenues. And from the little info we have, we can surmise that this is a very, very profitable business. Something in the order of 35-50 percent operating margins, if not much higher than that in an industry that is overall working really hard to get to double-digit margins on a core basis. So, this business can be about half of overall mid-cycle profitability, maybe even higher for some of the airlines, even though, it is considered to be an ancillary revenue stream. This is also a very, very sta]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ew4_bYmD4E8Q1JCSjTEfvdbrN26sYlKEeaFiaXC4pFQWed, 10 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley analysts Ravi Shanker and Jeff Adelson take a look at what the fight for affluent, loyal travelers could mean for banks and airlines. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Airlines analyst. Jeff Adelson: And I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance analyst. Ravi Shanker: Today, who really owns your travel loyalty? The airline, the bank, the rewards platform, or you? It's Wednesday, June 10th at 7am in New York. Jeff Adelson: So, Ravi, you just came from your annual travel conference, and I'm about to head into the second day of Morgan Stanley's 17th Annual Financials Conference here in New York, where we're hosting roughly 135 corporates.A lot of themes are coming up there: retail engagement, product innovation, regulatory change, AI digital assets, capital markets recovery, and so on. All of these connect back to a bigger question. Who owns the customer relationship? Ravi Shanker: And that's exactly where travel co-branded cards come in. They sit at the crossroads of premium consumer spending, loyalty, and the competition for wallet share. They've become a more important revenue stream across travel, banking, and hospitality.But it's not as simple as more travel means more co-brand growth. Most customers still want flexibility, cashback, and low fees. Premium travelers and loyal airline customers behave differently. Let's start with the cardholder. Most consumers have a credit card, but travel co-branded cards are still a much smaller piece of the overall wallet. So, how big is the opportunity here, and how hard is it to get consumers to switch? Jeff Adelson: So, what's actually interesting, Ravi, is that travel co-branded cards are still relatively under-penetrated. In our survey, about 90 percent of cardholders have a general purpose card, while only about 22 percent have an airline card, and 12 percent have an hotel co-brand card. So, on the surface, the runway for growth does look significant. The upshot is also that once you get these consumers in the door, they are much higher spending and drive a ton of volume and incremental card economics for both the banks and their co-brand travel partners. The challenge is that consumers are pretty loyal to their cards or airlines that they already use, so most people aren't actively looking to switch. They tend to add a new card only when the value proposition is compelling enough. And sometimes given these one-time nature of the signup bonuses, it results in some churning without keeping the customer for the long term. So ultimately, what this all means is issuers and travel brands aren't just competing with each other, they're competing against habit. So, to win, they need to offer something that's meaningfully better than what's already in the consumer's wallet. Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, consumers seem to care most about value, fees, rates, and reward. Cashback still leads by a wide margin. So where do travel-specific rewards fit in? Jeff Adelson: The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate. The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent...]]>802alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1660fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-s-race-to-power-ai--75644955insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s Asia Energy analyst. Today: how AI’s rapid growth is forcing Asia into a massive energy buildout across power grids, fuels, storage and dependable energy and power generation. It’s Tuesday, June 9th at 8am in Singapore. Every time you ask AI to draft a note, summarize a file, plan a trip or generate an image, the response feels instant and easy. But behind it sits a very physical system: data centers, electricity, cooling, fuel, metals, power lines, storage tanks and ships. There is no AI without energy. And in Asia, the power and energy needs could get much bigger. And right now, we are at a critical inflection point where energy, AI, and security converge into [a] once-in-a-generation investment cycle. We see a super cycle with $5 trillion plus in new investments in energy over next five years, almost double of what we have seen in the past decade. And this has global implications as Asia consumes almost half of the world's energy needs – but produces only about a third of it at home. Energy markets may be global, but energy insecurity is local. It shows up in electricity prices, fuel shortages, factory delays, food supply pressure and household budgets. By 2030, Asia’s energy use could rise by about 38 exajoules. That increase is roughly equal to all the energy the Middle East consumes today. Power demand alone could reach about 19 trillion units a year when expressed in kilowatt-hours. That is around four trillion more units of electricity usage than in 2025, driven by data centers, industry, and onshoring of businesses. AI is now part of that demand story. By 2030, data centers could use roughly one-sixth of all new power units in Asia. That makes AI a major new load on the power system. Meeting this demand requires a major investment cycle. Asia’s annual energy investment could rise to roughly US$1.1 trillion a year over the next five years. Much of that spending goes into the power system itself: generation, grids, storage and the equipment needed to connect everything. Grids may be the biggest bottleneck. Think of [the] grid as the highway system for electricity. You can build more power plants, but if the roads clog up, the power does not reach homes, factories or data centers. Asia’s grid investment needs could reach close to about US$1 trillion by 2030. Transformer lead times have stretched to years in some cases, which shows how tight the equipment supply chain has become. The hardest part is keeping the lights on every hour of the day. Baseload power means electricity that can run around the clock. Asia is adding a large amount of renewable power to its energy infrastructure. But that source depends on when the sun shines or the wind blows. That is why coal, gas and nuclear remain part of the conversation. Storage also moves from useful to essential. Batteries help smooth out renewable power demand when supply rises and falls during the day. Global energy storage installations could rise from about 500 gigawatt hours in 2025 to around 3,000 gigawatt hours in 2030. Powering AI also reaches beyond electricity. Data centers need power, but the system around them needs dependable fuels, grids, batteries, metals, refining, storage and shipping. Electricity has to be generated, moved, backed up and supplied through physical infrastructure. That is why this story pulls in copper and aluminum for grids, fuel refining for transport and petrochemical supply chains, and fertilizers because energy security also connects to food security. The future may look digital, but it will be powered by something far more physical: the largest energy buildout Asia has seen in decades. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/i2S7YCvC88WoUwkeVpWXGXFyS3LpRQfsfTIdGeCvlEkTue, 09 Jun 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyAs AI demand surges, our Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses the new multi-trillion-dollar investment cycle to secure the power, fuels, grids and storage that keep modern life running.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s Asia Energy analyst. Today: how AI’s rapid growth is forcing Asia into a massive energy buildout across power grids, fuels, storage and dependable energy and power generation. It’s Tuesday, June 9th at 8am in Singapore. Every time you ask AI to draft a note, summarize a file, plan a trip or generate an image, the response feels instant and easy. But behind it sits a very physical system: data centers, electricity, cooling, fuel, metals, power lines, storage tanks and ships. There is no AI without energy. And in Asia, the power and energy needs could get much bigger. And right now, we are at a critical inflection point where energy, AI, and security converge into [a] once-in-a-generation investment cycle. We see a super cycle with $5 trillion plus in new investments in energy over next five years, almost double of what we have seen in the past decade. And this has global implications as Asia consumes almost half of the world's energy needs – but produces only about a third of it at home. Energy markets may be global, but energy insecurity is local. It shows up in electricity prices, fuel shortages, factory delays, food supply pressure and household budgets. By 2030, Asia’s energy use could rise by about 38 exajoules. That increase is roughly equal to all the energy the Middle East consumes today. Power demand alone could reach about 19 trillion units a year when expressed in kilowatt-hours. That is around four trillion more units of electricity usage than in 2025, driven by data centers, industry, and onshoring of businesses. AI is now part of that demand story. By 2030, data centers could use roughly one-sixth of all new power units in Asia. That makes AI a major new load on the power system. Meeting this demand requires a major investment cycle. Asia’s annual energy investment could rise to roughly US$1.1 trillion a year over the next five years. Much of that spending goes into the power system itself: generation, grids, storage and the equipment needed to connect everything. Grids may be the biggest bottleneck. Think of [the] grid as the highway system for electricity. You can build more power plants, but if the roads clog up, the power does not reach homes, factories or data centers. Asia’s grid investment needs could reach close to about US$1 trillion by 2030. Transformer lead times have stretched to years in some cases, which shows how tight the equipment supply chain has become. The hardest part is keeping the lights on every hour of the day. Baseload power means electricity that can run around the clock. Asia is adding a large amount of renewable power to its energy infrastructure. But that source depends on when the sun shines or the wind blows. That is why coal, gas and nuclear remain part of the conversation. Storage also moves from useful to essential. Batteries help smooth out renewable power demand when supply rises and falls during the day. Global energy storage installations could rise from about 500 gigawatt hours in 2025 to around 3,000 gigawatt hours in 2030. Powering AI also reaches beyond electricity. Data centers need power, but the system around them needs dependable fuels, grids, batteries, metals, refining, storage and shipping. Electricity has to be generated, moved, backed up and supplied through physical infrastructure. That is why this story pulls in copper and aluminum for grids, fuel refining for transport and petrochemical supply chains, and fertilizers because energy security also connects to food security. The future may look...]]>297alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1659fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-high-cost-of-ai-memory--75644940insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Shawn Kim: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Europe and Asia Technology Team. Today, we’re talking about chipflation – when memory chips stop getting cheaper over time, and become more expensive and even harder to find. It’s Monday, June 8th, at 3pm in London.Memory chips are easy to ignore, until your laptop slows down, your phone costs more, or your cloud bill jumps. Memory is the computer’s workspace. It holds whatever the machine needs at that moment, whether that is a web search, a video, a spreadsheet, or an AI model answering a question. DRAM is the fast memory inside servers, PCs and phones. NAND is what stores files in solid-state drives. And HBM, or high bandwidth memory, is the high-performance version sitting right next to the AI chip, helping them move huge amounts of data quickly. That last one – HBM – is key because AI has become intensely memory hungry. Memory prices have risen more than six-fold over the last year, a sharp break from decades when the cost of DRAM generally kept falling. The pressure is coming from AI infrastructure buildouts. We see servers accounting for 59 percent of DRAM demand by 2028, up from 37 percent in 2023. We also see enterprise solid-state drives reaching 65 percent of NAND demand, up from 18 percent. And simply put, data centers are taking a much bigger share of the memory pie. AI memory use is climbing fast, and at every scale. A newer AI chip uses 7.2 times more HBM than earlier generations. A full system uses about 65 times more. Across an entire AI data center buildout, the jump gets even bigger. HBM has gone from roughly 10 terabytes in 2020 to about 18 petabytes in 2026, orders of magnitude more. This demand is running into a supply chain that cannot respond quickly. New memory capacity takes years to build, qualify and ramp up. Supply relief is a process, not a switch. And that creates a two-tier market. Large AI and cloud buyers can sign long-term agreements, prepay and secure priority access. Traditional buyers, including PC makers, smartphone makers and industrial hardware companies, must compete for what remains. This impacts everyday products. In 2027, we see PC memory demand potentially facing a 15 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 58 million PCs. Smartphones could face a 12 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 134 million units. Companies may have to raise prices, cut specifications, delay launches, and accept lower profits. The dollar numbers are striking. We see the memory market growing from about $220 USD billion in 2025 to about $890 billion in 2026. Expectations for 2026 memory revenue rose 71 percent in just three months. That implies roughly $600 USD billion of incremental memory revenue in 2026, more than the annual market for smartphones, PCs, or servers, each taken on its own. The broader economy may not see a significant direct inflation shock. We estimate the direct impact on headline CPI at about 0.1 percent in 2026. But pressure is showing up in producer prices, in corporate margins, cloud costs, capital spending plans and delayed technology upgrades. AI has turned memory from the cheapest part of the digital economy into one of its most contested resources. These tiny chips most people never think of may now decide what gets built or delayed, and how much we all end up paying. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lPG6PPvHTW6O2x1kNrPXkL6iDq2yoIi2-zLJiHlv7lgMon, 08 Jun 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyThe Head of our Europe and Asia Technology Team, Shawn Kim, explains how AI’s appetite for memory chips is boosting the cost of everything from data centers to smartphones, with consequences that may reach far beyond the tech industry.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Shawn Kim: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Europe and Asia Technology Team. Today, we’re talking about chipflation – when memory chips stop getting cheaper over time, and become more expensive and even harder to find. It’s Monday, June 8th, at 3pm in London.Memory chips are easy to ignore, until your laptop slows down, your phone costs more, or your cloud bill jumps. Memory is the computer’s workspace. It holds whatever the machine needs at that moment, whether that is a web search, a video, a spreadsheet, or an AI model answering a question. DRAM is the fast memory inside servers, PCs and phones. NAND is what stores files in solid-state drives. And HBM, or high bandwidth memory, is the high-performance version sitting right next to the AI chip, helping them move huge amounts of data quickly. That last one – HBM – is key because AI has become intensely memory hungry. Memory prices have risen more than six-fold over the last year, a sharp break from decades when the cost of DRAM generally kept falling. The pressure is coming from AI infrastructure buildouts. We see servers accounting for 59 percent of DRAM demand by 2028, up from 37 percent in 2023. We also see enterprise solid-state drives reaching 65 percent of NAND demand, up from 18 percent. And simply put, data centers are taking a much bigger share of the memory pie. AI memory use is climbing fast, and at every scale. A newer AI chip uses 7.2 times more HBM than earlier generations. A full system uses about 65 times more. Across an entire AI data center buildout, the jump gets even bigger. HBM has gone from roughly 10 terabytes in 2020 to about 18 petabytes in 2026, orders of magnitude more. This demand is running into a supply chain that cannot respond quickly. New memory capacity takes years to build, qualify and ramp up. Supply relief is a process, not a switch. And that creates a two-tier market. Large AI and cloud buyers can sign long-term agreements, prepay and secure priority access. Traditional buyers, including PC makers, smartphone makers and industrial hardware companies, must compete for what remains. This impacts everyday products. In 2027, we see PC memory demand potentially facing a 15 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 58 million PCs. Smartphones could face a 12 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 134 million units. Companies may have to raise prices, cut specifications, delay launches, and accept lower profits. The dollar numbers are striking. We see the memory market growing from about $220 USD billion in 2025 to about $890 billion in 2026. Expectations for 2026 memory revenue rose 71 percent in just three months. That implies roughly $600 USD billion of incremental memory revenue in 2026, more than the annual market for smartphones, PCs, or servers, each taken on its own. The broader economy may not see a significant direct inflation shock. We estimate the direct impact on headline CPI at about 0.1 percent in 2026. But pressure is showing up in producer prices, in corporate margins, cloud costs, capital spending plans and delayed technology upgrades. AI has turned memory from the cheapest part of the digital economy into one of its most contested resources. These tiny chips most people never think of may now decide what gets built or delayed, and how much we all end up paying. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>273alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1658fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-new-tariffs-mean-for-investors--75644993insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about how investors should be digesting the latest tariff headlines and what they could mean for the broader economic and market outlook. It's Friday, June 5th at 10am in New York. Tariffs are back in focus as the U.S. administration has proposed new levies following Section 301 investigations into more than 60 of our trading partners. At the same time, USMCA negotiations appear to have begun in earnest, with recent headlines focused on autos, including the possibility of raising regional content requirements for vehicles and auto parts. Now, at first glance, these developments sound like a meaningful escalation in trade policy. But we think these headlines are best understood as a continuation of the existing tariff regime rather than a new and more disruptive phase. Let's start with Section 301. Listeners may recall that the administration replaced the IEEPA tariffs with Section 122 following the Supreme Court's decision back in February. However, that was done under a temporary authority that expires in the end of July. It's been our view that as we approach that deadline, the administration would seek to replace the existing regime under a new authority. The conclusion of the Section 301 investigations is really a step in that direction; or said differently, a continuation of existing policy. We see the administration preserving the current tariff regime come July, but without a larger inflation or growth shock. The second issue is the USMCA. Raising regional content rules may be part of the negotiation now, and those changes could create sector-level friction. Similarly, we think it's possible we see escalation ahead of the July deadline as all three countries work to improve the existing trade deal. Now that being said, we're still constructive on the longer-term trade alignment between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and we see structural and procedural constraints that are going to limit the downside risk to something like a potential withdrawal from the agreement. We still expect the USMCA carve-out to remain in place even for Section 301 goods on a range of trading partners. That's because we think the administration sees value in maintaining supply chain integration within North America across a number of sectors. In general, we actually think the recent pattern on tariffs has been toward less, not more, trade pressure at the margin. Recent months have come with several carve-outs, exemptions, and delays on broad-based and sectoral tariffs. That suggests that the administration is still sensitive to the downstream cost impact of tariffs, and of course, affordability matters politically heading into the midterm elections in November. That view also fits with our broader U.S. economics outlook. Our economists continue to see a relatively benign macro backdrop. Growth is expected to remain trend-like, with consumer spending slowing but not collapsing, and strong AI-led CapEx offsetting some of the drag from higher energy prices and policy uncertainty. On inflation, tariffs remain part of the story, but much of the pass-through appears to be already in the data. That pairs with a more constructive outlook for equity markets as well, as our strategists there see a strong earnings story supported by things like positive operating leverage, AI adoption, improving pricing power, and a broadening out in earnings growth. So, the key message for investors is this: tariff policy is still noisy, and it will remain a source of headline risk. But in our base case, the administration is moving toward a more durable version of the current tariff regime, not a materially more disruptive or restrictive one. Section 301 replaces Section 122, the USMCA carve-out stays in place, and selective exemptions continue where the affordability or supply chain costs are too high. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Irrar03TTve0ZXYJcFes1A_DZYv4glOxC4xGY-xJWhMFri, 05 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyTrade policy is once again in the news with the announcement of new tariffs. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore digs into why tariffs may not be a disruptive factor for markets this time.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about how investors should be digesting the latest tariff headlines and what they could mean for the broader economic and market outlook. It's Friday, June 5th at 10am in New York. Tariffs are back in focus as the U.S. administration has proposed new levies following Section 301 investigations into more than 60 of our trading partners. At the same time, USMCA negotiations appear to have begun in earnest, with recent headlines focused on autos, including the possibility of raising regional content requirements for vehicles and auto parts. Now, at first glance, these developments sound like a meaningful escalation in trade policy. But we think these headlines are best understood as a continuation of the existing tariff regime rather than a new and more disruptive phase. Let's start with Section 301. Listeners may recall that the administration replaced the IEEPA tariffs with Section 122 following the Supreme Court's decision back in February. However, that was done under a temporary authority that expires in the end of July. It's been our view that as we approach that deadline, the administration would seek to replace the existing regime under a new authority. The conclusion of the Section 301 investigations is really a step in that direction; or said differently, a continuation of existing policy. We see the administration preserving the current tariff regime come July, but without a larger inflation or growth shock. The second issue is the USMCA. Raising regional content rules may be part of the negotiation now, and those changes could create sector-level friction. Similarly, we think it's possible we see escalation ahead of the July deadline as all three countries work to improve the existing trade deal. Now that being said, we're still constructive on the longer-term trade alignment between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and we see structural and procedural constraints that are going to limit the downside risk to something like a potential withdrawal from the agreement. We still expect the USMCA carve-out to remain in place even for Section 301 goods on a range of trading partners. That's because we think the administration sees value in maintaining supply chain integration within North America across a number of sectors. In general, we actually think the recent pattern on tariffs has been toward less, not more, trade pressure at the margin. Recent months have come with several carve-outs, exemptions, and delays on broad-based and sectoral tariffs. That suggests that the administration is still sensitive to the downstream cost impact of tariffs, and of course, affordability matters politically heading into the midterm elections in November. That view also fits with our broader U.S. economics outlook. Our economists continue to see a relatively benign macro backdrop. Growth is expected to remain trend-like, with consumer spending slowing but not collapsing, and strong AI-led CapEx offsetting some of the drag from higher energy prices and policy uncertainty. On inflation, tariffs remain part of the story, but much of the pass-through appears to be already in the data. That pairs with a more constructive outlook for equity markets as well, as our strategists there see a strong earnings story supported by things like positive operating leverage, AI adoption, improving pricing power, and a broadening out in earnings growth. So, the key message for investors is this: tariff policy is...]]>253alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1657fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-oil-supply-may-stay-tight-for-months--75644947insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – how fast can Middle East production return?It is Thursday, June the 4th, at 3pm in London.Every time you pull into a gas station, those prices are staring back at you. What you see at the pump is just the front end of a global system we’ve been watching for months: tankers, storage, insurance, and shipping lanes, all still constrained by the Strait of Hormuz. But while prices at the pump are still high, Brent has actually fallen back to around about $92 a barrel.In inflation-adjusted terms, today’s Brent price is actually right at the 50th percentile of the last 20 years – suggesting that the market is assuming a clean, near-term recovery in supply. Yet the disruption continues to be extraordinary. Roughly 11 million barrels per day of Gulf crude remains offline, close to half the region’s pre-conflict output.We think the market may be too optimistic. Our working assumption is now that meaningful export recovery through the strait begins only in the second half of July. Even then, normal does not return with the flip of a switch.First, ships need to be willing to sail. Owners and insurers need confidence that the waterway is safe. If mines remain in traditional shipping lanes, the strait can be technically open but still operate at reduced capacity. Clearing that risk can take weeks, and potentially several months.Second, the tanker fleet is in the wrong place. When ships cannot work in the Gulf, they move elsewhere. Bringing enough empty tankers back to lift crude takes time.Third, storage is a limiting factor. Oilfields cannot restart if export tanks are full. For producers that rely heavily on seaborne exports, empty tankers are therefore essential.Last, oilfields themselves need restarting. Before the closure, around 36,000 wells were active across six Gulf producers. Roughly 10,000 of those are currently offline. After a shut-in of nearly five months, about 4,000 to 5,000 wells could face restart constraints. Reservoir pressure can decline, equipment can fail after sitting idle, and flowlines need cleaning and safety checks.All told, around 75 percent of lost supply can probably come back within four months after flows through the Strait of Hormuz resume. But the final 25 percent may take well into 2027.So why have prices not moved more? The market began this shock with buffers. Inventories were elevated, oil-on-water was high, and emergency relief releases helped. The U.S. increased seaborne net exports of crude oil and refined products from roughly 5 million barrels a day to 9 million barrels a day. At the same time, China’s seaborne net oil imports fell from around 13 million barrels a day a year ago to just over 7.5 million a day over the last 30 days.But these cushions are thinning. Strategic reserve releases are scheduled to drop from about 2.5 million barrels per day in April through June to about 0.7 million in July and August. U.S. gasoline and diesel inventories are already well below five-year seasonal lows. China is already on track for five consecutive months of unusually low crude buying for April through August delivery. But that starts to raise the probability that Chinese buyers return for September barrels. Buying for September typically starts mid to late June.Now, oil is trading like the disruption is nearly over. But at the same time, the physical system is telling a slower story. Prices may look calm on the screen, but the bottleneck is in tankers, storage tanks, wells, and crews.Our Brent forecasts remain $110 per barrel for the second quarter and about $100 a barrel for the third quarter. We recently raised our estimates for the fourth quarter to $95 and the first quarter of 2027 to $85 a barrel, and expect a return to $80 eventually thereafter.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZjzSVKGz3HrwXiNvvpb8_GO9RI4PNTf7L1Gyfc6wQQYThu, 04 Jun 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses why the restart of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz may be slower and tighter than the market expects.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – how fast can Middle East production return?It is Thursday, June the 4th, at 3pm in London.Every time you pull into a gas station, those prices are staring back at you. What you see at the pump is just the front end of a global system we’ve been watching for months: tankers, storage, insurance, and shipping lanes, all still constrained by the Strait of Hormuz. But while prices at the pump are still high, Brent has actually fallen back to around about $92 a barrel.In inflation-adjusted terms, today’s Brent price is actually right at the 50th percentile of the last 20 years – suggesting that the market is assuming a clean, near-term recovery in supply. Yet the disruption continues to be extraordinary. Roughly 11 million barrels per day of Gulf crude remains offline, close to half the region’s pre-conflict output.We think the market may be too optimistic. Our working assumption is now that meaningful export recovery through the strait begins only in the second half of July. Even then, normal does not return with the flip of a switch.First, ships need to be willing to sail. Owners and insurers need confidence that the waterway is safe. If mines remain in traditional shipping lanes, the strait can be technically open but still operate at reduced capacity. Clearing that risk can take weeks, and potentially several months.Second, the tanker fleet is in the wrong place. When ships cannot work in the Gulf, they move elsewhere. Bringing enough empty tankers back to lift crude takes time.Third, storage is a limiting factor. Oilfields cannot restart if export tanks are full. For producers that rely heavily on seaborne exports, empty tankers are therefore essential.Last, oilfields themselves need restarting. Before the closure, around 36,000 wells were active across six Gulf producers. Roughly 10,000 of those are currently offline. After a shut-in of nearly five months, about 4,000 to 5,000 wells could face restart constraints. Reservoir pressure can decline, equipment can fail after sitting idle, and flowlines need cleaning and safety checks.All told, around 75 percent of lost supply can probably come back within four months after flows through the Strait of Hormuz resume. But the final 25 percent may take well into 2027.So why have prices not moved more? The market began this shock with buffers. Inventories were elevated, oil-on-water was high, and emergency relief releases helped. The U.S. increased seaborne net exports of crude oil and refined products from roughly 5 million barrels a day to 9 million barrels a day. At the same time, China’s seaborne net oil imports fell from around 13 million barrels a day a year ago to just over 7.5 million a day over the last 30 days.But these cushions are thinning. Strategic reserve releases are scheduled to drop from about 2.5 million barrels per day in April through June to about 0.7 million in July and August. U.S. gasoline and diesel inventories are already well below five-year seasonal lows. China is already on track for five consecutive months of unusually low crude buying for April through August delivery. But that starts to raise the probability that Chinese buyers return for September barrels. Buying for September typically starts mid to late June.Now, oil is trading like the disruption is nearly over. But at the same time, the physical system is telling a slower story. Prices may look calm on the screen, but the bottleneck is in tankers, storage tanks, wells, and crews.Our Brent forecasts remain $110 per barrel for the...]]>293alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1656fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-borrowing-creates-a-new-credit-playbook--75644937insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today – The critical question behind the AI-driven capex cycle that is front and center for markets year to date. How is credit market financing this ecosystem evolving? It’s Wednesday June 3rd at 2 pm in New York. When we first discussed the role of credit markets in financing the AI and data center build-out around the middle of last year, the direction of travel was clear. Realizing the transformative potential of AI requires unprecedented levels of capex. What has really surprised us since is the scale and speed of that spending, both of which have exceeded our expectations by a wide margin. The upward revision to capex expectations has been dramatic. A year ago, we projected the combined capex of the five large hyperscalers at roughly $450 billion in both 2026 and 2027. After the first quarter earnings reports, Morgan Stanley’s internet equity analysts, led by Brian Nowak, now expect hyperscaler capex of roughly $800 billion in 2026 and $1.2 trillion in 2027. One data point really captures the surge in the underlying demand for compute. According to OpenRouter, the global weekly token usage, which is a key proxy for compute, has risen by roughly 350 percent since early January, increasing from about 6 trillion tokens to 28 trillion tokens. Credit channels for financing this capex have not only been broader and deeper than we anticipated, spanning public and private markets, but have seen remarkable in the structural innovation that is blurring the lines between public and private markets. Over $200bn of public AI-related issuance across the different credit channels has happened just in the first five months of this year. We had previously assumed unsecured issuance would be limited by the scale of the largest non-financial issuers, confined to investment grade credit only, and largely USD denominated. Instead, some hyperscaler issuance has now far exceeded even the largest telecom names; funding has expanded well beyond USD into EUR, GBP, CHF, JPY and CAD markets. The issuer base has also broadened to include data center REITs and neoclouds, particularly in the high-yield market. The scope of financing has also widened beyond the data center shells themselves. GPU financing, which we assumed would be funded entirely through equity capital, has begun to migrate into credit markets. Funding is now coming through broadly syndicated loans and asset based financing, with ABS structures not far behind. Structural innovation illustrates how rapidly the credit ecosystem is adapting to the complexities of demands of AI-driven capex. Financings that combine elements of project finance, tranching, and residual value guarantees, along with high-yield issuance backed by hyperscaler guaranteed leases – these are innovations that we have never seen before. These structures have expanded the investor base, reduced the funding frictions, and further blurred traditional boundaries – between both corporate and project finance, and public and private credit markets. At the same time, physical, operational, and political constraints are beginning to shape the pace and the composition of the AI infrastructure build-out – and, by extension, the demand for financing. Grid access, power generation equipment, skilled labor, and permitting delays are emerging as significant constraints. These are compounded by political and regulatory frictions at the local, national, and international level. As power availability becomes a gating factor, the AI build-out is likely to pull energy infrastructure financing more tightly into the orbit of AI infrastructure financing. The clear takeaway is this. The capex requirements underpinning AI infrastructure are expanding exponentially, and with them the role of credit markets in financing this build-out. Along the way, there will be winners and losers, periods of adjustment, and a range of physical, financial, and political constraints that shape outcomes on the margin. But the broader trajectory is certain. The scale, duration, and strategic importance of AI infrastructure investment mean that financing of this will remain a defining theme for credit markets and credit investors for years to come. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WO89TpkAR-y_WyEfXGHWfr2U0nC9EbBztJpCFJgbFX8Wed, 03 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyChief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur takes a look at how credit markets are adapting to fund the new phase of AI capex.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today – The critical question behind the AI-driven capex cycle that is front and center for markets year to date. How is credit market financing this ecosystem evolving? It’s Wednesday June 3rd at 2 pm in New York. When we first discussed the role of credit markets in financing the AI and data center build-out around the middle of last year, the direction of travel was clear. Realizing the transformative potential of AI requires unprecedented levels of capex. What has really surprised us since is the scale and speed of that spending, both of which have exceeded our expectations by a wide margin. The upward revision to capex expectations has been dramatic. A year ago, we projected the combined capex of the five large hyperscalers at roughly $450 billion in both 2026 and 2027. After the first quarter earnings reports, Morgan Stanley’s internet equity analysts, led by Brian Nowak, now expect hyperscaler capex of roughly $800 billion in 2026 and $1.2 trillion in 2027. One data point really captures the surge in the underlying demand for compute. According to OpenRouter, the global weekly token usage, which is a key proxy for compute, has risen by roughly 350 percent since early January, increasing from about 6 trillion tokens to 28 trillion tokens. Credit channels for financing this capex have not only been broader and deeper than we anticipated, spanning public and private markets, but have seen remarkable in the structural innovation that is blurring the lines between public and private markets. Over $200bn of public AI-related issuance across the different credit channels has happened just in the first five months of this year. We had previously assumed unsecured issuance would be limited by the scale of the largest non-financial issuers, confined to investment grade credit only, and largely USD denominated. Instead, some hyperscaler issuance has now far exceeded even the largest telecom names; funding has expanded well beyond USD into EUR, GBP, CHF, JPY and CAD markets. The issuer base has also broadened to include data center REITs and neoclouds, particularly in the high-yield market. The scope of financing has also widened beyond the data center shells themselves. GPU financing, which we assumed would be funded entirely through equity capital, has begun to migrate into credit markets. Funding is now coming through broadly syndicated loans and asset based financing, with ABS structures not far behind. Structural innovation illustrates how rapidly the credit ecosystem is adapting to the complexities of demands of AI-driven capex. Financings that combine elements of project finance, tranching, and residual value guarantees, along with high-yield issuance backed by hyperscaler guaranteed leases – these are innovations that we have never seen before. These structures have expanded the investor base, reduced the funding frictions, and further blurred traditional boundaries – between both corporate and project finance, and public and private credit markets. At the same time, physical, operational, and political constraints are beginning to shape the pace and the composition of the AI infrastructure build-out – and, by extension, the demand for financing. Grid access, power generation equipment, skilled labor, and permitting delays are emerging as significant constraints. These are compounded by political and regulatory frictions at the local, national, and international level. As power availability becomes a gating factor, the AI build-out is likely to pull energy infrastructure financing more tightly into...]]>308alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1655fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/when-stocks-bonds-and-oil-move-together--75644939insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how to square a market that is both highly correlated, and highly divergent, at the same time. It’s Tuesday, June 2nd, at 3pm London. A market of one. That may be a way that you hear investing described these days, and strictly speaking, it's accurate. Stocks and bonds, the two big asset classes that form the bulk of most investors' portfolios, are moving in unusual lockstep. Stocks are rising when yields fall, and vice versa, with the most consistency in over 20 years. And both, perhaps unsurprisingly, are moving in close relationship with the price of oil. At this point, it all seems pretty clear. The Iran conflict is a big deal for markets, representing the largest disruption to global energy supply in history. Of course, stocks and bonds, and oil are all moving together based on the perception of how this enormous issue resolves. In doing so, they suggest that the conflict still remains quite important, even as markets appear quite strong. Just as we can measure the extent to which stocks, bonds, and commodity prices move together, we can also track how individual stocks move relative to each other. And so, are stocks also rising and falling together like we see with these big asset classes? No. In fact, without exaggeration, it is the complete opposite. There are a few ways to measure how the individual stocks within, say, the S&P 500, are moving relative to one another. But all of them say the same thing. Day to day, stocks are moving with unusual dispersion and independence. At the same time that the relationship between stocks and bonds is the tightest in over 20 years, the relationship between stocks within the S&P 500 – to each other – is the lowest. If Iran is the factor driving the tight linkage that we discussed between stocks and bonds, Artificial Intelligence may be the culprit behind the opposite effect when we get down into individual companies. The perception that some companies will be incredible beneficiaries of AI, while others will be left behind, would explain at least part of the divergent performance. And so would an attention gap; with so much focus and positioning in AI sensitive names, other parts of the market can quickly feel forgotten, and thus move more independently. Indeed, while the S&P 500 is back near all-time highs, the market’s advance-decline line, a measure of how many stocks are going up versus going down, is lower than where it was in late February or mid-April. We see a few implications to all of this. First, while stocks and bonds are closely linked for the moment, we think that this correlation would flip under more significant energy market stress. Were the price of oil to spike to our Commodity team’s bear case, of $130-$150/bbl, we think yields would start to fall as the market would turn more concerned about the effect of all of this on growth. So, while the diversification of bonds has been disappointing so far, we do think that it will improve and materialize when it really matters. In equities, this dispersion means that stock selection can allow one to stand out from the overall market. Indeed if one considers themselves a stock picker, low correlation between stocks is exactly the market that you would hope to have. And it also means that many individual names may not be as heady as the broad market levels would imply. As discussed on this program recently, my colleague Mike Wilson and our U.S. Equity Strategy team expects U.S. stock performance to broaden out from here. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/azpYzI0tIouDEVdSKGARI7gPkEcAXhCS8mgCKqzbOj4Tue, 02 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets takes a closer look at potential investment paths when markets appear increasingly synchronized around a few macro themes.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how to square a market that is both highly correlated, and highly divergent, at the same time. It’s Tuesday, June 2nd, at 3pm London. A market of one. That may be a way that you hear investing described these days, and strictly speaking, it's accurate. Stocks and bonds, the two big asset classes that form the bulk of most investors' portfolios, are moving in unusual lockstep. Stocks are rising when yields fall, and vice versa, with the most consistency in over 20 years. And both, perhaps unsurprisingly, are moving in close relationship with the price of oil. At this point, it all seems pretty clear. The Iran conflict is a big deal for markets, representing the largest disruption to global energy supply in history. Of course, stocks and bonds, and oil are all moving together based on the perception of how this enormous issue resolves. In doing so, they suggest that the conflict still remains quite important, even as markets appear quite strong. Just as we can measure the extent to which stocks, bonds, and commodity prices move together, we can also track how individual stocks move relative to each other. And so, are stocks also rising and falling together like we see with these big asset classes? No. In fact, without exaggeration, it is the complete opposite. There are a few ways to measure how the individual stocks within, say, the S&P 500, are moving relative to one another. But all of them say the same thing. Day to day, stocks are moving with unusual dispersion and independence. At the same time that the relationship between stocks and bonds is the tightest in over 20 years, the relationship between stocks within the S&P 500 – to each other – is the lowest. If Iran is the factor driving the tight linkage that we discussed between stocks and bonds, Artificial Intelligence may be the culprit behind the opposite effect when we get down into individual companies. The perception that some companies will be incredible beneficiaries of AI, while others will be left behind, would explain at least part of the divergent performance. And so would an attention gap; with so much focus and positioning in AI sensitive names, other parts of the market can quickly feel forgotten, and thus move more independently. Indeed, while the S&P 500 is back near all-time highs, the market’s advance-decline line, a measure of how many stocks are going up versus going down, is lower than where it was in late February or mid-April. We see a few implications to all of this. First, while stocks and bonds are closely linked for the moment, we think that this correlation would flip under more significant energy market stress. Were the price of oil to spike to our Commodity team’s bear case, of $130-$150/bbl, we think yields would start to fall as the market would turn more concerned about the effect of all of this on growth. So, while the diversification of bonds has been disappointing so far, we do think that it will improve and materialize when it really matters. In equities, this dispersion means that stock selection can allow one to stand out from the overall market. Indeed if one considers themselves a stock picker, low correlation between stocks is exactly the market that you would hope to have. And it also means that many individual names may not be as heady as the broad market levels would imply. As discussed on this program recently, my colleague Mike Wilson and our U.S. Equity Strategy team expects U.S. stock performance to broaden out from...]]>252alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1654fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/pet-industry-and-the-bite-of-higher-costs--75644999insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today: the state of the pet economy, or as we lovingly call it, the “petriarchy.” It’s Monday, June 1st, at 10am in New York.Hey Sammy, who wants to go on a walk? If you have a pet, you probably know the routine. You go in for one bag of food. Then you remember the treats, the medicine, the grooming appointment. Maybe the toy they definitely do not need. And then the vet bill you hope is not around the corner. Pets are family. But family has gotten more expensive. That’s the big shift in the U.S. pet economy. The emotional bond is still powerful. About two-thirds of dog and cat owners strongly agree their pet is an important member of the family. More than one-third say they would take on debt to pay for a pet’s medical expenses. Today, the growth story in the pet industry has changed. After an extraordinary post-pandemic run, it has entered a slower, more mature phase. We see growth settling around 4 percent, down from nearly 9 percent annually from 2019 to 2025. That doesn’t mean the market is shrinking. We still see total U.S. pet spending rising from about [$]200 billion in 2025 to more than [$]240 billion by 2030. But the easy growth days look behind us. The industry now has to work harder for each dollar. Affordability sits at the center of this story. A pet may start as an emotional decision, but it quickly becomes a line item in the household budget. Overall pet ownership remains above pre-COVID levels, at about 67 percent, but it has slipped from the 2024 high. That pressure shows up most clearly among younger consumers for whom cost has become the top barrier. And consumers are adapting. When pet food prices rise, shoppers stock up on sale items, compare prices online and in-store, and in some cases trade down. Still, pet food remains resilient. Almost all owners plan to keep spending the same or spend more on pet food over the next six months. The bigger change is that services continue to take share from products, with veterinary care at the center. Services accounted for just over 40 percent of pet industry spending in 2025, and we see that moving higher by 2030. Food and toys still matter, but healthcare, prescriptions, diagnostics and routine care are becoming a bigger part of the wallet. That brings us to vets – who remain the most trusted source of pet care information, cited by nearly 60 percent of owners. Younger pet owners still rely on vets, but they also turn more to online sources, friends, relatives and even store personnel. About three-quarters of owners visited a vet in the past six months, but average visits fell to under two, which is down from just over two in 2024. This points to a more cautious consumer, especially around routine care. We also see a subtle shift in the kinds of pets people choose. Cat ownership has moved higher versus pre-COVID levels, while dog ownership among younger adults has pulled back from its 2024 peak. That shift is not surprising, given that cats typically come with lower overall spending than dogs. Shopping habits are changing as well. Online pet product shopping has grown a lot since 2019, but its share of wallet has leveled off at roughly one-third. The next leg of digital growth may come less from simply moving store purchases online and more from subscriptions, pharmacy, healthcare and broader pet care ecosystems. So where does that leave the pet economy? Pet owners are certainly not walking away from their animals. But they are making more practical choices, watching prices more closely, and deciding where convenience, health and value fit into the same budget. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WqXbuMMemN77BXF0GBTMlkav2TpYPYk2pjhsZLCZ3KoMon, 01 Jun 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst Simeon Gutman explains how affordability and new shopping habits are changing how Americans choose and care for their pets.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today: the state of the pet economy, or as we lovingly call it, the “petriarchy.” It’s Monday, June 1st, at 10am in New York.Hey Sammy, who wants to go on a walk? If you have a pet, you probably know the routine. You go in for one bag of food. Then you remember the treats, the medicine, the grooming appointment. Maybe the toy they definitely do not need. And then the vet bill you hope is not around the corner. Pets are family. But family has gotten more expensive. That’s the big shift in the U.S. pet economy. The emotional bond is still powerful. About two-thirds of dog and cat owners strongly agree their pet is an important member of the family. More than one-third say they would take on debt to pay for a pet’s medical expenses. Today, the growth story in the pet industry has changed. After an extraordinary post-pandemic run, it has entered a slower, more mature phase. We see growth settling around 4 percent, down from nearly 9 percent annually from 2019 to 2025. That doesn’t mean the market is shrinking. We still see total U.S. pet spending rising from about [$]200 billion in 2025 to more than [$]240 billion by 2030. But the easy growth days look behind us. The industry now has to work harder for each dollar. Affordability sits at the center of this story. A pet may start as an emotional decision, but it quickly becomes a line item in the household budget. Overall pet ownership remains above pre-COVID levels, at about 67 percent, but it has slipped from the 2024 high. That pressure shows up most clearly among younger consumers for whom cost has become the top barrier. And consumers are adapting. When pet food prices rise, shoppers stock up on sale items, compare prices online and in-store, and in some cases trade down. Still, pet food remains resilient. Almost all owners plan to keep spending the same or spend more on pet food over the next six months. The bigger change is that services continue to take share from products, with veterinary care at the center. Services accounted for just over 40 percent of pet industry spending in 2025, and we see that moving higher by 2030. Food and toys still matter, but healthcare, prescriptions, diagnostics and routine care are becoming a bigger part of the wallet. That brings us to vets – who remain the most trusted source of pet care information, cited by nearly 60 percent of owners. Younger pet owners still rely on vets, but they also turn more to online sources, friends, relatives and even store personnel. About three-quarters of owners visited a vet in the past six months, but average visits fell to under two, which is down from just over two in 2024. This points to a more cautious consumer, especially around routine care. We also see a subtle shift in the kinds of pets people choose. Cat ownership has moved higher versus pre-COVID levels, while dog ownership among younger adults has pulled back from its 2024 peak. That shift is not surprising, given that cats typically come with lower overall spending than dogs. Shopping habits are changing as well. Online pet product shopping has grown a lot since 2019, but its share of wallet has leveled off at roughly one-third. The next leg of digital growth may come less from simply moving store purchases online and more from subscriptions, pharmacy, healthcare and broader pet care ecosystems. So where does that leave the pet economy? Pet owners are certainly not walking away from their animals. But they are making more practical...]]>295alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1653fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/finding-value-in-commercial-real-estate-credit--75644974insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why commercial real estate debt could be overlooked and undervalued. It's Friday, May 29th at 2pm in London. Bond yields have risen this year, and it's attracting strong flows into fixed income markets. The problem is that all of that demand is narrowing the risk premium that one receives. Spreads on U.S. mortgage bonds are richer than 89 percent of observations over the last 20 years. Spreads on the U.S. high yield market, well, they're richer than 96 percent of the time. And spreads on U.S. investment grade, it's 99 percent. We live in a world where the risk premium on most bonds is very low versus history, but there are exceptions. One is debt backed by commercial mortgages or so-called CMBS. Spreads here, notably and unusually, are significantly higher than the long run average. It is a market that we like. Commercial property is largely comprised of lending against office buildings, apartments, retail complexes, and industrial sites like warehouses. The first three have faced major challenges over the last five years. Office values have slumped as investors feared more people working from home. Apartments have suffered from significant supply in building, conceived in a low-rate world as this has come online. And retail has faced long-run concern about the trend of more online shopping. And the rise of interest rates, well, that's loomed over everything. A building, in a lot of ways, is a lot like a bond, promising a dependable stream of rents over time. When an investor can get that stream of cash flows from the bond market, commercial property prices must adjust lower to remain competitive. These challenges are material, but they are also not new. Indeed, investors may recall that fears around commercial property peaked way back in early 2023 following significant rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. Back then, there were widespread fears that commercial property weakness would ricochet back and threaten the banking system. Three years later, those worst fears have not been realized. And while defaults and restructurings have happened, overall commercial property fundamentals are beginning to pick back up. Commercial property transaction volumes increased 27 percent in the U.S. in the first quarter relative to a year prior; and prices are rising, up about 5 percent over the same period. The amount of commercial real estate debt being originated is up about 40 percent over the last year – a sign that lenders are coming back. And the number of commercial deals that are becoming distressed and unable to pay their bills, they just saw their first quarterly decline since all of those problems in early 2023. Part of this recovery in the commercial real estate market may be explained by U.S. growth, which continues to be resilient, and some of it mirrors other cycles. When rates rose and commercial lending markets weakened, the construction of new properties really slowed down. It takes several years to build a building, and so it's only now that the impact of everything that was not built is starting to be felt. With less supply coming online, the value of existing property is better supported, especially relative to the more elevated risk premiums on offer for its debt. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fVwKI2LD3YmEOi35IYLo5_2ZbEd9QdkS1csOYfZeTcMFri, 29 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyCommercial real estate debt is now one of the market’s most avoided asset classes. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains why there may be an opportunity to invest in those securities.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why commercial real estate debt could be overlooked and undervalued. It's Friday, May 29th at 2pm in London. Bond yields have risen this year, and it's attracting strong flows into fixed income markets. The problem is that all of that demand is narrowing the risk premium that one receives. Spreads on U.S. mortgage bonds are richer than 89 percent of observations over the last 20 years. Spreads on the U.S. high yield market, well, they're richer than 96 percent of the time. And spreads on U.S. investment grade, it's 99 percent. We live in a world where the risk premium on most bonds is very low versus history, but there are exceptions. One is debt backed by commercial mortgages or so-called CMBS. Spreads here, notably and unusually, are significantly higher than the long run average. It is a market that we like. Commercial property is largely comprised of lending against office buildings, apartments, retail complexes, and industrial sites like warehouses. The first three have faced major challenges over the last five years. Office values have slumped as investors feared more people working from home. Apartments have suffered from significant supply in building, conceived in a low-rate world as this has come online. And retail has faced long-run concern about the trend of more online shopping. And the rise of interest rates, well, that's loomed over everything. A building, in a lot of ways, is a lot like a bond, promising a dependable stream of rents over time. When an investor can get that stream of cash flows from the bond market, commercial property prices must adjust lower to remain competitive. These challenges are material, but they are also not new. Indeed, investors may recall that fears around commercial property peaked way back in early 2023 following significant rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. Back then, there were widespread fears that commercial property weakness would ricochet back and threaten the banking system. Three years later, those worst fears have not been realized. And while defaults and restructurings have happened, overall commercial property fundamentals are beginning to pick back up. Commercial property transaction volumes increased 27 percent in the U.S. in the first quarter relative to a year prior; and prices are rising, up about 5 percent over the same period. The amount of commercial real estate debt being originated is up about 40 percent over the last year – a sign that lenders are coming back. And the number of commercial deals that are becoming distressed and unable to pay their bills, they just saw their first quarterly decline since all of those problems in early 2023. Part of this recovery in the commercial real estate market may be explained by U.S. growth, which continues to be resilient, and some of it mirrors other cycles. When rates rose and commercial lending markets weakened, the construction of new properties really slowed down. It takes several years to build a building, and so it's only now that the impact of everything that was not built is starting to be felt. With less supply coming online, the value of existing property is better supported, especially relative to the more elevated risk premiums on offer for its debt. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>244alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1652fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-changed-after-the-u-s-china-summit--75644965insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Today, we're talking about what investors should take away from the recent U.S.-China summit. It's Thursday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York. It's been two weeks since the much-anticipated U.S.-China summit, where Presidents Trump and Xi met to discuss a wide array of issues in their relationship. Understandably, investors were watching carefully. The relationship between the two countries and its potential impact on global economic conditions has been a driver of markets at key intervals. Brinksmanship around the trade relationship has been particularly noteworthy. In 2025, the level of tariffs substantially influenced macro markets, and export restrictions for semiconductors and rare earths drove volatility in key equity sectors such as tech hardware. Coming into the summit, the two countries had found a tenuous equilibrium, with the policy volatility of last year giving way to an uneasy calm this year. So, did the summit change anything? As best we can tell, not really. Some modest progress was made in lower sensitivity areas, but investors shouldn't confuse that with a durable reset in relations. The summit, in our view, points to a more managed relationship, not a fundamentally stable one. Here's what investors should keep in mind. At the risk of stating the obvious, the concrete public policy choices of each country matter a lot from here. President Trump emphasized renewed investment in the U.S.-China relationship. That's good. Talking beats not talking. But the bigger issue is what happens next. So far, we haven't seen broad language around joint efforts to establish trade and investment cooperation boards translated into workable arrangements; which if they materialized might hint at a more stable relationshipSo, net-net for investors, the summit is best understood as a continuation of the status quo, not a pivot. It may reduce near-term tail risks, which is sufficient to support the many other positive drivers pushing equity markets higher. But it does not eliminate the structural forces behind U.S.-China competition. That means we'll keep tracking this relationship as an economic and markets catalyst and keep you in the loop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Jd00rnboZqrrbg1EafXedDxI2MwoVS1tBgkskBgZwSQThu, 28 May 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas explains why the recent U.S.-China summit may have eased near-term risks, without changing the bigger picture for investors.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Today, we're talking about what investors should take away from the recent U.S.-China summit. It's Thursday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York. It's been two weeks since the much-anticipated U.S.-China summit, where Presidents Trump and Xi met to discuss a wide array of issues in their relationship. Understandably, investors were watching carefully. The relationship between the two countries and its potential impact on global economic conditions has been a driver of markets at key intervals. Brinksmanship around the trade relationship has been particularly noteworthy. In 2025, the level of tariffs substantially influenced macro markets, and export restrictions for semiconductors and rare earths drove volatility in key equity sectors such as tech hardware. Coming into the summit, the two countries had found a tenuous equilibrium, with the policy volatility of last year giving way to an uneasy calm this year. So, did the summit change anything? As best we can tell, not really. Some modest progress was made in lower sensitivity areas, but investors shouldn't confuse that with a durable reset in relations. The summit, in our view, points to a more managed relationship, not a fundamentally stable one. Here's what investors should keep in mind. At the risk of stating the obvious, the concrete public policy choices of each country matter a lot from here. President Trump emphasized renewed investment in the U.S.-China relationship. That's good. Talking beats not talking. But the bigger issue is what happens next. So far, we haven't seen broad language around joint efforts to establish trade and investment cooperation boards translated into workable arrangements; which if they materialized might hint at a more stable relationshipSo, net-net for investors, the summit is best understood as a continuation of the status quo, not a pivot. It may reduce near-term tail risks, which is sufficient to support the many other positive drivers pushing equity markets higher. But it does not eliminate the structural forces behind U.S.-China competition. That means we'll keep tracking this relationship as an economic and markets catalyst and keep you in the loop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>181alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1651fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-battle-for-the-future-of-gaming--75644948insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Internet team. Today – how new AI tools are reshaping the video game industry. It’s Wednesday, May 27th, at 10am in New York. We’ve all done it at some point. You think you’ll open your phone for just a few minutes. But end up in a game, a match, or a virtual world for much longer than you planned. Now, that window of attention is at the heart of one of the biggest battles in entertainment. Americans over 15 years old spend about 22 minutes per day playing games – that’s more than they spend socializing, playing sports, or reading. And the next big shift in gaming may stem from who gets to create games and how they do it. We expect consumers to spend more than $275 billion on video games in 2026. And the industry is reinvesting over $50 billion of that into game development and operations. But AI could cut that by nearly half. Today, making a major game is expensive, slow, and labor-intensive. A typical AAA title – the gaming equivalent of a studio blockbuster – can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take four years to build. More than 90 percent of that cost is people: so that’s developers, designers, artists, writers and many more. But AI could change that math. New tools could increase productivity multiple times over, helping smaller teams do more in less time. Even after accounting for AI compute and asset-generation expense, we think that cost savings could exceed 40 percent. That’s over $100 million per game project. Across the industry, that could generate savings of roughly $22 billion. But that money won’t just go straight to profits. Increased competition may erode those savings. And studios might put more money into marketing in response. So, AI could still meaningfully shift value across the gaming ecosystem.The positives are clear. AI can speed up coding, asset creation, testing, and many other processes that are manual today. That’ll let studios spend less time on repetitive work and more time on higher-value creative tasks. But it’s tough for newcomers to level up. AI does open the door for new players, but we think the industry looks more insulated from near-term disruption than the market fears – especially for companies with strong IP and advantages in live operations, data, and distribution. AI can help generate worlds, characters, and digital assets, but great gameplay is harder. Gameplay is the feel, the challenge, the feedback, and the fun. Models still struggle to measure that, let alone deliver it consistently. Live operations are another moat for established gaming companies. Many successful games don’t end at launch. Teams run them for years through updates, events, and passionate communities. That skill is hard to copy. And often it determines whether a game becomes a lasting franchise or fades quickly. So gradual integration of AI looks more likely than overnight replacement. Finally, the largest opportunity may still be on the horizon. Beyond lowering the cost of making today’s games, AI could unlock entirely new types of interactive experiences that didn’t exist until now. And the game industry has been through this process before, when new technologies like smartphones changed games forever. But ultimately, the prize is still the same: building something that people can’t stop playing.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/44lUYQG0Ts-wJTR7G18v7Y2b05KSm8NnV1-F1MWHNqEWed, 27 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs AI changes the video game industry, Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Internet team, takes us through the game play and what could drive the next level of engagement.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Internet team. Today – how new AI tools are reshaping the video game industry. It’s Wednesday, May 27th, at 10am in New York. We’ve all done it at some point. You think you’ll open your phone for just a few minutes. But end up in a game, a match, or a virtual world for much longer than you planned. Now, that window of attention is at the heart of one of the biggest battles in entertainment. Americans over 15 years old spend about 22 minutes per day playing games – that’s more than they spend socializing, playing sports, or reading. And the next big shift in gaming may stem from who gets to create games and how they do it. We expect consumers to spend more than $275 billion on video games in 2026. And the industry is reinvesting over $50 billion of that into game development and operations. But AI could cut that by nearly half. Today, making a major game is expensive, slow, and labor-intensive. A typical AAA title – the gaming equivalent of a studio blockbuster – can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take four years to build. More than 90 percent of that cost is people: so that’s developers, designers, artists, writers and many more. But AI could change that math. New tools could increase productivity multiple times over, helping smaller teams do more in less time. Even after accounting for AI compute and asset-generation expense, we think that cost savings could exceed 40 percent. That’s over $100 million per game project. Across the industry, that could generate savings of roughly $22 billion. But that money won’t just go straight to profits. Increased competition may erode those savings. And studios might put more money into marketing in response. So, AI could still meaningfully shift value across the gaming ecosystem.The positives are clear. AI can speed up coding, asset creation, testing, and many other processes that are manual today. That’ll let studios spend less time on repetitive work and more time on higher-value creative tasks. But it’s tough for newcomers to level up. AI does open the door for new players, but we think the industry looks more insulated from near-term disruption than the market fears – especially for companies with strong IP and advantages in live operations, data, and distribution. AI can help generate worlds, characters, and digital assets, but great gameplay is harder. Gameplay is the feel, the challenge, the feedback, and the fun. Models still struggle to measure that, let alone deliver it consistently. Live operations are another moat for established gaming companies. Many successful games don’t end at launch. Teams run them for years through updates, events, and passionate communities. That skill is hard to copy. And often it determines whether a game becomes a lasting franchise or fades quickly. So gradual integration of AI looks more likely than overnight replacement. Finally, the largest opportunity may still be on the horizon. Beyond lowering the cost of making today’s games, AI could unlock entirely new types of interactive experiences that didn’t exist until now. And the game industry has been through this process before, when new technologies like smartphones changed games forever. But ultimately, the prize is still the same: building something that people can’t stop playing.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>233alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1650fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-s-capex-boom-goes-beyond-ai--75644911insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Today – why Asia is headed toward its strongest industrial cycle since the mid-2000s. It's Tuesday, May 26th, at 2pm in Hong Kong. The market narrative in Asia has been narrowly – almost exclusively – focused on artificial intelligence. But AI is just one aspect of a much broader shift across the region. We think Asia is entering an industrial supercycle. And this is being driven by a sustained rise in capital expenditures across AI, energy, defense and [the] broader industrial sector. The numbers behind this are substantial. We forecast Asia's total investment could rise from about $11 trillion today to $16 trillion by 2030. So this implies a 7 percent annual growth rate over the next five years, which is triple the pace of the past two years, making it quite significant. And for the high growth sector such as AI, energy, defense and broader industrial sector we expect capex to grow at an even faster runrate of about 16 percent a year. Now let's talk about the drivers. No doubt, the first big driver behind this momentum is AI. Asia needs to invest more in AI infrastructure. At the same time, Asian chipmakers and memory producers are lifting capex to meet demand of U.S. hyperscalers for building data centres. The second driver is energy. Asia needs to invest in the energy sector for three reasons – for powering AI, energy transition and energy security. The power demand for AI compute is growing exponentially. On top of that, economies are having to shift towards renewables, and that needs more investment in grids, storage, and power generation equipment. Moreover, the recent geopolitical tensions have made energy security a bigger policy priority, especially for Asia which is dependent on imported energy. The third driver is defense. Now, even before the recent escalation in the Middle East, defense budgets across Asia were moving higher. This year, China has planned their defense spending to grow at a pace faster than its GDP growth. Meanwhile, India has raised budgetary allocations for defense capex by 18 percent this year. At the same time, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are aiming to lift their combined defense spending from about 1.7 percent of GDP to 3 percent. The fourth driver is broader industrial sector investment. Every economy in the region is working to secure their supply chains and focused more on onshoring of critical inputs for their domestic production. So what does this mean for Asia? The region stands to reap the benefits of a rise in capex [spending] twice over. First, the increase in Asia’s capex will fuel its industrial cycle. Second, you have to consider [that] Asia is the world’s production house. And as rest of the world is increasing capex investment in the areas I identified earlier, Asia benefits from feeding this global demand. Already, the evidence of a strong industrial cycle is visible. We prefer to look at capital goods imports as a proxy for capex. And that has been growing at an impressive rate of 27 percent on a year-over-year basis in dollar terms. Industrial production [growth] is nearing a four-year high. And non-tech exports, which are important from industrial production perspective, have staged a strong recovery since the fourth quarter of last year. So which Asian economies will benefit? As such, all of them. But China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are the biggest beneficiaries because they are meeting both domestic and export demands. On the other hand, India's industrial sector benefits primarily from its own domestic capex cycle. The pickup in Asia’s industrial production is pushing industrial commodities prices higher, helping Australia and Indonesia, the two biggest commodity exporters in the region. This next chapter of Asia’s growth story will filter through – from capex to jobs and income growth, and then through to the consumer. That's why this is not just an AI story. It will become a broader economic recovery across the region. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/q6F4J-XoobbCpAbrk3GL4FyZdA0LX4Sl83P83qDfPxwTue, 26 May 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya looks at why spending not only on AI, but also on energy and defense, could drive Asia's strongest industrial cycle in decades.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Today – why Asia is headed toward its strongest industrial cycle since the mid-2000s. It's Tuesday, May 26th, at 2pm in Hong Kong. The market narrative in Asia has been narrowly – almost exclusively – focused on artificial intelligence. But AI is just one aspect of a much broader shift across the region. We think Asia is entering an industrial supercycle. And this is being driven by a sustained rise in capital expenditures across AI, energy, defense and [the] broader industrial sector. The numbers behind this are substantial. We forecast Asia's total investment could rise from about $11 trillion today to $16 trillion by 2030. So this implies a 7 percent annual growth rate over the next five years, which is triple the pace of the past two years, making it quite significant. And for the high growth sector such as AI, energy, defense and broader industrial sector we expect capex to grow at an even faster runrate of about 16 percent a year. Now let's talk about the drivers. No doubt, the first big driver behind this momentum is AI. Asia needs to invest more in AI infrastructure. At the same time, Asian chipmakers and memory producers are lifting capex to meet demand of U.S. hyperscalers for building data centres. The second driver is energy. Asia needs to invest in the energy sector for three reasons – for powering AI, energy transition and energy security. The power demand for AI compute is growing exponentially. On top of that, economies are having to shift towards renewables, and that needs more investment in grids, storage, and power generation equipment. Moreover, the recent geopolitical tensions have made energy security a bigger policy priority, especially for Asia which is dependent on imported energy. The third driver is defense. Now, even before the recent escalation in the Middle East, defense budgets across Asia were moving higher. This year, China has planned their defense spending to grow at a pace faster than its GDP growth. Meanwhile, India has raised budgetary allocations for defense capex by 18 percent this year. At the same time, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are aiming to lift their combined defense spending from about 1.7 percent of GDP to 3 percent. The fourth driver is broader industrial sector investment. Every economy in the region is working to secure their supply chains and focused more on onshoring of critical inputs for their domestic production. So what does this mean for Asia? The region stands to reap the benefits of a rise in capex [spending] twice over. First, the increase in Asia’s capex will fuel its industrial cycle. Second, you have to consider [that] Asia is the world’s production house. And as rest of the world is increasing capex investment in the areas I identified earlier, Asia benefits from feeding this global demand. Already, the evidence of a strong industrial cycle is visible. We prefer to look at capital goods imports as a proxy for capex. And that has been growing at an impressive rate of 27 percent on a year-over-year basis in dollar terms. Industrial production [growth] is nearing a four-year high. And non-tech exports, which are important from industrial production perspective, have staged a strong recovery since the fourth quarter of last year. So which Asian economies will benefit? As such, all of them. But China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are the biggest beneficiaries because they are meeting both domestic and export demands. On the other hand, India's industrial sector benefits primarily from its own domestic capex cycle. The pickup...]]>306alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1649fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-new-japan-trade--75645032insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. This is Part 2 of our podcast from the Japan Summit.It’s Friday, May 22nd at 8 am in Tokyo.I might stick with equities for just a minute, and Sho, just to dig deeper into the equity market. Jonathan expressed some of the bullishness. Anything you want to elaborate on where the real strong conviction on this positive view about Japanese equities is coming from?And then just as a warning, I'm going to come back to you and ask, if you're wrong, where could you be wrong? Because again, I think where we add value most to clients is not just giving a clear view, but also pressure testing that view.Sho Nakazawa: Our constructive view on Japan equities comes down to one simple point. Three structural changes are still continuing. So, the first is shifting macro environment. The combination of stable inflation and wage growth is a kind of phenomenon we have not seen, at least in my lifetime. It changes corporates and households’ behavior, especially in terms of balance sheet management.And then secondly, the corporates profit improvements. We do not see it as a cyclical recovery. We see it as a structural change. As in the past, Japan corporates heavily relied on cost-cutting amid a deflationary environment. But today, price pass-through is improving, and the Japan corporates are becoming better positioned in growth profit in nominal growth environment.The third is corporate governance reform. Awareness of the capital efficiency has clearly increased. We continue to see share buybacks, dividends increase, and a portfolio restructuring as well. And on top of that, the Takaichi administration has made growth investment and crisis management investment as well.Of course, the Middle East situation is a source of noise. But structurally is a supporting factor for Japan equities secular bear market, which is a view Jonathan has held for very long time, has actually becoming stronger.But let me say that if I'm wrong, maybe I should be more bullish. In fact, the two key drivers here, if we assess the bear case scenario on Japan equities…So, one key driver should be the upside come from the investors constructive view on the Japan fiscal efficiency. And on a micro level, the corporate behavior changing faster than market expects. If we assess the recent rise in long-term yields, it reflect the concern to the Japan fiscal position and that BoJ behind the curve.It would weigh on the Japan equity valuation because it raises cost of capital and it weighs on the Japan equity valuation. But on the other hand, [the] Japanese government will disclose its basic policy in June. And if it could include a credible plan to improve Japan’s fiscal positions, perhaps under Japan version of DOGE, which is led by Financial Minister Katayama-san, I think it could alleviate the excessive concern toward the Japan's fiscal position, and it [could] lower the cost of capital on Japan equities.You know, micro level, the corporates behavior is already changing, as I mentioned. But there's still plenty, you know, space for Japan corporates to utilize non-cash generating assets such as cash and deposit, which is equivalent to 60 percent of GDP. The ratio is far higher than our global peers.So, if Japan corporates move further to capital efficiency or portfolio restructuring or use some excess capital, I think there should be additional room for Japan equity market to re-rate higher.Seth Carpenter: All right. So, if you're wrong, it's insufficient bullishness. That’s a great place to be.So, so Koichi, Jonathan and Sho are bullish on equities. And so, do you expect big shift in capital flows, and would that drive further appreciation of the currency? How do you think about the global investors' view of Japan? And what it means for capital flows on the one hand, and the value of the currency on the other?Koichi Sugisaki: As for the capital flows, I think under this fresh regime, what's the notable change among the Japanese financials? That they are shifting away from the fixed income product, I mean, like JGBs.Given the current attractive yields, you maybe wonder[ing] why the banking sectors buy the JGBs. But according to the recent disclosures, they have not purchased the JGBs much because their lending activity performed very well. So, as far as their lending activity have performed well, they have no incentive to make money in the securities investment.You know, their lending activity have accelerated thanks to the corporate CapEx investment to improve the productivity amidst the labor shortages in Japan. Once the banking sector starts to see some slowdown or some symptom of the lending activity to slow down, in such a case, they are quickly shifted to the securities investment and the JGB market will change the world.But so far, you know, lending growth [has] accelerated much. You know, the April lending growth is around 6 percent on the year-on-year basis, very strong. So, I think the banking sector still not have a[n] incentive to buy the JGBs.As for the lifers, [the] case is much more serious, I think. Because of the younger ages shifting towards the equities to defend the asset, particularly under the new NISA scheme [which] was launched in 2024. The younger peoples basically allocate their asset to the equities rather than the saving type of the products.Which means that the lifers are struggling to make, to gather the new monies. And this means that the demand for the long-term JGB to shrink. And the Japan lifers already filled the duration this much by 2023 to prepare for the new regulations starting from this fiscal year. Now, fortunately, they already finished the duration this much, this type of operation by 2023. But the yield [has] gone up from 2024, thanks to the BoJ's normalization.So, under such conditions, they are now struggling to the high market loss on the long-term JGBs. And some of lifers are now facing the impairment loss accounting. That actually [makes] lifers a net seller of the long-term JGBs rather than the buyers.Seth Carpenter: Okay, super helpful. Okay, we focused a lot on near-term developments, the energy shock, first quarter GDP. But we can think about a longer-term growth scenario. And there, I think AI comes in at times. Chetan, you've talked about the near-term super cycle, and I think there's a near-term aggregate demand side to AI, but over the longer term, maybe it's more supply.When I think about where growth is going, though, I also think about shifts in the strategy for policy. So maybe Yamaguchi-san, you can talk to me a bit on your take of Prime Minister Takaichi's policies. What do we think is likely to get announced? When? How do you see it affecting the long-term growth outlook for Japan?Takeshi Yamaguchi: [The] Japanese government publishes growth strategy report and the basic policy on fiscal management or honebuto policy in June every year. But I think this year's, you know, documents will be pretty important because these are the first documents under the Takaichi administration.And these documents will set the direction of economic policy by Takaichi-san, Sanae Takaichi. Or Sanae-nomics. Compared with Abenomics, I think Takaichi-san focuses more on the supply side issues, you know, supply domestic investment. While Abenomics focused more on the exit from deflation, focusing on demand side policy, particularly, you know, monetary easing.In the growth strategy report, the focus will be strategic investment in 17 strategic areas, including AI, especially, you know, AI robotics, semiconductors, defense and space, cybersecurity, and content industry and so on.Another important point of Sanaeconomic system, there's overlap between these strategic investment areas and national securities. The government will also update its defense strategy by the end of this year, and there'll be a increase in the defense budget target. The focus will be a lot on, you know, I think, dual use technologies, and also resilience of supply chains going ahead.Another important point is, I think there will be a change in the budget formation process. I think, under deflation there’s effectively cap on non-social security spending. But I think this government will likely allocate budget, you know, for multi-investment. So, I think the budget process will be more flexible. And they put more emphasis on the initial budget rather than the supplementary budget.So, I think, these documents will be pretty important to monitor going ahead. But overall, I think, the government – yes, they do care about the market conditions. They will likely avoid massive, you know, expansion. But I think a slight expansion, especially in the area of strategic investment is likely to happen.Seth Carpenter: Very helpful. Alright, that's the end of the panel. Thank you very much to my colleagues. And this is where I have to shift back into podcast mode to say thank you for listening. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a colleague or friend today. Thank you very much, everybody.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ijVwdBbOL-q3-T4JLt8NLvmyBCndoT6ALugZgnLZHl4Fri, 22 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe conclusion of our two-part episode from Morgan Stanley and MUFG’s Japan Summit looks at structural shifts in Japan’s economy and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s strategic growth agenda.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. This is Part 2 of our podcast from the Japan Summit.It’s Friday, May 22nd at 8 am in Tokyo.I might stick with equities for just a minute, and Sho, just to dig deeper into the equity market. Jonathan expressed some of the bullishness. Anything you want to elaborate on where the real strong conviction on this positive view about Japanese equities is coming from?And then just as a warning, I'm going to come back to you and ask, if you're wrong, where could you be wrong? Because again, I think where we add value most to clients is not just giving a clear view, but also pressure testing that view.Sho Nakazawa: Our constructive view on Japan equities comes down to one simple point. Three structural changes are still continuing. So, the first is shifting macro environment. The combination of stable inflation and wage growth is a kind of phenomenon we have not seen, at least in my lifetime. It changes corporates and households’ behavior, especially in terms of balance sheet management.And then secondly, the corporates profit improvements. We do not see it as a cyclical recovery. We see it as a structural change. As in the past, Japan corporates heavily relied on cost-cutting amid a deflationary environment. But today, price pass-through is improving, and the Japan corporates are becoming better positioned in growth profit in nominal growth environment.The third is corporate governance reform. Awareness of the capital efficiency has clearly increased. We continue to see share buybacks, dividends increase, and a portfolio restructuring as well. And on top of that, the Takaichi administration has made growth investment and crisis management investment as well.Of course, the Middle East situation is a source of noise. But structurally is a supporting factor for Japan equities secular bear market, which is a view Jonathan has held for very long time, has actually becoming stronger.But let me say that if I'm wrong, maybe I should be more bullish. In fact, the two key drivers here, if we assess the bear case scenario on Japan equities…So, one key driver should be the upside come from the investors constructive view on the Japan fiscal efficiency. And on a micro level, the corporate behavior changing faster than market expects. If we assess the recent rise in long-term yields, it reflect the concern to the Japan fiscal position and that BoJ behind the curve.It would weigh on the Japan equity valuation because it raises cost of capital and it weighs on the Japan equity valuation. But on the other hand, [the] Japanese government will disclose its basic policy in June. And if it could include a credible plan to improve Japan’s fiscal positions, perhaps under Japan version of DOGE, which is led by Financial Minister Katayama-san, I think it could alleviate the excessive concern toward the Japan's fiscal position, and it [could] lower the cost of capital on Japan equities.You know, micro level, the corporates behavior is already changing, as I mentioned. But there's still plenty, you know, space for Japan corporates to utilize non-cash generating assets such as cash and deposit, which is equivalent to 60 percent of GDP. The ratio is far higher than our global peers.So, if Japan corporates move further to capital efficiency or portfolio restructuring or use some excess capital, I think there should be additional room for Japan equity market to re-rate higher.Seth Carpenter: All right. So, if you're wrong, it's insufficient...]]>664alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1648fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-driving-japan-s-market-momentum--75645047insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And on today's episode, we're bringing you a live taping direct from Morgan Stanley and MUFG's Japan Summit to discuss the macroeconomic overlook. And, in particular, Japan's moment: reflation, reform, and the case for a structural re-rating. I am joined by Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist; Takeshi Yamaguchi, our Chief Japan Economist; Jonathan Garner, our Chief Asia and EM Equity Strategist; Koichi Sugisaki, who is our Head of Japan Macro Strategy; and Sho Nakazawa, who is our Japan Equity Strategist. Seth Carpenter: I will say we have just collectively published our mid-year outlook. So twice a year, Morgan Stanley Macro Research puts together our forecast. We take the time to debate with each other, to pressure test our views on the outlook for the next year and a half to two years. And I have to say this version of the outlook process may have been the most difficult one that I can remember. And  in no small part because one of the key fundamental drivers of the outlook globally for growth, for inflation is oil, oil prices. And the swings there have been pretty dramatic. And so, as a result, we put a lot of effort into not just our baseline forecast, but also scenarios and the ways in which our baseline forecast could be wrong.   But Chetan, let me start with you.  Tell us a little bit about the exposure in Asia to, to the energy shock. Chetan Ahya: So Seth, you're right.    Asia is one of the more exposed part of the world. But I would say that we've been surprised in the way this energy shock has been managed. One is, of course, at the global level, two big swings happened. US exports increased dramatically by 3.8 million barrels per day. Just to give you perspective, global consumption of oil is about 100 million barrels, so it's simple math in terms of how big this number was. And then China parallelly also reduced its imports by 3.5 million barrels. So, we had a 7 million barrel swing from a global oil demand balance perspective.And, secondly, as far as gas is concerned, that is where actually we were more concerned about Asia because Asia was very dependent on Middle Eastern gas. And on that front, China single-handedly has bailed out the region. So, China cut its gas imports by about 45 percent, and that had at least avoided the shortages that we were worried about. We can manage oil prices, but shortages is something very difficult to manage. So that's at the global level. And within the region, what every economy did is to switch to an alternative source of fuel, whether it is electricity generated through coal or other renewable sources. And particularly that happened in China and India, which are the two big importers of fuel in the region.And then additionally, what we also saw is that everybody managed the fuel price increase quite well. So, on an average, if I look at the stats as of today, only about 25 to 30 percent of the underlying fuel price increase has been passed on to the consumer. So, the governments are taking it, so there is a burden on the fiscal front that is building up. But as far as the consumers are concerned, this has been a help, and therefore you have not seen a big spike in inflation across the region. Seth Carpenter:  Okay. So, a lot of comments about Asia in general. Let's go more specific to here in Japan. And so, Yamaguchi-san, you were an early adopter of the Japan reflation view. If we go back a year, two years, three years, you were probably more optimistic, more bullish about growth in the market than consensus. More recently, you've been a little bit more cautious about where growth is going. And so, can you tell us a little bit first why you're a bit more cautious now relative to where I suspect the market is? And then when it comes to the energy shock, how do you see it playing out with the Japanese economy? And should we worry about it derailing this whole reflation trade? Takeshi Yamaguchi: We think Japanese underlying economic fundamentals remain resilient in the sense that, you know, nominal GDP recovery will continue as a trend. But for this year, I think there's a, you know, short-term slowdown, both in terms of real GDP growth and nominal GDP growth, due to the terms of a trade shock. So far, you know, thanks to the government energy subsidies and Japan's relatively large strategic oil reserves, the direct impact on households has been limited. But we are already seeing a big increase in producer prices in the April data. It jumped to 4.9 percent {year-over-year], and we expect this producer price index will continue to go up due to the higher oil prices, but also because of the NAFTA-related supply side, you know, disruptions in areas, you know, such as, you know, construction materials, plastic products, and industrial solvents and so on. That said, we still believe that, you know, underlying economic fundamentals remain resilient in the sense that there's a structural labor shortage. So, wage growth may somewhat slow, but still I think a solid, you know, base up increase will continue next year, especially among young workers. Also, I think this structural tight labor market [is] encouraging companies to step up labor-saving investment. And, I think, together with government's initiatives for domestic investment, I think, domestic CapEx will also likely remain resilient. So, this year for nominal GDP growth, we expect, you know, slightly negative growth due to the terms of trade loss. But the next year, we are expecting above 4 percent nominal GDP growth. So, the overall, you know, story remains unchanged despite the short-term headwinds. Seth Carpenter: Okay. So fundamental story remains unchanged. We're pretty optimistic, but it's a matter of long term versus short term Jonathan, let me turn to you. Equity markets are generally optimistic, I would say, these days, but there is a bit of a divergence between views on equities here in Asia, between Japan on the one hand, and EM overall. In the mid-year outlook, you have expressed a preference for Japanese equities over EM. Can you talk a little bit about that view? Why that preference? Are there sectors or specific stocks that matter more? How are you thinking about this sort of allocation across equity markets for you in Asia? Jonathan Garner:  So, certainly, as Seth indicated and Chetan and Yamaguchi-san said, it's really an environment where the sector call, particularly the CapEx, super cycle call should drive portfolios. And that naturally leads you in Asia more to North Asia, where Japan is very richly endowed in beneficiaries of the CapEx super cycle. And obviously markets like Korea and Taiwan, and much less so to South Asia, where the larger markets are much more populated by consumer and services stocks. So, in our portfolio, we're essentially overweight capital spending, underweight the consumer. And when you look at the Japan market, one of the things that my colleague Daniel Blake has done a lot of work is, is the sort of thematic exposures that exist within our coverage. The four core Morgan Stanley research themes of multipolar world, AI, tech diffusion, future of energy and societal shifts, they map into about 75 percent by stock number of our coverage for the Japan market, and they're quite nicely distributed across the stock coverage. Obviously, some stocks have more than one aspect to them. And that is highly advantageous and much more advantageous than in fact any other large market. Europe of course, doesn't have AI, tech diffusion, or it largely lacks the beneficiaries, the upstream beneficiaries. The US has legacy, sort of, software service, business models and consumer exposure. Now, it's not to say that all is sort of rosy in the garden. There are large auto OEMs here in Japan where the earnings numbers are challenged. So, it's all about the kind of the dispersion that's going on within the portfolio. But just on the base case targets, 4300 for topics, that's set by Nakazawa-san and myself. It's about 12 percent upside in the base. In the two weeks since we published the report, EM has fallen back somewhat, so there's about 8 percent upside to our EM target. But on a kind of risk-adjusted bull-bear skew, bear in mind that EM is much more skewed in terms of the earnings drivers of that market. Essentially, if you strip Korea and Taiwan out, there's no earnings growth in EM right now. You would ultimately have to favor Japan. So, Japan should be at the core of any Asia portfolio at the moment.  Seth Carpenter: And can you just give us a little insight as to what you're seeing about how the market is or maybe is not pricing the threat from the energy shock? What are you seeing in equity markets, top line, down into sectors? Do you think there's enough concern? Do you think there's room for that to get, sort of, rerated just on the energy shock situation? Jonathan Garner: So, what you're seeing is that anything that is consumer-related is really struggling in terms of revisions. I think there are six different subcomponents of the consumer that we can track. Every single one of them has downgrades. And the upgrades are in energy, upstream energy, which isn't that well represented in Japan. There are a couple of names. In materials, really across the board. In semis and IT across the board, and broadly, tech hardware. And then in the defense capital goods space. And that dispersion in revisions within the Japan market or within Asia as a]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hPiOivNwqzZ22MD6jp4NseV74USuKWC1Kgs-LxUnVucThu, 21 May 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyRecorded live at the Morgan Stanley and MUFG Japan Summit, our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter led a discussion on Asia’s exposure to the energy shock and Japan’s bullish outlook.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And on today's episode, we're bringing you a live taping direct from Morgan Stanley and MUFG's Japan Summit to discuss the macroeconomic overlook. And, in particular, Japan's moment: reflation, reform, and the case for a structural re-rating. I am joined by Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist; Takeshi Yamaguchi, our Chief Japan Economist; Jonathan Garner, our Chief Asia and EM Equity Strategist; Koichi Sugisaki, who is our Head of Japan Macro Strategy; and Sho Nakazawa, who is our Japan Equity Strategist. Seth Carpenter: I will say we have just collectively published our mid-year outlook. So twice a year, Morgan Stanley Macro Research puts together our forecast. We take the time to debate with each other, to pressure test our views on the outlook for the next year and a half to two years. And I have to say this version of the outlook process may have been the most difficult one that I can remember. And  in no small part because one of the key fundamental drivers of the outlook globally for growth, for inflation is oil, oil prices. And the swings there have been pretty dramatic. And so, as a result, we put a lot of effort into not just our baseline forecast, but also scenarios and the ways in which our baseline forecast could be wrong.   But Chetan, let me start with you.  Tell us a little bit about the exposure in Asia to, to the energy shock. Chetan Ahya: So Seth, you're right.    Asia is one of the more exposed part of the world. But I would say that we've been surprised in the way this energy shock has been managed. One is, of course, at the global level, two big swings happened. US exports increased dramatically by 3.8 million barrels per day. Just to give you perspective, global consumption of oil is about 100 million barrels, so it's simple math in terms of how big this number was. And then China parallelly also reduced its imports by 3.5 million barrels. So, we had a 7 million barrel swing from a global oil demand balance perspective.And, secondly, as far as gas is concerned, that is where actually we were more concerned about Asia because Asia was very dependent on Middle Eastern gas. And on that front, China single-handedly has bailed out the region. So, China cut its gas imports by about 45 percent, and that had at least avoided the shortages that we were worried about. We can manage oil prices, but shortages is something very difficult to manage. So that's at the global level. And within the region, what every economy did is to switch to an alternative source of fuel, whether it is electricity generated through coal or other renewable sources. And particularly that happened in China and India, which are the two big importers of fuel in the region.And then additionally, what we also saw is that everybody managed the fuel price increase quite well. So, on an average, if I look at the stats as of today, only about 25 to 30 percent of the underlying fuel price increase has been passed on to the consumer. So, the governments are taking it, so there is a burden on the fiscal front that is building up. But as far as the consumers are concerned, this has been a help, and therefore you have not seen a big spike in inflation across the region. Seth Carpenter:  Okay. So, a lot of comments about Asia in general. Let's go more specific to here in Japan. And so, Yamaguchi-san, you were an early adopter of the Japan reflation view. If we go back a year, two years, three years, you were...]]>679alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1647fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-uk-s-economy-may-surprise-investors-again--75644992insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's Chief UK Economist. Andrew Sheets: Today, the debate around growth and debt in the United Kingdom. It's Wednesday, May 20th at 2pm in London. Bruna, I'm so glad you could join us today because I actually really did want to talk about what's going on here in the United Kingdom. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the country where you hear some of the strongest divergence of opinions. Pessimists point to political uncertainty, vulnerability to oil prices from the Strait of Hormuz, and rising bond yields. And yet, UK growth this year has been pretty good. Inflation is set to come down, and the currency's been pretty stable, hardly the stuff of big instability. So, Bruna, I was hoping you could help us set the scene. Let's start with how you see the economy. Bruna Skarica: I actually think your framing is perfect. For the past five years, there has been a striking divergence of opinion on the UK, which I do think mimics to a degree some of the divisions on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The question really is – has the country underwent structural changes in the past decade of supply-side shocks such that its potential growth is very low, perhaps as low as 1 percent on the year. And has the inflationary process shifted in such a way that, for example, we need much higher jobless rate in order to generate enough economic slack to get inflation down to 2 percent? Or the other question is, has the UK just had a unique string of external shocks amplified perhaps by domestic policy choices, which mean that we have seen a prolonged period of low growth and high inflation – but again, without major structural changes. We are in the more constructive structural camp. I actually think that's probably Morgan Stanley's biggest out of consensus call in the UK. In recent years in particular, we have seen quite robust CapEx. And last year, actually very healthy private sector productivity gains. When you adjust for accurate labor market data, UK's private sector productivity growth is just under 2 percent as of the end of 2025, actually not too far off from the U.S. But for these good structural trends to persist and continue to improve, we do need a more supportive cyclical environment. And there, unfortunately, given the rise in oil prices, it's hard to be overly constructive about growth and inflation in the UK this year. We've downgraded our growth forecasts to around 1 percent over [20]26 and [20]27, and we have lifted our inflation projections by around 150 basis points at their peak to a peak of around 3.5 percent later in the year. Andrew Sheets: So, Bruna, how much does the price of oil or the price of natural gas matter for this outlook, especially as the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut? Bruna Skarica: It does matter a fair bit. We use Morgan Stanley's commodity team's forecasts in our own scenario analyses for the UK economy. Now, their base case still sees a gentle decline in oil prices this year, which leads to outcomes I've already mentioned. The activity flatlines from the second quarter, we have a rise in inflation from April onwards, but we don't have a recession. However, if we fail to see any movement lower in oil, and as you rightly pointed out, natural gas prices as well; or if we even saw a move higher over the summer, we do think that risks of a recession would be quite pronounced in the second half of the year. UK consumers are already in for a year of flat real disposable income growth. Higher prices of food and energy than in our base case could result in even lower discretionary spending growth than what we're already modeling. And if the Bank of England had to hike rates in this inflationary scenario, we think they would act twice in this kind of a scenario. We also have these tight financial conditions which would weigh on household spending. Andrew Sheets: So, Bruna, I think that's a great segue into that out-of-consensus call that we have on the Bank of England. You know, the market is expecting the Bank of England to raise interest rates. We think that they'll be on hold. And if you take a step back, it's a view that, kind of, puts the UK and the Bank of England a little bit between the Federal Reserve, which we think is going to be lowering rates over the next twelve months modestly, and the European Central Bank, which we think will raise rates in the near term. Could you talk a bit more about why you think it will remain on hold? And why you differ from what the market's seeing? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, absolutely. So, in our base case, the one where we do see a bit of a decline in oil and gas prices over the course of this year, we think the Bank of England remains on hold. It's important to remember that they were about to cut rates, prior to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. So, there is a bit of restrictiveness there in the starting stance, which we think can just be maintained for a longer period of time than would've otherwise been the case. And so, for the Bank of England to avoid having to tighten rates. Now, with respect to the market, I think it's fair to say that the market price is a probability-weighted outcome, where there is some chance, a non-negligible one, that the Bank of England will have to hike rates aggressively if oil prices were to rise from here. To give you a bit of clarity here, bank's own analyses suggests that in a scenario where oil prices were to rise towards $130 per barrel and stay there for a few months, the bank could hike rates by four times. Now, it's interesting that in this scenario, the bank actually doesn't forecast a recession. Now, we think that in the case of such elevated commodity prices, as I've already mentioned, we would certainly see high inflation, potentially as high as 6 percent, but also recessionary impulses. So, even in the scenario of elevated oil prices, we think the bank could only deliver around two hikes. And so, this kind of probability-weighted outcome that we have, which differs a little bit from our model case, even that is actually fairly lower than what the market is pricing. So, I think that's maybe one of the main differences that we have versus the market. The market is expecting a repeat of 2022, so elevated inflation with growth just about holding on. We disagree that's possible because there's far less scope for a fiscal response to shield growth from an inflationary external shock. Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, maybe I'll take even a bigger step back here because to borrow a British phrase, it almost seems like some of these debates over oil prices are kind of small beer compared to these two big questions around the UK. Which are, you know, concerns over a lack of productivity growth and concerns that the UK economy is just, kind of, poorly positioned over the long term – especially in the wake of Brexit and concern over the fiscal situation. And this idea that, well, government debt is historically high for the UK, concern that that will continue. And I think it’s no exaggeration to say that when you talk to investors about the UK, those are often, kind of, two of the big questions that hang over the debate. So, your brief thoughts on both of those issues. And again, where you think the market might be potentially surprised? Bruna Skarica: So, one of the most interesting things when I talk to clients is when I mention some of these statistics around measured cyclical productivity growth last year, they're often very, very surprised. And we do think it's more important to talk about this because there is evidence, I would say nascent evidence, that UK is benefiting from the AI tailwind. We are seeing more CapEx adoption. We are seeing slower hiring, but more resilient growth, which, as I say, results in cyclical productivity growth that looks very robust, especially in UK's historical context. In the last ten years, of course, UK's productivity growth has been very lackluster. So, over the course of this year, I think that's actually my primary focus to see how much of this uplift in productivity last year is cyclical and perhaps will dissipate over 2026 with the slowdown in growth. And how much of it was actually structural. Now, in terms of the fiscal question, you know, one thing that's interesting to mention is the UK is, per IMF calculations, in the middle of the most severe fiscal consolidation amongst its G7 peers. Medium-term fiscal plans deliver a decline in deficit to below 2 percent of GDP by 2030. Again, this is hard to square with gilt yields where they currently stand. So, it's fair to say that the market is just more focused on the risks of delivery. For example, departmental spending settlements look challenging to deliver. Ministry of Defense is looking for a [£]30 billion top-up to its budgets. Labor backbenchers have recently come out seeking for a bit more capital expenditure. Political volatility is high. We are actually quite confident around our 2026 fiscal forecasts. We're looking for a deficit at 4 percent. But when it comes to 2027, I think it's fair to say that risks here really depend on the political trajectory with risks skewed, I think, towards a slightly higher deficit than around 3.5 percent, which we have in our base case. Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, just to be very direct, is it fair to say that for investors who are very concerned about productivity growth in the UK, you']]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Xin_wvW4NKJxlEltY0m0COeEDxyaoMimEwPeECWdIOIWed, 20 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Chief UK Economist Bruna Skarica discuss why they see a more constructive UK outlook than markets do, despite energy, fiscal and political risks.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's Chief UK Economist. Andrew Sheets: Today, the debate around growth and debt in the United Kingdom. It's Wednesday, May 20th at 2pm in London. Bruna, I'm so glad you could join us today because I actually really did want to talk about what's going on here in the United Kingdom. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the country where you hear some of the strongest divergence of opinions. Pessimists point to political uncertainty, vulnerability to oil prices from the Strait of Hormuz, and rising bond yields. And yet, UK growth this year has been pretty good. Inflation is set to come down, and the currency's been pretty stable, hardly the stuff of big instability. So, Bruna, I was hoping you could help us set the scene. Let's start with how you see the economy. Bruna Skarica: I actually think your framing is perfect. For the past five years, there has been a striking divergence of opinion on the UK, which I do think mimics to a degree some of the divisions on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The question really is – has the country underwent structural changes in the past decade of supply-side shocks such that its potential growth is very low, perhaps as low as 1 percent on the year. And has the inflationary process shifted in such a way that, for example, we need much higher jobless rate in order to generate enough economic slack to get inflation down to 2 percent? Or the other question is, has the UK just had a unique string of external shocks amplified perhaps by domestic policy choices, which mean that we have seen a prolonged period of low growth and high inflation – but again, without major structural changes. We are in the more constructive structural camp. I actually think that's probably Morgan Stanley's biggest out of consensus call in the UK. In recent years in particular, we have seen quite robust CapEx. And last year, actually very healthy private sector productivity gains. When you adjust for accurate labor market data, UK's private sector productivity growth is just under 2 percent as of the end of 2025, actually not too far off from the U.S. But for these good structural trends to persist and continue to improve, we do need a more supportive cyclical environment. And there, unfortunately, given the rise in oil prices, it's hard to be overly constructive about growth and inflation in the UK this year. We've downgraded our growth forecasts to around 1 percent over [20]26 and [20]27, and we have lifted our inflation projections by around 150 basis points at their peak to a peak of around 3.5 percent later in the year. Andrew Sheets: So, Bruna, how much does the price of oil or the price of natural gas matter for this outlook, especially as the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut? Bruna Skarica: It does matter a fair bit. We use Morgan Stanley's commodity team's forecasts in our own scenario analyses for the UK economy. Now, their base case still sees a gentle decline in oil prices this year, which leads to outcomes I've already mentioned. The activity flatlines from the second quarter, we have a rise in inflation from April onwards, but we don't have a recession. However, if we fail to see any movement lower in oil, and as you rightly pointed out, natural gas prices as well; or if we even saw a move higher over the summer, we do think that risks of a recession would be quite pronounced in the second half...]]>748alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1646fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-case-for-staying-bullish-on-equities--75644945insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing our bullish mid-year outlook and why stocks have been under pressure more recently. It's Tuesday, May 19th at 1:30 pm in New York.   So, let’s get after it. Every cycle has a moment when investors become so focused on the last risk that they miss the next opportunity. I think we’re in one of those moments right now. The first half of this year has had a familiar feel to it. The market weakened under the surface well before the headlines got loud, investors discovered the new risks after prices had already moved, and sentiment got worse just as the forward setup was getting better. In other words, it’s déjà vu all over again – but with some important twists. The biggest twist is where we are in the cycle. Last year, we were still coming out of the tail end of a rolling recession. Today, we’re in a rolling recovery and that is still underappreciated. This matters, because it changes how we should interpret the correction earlier this year and a powerful rally. In the first quarter, many investors looked at the S&P 500’s less-than-10 percent price decline and concluded the market was complacent. I think that really misses the point. Roughly half of the Russell 3000 saw drawdowns of 20 percent or more, and the S&P 500 forward Price Earnings multiple fell by 18 percent from its peak as forward earnings continued to rise. That is not complacency. That is a market doing what it does best – discounting risk before the narrative catches up. And those risks were not small. We had private credit concerns, and a major debate around AI disruption to labor markets as well as a new war that drove oil prices up by 100 percent. In many of the areas most directly exposed to these risks, the market delivered 40 percent-plus corrections. So the provocative question I would ask now is this: what if the biggest risk from here is not being too bullish, but being too cautious after the market has already done the work? We address these questions in our recently published mid-year outlook. Specifically, we raised our 12 month S&P 500 price target to 8,300 based solely on higher earnings forecasts. In fact, we assume some further valuation compression. We raised our S&P 500 EPS by approximately 5 percent as operating leverage from the rolling recovery, AI adoption, fiscal support and a capex cycle that continues to broaden. That earnings point is critical. In prior cycles when oil shocks ended the business cycle, earnings were already decelerating or contracting outright before the shock hit. Today, the opposite is happening. Earnings are accelerating from already strong levels. First-quarter median S&P 500 earnings surprise was 6 percent, the strongest in four years; and earnings revisions breadth has moved back up to 22 percent from just 5 percent at the start of reporting season. That is a very different backdrop than the traditional late-cycle oil shock playbook. AI is another area where I think the consensus has evolved. The labor market disruption narrative has moved faster than the actual implementation. The enterprise application layer is still early, and for now, AI looks more like a margin tailwind than a labor-market wrecking ball. Companies are running leaner, hiring less, and beginning to quantify real benefits rather than simply firing everyone. While true adoption of this technology is likely to be slower than anticipated, the apprehension to over-hire is real and that is driving higher profitability in an indirect way. Monetary policy and liquidity are still the main risks to this bull market rising unimpeded. With the Fed becoming less dovish and liquidity needs rising, interest rates are on the rise and the equity-rate correlation is negative again. The 4.5 percent level on the 10-year Treasury remains important for valuations. We don’t need Fed cuts for the equity market to work. History suggests that when earnings growth is strong and the Fed is on hold, returns can still be very solid. The real risk is liquidity – whether the Fed and Treasury underestimates how much capital the private economy now needs to fund investment and recovery.Ultimately, the Fed and Treasury have tools to address these liquidity needs and they have been using them aggressively this year. However, these provisions can ebb and flow and we are currently in a window where it’s going to ebb, leaving stocks vulnerable in the short term. If the correction persists, investors should use that as an opportunity to add exposure to the parts of the market that benefit from a rolling recovery, specifically Industrials, Financials, Consumer Discretionary Goods. The breadth of the earnings and capex cycle remains under-appreciated, not to mention the recovery from the rolling recession that ended with Liberation Day a year ago. The bottom line is simple. The correction earlier this year was more significant than most appreciate in terms of valuation and the earnings story is only getting better. The path won’t be smooth, so use any corrections to position for the continued broadening in earnings that we believe will continue.Just remember, by the time the evidence feels obvious, the opportunity is usually gone. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out! And I wish my wife a happy birthday.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NRNHA0lsA2lWc7e-CRel1gIOuvwOh7vPej77VrwRWKcTue, 19 May 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyDespite recent pressure on stocks, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson argues that earnings and AI’s impact remain stronger than many investors appreciate.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing our bullish mid-year outlook and why stocks have been under pressure more recently. It's Tuesday, May 19th at 1:30 pm in New York.   So, let’s get after it. Every cycle has a moment when investors become so focused on the last risk that they miss the next opportunity. I think we’re in one of those moments right now. The first half of this year has had a familiar feel to it. The market weakened under the surface well before the headlines got loud, investors discovered the new risks after prices had already moved, and sentiment got worse just as the forward setup was getting better. In other words, it’s déjà vu all over again – but with some important twists. The biggest twist is where we are in the cycle. Last year, we were still coming out of the tail end of a rolling recession. Today, we’re in a rolling recovery and that is still underappreciated. This matters, because it changes how we should interpret the correction earlier this year and a powerful rally. In the first quarter, many investors looked at the S&P 500’s less-than-10 percent price decline and concluded the market was complacent. I think that really misses the point. Roughly half of the Russell 3000 saw drawdowns of 20 percent or more, and the S&P 500 forward Price Earnings multiple fell by 18 percent from its peak as forward earnings continued to rise. That is not complacency. That is a market doing what it does best – discounting risk before the narrative catches up. And those risks were not small. We had private credit concerns, and a major debate around AI disruption to labor markets as well as a new war that drove oil prices up by 100 percent. In many of the areas most directly exposed to these risks, the market delivered 40 percent-plus corrections. So the provocative question I would ask now is this: what if the biggest risk from here is not being too bullish, but being too cautious after the market has already done the work? We address these questions in our recently published mid-year outlook. Specifically, we raised our 12 month S&P 500 price target to 8,300 based solely on higher earnings forecasts. In fact, we assume some further valuation compression. We raised our S&P 500 EPS by approximately 5 percent as operating leverage from the rolling recovery, AI adoption, fiscal support and a capex cycle that continues to broaden. That earnings point is critical. In prior cycles when oil shocks ended the business cycle, earnings were already decelerating or contracting outright before the shock hit. Today, the opposite is happening. Earnings are accelerating from already strong levels. First-quarter median S&P 500 earnings surprise was 6 percent, the strongest in four years; and earnings revisions breadth has moved back up to 22 percent from just 5 percent at the start of reporting season. That is a very different backdrop than the traditional late-cycle oil shock playbook. AI is another area where I think the consensus has evolved. The labor market disruption narrative has moved faster than the actual implementation. The enterprise application layer is still early, and for now, AI looks more like a margin tailwind than a labor-market wrecking ball. Companies are running leaner, hiring less, and beginning to quantify real benefits rather than simply firing everyone. While true adoption of this technology is likely to be slower than anticipated, the apprehension to over-hire is real and that is driving higher profitability in an...]]>349alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1645fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-digital-assets-are-changing-banking--75645013insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research.Today, we are looking out to 2030 to estimate what we expect the impact of digital assets could be on global wholesale banking.It's Monday, May 18th at 3:30 PM in New York.We live in a world where money can move instantly. A payment or transfer can happen in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, in real time. But much of the financial system runs on older networks for moving cash and securities. These networks are what the industry calls rails. We expect clients will be looking for faster settlement across global banking services, driving the industry to adopt digital asset rails over the next decade.We see three key drivers pushing this today. Number one, market support is out there for fintechs, which is increasing their competitiveness. Number two, global legislation and regulation is clarifying requirements for enabling digital asset services led by the U.S. with the Genius Act in 2025, and with the forward motion being made on the Clarity Act in 2026. The third driver of digital asset transformation is that exchanges are extending hours and moving towards offering 24/7 capabilities over the next several years.Now, we expect digital assets will have two major impacts on global wholesale banks. First, as banks lean into servicing crypto assets, we see the potential for an additional $1.5 [billion] to $8 billion in revenues in 2030, which adds up to 1 percent to our global wholesale banks revenue forecast of $770 billion in 2030.Second, impact on global wholesale banks is a risk. There is risk when money is in motion, and money could be set in motion as clients migrate revenues from traditional asset rails to digital asset rails. We anticipate this could impact $21 billion to $82 billion of revenues in 2030, primarily in cross-border payments, liquidity management, collateral management, businesses.Now, while this transformation is likely to impact the industry over the next decade as more services go digital, we expect several catalysts in the second half will focus investor attention on these changes now. What are those catalysts? Number one, Clarity Act. The Clarity Act passing Congress would open up the door for wholesale banks to service crypto asset class more holistically.Second catalyst, the DTCC, which is a major infrastructure player for securities markets in the U.S. The DTCC will be adding tokenized products in the fall of 2026. And then lastly, Nasdaq and NYSE are planning to extend trading hours on December 6th, 2026, to 23 hours by five days a week.Now, what should investors make of all of this? Number one critical to understand how the investments that you have today are positioned for this transformation. Are managements protecting their strengths by developing capabilities for an ecosystem increasingly run on digital rails?Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/x4D9ihRO1E68tgnXxF58Lu29jqyuUSclKzGYH6snHxAMon, 18 May 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research Betsy Graseck explains how digital assets could reshape market infrastructure and how money moves, without overthrowing wholesale banking.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research.Today, we are looking out to 2030 to estimate what we expect the impact of digital assets could be on global wholesale banking.It's Monday, May 18th at 3:30 PM in New York.We live in a world where money can move instantly. A payment or transfer can happen in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, in real time. But much of the financial system runs on older networks for moving cash and securities. These networks are what the industry calls rails. We expect clients will be looking for faster settlement across global banking services, driving the industry to adopt digital asset rails over the next decade.We see three key drivers pushing this today. Number one, market support is out there for fintechs, which is increasing their competitiveness. Number two, global legislation and regulation is clarifying requirements for enabling digital asset services led by the U.S. with the Genius Act in 2025, and with the forward motion being made on the Clarity Act in 2026. The third driver of digital asset transformation is that exchanges are extending hours and moving towards offering 24/7 capabilities over the next several years.Now, we expect digital assets will have two major impacts on global wholesale banks. First, as banks lean into servicing crypto assets, we see the potential for an additional $1.5 [billion] to $8 billion in revenues in 2030, which adds up to 1 percent to our global wholesale banks revenue forecast of $770 billion in 2030.Second, impact on global wholesale banks is a risk. There is risk when money is in motion, and money could be set in motion as clients migrate revenues from traditional asset rails to digital asset rails. We anticipate this could impact $21 billion to $82 billion of revenues in 2030, primarily in cross-border payments, liquidity management, collateral management, businesses.Now, while this transformation is likely to impact the industry over the next decade as more services go digital, we expect several catalysts in the second half will focus investor attention on these changes now. What are those catalysts? Number one, Clarity Act. The Clarity Act passing Congress would open up the door for wholesale banks to service crypto asset class more holistically.Second catalyst, the DTCC, which is a major infrastructure player for securities markets in the U.S. The DTCC will be adding tokenized products in the fall of 2026. And then lastly, Nasdaq and NYSE are planning to extend trading hours on December 6th, 2026, to 23 hours by five days a week.Now, what should investors make of all of this? Number one critical to understand how the investments that you have today are positioned for this transformation. Are managements protecting their strengths by developing capabilities for an ecosystem increasingly run on digital rails?Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>264alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1644fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investing-through-an-uneasy-boom--75644961insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today: our mid-year market outlook across regions and asset classes.It’s Friday, May 15th, at 10am in New York.If you’ve winced at the gas pump, hesitated before booking a flight, or checked your 401(k) a little more often than usual, you already understand the forces driving markets now. Energy prices and geopolitics are creating real uncertainty. But underneath that uncertainty, companies are still investing, earnings are still holding up, and AI is becoming one of the biggest spending cycles in the global economy.That’s why our message for the rest of 2026 is – be constructive, not complacent.Let’s start with the constructive part. Across markets, macro and micro fundamentals support risk assets. In the U.S., growth should hold up. For investors, this suggests favoring stocks over core fixed income and developed-market equities — especially the U.S. – in particular. Our U.S. Equity Strategist’s S&P 500 target for mid-2027 stands at 8,300, supported by expected earnings growth of 23 percent in 2026 and 12 percent in 2027. The momentum in returns is coming from improving earnings.Now, a striking data point: the median S&P 500 company delivered a 6 percent earnings surprise in the first quarter – the strongest in four years. Earnings revisions breadth also improved sharply.AI explains a major part of that strength. It has become a capital spending story – and increasingly, a credit market story. A year ago, we projected combined capex for the biggest hyperscalers at around [$]450 billion in both 2026 and 2027. Now, that estimate has moved to roughly [$]800 billion in 2026 and [$]1.16 trillion in 2027. AI infrastructure – data centers, power, chips, networks – should shape equities, credit, rates and even commodities for years to come.But here’s where the not complacent part matters.There’s another side to the AI boom. Building all those data centers, chips, power systems and networks requires significant investment. And companies won’t fund all of it with cash. Many will borrow. That means more corporate bonds coming to market, especially from high-quality U.S. companies. Even if those companies look financially healthy, investors may demand better terms when they have so many new bonds to choose from. So, AI can support earnings, but it can also put some pressure on credit markets.Energy prices also pose major risk. Our base case assumes de-escalation and a gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but the range of possible outcomes looks unusually wide. Oil prices and the duration of the Middle East supply shock are the single largest variable in our outlook. Higher oil effectively acts like a tax on consumers and businesses alike.That’s why we recommend a balanced allocation with a risk-on tilt: overweight equities, underweight core fixed income, and hold other fixed income, commodities and cash at benchmark weight. Within equities, we favor the U.S. because earnings look strong and the risk-reward looks better than in other regions. Europe and Japan also offer upside, but Europe has more exposure to energy disruptions, and emerging markets lack a broad macro and micro narrative despite pockets of strength.This is all to say the cycle has not run out of road. But the road looks bumpier, narrower and more energy-sensitive than it looked a few months ago.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FvKSySeCdey5CzQAcEQHEKUaFLPC01jprqEBqOH0myAFri, 15 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang explains why investors should stay constructive in 2026, even as oil prices and geopolitics add volatility.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today: our mid-year market outlook across regions and asset classes.It’s Friday, May 15th, at 10am in New York.If you’ve winced at the gas pump, hesitated before booking a flight, or checked your 401(k) a little more often than usual, you already understand the forces driving markets now. Energy prices and geopolitics are creating real uncertainty. But underneath that uncertainty, companies are still investing, earnings are still holding up, and AI is becoming one of the biggest spending cycles in the global economy.That’s why our message for the rest of 2026 is – be constructive, not complacent.Let’s start with the constructive part. Across markets, macro and micro fundamentals support risk assets. In the U.S., growth should hold up. For investors, this suggests favoring stocks over core fixed income and developed-market equities — especially the U.S. – in particular. Our U.S. Equity Strategist’s S&P 500 target for mid-2027 stands at 8,300, supported by expected earnings growth of 23 percent in 2026 and 12 percent in 2027. The momentum in returns is coming from improving earnings.Now, a striking data point: the median S&P 500 company delivered a 6 percent earnings surprise in the first quarter – the strongest in four years. Earnings revisions breadth also improved sharply.AI explains a major part of that strength. It has become a capital spending story – and increasingly, a credit market story. A year ago, we projected combined capex for the biggest hyperscalers at around [$]450 billion in both 2026 and 2027. Now, that estimate has moved to roughly [$]800 billion in 2026 and [$]1.16 trillion in 2027. AI infrastructure – data centers, power, chips, networks – should shape equities, credit, rates and even commodities for years to come.But here’s where the not complacent part matters.There’s another side to the AI boom. Building all those data centers, chips, power systems and networks requires significant investment. And companies won’t fund all of it with cash. Many will borrow. That means more corporate bonds coming to market, especially from high-quality U.S. companies. Even if those companies look financially healthy, investors may demand better terms when they have so many new bonds to choose from. So, AI can support earnings, but it can also put some pressure on credit markets.Energy prices also pose major risk. Our base case assumes de-escalation and a gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but the range of possible outcomes looks unusually wide. Oil prices and the duration of the Middle East supply shock are the single largest variable in our outlook. Higher oil effectively acts like a tax on consumers and businesses alike.That’s why we recommend a balanced allocation with a risk-on tilt: overweight equities, underweight core fixed income, and hold other fixed income, commodities and cash at benchmark weight. Within equities, we favor the U.S. because earnings look strong and the risk-reward looks better than in other regions. Europe and Japan also offer upside, but Europe has more exposure to energy disruptions, and emerging markets lack a broad macro and micro narrative despite pockets of strength.This is all to say the cycle has not run out of road. But the road looks bumpier, narrower and more energy-sensitive than it looked a few months ago.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>303alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1643fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-growth-faces-an-energy-test--75645038insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today, I want to talk about our mid-year outlook that was just published. It's Thursday, May 14th at 10am in New York. Oil, AI, and the consumer now sit at the center of our global economic outlook. With AI and the consumer driving economic momentum in the U.S., the key question is whether the energy shock stays manageable or changes the path for inflation, central banks, and recession risks. We have had and maintain a fundamentally constructive view on global growth, but the energy shock brings unusually high uncertainty. It boosts inflation, it weighs on growth, and it widens the range of outcomes. We forecast global real GDP growth at 3.2 percent in 2026 and 3.4 percent in 2027. That is relative to about 3.5 percent in 2025. So, in our baseline, growth slows modestly this year and then stabilizes and recovers. Writing a forecast is always hard but knowing what to assume about oil prices is even harder than ever now. Our base case assumes that crude returns to about $90 a barrel by the end of this year and declines further in 2027. If, and I do mean if, that happens, the global economy can likely absorb the shock. But if the current situation persists and we do not see a normalization of shipments of oil, it could spell recession. That scenario probably sees oil prices surge through $150 a barrel, but more importantly, we could shift from a price shock to a volume shock. The big risk is physical shortages and supply chain disruptions because it's not just energy, it's also petrochemical inputs to manufacturing and other items. Higher prices slow activity; shortages can stop it. Exposure to the energy shock differs sharply across regions. Among the major economies, China looks the least exposed. Europe is the most exposed, and the U.S. sits in between. China built up substantial stockpiles of oil, and part of why the global oil market has not seen higher oil prices so far is that China has cut back on those imports dramatically. Europe, on the other hand, typically faces faster energy passthrough, meaning energy prices show up much more quickly in household bills, business costs, and ultimately inflation. And Europe is a net importer of energy, so the consideration goes beyond oil to include natural gas. The U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum products, but U.S. consumers will feel the pinch at the gas pump. But even with that in mind, U.S. growth continues to support global growth, thanks largely to strong AI-related capital spending and consumer spending that's being buoyed by the top end of the wealth distribution. We expect that momentum to continue and then ultimately to broaden out. And so we forecast U.S. real GDP growth at about 2.25 in 2026 but rising to about 2.5 percent in 2027. Both of those are up from the 2.1 percent we saw last year. And AI CapEx sits at the center of this U.S. outlook. It includes data centers, power infrastructure, information processing equipment, software. Over time, we think this investment momentum is part of what allows a broadening out of business investment beyond AI. That said, the energy shock has triggered global inflation. We're looking for global headline inflation to rise notably almost to 3 percent in 2026 before coming back off in 2027. But while oil and gas prices are pushing headline inflation higher, the pass-through to core, depending on the economy, seems to remain mostly limited. By 2027, we look for those effects to fade. And combined with somewhat slower growth this year, underlying inflation should soften again. As inflation risks have moved higher, though, central banks have generally become less accommodative. We expect the Fed to now stay on hold all the way through 2026, and then if inflation really does come down, to be able to cut twice in the first half of 2027. We're looking for the ECB to hike twice this year as it grapples with this energy-led inflation, but then reverse course next year in 2027. The Bank of Japan, which had already been hiking policy, probably is set to continue that gradual hiking path. Looking forward to the second half of this year though, global growth still does have a foundation, and the U.S. is a big part of that. AI investment and consumer spending are all what's driving the economy for now. But the energy outlook will determine how bumpy that path gets. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4jxN_rtqXtGNFfI5RJz8MSE1mcCNs40JXXqCQRDE2Z0Thu, 14 May 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Strategy Seth Carpenter gives his midyear outlook, highlighting why AI investment and U.S. consumers remain key growth engines amid energy shocks.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today, I want to talk about our mid-year outlook that was just published. It's Thursday, May 14th at 10am in New York. Oil, AI, and the consumer now sit at the center of our global economic outlook. With AI and the consumer driving economic momentum in the U.S., the key question is whether the energy shock stays manageable or changes the path for inflation, central banks, and recession risks. We have had and maintain a fundamentally constructive view on global growth, but the energy shock brings unusually high uncertainty. It boosts inflation, it weighs on growth, and it widens the range of outcomes. We forecast global real GDP growth at 3.2 percent in 2026 and 3.4 percent in 2027. That is relative to about 3.5 percent in 2025. So, in our baseline, growth slows modestly this year and then stabilizes and recovers. Writing a forecast is always hard but knowing what to assume about oil prices is even harder than ever now. Our base case assumes that crude returns to about $90 a barrel by the end of this year and declines further in 2027. If, and I do mean if, that happens, the global economy can likely absorb the shock. But if the current situation persists and we do not see a normalization of shipments of oil, it could spell recession. That scenario probably sees oil prices surge through $150 a barrel, but more importantly, we could shift from a price shock to a volume shock. The big risk is physical shortages and supply chain disruptions because it's not just energy, it's also petrochemical inputs to manufacturing and other items. Higher prices slow activity; shortages can stop it. Exposure to the energy shock differs sharply across regions. Among the major economies, China looks the least exposed. Europe is the most exposed, and the U.S. sits in between. China built up substantial stockpiles of oil, and part of why the global oil market has not seen higher oil prices so far is that China has cut back on those imports dramatically. Europe, on the other hand, typically faces faster energy passthrough, meaning energy prices show up much more quickly in household bills, business costs, and ultimately inflation. And Europe is a net importer of energy, so the consideration goes beyond oil to include natural gas. The U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum products, but U.S. consumers will feel the pinch at the gas pump. But even with that in mind, U.S. growth continues to support global growth, thanks largely to strong AI-related capital spending and consumer spending that's being buoyed by the top end of the wealth distribution. We expect that momentum to continue and then ultimately to broaden out. And so we forecast U.S. real GDP growth at about 2.25 in 2026 but rising to about 2.5 percent in 2027. Both of those are up from the 2.1 percent we saw last year. And AI CapEx sits at the center of this U.S. outlook. It includes data centers, power infrastructure, information processing equipment, software. Over time, we think this investment momentum is part of what allows a broadening out of business investment beyond AI. That said, the energy shock has triggered global inflation. We're looking for global headline inflation to rise notably almost to 3 percent in 2026 before coming back off in 2027. But while oil and gas prices are pushing headline inflation higher, the pass-through to core, depending on the economy, seems to remain mostly limited. By 2027, we look for those effects to fade. And combined with somewhat...]]>331alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1642fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-to-expect-from-the-u-s-china-summit--75645006insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about expectations heading into the U.S.-China summit this week and what investors should be watching. It's Wednesday, May 13h at 11am in Copenhagen. Despite the importance of the upcoming summit, we think expectations for tangible progress should remain relatively modest. Reporting ahead of the meeting indicates that the discussions will focus on trade, Taiwan arms sales, and the U.S.-Iran conflict. Across the board, our base case remains an extension of the current truce with limited areas of relaxation. That's probably enough to support modest upside for risk assets in China, but likely short of the kind of breakthrough needed for a material re-rating in risk premia. Let's start with trade. We think the discussion here is likely to skew toward phase one style commitments rather than structural policy shifts. That could include additional Chinese purchases in sectors like agriculture and aerospace, or things like high-level trade and investment pledges. Or even limited tariff relief in key areas designed to demonstrate cooperation but without fundamentally changing the competitive dynamic between the two countries. What we don't expect is a meaningful unilateral tariff reduction from the U.S. side heading into the summit. Remember, China still faces an effective tariff rate of around 30 percent, and it benefited the most of all our trading partners when the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs earlier this year. As we noted at the time, that lowered its effective rate by roughly 7 percentage points. Secondly, we think the administration continues to view higher tariff levels on China versus other trading partners as a strategic imperative. Said differently, the administration appears committed to maintaining some degree of structural separation between China and other trading allies like Europe, Japan, and South Korea. We think that means a large-scale tariff reset is unlikely in the wake of the summit or in the lead up. On Taiwan, we also see limited room for meaningful policy change. President Trump has publicly referenced Taiwan arms sales in recent comments, but we think a major concession from China would be needed for a meaningful departure from many years of U.S. policy precedent. The third issue on the agenda is the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz. Reopening the strait is likely the area of greatest uncertainty heading into the summit. The extent to which the U.S. will ask for China's help on this front and whether or not that request will be granted remains a key unknown. But there's also a technology dimension here worth watching closely. While public reporting indicates that export controls are likely not formally part of the talks, we see a possibility that the discussion could occur, in particular in the context of rare earth relaxations from China's side. Concessions on rare earth controls likely require some corresponding U.S. flexibility on advanced semiconductor exports, given the chips for rare earths equilibrium that we think underpins the strategic bilateral relationship. We think that's largely what's disincentivized both sides from escalating in recent months. So, what should markets watch most closely? Aside from tangible trade arrangements or a formal extension of the truce, we think the tone will be crucial. Language around technology cooperation or an agreement to continue negotiating will be critical in assessing how both sides plan on managing the relationship moving forward. Remember, this event is one of several potential meetings this year, so symbolic commitments toward broader structural concessions in the future could matter. For now, we think the most likely outcome is continued stabilization rather than a transformational reset. That's still constructive for markets at the margin, but probably not enough to eliminate the geopolitical overhang that continues to shape investor positioning globally.Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/dY7l_QK89yCtoBCEr2Mj-jxSzvbwK0yzBO9Au1CSdtIWed, 13 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore goes through the main topics on the table during the meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi: Taiwan, tariffs and the Iran conflict.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, I'll be talking about expectations heading into the U.S.-China summit this week and what investors should be watching. It's Wednesday, May 13h at 11am in Copenhagen. Despite the importance of the upcoming summit, we think expectations for tangible progress should remain relatively modest. Reporting ahead of the meeting indicates that the discussions will focus on trade, Taiwan arms sales, and the U.S.-Iran conflict. Across the board, our base case remains an extension of the current truce with limited areas of relaxation. That's probably enough to support modest upside for risk assets in China, but likely short of the kind of breakthrough needed for a material re-rating in risk premia. Let's start with trade. We think the discussion here is likely to skew toward phase one style commitments rather than structural policy shifts. That could include additional Chinese purchases in sectors like agriculture and aerospace, or things like high-level trade and investment pledges. Or even limited tariff relief in key areas designed to demonstrate cooperation but without fundamentally changing the competitive dynamic between the two countries. What we don't expect is a meaningful unilateral tariff reduction from the U.S. side heading into the summit. Remember, China still faces an effective tariff rate of around 30 percent, and it benefited the most of all our trading partners when the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs earlier this year. As we noted at the time, that lowered its effective rate by roughly 7 percentage points. Secondly, we think the administration continues to view higher tariff levels on China versus other trading partners as a strategic imperative. Said differently, the administration appears committed to maintaining some degree of structural separation between China and other trading allies like Europe, Japan, and South Korea. We think that means a large-scale tariff reset is unlikely in the wake of the summit or in the lead up. On Taiwan, we also see limited room for meaningful policy change. President Trump has publicly referenced Taiwan arms sales in recent comments, but we think a major concession from China would be needed for a meaningful departure from many years of U.S. policy precedent. The third issue on the agenda is the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz. Reopening the strait is likely the area of greatest uncertainty heading into the summit. The extent to which the U.S. will ask for China's help on this front and whether or not that request will be granted remains a key unknown. But there's also a technology dimension here worth watching closely. While public reporting indicates that export controls are likely not formally part of the talks, we see a possibility that the discussion could occur, in particular in the context of rare earth relaxations from China's side. Concessions on rare earth controls likely require some corresponding U.S. flexibility on advanced semiconductor exports, given the chips for rare earths equilibrium that we think underpins the strategic bilateral relationship. We think that's largely what's disincentivized both sides from escalating in recent months. So, what should markets watch most closely? Aside from tangible trade arrangements or a formal extension of the truce, we think the tone will be crucial. Language around technology cooperation or an agreement to continue negotiating will be critical in assessing how both sides plan on managing the...]]>261alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1641fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-your-body-data-could-reshape-sectors--75644944insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Erin Wright, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst. Today – the emergence of the self-directed patient and its implications. It’s Tuesday, May 12th at 10am in New York. A blood test ordered from your phone. A wearable that tracks your sleep or nudges you to move, recover, hydrate, or rethink last night’s dinner. Preventive health is moving out of the clinic and into everyday life. And that shift is becoming an investable theme. In essence, healthcare is moving from reactive to proactive. Instead of waiting for symptoms, more consumers are using lab tests, wearables, imaging, and digital tools to spot some these risks earlier. And this shift reaches well beyond healthcare. On our estimates, the U.S. spends about [$]3.4 trillion annually on chronic diseases, including lost economic productivity. About [$]1.4 trillion of 2024 spend was tied to preventable disease. So the big investment question is: can earlier detection and behavior change bend the cost curve? We think expanded preventive testing, screening, and monitoring can help avoid roughly [$]200 billion to [$]800 billion of U.S. healthcare spend by 2050. That assumes preventive testing reduces preventable disease costs by about 10% to 30% based on our analysis. Direct-to-consumer lab testing lets people order lab tests directly, often online, without starting with a traditional doctor visit. We see this as a roughly $4 billion U.S. market, which has more than doubled since 2021. And it’s no longer niche. Our AlphaWise survey found that about 34% of respondents completed a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years. Among users, the average was 3.2 tests, suggesting this is not just a one-time behavior. The most common test was a general health profile, used by about 45 percent of recent testers. Wearables are the other part of the story. Our survey found that 41 percent of respondents currently use a wearable or fitness device, while another 22 percent are interested in getting one. More importantly, people are acting on the data. 34 percent of wearable users today regularly change behaviors or decisions based on their device, and 52 percent even sometimes do so, based on our survey. That creates a feedback loop. A wearable might flag poor sleep. A lab test might show elevated glucose. A digital health tool might suggest changes to diet or exercise, or follow-up care. Over time, prevention starts to feel less like an annual event and more like a daily habit. The sector implications are broad. In healthcare, more testing may initially actually increase utilization as people follow up on results. But over time, earlier detection could obviously support lower-cost of care and better chronic disease management. That also aligns with value-based care, where providers and payers are rewarded for better outcomes and lower total costs, not just simply more services. In consumer sectors, better health tracking could shape food choices, reduce demand for some indulgent categories, and support products tied to hydration, lower sugar, protein, and functional benefits. Fitness may also benefit as gyms evolve from just workout destinations into broader wellness platforms, with recovery and coaching, and preventive health services layered in. Imaging is another emerging area, as screening shifts from reactive diagnostics toward earlier disease detection. Of course, there is some risk that these health tracking and consumer-driven diagnostics trends could still prove to be a wellness craze rather than the new normal. Out-of-pocket costs, privacy concerns, inconsistent interpretations, and limited repeat testing are all real issues. But consumers are clearly taking more control of their health and increasingly asking, “What can I learn before I get sick?” Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VbUqFXPJDkt0qaZTxrH17y-jb2GXN-Hp2H0jX1cm_RcTue, 12 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Healthcare Analyst Erin Wright discusses how health tracking and preventive diagnostics could influence healthcare costs and different industries, from fitness to retail.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Erin Wright, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst. Today – the emergence of the self-directed patient and its implications. It’s Tuesday, May 12th at 10am in New York. A blood test ordered from your phone. A wearable that tracks your sleep or nudges you to move, recover, hydrate, or rethink last night’s dinner. Preventive health is moving out of the clinic and into everyday life. And that shift is becoming an investable theme. In essence, healthcare is moving from reactive to proactive. Instead of waiting for symptoms, more consumers are using lab tests, wearables, imaging, and digital tools to spot some these risks earlier. And this shift reaches well beyond healthcare. On our estimates, the U.S. spends about [$]3.4 trillion annually on chronic diseases, including lost economic productivity. About [$]1.4 trillion of 2024 spend was tied to preventable disease. So the big investment question is: can earlier detection and behavior change bend the cost curve? We think expanded preventive testing, screening, and monitoring can help avoid roughly [$]200 billion to [$]800 billion of U.S. healthcare spend by 2050. That assumes preventive testing reduces preventable disease costs by about 10% to 30% based on our analysis. Direct-to-consumer lab testing lets people order lab tests directly, often online, without starting with a traditional doctor visit. We see this as a roughly $4 billion U.S. market, which has more than doubled since 2021. And it’s no longer niche. Our AlphaWise survey found that about 34% of respondents completed a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years. Among users, the average was 3.2 tests, suggesting this is not just a one-time behavior. The most common test was a general health profile, used by about 45 percent of recent testers. Wearables are the other part of the story. Our survey found that 41 percent of respondents currently use a wearable or fitness device, while another 22 percent are interested in getting one. More importantly, people are acting on the data. 34 percent of wearable users today regularly change behaviors or decisions based on their device, and 52 percent even sometimes do so, based on our survey. That creates a feedback loop. A wearable might flag poor sleep. A lab test might show elevated glucose. A digital health tool might suggest changes to diet or exercise, or follow-up care. Over time, prevention starts to feel less like an annual event and more like a daily habit. The sector implications are broad. In healthcare, more testing may initially actually increase utilization as people follow up on results. But over time, earlier detection could obviously support lower-cost of care and better chronic disease management. That also aligns with value-based care, where providers and payers are rewarded for better outcomes and lower total costs, not just simply more services. In consumer sectors, better health tracking could shape food choices, reduce demand for some indulgent categories, and support products tied to hydration, lower sugar, protein, and functional benefits. Fitness may also benefit as gyms evolve from just workout destinations into broader wellness platforms, with recovery and coaching, and preventive health services layered in. Imaging is another emerging area, as screening shifts from reactive diagnostics toward earlier disease detection. Of course, there is some risk that these health tracking and consumer-driven diagnostics trends could still prove to be a wellness craze rather than the new normal. Out-of-pocket costs, privacy concerns,...]]>310alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1640fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-ai-funding-is-so-price-insensitive--75644952insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, a uniquely price insensitive development.It's Monday, May 11th at 2pm in London.Elasticity is one of the first concepts that they teach in economics, and for good reason.It's the idea that our sensitivity to the price of something differs from item to item. If the price of pizza goes up, for example, you may decide to go out for burgers. But if the price for something essential, like electricity, or deeply desired, like tickets to see your favorite artist perform; well, if those go up a lot, you're probably going to complain, but also end up paying anyway.This latter category is what we would call inelastic. The demand for these items holds up even as the price increases, and maybe if the price increases quite a bit. And that is becoming very relevant as we all debate the AI build-out.It's not an exaggeration that the investment in AI, chips, power, and datacenters is at the center of many market conversations. It's supporting U.S. growth despite a sharp slowdown in job creation. It's supporting stock market earnings, even as uncertainty over the Iran conflict continues to percolate.Part of this importance is just the sheer size of this build-out. We estimate about $800 billion of investment by large U.S. technology companies this year, almost double their spending last year and triple their spending in 2024. But it's not just the size, it's the idea that this investment may happen almost whatever the cost.Specifically, we're looking at a desire by multiple large companies to build out large AI infrastructure all at the same time, and that's increased the price of these components. The copper needed to wire together that data center? Well, it's up about 40 percent in the last year. A gas turbine to power it? Up 50 percent. The memory to run it? It's up 150 to 300 percent over the last year alone. And yet, despite these extremely large price increases, the demand to build in AI has been accelerating.Our forecasts for 2026 spending have been consistently revised higher. And that $800 billion that we think is spent this year is set to be dwarfed by $1.1 trillion of estimated spending in 2027, based on the view of my Morgan Stanley colleagues.This idea of inelasticity or price insensitivity extends even to the costs of financing the spending. Debt costs for these companies have increased this year, and yet they continue to issue at a record pace.A quick aside as to why all this spending may be price insensitive or inelastic. AI is seen by these companies as, without exaggeration, maybe the most important technology in a decade. These companies have financial resources and the patience to wait it out, and they see gains to those who can figure out AI technology, even if the winner is not yet clear.The inelastic nature of the AI theme is a classic good news, bad news story. To the positive, it suggests real commitment to this technology and that spending won't easily be shaken by outside events. That should help buttress overall growth and should also support earnings this year – a core view of Mike Wilson and our U.S. equity strategy team.But there are also risks. It remains to be seen what returns can be generated from all of this historic investment. Robust demand for items, even as their price goes up, may cause those prices to increase even further. That's inflation happening at a time when core inflation measures are already well above the Federal Reserve's target. And if companies are less sensitive to the cost of their borrowing to fund AI, well, other companies could find their cost dragged wider in sympathy.We continue to expect record supply and modest widening in the U.S. corporate bond market.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/P4CxxmIbiVqKdHPoeOZzbhg17BmsoBggljZge0up_j8Mon, 11 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains the economic theory behind the unwavering spending on AI infrastructure.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, a uniquely price insensitive development.It's Monday, May 11th at 2pm in London.Elasticity is one of the first concepts that they teach in economics, and for good reason.It's the idea that our sensitivity to the price of something differs from item to item. If the price of pizza goes up, for example, you may decide to go out for burgers. But if the price for something essential, like electricity, or deeply desired, like tickets to see your favorite artist perform; well, if those go up a lot, you're probably going to complain, but also end up paying anyway.This latter category is what we would call inelastic. The demand for these items holds up even as the price increases, and maybe if the price increases quite a bit. And that is becoming very relevant as we all debate the AI build-out.It's not an exaggeration that the investment in AI, chips, power, and datacenters is at the center of many market conversations. It's supporting U.S. growth despite a sharp slowdown in job creation. It's supporting stock market earnings, even as uncertainty over the Iran conflict continues to percolate.Part of this importance is just the sheer size of this build-out. We estimate about $800 billion of investment by large U.S. technology companies this year, almost double their spending last year and triple their spending in 2024. But it's not just the size, it's the idea that this investment may happen almost whatever the cost.Specifically, we're looking at a desire by multiple large companies to build out large AI infrastructure all at the same time, and that's increased the price of these components. The copper needed to wire together that data center? Well, it's up about 40 percent in the last year. A gas turbine to power it? Up 50 percent. The memory to run it? It's up 150 to 300 percent over the last year alone. And yet, despite these extremely large price increases, the demand to build in AI has been accelerating.Our forecasts for 2026 spending have been consistently revised higher. And that $800 billion that we think is spent this year is set to be dwarfed by $1.1 trillion of estimated spending in 2027, based on the view of my Morgan Stanley colleagues.This idea of inelasticity or price insensitivity extends even to the costs of financing the spending. Debt costs for these companies have increased this year, and yet they continue to issue at a record pace.A quick aside as to why all this spending may be price insensitive or inelastic. AI is seen by these companies as, without exaggeration, maybe the most important technology in a decade. These companies have financial resources and the patience to wait it out, and they see gains to those who can figure out AI technology, even if the winner is not yet clear.The inelastic nature of the AI theme is a classic good news, bad news story. To the positive, it suggests real commitment to this technology and that spending won't easily be shaken by outside events. That should help buttress overall growth and should also support earnings this year – a core view of Mike Wilson and our U.S. equity strategy team.But there are also risks. It remains to be seen what returns can be generated from all of this historic investment. Robust demand for items, even as their price goes up, may cause those prices to increase even further. That's inflation happening at a time when core inflation measures are already well above the Federal Reserve's target. And if companies are less sensitive to the cost of their borrowing to fund AI, well, other companies...]]>276alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1639fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-new-playbook-for-real-estate-net-lease-investing--75645016insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, Head of U.S. REITs and Commercial Real Estate Research. Hank D'Alessandro: And I'm Hank D’Alessandro, Managing Director on Morgan Stanley's Real Estate Investing Team and Vice Chairman of Private Credit. Ron Kamdem: Today: a part of real estate that's changing fast and drawing fresh attention from investors. Net lease investing. It's Friday, May 8th at 10am in New York. You might not think you invest in net leases. But there's a good chance you do, especially if you have money in a pension fund or another income generating vehicle. Net leases are the kinds of long-term lease assets that can help generate steady, predictable income. They are no longer a sleepy corner of the real estate market. In fact, they're changing in some really interesting ways. Ron Kamdem: So, Hank, for listeners who know the term but may not know the structure, what exactly is net lease investing? And why does it tend to come up more often when markets get more uncertain? Hank D'Alessandro:   At a high level, net lease investing is typically associated with long-term leases that can offer durable income streams; typically growing streams, which is why it's often seen as a more defensive part of real estate investing. We see that when investors are thinking more carefully about geopolitical risks, market volatility or say portfolio resilience, this durable cash flow derived from mission critical assets and long lease durations with fixed annual rent bumps can become especially attractive to investors. Also, with higher inflation likely, net leases are generally insulated from increases in expenses given these are the responsibility of tenants. But what's important today is the net lease is broader than many people realize, both in terms of the property types involved and the range of investors participating in the space. Ron Kamdem:   Let's stay on that idea of a broader market for a moment, because one of the biggest shifts has been the growing role of private capital in the space. What are you seeing there and why does it matter? Hank D'Alessandro: Well, listen, Ron, there's no question. The role of private capital has grown substantially, including through joint ventures and public real estate vehicles. That matters because it tells you that the sector is attracting a wider range of investors than it has in the past, such as pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds. And retail investors are increasingly investing either through traditional locked up funds or through semi-liquid funds. But it can also change the competitive landscape and can influence how capital gets allocated across the opportunity set. Thus, one's approach going forward from an analysis perspective will need to evolve. More broadly, it's a sign that net lease is being viewed as highly relevant in today's market, not just as a legacy category within real estate. Ron Kamdem: And that's an important distinction that you make right there, because not all investors are approaching these assets the same way. So, when private capital comes into the space, what separates their underwriting approach from another? And we hear all the time about private credit. How does that play into this? Hank D'Alessandro: Well, Ron, you know, as we discussed previously, the competitive landscape is changing and therefore underwriting is absolutely critical in this part of the cycle. And so, we believe underwriting both tenant credit, of course, is very important. But we equally analyze the real estate underwriting because we believe that real estate can be a real differentiator over time – both in terms of returns and risk profile. We think that strong real estate underwriting with strong tenant credit underwriting, both enhances returns over time and reduces risks. So, therefore, that matters a lot. We also believe that by focusing equally on the real estate underwriting, you get a fuller picture of the risk and value, especially as net lease expands into newer property types. It is an easy nuance to miss, but we believe this distinction is becoming much more important differentiator in how investors assess opportunities in the sector today. And I believe that the most successful managers will do a good job underwriting both tenant credit and real estate.So, Ron, for a long time, many investors thought of net lease primarily as a retail story. How much has that changed? Ron Kamdem: Well, that's changed quite a bit. If I take you back 20 to 30 years ago when you thought of net lease, you thought of a convenience store that's, you know, 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. But today, that opportunity has expanded well beyond retail and there's much more attention now on industrial assets. And even increasing discussions around areas like data centers. I'll give you an example. Realty income made its entry into the data center vertical in November 2023 with a $200 million build to suit JV. That shift matters because it shows net lease evolving alongside where demand and capital are moving. It also means the sector is becoming more connected to larger structural trends in the economy, rather than being viewed through one traditional lens. At the same time as the mix broadened, investors have to be selective because not every new category will have the same long-term profile that we're used to.So, as investors look at some of these newer areas, where do you see the best opportunities, Hank? And where would you be more cautious? Hank D'Alessandro:  So first, opportunities. The industrial segment has clearly become a major area of focus. This sector benefits from growing e-commerce penetration fueled by AI, reshoring of manufacturing, and increased defense spending. The ability to acquire mission critical distribution centers in top tier logistics markets or advanced manufacturing assets in innovation clusters is particularly appealing in today's macro backdrop. Another area that we find very compelling is medical outpatient buildings where the aging demographics can support long-term demand. So, we have great conviction on both of those. Now, turning to area where we're more cautious. There's been a lot of attention on data centers, you know, as you previously mentioned. But that's an area where investors really need to think carefully about long-term durability. Questions around obsolescence, technological change and whether certain assets fit a true buy and hold strategy are very relevant and need to be considered carefully by investors. So, maybe to sum up, the opportunity set is definitely broadening, but selectivity in terms of location, asset type and asset specifications remain essential. So, Ron, the idea of linking property types back to long-term trends feels especially important right now. How do you connect this conversation to the key secular themes Morgan Stanley research is tracking this year. AI and tech diffusion. The future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal impacts. And can you offer a few examples? Ron Kamdem:   There's a couple ways that net lease connects to these broader themes. The first, which is probably the most obvious, is technology diffusion and the future of energy comes through in areas such as datacenters, and that's been a key focus for public investors. When you think about societal change – that's relevant for sectors tied to demographics like medical outpatient buildings, where you know people go get different services. And multipolar world theme matters because deglobalization and geopolitical fragmentation. Or influencing how investors think about resilience, location, and portfolio construction, which is driving incremental demand for industrial real estate linked to supply chain shifts and defense spending. So, this is no longer just a sector evolving on its own, it's becoming more closely tied to these macro issues, shaping investment decisions more broadly. And once you widen the lens to that macro backdrop, the conversation naturally becomes more global. In fact, we saw realty income now generates 19 percent of rents across nine European countries with more than $15 billion invested since 2019. Given this, Hank, how should investors think about net lease and adjacent opportunities outside of the U.S.? Hank D'Alessandro:   The global angle is clearly becoming more relevant. There's growing interest in Europe and the U.K. And one area that comes to mind in this context is retail parks, where rents have reset, yields are wider, and tenant resilience has improved. Thinking more broadly, international markets can give investors a wider set of ways to think about real estate opportunities tied to the same themes that we've discussed. And add to diversification, as macro drivers continue to diverge and geopolitical risks remain elevated. Even when structures or sector exposures differ from the U.S., which undoubtedly they will, the bigger point is that investors are increasingly valuing opportunities through a global lens. Ron Kamdem: So, if we pull all this together, what looks like a simple-income oriented category is actually becoming much more nuanced. As we wrap up, Hank, what's the main message you want investors to take away about net lease today? Hank D'Alessandro: You know, I believe the main takeaway is that net lease remains relevant because of its defensive qualities, and predictable contractual cash flows derived from long-term leases. But the story is becoming more nuanced, requiring a granular focus on the credit, and importantly, the underlying real estate. With real estate values down 20 to 25 percent from peak levels,]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8XFHzjq_EVacF8MYa-2TBngyo2scmjS0gUuJZZnIATAFri, 08 May 2026 18:00:00 +0000gtyAs real estate values reset and cap rates widen, net lease is back in focus—but the approach has changed. Ron Kamdem and Hank D’Alessandro explain.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, Head of U.S. REITs and Commercial Real Estate Research. Hank D'Alessandro: And I'm Hank D’Alessandro, Managing Director on Morgan Stanley's Real Estate Investing Team and Vice Chairman of Private Credit. Ron Kamdem: Today: a part of real estate that's changing fast and drawing fresh attention from investors. Net lease investing. It's Friday, May 8th at 10am in New York. You might not think you invest in net leases. But there's a good chance you do, especially if you have money in a pension fund or another income generating vehicle. Net leases are the kinds of long-term lease assets that can help generate steady, predictable income. They are no longer a sleepy corner of the real estate market. In fact, they're changing in some really interesting ways. Ron Kamdem: So, Hank, for listeners who know the term but may not know the structure, what exactly is net lease investing? And why does it tend to come up more often when markets get more uncertain? Hank D'Alessandro:   At a high level, net lease investing is typically associated with long-term leases that can offer durable income streams; typically growing streams, which is why it's often seen as a more defensive part of real estate investing. We see that when investors are thinking more carefully about geopolitical risks, market volatility or say portfolio resilience, this durable cash flow derived from mission critical assets and long lease durations with fixed annual rent bumps can become especially attractive to investors. Also, with higher inflation likely, net leases are generally insulated from increases in expenses given these are the responsibility of tenants. But what's important today is the net lease is broader than many people realize, both in terms of the property types involved and the range of investors participating in the space. Ron Kamdem:   Let's stay on that idea of a broader market for a moment, because one of the biggest shifts has been the growing role of private capital in the space. What are you seeing there and why does it matter? Hank D'Alessandro: Well, listen, Ron, there's no question. The role of private capital has grown substantially, including through joint ventures and public real estate vehicles. That matters because it tells you that the sector is attracting a wider range of investors than it has in the past, such as pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds. And retail investors are increasingly investing either through traditional locked up funds or through semi-liquid funds. But it can also change the competitive landscape and can influence how capital gets allocated across the opportunity set. Thus, one's approach going forward from an analysis perspective will need to evolve. More broadly, it's a sign that net lease is being viewed as highly relevant in today's market, not just as a legacy category within real estate. Ron Kamdem: And that's an important distinction that you make right there, because not all investors are approaching these assets the same way. So, when private capital comes into the space, what separates their underwriting approach from another? And we hear all the time about private credit. How does that play into this? Hank D'Alessandro: Well, Ron, you know, as we discussed previously, the competitive landscape is changing and therefore underwriting is absolutely critical in this part of the cycle. And so, we believe underwriting both tenant credit, of course, is very important. But we equally analyze the real estate underwriting because we believe that real estate can be a real differentiator over...]]>697alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1638fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-ai-s-next-big-leap--75645005insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom.We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it’s easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird.It’s Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York.The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement.That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen’s bull case for broader AI model improvements.Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you’ve been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we’re going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring.Stephen Byrd: Yes.Tom Wigg: There’s been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications?Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I’m not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we’ve been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law.And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I’ve talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we’re going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it’s also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can’t sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses.I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune.But essentially from here, Tom, I’d say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs.This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world.Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we’re seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I’m getting more recently is around what’s the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been pretty bearish year-to-date, force a cut on CapEx? So, maybe if you can marry that with what you’re picking up on the ground in terms of compute spend and whether the frenzy still continues, you know, versus the ROI? And, like, what could happen?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. The short answer – I’m going to go through detail – is I think the bullishness is going to get more bullish over the coming months. And let me walk you through a couple of the mathematics and then just what I’m seeing on the ground to your point, Tom.So the mathematics. We have a token economics model that looks from the perspective of a hyperscaler or an LLM developer in terms of – if they sell their token at a certain price and you fully load the cost of a data center and all associated costs, financing, you name it – in what are the returns? And the bottom line is the returns are excellent.The other element we spend a lot of work on, and you and I talk a lot about, is the demand for compute. In this world where the LLMs are increasing in capability and the token usage goes way up with agentic AI, video world models, all that stuff, we think that there is a massive shortage of compute. So, if you’re lucky enough to be a hyperscaler with the compute, with the power, we think that they will have a lot of pricing power on the tokens.Let me explain why we see price power on the tokens. Now I’m going to flip to the perspective of an adopter. Let me give you just rough mathematics. There was a study last year from one of the big labs showing that on average, an enterprise user using an LLM might be able to replace work that would take about one and a half hours from a human. That would save about $55 of cost. A million tokens, depends on whether you’re looking at input or output – but let’s just call it $5 for a million tokens.The average usage case today for a fairly complex agentic task in an enterprise setting is in the tens of thousands of tokens. Okay? So let’s just do that math again. $55 of savings. A million tokens cost $5, and a typical agentic usage is far less than the million tokens today, though that will accelerate. The economics are a home run for adopters.So, we’re in a situation where compute is very scarce. I see pricing power all over the place for those who have the compute and have the power.Tom Wigg: So, when you put it like that, Stephen, it seems so inevitable and obvious. But I wonder why the hyperscalers are trading the way they are? And when do they see the revenue inflection you’re talking about? Is this like a stay tuned kinda 2026 event? Is this something we have to wait for for 2027-2028?Like, how do you think this flows through to the extent that the market will get more comfortable that all this free cash flow pressure is worth it on the other side?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. This is, in short, I think this is a 2026 event. But let me dive into that because what you just asked is so important for so many stocks.So, let’s talk through this. The capabilities of the models are advancing so fast that the average corporate user is not yet keeping up. There is this gap. But that will happen quickly, and we’re seeing signs from these labs of revenue at the lab level that is accelerating. So that’s a good sign.What we’re seeing, though, among fast adopters is those adopters who really understand the capabilities are quickly realizing just how economically beneficial there is. An example, one of my best friends founded a software company many years ago. Last month was – that was the last month in which his programmers wrote code. They’re done with writing code.The efficiency benefits for his business are absolutely massive. But he feels like he’s just scratching the surface, and he’s about as technically capable as anyone I know. He has two PhDs in the subject matter. He’s very, very good.So long way to say that we’re living in almost two worlds where the fast adopters will show what’s possible. The average utilization for enterprises will still take some time. But I do think that the market will react to what they see from the fast adopters in the sense of – the tangible economic benefits are so big.Now, on the ground, what I’m seeing on the infrastructure side, my friends in power tell me that a couple months ago is when they saw the sense of urgency from the AI community go up a couple of notches for them to get the infrastructure they need. So they saw this explosion in compute coming. In the last two months, the weekly usage of tokens according to OpenRadar is up a couple hundred percent in a couple months.So, I do think we’re seeing this. So, this is; it’s happening quickly. What I would say is the market will have these signposts in every industry of early adopters showing this benefit. I think that’s enough for us to start to get bullish. We also… I just think when you look at the demand for compute, the compute numbers need to go up. And with that, you know, everything in the AI value chain, infrastructure value chain, the volumes need to go up.Tom Wigg: One bear case that I wanted to interrogate was – there’s one view that, yes, there’s a token explosion right now. But it’s because the first use case is coding. Which is inherently, you know, very developer-friendly and token-intensive relative to other knowledge work.Can you talk about, you know, whether you subscribe to that? Or whether the token intensity will be as high or lower as this expands to other areas of knowledge work in the next several years?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it’s a great question. The short version is that, yes, it’s true that software usage is more token intensive. However, what we’re going to be seeing – we’re starting to see it – is in almost every knowledge-based job, we’re going to move to agentic AI. And when we do that, you tend to see an explosion in compute.Let me walk you through the numbers. There are a couple studies that show essentially when you go from a query-based usage of LLMs to an agen]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/euGaESBOlAN9tmWJawdRjG-3z4cZq4cQG2BJAbQgp9EThu, 07 May 2026 22:30:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: April 28, 2026Tom Wigg and Stephen Byrd discuss the accelerating pace of AI breakthroughs, the forces driving them and why the next phase of development may look very different from anything we’ve seen so far.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom.We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it’s easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird.It’s Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York.The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement.That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen’s bull case for broader AI model improvements.Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you’ve been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we’re going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring.Stephen Byrd: Yes.Tom Wigg: There’s been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications?Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I’m not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we’ve been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law.And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I’ve talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we’re going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it’s also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can’t sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses.I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune.But essentially from here, Tom, I’d say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs.This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world.Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we’re seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I’m getting more recently is around what’s the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action...]]>624alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1637fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-long-can-markets-ignore-the-oil-supply-shock--75645045insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today: oil, oil inventories, and the price at the pump.It's Wednesday, May 6th, at 2pm in London.Martijn, it's great to talk to you. We remain in this very unique market where on the one hand, the energy market is severely disrupted. On the other hand, we're making new all-time highs in the stock market. And part of this debate is a creeping sense that maybe the energy market is just a lot more resilient than many people initially thought.So, let's just jump right into it. As you look at the current state of the world, the state of things, how are you seeing the energy market at the moment?Martijn Rats: There are definitely two views in the market. I would say commodity specialists, oil traders, people that trade oil and gas equities for a living, tend to focus on the size of the supply shock. And it is neither hyperbole nor disputed that the size of the supply shock is the largest in the history of the oil market. We have the statistical data to back that up. That is not a controversial statement.But at the same time, the other view in the market, generally held by your generalist investors who invest across many markets. They tend to focus on the likelihood or possibility that this supply shock might also be uniquely short. It was there all of a sudden, from one day to the next, the strait was closed. It felt a bit man-made, so to say. It was an outcome of a political decision, and that can also be undecided. And so, this is – the to-ing and fro-ing in the market is; on the one hand, this shock is very, very large. But the other hand it may also be very, very short.Now we went into this supply shock, arguably well-prepared. In the sense that during the course of like late 2024, all of 2025, and the very early part of 2026, we were telling a story of oversupply surplus. And on top of that, given the military buildup was going on in January and February, a lot of countries in the Arabian Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait – visibly put out a lot of oil at sea.So, in the oversupply of 2025, we put oil in storage in lots of places that we can't always see. But that seems very likely. Oil in the water was very, very high. So, we have been living off these buffers, and that has helped. And then, yeah, at any point in time, there were good enough reasons to assume that on a timeframe of a couple of weeks, this would largely be resolved. We would eat into these buffers, draw some inventory.And it has been hard for the market then to really capitalize the size of the supply shock and say, "Yeah, really oil prices need to spike very, very high." And in that sense, we’re left with this significant supply shock, but we haven't taken out the highs that we saw in 2022, for example.Andrew Sheets: So maybe a way to think about this, right, is that if we imagined all of that oil as sitting in a big tank. We've kind of stopped a lot of the flow into the top of the tank as the Strait of Hormuz has remained closed. But oil's still able to drain out of the bottom, kind of, like normal because that tank is being drained. Those inventories have been drawn down. Maybe that's a quite a crude analogy, to forgive the pun.But how long can that last? I mean, if we think about these inventories, if we think about the speed of which they're being drawn down; and I think that's an important point that you mentioned, that these inventories were unusually high going in. But they're obviously not unlimited.Where does that stand? And I guess, you know, what is the limit of that? How long can those inventory draws last?Martijn Rats: Yeah, yeah. To say that this is the billion-dollar question would be understating it, Andrew. It's also a unusually complicated question to answer in the sense that it depends very heavily on the region, on the product that you're looking at. Jet fuel in Europe, NAFTA in Asia, you might see something sooner. But other products in other regions, you know, might take longer.We often don't really know where the operational limitations of inventories are. Globally, we see something like 8 billion barrels of oil in some form of storage. That is an enormous amount. We can't draw that down to zero because a lot of that is there for operational, like working capital type reasons. Just to facilitate the operations of the industry. Is the floor seven? Is the floor six? These things are hard to answer.Andrew Sheets: You’ve got to have some oil in the pipeline to make the pipeline flow…Martijn Rats: Exactly, exactly. You can't operate a refinery if you don't have at least some storage right next to it. It just doesn't work. So, these things are hard to know. But I would say that we are eating through these buffers very, very re-rapidly now. Oil on water has largely normalized and is no longer elevated.We are seeing very large inventory draws across every data point that we have on refined products. Refined products are universally drawing. On crude, the data is more patchy. But we are seeing large inventory draws now coming through in the United States. I would say – and this is partly having worked with this data for a long time and sort of developing some market feel rather than very analytical spreadsheets, so to say. But I would say that if the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz does not resume on the sort of next four to six weeks, we will get very, very tight by June, early summer.And, well, look, I mean, from there, it's simply… You know, if you then were to forecast. You know, project forward from there on. It would be getting tight by August, September. But of course, that's done under the assumption that the flow remains impaired over that period, which I would say most market participants would not assume at the moment.Andrew Sheets: And another point that comes up sometimes, at least in my conversations, is, ‘Oh, but, you know, maybe Venezuelan oil is going to be coming online.’ There's more investment. The U.S. seems very focused on increasing oil output in Venezuela. You know, can that match in any sense the scale of what we've had disrupted here?Martijn Rats: No, that is a complicated issue in the sense that, you know, growing oil production takes time. It takes capital, it takes equipment, it takes a lot of people. Venezuela at the moment, produces a bit more than a million barrels a day. I'd have to say, like, relative to the size of Venezuela's production, the last two monthly data points have actually come in better than expected. But you're talking about 100,000 barrels a day, 200,000 barrels a day, that sort of thing. Relative to a supply shock that is 13-14 million barrels a day.The fastest ever single amount of production growth of any country in any year was 2018. U.S. shale with natural gas liquids included grew 2 million barrels a day in a single year. But yeah, even that…Andrew Sheets: So, 2 million barrels relative to 14 million barrels lost is…Martijn Rats: Yeah, exactly.Andrew Sheets A drop in the bucket. Martijn Rats: And that had a huge run-up of several years of putting the infrastructure in place to do that. I mean, it…. You don't turn it on a dime either. So no, that remains difficult.Andrew Sheets: So, you know, maybe a dynamic to close with is actually another way that I think people care about the oil price, you know, besides their portfolio – which is they drive.And, you know, you had a great stat in your report that one out of every 11 barrels of oil that's produced ends up in an American car. And the U.S. is a big producer. Its inventories have been drawing down. There are clear signs that the U.S. is exporting a lot of energy, and as a result, gas prices are also going up in the U.S.So, you know, what… If you could just talk a little bit about the move in gasoline and maybe, you know, I think this could be a good segue into this idea of distillates into, kind of, parts of refined product. And how those prices can deviate or not from the barrel of oil we often talk about. And then even just more generally, kind of what is the price at the pump that people might need to think about as you head into the summer – assuming, you know, this conflict is still somewhat uncertain.Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, the United States is very interesting at the moment. In the sense that the regular discourse about the United States is that the United States is energy independent because it is a net oil producer. And at the most aggregate level, that is correct. But that doesn't mean that the United States is not connected to the rest of the world from an oil market perspective. I would say actually it's the opposite.The U.S. oil market is deeply connected to the rest of the world. It is a net exporter because there are very large imports, and there are very large exports, and it just happens so that the exports are a little bit bigger than the imports. So, it's a net exporter.But flows in both directions exist for every product – for crude, for diesel, for gasoline. So, the U.S. should be the last place to have physical disruptions because the supply is close to home. But in the end, it's so connected; that in the end, there's only one global oil price – and we all pay it, including in the United States.Now, because of the deficits at the moment, in Asia, to [an] extent in Europe, there is a very large pool on oil from the United States, and]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RjbV-gTpJbkDX4E2IHDe4khz5YVKbmgFhyhmCw7zypIWed, 06 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyDespite the historical energy disruption from the Iran conflict, stocks are back to record highs. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and our Head of Commodity Research Martijn Rats discuss different views and fundamentals driving...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today: oil, oil inventories, and the price at the pump.It's Wednesday, May 6th, at 2pm in London.Martijn, it's great to talk to you. We remain in this very unique market where on the one hand, the energy market is severely disrupted. On the other hand, we're making new all-time highs in the stock market. And part of this debate is a creeping sense that maybe the energy market is just a lot more resilient than many people initially thought.So, let's just jump right into it. As you look at the current state of the world, the state of things, how are you seeing the energy market at the moment?Martijn Rats: There are definitely two views in the market. I would say commodity specialists, oil traders, people that trade oil and gas equities for a living, tend to focus on the size of the supply shock. And it is neither hyperbole nor disputed that the size of the supply shock is the largest in the history of the oil market. We have the statistical data to back that up. That is not a controversial statement.But at the same time, the other view in the market, generally held by your generalist investors who invest across many markets. They tend to focus on the likelihood or possibility that this supply shock might also be uniquely short. It was there all of a sudden, from one day to the next, the strait was closed. It felt a bit man-made, so to say. It was an outcome of a political decision, and that can also be undecided. And so, this is – the to-ing and fro-ing in the market is; on the one hand, this shock is very, very large. But the other hand it may also be very, very short.Now we went into this supply shock, arguably well-prepared. In the sense that during the course of like late 2024, all of 2025, and the very early part of 2026, we were telling a story of oversupply surplus. And on top of that, given the military buildup was going on in January and February, a lot of countries in the Arabian Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait – visibly put out a lot of oil at sea.So, in the oversupply of 2025, we put oil in storage in lots of places that we can't always see. But that seems very likely. Oil in the water was very, very high. So, we have been living off these buffers, and that has helped. And then, yeah, at any point in time, there were good enough reasons to assume that on a timeframe of a couple of weeks, this would largely be resolved. We would eat into these buffers, draw some inventory.And it has been hard for the market then to really capitalize the size of the supply shock and say, "Yeah, really oil prices need to spike very, very high." And in that sense, we’re left with this significant supply shock, but we haven't taken out the highs that we saw in 2022, for example.Andrew Sheets: So maybe a way to think about this, right, is that if we imagined all of that oil as sitting in a big tank. We've kind of stopped a lot of the flow into the top of the tank as the Strait of Hormuz has remained closed. But oil's still able to drain out of the bottom, kind of, like normal because that tank is being drained. Those inventories have been drawn down. Maybe that's a quite a crude analogy, to forgive the pun.But how long can that last? I mean, if we think about these inventories, if we think about the speed of which they're being drawn down; and I think that's an important...]]>735alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1636fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-s-shift-from-thinking-to-taking-action--75645036insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Europe and Asia Technology Team. Today: A foundational shift in the development of AI and its broad market implications. It’s Tuesday, May 5th, at 3pm in London. Think about the last time you asked a chatbot to write a summary or a draft. Or maybe answer a query. It was probably useful. But you were also still driving the interaction: asking, refining, copying, checking, and moving the work forward. Now imagine a system that does not just respond, but acts. It remembers what you asked last week, understands your preferences, works across digital tools, plans a workflow, and adapts as circumstances change. That is the shift from GenAI to agentic AI: from AI that helps with thinking to AI that helps with doing. GenAI is mostly passive. It takes a prompt and produces an answer. Agentic AI is active – less a copilot for one task but an autopilot for multi-step workflows. The distinction is key because computing requirements are changing. In GenAI, large language models and GPUs handle much of the thinking. GPUs, or graphics processing units, process many calculations in parallel, making them central to modern AI models. In agentic AI, CPU becomes more important. CPUs, or central processing units, coordinate tasks and connect systems to the broader digital infrastructure. Agentic AI also depends on three stacks: the brain, or the large language model; orchestration, where the CPU manages the doing; and knowledge, which is memory.Memory may be the most important layer. An agent that knows your preferences, documents, tone, and task history becomes more useful over time. That creates a context flywheel. The more context it collects, the more personalized it becomes, and the harder it is to leave. Typically, in computing, we think of memory as storage, mainly. We need to rethink this. Memory is also continuity. When an AI system can use past experiences, memory becomes a long-term state, shared knowledge, and behavioral grounding. And that matters because LLMs have fixed context windows. Once a conversation exceeds that window, older content falls off. For simple questions, that may be fine. But for a coding agent working across a large codebase over days or weeks, it is a major limitation. Serious work requires persistent memory, short-term orientation, and active retrieval – remembering prior decisions, understanding changed files, and finding relevant codes without the user pointing to every dependency. For investors, the implication is clear – agentic AI changes the bottlenecks. We see CPUs as the new bottleneck, with memory seeing the highest content increase. We estimate as much as 60 percent, or $60 billion of incremental CPU total addressable market by 2030, within a total CPU market of more than $100 billion. We also estimate up to 70 percent of incremental DRAM bit shipment tied to this theme. That makes us more positive on supply chains including memory, foundry, substrates, CPU and memory interface, and capacitors and CPU sockets. These areas benefit from content growth, pricing power, and capacity constraints into 2027. As AI moves from answering questions to taking actions, investors should watch the infrastructure behind the shift. Because in the agentic era, the next big AI leap may be less about the prompt, but more about the processor. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iwWBLLEUlPjmXsnnBjyqkaERpqN6ci0XnYXRWg9xG3oTue, 05 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Europe and Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim discusses AI’s move from passive chatbots to active agents—and how this influences tech supply chains.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Europe and Asia Technology Team. Today: A foundational shift in the development of AI and its broad market implications. It’s Tuesday, May 5th, at 3pm in London. Think about the last time you asked a chatbot to write a summary or a draft. Or maybe answer a query. It was probably useful. But you were also still driving the interaction: asking, refining, copying, checking, and moving the work forward. Now imagine a system that does not just respond, but acts. It remembers what you asked last week, understands your preferences, works across digital tools, plans a workflow, and adapts as circumstances change. That is the shift from GenAI to agentic AI: from AI that helps with thinking to AI that helps with doing. GenAI is mostly passive. It takes a prompt and produces an answer. Agentic AI is active – less a copilot for one task but an autopilot for multi-step workflows. The distinction is key because computing requirements are changing. In GenAI, large language models and GPUs handle much of the thinking. GPUs, or graphics processing units, process many calculations in parallel, making them central to modern AI models. In agentic AI, CPU becomes more important. CPUs, or central processing units, coordinate tasks and connect systems to the broader digital infrastructure. Agentic AI also depends on three stacks: the brain, or the large language model; orchestration, where the CPU manages the doing; and knowledge, which is memory.Memory may be the most important layer. An agent that knows your preferences, documents, tone, and task history becomes more useful over time. That creates a context flywheel. The more context it collects, the more personalized it becomes, and the harder it is to leave. Typically, in computing, we think of memory as storage, mainly. We need to rethink this. Memory is also continuity. When an AI system can use past experiences, memory becomes a long-term state, shared knowledge, and behavioral grounding. And that matters because LLMs have fixed context windows. Once a conversation exceeds that window, older content falls off. For simple questions, that may be fine. But for a coding agent working across a large codebase over days or weeks, it is a major limitation. Serious work requires persistent memory, short-term orientation, and active retrieval – remembering prior decisions, understanding changed files, and finding relevant codes without the user pointing to every dependency. For investors, the implication is clear – agentic AI changes the bottlenecks. We see CPUs as the new bottleneck, with memory seeing the highest content increase. We estimate as much as 60 percent, or $60 billion of incremental CPU total addressable market by 2030, within a total CPU market of more than $100 billion. We also estimate up to 70 percent of incremental DRAM bit shipment tied to this theme. That makes us more positive on supply chains including memory, foundry, substrates, CPU and memory interface, and capacitors and CPU sockets. These areas benefit from content growth, pricing power, and capacity constraints into 2027. As AI moves from answering questions to taking actions, investors should watch the infrastructure behind the shift. Because in the agentic era, the next big AI leap may be less about the prompt, but more about the processor. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>274alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1635fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/hard-lessons-rick-rieder--75645029Watch and listen on your favorite podcast platform.  ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7aiuupwqmLH78-Nq4gMounCRg0e5PKUrJZyI8W08D84Tue, 05 May 2026 11:00:00 +0000gtyIntroducing a recent episode of Hard Lessons, featuring Rick Rieder, BlackRock’s CIO for Global Fixed Income and Head of the Global Allocation Investment Team, in conversation with Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research at...Watch and listen on your favorite podcast platform.  ]]>89alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1630fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-stocks-keep-rallying--75645031insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why earnings remain the most important variable for equity markets.It's Monday, May 4th at 2pm in New York.  So, let’s get after it.The more I think about what’s been driving this market, and the more time I spend with the data, the more I keep coming back to the same conclusion: it’s earnings. Not the headlines, not even the Fed. Earnings are doing the heavy lifting right now.When I look at this reporting season, what stands out isn’t just resilience, it’s strength that’s broader than most people appreciate. The typical company in the S&P 500 is growing earnings at about 16 percent, and the median earnings surprise is running around 6 percent. That’s the strongest we’ve seen in four years.What’s really interesting to me is that this strength is no longer confined to just the biggest tech names. Yes, hyper scalers and semiconductors are still playing a leading role, but the story is expanding. We’re seeing earnings revisions move higher across Financials, Industrials, and Consumer Cyclicals, in particular. That kind of breadth tells me this isn’t just a narrow leadership story; it’s something more sustainable.At the same time, many investors are focused on the geopolitical backdrop, particularly the Iran conflict and what it means for oil, inflation, and supply chains. To be fair, companies are feeling some of that pressure. When you listen to earnings calls, you hear about rising freight costs, tighter supply chains, and higher input prices across industries like chemicals and machinery.But here’s the nuance: those impacts are uneven. They’re not hitting the entire market in the same way. In fact, at the index level, they’re being offset. Energy has become a positive contributor to earnings growth, and the higher-end consumer remains relatively strong. Even with higher fuel costs, we’re not seeing a meaningful pullback in overall consumption – at least not yet. That tells me that we’re not dealing with a classic demand shock. We’re dealing with a redistribution of pressure, and companies are adapting. In many cases, they’re passing through higher costs. Revenue surprises are running above historical norms, which suggests pricing power is improving.Now, of course, earnings aren’t the only piece of the puzzle. Policy still matters, and the shift in rate expectations this year has been meaningful. The Fed has clearly become more concerned about inflation, and the market has repriced expectations to fewer cuts, and maybe even a higher probability of hikes. That repricing is a big reason why valuations corrected so sharply over the past six months.It’s notable that even with that headwind, equities have managed to stabilize, thanks to earnings. When earnings are growing at an above-trend pace, equities can deliver solid returns regardless of whether the Fed is cutting or not.That said, I do think that there’s one area of risk that deserves further attention, and that’s liquidity. We’ve seen periods of funding stress over the past six months, and those moments have coincided with pressure on valuations. The Fed and the Treasury have stepped in at times to stabilize these conditions, helping to reduce bond volatility and support equity multiples.Bottom line, we have already had a meaningful correction in valuations this year with price earnings multiples falling 18 percent from their peak last fall. That adjustment occurred as the market digested the many risks that we have been highlighting. Meanwhile, earnings are not only holding up, they’re accelerating and broadening across sectors. The risks that we’ve all all focused on – geopolitics, oil, supply chains – are real. But they’re being absorbed at the company level. As a result, the price declines were much more modest than the compression in valuations. Meanwhile, monetary policy is providing some headwinds, but it’s not overwhelming the earnings story. Equity markets move on two things: earnings and liquidity. Right now, earnings are more than offsetting the lingering liquidity concerns. In short, earnings growth is greater than the valuation reset. This is classic bull market behavior and as long as that continues, I think the U.S. equity market will grind higher for the rest of the year with intermittent bouts of volatility. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XhU_oIVvmo8JIEliLOT8ih9IPEeAw-ruJ4nKKxHqzcEMon, 04 May 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the factors behind stock gains across sectors.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why earnings remain the most important variable for equity markets.It's Monday, May 4th at 2pm in New York.  So, let’s get after it.The more I think about what’s been driving this market, and the more time I spend with the data, the more I keep coming back to the same conclusion: it’s earnings. Not the headlines, not even the Fed. Earnings are doing the heavy lifting right now.When I look at this reporting season, what stands out isn’t just resilience, it’s strength that’s broader than most people appreciate. The typical company in the S&P 500 is growing earnings at about 16 percent, and the median earnings surprise is running around 6 percent. That’s the strongest we’ve seen in four years.What’s really interesting to me is that this strength is no longer confined to just the biggest tech names. Yes, hyper scalers and semiconductors are still playing a leading role, but the story is expanding. We’re seeing earnings revisions move higher across Financials, Industrials, and Consumer Cyclicals, in particular. That kind of breadth tells me this isn’t just a narrow leadership story; it’s something more sustainable.At the same time, many investors are focused on the geopolitical backdrop, particularly the Iran conflict and what it means for oil, inflation, and supply chains. To be fair, companies are feeling some of that pressure. When you listen to earnings calls, you hear about rising freight costs, tighter supply chains, and higher input prices across industries like chemicals and machinery.But here’s the nuance: those impacts are uneven. They’re not hitting the entire market in the same way. In fact, at the index level, they’re being offset. Energy has become a positive contributor to earnings growth, and the higher-end consumer remains relatively strong. Even with higher fuel costs, we’re not seeing a meaningful pullback in overall consumption – at least not yet. That tells me that we’re not dealing with a classic demand shock. We’re dealing with a redistribution of pressure, and companies are adapting. In many cases, they’re passing through higher costs. Revenue surprises are running above historical norms, which suggests pricing power is improving.Now, of course, earnings aren’t the only piece of the puzzle. Policy still matters, and the shift in rate expectations this year has been meaningful. The Fed has clearly become more concerned about inflation, and the market has repriced expectations to fewer cuts, and maybe even a higher probability of hikes. That repricing is a big reason why valuations corrected so sharply over the past six months.It’s notable that even with that headwind, equities have managed to stabilize, thanks to earnings. When earnings are growing at an above-trend pace, equities can deliver solid returns regardless of whether the Fed is cutting or not.That said, I do think that there’s one area of risk that deserves further attention, and that’s liquidity. We’ve seen periods of funding stress over the past six months, and those moments have coincided with pressure on valuations. The Fed and the Treasury have stepped in at times to stabilize these conditions, helping to reduce bond volatility and support equity multiples.Bottom line, we have already had a meaningful correction in valuations this year with price earnings multiples falling 18 percent from their peak last fall. That adjustment occurred as the market digested the many risks that we have been highlighting. Meanwhile, earnings are not only holding up, they’re accelerating and broadening across...]]>294alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1634fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-and-jobs-what-data-and-history-say--75644933insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today we're going to try to look past the hype and the anxiety around AI and ask what will be the effect on the labor market. It's Friday, May 1st at 10am in New York. Now, odds are that you've used AI to draft an email or summarize a document, maybe learn about a new topic, help plan a trip. The new technology is clearly lowering the cost of certain tasks. And I think the research shows that there are plenty and an increasing number of tasks that AI can do better than most humans. But that's not really the question. What I hear all the time is, ‘Well, if we can get the same amount of output with less labor, then surely millions of people will lose their job.’ I think the same logic also implies that we can just get a lot more output from the economy using all the labor that we have. And the difference between those two views really is at the heart of the debate. So far, I would say the data allow for some cautious optimism. Despite rapid advances in AI capability and evidence that adoption is spreading, the broad labor market indicators still show remarkably little disruption. Economic growth is holding in there. The unemployment rate is not rising rapidly. If anything, it's ticked down recently. Job openings are not soaring, and separations do not suggest that there's systematic weakness in AI exposed industries. Now, productivity data are beginning to show perhaps a bit of AI's positive effects, but they don't show the mass displacement that many people fear. According to our research, industries with higher AI exposures have recorded stronger labor productivity gains, driven mainly by faster output growth rather than fewer hours worked. And that distinction for me is critical. So far, the evidence looks like workers are producing more than firms are cutting back on labor. There's also a physical constraint. AI adoption depends – and will continue to depend – on infrastructure that is still being built. Of the more than $3 trillion in expected data center and related infrastructure CapEx from 2025 through 2028, only about a quarter of that has been deployed so far. The future remains opaque. No two ways about it. The biggest productivity gains from my perspective are likely still ahead of us, and some job losses are likely unavoidable. Earlier, innovation waves unfolded over decades, and AI is moving much faster, compressing the adjustment period. And that does create the central risk to the labor market; that job destruction happens faster than new job creation happens. And so, what our research has been doing is to try to look beyond the immediate effects. Yes, some jobs and tasks will likely be disrupted. But higher productivity can also mean higher incomes. Higher wealth. With higher income and higher wealth can also mean higher spending, which, in turn, drives the economy faster. Inside corporations, new tasks and new roles will likely emerge giving some of the displaced workers somewhere else to go. And even if employment does slow down for a while – and that could put downward pressure on inflation and maybe upward pressure on the unemployment rate – I don't really think policy makers are simply going to sit back on the sidelines. Central banks can respond by trying to stimulate the economy and bring it back towards full employment. This is something that economists call General Equilibrium. We can't look simply at one side of the equation. We have to think about the system as a whole. And I have to say, if monetary policy runs out of room, fiscal policy makers can get into the game as well. Between automatic stabilizers like unemployment benefits and directed targeted government action, there's another way in which the economy could be pushed back to full employment. So, the bigger point is this, AI clearly has a chance to create some labor market disruption, but the economy has all sorts of other systems and levers in place that can pull us back to full employment. And with those buffers in place, any rise in the unemployment rate from AI is probably going to end up being smaller, shorter, and easier to manage – at least for the next couple of years than maybe some of the first pass analysis that I've seen suggests. AI's labor market impact is not predetermined. The debate will almost certainly come down to speed. How fast is AI adoption relative to the economy's ability to adapt? History suggests that productivity ultimately wins. The economy gets bigger and people stay employed. History also tells us that not everyone benefits equally. And more importantly, not every transition is smooth. So, what does that mean? Should we be just blithely optimistic? Absolutely not. For now, the early evidence is reassuring, but the story is still being written. Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FNdqwSlaGYTjUPqaTGEEHV5QS6F7kwCsQy2A5a8PGbYFri, 01 May 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter discusses whether the economy can adapt fast enough to turn AI into a productivity boom rather than a labor market shock.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Today we're going to try to look past the hype and the anxiety around AI and ask what will be the effect on the labor market. It's Friday, May 1st at 10am in New York. Now, odds are that you've used AI to draft an email or summarize a document, maybe learn about a new topic, help plan a trip. The new technology is clearly lowering the cost of certain tasks. And I think the research shows that there are plenty and an increasing number of tasks that AI can do better than most humans. But that's not really the question. What I hear all the time is, ‘Well, if we can get the same amount of output with less labor, then surely millions of people will lose their job.’ I think the same logic also implies that we can just get a lot more output from the economy using all the labor that we have. And the difference between those two views really is at the heart of the debate. So far, I would say the data allow for some cautious optimism. Despite rapid advances in AI capability and evidence that adoption is spreading, the broad labor market indicators still show remarkably little disruption. Economic growth is holding in there. The unemployment rate is not rising rapidly. If anything, it's ticked down recently. Job openings are not soaring, and separations do not suggest that there's systematic weakness in AI exposed industries. Now, productivity data are beginning to show perhaps a bit of AI's positive effects, but they don't show the mass displacement that many people fear. According to our research, industries with higher AI exposures have recorded stronger labor productivity gains, driven mainly by faster output growth rather than fewer hours worked. And that distinction for me is critical. So far, the evidence looks like workers are producing more than firms are cutting back on labor. There's also a physical constraint. AI adoption depends – and will continue to depend – on infrastructure that is still being built. Of the more than $3 trillion in expected data center and related infrastructure CapEx from 2025 through 2028, only about a quarter of that has been deployed so far. The future remains opaque. No two ways about it. The biggest productivity gains from my perspective are likely still ahead of us, and some job losses are likely unavoidable. Earlier, innovation waves unfolded over decades, and AI is moving much faster, compressing the adjustment period. And that does create the central risk to the labor market; that job destruction happens faster than new job creation happens. And so, what our research has been doing is to try to look beyond the immediate effects. Yes, some jobs and tasks will likely be disrupted. But higher productivity can also mean higher incomes. Higher wealth. With higher income and higher wealth can also mean higher spending, which, in turn, drives the economy faster. Inside corporations, new tasks and new roles will likely emerge giving some of the displaced workers somewhere else to go. And even if employment does slow down for a while – and that could put downward pressure on inflation and maybe upward pressure on the unemployment rate – I don't really think policy makers are simply going to sit back on the sidelines. Central banks can respond by trying to stimulate the economy and bring it back towards full employment. This is something that economists call General Equilibrium. We can't look simply at one side of the equation. We have to think about the system as a whole. And I have...]]>301alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1633fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-metric-taking-over-earning-season--75644966insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today: Why capital expenditure is rapidly becoming one of the most important numbers in earning season across asset classes.It's Thursday, April 30th at 2pm in London. This is a high-risk episode in the sense that it may already be obsolete by the time that you hear it. But then again, maybe that's fitting for a discussion of record capital spending on cutting edge technology.We are in the middle of the busiest part of earning season, and yesterday four of the largest companies in the world reported numbers. These companies – Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta – have a combined market cap of nearly $12 trillion. Yet, while the focus of earning season is traditionally about earnings, another line item is rapidly rising in importance. Capital spending on AI infrastructure – the chips, power cooling, and connections that are required to build and run AI models is soaring. And the companies that reported yesterday are at the leading edge of this trend. The first thing about all this spending is simply the scale. For this year alone, Morgan Stanley estimates that it will amount to over $600 billion across the largest U.S. hyperscalers. To put that in perspective, that means just a handful of U.S. tech companies are now set to spend almost as much on capital and equipment this year as every non-technology company in the S&P 500 did in 2025. And as big as that spending is, it's been accelerating. That over 600 billion spending number that we forecast for 2026? Well, a year ago we thought it would be roughly half that, and that estimate was well above consensus at the time. U.S. companies have repeatedly guided their spending higher as they seek to capture the AI opportunity. And we think that continues. By 2028, my Morgan Stanley colleagues estimate that this U.S. hyperscaler capital spending could hit an annual rate of $1 trillion. In other words, as big as these numbers may seem, much of the spending story still lies ahead. All of that investment, both recently and in the future, has big implications. First, one company's spending is another company's revenue, and many of the stock markets recent winners have been directly tied to this historic buildout. As of this recording, U.S. semiconductor stocks have risen over 30 percent this month alone. Second, while these large U.S. tech companies have enormous financial resources, this spending is at a scale that still requires significant borrowing. Our credit strategy teams expect record bond issuance this year, with U.S. tech borrowing a big part of that. And so far, it's playing out. The first quarter was the busiest quarter for U.S. investment grade bond issuance on record. Which brings us back to these recent earnings – and a dilemma that seems negatively skewed for credit relative to equities. If these companies continue to sound confident about their capital spending plans or even raise expectations further, that could support AI suppliers and the broader equity market. But it would mean even more borrowing needs to be absorbed by the corporate bond market, a credit negative. The results we got yesterday certainly hint at a continuation of this trend. On the other hand, if capital spending is guided down, that could undermine a key pillar of recent market strength and broader risk appetite, which could drag credit wider by association. In the near term, the risk reward seems better in other parts of fixed income, such as mortgage-backed securities. The implications of yesterday's results may also extend to the Federal Reserve. As we discussed last week, Kevin Warsh, nominee to be the next Fed Chair, believes that large levels of investment can boost productivity, lowering inflation, and thus justifying lower interest rates. And so, what these large spenders do, how confident they feel about the future, and what all of this spending can ultimately deliver – well, the implications of that may extend even into the monetary policy story. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7Dv0y9fCfjAGDgEcIAKyEEAq4RPHr04xCiGv3tkIYNsThu, 30 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyCapital spending usually signals how a company is positioning itself for the future. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains why this metric is getting more attention from investors.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today: Why capital expenditure is rapidly becoming one of the most important numbers in earning season across asset classes.It's Thursday, April 30th at 2pm in London. This is a high-risk episode in the sense that it may already be obsolete by the time that you hear it. But then again, maybe that's fitting for a discussion of record capital spending on cutting edge technology.We are in the middle of the busiest part of earning season, and yesterday four of the largest companies in the world reported numbers. These companies – Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta – have a combined market cap of nearly $12 trillion. Yet, while the focus of earning season is traditionally about earnings, another line item is rapidly rising in importance. Capital spending on AI infrastructure – the chips, power cooling, and connections that are required to build and run AI models is soaring. And the companies that reported yesterday are at the leading edge of this trend. The first thing about all this spending is simply the scale. For this year alone, Morgan Stanley estimates that it will amount to over $600 billion across the largest U.S. hyperscalers. To put that in perspective, that means just a handful of U.S. tech companies are now set to spend almost as much on capital and equipment this year as every non-technology company in the S&P 500 did in 2025. And as big as that spending is, it's been accelerating. That over 600 billion spending number that we forecast for 2026? Well, a year ago we thought it would be roughly half that, and that estimate was well above consensus at the time. U.S. companies have repeatedly guided their spending higher as they seek to capture the AI opportunity. And we think that continues. By 2028, my Morgan Stanley colleagues estimate that this U.S. hyperscaler capital spending could hit an annual rate of $1 trillion. In other words, as big as these numbers may seem, much of the spending story still lies ahead. All of that investment, both recently and in the future, has big implications. First, one company's spending is another company's revenue, and many of the stock markets recent winners have been directly tied to this historic buildout. As of this recording, U.S. semiconductor stocks have risen over 30 percent this month alone. Second, while these large U.S. tech companies have enormous financial resources, this spending is at a scale that still requires significant borrowing. Our credit strategy teams expect record bond issuance this year, with U.S. tech borrowing a big part of that. And so far, it's playing out. The first quarter was the busiest quarter for U.S. investment grade bond issuance on record. Which brings us back to these recent earnings – and a dilemma that seems negatively skewed for credit relative to equities. If these companies continue to sound confident about their capital spending plans or even raise expectations further, that could support AI suppliers and the broader equity market. But it would mean even more borrowing needs to be absorbed by the corporate bond market, a credit negative. The results we got yesterday certainly hint at a continuation of this trend. On the other hand, if capital spending is guided down, that could undermine a key pillar of recent market strength and broader risk appetite, which could drag credit wider by association. In the near term, the risk reward seems better in other parts of fixed income, such as mortgage-backed...]]>290alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1632fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midterm-elections-affordability-and-the-fed--75644964insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the firm's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research.Ariana Salvatore: Today we're discussing the run up to the midterm elections and what it could mean for the macro outlook and policy response.It's Wednesday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Last week, Mike Zezas and I talked through the midterm elections and their potential consequences for the economy and markets. This week we figured it might be helpful to talk about the setup into November, especially as we're both increasingly being asked about the macro outlook and potential for targeted stimulus to offset the oil shock.So, Seth, let's start there. we know cost of living is a key issue in elections, and we've seen a pretty meaningful oil shock feed through markets. How are you thinking about that in the context of the broader economy?Seth Carpenter:  Our U.S. economics team has estimated that the higher gas prices that we have now and likely to have for the rest of the year are going to be more than enough to offset any boost to consumer spending from the higher tax refunds this year. So, I think that's the first point.If you're expecting a boost to come through that channel, you probably want to unwind that. And In fact, overall, what we've done is lowered our forecast for U.S. growth by about three or four tenths of percentage point worth of growth this year because of the higher energy prices. So, it's a drag on spending, I think, no matter how you cut it.Ariana Salvatore: And that's not happening in isolation, right?Seth Carpenter: No, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. We've also got at least somewhat restrictive monetary policy layered on top. So, financial conditions are already a little bit tight and the oil price shock sort of amplifies that tightening by weighing on spending. That's going to be really important.I think an extra complication then is what does it do to inflation? For now, we don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. History says at least looking at the data that when energy prices go up, when oil prices go up, gasoline prices go up. It does boost headline inflation for sure, but the pass through to core inflation is pretty limited, and the effects tend to go away on their own without too much time.So, I think the real hit here is going to be from the higher costs acting like a drag on consumer spending.Ariana Salvatore: Right. And importantly, it's a very visible shock. Gasoline prices feed directly into how consumers and voters perceive the economy, which brings us into the political overlay as we approach the midterms…Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And whenever we economists are thinking about inflation and prices and consumers, we think about exactly that – what we call salience, just how visible are these prices. And gasoline prices tend to be some of those prices that stick out in people's minds.So, if people are seeing it. And people are reacting to it, give me some idea of what the Congress can realistically do between now and the midterm elections.Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would say in theory there's a range of options. Direct stimulus, targeted transfers. We tend to frame affordability policies across five vectors: energy, healthcare, housing, consumer credit and trade policy. But in practice, the constraints are pretty binding right now and as we've been saying, tariff policy is really the only lever the president can pull easily to have a real impact on voters.Seth Carpenter: All right. So, you said constraints and constraints for the Congress. Can you walk us through what those constraints are?Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, the first and most obvious is deficits. We're already running large fiscal deficits in the U.S., and I would say there's limited political appetite to expand them meaningfully from here in the near term, especially heading into an election.The second is procedure. If you want to pass something sizable, you're either looking at reconciliation, which requires political alignment in a number of procedural hurdles. Or bipartisan cooperation to get around the filibuster. Both seem difficult to us in this environment.Seth Carpenter: So my experience in Washington for a couple decades of working on policy is that when things are difficult, they tend to take more time. So how does the timing component of all of this matter, and how does it fit into the way that you're thinking about it?Ariana Salvatore: Timing is the third constraint. The legislative calendar in particular. What we see is as you get closer to midterms – really any election – the window for passing major legislation narrows pretty quickly. That's because lawmakers shift their focus toward campaigning, and the agenda itself just becomes more limited.And then to finish off the constraints, the fourth I would say is implementation. Even if something were to pass, there's a lag between legislation and the actual economic impact. Getting funds out the door, whether it's checks or programmatic spending, tends to take time.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, even well targeted policy might not hit the economy in time to have the desired effect before the election.Would you agree with that?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, but for argument's sake, let's say we're wrong on that and Congress does manage to pass something. Maybe not a broad-based stimulus package, but let's say some form of targeted relief.From a macro perspective, what do you think would matter most? Is it the size of the package, how quickly it gets implemented, or which consumers are targeted?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I'm going to have to say a little bit of all of the above. I mean, economic analysis really tends to show that tax cuts tend to simulate less than increased spending and transfers matter. But it matters to whom those transfers happen.So, I do think if we're aiming at the lower end of the income distribution, probably has a higher propensity to spend; and so, you're more likely to see more of those dollars getting spent and faster – if that's where it's going. The size of the package has to matter as well, because more money out probably means more money getting spent. But I will add, there are two caveats this time around that we probably need to take into consideration.First, with the increase in tax refunds that we've seen this year, survey suggests that households are using that money to pay down outstanding debt more than they would historically. And so, we might be in a situation because of the past couple of years of affordability issues where households are going to try to get ahead of things and pay down some of that debt. And as a result, maybe there's a more muted effect on spending.And second, we are living in a world right now where inflation is well above the Fed's target. So, if the extra stimulus leads to extra spending at a time when prices are already high, well, there's a chance we might give an extra boost to inflation and then the Fed would have to reconsider what it's doing on monetary policy.But you said Congress is probably constrained. So, let's shift then and ask, is there something that the president could do unilaterally with executive authority? And in particular, sometimes I get this question from clients, even if there's not clear, well-defined legal authority. We've seen something like that before with the tariff policy under the IEEPA authority. It was imposed and then later it was pulled back when it was judged by courts not to be the right authority.So, why wouldn't we think – the argument goes; why wouldn't we think that some sort of large scale maybe rebates or direct payments, could get deployed quickly, even if the, let's say, legal authority is a little bit murky?Ariana Salvatore: Yes, it's an interesting question, but I think there are a few important distinctions that make something like the administration sending out checks, for example, very different from tariff policy. First, fiscal transfers are much more clearly tied to congressional authority, legally speaking.Spending power, as you know, resides in Congress, and that's a pretty firm constitutional boundary. And importantly, even something like tax refunds, which can look like direct payments aren't discretionary. They're preauthorized in the tax code, and Treasury is just returning overpayments under a standing appropriation. So, there isn't really a comparable mechanism the administration could use to send out broad-based checks, for example, without new legislation.Now, trade authorities by contrast, have historically allowed for more executive flexibility, even if contested, like we saw with the IEEPA tariffs. Direct fiscal outlays are different. You generally need explicit appropriation. And then second, there's the operational side to all of this. Even if you were to set aside the legal questions, there isn't a standing mechanism for distributing very large sums of money quickly without legislative backing.Seth Carpenter: Fair enough. And if we stay in this totally hypothetical world, what would you imagine would be the timing of any legal challenges if they did happen?Ariana Salvatore:   In a scenario like this, you'd likely see challenges fairly quickly and courts could intervene early in the process, potentially before funds are even fully dispersed. So, Seth, the idea that you could deploy something on a massive scale and]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/a-FeDzOydVEAUy8HW9Ry4R8KPxbwkB9M3y_wD37nYc0Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyStill six months out, the U.S. midterm elections are likely to influence government initiatives to deal with higher energy costs. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss how the Congress...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the firm's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research.Ariana Salvatore: Today we're discussing the run up to the midterm elections and what it could mean for the macro outlook and policy response.It's Wednesday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Last week, Mike Zezas and I talked through the midterm elections and their potential consequences for the economy and markets. This week we figured it might be helpful to talk about the setup into November, especially as we're both increasingly being asked about the macro outlook and potential for targeted stimulus to offset the oil shock.So, Seth, let's start there. we know cost of living is a key issue in elections, and we've seen a pretty meaningful oil shock feed through markets. How are you thinking about that in the context of the broader economy?Seth Carpenter:  Our U.S. economics team has estimated that the higher gas prices that we have now and likely to have for the rest of the year are going to be more than enough to offset any boost to consumer spending from the higher tax refunds this year. So, I think that's the first point.If you're expecting a boost to come through that channel, you probably want to unwind that. And In fact, overall, what we've done is lowered our forecast for U.S. growth by about three or four tenths of percentage point worth of growth this year because of the higher energy prices. So, it's a drag on spending, I think, no matter how you cut it.Ariana Salvatore: And that's not happening in isolation, right?Seth Carpenter: No, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. We've also got at least somewhat restrictive monetary policy layered on top. So, financial conditions are already a little bit tight and the oil price shock sort of amplifies that tightening by weighing on spending. That's going to be really important.I think an extra complication then is what does it do to inflation? For now, we don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. History says at least looking at the data that when energy prices go up, when oil prices go up, gasoline prices go up. It does boost headline inflation for sure, but the pass through to core inflation is pretty limited, and the effects tend to go away on their own without too much time.So, I think the real hit here is going to be from the higher costs acting like a drag on consumer spending.Ariana Salvatore: Right. And importantly, it's a very visible shock. Gasoline prices feed directly into how consumers and voters perceive the economy, which brings us into the political overlay as we approach the midterms…Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And whenever we economists are thinking about inflation and prices and consumers, we think about exactly that – what we call salience, just how visible are these prices. And gasoline prices tend to be some of those prices that stick out in people's minds.So, if people are seeing it. And people are reacting to it, give me some idea of what the Congress can realistically do between now and the midterm elections.Ariana Salvatore: Well, I would say in theory there's a range of options. Direct stimulus, targeted transfers. We tend to frame affordability policies across five vectors: energy, healthcare, housing, consumer credit and trade policy. But in practice, the constraints are pretty binding right now and as we've been saying,...]]>685alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1631fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-s-next-big-leap--75645004insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom.We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it’s easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird. It’s Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York. The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement.That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen’s bull case for broader AI model improvements. Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you’ve been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we’re going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring.Stephen Byrd: Yes.Tom Wigg: There’s been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications?Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I’m not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we’ve been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law.And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I’ve talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we’re going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it’s also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can’t sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses.I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune.But essentially from here, Tom, I’d say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs.This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world.Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we’re seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I’m getting more recently is around what’s the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been pretty bearish year-to-date, force a cut on CapEx? So, maybe if you can marry that with what you’re picking up on the ground in terms of compute spend and whether the frenzy still continues, you know, versus the ROI? And, like, what could happen?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. The short answer – I’m going to go through detail – is I think the bullishness is going to get more bullish over the coming months. And let me walk you through a couple of the mathematics and then just what I’m seeing on the ground to your point, Tom.So the mathematics. We have a token economics model that looks from the perspective of a hyperscaler or an LLM developer in terms of – if they sell their token at a certain price and you fully load the cost of a data center and all associated costs, financing, you name it – in what are the returns? And the bottom line is the returns are excellent.The other element we spend a lot of work on, and you and I talk a lot about, is the demand for compute. In this world where the LLMs are increasing in capability and the token usage goes way up with agentic AI, video world models, all that stuff, we think that there is a massive shortage of compute. So, if you’re lucky enough to be a hyperscaler with the compute, with the power, we think that they will have a lot of pricing power on the tokens.Let me explain why we see price power on the tokens. Now I’m going to flip to the perspective of an adopter. Let me give you just rough mathematics. There was a study last year from one of the big labs showing that on average, an enterprise user using an LLM might be able to replace work that would take about one and a half hours from a human. That would save about $55 of cost. A million tokens, depends on whether you’re looking at input or output – but let’s just call it $5 for a million tokens.The average usage case today for a fairly complex agentic task in an enterprise setting is in the tens of thousands of tokens. Okay? So let’s just do that math again. $55 of savings. A million tokens cost $5, and a typical agentic usage is far less than the million tokens today, though that will accelerate. The economics are a home run for adopters.So, we’re in a situation where compute is very scarce. I see pricing power all over the place for those who have the compute and have the power.Tom Wigg: So, when you put it like that, Stephen, it seems so inevitable and obvious. But I wonder why the hyperscalers are trading the way they are? And when do they see the revenue inflection you’re talking about? Is this like a stay tuned kinda 2026 event? Is this something we have to wait for for 2027-2028?Like, how do you think this flows through to the extent that the market will get more comfortable that all this free cash flow pressure is worth it on the other side?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. This is, in short, I think this is a 2026 event. But let me dive into that because what you just asked is so important for so many stocks.So, let’s talk through this. The capabilities of the models are advancing so fast that the average corporate user is not yet keeping up. There is this gap. But that will happen quickly, and we’re seeing signs from these labs of revenue at the lab level that is accelerating. So that’s a good sign.What we’re seeing, though, among fast adopters is those adopters who really understand the capabilities are quickly realizing just how economically beneficial there is. An example, one of my best friends founded a software company many years ago. Last month was – that was the last month in which his programmers wrote code. They’re done with writing code.The efficiency benefits for his business are absolutely massive. But he feels like he’s just scratching the surface, and he’s about as technically capable as anyone I know. He has two PhDs in the subject matter. He’s very, very good.So long way to say that we’re living in almost two worlds where the fast adopters will show what’s possible. The average utilization for enterprises will still take some time. But I do think that the market will react to what they see from the fast adopters in the sense of – the tangible economic benefits are so big.Now, on the ground, what I’m seeing on the infrastructure side, my friends in power tell me that a couple months ago is when they saw the sense of urgency from the AI community go up a couple of notches for them to get the infrastructure they need. So they saw this explosion in compute coming. In the last two months, the weekly usage of tokens according to OpenRadar is up a couple hundred percent in a couple months.So, I do think we’re seeing this. So, this is; it’s happening quickly. What I would say is the market will have these signposts in every industry of early adopters showing this benefit. I think that’s enough for us to start to get bullish. We also… I just think when you look at the demand for compute, the compute numbers need to go up. And with that, you know, everything in the AI value chain, infrastructure value chain, the volumes need to go up.Tom Wigg: One bear case that I wanted to interrogate was – there’s one view that, yes, there’s a token explosion right now. But it’s because the first use case is coding. Which is inherently, you know, very developer-friendly and token-intensive relative to other knowledge work.Can you talk about, you know, whether you subscribe to that? Or whether the token intensity will be as high or lower as this expands to other areas of knowledge work in the next several years?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it’s a great question. The short version is that, yes, it’s true that software usage is more token intensive. However, what we’re going to be seeing – we’re starting to see it – is in almost every knowledge-based job, we’re going to move to agentic AI. And when we do that, you tend to see an explosion in compute.Let me walk you through the numbers. There are a couple studies that show essentially when you go from a query-based usage of LLMs to an agentic use for any occupation, you see ab]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UT0oxkAHaTqMSLy_XradvDHzh20hOaZlhhwNwpsn264Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyTom Wigg and Stephen Byrd discuss the accelerating pace of AI breakthroughs, the forces driving them and why the next phase of development may look very different from anything we’ve seen so far. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom.We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it’s easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird. It’s Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York. The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement.That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen’s bull case for broader AI model improvements. Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you’ve been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we’re going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring.Stephen Byrd: Yes.Tom Wigg: There’s been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications?Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I’m not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we’ve been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law.And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I’ve talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we’re going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it’s also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can’t sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses.I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune.But essentially from here, Tom, I’d say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs.This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world.Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we’re seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I’m getting more recently is around what’s the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been...]]>617alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1629fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-stock-momentum-hold-up--75645000insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing why I remain bullish even after such a strong run in stocks. It's Monday, April 27th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. The U.S. equity market just experienced one of the most dramatic bounces in history from a technical standpoint. It went from oversold to overbought territory in just 12 days. Based on our conversations, the speed of this move has led some to express caution about the near-term path of equities – but that's the way it usually works. The market waits for no one once it decides to move on. From our perspective, this feels like last year. Many investors are contemplating the lagging impacts of higher commodity prices on inflation just like they were thinking through the effects of higher tariff rates a year ago. Many companies will feel the downstream impacts on a lagging basis. But we believe equity indices and many subgroups already suffered enough damage to account for these concerns. In other words, the equity market isn't simply looking past the risks, it already priced them. Take into consideration that the earnings picture is much stronger today with forward 12-month earnings growth approaching 25 percent versus just 9 percent a year ago. As well, we still hear many commentators suggesting that growth is only coming from a handful of stocks. While mathematically that is a fair point for the top-heavy S&P 500, it doesn't acknowledge that forward earnings growth for the median company and for small caps is also well into the double digits.  This cadence is very different from the prior three to four years when the economy was experiencing a rolling recession. It also supports our rolling recovery and broadening thesis we laid out a year ago. So far, the first quarter earnings season has delivered a 10 percent beat rate in aggregate. This is two times the long-term average. More importantly, second quarter and forward 12-month company guidance have increased by an additional 2 to 3 percent. Besides earnings beat rates and guidance, we are also watching capex guidance and signs of pricing power. We entered 2026 with a view that the capex cycle was gaining momentum, thanks to three tailwinds: First, strong earnings and cash flow, which tend to correlate with capex. Second, tax incentives from the Big Beautiful Bill; and third, strong demand for the AI buildout and reshoring of manufacturing.   Early indications on this front are supportive with median stock capex growth running almost 10 percent, and our factor work continuing to show that the market is rewarding high capex. It's important to see these trends continue as the quarter progresses, especially this week when the hyperscalers are scheduled to report.  Another point; given potential downstream cost headwinds from the Iran war, we want to see pricing power and top line durability persist. Early indications here are also supportive with sales surprises for the S&P 500 running well above average and close to 2 percent. Finally, as noted in prior podcasts, one of the last hurdles for the market to overcome was the Fed's recent hawkish pivot on higher oil prices and the transition of its leadership from Jay Powell to Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh. This past week, Kevin Warsh appeared in front of the Senate. He signaled some caution on near-term rate cuts, noting that inflation risks are not resolved. He also reiterated his well-established criticism of the Fed’s historic willingness to intervene in markets and the economy too aggressively with its balance sheet.   Every Fed Chair transition typically requires a learning period for the markets where they test the new chair's resolve and figure out how to interpret his or her communication style. This time should be no different and could lead to some corrective price action in the near-term caused by short spikes in bond volatility or stress in funding markets. In my view, the Treasury and Fed will be able to manage these risks in the end leaving the bull market intact.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AnKWRiX13UQe45ITPeJ29jwLmhsM_Zc3HSLDJ0BebNEMon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyMajor U.S. stock indexes have rebounded sharply in recent weeks. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses the fundamentals that could support the continuation of the bull market.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing why I remain bullish even after such a strong run in stocks. It's Monday, April 27th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. The U.S. equity market just experienced one of the most dramatic bounces in history from a technical standpoint. It went from oversold to overbought territory in just 12 days. Based on our conversations, the speed of this move has led some to express caution about the near-term path of equities – but that's the way it usually works. The market waits for no one once it decides to move on. From our perspective, this feels like last year. Many investors are contemplating the lagging impacts of higher commodity prices on inflation just like they were thinking through the effects of higher tariff rates a year ago. Many companies will feel the downstream impacts on a lagging basis. But we believe equity indices and many subgroups already suffered enough damage to account for these concerns. In other words, the equity market isn't simply looking past the risks, it already priced them. Take into consideration that the earnings picture is much stronger today with forward 12-month earnings growth approaching 25 percent versus just 9 percent a year ago. As well, we still hear many commentators suggesting that growth is only coming from a handful of stocks. While mathematically that is a fair point for the top-heavy S&P 500, it doesn't acknowledge that forward earnings growth for the median company and for small caps is also well into the double digits.  This cadence is very different from the prior three to four years when the economy was experiencing a rolling recession. It also supports our rolling recovery and broadening thesis we laid out a year ago. So far, the first quarter earnings season has delivered a 10 percent beat rate in aggregate. This is two times the long-term average. More importantly, second quarter and forward 12-month company guidance have increased by an additional 2 to 3 percent. Besides earnings beat rates and guidance, we are also watching capex guidance and signs of pricing power. We entered 2026 with a view that the capex cycle was gaining momentum, thanks to three tailwinds: First, strong earnings and cash flow, which tend to correlate with capex. Second, tax incentives from the Big Beautiful Bill; and third, strong demand for the AI buildout and reshoring of manufacturing.   Early indications on this front are supportive with median stock capex growth running almost 10 percent, and our factor work continuing to show that the market is rewarding high capex. It's important to see these trends continue as the quarter progresses, especially this week when the hyperscalers are scheduled to report.  Another point; given potential downstream cost headwinds from the Iran war, we want to see pricing power and top line durability persist. Early indications here are also supportive with sales surprises for the S&P 500 running well above average and close to 2 percent. Finally, as noted in prior podcasts, one of the last hurdles for the market to overcome was the Fed's recent hawkish pivot on higher oil prices and the transition of its leadership from Jay Powell to Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh. This past week, Kevin Warsh appeared in front of the Senate. He signaled some caution on near-term rate cuts, noting that inflation risks are not resolved. He also reiterated his well-established criticism of the Fed’s historic willingness to intervene...]]>292alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1628fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/warsh-s-plan-to-change-the-fed--75645037insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the program, a first look at potentially the next Fed chair. It's Friday, April 24th at 9am in New York. Financial markets can often struggle to keep track of more than one story at a time – and at present, we're really pushing the limit. At one end, the Iran conflict continues to create a historic disruption in global energy markets. At the other, signs of corporate animal spirits and activity hint at the potential for an even larger boom if this disruption ends. Merger activity, capital spending, loan growth and earnings growth are all strong and accelerating. And so, into this mix enters a third story, the Federal Reserve. Indeed, both Iran and the investment boom introduce real questions as to how a central bank should react to these factors. For example, if oil prices spike further, should the central bank raise interest rates to counter the inflation that would follow? Or should it lower them because that increase in oil prices could potentially hit growth? And what about corporate aggression? As that aggression increases, should the Fed look to raise interest rates and take away the punch bowl, so to speak, to avoid an even larger overheating in the economy? Or maybe all of this investment will create abundance – actually lower prices and warrant interest rate cuts. These questions will weigh on the Fed and, in particular, Kevin Warsh, who has been nominated by President Trump to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve. This week saw Warsh testify in front of the Senate as part of that process, giving us the most detailed insight into his current thinking that we've had so far. Two things really stood out. First, Warsh believes that this historic boom in AI and technology investment really is likely to boost productivity. A productivity boost, all else equal, should mean a greater supply of goods and services into the economy from the same number of workers; and thanks to that greater supply, relatively lower prices and less inflation. This belief in investment driven productivity underpins why he thinks interest rates can be lower even if current inflation is elevated. Second, Warsh was critical of the Fed, stating that it had “lost its way,” from expanding its balance sheet too much to being too slow to reign in inflation following COVID. He outlined a sweeping agenda for change, including how the Fed could forecast inflation, manage its assets, and communicate its policy. But another challenge that's going to be facing the next Fed chair will be personal as much as it's economic. Fed decisions are made by a majority vote. And while Warsh may feel strongly that the historic investment cycle that we're seeing in technology will bring down inflation, can he convince others of this as well – especially at a time when current inflation readings are somewhat elevated? And will his criticism of how the Fed has conducted action over the last several years make it harder to gain the support of colleagues, some of whom were there for those measures? Or will it be welcomed as a breath of fresh air and a chance for the Fed to have a new start? The uncertain timing of the handover and the fact that policy is still up to committee means that we think markets will likely stay focused on other factors in the near term and expect relatively modest shifts in Fed policy for now. But it's still worth watching. Since 1979, only five individuals have occupied this important seat leading the U.S. Central Bank. We may be about to get the sixth. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1hKdFIjgK1ONevsrOQ3dg73x-tMiurQMdc_q8iVSvY4Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyKevin Warsh, President Trump’s nominee for the next Fed Chair, testified in front of the Senate earlier this week. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets presents key takeaways from the two-and-half-hour testimony.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the program, a first look at potentially the next Fed chair. It's Friday, April 24th at 9am in New York. Financial markets can often struggle to keep track of more than one story at a time – and at present, we're really pushing the limit. At one end, the Iran conflict continues to create a historic disruption in global energy markets. At the other, signs of corporate animal spirits and activity hint at the potential for an even larger boom if this disruption ends. Merger activity, capital spending, loan growth and earnings growth are all strong and accelerating. And so, into this mix enters a third story, the Federal Reserve. Indeed, both Iran and the investment boom introduce real questions as to how a central bank should react to these factors. For example, if oil prices spike further, should the central bank raise interest rates to counter the inflation that would follow? Or should it lower them because that increase in oil prices could potentially hit growth? And what about corporate aggression? As that aggression increases, should the Fed look to raise interest rates and take away the punch bowl, so to speak, to avoid an even larger overheating in the economy? Or maybe all of this investment will create abundance – actually lower prices and warrant interest rate cuts. These questions will weigh on the Fed and, in particular, Kevin Warsh, who has been nominated by President Trump to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve. This week saw Warsh testify in front of the Senate as part of that process, giving us the most detailed insight into his current thinking that we've had so far. Two things really stood out. First, Warsh believes that this historic boom in AI and technology investment really is likely to boost productivity. A productivity boost, all else equal, should mean a greater supply of goods and services into the economy from the same number of workers; and thanks to that greater supply, relatively lower prices and less inflation. This belief in investment driven productivity underpins why he thinks interest rates can be lower even if current inflation is elevated. Second, Warsh was critical of the Fed, stating that it had “lost its way,” from expanding its balance sheet too much to being too slow to reign in inflation following COVID. He outlined a sweeping agenda for change, including how the Fed could forecast inflation, manage its assets, and communicate its policy. But another challenge that's going to be facing the next Fed chair will be personal as much as it's economic. Fed decisions are made by a majority vote. And while Warsh may feel strongly that the historic investment cycle that we're seeing in technology will bring down inflation, can he convince others of this as well – especially at a time when current inflation readings are somewhat elevated? And will his criticism of how the Fed has conducted action over the last several years make it harder to gain the support of colleagues, some of whom were there for those measures? Or will it be welcomed as a breath of fresh air and a chance for the Fed to have a new start? The uncertain timing of the handover and the fact that policy is still up to committee means that we think markets will likely stay focused on other factors in the near term and expect relatively modest shifts in Fed policy for now. But it's still worth watching. Since 1979, only five individuals have occupied this important seat...]]>255alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1627fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-hidden-toll-of-tariffs--75644995insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And I'm joined by Mayank Phadke, a member of my global economics team. And today we're going to talk about tariffs. I bet that was a surprise. It is Thursday, April 23rd at 10am in New York. I have to say, for the past couple of months, the focus on energy markets, energy supply, energy prices – that has dominated everything that we've been talking to clients about around the world. And so, everyone would be forgiven if they had forgotten that we were talking about tariffs much the same way, nonstop last year. Now, tariffs kind of seem like an afterthought. But part of the stated motivation for tariffs when they were imposed was to boost reshoring. That is to have more production of goods in the United States that had been imported. So, tariffs still matter. They matter for CapEx, in that regard, they matter for domestic production. And because of all of that, presumably they matter for markets and for the Federal Reserve. But for the narrow question of reshoring, the data so far, I would argue, suggests that there's been very little net effect. There will be more tariff news arriving in coming months. So Mayank, I am going to pull you into this conversation because you have been one of the key people on the team, doing of analysis on the data work on tariffs, trade and reshoring. So, could you tell us a little bit about what’s been happening to the effective tariff rate for the United States recently? And where we think that’s likely to go? Mayank Phadke: Tariff levels have declined steadily in recent months, falling to 8.5 percent as of February, with the decline having accelerated after the Supreme Court ruling. The decision on IEEPA forced a shift in underlying tariff authorities with country level IEEPA tariffs temporarily reconstituted under Section 122. We have long argued, even before the 2025 tariffs that the legal basis for durable tariffs would need to be anchored in section 232 and section 301 based authorities rather than in IEEPA. The current Section 122 tariffs are due to expire on the 24th of July. And after that, we expect more durable authorities to kick in. The shifts that we will see as IEEPA tariffs are replaced by new section 301 and 232 tariffs means that there will be some differences. But from a macro perspective, we expect the level to be roughly similar to where it stood at the end of 2025. An aggregate effective rate of around 10 percent. Two sets of Section 301 investigations were announced by the administration in March, covering virtually all major trading partners. These investigations are likely to run on a faster timeline than prior efforts. Those took around nine months. The comments were requested by the 15th of April, with hearings scheduled for early May. We're inclined to expect completed section 301 investigations over the summer while section 232 tariffs will likely arrive in waves as sector-based investigations proceed. Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay. So, I'm going to summarize that to say tariffs are not going away. Tariffs are here. In the aggregate for macro economists like us, probably about the same level it's been. But that escapes the question about the individual industries, and it brings us right back to this question of reshoring. Is that what's going to happen? And so, when I think about it, we do have all these negotiations. But the reshoring question forces you to wonder about manufacturing, manufacturing growth and with it CapEx. And like I said at the top, it's non-AI CapEx that's really on the soft side of things. So, you've spent a lot of time looking at the data. I would say one industry that tends to stand out in all these conversations is steel. So, if we look at what's happened with the steel industry, with tariffs, with changes in imports and that sort of things, what's happened? Do we see clear evidence that there's this big reshoring push? Mayank Phadke: The case of steel is certainly very interesting. It helps frame why tariff uncertainty matters. And the supply chain for steel is relatively compact, which makes it easier to observe how the sector responds to tariffs. Domestic production has risen as imports have fallen consistent with the idea of reshoring. But when we look at the total supply of steel to the domestic economy, it hasn't risen. More importantly, U.S. steel prices have materially diverged from global peers. And the risk of more aggressive sector tariffs across the economy, in our view is higher prices. An outcome which is consistent with our expectations from a year ago – and with economic theory. Seth Carpenter: As an economist, I'm always happy when the reality matches what I was expecting in theory. So, that's super helpful. Now, that is one specific industry, and I know that you have spent a bunch of time looking at the data across industries. The point that you made though, about the higher prices, the higher domestic prices for steel means, to me as an economist, that we have to try to maybe separate out the effects of the nominal versus the real. Which is to say, if we're measuring how much output there is, how much that increase is coming from just prices going up versus how much is coming from, total quantity. So, if I asked you, when you look across industries, when you look at the data, what evidence do you see in terms of lots of reshoring. That is to say a diversion of trade, a reduction of imports, and with it an increase in domestic production. Is that there broadly in the data? Mayank Phadke: When we look at production and imports across industries and goods and identify the industries both with and without reduced imports, we see that the increase in domestic production has come largely in nominal terms. Which means that the price has risen, but very little of that increase is actually higher output. The evidence for meaningful reassuring here is quite limited. Seth Carpenter: Alright. So that's super helpful to me because when I think about the implications of tariffs, the economist in me says it reduces the overall productive capacity of the economy. It raises cost for the economy. The counter argument has been we're going to make more in the United States and that's going to boost the U.S. economy. As far as I can tell, when we look at the data themselves, there's not a lot of evidence for the upside. But there is clear evidence that we're raising costs for the U.S. economy. Alright, well Mayank, thank you so much for joining me. And thank you to the listeners. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8qIVRsaGcO6jE2zP5tgiZ7GtBcq-2gF69UseSuiMYH4Thu, 23 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter asks Mayank Phadke, a member of his team, to give up an update on tariffs and their real cost to the U.S. economy.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And I'm joined by Mayank Phadke, a member of my global economics team. And today we're going to talk about tariffs. I bet that was a surprise. It is Thursday, April 23rd at 10am in New York. I have to say, for the past couple of months, the focus on energy markets, energy supply, energy prices – that has dominated everything that we've been talking to clients about around the world. And so, everyone would be forgiven if they had forgotten that we were talking about tariffs much the same way, nonstop last year. Now, tariffs kind of seem like an afterthought. But part of the stated motivation for tariffs when they were imposed was to boost reshoring. That is to have more production of goods in the United States that had been imported. So, tariffs still matter. They matter for CapEx, in that regard, they matter for domestic production. And because of all of that, presumably they matter for markets and for the Federal Reserve. But for the narrow question of reshoring, the data so far, I would argue, suggests that there's been very little net effect. There will be more tariff news arriving in coming months. So Mayank, I am going to pull you into this conversation because you have been one of the key people on the team, doing of analysis on the data work on tariffs, trade and reshoring. So, could you tell us a little bit about what’s been happening to the effective tariff rate for the United States recently? And where we think that’s likely to go? Mayank Phadke: Tariff levels have declined steadily in recent months, falling to 8.5 percent as of February, with the decline having accelerated after the Supreme Court ruling. The decision on IEEPA forced a shift in underlying tariff authorities with country level IEEPA tariffs temporarily reconstituted under Section 122. We have long argued, even before the 2025 tariffs that the legal basis for durable tariffs would need to be anchored in section 232 and section 301 based authorities rather than in IEEPA. The current Section 122 tariffs are due to expire on the 24th of July. And after that, we expect more durable authorities to kick in. The shifts that we will see as IEEPA tariffs are replaced by new section 301 and 232 tariffs means that there will be some differences. But from a macro perspective, we expect the level to be roughly similar to where it stood at the end of 2025. An aggregate effective rate of around 10 percent. Two sets of Section 301 investigations were announced by the administration in March, covering virtually all major trading partners. These investigations are likely to run on a faster timeline than prior efforts. Those took around nine months. The comments were requested by the 15th of April, with hearings scheduled for early May. We're inclined to expect completed section 301 investigations over the summer while section 232 tariffs will likely arrive in waves as sector-based investigations proceed. Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay. So, I'm going to summarize that to say tariffs are not going away. Tariffs are here. In the aggregate for macro economists like us, probably about the same level it's been. But that escapes the question about the individual industries, and it brings us right back to this question of reshoring. Is that what's going to happen? And so, when I think about it, we do have all these negotiations. But the reshoring question forces you to wonder about manufacturing, manufacturing growth and with it CapEx. And like I said at the top,...]]>418alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1626fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-midterms-what-investors-should-watch--75644968insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the midterm elections and their implications for U.S. markets.It's Wednesday, April 22nd at 10am in New York.All right, so Ariana, midterm elections are coming up. And I feel like every cycle we hear the same question. How much do elections actually matter for markets?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I would say, you know, we're still six months out and obviously a lot of the market's focus has been on the U.S.-Iran conflict. But it does keep coming up in our conversations with investors.And to your question, our view is these elections probably matter a little bit less than people think, at least from a macro perspective.Michael Zezas: Okay, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right? Because policy has felt like a huge driver of markets recently. Tariffs. Geopolitics. Really all the above.Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. But there's some nuance here. So, policy does matter, but the big takeaway is that the direction of policy doesn't really change based on the midterms. That's because some of the key policy variables that you mentioned – trade, geopolitics, also deregulation – those are all likely to keep going regardless of who wins.At the same time, it's worth noting upfront that the race itself is still pretty fluid. A lot of the indicators that investors are watching – polling prediction markets, the president's approval rating, even things like domestic gasoline prices and consumer sentiment – they're somewhat giving mixed signals right now. There's a growing narrative around a potential democratic sweep. But when you actually look in more detail at the Senate map, we think the path there is still pretty challenging.So, I think it's important to emphasize there's much more uncertainty in the outcome than the headlines right now might suggest.Michael Zezas: So, if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to?Ariana Salvatore: There are some incremental shifts that will be worth watching. In particular as they pertain to fiscal policy. So, for example, things like SNAP and Medicaid, those are the real swing factors depending on the election outcome.If you recall last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act legislated some changes to those programs that are meant to start taking effect in 2027 and 2028. Things like shifting more of the cost burden onto states and tightening eligibility requirements to offset some of the deficit impact from tax cuts.And where elections come in is around whether or not those changes actually get implemented or delayed or softened. In our view, the most likely way you can get meaningful adjustments is in some form of divided government where there actually might be an incentive to negotiate around those fiscal cliffs.But crucially, we think that can only happen if you have what we call a robust rather than a fragile majority.Michael Zezas: Okay. Can you explain the difference between those two things?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, the question is not just who controls Congress, it's how unified they are. If you get a robust majority, that means the party can agree internally on what their core policy objectives are. And then use their leverage in a cohesive way to extract political concessions from the opposing party.So, to put it in simpler terms. If Democrats have a large enough majority or are able to coalesce around some of the key policy asks – for example, delaying some of these cuts – we think they can tie those two, some must pass bills. Think appropriations bills or debt ceiling extensions, for example, that they will need to be consulted on in a split government scenario.Now conversely, if it's a fragile majority, you probably see more internal disagreement, less coordination, and a lot more political noise with less actual policy getting done.Michael Zezas: Okay, so a lot of good insights there. Can you boil it down to a few key takeaways for investors?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so one I would say is that fiscal policy is really where the midterm elections might matter the most. But even there, we think the impact is more micro than macro. Another is that divided government doesn't necessarily mean less policy activity. It just changes the form that it takes. And then of course there's AI, which is a topic that we've been getting a lot of questions about.Michael Zezas: Yeah, so let's dig in a bit more there because there's obviously a lot of interest in the intersection between public policy and the development of artificial intelligence.Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. This was the key focus of our policy symposium that we hosted in New York last week. AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic priority across both parties. So, unlike some of these fiscal debates, we think that AI policy is likely to take shape regardless of the election outcome. What could change is the approach.So, think about things like how quickly infrastructure gets built, how permitting is handled, how energy constraints are addressed. We're seeing growing recognition across the aisle that the bottleneck for AI isn't just on the innovation front, it's the physical infrastructure – power, data centers and supply chains.Now at the same time, there's also emerging pushback from communities and from policy makers around things like energy usage and cost of living. We've done a lot of research on this front, and it's actually a really critical factor in some of these off-cycle elections that we've seen even back to last year.So, you end up with this dynamic where AI investment probably continues both in a more constrained and increasingly regulated environment in the split government scenarios.Michael Zezas: So, direction's the same, but the pace and the friction points may vary. And that has implications in particular for a few key sectors like power and data center REITs, while consumer and healthcare sectors are more exposed to those SNAP and Medicaid changes we mentioned earlier. Obviously the more unified Democrats are, the more they're able to extend or push off those shifts. Meaning the downside impact on the consumer could be limited versus current expectations.But aside from these policies we're watching. You'll probably see noise around debt ceiling fights, government shutdowns. And those things don't usually derail growth. But they can create volatility and short-term uncertainty, especially around funding deadlines.Ariana Salvatore: Right. And that's important for the macro-outlook. So, in short, our economists think that the growth outcomes are only going to vary modestly across the scenarios while the broader business cycle should stay intact.Now, following from that, our rate strategists see episodic risk, to your point around funding fights, which could drive risk off rallies in notes and bonds. And then you have to weigh that against cooling expectations for growth and inflation in both the divided government scenarios. Similarly, our FX strategists see opposing forces between yields, fiscal policy and the broader policy uncertainty variable driving dispersion across currencies more than a clear dollar direction.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, a lot to pay attention to ahead of the midterms and we'll obviously keep people updated here about what we're seeing.Ariana Salvatore: Sounds good.Michael Zezas: Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jj14RjnEIVKI0bQmv8zTSD7hYTQkuwQUO8TkWPUKteUWed, 22 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAlthough the conflict in Iran keeps dominating the news cycle, investors have an eye on the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore consider policy...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the midterm elections and their implications for U.S. markets.It's Wednesday, April 22nd at 10am in New York.All right, so Ariana, midterm elections are coming up. And I feel like every cycle we hear the same question. How much do elections actually matter for markets?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I would say, you know, we're still six months out and obviously a lot of the market's focus has been on the U.S.-Iran conflict. But it does keep coming up in our conversations with investors.And to your question, our view is these elections probably matter a little bit less than people think, at least from a macro perspective.Michael Zezas: Okay, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right? Because policy has felt like a huge driver of markets recently. Tariffs. Geopolitics. Really all the above.Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. But there's some nuance here. So, policy does matter, but the big takeaway is that the direction of policy doesn't really change based on the midterms. That's because some of the key policy variables that you mentioned – trade, geopolitics, also deregulation – those are all likely to keep going regardless of who wins.At the same time, it's worth noting upfront that the race itself is still pretty fluid. A lot of the indicators that investors are watching – polling prediction markets, the president's approval rating, even things like domestic gasoline prices and consumer sentiment – they're somewhat giving mixed signals right now. There's a growing narrative around a potential democratic sweep. But when you actually look in more detail at the Senate map, we think the path there is still pretty challenging.So, I think it's important to emphasize there's much more uncertainty in the outcome than the headlines right now might suggest.Michael Zezas: So, if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to?Ariana Salvatore: There are some incremental shifts that will be worth watching. In particular as they pertain to fiscal policy. So, for example, things like SNAP and Medicaid, those are the real swing factors depending on the election outcome.If you recall last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act legislated some changes to those programs that are meant to start taking effect in 2027 and 2028. Things like shifting more of the cost burden onto states and tightening eligibility requirements to offset some of the deficit impact from tax cuts.And where elections come in is around whether or not those changes actually get implemented or delayed or softened. In our view, the most likely way you can get meaningful adjustments is in some form of divided government where there actually might be an incentive to negotiate around those fiscal cliffs.But crucially, we think that can only happen if you have what we call a robust rather than a fragile majority.Michael Zezas: Okay. Can you explain the difference between those two things?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, the question is not just who controls Congress, it's how unified they are. If you get a robust majority, that means the party can agree internally on what their core policy objectives are. And then use their leverage in a cohesive way to extract political concessions from the...]]>440alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1625fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/warnings-and-winners-from-the-imf-meetings--75644973insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Emerging Markets Sovereign Credit and LatAm Fixed Income Strategy. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Simon Waever: Today: The key takeaways for investors from the International Monetary Fund spring meetings in Washington, D.C. It’s Tuesday, April 21st at 10am in New York. Every six months, the IMF meetings in D.C. bring policy makers and investors together to take stock of the global economy. And we were both there as part of our IMF policy pulse conference. This time, continuing a pattern of recent years, the backdrop was a bit more complicated. Investors are weighing the economic fallout from the Iran conflict, potentially more persistent inflation pressures, and, as always, rising concerns around global debt and fiscal sustainability. So, the key question coming out of Washington is how do these risks reshape the outlook, and what should investors be paying attention to now. Let's start with the growth outlook, Seth. When you think about the Iran conflict, what's the single biggest channel through which it could hit global growth? And is that risk underpriced by markets today? Seth Carpenter: I think it really is underpriced, and not just by markets. I would say I had conversations with investors, but also with policy makers down in Washington. And I would say relative to my views on things, both markets and policy makers are under appreciating how much of a hit to growth this could be. Where is it going to happen? What's the channel? Well, that actually – that differs depending on which economy that you're looking at. I would say here in the U.S., it's primarily the middle- and lower-end of the income distribution. Higher energy prices, gasoline prices going up, taking away at discretionary income, especially in what we've been calling this K-shaped economy where the bottom half is already struggling. So, a bit of a hit primarily to consumption spending. I'd say in other parts of the world, it's broader. Asia – we are already starting to see rationing being imposed for production, for public transportation in lots of ways that really are going to crimp spending both by households and businesses. And then of course Europe. Well, they're still in some ways reeling and adapting from the energy price shock. When Russia invaded Ukraine, natural gas prices went up a lot more then. But I think there's still an adjustment process going on. So, I think the potential hit to growth is real. I think it has spread across economies around the world, but each different economy, each different country has its own sort of nuance and flavor to it. Simon Waever: And what about the central banks? I know you met with quite a few of them as well. Are they at risk of being behind the curve on inflation or is actually the bigger mistake now look like over-tightening? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I really think the over-tightening is the bigger risk here. It's funny, being behind the curve. That's a phrase that I did hear a lot, especially among some of the European policy makers. And people are feeling scarred, I guess you could say, from the surge in inflation that we got coming out of COVID. But history suggests that these sorts of surges in energy prices tend to be: one, more focused in headline inflation rather than core; and second, they do tend to revert on time and go away, over time. And I would say the bigger the hit to growth, the more likely it is that the inflationary impulse will start to fade on its own. And so, I do think there's too much reliance maybe on the inflation side of things, maybe not quite enough on the growth. And so, when I weigh the pros and cons, I would say the risk is probably too much tightening rather than not enough. But you know, Simon, I tend to spend more of my time in Washington talking to policymakers and investors who are focused on the developed market economy. So, I talked to people about the Fed, talked to people about the ECB. Morgan Stanley's real strong suit, when we do these conferences of the meeting though, is our EM focus. And I know you and the rest of the team have really over the years ramped up our engagement. So, when you think about the conversations that you had with investors and with officials, what do you think has, sort of, shifted most in recent months? And maybe what's shifted over the past week because the news flow has been going back and forth. What's going on in emerging markets that investors need to know about? Simon Waever: Right. I would say the first, and by far the biggest focus throughout the week was the disconnect between the very positive market sentiment versus actual developments in the Iran conflict. I think many participants believe the mood would be much worse and that the decision coming out of the meetings would be whether to buy into a challenging backdrop or just stay away. But instead, I think they came away thinking that the mood was actually fairly upbeat. But also that markets are pricing in a substantial probability of a resolution already. And that brings me to my second takeaways, and that's around EM resilience. EM has faced multiple macro shocks in recent years. And I think it's fair to say that EM policymakers, including central banks, have built up their credibility when it comes to responding to such events and the volatility they bring. Several of the EM central banks we met were positively surprised by the resilience of FX markets but also noted that they would still err on the side of caution. EM fundamentals also help in this aspect, which has seen contained external imbalances versus the past and mechanisms to deal with the energy price shock.Of course, with everything else impacted by the war, duration matters – especially as fiscal buffers are not equal across EM. But I would say in general it reaffirms our view that EM is in a good place to absorb and deal with the uncertainty. And that would actually be my third and final point. That the year as a whole should be good for EM assets, assuming that trajectory remains one of de-escalation. And I think that does extend to FX as well, where the market may quickly return to trading U.S. dollar weakness, particularly if the market's priced more of the Fed cuts that you expect. Seth Carpenter: Got it. So, you did say, assuming we return to a theme of de-escalation, and I guess we have that built into our forecast. The last four or five, six days has seen lots of back and forth. But if we do assume we end up de-escalating the current crisis in the Middle East, looking across EM [be]cause it really is a differentiated, subtly nuanced, broad part of the world. If I had to push you a little bit and say, where do you see the clearest winners? What would you point at? Simon Waever: Sure. I mean, to me, LatAm remains a key winner. We've had this call since the start of the year, but if anything, the Iran conflict and my discussions at the IMF only reinforce this. The region is obviously physically removed from the Middle East, but there are also many large commodity exporters. And a lot of the discussions were around the political realignment with the U.S. and there are several examples. Just to give a few: Argentina as usual, was a key part of the discussions. And compared to the meeting six months ago, they were much more positive given what's been accomplished since, both in terms of the structural reforms and the FX purchases here to date. And I have to mention Venezuela given it was during the meetings last week that the IMF resumed dealing with them, which had been a key positive catalyst that we've been looking for. Brazil is obviously the biggest economy, and I would say sentiment was pretty positive. But also there's an acknowledgement that the elections in October are just too close to call. And that is likely to bring some uncertainty closer to the time. Seth Carpenter: Yeah, those are all super compelling examples [be]cause they mix the economics, the markets with the politics. Obviously you mentioned the elections coming up in Brazil; and then for Argentina it was this real huge landslide shift in what was going on because of an election there a couple years ago. And we're seeing how that's coming out. Alright, so let's go in the opposite direction. And not everything can be rosy, and even if as a class we're pretty optimistic and pretty constructive on EM… Do you think there are some key vulnerabilities across the space that you cover that maybe could surprise us to the downside? Or maybe that markets really aren't appreciating now and might have to rethink? Simon Waever: Yeah, I think to start with, we move outside of LatAm and in all those discussions it was much more about the extent of vulnerability to the conflict and in particular the energy exposure. And I would say in general, an oil price of eighties is a sweet spot for EM, sovereign dollar bonds. But differentiation should pick up a lot. I would say the obvious view would be that energy exporters should outperform importers. But what I would highlight is actually more around the differentiation within all the importers [be]cause that's where policy space can differ significantly. And even just within Central America and Caribbean, I would call out countries like Costa Rica and Guatemala as having more policy space than say, El Salvador or Dominican Republic. And within Africa, it really comes down]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/k8v3M_7fhxecBq6n9JXIj6Br5gKpTI4mMoB7yrVdmv8Tue, 21 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyBack from the IMF Spring Meetings in Washington, Simon Waever and Seth Carpenter unpack what policy makers and investors could be underpricing: the growth hit from higher energy costs, the risk of too much tightening by central banks and why emerging...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Emerging Markets Sovereign Credit and LatAm Fixed Income Strategy. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Simon Waever: Today: The key takeaways for investors from the International Monetary Fund spring meetings in Washington, D.C. It’s Tuesday, April 21st at 10am in New York. Every six months, the IMF meetings in D.C. bring policy makers and investors together to take stock of the global economy. And we were both there as part of our IMF policy pulse conference. This time, continuing a pattern of recent years, the backdrop was a bit more complicated. Investors are weighing the economic fallout from the Iran conflict, potentially more persistent inflation pressures, and, as always, rising concerns around global debt and fiscal sustainability. So, the key question coming out of Washington is how do these risks reshape the outlook, and what should investors be paying attention to now. Let's start with the growth outlook, Seth. When you think about the Iran conflict, what's the single biggest channel through which it could hit global growth? And is that risk underpriced by markets today? Seth Carpenter: I think it really is underpriced, and not just by markets. I would say I had conversations with investors, but also with policy makers down in Washington. And I would say relative to my views on things, both markets and policy makers are under appreciating how much of a hit to growth this could be. Where is it going to happen? What's the channel? Well, that actually – that differs depending on which economy that you're looking at. I would say here in the U.S., it's primarily the middle- and lower-end of the income distribution. Higher energy prices, gasoline prices going up, taking away at discretionary income, especially in what we've been calling this K-shaped economy where the bottom half is already struggling. So, a bit of a hit primarily to consumption spending. I'd say in other parts of the world, it's broader. Asia – we are already starting to see rationing being imposed for production, for public transportation in lots of ways that really are going to crimp spending both by households and businesses. And then of course Europe. Well, they're still in some ways reeling and adapting from the energy price shock. When Russia invaded Ukraine, natural gas prices went up a lot more then. But I think there's still an adjustment process going on. So, I think the potential hit to growth is real. I think it has spread across economies around the world, but each different economy, each different country has its own sort of nuance and flavor to it. Simon Waever: And what about the central banks? I know you met with quite a few of them as well. Are they at risk of being behind the curve on inflation or is actually the bigger mistake now look like over-tightening? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I really think the over-tightening is the bigger risk here. It's funny, being behind the curve. That's a phrase that I did hear a lot, especially among some of the European policy makers. And people are feeling scarred, I guess you could say, from the surge in inflation that we got coming out of COVID. But history suggests that these sorts of surges in energy prices tend to be: one, more focused in headline inflation rather than core; and second, they do tend to revert on time and go away, over time. And I would say the bigger the hit...]]>581alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1624fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-investment-themes-intersect-and-beat-markets--75645024insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – how our 10 big thematic predictions are playing out and driving global markets. It’s Monday, April 20th at 11:30am in New York. Back in January, we laid out four key themes – AI & Tech Diffusion, the Future of Energy, a Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. And we laid out 10 specific thematic predictions about forces shaping 2026. It is really striking to me how quickly the landscape has shifted and how significant these trends have become in just a short period of time. Even more striking is how these mega secular themes are converging. AI is driving unprecedented demand for compute and energy. Energy is becoming a strategic priority for nations. And geopolitics is shaping access to both. So, let’s start with the most important development: the acceleration of AI. Now we expected strong progress in terms of large language model development, but what we’re seeing is really a step-change upward in capability. And this is driving an extraordinary surge in demand for compute. Global AI usage has jumped sharply with weekly usage; and we measure weekly usage in terms of how many tokens are used. Tokens are really a measure of small units of text. It's a fairly standard measure of demand for compute. That token usage has risen by about 250 percent just since early January, from 6.4 trillion tokens a week to 22.7 trillion; pushing us into a world where compute demand exceeds supply. This is one of the defining investment stories of 2026, and I see a lot of alpha generation, around this opportunity. Now, at the same time, AI is reshaping the labor market. We estimate that automation or augmentation will impact 90 percent of occupations; so almost every job will be affected. But the effect is not binary.  So we recently assessed the impacts to employment in five sectors where we believe the impact of AI adoption could be the biggest. And on net we see a 4 percent job loss, driven by 11 percent of outright elimination of jobs. 12 percent of jobs that were not backfilled, partially offset by 18 percent of new hires. So the real story is transformation. AI is changing how work gets done, reshaping roles rather than simply replacing them. But AI does not operate in a vacuum. It runs on energy. And that’s the second major shift since January. We now estimate global data center power demand could increase by nearly 130 gigawatts by 2028, with the U.S. potentially facing a 10–20 percent shortfall in power availability needed to support that growth. That’s why the Future of Energy is such a central theme. AI growth is directly tied to energy availability, cost, and infrastructure, and increasingly, to national policy. And that brings us to the third major development: geopolitics. We certainly did not anticipate the Iran conflict, but it has had a significant impact on energy markets, including supply disruptions that have rippled across global energy systems. And more broadly, we’re seeing a global push towards national self-sufficiency; this is a big driver for many years to come – in energy, critical minerals, and technology. And this clearly aligns with our Multipolar World theme, where countries are prioritizing control over key economic inputs. This shift is likely to be a major driver of markets not just this year, but well beyond. These big structural forces are already showing up in performance. The thematic categories that we developed that are aligned with our key themes were up 38 percent on average in 2025, outperforming the S&P 500 by 27 percentage points. And year-to-date in 2026, they're still ahead by 12 points. The strongest areas reflect exactly these dynamics: AI infrastructure, energy security, defense, healthcare, and emerging areas like humanoid robotics. So what’s the takeaway from revisiting our predictions? The biggest changes in 2026 are not happening in isolation, but at the intersections of our key themes. AI, energy, and geopolitics are no longer separate stories. They are now deeply interconnected forces shaping the global economy. And understanding those intersections may be the key to understanding markets and generating alpha for years to come.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/o7JRe4DNrkvxwwgOb6ki5gEffPvUjuPQ0gFzRjrZiJEMon, 20 Apr 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd unpacks how major investment themes for 2026 are increasingly interconnected, generating gains for investors.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – how our 10 big thematic predictions are playing out and driving global markets. It’s Monday, April 20th at 11:30am in New York. Back in January, we laid out four key themes – AI & Tech Diffusion, the Future of Energy, a Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. And we laid out 10 specific thematic predictions about forces shaping 2026. It is really striking to me how quickly the landscape has shifted and how significant these trends have become in just a short period of time. Even more striking is how these mega secular themes are converging. AI is driving unprecedented demand for compute and energy. Energy is becoming a strategic priority for nations. And geopolitics is shaping access to both. So, let’s start with the most important development: the acceleration of AI. Now we expected strong progress in terms of large language model development, but what we’re seeing is really a step-change upward in capability. And this is driving an extraordinary surge in demand for compute. Global AI usage has jumped sharply with weekly usage; and we measure weekly usage in terms of how many tokens are used. Tokens are really a measure of small units of text. It's a fairly standard measure of demand for compute. That token usage has risen by about 250 percent just since early January, from 6.4 trillion tokens a week to 22.7 trillion; pushing us into a world where compute demand exceeds supply. This is one of the defining investment stories of 2026, and I see a lot of alpha generation, around this opportunity. Now, at the same time, AI is reshaping the labor market. We estimate that automation or augmentation will impact 90 percent of occupations; so almost every job will be affected. But the effect is not binary.  So we recently assessed the impacts to employment in five sectors where we believe the impact of AI adoption could be the biggest. And on net we see a 4 percent job loss, driven by 11 percent of outright elimination of jobs. 12 percent of jobs that were not backfilled, partially offset by 18 percent of new hires. So the real story is transformation. AI is changing how work gets done, reshaping roles rather than simply replacing them. But AI does not operate in a vacuum. It runs on energy. And that’s the second major shift since January. We now estimate global data center power demand could increase by nearly 130 gigawatts by 2028, with the U.S. potentially facing a 10–20 percent shortfall in power availability needed to support that growth. That’s why the Future of Energy is such a central theme. AI growth is directly tied to energy availability, cost, and infrastructure, and increasingly, to national policy. And that brings us to the third major development: geopolitics. We certainly did not anticipate the Iran conflict, but it has had a significant impact on energy markets, including supply disruptions that have rippled across global energy systems. And more broadly, we’re seeing a global push towards national self-sufficiency; this is a big driver for many years to come – in energy, critical minerals, and technology. And this clearly aligns with our Multipolar World theme, where countries are prioritizing control over key economic inputs. This shift is likely to be a major driver of markets not just this year, but well beyond. These big structural forces are already showing up in performance. The thematic categories that we developed that are aligned with our key themes were up 38 percent on average in 2025, outperforming...]]>306alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1623fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-real-drivers-of-glp-1-growth--75644962insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. Pharma and Biotech Research. Today: the next phase of growth in obesity medicines – the GLP-1 unlock.It’s Friday, April 17th, at 2pm in New York.There are moments in healthcare where innovation, policy, and patient demand all converge. And when they do, the impact can extend far beyond medicine. Now we believe GLP-1 therapies are at one of those moments. We estimate that the obesity medications market could reach around $190 billion at peak across obesity and diabetes. Now, that’s a meaningful step up from prior expectations – and it reflects a shift from early adoption to a much broader, more scalable opportunity.Despite the surge in attention to GLP-1s in the last couple of years, penetration actually remains relatively low today. Only about 6 percent of eligible obesity patients in the U.S. are currently using GLP-1 therapies, and just 2 percent outside the U.S. So, while the growth has been significant, the reality is that we’re still early. And that’s what makes this moment so important.So, we see five drivers that are pushing the next phase of adoption.The first is a shift of oral medications. These therapies have historically been injectables, which limits adoption. But newer oral options are changing that. Notably, just under 80 percent of oral GLP-1 users are new to the category. And this signals real market expansion.Second, expanding access through Medicare. A new U.S. framework is opening these drugs to millions of older patients, with out-of-pocket costs potentially around $50 per month. Now, that’s a meaningful shift, and one that could significantly broaden utilization.Third is lower costs and broader insurance coverage. We’re already seeing progress here. Average monthly out-of-pocket costs have declined to about $120, down from $170 last year. Now, at the same time, employer coverage for obesity treatments is expected to rise from just under 50 percent last year to around 65 percent by 2027.Fourth is global expansion. Outside the U.S., adoption is more price-sensitive, but the opportunity is large. As costs come down and access improves, especially in markets like China and Brazil, we expect uptake to accelerate.And fifth is innovation beyond weight loss. These therapies are increasingly being studied across a range of conditions: from cardiovascular and kidney disease to inflammation and neurological disorders. And that has the potential to further expand the addressable market over time.So how big could the GLP-1 market get? Well globally, we estimate there are about 1.3 billion people eligible for these therapies. Now our base case assumes roughly 12 percent of that population is treated by 2035, including about 30 percent penetration in the U.S. Now, even at those levels, we’re looking at a $190 billion market – with a potential bull case of around $240 billion.But this story doesn’t stop at healthcare. We estimate GLP-1 adoption could reduce U.S. calorie consumption by about 1.6 percent by 2035. Now, that may sound modest, but at scale it has real implications, with ripple effects across consumer behavior and industries like food, retail, and healthcare services.So, stepping back, this is what defines the GLP-1 unlock. We’re approaching a key inflection point that’s driven by oral therapies, broader access, and ongoing innovation. With adoption still low relative to the eligible population, the growth runway remains significant. At its core, this is a long-term structural shift in how chronic disease is treated, and how that reshapes markets.Thanks so much for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/n-SQxTca2U6uJZQukkLrSgDxJHbXAgOKu5gKF19OeysFri, 17 Apr 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of U.S. Pharma and Biotech Terence Flynn discusses how the rapid pace of adoption of weight management treatments could have far-reaching implications across healthcare, consumer behavior and global markets.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. Pharma and Biotech Research. Today: the next phase of growth in obesity medicines – the GLP-1 unlock.It’s Friday, April 17th, at 2pm in New York.There are moments in healthcare where innovation, policy, and patient demand all converge. And when they do, the impact can extend far beyond medicine. Now we believe GLP-1 therapies are at one of those moments. We estimate that the obesity medications market could reach around $190 billion at peak across obesity and diabetes. Now, that’s a meaningful step up from prior expectations – and it reflects a shift from early adoption to a much broader, more scalable opportunity.Despite the surge in attention to GLP-1s in the last couple of years, penetration actually remains relatively low today. Only about 6 percent of eligible obesity patients in the U.S. are currently using GLP-1 therapies, and just 2 percent outside the U.S. So, while the growth has been significant, the reality is that we’re still early. And that’s what makes this moment so important.So, we see five drivers that are pushing the next phase of adoption.The first is a shift of oral medications. These therapies have historically been injectables, which limits adoption. But newer oral options are changing that. Notably, just under 80 percent of oral GLP-1 users are new to the category. And this signals real market expansion.Second, expanding access through Medicare. A new U.S. framework is opening these drugs to millions of older patients, with out-of-pocket costs potentially around $50 per month. Now, that’s a meaningful shift, and one that could significantly broaden utilization.Third is lower costs and broader insurance coverage. We’re already seeing progress here. Average monthly out-of-pocket costs have declined to about $120, down from $170 last year. Now, at the same time, employer coverage for obesity treatments is expected to rise from just under 50 percent last year to around 65 percent by 2027.Fourth is global expansion. Outside the U.S., adoption is more price-sensitive, but the opportunity is large. As costs come down and access improves, especially in markets like China and Brazil, we expect uptake to accelerate.And fifth is innovation beyond weight loss. These therapies are increasingly being studied across a range of conditions: from cardiovascular and kidney disease to inflammation and neurological disorders. And that has the potential to further expand the addressable market over time.So how big could the GLP-1 market get? Well globally, we estimate there are about 1.3 billion people eligible for these therapies. Now our base case assumes roughly 12 percent of that population is treated by 2035, including about 30 percent penetration in the U.S. Now, even at those levels, we’re looking at a $190 billion market – with a potential bull case of around $240 billion.But this story doesn’t stop at healthcare. We estimate GLP-1 adoption could reduce U.S. calorie consumption by about 1.6 percent by 2035. Now, that may sound modest, but at scale it has real implications, with ripple effects across consumer behavior and industries like food, retail, and healthcare services.So, stepping back, this is what defines the GLP-1 unlock. We’re approaching a key inflection point that’s driven by oral therapies, broader access, and ongoing innovation. With adoption still low relative to the eligible population, the growth runway remains significant. At its core, this is a long-term structural shift in how chronic disease is treated,...]]>262alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1622fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/markets-eye-hungary-s-political-shift--75644959insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the program, how we’re thinking about the market implications of a recent election. It’s Thursday, April 16th at 2pm in London. Hungary has about the same population as New Jersey. And yet its elections last weekend commanded global attention. The contest pitted the party of Viktor Orbán, who had served as Prime Minister since 2010, against a former protégé turned rival, Péter Magyar. As a sign of the global importance and as a referendum on the future of Hungary and its place in Europe, this vote was seen as significantly important that the U.S. Vice President flew in to campaign on Orbán’s behalf. Among the issues at stake were Hungary’s relationship with Europe’s broader political and economic architecture. Hungary has been a member of the European Union since 2004, but has frequently clashed with the bloc under Orbán’s tenure. This has European-wide implications, as a number of key EU procedures – including the levying of sanctions, defence policy, and enlargement – require unanimous approval among member states. A single dissenting vote, from Hungary or anywhere else, can prove highly disruptive. This month the European Commission President proposed moving forward with changing the voting system and linking it more closely to population. But there’s a wrinkle… This change would still need to pass by unanimous vote. So back to the election. The result was a landslide win for the opposition, with Péter Magyar’s party securing 138 out of 199 seats in the National Assembly. The shift in leadership, the first since 2010, and the scale of the majority, have meaningful geopolitical implications for Europe. But since this is a markets-focused podcast … we’ll focus on the markets. First, new leadership in Hungary may mean warmer relations with the European Union. And that could mean money. Unfreezing access to EU funds, one of the new government's policy goals, could result in 1 to 1.5 percent higher potential GDP growth for Hungary, per Morgan Stanley economists. And the new government has also proposed taking steps to adopt the Euro as its official currency. Both of these developments could help reduce the risk premium embedded in Hungarian assets. While Hungarian interest rates fell and its currency appreciated following the vote, our strategists think that both could move further – with interest rates falling a further 0.5 to 1 percent, and the currency appreciating a further 2 to 4 percent. And while Hungary is a pretty small equity market in global terms, it is one that our strategists like, and are overweight.Hungary’s recent election attracted global focus. While much remains to be seen, the prospect for smoother relations with the rest of Europe is a positive for both Hungary's assets and the Bloc as a whole. For different reasons related to Energy uncertainty, relative earnings, and relative monetary policy, we do continue to prefer U.S. equities and government bonds over their European counterparts. But as a longer-term story in Europe that’s important to watch, we think this definitely qualifies. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nGoPkXIw7jk3Jn7mdqO1wjUwPFTPGYagv6E7m7ReQ94Thu, 16 Apr 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets breaks down how Péter Magyar’s win in Hungary’s election could smooth relations with the EU and lower the risk premium in the country’s assets.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the program, how we’re thinking about the market implications of a recent election. It’s Thursday, April 16th at 2pm in London. Hungary has about the same population as New Jersey. And yet its elections last weekend commanded global attention. The contest pitted the party of Viktor Orbán, who had served as Prime Minister since 2010, against a former protégé turned rival, Péter Magyar. As a sign of the global importance and as a referendum on the future of Hungary and its place in Europe, this vote was seen as significantly important that the U.S. Vice President flew in to campaign on Orbán’s behalf. Among the issues at stake were Hungary’s relationship with Europe’s broader political and economic architecture. Hungary has been a member of the European Union since 2004, but has frequently clashed with the bloc under Orbán’s tenure. This has European-wide implications, as a number of key EU procedures – including the levying of sanctions, defence policy, and enlargement – require unanimous approval among member states. A single dissenting vote, from Hungary or anywhere else, can prove highly disruptive. This month the European Commission President proposed moving forward with changing the voting system and linking it more closely to population. But there’s a wrinkle… This change would still need to pass by unanimous vote. So back to the election. The result was a landslide win for the opposition, with Péter Magyar’s party securing 138 out of 199 seats in the National Assembly. The shift in leadership, the first since 2010, and the scale of the majority, have meaningful geopolitical implications for Europe. But since this is a markets-focused podcast … we’ll focus on the markets. First, new leadership in Hungary may mean warmer relations with the European Union. And that could mean money. Unfreezing access to EU funds, one of the new government's policy goals, could result in 1 to 1.5 percent higher potential GDP growth for Hungary, per Morgan Stanley economists. And the new government has also proposed taking steps to adopt the Euro as its official currency. Both of these developments could help reduce the risk premium embedded in Hungarian assets. While Hungarian interest rates fell and its currency appreciated following the vote, our strategists think that both could move further – with interest rates falling a further 0.5 to 1 percent, and the currency appreciating a further 2 to 4 percent. And while Hungary is a pretty small equity market in global terms, it is one that our strategists like, and are overweight.Hungary’s recent election attracted global focus. While much remains to be seen, the prospect for smoother relations with the rest of Europe is a positive for both Hungary's assets and the Bloc as a whole. For different reasons related to Energy uncertainty, relative earnings, and relative monetary policy, we do continue to prefer U.S. equities and government bonds over their European counterparts. But as a longer-term story in Europe that’s important to watch, we think this definitely qualifies. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>236alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1621fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economic-roundtable-structural-fallouts-from-the-iran-conflict--75644951insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And once again, I am joined by Morgan Stanley's chief regional economists: Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, the Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. Yesterday we focused on the immediate impact of the Iran conflict, how the energy shock is feeding through into inflation, and, as a result, shaping central bank decisions across the U.S., Europe, and Asia.Today we're going to go a level deeper and talk about some structural issues in the global economy. It's Wednesday, April 15th at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, even as we're waiting to see whether or not oil prices stabilize following a temporary ceasefire – or not – the broader effects are still working their way through the global economy. Labor markets, supply chains, and then, of course, back to the more longer-term structural themes like AI driven growth. So, the question, I think, has to be: what does this shock mean, if anything, for the next phase of global growth? And does it reshape it? Does it change it, or do we just wait for things to go through? Mike, let me come to you first. One risk that  we've been focusing on is whether this kind of shock really changes some of the structural positives in the U.S. economy. The U.S. has been, I would say, outperforming in lots of ways. We've had this AI driven CapEx cycle. We've had rising productivity; we've had strong consumer spending. What are you seeing in the data about those more structural trends? Michael Gapen: I think what we're seeing in the data right now is evidence that oil is not disrupting the positive structural trends in the U.S. I think AI CapEx spending is largely orthogonal to what we've seen so far. It doesn't mean that we can't see negative effects, particularly if oil rises to say $150 a barrel or more where we think you might see significant demand destruction. But with oil where it is right now, I would say the evidence is it will probably weigh on consumption. Gasoline prices are higher. It's going to squeeze lower- and middle-income households that way. But so far, the labor market appears to be holding up. And business spending around CapEx seems to be holding up. And the productivity story remains in place. So right now, I'd say this is more of a break on consumer spending, maybe a modest headwind. But not an outright hard stop. And I think those positive structural elements and AI-related CapEx spending are going to stay with us in 2026. Seth Carpenter: I hear in your answer part of what for me is always the most uncomfortable part of these conversations. Where I have to come back to say, ‘But of course it depends on how things evolve…' Michael Gapen: Of course, It depends… Seth Carpenter: So, then let me push you on AI specifically. You and your team have published a few pieces recently about AI. How AI is affecting the labor market, and maybe some hints as to how AI is likely to affect the labor market. So how should we think about that? Michael Gapen: While it's still too early, I think, to draw firm conclusions, Seth, we do find that there's some evidence that AI is pushing unemployment rates higher in specific occupations that are exposed to task replacement. So, what we did do is we broke down the data by occupation, and  it's clear that the unemployment rate has been rising. But that's just a general feature of the economy at this point in time. Over the last 18 to 24 months, the unemployment rate has gone higher. So, what we did is a second-round effort at kind of controlling for cyclicality. And  when you control for those, we do find evidence that the unemployment rate for occupations that have high exposure to AI is higher than you would expect, given the cyclical performance of the economy. But the effect is really small. It's maybe about 1/10th on the unemployment rate. So, I don't want to be too Pollyannish and say, ‘Oh, there's no evidence here that AI is disrupting the labor market.’  We'd say that there is some evidence there. But, so far, it's mild and it's modest. It's a little more micro than it is macro. So, we'll see how this evolves. But that would be our initial conclusion so far. Seth Carpenter: So, Mike, that's super helpful. When I think about the AI investment cycle, though, I have to come back to Asia because a lot of the AI supply chain is there in Asia, especially with semiconductors and others. But there's lots of supply chain around the world. So, Chetan, if I think about different supply chains, different industries in Asia that are at risk, potentially being disrupted by the current shock, where do you focus? And then take a step further and tell me if you see a risk that there's a structural dislocation going on here in any of these sectors?  Chetan Ahya: So, Seth, there are two relevant points here from Asia supply chain perspective, particularly the tech sector. Number one, there are some concerns on the supply side issues in the context of helium and sulfur. But from what we see as of today, these companies who need that helium and sulfur are able to pay up. As you would appreciate, this is a sector which is, you know, making a lot of money for those economies, i.e. Korea and Taiwan. And they are able to bid up on gas prices, sulfur, and helium, and still managing their production lines. So, we don't see a supply constraint as of now for their production, but there will be an implication for them if you do see damage on U.S. growth, which is quite meaningful. At the end of the day, these sectors are deep cyclical sectors. But if you do see that, you know, scenario of $150 of oil price and it brings global economy to near recession, then there will be implication for these companies and sectors in Asia as well. Seth Carpenter: All right, so Jens, let me bring it to you then. Because when I think about Europe, I think about a couple things. One, kind of, the intersection of energy vulnerability now markets pricing in tighter policy, industrial exposure, which has been going on for a long time. Takes us back in lots of ways to the energy price shock that started in 2021 and went through all of 2022, where we did see, I think, a hit to European manufacturing that had kind of a long tail to it. So, when you think about the current situation, what do you think this shock means for  the medium term? How much of an effect do you think this energy price shock could have on the European economy going out a couple of years?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, I mean, just listening to you guys, I mean, really makes me a little bit more depressed still, in terms of being European economist here. Because I mean, it seems America, well, they have the same energy shock, but at least they have AI. In Asia while they have the same energy shock, but at least they have something to deliver into AI. Europe just has the shock, right? So, in some sense there could be one summary.No, but I mean, going back to the comparison and the question. Of course, we have downgraded, as I said yesterday, our growth outlook. And that's predominantly on simply inflation high that is not great for consumption. Consumption is 50 percent of GDP. So, you want to take down a little bit your forecast and your optimism. And then – to your point – where does this leave Europe? We do have already less energy intense manufacturing than before. So, not sure if you'll see much more, or much further downward pressure on this sector. But, of course, it is an uphill battle from here to get back. To get this industrial renaissance back that to some extent the Germans at least are hoping for. In our growth outlook and our growth revisions, we looked into differentiated impacts. And, of course, one of these impacts is through trade. And again, the backdrop here probably globally is not great for trade – as at least you would not want to be super optimistic in that current backdrop. And that will hurt again Europe. So, to your question, we have an outlook, which is still positive growth; but much more muted than say, a month ago or two. Seth Carpenter: Can I push you then a little bit and say that this shock to the European economy then isn't just a cyclical hit. There's probably an additional sort of structural headwind that might get introduced on the heels of, say, the earlier 2021-2022 energy shock? Jens Eisenschmidt: I would say it's the same thing. It's just a reminder that this is still there, right? Europe needs to, kind of, find ways… I think it's best exemplified by the German economy, who was exporting to the rest of the world. And now it looks like as if China has taken over that role. And so, you have to find a new business model, simply speaking, because the ice cream shop next door is just better than you. And so, this is something, what the European economy has just gotten another reminder, and it came through energy, in particular. So, this is where the similarities are. So that was a [20]22 shock. In the meantime, oil prices had nicely retraced, gas prices had nicely retraced. We have new contracts with different suppliers. But still, I mean, the high energy prices expose us here. Because we are already a continent with very high electricity prices, which are derived from the fossil fuels. And so that is not going to end. And so, the continent really urgently has to address that weakness, that s]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/o582_3RY8L06_wZIalVx9El-bu7q8SeP_QiywHirLMQWed, 15 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter concludes the two-part discussion with chief regional economists Michael Gapen, Jens Eisenschmidt and Chetan Ahya on the second order effects of the energy shock from tensions in the Middle East.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And once again, I am joined by Morgan Stanley's chief regional economists: Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, the Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. Yesterday we focused on the immediate impact of the Iran conflict, how the energy shock is feeding through into inflation, and, as a result, shaping central bank decisions across the U.S., Europe, and Asia.Today we're going to go a level deeper and talk about some structural issues in the global economy. It's Wednesday, April 15th at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, even as we're waiting to see whether or not oil prices stabilize following a temporary ceasefire – or not – the broader effects are still working their way through the global economy. Labor markets, supply chains, and then, of course, back to the more longer-term structural themes like AI driven growth. So, the question, I think, has to be: what does this shock mean, if anything, for the next phase of global growth? And does it reshape it? Does it change it, or do we just wait for things to go through? Mike, let me come to you first. One risk that  we've been focusing on is whether this kind of shock really changes some of the structural positives in the U.S. economy. The U.S. has been, I would say, outperforming in lots of ways. We've had this AI driven CapEx cycle. We've had rising productivity; we've had strong consumer spending. What are you seeing in the data about those more structural trends? Michael Gapen: I think what we're seeing in the data right now is evidence that oil is not disrupting the positive structural trends in the U.S. I think AI CapEx spending is largely orthogonal to what we've seen so far. It doesn't mean that we can't see negative effects, particularly if oil rises to say $150 a barrel or more where we think you might see significant demand destruction. But with oil where it is right now, I would say the evidence is it will probably weigh on consumption. Gasoline prices are higher. It's going to squeeze lower- and middle-income households that way. But so far, the labor market appears to be holding up. And business spending around CapEx seems to be holding up. And the productivity story remains in place. So right now, I'd say this is more of a break on consumer spending, maybe a modest headwind. But not an outright hard stop. And I think those positive structural elements and AI-related CapEx spending are going to stay with us in 2026. Seth Carpenter: I hear in your answer part of what for me is always the most uncomfortable part of these conversations. Where I have to come back to say, ‘But of course it depends on how things evolve…' Michael Gapen: Of course, It depends… Seth Carpenter: So, then let me push you on AI specifically. You and your team have published a few pieces recently about AI. How AI is affecting the labor market, and maybe some hints as to how AI is likely to affect the labor market. So how should we think about that? Michael Gapen: While it's still too early, I think, to draw firm conclusions, Seth, we do find that there's some evidence that AI is pushing unemployment rates higher in specific occupations that are exposed to task replacement. So, what we did do is we broke down the data by occupation, and  it's clear that the unemployment rate has been rising. But that's just...]]>743alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1620fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economic-roundtable-energy-shock-central-banks-action--75645028insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're going to kick off our quarterly economic roundtable. And this is where we try to step back a little bit from the headlines and the day-to-day changes in markets and try to put the global picture together and frame it for you. In the first of this two-part discussion, we're going to cover the implications of the oil price shock for energy, inflation, and for central bank policy. As always, I'm joined by the Chief Regional Economists here at Morgan Stanley. I've got Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. It's Tuesday, April 14th at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, let's just jump right into this. Over the past several weeks, global markets have been dominated by one story. The escalation, de-escalation, the news flow back and forth about the conflict in Iran and the ripple across energy markets, inflation, and growth. Our view has been that even if we don't see another huge leg up in the price of energy and another surge in volatility across financial markets, the persistence of the shock in terms of disrupted supply will be at least as important, if not more so for markets. So, let me start here in the U.S., Mike.  You and I have each had lots of conversations with clients about how the Fed's going to react. Market pricing moved a lot before, has retraced, and now is kind of looking at no change in policy for this year, give or take. Your baseline remains that the Fed will have an easing bias and that we'll end up with a couple of cuts later this year. Can you walk us through that thinking, and also where the debate is with clients? Michael Gapen: Sure. So, the evidence in the data… This goes back, let's call it several decades now – that oil price shocks in the U.S. do tend to push headline inflation higher by definition. But they have very limited second round effects on core inflation. And the higher oil prices go, the more likely it is that you get some demand destruction, some weakness in spending, maybe even some weakness in hiring. So, there is a bit of a non-linearity here. In our baseline where oil is elevated, but let's say not excessively high, I can completely buy the argument that the Fed is on hold assessing the evolution of the data and wondering are there second round effects on inflation? Or is this weakening demand? So, Seth, our view is that the Fed is right in its assessment that tariff passed through to goods prices will eventually moderate. And that the oil price effect on headline will diminish. And later this year, core inflation moderates. That should open the door for the Fed to cut two times this year. I do think that the wrong thing to do in this situation is to raise rates into this… Seth Carpenter: I agree with you. Michael Gapen: Yeah. So, I think it's… The Fed's on hold or their cutting. If we're right on where inflation goes, that can open the door to cuts. But to your point, where is the investor debate right now? I think the knee jerk reaction from markets is – the Fed's on the sideline, for, let's call it the foreseeable future. Which as you noted in this market is day-to-day headline to headline. And the Fed will assess where to go later this year. We think they can cut. But I think in general, the Fed is either on hold or cutting. I think the wrong thing to do right now is raise rates. Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, let me jump in maybe here from Europe where in theory it's the same problem. Just that the answer that the central bank is likely to give in Europe is slightly different from the one in the U.S. So, the debate we have with clients is not so much about whether or not the ECB is going to hike rates. It's more about how much it will do or have to do this. I mean, again, it has a lot to do with the way oil prices in the end, end up trading. It will be a lot more inflation or less. But it has also to do with the way the mandates are constructed. So, the ECB really has a single inflation mandate and not a dual mandate like the Fed in the case of the U.S. So, there's much more attention on inflation. Next to that, we have stronger second round effects. Historically, we know that from the data. So, it's clear and understandable why ECB policy makers all came out cautioning against that inflation coming, and sort of mulling what had to be done there. We had some leaks out of the governing council meeting in March that maybe [in] April, you've already seen rate hikes. We pushed strongly back against that notion. Since then, we had other policy makers coming out agreeing to that. Yet we likely have a discussion in the June meeting that may lead to a rate hike. We currently forecast a rate hike in June and one in September. Seth Carpenter:  What about the growth risks to the euro area? Is that part of why you think the hikes might come later? Is that part of why the ECB might only hike two times this year? How do you think about the growth risks for the euro area in addition to the inflation risks? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, no, I think that's a fair question. We have just updated our growth outlook for this year. Next, we've downgraded growth, obviously. Again, all of that is dependent on the scenario in the end we are in. For now, we assume a scenario of elevated oil prices for this year, but then they will retrace. Now the ECB will look at that in a very similar fashion. So first of all, they will have their new projections. They will see whether there is any hope, reasonable hope that we go back to close to target inflation. Mind you, we were below target, started the year on a very good footing here. And now are projecting we will more or less come out at above 3 percent this year and 2.4 next. Both are above the 2 percent target. That already factors in a mild hit to growth. And I think here is really the crux of the matter. If the ECB has to see a more dramatic downward revision of its growth outlook, they may as well hold a little bit more back with rate hikes. At the same time, for now, all the indications are that the hit to growth will be relatively mild and herein lies if you want the basis for the rate hikes. It's a bit of a signaling device. It's a bit of lowering growth, but not really as much. It's not – we see a central bank leaning strongly against inflation. We are seeing them mildly leaning against it in a bid to stabilize inflation expectations mainly.Seth Carpenter: Alright, that's super helpful. Chetan, I'm going to come to you because we've talked with Mike and with Jens about the inflationary side of things and the growth side of things.  But when I think about energy and Asia, I think of Asia as being a bit more exposed than other big economies, definitely relative to the United States. And I think about a lot of sensitivity, not just to the consumer, but also to manufacturing. So how are you thinking about the exposure across your region, across Asia to this energy shock? Where are the biggest risks? Chetan Ahya: So, Seth, first of all, I agree with you. I think Asia is the most exposed region. The best metric for assessing that is how much is the net oil imports of each of the regions in the world. And Asia is at around 2 percent of GDP. Europe is around 1.5 percent of GDP and U.S. is actually a minor surplus. Now in terms of the transmission of this shock to growth, there are two elements to be considered. One is the price of oil and gas, and second is the supply shortages. And in fact, all my life when I have been doing this work of modeling on oil shocks to growth transmission, we've never had to really think about supply shortages. We've always been considering oil price increase and its impact. But in this cycle, we have to also consider the supply shortages. So, when you consider both these factors, we think that there will be a meaningful growth damage to Asia from the evidence of oil price increase and gas supply shortages that we have seen so far. And we have just reduced our growth estimates for the region from 4.8 percent to 4.4 percent. Mind you, first quarter was fine. So, this is all on account of the last three-quarters growth damage. And we are assuming that there will some kind of normalcy that we see in ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz. And we are resuming oil prices average around $110 in second quarter and then come down to $90. So, in that sense, our base case is still expecting some kind of a resolution very soon. But if that doesn't materialize and you see oil prices rising up to $150, then we think region will take a much bigger hit and growth will come down to 3.9 percent in 2026. Seth Carpenter: So, Chetan, you've made a couple of really good points there. One I want to highlight is the difference between the quantities and the prices. I would say as economists, as people in markets, we're used to thinking about oil shocks as just about the price of oil and how that transmits through.But I do think there's a real risk now, given the virtual shutdown of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz that we see physical shortages. And across different Asian economies, we have seen rationing already come into place. So, when you look across the region, how would you rank the specific economies that are most exposed?  Especially if we have to think about physical sh]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IYwwTyKhMTCkfg_tVhNKQiJ_opjDOz7HmO1vHdoaeCgTue, 14 Apr 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyIn this first of a two-part discussion, our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter leads a discussion with chief regional economists Michael Gapen, Jens Eisenschmidt and Chetan Ahya on impacts of the conflict in Iran and how central banks are...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're going to kick off our quarterly economic roundtable. And this is where we try to step back a little bit from the headlines and the day-to-day changes in markets and try to put the global picture together and frame it for you. In the first of this two-part discussion, we're going to cover the implications of the oil price shock for energy, inflation, and for central bank policy. As always, I'm joined by the Chief Regional Economists here at Morgan Stanley. I've got Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. It's Tuesday, April 14th at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, let's just jump right into this. Over the past several weeks, global markets have been dominated by one story. The escalation, de-escalation, the news flow back and forth about the conflict in Iran and the ripple across energy markets, inflation, and growth. Our view has been that even if we don't see another huge leg up in the price of energy and another surge in volatility across financial markets, the persistence of the shock in terms of disrupted supply will be at least as important, if not more so for markets. So, let me start here in the U.S., Mike.  You and I have each had lots of conversations with clients about how the Fed's going to react. Market pricing moved a lot before, has retraced, and now is kind of looking at no change in policy for this year, give or take. Your baseline remains that the Fed will have an easing bias and that we'll end up with a couple of cuts later this year. Can you walk us through that thinking, and also where the debate is with clients? Michael Gapen: Sure. So, the evidence in the data… This goes back, let's call it several decades now – that oil price shocks in the U.S. do tend to push headline inflation higher by definition. But they have very limited second round effects on core inflation. And the higher oil prices go, the more likely it is that you get some demand destruction, some weakness in spending, maybe even some weakness in hiring. So, there is a bit of a non-linearity here. In our baseline where oil is elevated, but let's say not excessively high, I can completely buy the argument that the Fed is on hold assessing the evolution of the data and wondering are there second round effects on inflation? Or is this weakening demand? So, Seth, our view is that the Fed is right in its assessment that tariff passed through to goods prices will eventually moderate. And that the oil price effect on headline will diminish. And later this year, core inflation moderates. That should open the door for the Fed to cut two times this year. I do think that the wrong thing to do in this situation is to raise rates into this… Seth Carpenter: I agree with you. Michael Gapen: Yeah. So, I think it's… The Fed's on hold or their cutting. If we're right on where inflation goes, that can open the door to cuts. But to your point, where is the investor debate right now? I think the knee jerk reaction from markets is – the Fed's on the sideline, for, let's call it the foreseeable future. Which as you noted in this market is day-to-day headline to headline. And the Fed will assess where to go later this year. We think they can cut. But I think in general, the Fed is either on hold or...]]>794alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1619fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mounting-evidence-of-a-market-rebound--75644994insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why equity investors – sometimes – need to look away from the headlines.It's Monday, April 13th at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.Today I want to talk about something I think a lot of investors are struggling with right now – and that’s timing. When I talk to people, markets still feel fragile to most. There’s uncertainty around geopolitics, central banks, oil… You name it. But when I look at what the market is actually doing; not what it feels like, but what it’s telling us – I come away with a very different conclusion. The market is further along than most people think in this correction.In fact, over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen the S&P 500 bounce meaningfully. Almost 7 percent from the lows after holding that critical 6300 to 6500 range that we’ve been focused on. To me, that’s not random. That’s the market carving out a low ahead of an all-clear signal. And stepping back, my broader view hasn’t changed.I still think we’re in a new bull market that began last April, coming out of that rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. This correction is part of that cycle; not the end of it. And importantly, a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done.Valuations have compressed significantly. Forward price/earnings multiples have fallen about 18 percent from top to bottom. And beneath the surface, more than half of stocks are down 20 percent or more. That’s a market that has already discounted a lot of risk – whether it’s the war, private credit concerns, or AI disruption.At the same time, earnings are moving in the opposite direction. Trailing earnings growth is running around 15 percent, and forward earnings growth is up over 20 percent. That combination of falling multiples and rising earnings is a classic bull market correction behavior. Not a bear market. And that’s why I think many are misreading this environment.One area where I think that’s especially clear is energy. If you look at the price action, energy stocks appear to have already peaked in relative terms. That’s often a signal that the underlying commodity – in this case oil – may also be peaking. Or at least it’s stabilizing.Which brings me to what I think is really driving volatility now: rates.We’re back in a regime where stocks and yields are negatively correlated. That means higher rates are a headwind for equities again, and the recent hawkish tone from central banks that’s focused on inflation is creating tighter financial conditions. In my view, that’s the final hurdle. Not the war. Not oil. But monetary policy. And here’s the interesting part. Tightening financial conditions are also what ultimately force central banks to pivot. So the very thing creating anxiety today may be what sets up relief tomorrow.Now, if we’re in the later stages of this correction, the next question is positioning. For me, it’s still about a barbell. On one side, I like cyclicals like Financials, Industrials, and Consumer Discretionary – where the earnings remain strong and valuations have reset. On the other side is quality growth. In particularly the hyperscalers; where sentiment has been washed out, but fundamentals remain intact. That combination has worked well off the lows so far, and I think it continues to make sense here.When I zoom out even further, there’s a bigger theme developing as well. And that’s the rebalancing of the economy, a core theme we discussed in our 2026 outlook back in November. We’re starting to see hard evidence that growth is shifting, from the public to the private economy. Private payrolls are strengthening, capital investment is picking up, and companies are behaving as if the current uncertainty is temporary – not structural. This is the rolling recovery on track.At the same time, AI is acting more as a margin tailwind than a disruption, at least in the near term. And this supports operating leverage across many industries. All of that reinforces my view that the recovery is real. And still has room to run.So when I put it all together, here’s where I land:The market has already discounted a lot of bad news. It’s adjusted valuations, reset positioning, and absorbed market risks. What risk remains is policy, and how long rates and liquidity stay restrictive. But markets don’t wait for clarity on that. They move ahead of it.So, here’s my advice. Take advantage of any further worries and put capital to work before it's obvious. Because the market waits for no one.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eqF3VHb81SvE6yT7w6KKStI5hrswXgS0SFsXa1et7PMMon, 13 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson shares his perspective on why investors should position for a stock market recovery despite ongoing uncertainty.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why equity investors – sometimes – need to look away from the headlines.It's Monday, April 13th at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.Today I want to talk about something I think a lot of investors are struggling with right now – and that’s timing. When I talk to people, markets still feel fragile to most. There’s uncertainty around geopolitics, central banks, oil… You name it. But when I look at what the market is actually doing; not what it feels like, but what it’s telling us – I come away with a very different conclusion. The market is further along than most people think in this correction.In fact, over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen the S&P 500 bounce meaningfully. Almost 7 percent from the lows after holding that critical 6300 to 6500 range that we’ve been focused on. To me, that’s not random. That’s the market carving out a low ahead of an all-clear signal. And stepping back, my broader view hasn’t changed.I still think we’re in a new bull market that began last April, coming out of that rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. This correction is part of that cycle; not the end of it. And importantly, a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done.Valuations have compressed significantly. Forward price/earnings multiples have fallen about 18 percent from top to bottom. And beneath the surface, more than half of stocks are down 20 percent or more. That’s a market that has already discounted a lot of risk – whether it’s the war, private credit concerns, or AI disruption.At the same time, earnings are moving in the opposite direction. Trailing earnings growth is running around 15 percent, and forward earnings growth is up over 20 percent. That combination of falling multiples and rising earnings is a classic bull market correction behavior. Not a bear market. And that’s why I think many are misreading this environment.One area where I think that’s especially clear is energy. If you look at the price action, energy stocks appear to have already peaked in relative terms. That’s often a signal that the underlying commodity – in this case oil – may also be peaking. Or at least it’s stabilizing.Which brings me to what I think is really driving volatility now: rates.We’re back in a regime where stocks and yields are negatively correlated. That means higher rates are a headwind for equities again, and the recent hawkish tone from central banks that’s focused on inflation is creating tighter financial conditions. In my view, that’s the final hurdle. Not the war. Not oil. But monetary policy. And here’s the interesting part. Tightening financial conditions are also what ultimately force central banks to pivot. So the very thing creating anxiety today may be what sets up relief tomorrow.Now, if we’re in the later stages of this correction, the next question is positioning. For me, it’s still about a barbell. On one side, I like cyclicals like Financials, Industrials, and Consumer Discretionary – where the earnings remain strong and valuations have reset. On the other side is quality growth. In particularly the hyperscalers; where sentiment has been washed out, but fundamentals remain intact. That combination has worked well off the lows so far, and I think it continues to make sense here.When I zoom out even further, there’s a bigger theme developing as well. And that’s the rebalancing of the economy, a core theme we discussed in our 2026 outlook back in November. We’re starting to see hard evidence that...]]>312alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1618fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/making-sense-of-mixed-market-signals--75644988insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today on the program: Trying to square conflicting market signals.It's Friday, April 10th at 2pm in London.At one level, it is all still very serious. The world remains in the midst of – and this is not an exaggeration – the worst disruption to global energy markets in history. One-sixth of global oil production remains trapped behind the Strait of Hormuz. And the price of so-called ‘Dated Brent,’ the price that you pay to get oil delivered in the near term, is over $130 a barrel. More than double its price at the start of the year.But markets? Well, year-to-date, U.S. stocks and bonds are roughly unchanged. Both have seen large swings only to return to about where they've started. An investor who only occasionally checks the markets could be forgiven for looking at their portfolio this weekend, assuming a pretty dull 2026, and going back to watching the Masters tournament.How do we square this? For stocks, two dynamics are important. First, despite oil prices, earnings estimates, especially in the United States, continue to move higher. Those estimates may prove wrong. But analysts have been incrementally more optimistic, particularly as technological investment continues at pace.Stocks are also fundamentally about the future. Current prices should reflect the discounted value of earnings between now and, well, forever. And so mathematically, if the longer-term outlook can hold up, a weak three-month period in the near term, say, due to energy disruption, simply doesn't have to matter as much – mathematically.Bonds, in contrast, are currently stuck between two pretty strong opposing forces. Higher inflation driven by tariffs and oil is typically bond negative. But bonds also tend to do well if there are higher risk to growth.And so, the key question is whether a prolonged energy shock finally forces central banks to prioritize these growth risks over currently elevated inflation. So far, 2026 has been anything but easy despite the lower headline changes in markets. Morgan Stanley data suggests that March was the second worst month for equity hedge funds in the last decade. And so, with some humility, we'd focus on three points.First, we think U.S. stocks and bonds have an advantage at the moment over their global peers. U.S. earnings growth is stronger. The U.S. economy is less energy sensitive. And the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, we think is more likely to cut rates faster if there's more weakness in growth.Second, we think the bond markets ultimately resolve their tensions at lower levels of yield. A quicker resolution would reduce inflation risks while a more prolonged disruption is going to weigh seriously on growth. The bond unfriendly middle ground, where we are now, simply seems unlikely to persist.Third, amidst the volatility, relative valuation still matters, and there are still interesting things. For example, credit spreads in Asia look extremely tight given the region's exposure to high oil prices. And by contrast, as my colleague Mike Wilson has commented on this program earlier, large cap technology stocks have derated significantly – and now trade at similar valuations to the consumer staple sector, despite having roughly three times the earnings growth as well as low energy exposure.We are once again heading into an uncertain weekend. But preferring U.S. markets, expecting lower yields, and trying to stay focused on relative value are a few of the ways we're trying to navigate it.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bmNt8iuM8extTbsSGPDoWbdFn6pZYzvdbV249m5EeWQFri, 10 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyDespite a historic disruption to global energy markets, the stock market remains resilient. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets suggests U.S. markets may offer a steady course in the near term.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today on the program: Trying to square conflicting market signals.It's Friday, April 10th at 2pm in London.At one level, it is all still very serious. The world remains in the midst of – and this is not an exaggeration – the worst disruption to global energy markets in history. One-sixth of global oil production remains trapped behind the Strait of Hormuz. And the price of so-called ‘Dated Brent,’ the price that you pay to get oil delivered in the near term, is over $130 a barrel. More than double its price at the start of the year.But markets? Well, year-to-date, U.S. stocks and bonds are roughly unchanged. Both have seen large swings only to return to about where they've started. An investor who only occasionally checks the markets could be forgiven for looking at their portfolio this weekend, assuming a pretty dull 2026, and going back to watching the Masters tournament.How do we square this? For stocks, two dynamics are important. First, despite oil prices, earnings estimates, especially in the United States, continue to move higher. Those estimates may prove wrong. But analysts have been incrementally more optimistic, particularly as technological investment continues at pace.Stocks are also fundamentally about the future. Current prices should reflect the discounted value of earnings between now and, well, forever. And so mathematically, if the longer-term outlook can hold up, a weak three-month period in the near term, say, due to energy disruption, simply doesn't have to matter as much – mathematically.Bonds, in contrast, are currently stuck between two pretty strong opposing forces. Higher inflation driven by tariffs and oil is typically bond negative. But bonds also tend to do well if there are higher risk to growth.And so, the key question is whether a prolonged energy shock finally forces central banks to prioritize these growth risks over currently elevated inflation. So far, 2026 has been anything but easy despite the lower headline changes in markets. Morgan Stanley data suggests that March was the second worst month for equity hedge funds in the last decade. And so, with some humility, we'd focus on three points.First, we think U.S. stocks and bonds have an advantage at the moment over their global peers. U.S. earnings growth is stronger. The U.S. economy is less energy sensitive. And the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, we think is more likely to cut rates faster if there's more weakness in growth.Second, we think the bond markets ultimately resolve their tensions at lower levels of yield. A quicker resolution would reduce inflation risks while a more prolonged disruption is going to weigh seriously on growth. The bond unfriendly middle ground, where we are now, simply seems unlikely to persist.Third, amidst the volatility, relative valuation still matters, and there are still interesting things. For example, credit spreads in Asia look extremely tight given the region's exposure to high oil prices. And by contrast, as my colleague Mike Wilson has commented on this program earlier, large cap technology stocks have derated significantly – and now trade at similar valuations to the consumer staple sector, despite having roughly three times the earnings growth as well as low energy exposure.We are once again heading into an uncertain weekend. But preferring U.S. markets, expecting lower yields, and trying to stay focused on relative value are a few of the ways we're trying to...]]>261alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1617fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-consumer-spending-meets-caution--75645035insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Today, we’re bringing you an update on the U.S. consumer as we try and understand the outlook for the economy.It’s Thursday, April 9, at 10 AM in New York.You’ve probably noticed shopping these days feels like a mixed bag. You spend money on your everyday staples like groceries, personal care or clothes. But you might be second-guessing those big ticket items like a new piece of furniture or a new TV. And you're not alone. Our newest AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers reveals a pretty mixed signal. On the surface, things look solid. Consumers are still spending. We’ve seen that borne out in some of the recent economic data. And our survey work reveals around 34 percent expect to spend more next month, compared to just 15 percent who expect to spend less. That leaves us with a net spending outlook of +18 percent, which is actually above the long-term average. But when we start to dig in and look beneath the surface, the story shifts. Confidence is deteriorating. Nearly half of consumers expect the economy to get worse over the next six months, while only 32 percent expect an improvement. This results in a net outlook of -17 percent, a meaningful drop from what we saw last month. So how do we reconcile that? That spending with that deterioration in confidence. It’s really a balance of timelines. Consumers are spending today, but they’re increasingly worried about tomorrow. And these worries are grounded in very real concerns. Inflation remains the dominant issue, with 57 percent of consumers citing rising prices as a key concern – reversing what had been a fairly short-lived improvement on consumers' view on prices. At the same time, of course, with the tensions in the Middle East, geopolitical concerns are increasing quickly. They’ve jumped to 33 percent from 22 percent just last month. And concerns around the U.S. political environment remain elevated at 43 percent. When you combine all these pressures, it’s not surprising that consumers are becoming more cautious in how they plan to spend. We’re also seeing that caution show up in the mix of expenditures. In the near term, consumers are still increasing spending across most categories – especially the essentials like groceries, gasoline, and household items. But when we look over a longer horizon, the outlook becomes more selective. Discretionary categories are weakening. Apparel spending expectations have dropped to -16 percent, domestic travel to -11 percent, and international travel to -14 percent. That shift – from discretionary to essentials – is something we tend to see when consumers are bracing for a more uncertain environment. Now, one factor that’s supporting the near-term – a brighter spot here – is tax season. This year, 46 percent of consumers expect to receive a larger tax refund compared to last year. And what’s interesting about that is where people are going to put the money. About half of consumers plan to save at least a portion of the refund. About a third plan to pay down debt. And only around 30 percent intend to spend it on everyday purchases. So even when people receive a cash boost, the instinct isn’t to spend freely. It’s to shore up finances.      Putting it all together, the picture of the U.S. consumer today is one of resilience but also rising caution. Spending is holding up in the near term, supported by income and tax refunds. But confidence is weakening, savings behavior is increasing, and discretionary demand is softening. These divergent trends are important. We’ll continue to watch them closely and bring you updates.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/PNoKwX_gXNS_IHbrambiCxG2qCph4-D_ahvPUWqPOBkThu, 09 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver breaks down the results of a new survey on U.S. consumer spending and confidence.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Today, we’re bringing you an update on the U.S. consumer as we try and understand the outlook for the economy.It’s Thursday, April 9, at 10 AM in New York.You’ve probably noticed shopping these days feels like a mixed bag. You spend money on your everyday staples like groceries, personal care or clothes. But you might be second-guessing those big ticket items like a new piece of furniture or a new TV. And you're not alone. Our newest AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers reveals a pretty mixed signal. On the surface, things look solid. Consumers are still spending. We’ve seen that borne out in some of the recent economic data. And our survey work reveals around 34 percent expect to spend more next month, compared to just 15 percent who expect to spend less. That leaves us with a net spending outlook of +18 percent, which is actually above the long-term average. But when we start to dig in and look beneath the surface, the story shifts. Confidence is deteriorating. Nearly half of consumers expect the economy to get worse over the next six months, while only 32 percent expect an improvement. This results in a net outlook of -17 percent, a meaningful drop from what we saw last month. So how do we reconcile that? That spending with that deterioration in confidence. It’s really a balance of timelines. Consumers are spending today, but they’re increasingly worried about tomorrow. And these worries are grounded in very real concerns. Inflation remains the dominant issue, with 57 percent of consumers citing rising prices as a key concern – reversing what had been a fairly short-lived improvement on consumers' view on prices. At the same time, of course, with the tensions in the Middle East, geopolitical concerns are increasing quickly. They’ve jumped to 33 percent from 22 percent just last month. And concerns around the U.S. political environment remain elevated at 43 percent. When you combine all these pressures, it’s not surprising that consumers are becoming more cautious in how they plan to spend. We’re also seeing that caution show up in the mix of expenditures. In the near term, consumers are still increasing spending across most categories – especially the essentials like groceries, gasoline, and household items. But when we look over a longer horizon, the outlook becomes more selective. Discretionary categories are weakening. Apparel spending expectations have dropped to -16 percent, domestic travel to -11 percent, and international travel to -14 percent. That shift – from discretionary to essentials – is something we tend to see when consumers are bracing for a more uncertain environment. Now, one factor that’s supporting the near-term – a brighter spot here – is tax season. This year, 46 percent of consumers expect to receive a larger tax refund compared to last year. And what’s interesting about that is where people are going to put the money. About half of consumers plan to save at least a portion of the refund. About a third plan to pay down debt. And only around 30 percent intend to spend it on everyday purchases. So even when people receive a cash boost, the instinct isn’t to spend freely. It’s to shore up finances.      Putting it all together, the picture of the U.S. consumer today is one of resilience but also rising caution. Spending is holding up in the near term, supported by income and tax refunds. But confidence is weakening, savings behavior is increasing, and discretionary demand is softening. These divergent trends are important. We’ll continue to watch them closely and...]]>258alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1616fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-iran-truce-what-s-next--75645001insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the U.S.-Iran ceasefire's key uncertainties, consequences and what we're watching for next. It's Wednesday, April 8th at 11am in New York. Okay. Let's start with the current situation. The U.S. and Iran have agreed to a provisional ceasefire, two weeks tied to follow on talks and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Markets so far, treating this as a deescalation but not a clear resolution… Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And I think the key framing here is this is a pause, not a peace deal. And in the near term, I would not assume things are suddenly stable. We still have some key uncertainties around how the ceasefire deal is going to be implemented, as well as how negotiations will begin to take shape. Michael Zezas: Right. And that's important. It seems like Iran's reported 10-point plan for the ceasefire includes some elements that might be non-starters for the U.S., some things around sanctions and unfreezing of assets. And so, there's lots of ways that there could be some re-escalation in the near term. Ariana Salvatore: Okay. So that's the near term – fragile, noisy, and still pretty headline driven. But let's try to think about this a little bit further out. How are we thinking about the medium term? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, thinking a little bit further out, it seems to us that ceasefire and Strait of Hormuz reopening should continue to progress because the incentives are widely shared across the key actors involved. So, the U.S.’s incentive to effectively be done with the conflict is pretty well understood. There's domestic political incentives and economic incentives. There's ways to potentially explain away some of the compromises the U.S. might have to make around the Strait of Hormuz, around sanctions. And maybe point to some incentives to work with partners in the region over time to diminish the importance of the Strait of Hormuz as a choke point. Iran's incentive is pretty clear – to preserve its regime. And another actor here, which appears to be increasingly important, is China, which has reportedly been involved in expressing its preference for deescalation. And that's pretty important because China has a lot of leverage on Iran given its economic relationship with the country. Ariana Salvatore: So, starting with these negotiations, it seems like, as you mentioned before, there's still a lot of gaps between what the U.S. side and what the Iranian side is asking for. But let's put that in the context of the ceasefire. Even if it were to hold – that doesn't necessarily translate to stability, right? Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right. So, if Iran were to start rebuilding its military assets, in particular its nuclear program, at some point in the future, we'd probably come back to a similar point where Israel and the United States might find their ability to project that power to be intolerable. And what we don't know right now is if any type of deal is possible that can mitigate those very long-term concerns. So, even if commodities start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz at a rate that is similar to what it was before the conflict started, it seems like there will be this overhang. Of concern that that could shut down at any moment's notice, if the U.S. and Israel and other actors in the area become concerned again with Iran's power. Ariana Salvatore: So, that overhang you're talking about actually does have some real economic impacts. One way to frame this is kind of like a lingering tax on the global system. We see that through the oil market, right? So, we think of this as a structural risk premium on oil. Our strategist, Martijn Rats, thinks that even in a deescalation scenario, you're not getting back to that world of $65-$70 oil. This Strait of Hormuz will continue to be a critical choke point that doesn't necessarily go away overnight. And maybe over time you could see some mitigation, construction of new pipelines, alternative routes, et cetera. But in the interim, that risk premium feeds through to energy prices, shipping costs, and ultimately food and broader supply chains, which is something that Chetan Ahya has been flagging in Asia for quite some time. Michael Zezas: I think that's right. And so, in highlighting that the Strait of Hormuz is a critical choke point for the global economy and for supply chains generally, it's a reminder of a problem that's been on display for the last 10 years.Just that there are supply chain choke points all over the place when you start thinking about the security needs of the U.S. and other actors throughout the globe. And so, it underscores this dynamic where multinationals are going to have to rethink – and are already starting to rethink – their supply chains. And whether or not they need to build in what our investment bankers have been calling an anti-fragile supply chain strategy. So, we can't just solve for the cheapest cost of goods and cheapest transit. You have to wire up your supply chains in a way that can survive geopolitical conflicts. And while there's some extra embedded costs that comes along with that, well, they're more reliable, so it's more efficient over the long run. Of course, it costs a lot of money to rewire your supply chains, and so that's tied into this opportunity around capital expenditures going into proving this out. And so, investors should be aware that there are plenty of sectors which will have to participate in effectively being part of rebuilding those supply chains. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so the way we're framing this is, this is another data point kind of in that trend toward a multipolar world. We've seen certain geopolitical events accelerate that transition. Russia-Ukraine, for example, the pandemic; and this is just sort of another example in that same direction. And some of the sectors that we think are structural beneficiaries here: obviously defense, in particular in Europe, and industrials here in the U.S. Chris Snyder's been doing a lot of work on reshoring, how we're seeing that pick up – and we think that probably continues. But as we're speaking about the U.S. and what this could mean, let's bring this back to the AI angle. Because I think that's where this all really connects in maybe a less obvious way. Near term, we're thinking about the financing implications here as pretty modest. Unless we get a major re-escalation or a rupture of the ceasefire, it shouldn't really change capital availability in a meaningful way. But this could affect where capacity gets built. Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. And over the past year, there's been a lot of news about the U.S. engaging in the Middle East with partners to build AI capacity via data center capacity – because there's also plenty of energy in the area to fuel those data centers. But those data centers as an infrastructure asset, and an economically valuable one at that, potentially become military targets when they're built. So, there is a consideration here after this conflict about whether or not those things can be built or be relied upon. And it is a critical part of the U.S.' strategy to build compute capacity in the aggregate with allies. And increasingly they've been looking to the Middle East as allies in an AI build out. Ariana Salvatore: So, if that becomes more challenging and you see persistent instability, for example, in the Middle East, you're probably going to see more demand push toward domestic U.S. data centers. And something that we've been highlighting has been not only the kind of pressures on the capital side. But also, you know, the bottlenecks that are very real – like power, permitting, labor, equipment and political resistance, which we've talked about on this podcast as well. We're seeing a lot of constraints. So, it's not really feasible that the U.S. is going to be able to fully substitute that Middle East capacity. Michael Zezas: So, I think the read through here is that the U.S. is still on track to build the compute capacity that it needs. The CapEx that's going into that – that is helping the U.S. economy grow this year – is still very much intact. It raises some potential future questions about how quickly the U.S. can build out, but it's unclear if that matters in the near term to (a) both the build out and (b) the productivity that can come from the current build out. Ariana Salvatore: And I think a really important consequence of what you're describing has to do with the U.S. China dynamics. So, if the U.S. is, for example, seen as a less reliable security guarantor, then you may see some of the Gulf countries potentially deepen their economic alignment with China at the margin. And that's something that could be really relevant for the upcoming U.S.-China Summit next month. Remember that was postponed from – initially it was towards the end of March. Now it seems to be around the middle of May. So, that's a really important catalyst that we're keeping an eye on for now. That's a little bit further out.Near term, of course, we'll be watching things like military buildup in the region. Any indications on how exactly the Strait of Hormuz will be managed from here. And how these negotiations progress over the next two weeks. As far as the equity market is concerned, it appears that the worst o]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TB6GX7l3JCYzDtysJyP7B-L_LBwfV2geyt3I0dxX6wMWed, 08 Apr 2026 22:00:00 +0000gtyWhile a tentative ceasefire in the Middle East holds, the Strait of Hormuz continues to be a sticking point in diplomatic efforts. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore walk through some...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the U.S.-Iran ceasefire's key uncertainties, consequences and what we're watching for next. It's Wednesday, April 8th at 11am in New York. Okay. Let's start with the current situation. The U.S. and Iran have agreed to a provisional ceasefire, two weeks tied to follow on talks and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Markets so far, treating this as a deescalation but not a clear resolution… Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And I think the key framing here is this is a pause, not a peace deal. And in the near term, I would not assume things are suddenly stable. We still have some key uncertainties around how the ceasefire deal is going to be implemented, as well as how negotiations will begin to take shape. Michael Zezas: Right. And that's important. It seems like Iran's reported 10-point plan for the ceasefire includes some elements that might be non-starters for the U.S., some things around sanctions and unfreezing of assets. And so, there's lots of ways that there could be some re-escalation in the near term. Ariana Salvatore: Okay. So that's the near term – fragile, noisy, and still pretty headline driven. But let's try to think about this a little bit further out. How are we thinking about the medium term? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, thinking a little bit further out, it seems to us that ceasefire and Strait of Hormuz reopening should continue to progress because the incentives are widely shared across the key actors involved. So, the U.S.’s incentive to effectively be done with the conflict is pretty well understood. There's domestic political incentives and economic incentives. There's ways to potentially explain away some of the compromises the U.S. might have to make around the Strait of Hormuz, around sanctions. And maybe point to some incentives to work with partners in the region over time to diminish the importance of the Strait of Hormuz as a choke point. Iran's incentive is pretty clear – to preserve its regime. And another actor here, which appears to be increasingly important, is China, which has reportedly been involved in expressing its preference for deescalation. And that's pretty important because China has a lot of leverage on Iran given its economic relationship with the country. Ariana Salvatore: So, starting with these negotiations, it seems like, as you mentioned before, there's still a lot of gaps between what the U.S. side and what the Iranian side is asking for. But let's put that in the context of the ceasefire. Even if it were to hold – that doesn't necessarily translate to stability, right? Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right. So, if Iran were to start rebuilding its military assets, in particular its nuclear program, at some point in the future, we'd probably come back to a similar point where Israel and the United States might find their ability to project that power to be intolerable. And what we don't know right now is if any type of deal is possible that can mitigate those very long-term concerns. So, even if commodities start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz at a rate that is similar to what it was before the conflict started, it seems like there will be this overhang. Of concern that that could shut down at any moment's notice, if the U.S. and Israel and other actors in the area...]]>610alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1615fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-real-risks-of-oil-price-spikes--75644938insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Rajeev Sibal: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rajeev Sibal, Senior Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today, economic risk from an oil shock isn't the price of oil itself – but really what happens next? It's Tuesday, April 7th at 3pm in Dubai. An oil shock doesn't stop at the gas pump. It ripples through inflation, growth, central bank policy, and ultimately markets. As you've heard from my colleagues over the past several weeks, this time may be different. We're not just dealing with a temporary price spike. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is historically unprecedented. We're well over a month now, and we're looking at the implication of a supply shock that could last many quarters. This could evolve into something far more complex. This is a tricky mix of rising inflation and slowing growth, and the sequence matters greatly. At Morgan Stanley, a collaboration between the economists and the strategists globally looked at a wide range of scenarios of where oil prices may go. If the Strait of Hormuz were to reopen rapidly, we would see oil prices probably decline rather quickly. That doesn't mean that the problems from the oil shock are going to go away very quickly. But it does mean that the price of oil may move down more quickly. Conversely, if we see a complete closure and an escalation in the conflict, the oil price is probably going to go much, much higher. And in a world where oil moves past $125, which is usually the level at which demand starts to destruct in the economy, i.e. people have to reduce their consumption of oil because of the price, we would see a much more dramatic impact in the global economy. Right now, we're in the in-between scenario. We see oil hovering between $100 and $125 for a number of weeks now, and this creates a lot of questions and confusions and modeling problems for many central banks. I want to go through some of the key regions of the world to talk about how they are reacting to what is happening right now. Asia is a little bit unusual. Asia is the most exposed to what's happening in the Middle East. Most oil and gas that leaves the Middle East goes to Asia in terms of physical volumes. The challenge is that many Asian economies have huge buffers in place or reserves. They also use fiscal policy to help subsidize and smooth the price of oil so that the consumer does not experience the shocks as dramatically as they would otherwise. As a result, there is a mix of countries in Asia that are grappling with figuring out how much support they should continue to provide but also making sure they have physical volumes in place because of the closure. This creates a rather mixed effect from central bank policy and a mixed effect from inflation and growth. In some economies, you're seeing prices move very rapidly and growth being affected very rapidly, whereas in other economies it's been delayed. We expect this mix to continue for the next few quarters. The euro area is a contrast to Asia because in the euro area inflation passes through very quickly. Historically, inflation reacts not only at the headline level, but also at core. As a result of this, the ECB has indicated that they are likely to raise interest rates in the near future because they don't want inflation expectations to become unanchored. They're more concerned about the speed of inflation than the growth risk right now. This is a big contrast to the Federal Reserve. In the United States, actually, oil supply shocks do not move core inflation as much as they do in many other regions of the world. The effect is on headline inflation and on consumption, but not necessarily on core inflation. We have to remember; the U.S. is primarily a services-based economy. As a result, the Fed is more likely to look through the effects of the supply shock and be focused on growth simply because the core inflation pass through is far less than it is in many other economies. As a result, the Fed is thinking more about the growth risks from higher prices of the pump than they are about the price risks – and what that transmission means to inflation in the United States. This is a big contrast to many other regions in the world, but I think the important thing to remember is that in every economy, in every region, there's a different reaction. Inflation will always lead in terms of oil supply shocks with growth following. But the way that that passes through in each domestic economy is very different. And that means that central banks have to react differently. It also means that potentially, if this lasts for a couple more quarters, fiscal policy will also react differently. The challenge for market participants, economists, and strategists will be figuring out the exact scale of disruption from the oil shock. For now, we know that we're talking about quarters and not months. And that in and of itself means that we expect growth downside risks to outweigh inflation upside risks.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen; and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qDJBLoBs1mJZl7ohZDzvnfPy5DURT86trMUZoEiQMHUTue, 07 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyA supply-driven oil shock may start with inflation, but Morgan Stanley’s Senior Global Economist Rajeev Sibal discusses why investors need to understand the second-order hit to growth, policy and markets.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Rajeev Sibal: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rajeev Sibal, Senior Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today, economic risk from an oil shock isn't the price of oil itself – but really what happens next? It's Tuesday, April 7th at 3pm in Dubai. An oil shock doesn't stop at the gas pump. It ripples through inflation, growth, central bank policy, and ultimately markets. As you've heard from my colleagues over the past several weeks, this time may be different. We're not just dealing with a temporary price spike. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is historically unprecedented. We're well over a month now, and we're looking at the implication of a supply shock that could last many quarters. This could evolve into something far more complex. This is a tricky mix of rising inflation and slowing growth, and the sequence matters greatly. At Morgan Stanley, a collaboration between the economists and the strategists globally looked at a wide range of scenarios of where oil prices may go. If the Strait of Hormuz were to reopen rapidly, we would see oil prices probably decline rather quickly. That doesn't mean that the problems from the oil shock are going to go away very quickly. But it does mean that the price of oil may move down more quickly. Conversely, if we see a complete closure and an escalation in the conflict, the oil price is probably going to go much, much higher. And in a world where oil moves past $125, which is usually the level at which demand starts to destruct in the economy, i.e. people have to reduce their consumption of oil because of the price, we would see a much more dramatic impact in the global economy. Right now, we're in the in-between scenario. We see oil hovering between $100 and $125 for a number of weeks now, and this creates a lot of questions and confusions and modeling problems for many central banks. I want to go through some of the key regions of the world to talk about how they are reacting to what is happening right now. Asia is a little bit unusual. Asia is the most exposed to what's happening in the Middle East. Most oil and gas that leaves the Middle East goes to Asia in terms of physical volumes. The challenge is that many Asian economies have huge buffers in place or reserves. They also use fiscal policy to help subsidize and smooth the price of oil so that the consumer does not experience the shocks as dramatically as they would otherwise. As a result, there is a mix of countries in Asia that are grappling with figuring out how much support they should continue to provide but also making sure they have physical volumes in place because of the closure. This creates a rather mixed effect from central bank policy and a mixed effect from inflation and growth. In some economies, you're seeing prices move very rapidly and growth being affected very rapidly, whereas in other economies it's been delayed. We expect this mix to continue for the next few quarters. The euro area is a contrast to Asia because in the euro area inflation passes through very quickly. Historically, inflation reacts not only at the headline level, but also at core. As a result of this, the ECB has indicated that they are likely to raise interest rates in the near future because they don't want inflation expectations to become unanchored. They're more concerned about the speed of inflation than the growth risk right now. This is a big contrast to the Federal Reserve. In the United States, actually, oil supply shocks do not move core inflation as much as they do in many other regions of the world. The effect is on headline...]]>297alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1614fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/riding-the-final-innings-of-the-market-correction--75644972insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing what investors should be doing as we enter the final innings of this equity market correction.It's Monday, April 6th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.For the past several months, my view has been very consistent. In short, I continue to believe we’re in a bull market that began last April, coming out of what I’ve described as a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. That recovery remains intact despite recent threats from AI disruption, private credit and a new war in Iran while the war between Russia and Ukraine persists.Markets have not been complacent with stocks correcting since last fall. In fact, it’s well advanced with the S&P 500’s forward price earnings multiple declining by 18 percent, a rare move outside of a recession or a Fed tightening cycle – neither of which is likely in my view.Meanwhile, earnings growth isn’t rolling over. Instead, it’s accelerating to multi-year highs and that’s a key difference versus past periods when oil shocks led to a recession. And, in the absence of that outcome, I see a market that’s discounted a lot of bad news.Beneath the surface, the damage has been even more significant with over half of stocks down at least 20 percent from their highs, and many down 30-40 percent. Resets of this scale usually occur near the end of corrections, not the beginning.The S&P 500 bounced last week off the 6300 to 6500 range of support that I have been highlighting. Could we re-test those levels? Sure – especially if rates push higher or geopolitical risks escalate further. However, I don’t see a meaningful breakdown.If anything, what’s still missing – and what I’d actually like to see – is a bit more de-risking in crowded trades like semiconductors and memory stocks, in particular. That kind of repositioning reset is often required to seal a durable bottom.So, if we are in the later innings, the next question is: where do you want to be? For me, it’s about balance and I think the right approach is a barbell of cyclicals, and quality growth.On the cyclical side, I like Financials, Consumer Discretionary, and Industrials. These are the areas where earnings momentum remains strong and valuations have come down meaningfully. It’s also what was leading prior to the start of the Iran conflict and reflects our core view that we are still in the early stages of a recovery from the rolling recession. Last week’s jobs report supports that view with private payrolls increasing by [$]186 000, one of the largest rises in three years. On the growth side, I’m focused on the hyperscalers as a very good risk reward at this point. These companies are trading at roughly the same multiple as defensive sectors like Staples, but with more than three times the earnings growth. Meanwhile the sentiment and positioning is as bad as it’s been since 2022’s bear market when these companies were showing negative earnings growth. So, what could go wrong? The main risk to equities is still rates and central bank policy, not the war.We know this because we just flipped back into a regime where stocks and yields are negatively correlated where higher rates put pressure on valuations. 4.5 percent on a 10-year Treasury bond continues to be a key threshold where stock valuations are likely to get worse before they rebound durably. Furthermore, bond volatility and Fed expectations are driving tighter financial conditions—and that’s been the real source of market stress lately.But here’s the irony: that tightening is also what ultimately sets up a more dovish pivot from the Fed and other central banks. If financial conditions tighten too much, the Fed has the flexibility to respond—and we have plenty of evidence that there’s willingness to do that over the past several years.Bottom line? The market has already done a lot of the hard work. It has priced in geopolitical risk, private credit concerns and even negative side effects from AI, which is ultimately a productivity enhancing technology.What we’re dealing with now is the final hurdle – policy, rates levels and volatility. And once we get through that, I think the path forward becomes a lot clearer.But remember, markets don’t wait for certainty – they move ahead of it. You should, too.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/v98PurIMAqR1a54kAL_sZQ0BbU02bZShB0z38nKsr74Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson talks about risks in this late stage of the equity market pullback, how investors should position and what could come next.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing what investors should be doing as we enter the final innings of this equity market correction.It's Monday, April 6th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.For the past several months, my view has been very consistent. In short, I continue to believe we’re in a bull market that began last April, coming out of what I’ve described as a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. That recovery remains intact despite recent threats from AI disruption, private credit and a new war in Iran while the war between Russia and Ukraine persists.Markets have not been complacent with stocks correcting since last fall. In fact, it’s well advanced with the S&P 500’s forward price earnings multiple declining by 18 percent, a rare move outside of a recession or a Fed tightening cycle – neither of which is likely in my view.Meanwhile, earnings growth isn’t rolling over. Instead, it’s accelerating to multi-year highs and that’s a key difference versus past periods when oil shocks led to a recession. And, in the absence of that outcome, I see a market that’s discounted a lot of bad news.Beneath the surface, the damage has been even more significant with over half of stocks down at least 20 percent from their highs, and many down 30-40 percent. Resets of this scale usually occur near the end of corrections, not the beginning.The S&P 500 bounced last week off the 6300 to 6500 range of support that I have been highlighting. Could we re-test those levels? Sure – especially if rates push higher or geopolitical risks escalate further. However, I don’t see a meaningful breakdown.If anything, what’s still missing – and what I’d actually like to see – is a bit more de-risking in crowded trades like semiconductors and memory stocks, in particular. That kind of repositioning reset is often required to seal a durable bottom.So, if we are in the later innings, the next question is: where do you want to be? For me, it’s about balance and I think the right approach is a barbell of cyclicals, and quality growth.On the cyclical side, I like Financials, Consumer Discretionary, and Industrials. These are the areas where earnings momentum remains strong and valuations have come down meaningfully. It’s also what was leading prior to the start of the Iran conflict and reflects our core view that we are still in the early stages of a recovery from the rolling recession. Last week’s jobs report supports that view with private payrolls increasing by [$]186 000, one of the largest rises in three years. On the growth side, I’m focused on the hyperscalers as a very good risk reward at this point. These companies are trading at roughly the same multiple as defensive sectors like Staples, but with more than three times the earnings growth. Meanwhile the sentiment and positioning is as bad as it’s been since 2022’s bear market when these companies were showing negative earnings growth. So, what could go wrong? The main risk to equities is still rates and central bank policy, not the war.We know this because we just flipped back into a regime where stocks and yields are negatively correlated where higher rates put pressure on valuations. 4.5 percent on a 10-year Treasury bond continues to be a key threshold where stock valuations are likely to get worse before they rebound durably. Furthermore, bond volatility and Fed expectations are driving tighter financial conditions—and that’s been the real source of market stress lately.But here’s the irony:...]]>306alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1613fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-the-oil-shock-is-reshaping-markets--75644975insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today: how the latest energy shock is rippling across every major asset class.It’s Thursday, April 2nd, at 10am in New York. Right now, the markets aren’t just reacting to oil – they’re being shaped by it. The path of energy prices is quickly becoming the lens through which investors interpret everything else: growth, inflation, policy, and ultimately risk appetite. And depending on where oil settles, the market story could look very different from here. The starting point is simple: the baseline for energy prices has shifted higher. If tensions ease, our Chief Commodities Strategist, Martijn Rats, expects oil to settle around $80 to $90 per barrel in 2026, quite a step up from what we saw in 2025. If constraints persist, that rises to $100 to $110 per barrel. And in a more extreme scenario – where supply disruptions intensify – oil can reach $150 to $180 per barrel. Now, at those higher levels, the impact becomes nonlinear. Oil stops being just an inflation story and starts weighing directly on demand and growth. That’s why we see the current environment as binary: markets either revert to their pre-shock trajectory, or they begin pricing in a much tougher mix of tighter policy and weaker growth. To make sense of this, we frame the outlook through three scenarios. In a de-escalation scenario, supply disruptions ease quickly and oil stabilizes in that $80 to $90 per barrel range. Markets effectively breathe a sigh of relief. Investors refocus on growth drivers like earnings resilience and AI investment. And equities outperform, particularly cyclical sectors like consumer discretionary, financials, and industrials, while defensives lag. Bond yields fall, as inflation expectations decline. All in all, in plain terms, this is a classic risk-on environment. The second scenario – ongoing constraints – is a little bit more complicated. Oil stays elevated around $100 to $110 per barrel. Markets can absorb that, we think, but it creates friction. Equities still perform, but with more volatility and less conviction. The S&P [500] is likely to move within a wide 6400 and 6850 range in the near term. Leadership shifts toward higher-quality companies – those with steadier earnings and stronger balance sheets – along with select defensives like healthcare. At the same time, credit markets start to really feel the strain with spreads widening in general under performance. The third scenario – effective closure – is where the backdrop really changes. With oil above $150 per barrel, the focus shifts from inflation to growth risk. Investors will move into what we call a ‘recession playbook,’ dialing back equity exposure and increasing allocations to government bonds and cash. Defensive sectors like utilities, telecoms, and energy take the lead, as markets begin to price in a higher risk to the earnings cycle. Credit conditions tighten sharply, with high-yield spreads potentially widening materially. What makes this environment especially challenging is how everything connects. In a typical cycle, bonds help offset equity losses. But in an oil shock, that relationship can break down because inflation is rising at the same time growth is slowing. That’s what we usually call a stagflationary setup, and it makes diversification harder just when investors need it most. Currencies are reacting as well. In a more severe shock, the U.S. dollar strengthens, with EUR/USD potentially falling toward 1.13, while safe-haven currencies like the Swiss franc outperform. In a de-escalation scenario, EUR/USD could move back above 1.17 as risk sentiment improves. Importantly, markets have adjusted over the past month. Equity valuations at one point was down about 15 percent on a forward price-to-earnings basis, suggesting in a large part of the risk was being priced in. At the same time, sentiment has improved from deeply negative levels, especially over the last few days, even as volatility remains closely tied to oil. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/x3QDPgS-l-XilNQu0CnJOYM4HUOCr9iYYKSLiGbsL3sThu, 02 Apr 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses why the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on oil prices could define the entire market cycle.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today: how the latest energy shock is rippling across every major asset class.It’s Thursday, April 2nd, at 10am in New York. Right now, the markets aren’t just reacting to oil – they’re being shaped by it. The path of energy prices is quickly becoming the lens through which investors interpret everything else: growth, inflation, policy, and ultimately risk appetite. And depending on where oil settles, the market story could look very different from here. The starting point is simple: the baseline for energy prices has shifted higher. If tensions ease, our Chief Commodities Strategist, Martijn Rats, expects oil to settle around $80 to $90 per barrel in 2026, quite a step up from what we saw in 2025. If constraints persist, that rises to $100 to $110 per barrel. And in a more extreme scenario – where supply disruptions intensify – oil can reach $150 to $180 per barrel. Now, at those higher levels, the impact becomes nonlinear. Oil stops being just an inflation story and starts weighing directly on demand and growth. That’s why we see the current environment as binary: markets either revert to their pre-shock trajectory, or they begin pricing in a much tougher mix of tighter policy and weaker growth. To make sense of this, we frame the outlook through three scenarios. In a de-escalation scenario, supply disruptions ease quickly and oil stabilizes in that $80 to $90 per barrel range. Markets effectively breathe a sigh of relief. Investors refocus on growth drivers like earnings resilience and AI investment. And equities outperform, particularly cyclical sectors like consumer discretionary, financials, and industrials, while defensives lag. Bond yields fall, as inflation expectations decline. All in all, in plain terms, this is a classic risk-on environment. The second scenario – ongoing constraints – is a little bit more complicated. Oil stays elevated around $100 to $110 per barrel. Markets can absorb that, we think, but it creates friction. Equities still perform, but with more volatility and less conviction. The S&P [500] is likely to move within a wide 6400 and 6850 range in the near term. Leadership shifts toward higher-quality companies – those with steadier earnings and stronger balance sheets – along with select defensives like healthcare. At the same time, credit markets start to really feel the strain with spreads widening in general under performance. The third scenario – effective closure – is where the backdrop really changes. With oil above $150 per barrel, the focus shifts from inflation to growth risk. Investors will move into what we call a ‘recession playbook,’ dialing back equity exposure and increasing allocations to government bonds and cash. Defensive sectors like utilities, telecoms, and energy take the lead, as markets begin to price in a higher risk to the earnings cycle. Credit conditions tighten sharply, with high-yield spreads potentially widening materially. What makes this environment especially challenging is how everything connects. In a typical cycle, bonds help offset equity losses. But in an oil shock, that relationship can break down because inflation is rising at the same time growth is slowing. That’s what we usually call a stagflationary setup, and it makes diversification harder just when investors need it most. Currencies are reacting as well. In a more severe shock, the U.S. dollar strengthens, with EUR/USD potentially falling toward 1.13, while safe-haven currencies like the Swiss franc outperform. In a de-escalation scenario,...]]>321alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1612fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/oil-markets-ahead-pricing-in-more-risk--75644963insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today in the program: Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz remain restricted. The implications for global energy markets and what may lie ahead.It's Wednesday, April 1st at 2pm in London. So, Martijn, it's great to sit down with you again. Three weeks ago, we were having this conversation; a conversation that was a little bit alarming about the scale of the disruption of the oil market with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and how that could have ripple effects through the global economy. Three weeks later, oil is still not flowing. What is happening? And what has maybe surprised you? Or been in line with expectations over the last couple of weeks? Martijn Rats: Yeah. Many things have been in line with expectations, in the sense that we're seeing the effects of the closure of the strait the earliest in regions that are physically the closest to the strait. So, we saw the first examples of physical shortages in, say, the west coast of India. Then we saw examples from the east coast of India From there on it's reverberated throughout Asia, where now governments have announced a whole host of. Effectively, energy demand, uh, management measures, uh, work from home, kids staying at home from school, um, cancellation of flights. There are quite many through, through Asia Also in Asia, we're seeing the type of prices that you would expect with this situation. Bunker fuel for shipping, somewhere between $150 to $200 a barrel. Jet fuel over $200 a barrel. Naphta going into Japan; naphta normally trades well below the headline price of Brent. Now $130 a barrel, that's more than double what it was in February. So, those things tell the story of this historic event. What has been surprising on the other end is how slow the reaction has been in many of the oil prices that we track the most. Like… Andrew Sheets: The numbers people will see on the news. You know, it's $100 a barrel maybe as we're talking. Martijn Rats: Yeah. It's strange to see jet fuel cargoes in Rotterdam more than $200 a barrel, but then the front month Brent future only trading at [$]100. That spread is historically wide and very surprising. But look, there are some reasons for it. The crude market had more buffers. There are a few other things. But how slow Brent futures have rallied? That has been somewhat surprising. Andrew Sheets: But you know, from those other prices you mentioned, those prices in Asia, those prices in Rotterdam that are maybe higher than the numbers that people might see on the news or on a financial website. Is it fair to say that in your mind that's sending a signal that this is a market that really is being affected by this? And being affected maybe in a larger way than the headline oil price might suggest? Martijn Rats: Oh, clearly. Look, the oil market is full with small price signals that tell the story of the underlying plumbing of the oil market. So, you can look at price differential. So, physically delivered cargoes versus financially traded futures. West African oil versus North Sea oil. Brazilian oil versus North Sea oil. Oil for immediate physical delivery versus the futures contract that trades a month out. And many of those spreads have rallied to all time highs. That is no exaggeration. And so, in an underlying sense, the stress in the market is clearly there. It is just that in front of Brent futures, which is the world's preferred speculative instrument to express a financial view on oil. Yeah, there the impact has been slower to come. But you're now seeing a lot of Asian refineries bidding for crudes that are further away in the Atlantic basin. So, demand is spreading to further away regions. And that should over time still put upward pressure on Brent. Andrew Sheets: In our first conversation, you know, you had this great walkthrough of both just putting the scale of this disruption in the Strait of Hormuz into the global context. How many barrels we're talking about, how that's a share of the global market. Maybe just might be helpful to revisit those numbers again. And also, some of the mitigation factors. You know, we talked about – well maybe we could release reserves, maybe some pipelines could be rerouted. Based on what you're currently seeing on the ground, what is this disruption looking like? Martijn Rats: Yeah, so to put things in context, global oil consumption is a bit more than 100 million barrels a day. That number lives in a lot of people's heads. But if you look at the market that is critical for price formation, that's really the seaborne market. You can imagine that if, say you're in China, and you have a shortage. But there is a pipeline from Canada into the United States – that pipeline's not really going to help you. What you need is a cargo that can be delivered to a port in Shanghai. So, the seaborne market is where prices are formed. That is roughly a 60 million barrel a day market, of which 20 million barrels a day flows through the Strait of Hormuz. So, for the relative market, the Strait of Hormuz is about a third. It's very, very large. Now, out of that 20 million barrel a day that is, in principle, in scope, there is still a little bit of Iranian oil flowing through. That continues. They let their own cargo through. Then Saudi Arabia has the East-West pipeline. They can divert some oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. That's about 4 million barrels a day, incremental on top of the flow that already exist on that pipeline. The UAE has a pipeline that can divert half a million barrel a day. But you are still left with a problem that is in the order of 14-ish million barrels a day. You're going to have some SPR releases to offset that a little bit. But global SPRs can flow maybe 1 to 2 million barrels a day. You're very quickly left with a double digit shortage – and that is historically large… Andrew Sheets: And just to take it to history, I mean, again, if we were placing a 14 million barrel a day disruption in the context of some of these historical oil disruptions that people might have a memory of – what is the relative scale? Martijn Rats: Yeah. This is at the heart of why this is such a difficult period to manage. Like, normally we care about imbalances of 0.5 to 1 million. That gets interesting for oil analysts. At a million, you can expect prices to move. If you have dislocations in supply and amount of, say, 2 to 3 million barrels a day, you have historically epic moves that we talk about for decades, literally. Like in 2008, oil fell from $130 a barrel to [$]30 on the basis of two to three quarters of 2 million barrel a day oversupply. In 2022, around the Ukraine invasion, oil went from 60-70 bucks to something like [$]130 at the peak on the basis of the expectation, but not realized. This was just an expectation that Russia would lose 3 million barrels a day of productive capacity. And so, 2 to 3 million barrels a day normally already gets us to these outsized moves. And so, this event is four, five times larger than that. That means we don't have historical reference for what's currently happening. Andrew Sheets: I guess I'd like to now focus on the future and maybe I'll ask you to summarize two highly complex scenarios in a[n] overly simplified way. But let's say tonight we get an announcement that hostilities have ceased, that the strait is open, that oil can flow again. Or a second scenario where it's another three weeks from now, we're having this conversation again, and the strait is still closed. Could you just kind of help listeners understand what the energy market could look like under each of those scenarios? Martijn Rats: Yeah. So maybe to start off with the latter one. Because from an analytical perspective, that one is perhaps a bit easier. Look, if the Strait stays closed, at some point, consumption needs to decline. Andrew Sheets: Significantly. Martijn Rats: Yeah, significantly. We need demand destruction. Now that's easier said than done. Who gets to consume in those type of environments – are those who are willing to pay the most. And that means that certain consumers need to be priced out of the market. We tried to answer this question in 2022, and the collective answer that we all came up with is that you need prices for Brent – in money of the day – $150 or something thereabouts. That is not an exaggeration. Now, let's all hope we can avoid that scenario because that is… You know, that looks like a spectacular price. But that is not a beneficial scenario for anybody in the economy.The other scenario is more interesting, and it can actually be split in sort of two sub scenarios… Andrew Sheets: And this is the scenario where actually stuff starts flowing tomorrow. Martijn Rats: Exactly, exactly. If it completely flows like it always did – sure, we go back to the situation we had before these events. Brent can fall substantially – 70 bucks. Before these events we thought the oil market would be oversupplied. Who knows? True freedom of navigation may be even lower. But, at the moment, that doesn't quite look like that will be the scenario that's in front of us. What seems to be emerging is an outcome whereby this could deescalate but leave the Iranian regime structurally in control of the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. And if the Iranian regime continues to manage the flow as they currently do – cargo by]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/QtvvA_xoHum86U-paNHdNNCHdjkbumnQTjvPV1ovd2sWed, 01 Apr 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyAs the Strait of Hormuz continues to be a chokepoint for oil, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and our Head of Commodity Research Martijn Rats discuss possible outcomes for the interconnected market.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today in the program: Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz remain restricted. The implications for global energy markets and what may lie ahead.It's Wednesday, April 1st at 2pm in London. So, Martijn, it's great to sit down with you again. Three weeks ago, we were having this conversation; a conversation that was a little bit alarming about the scale of the disruption of the oil market with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and how that could have ripple effects through the global economy. Three weeks later, oil is still not flowing. What is happening? And what has maybe surprised you? Or been in line with expectations over the last couple of weeks? Martijn Rats: Yeah. Many things have been in line with expectations, in the sense that we're seeing the effects of the closure of the strait the earliest in regions that are physically the closest to the strait. So, we saw the first examples of physical shortages in, say, the west coast of India. Then we saw examples from the east coast of India From there on it's reverberated throughout Asia, where now governments have announced a whole host of. Effectively, energy demand, uh, management measures, uh, work from home, kids staying at home from school, um, cancellation of flights. There are quite many through, through Asia Also in Asia, we're seeing the type of prices that you would expect with this situation. Bunker fuel for shipping, somewhere between $150 to $200 a barrel. Jet fuel over $200 a barrel. Naphta going into Japan; naphta normally trades well below the headline price of Brent. Now $130 a barrel, that's more than double what it was in February. So, those things tell the story of this historic event. What has been surprising on the other end is how slow the reaction has been in many of the oil prices that we track the most. Like… Andrew Sheets: The numbers people will see on the news. You know, it's $100 a barrel maybe as we're talking. Martijn Rats: Yeah. It's strange to see jet fuel cargoes in Rotterdam more than $200 a barrel, but then the front month Brent future only trading at [$]100. That spread is historically wide and very surprising. But look, there are some reasons for it. The crude market had more buffers. There are a few other things. But how slow Brent futures have rallied? That has been somewhat surprising. Andrew Sheets: But you know, from those other prices you mentioned, those prices in Asia, those prices in Rotterdam that are maybe higher than the numbers that people might see on the news or on a financial website. Is it fair to say that in your mind that's sending a signal that this is a market that really is being affected by this? And being affected maybe in a larger way than the headline oil price might suggest? Martijn Rats: Oh, clearly. Look, the oil market is full with small price signals that tell the story of the underlying plumbing of the oil market. So, you can look at price differential. So, physically delivered cargoes versus financially traded futures. West African oil versus North Sea oil. Brazilian oil versus North Sea oil. Oil for immediate physical delivery versus the futures contract that trades a month out. And many of those spreads have rallied to all time highs. That is no exaggeration. And so, in an underlying sense, the stress in the market is clearly there. It is just that in front of Brent...]]>771alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1611fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-new-test-for-private-credit--75645068insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. David Miller: And I'm David Miller, Global Head of Private Credit and Equity within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Vishy Tirupattur: Today – the evolving risks and opportunities in private credit. It's Tuesday, March 31st at 10 am In New York. Until recently, private credit was among the fast-growing parts of the financial system. In just over a decade, it went from a niche strategy to a market that's well worth over a trillion dollars. After years of outsized inflows and unusually smooth return, private credit is now in focus, and investors are asking tough questions about liquidity, transparency, and valuation. David, you manage private credit and equity portfolios within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Do you think the industry is facing its first real stress test? And how do you think the industry is faring? David Miller: So, I think private credit has been tested before, you could go back to the GFC. And I know that was a long time ago and the industry was quite a bit smaller. But you could certainly look to the pandemic and the rate shocks of [20]22 - [20]23 as a stress test. And I think private credit performed, you know, quite well through that, despite the initial volatility. We saw some of that recently last year with Liberation Day; and the current environment from a fundamental perspective doesn't feel as bad as those times, and the industry does not feel under that stress. I think the current situation is more of a test of the non-traded BDC structure where roughly 20 percent of direct lending assets sit. And the liquidity provisions in those vehicles are designed to provide some liquidity, but not total liquidity. And so, while I think the vehicles are working as intended, obviously there's been a lot of noise. Vishy Tirupattur: So, I totally agree with you, David. The liquidity provisions that are in these structures are there for a reason; are designed to be that. It’s part of the feature and not a bug, precisely to prevent a fire sale of assets. And that really would hurt the overall system. So, we think that there’s a greater understanding of this is very much required. David Miller: I think that's right. The limitations on liquidity are there so that the vehicles can operate properly over the long run. When you have illiquid assets, you maintain some liquidity. But clearly those protections are in place so that the vehicle continue to run in ordinary fashion. I think there is a bit of a disconnect, you know, in the media between the sentiment and the fundamentals that are underlying private credit. And yeah, there are concerns about software, and macro, and unseen future risks. But right now, private credit portfolios are performing pretty well. And actually, if you look at 2025 versus [20]24, the metrics were actually improving… Vishy Tirupattur: Absolutely. I mean, we look at across various metrics, you know, in leverage and coverage metrics, we see overall trends are actually improving. Software [is] very much in focus. Fitch reported, yesterday that, uh, in the last, uh, you know, year to date there have been no software defaults. Another point I would make is there are about 5 percent defaults in – generally speaking – in the private credit space. And the default rates within the software sector is a little bit less than half of that. So, that's an important distinction to make. David Miller: Yeah, I think software is a very interesting and long topic. But generally, our view is: we think that AI is going to be a net tailwind overall for software over time. You know, even factoring in some of the erosion to the SaaS business models, I think well positioned incumbents will get their share of the upside. And so there will be some losers. We think that'll be pretty narrow. But overall, we feel very good about our software book. We've been looking at AI risk for at least three years, when we made loans. And we think that a lot of the embedded enterprise software platforms are going to be net beneficiaries of AI. Vishy Tirupattur: I have slightly different take on the software exposure and all the discussion points on this. The way I think about it is the market assumption is that AI disruption is necessarily going to disrupt all of software companies. And that disruption is imminent. I would push back on both of those points. You know, you could easily imagine that AI will lead to some disruption at some point in the future. But a necessary thing for that to happen is a significant amount of CapEx related to infrastructure to enable AI from innovation to adoption that needs to take place. That will take some time. So, this potential disruption is not imminent. It's potentially coming in the future. But all in, disruption is also not going to be negative. You know, we will have some companies whose business models, who don't have the moats and may not be able to benefit. But on the other hand, as you point out, there will be a number of business models which will actually flourish because of AI adoption and see their margins expand. So, I think I would push back on this notion that's prevalent in the media narrative here. That all AI disruption is imminent and it is all bad. David Miller: I think that's a very good point, and we do believe that there will be dispersion and outcome in private credit portfolios because of some of those facts. And it's really important for managers to have deep experience, not just in software, but any industries that they participate in. And really do very strong credit selection. Vishy Tirupattur: So, another thing that's happening in the private credit space is really the advent of the retail investor into the private credit. What do you think the advent of retail investors had done to the portfolio selection, portfolio construction and credit selection in your portfolios? David Miller: So, for us, we haven't changed our portfolio construction or credit selection process for retail portfolios. They're virtually the same as our institutional portfolios. And that's, you know, based on a lot of diversification, limiting borrower concentration, avoiding cyclicals, et cetera. The one difference that's important for our non-traded BDC is we do have about 10 percent of the portfolio in broadly syndicated loans, to add a little bit more liquidity to the portfolio. But otherwise, they're pretty much the same. I think the biggest impact that we've witnessed over the past few years, where there's been a large inflow of retail capital, has been to push spreads tighter. And weaken some of the terms than they would've otherwise been. There was a lot of capital that needed to be deployed quickly, so we saw that and we're quite cautious. You're seeing that trend reverse now as flows have moderated, and we expect that those trends will result in better pricing and better terms going forward. So, Vishy, how are you thinking about risk in the system now? Are you seeing signs of systemic risk? Or is the pressure more isolated? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the pressure is really more isolated, more focused on the software sector. As we just discussed, it will take time to figure out the winners and losers coming out of this. But that process is really; we think will result in some pickup in default rates. But we think it'll be very concentrated within the software sector. So, when I look back at the systemic risks, the echoes of the financial crisis of 2008 come back, you know. We both have gone through that in different roles, you know. I used to be tall and good looking is before the financial crisis. So, the scars of financial crisis are clearly on upon me now. But I compare these two time periods – and I say in any metric, the risks in the system today are nowhere comparable to the kind of systemic risk that existed back then. You look at the risks, the leverage at the company level. You look at the leverage; the vehicles where credit risk is sitting. Look at the risks and the leverage within the banking system. And the links of the non-banks to banks. All of them put together make us think that the systemic risks are very, very contained. And any allusion to that ‘We are back in 2008,’ I would very strongly push back against that illusion. So, David, let me ask you one final question here. If we had to highlight one risk or one opportunity in private credit for investors over the next year, what would it be? David Miller: I think the headlines have covered most of the risks, so I'll go with an opportunity. So, we believe spreads on private credit loans have widened quite a bit for direct lending. Both for non-software and software names. So, for investors looking to deploy new capital or investors who are underweight their target allocations, we think it's an interesting time. But we believe there's also a really nice opportunity in opportunistic or hybrid private credit.  And that's coming from borrowers who need more flexible solutions, and that can come from M&A activity, non-dilutive growth capital. Or balance sheet rationalizations where one can inject junior capital to good businesses that have over-levered balance sheets. And you can get paid well for the flexibility and the optionality that's providing equity holders. There's been far less capital raised for these types of opportunities over the last few years, and they're pretty favorable dynamics going forward as demand i]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eSH18Fixmy6I9gm2_fr3pTor3Gv39Fuu3KXefEzIBZgTue, 31 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s Global Head of Private Credit & Equity David Miller discuss the recent pressure on the private credit market, potential risks and opportunities that...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. David Miller: And I'm David Miller, Global Head of Private Credit and Equity within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Vishy Tirupattur: Today – the evolving risks and opportunities in private credit. It's Tuesday, March 31st at 10 am In New York. Until recently, private credit was among the fast-growing parts of the financial system. In just over a decade, it went from a niche strategy to a market that's well worth over a trillion dollars. After years of outsized inflows and unusually smooth return, private credit is now in focus, and investors are asking tough questions about liquidity, transparency, and valuation. David, you manage private credit and equity portfolios within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Do you think the industry is facing its first real stress test? And how do you think the industry is faring? David Miller: So, I think private credit has been tested before, you could go back to the GFC. And I know that was a long time ago and the industry was quite a bit smaller. But you could certainly look to the pandemic and the rate shocks of [20]22 - [20]23 as a stress test. And I think private credit performed, you know, quite well through that, despite the initial volatility. We saw some of that recently last year with Liberation Day; and the current environment from a fundamental perspective doesn't feel as bad as those times, and the industry does not feel under that stress. I think the current situation is more of a test of the non-traded BDC structure where roughly 20 percent of direct lending assets sit. And the liquidity provisions in those vehicles are designed to provide some liquidity, but not total liquidity. And so, while I think the vehicles are working as intended, obviously there's been a lot of noise. Vishy Tirupattur: So, I totally agree with you, David. The liquidity provisions that are in these structures are there for a reason; are designed to be that. It’s part of the feature and not a bug, precisely to prevent a fire sale of assets. And that really would hurt the overall system. So, we think that there’s a greater understanding of this is very much required. David Miller: I think that's right. The limitations on liquidity are there so that the vehicles can operate properly over the long run. When you have illiquid assets, you maintain some liquidity. But clearly those protections are in place so that the vehicle continue to run in ordinary fashion. I think there is a bit of a disconnect, you know, in the media between the sentiment and the fundamentals that are underlying private credit. And yeah, there are concerns about software, and macro, and unseen future risks. But right now, private credit portfolios are performing pretty well. And actually, if you look at 2025 versus [20]24, the metrics were actually improving… Vishy Tirupattur: Absolutely. I mean, we look at across various metrics, you know, in leverage and coverage metrics, we see overall trends are actually improving. Software [is] very much in focus. Fitch reported, yesterday that, uh, in the last, uh, you know, year to date there have been no software defaults. Another point I would make is there are about 5 percent defaults in – generally speaking – in the private credit space. And the default rates within the software sector is a little bit less than half of that. So, that's an important distinction to make. David Miller: Yeah, I think...]]>570alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1610fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-bull-market-may-be-closer-than-it-looks--75645015insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why the balance between the upside and the downside is actually better than at the start of the year. It's Monday, March 30th at 11:30 am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. Everyone I’ve been speaking with lately is focused on the same things: the conflict in Iran, oil prices, and of course, AI—whether it’s CapEx, disruption of labor markets, and efficiency. When I look at how markets are trading, I come away with a different conclusion than the consensus. First, the U.S. equity market is far less complacent about growth risks than people think. Consider this: more than half of the Russell 3000 stocks are down at least 20 percent from their highs, while the S&P 500’s Price/Earnings multiple is down 17 percent. That’s not complacency. That’s a well advanced correction consistent with prior growth scares, if not an outright recession. Second, let’s talk about oil, everyone’s top concern. Historically, oil spikes have often ended business cycles. However, recessions only occurred when earnings growth was decelerating or outright negative. Today, it’s accelerating and running close to 14 percent while forward earnings growth is north of 20 percent. Meanwhile, the magnitude of the oil move, on a year-over-year basis, is only about half of what we saw in the recession outcomes. In other words, the market isn’t pricing in a recession because the odds of that happening appear low. Instead, we believe it’s pricing in continued uncertainty about oil and other key resources until there is ultimately a resolution where tanker flows resume and prices stabilize or come back down. From my observations, I think interest rates are weighing more heavily on U.S. stocks rather than oil. Specifically, the correlation between equities and yields has flipped deeply negative. Stocks are extremely sensitive to moves in higher yields—more so than they’ve been in years. This is mainly due to the recent hawkish pivot by the Fed and other central banks. As a result, we’re also approaching the 4.5 percent level on 10-year Treasury yields, a point where we typically observe further equity valuation compression. Finally, bond volatility is also rising, and equity valuations are always sensitive to that. The good news is that the Fed is more sensitive to bond than stock volatility and any further rise could likely lead to a Fed pivot back to a more dovish stance.  In short, the tightening in financial conditions driven by rates and bond volatility is the bigger near-term risk, not the geopolitical backdrop. Ironically, it’s also what could provide relief. At the end of the day, I still think we’re getting closer to the end of this correction; and when I look at the next 6 to 12 months, the risk-reward looks better today than it did at the start of the year. On the positioning side, I’m also seeing some interesting shifts. Defensive stocks and Gold had a strong run from early January right up until tensions in the Middle East began at the end of February. But they have underperformed significantly since. Meanwhile, some of the better-performing sectors recently have been the more cyclical ones. That tells me the market got ahead of these concerns and may be ready to look past it, sooner than most investors. As for AI, there’s still a lot of focus on disruption, but I think the near-term story is more about efficiency and margin expansion. We’re not seeing a demand shock that would trigger a traditional labor cycle. Instead, we’re seeing companies use AI to right-size costs and improve productivity. Bottom line, the market has already done a lot of the heavy lifting of this correction by discounting the war, higher oil prices, AI, and credit risks. What it’s wrestling with now is the risk of a monetary policy mistake with central banks staying too tight for too long. If that hawkish bent starts to ease, which it probably will if bond volatility rises much further, the resumption of the bull market is likely to arrive faster than most expect. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/H7DEIWJPyjpSRFIH22uDXVeLTfvRsO63-T36vBYrre8Mon, 30 Mar 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyThe stock market has already discounted many disruptions, including geopolitics, oil and AI. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors are now focused on one thing: whether monetary policy stays too tight for too...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why the balance between the upside and the downside is actually better than at the start of the year. It's Monday, March 30th at 11:30 am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. Everyone I’ve been speaking with lately is focused on the same things: the conflict in Iran, oil prices, and of course, AI—whether it’s CapEx, disruption of labor markets, and efficiency. When I look at how markets are trading, I come away with a different conclusion than the consensus. First, the U.S. equity market is far less complacent about growth risks than people think. Consider this: more than half of the Russell 3000 stocks are down at least 20 percent from their highs, while the S&P 500’s Price/Earnings multiple is down 17 percent. That’s not complacency. That’s a well advanced correction consistent with prior growth scares, if not an outright recession. Second, let’s talk about oil, everyone’s top concern. Historically, oil spikes have often ended business cycles. However, recessions only occurred when earnings growth was decelerating or outright negative. Today, it’s accelerating and running close to 14 percent while forward earnings growth is north of 20 percent. Meanwhile, the magnitude of the oil move, on a year-over-year basis, is only about half of what we saw in the recession outcomes. In other words, the market isn’t pricing in a recession because the odds of that happening appear low. Instead, we believe it’s pricing in continued uncertainty about oil and other key resources until there is ultimately a resolution where tanker flows resume and prices stabilize or come back down. From my observations, I think interest rates are weighing more heavily on U.S. stocks rather than oil. Specifically, the correlation between equities and yields has flipped deeply negative. Stocks are extremely sensitive to moves in higher yields—more so than they’ve been in years. This is mainly due to the recent hawkish pivot by the Fed and other central banks. As a result, we’re also approaching the 4.5 percent level on 10-year Treasury yields, a point where we typically observe further equity valuation compression. Finally, bond volatility is also rising, and equity valuations are always sensitive to that. The good news is that the Fed is more sensitive to bond than stock volatility and any further rise could likely lead to a Fed pivot back to a more dovish stance.  In short, the tightening in financial conditions driven by rates and bond volatility is the bigger near-term risk, not the geopolitical backdrop. Ironically, it’s also what could provide relief. At the end of the day, I still think we’re getting closer to the end of this correction; and when I look at the next 6 to 12 months, the risk-reward looks better today than it did at the start of the year. On the positioning side, I’m also seeing some interesting shifts. Defensive stocks and Gold had a strong run from early January right up until tensions in the Middle East began at the end of February. But they have underperformed significantly since. Meanwhile, some of the better-performing sectors recently have been the more cyclical ones. That tells me the market got ahead of these concerns and may be ready to look past it, sooner than most investors. As for AI, there’s still a lot of focus on disruption, but I think the near-term story is more about efficiency and margin expansion. We’re not seeing a...]]>285alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1609fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/inside-credit-market-s-issuance-boom-and-private-lending-risks--75644981Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're going to talk about two of the biggest questions facing global credit markets. A rush of issuance and questions around private credit.It's Friday, March 27th at 2pm in London.Vishwas, it's great to have you in town, talking over what I think are two of the biggest questions that are hanging over the global credit market. A large wave of issuance and a lot of questions around a segment of that market, often known as private credit.So, let's dig into those in turn. I want to start with issuance. You know, you and your team had a pretty aggressive forecast at the start of the year, for a significant level of supply. How's that going? How is it shaping out? We're now almost through the first quarter…Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, we came into the year expecting a record, [$]2.25 trillion of gross issuance in investment grade. That's 25 percent higher than last year. That would mark a record one year number for investment grade. And for the high yield market, we expected about [$]400 billion of issuance; up roughly 30 percent.If I were to mark to market those, the forecast is roughly playing out as expected through mid-March. IG issuance is up about 21 percent. High yield issuance is up about 25 percent. So far at least, it's along the lines of what we'd call for. More importantly though, when I think about the drivers of the issuance, that I think in some ways is a little more validating. Because there were two big components of what was going to drive the issuance.One was AI related issuance from the large hyperscalers, and the second was a decent uptick in M&A. And we've seen both of those. So, year-to-date, we've had north of [$]80 billion of issuance from hyperscalers alone in the dollar market. That's on top of significant non-USD issuance that we've had this year.So, I think this idea of AI CapEx investments and by extension issuance being somewhat agnostic to macro, that seems to be playing out so far.Andrew Sheets: So, let's talk a little bit more about that – because, you know, this is a new development. This kind of is a new regime to have this much supply, sort of, somewhat independent of a very volatile macro backdrop.And you know, maybe if you could talk just a little bit more about what we're learning about the issuers. What do they care about? What is bringing them to market? And then maybe what would cause them to slow down or speed up?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, I think we've learned a couple of things, right? First is – this issuance is being driven by investments that are not opportunistic, right? They are competitive in nature. Clearly there is an arms race to figure out who will win the AI race.I think a second leg of it is the issuance is somewhat spread agnostic. So, you know, in credit we look at this metric called new issue concessions, which is effectively how much is a company paying in terms of excess funding costs relative to their bonds outstanding. And what we've seen with some of the larger deals is that new issue concessions are well above average.And that's pretty important in the grand scheme of things because, you know, we're talking about one sector that is driving AI infrastructure. But when you have issuance that comes in size, and it comes wide to where existing bonds are, we think that has knock-on effects repricing other companies that are downstream of those names.Andrew Sheets: So, we have a market for issuing corporate debt that's pretty wide open. You know, as you mentioned, very high levels of issuance and supply going through, despite what would've been a lot of concerns. And one of those concerns is the conflict in Iran.But another concern that's been cropping up is a concern around this market often known as private credit where you've seen a lot of focus, a lot of headlines, volatility in some of the managers of private credit. But also, I think this is an area where less is known. And where there's still a lot of confusion about what it is and how it's performing.So, for the second set of questions, Vishwas, maybe we could just start with, you know, when you think about private credit, what is it to you? And how do you break up the market?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so I think at a very high level, you can think about private credit as capital that is provided by non-bank lenders. And in some ways – that is not broadly syndicated. So it's different from investment grade bonds or high yield bonds or leverage loans in that respect. You know, the second factor I laid out.You know, private credit overarchingly is a big umbrella term. It includes direct lending to businesses. It includes infrastructure finance, project finance, the private placement market, asset-based finance. So, there are a lot of subcomponents.Now, you know, to your point where the market's a little worried and there is growing anxiety is around the direct lending portion of private credit. That segment of the market has grown substantially over the last decade. It was about [$]500 billion or so 10 years ago. It's about [$]1.3 trillion right now.Andrew Sheets: And this is lending directly to companies?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. This is lending directly to companies. Leverage typically tends to be higher than what you see in the public market. So, one of the challenges around navigating the risks are, you know, when you get a bunch of negative headlines that isn't necessarily the readily available information to either disprove or validate it.So, I think that's some of the anxiety, which is building among the investor base. Our view is, you know, these risks are significant and investors should be cognizant of what's happening.Andrew Sheets: So maybe just to take a step back a little bit there. Why have investors been more worried about the private credit space?Have we seen particular events? Or is it more, kind of, other factors that you think have driven this increased focus?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, I think it's been a rolling set of factors. This year the whole story has really been about software and concerns about AI disruption. But before I get into that, I think it was a process that really began, I would say, second half of last year.So, private credit really had its moment in the sun a few years ago where inflows were massive. The public market was choppy while the Fed was hiking rates, and a lot of stressed issuers were choosing to raise capital via direct lenders. And at that time, spreads in the private credit market were also very attractive.What you've seen last year is private credit AUM was effectively flat. The fee income being generated on the loans has come down as the Fed has eased policy and the spread on private credit versus the public market has also narrowed. So, what started off, I think, was more macro. It was driven more by what was happening on the policy front…Andrew Sheets: More yield compression. Less yield for investors, which caused them to be just a little bit less attracted to the space…Vishwas Patkar: Absolutely, yeah. And I think that was largely the driver of, you know, the correction in some of these asset manager stocks to begin with. Then you had some of the headlines around specific single name headlines. Double pledging of collateral, some accounting malpractices, which, you know, I think we can say with the benefit of hindsight, those were idiosyncratic. Those were one offs. But again, you know, doesn't make for a positive headline when you get news flow to that effect.And then this year, as I said, it's really been about concerns around the software sector…Andrew Sheets: Which is a very big part of the private credit market.Vishwas Patkar: It is a very big part of the private credit market. It made up for almost a third of all LBOs that were originated between 2018 through 2022. And in fact, really if you look at 2021, when interest rates were very low, a lot of the outstanding software loans were originated in those really weak vintages.And so, you know, I think AI disruption has maybe been the catalyst to drive some of this price action. But that's on top of software, where a lot of loans were originated with high leverage. But now that, you know, you have a very disruptive force around margins, potentially looming, the concern has now shifted towards what do balance sheets look like. And the software sector is very levered. In the bank loan market, for example, more than 50 percent of software loans outstanding are rated B- or lower.And one extension of that is that, you know, you have a non-trivial amount of debt that is maturing in the next few years. So, through 2028, we see about [$]65 billion of software loans maturing largely in that lower quality cohort.So, you know, even before we get clarity around how AI will diffuse and disrupt or will not disrupt these names, the issue is really refinancing. In this period of uncertainty, will all these software loans over the next 12 to 18 months – will they have the capital to term out their maturities?Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, maybe just in closing, as you're going around and talking to credit investors at the moment, what do you think are the two or three biggest, kind of, high level takeaways and views that you're trying to get across?Vishwas Patkar: A few things I would say. So, specifically on private credit, we are saying that, you know, I think we are in for a period where returns migh]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zFEmEMQlNJKxIC_FYqCjPwWohO78UF2e7XlL8ZHl9u8Fri, 27 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets and Head of U.S. Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar discuss what’s driving record debt issuance and growing worries about private credit. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're going to talk about two of the biggest questions facing global credit markets. A rush of issuance and questions around private credit.It's Friday, March 27th at 2pm in London.Vishwas, it's great to have you in town, talking over what I think are two of the biggest questions that are hanging over the global credit market. A large wave of issuance and a lot of questions around a segment of that market, often known as private credit.So, let's dig into those in turn. I want to start with issuance. You know, you and your team had a pretty aggressive forecast at the start of the year, for a significant level of supply. How's that going? How is it shaping out? We're now almost through the first quarter…Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, we came into the year expecting a record, [$]2.25 trillion of gross issuance in investment grade. That's 25 percent higher than last year. That would mark a record one year number for investment grade. And for the high yield market, we expected about [$]400 billion of issuance; up roughly 30 percent.If I were to mark to market those, the forecast is roughly playing out as expected through mid-March. IG issuance is up about 21 percent. High yield issuance is up about 25 percent. So far at least, it's along the lines of what we'd call for. More importantly though, when I think about the drivers of the issuance, that I think in some ways is a little more validating. Because there were two big components of what was going to drive the issuance.One was AI related issuance from the large hyperscalers, and the second was a decent uptick in M&A. And we've seen both of those. So, year-to-date, we've had north of [$]80 billion of issuance from hyperscalers alone in the dollar market. That's on top of significant non-USD issuance that we've had this year.So, I think this idea of AI CapEx investments and by extension issuance being somewhat agnostic to macro, that seems to be playing out so far.Andrew Sheets: So, let's talk a little bit more about that – because, you know, this is a new development. This kind of is a new regime to have this much supply, sort of, somewhat independent of a very volatile macro backdrop.And you know, maybe if you could talk just a little bit more about what we're learning about the issuers. What do they care about? What is bringing them to market? And then maybe what would cause them to slow down or speed up?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, I think we've learned a couple of things, right? First is – this issuance is being driven by investments that are not opportunistic, right? They are competitive in nature. Clearly there is an arms race to figure out who will win the AI race.I think a second leg of it is the issuance is somewhat spread agnostic. So, you know, in credit we look at this metric called new issue concessions, which is effectively how much is a company paying in terms of excess funding costs relative to their bonds outstanding. And what we've seen with some of the larger deals is that new issue concessions are well above average.And that's pretty important in the grand scheme of things because, you know, we're talking about one sector that is driving AI infrastructure. But when you have issuance that comes in size, and it comes wide to where existing bonds are, we think that has knock-on effects repricing other companies that are downstream of those...]]>671alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1608fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-fed-rate-cuts-could-be-pushed-back--75645019insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, the outcome of the March FOMC meeting and what it means for our economic and rates outlook for the rest of the year.It's Thursday, March 26th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, as we expected, the Fed stayed on hold last week at the FOMC meeting and retained its easing bias. But what do you think the heightened macro uncertainty means for rate cuts this year? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think the answer is caution and probably rate cuts come later than earlier. So, we've changed our view on the back of the FOMC meeting. We previously thought rate cuts would come in June and September. We've slid those back to September and December. The short answer here is I think with the rise in oil prices and at least some renewed upward pressure on headline inflation – it will likely take the Fed longer to conclude that disinflation is occurring. So, I think they need more time, and that obviously means the Fed pushes rate cuts out. Matthew Hornbach: Is there anything about the press conference that struck you as being interesting? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the almost near singular focus on inflation. So, after the meeting was over and the press conference was done, we did a little deep dive into the transcript. Because that's what we do as economists who follow the Fed. And there were about 18 questions on inflation or prices. There were only five on labor markets. And if you do, kind of, a word count on inflation- and oil-related terms, that would've popped about 200 answers. If you looked at labor market terms, you would've gotten about 40. So, by a five-to- one ratio, the press conference was dominated by fears or concerns around inflation, inflation expectations, and oil prices. And, you know, whatever message the Fed was trying to send, I think it's hard to send either a neutral or a dovish message when nearly every question was about inflation. So, for me, I think the singular focus on inflation was what surprised me. Matthew Hornbach: And one of the questions that I think market participants, and I'm sure you yourself expected Powell to be asked, was about how the Fed would respond to this supply side energy shock that would raise inflation. And whether or not the Fed would look through that type of supply side effect. How did you interpret his answer?Michael Gapen: His answer was, for me, a little more complicated than I thought it would be. You're right that it is, kind of, traditional monetary policy knowledge or views that you're supposed to look through an increase in headline inflation from oil prices. History says in the U.S., they have little effect on core inflation.  Very little second round effects. So, you do, I think, want to come into this event thinking we're primed to look through. But what he said was, ‘Well wait. First of all, what we have to do is get through this tariff pass through to core goods first that I can't even tell you…’ I'm paraphrasing here. ‘That I can't even tell you whether or not we want to look through an increase in headline inflation until we get greater clarity that tariff pass through to core goods has ended.’ So, this, I think, contributes to our view that it's going to take a longer time until the Fed's comfortable easing, because I think that raises the bar for a conclusion that disinflation is happening. Matthew Hornbach: Right. So, they want to first check the box on being past the tariff-related inflation before they start to consider whether or not they look through the energy-related inflation. And as a part of that question, the reporter, sort of, framed it as: Well, in the context of missing your inflation target for five years – how are you going to think about it? And he layered that into his answer as well. Michael Gapen: They've missed their target for five years? I wasn't aware. Yes. No. That was the additional context, which is to conclude that you can look through increases in headline inflation from oil, one of the conditioning factors there is – that long run inflation expectations remain stable and well anchored around the Fed's 2 percent target. So, short run inflation expectations have moved higher. Just as they did when tariffs were implemented, just as they did during COVID. So yes, there's a multiple kind of step box checking – to use your term – that the Fed needs to go to before it can say, ‘Okay, fine. We think disinflation is in place.’ I still think they can get there this year. But obviously that's a later than sooner kind of decision. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely, and I think in terms of the market response to the FOMC meeting and the press conference, it was that exchange with that reporter that was concerning to investors. And they said, ‘Well, if the Fed first needs to see tariff related inflation pass, and then they're going to consider whether or not to look through energy related inflation in the context of having missed their inflation target for five years.’ Market participants said, ‘Well, gosh, that really increases the chance the Fed doesn't ease at all this year.’ And so, at the end of that trading day, the market had been pricing about a 50 percent probability that the Fed would deliver its only rate cut in December. And of course, the market has moved since the FOMC meeting. But that was my takeaway, at least. In terms of inflation expectations… Because this is so critical in terms of how the Fed and other central banks around the world – who have slightly different mandates than the Fed does – how do you expect the Fed to think about inflation expectations later this year; when perhaps they're actually considering whether or not to look through the energy price inflation in the context of what happened to longer run inflation expectations in the wake of the pandemic? Michael Gapen: So, my view on this, and at least my takeaway from listening to Powell in prior press conferences – and hearing other FOMC members. I think they feel that coming out of COVID, yes, long run inflation expectations moved up. But they actually moved up for a good reason. I think they felt that long run inflation expectations were a little low going into COVID. So, still generally consistent with 2 percent outcomes. But kind of on the downside. So, a little increase in long run inflation expectations coming out of COVID, I think they were okay with. The risk now will be, COVID has been followed by a tariff price shock and an oil price shock. And in theory, these are supply side shocks that shouldn't result in long run inflation. But you never know, business and consumers may feel differently. So, I think as long as they – they meaning long run inflation expectations – are about where they are, I think the Fed's okay with that. Matthew Hornbach: Right. You did mention that the labor market didn't come up all that much. What’s your view on the labor market going into the end of the year? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that; I think it's pretty similar to the way Powell characterized it. Which is: it is abundantly clear that immigration controls have had a strong effect on the labor market and reduced growth in labor supply.It's obvious also, we've had a year now where hiring has come down. So, on one hand the labor market… I'm an economist, so I have to say on the one hand, and on the other hand. On the one hand, the labor market's generally in balance – low labor supply, low labor demand. The unemployment rate has been, you know, broadly unchanged, pretty stable since September. That's what Powell in the past has characterized as “the curious balance.” So yes, the labor market is in balance. But what concerns me and concerns us is – it's not a very dynamic labor market. An economy the size of the U.S., about 360-ish million people or so. We're basically not adding many jobs every month. 20,000 to 30,000, if you, kind of, take a six month or so average is about all we're adding every month. That doesn't feel very robust. Rates of turnover, movement in and out of the labor market have slowed down. And so, I think you can say ‘Yes, the labor market is in a general equilibrium.’ But payroll growth close to zero doesn't feel good. This is also why I think it's reasonable to expect rate cuts out of the Fed in the second half of the year. It can come either because disinflation happens. Or higher oil prices can weigh on demand, slow consumer spending, delay business spending plans. If that happens, I think it'd be reasonable to think the unemployment rate may drift up a little. Not a lot, but enough to get the Fed thinking maybe we should give it some more support. Matthew Hornbach: And I think if that's what we end up seeing out of the economy and out of the Fed, then the U.S. Treasury market is set up for a decent run into the end of the year. The market today isn't pricing many rate cuts at all to speak of. And in fact, at one point after the FOMC meeting for a moment in time, we were pricing rate hikes. But I think if we get that outcome for the U.S. economy and for Fed policy, I think investors in U.S. treasuries will be rewarded. And even if they're not rewarded in the way that they might expect or hope – the U.S. Treasury market itself and the correlations that it has delivered vis-a-vis riskier assets like the equity market, suggest that U.S. Treasuries, despite the recent sell off, have been behaving as good hedge sec]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DCjZtgpOjRnG-2o7kGeSEmVA-pQHmLPqQmf4l15nX5sThu, 26 Mar 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss how oil prices, tariffs and inflation expectations are raising the bar for rate cuts by the Fed, and markets’ response to the new scenario.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, the outcome of the March FOMC meeting and what it means for our economic and rates outlook for the rest of the year.It's Thursday, March 26th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, as we expected, the Fed stayed on hold last week at the FOMC meeting and retained its easing bias. But what do you think the heightened macro uncertainty means for rate cuts this year? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think the answer is caution and probably rate cuts come later than earlier. So, we've changed our view on the back of the FOMC meeting. We previously thought rate cuts would come in June and September. We've slid those back to September and December. The short answer here is I think with the rise in oil prices and at least some renewed upward pressure on headline inflation – it will likely take the Fed longer to conclude that disinflation is occurring. So, I think they need more time, and that obviously means the Fed pushes rate cuts out. Matthew Hornbach: Is there anything about the press conference that struck you as being interesting? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the almost near singular focus on inflation. So, after the meeting was over and the press conference was done, we did a little deep dive into the transcript. Because that's what we do as economists who follow the Fed. And there were about 18 questions on inflation or prices. There were only five on labor markets. And if you do, kind of, a word count on inflation- and oil-related terms, that would've popped about 200 answers. If you looked at labor market terms, you would've gotten about 40. So, by a five-to- one ratio, the press conference was dominated by fears or concerns around inflation, inflation expectations, and oil prices. And, you know, whatever message the Fed was trying to send, I think it's hard to send either a neutral or a dovish message when nearly every question was about inflation. So, for me, I think the singular focus on inflation was what surprised me. Matthew Hornbach: And one of the questions that I think market participants, and I'm sure you yourself expected Powell to be asked, was about how the Fed would respond to this supply side energy shock that would raise inflation. And whether or not the Fed would look through that type of supply side effect. How did you interpret his answer?Michael Gapen: His answer was, for me, a little more complicated than I thought it would be. You're right that it is, kind of, traditional monetary policy knowledge or views that you're supposed to look through an increase in headline inflation from oil prices. History says in the U.S., they have little effect on core inflation.  Very little second round effects. So, you do, I think, want to come into this event thinking we're primed to look through. But what he said was, ‘Well wait. First of all, what we have to do is get through this tariff pass through to core goods first that I can't even tell you…’ I'm paraphrasing here. ‘That I can't even tell you whether or not we want to look through an increase in headline inflation until we get greater clarity that tariff pass through to core goods has ended.’ So, this, I think, contributes to our view that it's going to take a longer time until the Fed's comfortable easing, because I think that raises the bar for a conclusion that disinflation is happening. Matthew Hornbach: Right. So, they want to...]]>693alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1607fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-government-action-tame-rising-energy-prices--75645048insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Today, I’ll be talking about the ongoing conflict in Iran and the policy options to offset a rise in oil prices. It’s Wednesday, March 25th at 8pm in Tokyo. The U.S.-Iran conflict is stretching into its fourth week, and markets are still trying to distill headlines for news of an off-ramp or further escalation. Even here in Tokyo, the global supply crunch is top of mind. But we’re also watching for second order effects among a number of key supply chains, ranging from food to semiconductors. As you’ve been hearing on the show, the Middle East is a critical supplier of aluminum, petrochemicals, and fertilizers—all industries that are energy intensive and deeply embedded in global supply chains. There’s also sulphur, which is needed to produce copper and cobalt, largely used for chip materials and components. And helium, which is a critical material for semiconductor manufacturing. So with all this supply chain disruption on the line, what are policymakers’ options to mitigate that loss? Let’s start by putting some numbers around the disruption. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for about 20 percent of global oil supply, and about a third of seaborne oil. Our strategists highlight three potential offsets. First, alternative pipelines. Saudi Arabia maintains an East-West pipeline and the UAE similarly has a smaller scale Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline. Those together can allow for some crude to bypass Hormuz. Second, the U.S. has publicly discussed potential naval escorts. We’ve written about the logistical difficulties with this plan, in addition to significant execution risks. Third, the IEA has coordinated a strategic stock release, which could translate to a sustained release of around 2 million barrels a day, depending on the duration of the conflict. There are also geographic considerations though that can add a lag to those strategic releases. On net, our oil strategists think these policy levers can mitigate about 9 million barrels per day from the lost 20, meaning that the global economy will still be short about 11 million barrels per day; more than three times the supply shock the market feared from the Russia-Ukraine conflict back in 2022. So, given those limitations, we’re starting to see countries around the world – particularly in Asia – begin to implement rationing measures to conserve energy. The Philippines, for example, has implemented a four-day workweek for government workers and mandated agencies to cut fuel and electricity use. Myanmar has imposed driving limits, and Sri Lanka has introduced gasoline rationing. But what about in the U.S.? We’ve seen domestic gasoline prices climb due to this conflict, and the national average is now close to $4, almost a dollar up from where we were about a month ago. The President has announced a number of policy efforts – including a Jones Act waiver, which temporarily allows foreign vessels to transport fuel between U.S. ports, and a temporary pause on some Russian and Iranian oil sanctions. President Trump has also directed a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but similarly to the IEA stockpile, the flow rate is going to be the key limit. The authorization was for 172 million barrels over a 120 period, which translates to just about 1.4 million barrels per day on average. So what should we be watching? Tanker transits, signs of upstream shut-ins as storage fills, refinery run-cuts, and—most crucially—whether policy announcements on insurance and escorted convoys can actually translate into reality. These are all going to be critical elements going forward. For now, our oil strategists have raised their near-term Brent forecast to $110 per barrel, which underscores our U.S. economists’ outlook for weaker growth and stickier inflation than previously expected. And for now, policy tools seem to be unable to meaningfully offset that disruption. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7yzlcbgZaL1nUKKSAbAruRcJAkxcoc8S9dGQT76oX5UWed, 25 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore breaks down what’s being discussed by policymakers around the world to try to cap the oil price spike.  Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Today, I’ll be talking about the ongoing conflict in Iran and the policy options to offset a rise in oil prices. It’s Wednesday, March 25th at 8pm in Tokyo. The U.S.-Iran conflict is stretching into its fourth week, and markets are still trying to distill headlines for news of an off-ramp or further escalation. Even here in Tokyo, the global supply crunch is top of mind. But we’re also watching for second order effects among a number of key supply chains, ranging from food to semiconductors. As you’ve been hearing on the show, the Middle East is a critical supplier of aluminum, petrochemicals, and fertilizers—all industries that are energy intensive and deeply embedded in global supply chains. There’s also sulphur, which is needed to produce copper and cobalt, largely used for chip materials and components. And helium, which is a critical material for semiconductor manufacturing. So with all this supply chain disruption on the line, what are policymakers’ options to mitigate that loss? Let’s start by putting some numbers around the disruption. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for about 20 percent of global oil supply, and about a third of seaborne oil. Our strategists highlight three potential offsets. First, alternative pipelines. Saudi Arabia maintains an East-West pipeline and the UAE similarly has a smaller scale Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline. Those together can allow for some crude to bypass Hormuz. Second, the U.S. has publicly discussed potential naval escorts. We’ve written about the logistical difficulties with this plan, in addition to significant execution risks. Third, the IEA has coordinated a strategic stock release, which could translate to a sustained release of around 2 million barrels a day, depending on the duration of the conflict. There are also geographic considerations though that can add a lag to those strategic releases. On net, our oil strategists think these policy levers can mitigate about 9 million barrels per day from the lost 20, meaning that the global economy will still be short about 11 million barrels per day; more than three times the supply shock the market feared from the Russia-Ukraine conflict back in 2022. So, given those limitations, we’re starting to see countries around the world – particularly in Asia – begin to implement rationing measures to conserve energy. The Philippines, for example, has implemented a four-day workweek for government workers and mandated agencies to cut fuel and electricity use. Myanmar has imposed driving limits, and Sri Lanka has introduced gasoline rationing. But what about in the U.S.? We’ve seen domestic gasoline prices climb due to this conflict, and the national average is now close to $4, almost a dollar up from where we were about a month ago. The President has announced a number of policy efforts – including a Jones Act waiver, which temporarily allows foreign vessels to transport fuel between U.S. ports, and a temporary pause on some Russian and Iranian oil sanctions. President Trump has also directed a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but similarly to the IEA stockpile, the flow rate is going to be the key limit. The authorization was for 172 million barrels over a 120 period, which translates to just about 1.4 million barrels per day on average. So what should we be watching? Tanker transits, signs of upstream shut-ins as storage fills, refinery run-cuts, and—most crucially—whether policy announcements on insurance and escorted convoys can actually translate into reality. These are all going to be...]]>255alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1606fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/oil-markets-are-even-tighter-than-they-appear--75644970insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – an update on the global impact on the Strait of Hormuz shutdown.It’s Tuesday, March 24th, at 3pm in London.More than three weeks into the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz disruptions, the numbers are striking. Normally, around 35 oil tankers leave the Gulf each day. Today, that number is closer to zero to two. That amounts to a shock. In fact, we estimate this event has disrupted roughly 20 percent of global oil supply – double the scale of the Suez crisis in the 1950s. Now, you might think: can’t the system adapt? Can’t oil just flow another way? At first, oil kept moving by being stored on ships already inside the Gulf. But that buffer is now full. Floating storage has surged in the area to over 120 million barrels, and new loadings have effectively stopped. Once storage is filled, producers have no choice but to cut output – and that’s exactly what we’re seeing. About 10 million barrels per day of upstream oil and gas production is now offline. Now once we reach this point, the Hormuz closure becomes a real supply loss. There are some partial workarounds. Pipelines that bypass the Strait. Strategic reserve releases. Possibly, naval escorts at some point to help ships move along. But unfortunately, none of these fully solve the problem. Even after accounting for all these offsets, the market still faces a shortfall of around 10 to 12 million barrels per day. Now, that is more than three times the supply shock markets feared in 2022, when Brent oil prices surged to around $130 a barrel. And beyond crude oil, the supply strain is showing up even more in refined products. Now, how so? By comparison, crude oil is still flexible. One barrel can sometimes be substituted with another. But refined products – like jet fuel or petrochemical feedstocks – are much more specific. They’re harder to replace quickly. And we’re already seeing acute shortages. Europe relies on imports for about 37 percent of its jet fuel needs, and those flows have now declined sharply. Middle East exports of naphtha, a key input for plastics and chemicals to destinations in Asia, have fallen from about 1.2 million barrels per day to almost zero. And in shipping hubs like Singapore, marine fuel prices have surged dramatically, with some fuels exceeding $250 per barrel. Once fuel shortages hit logistics, the disruption spreads beyond energy to affect the movement of goods across the economy. So where does this leave us? We envision two broad scenarios. First, a reopening. Even if the Strait reopens relatively quickly, say within one to two weeks, the system doesn’t just snap back. There’s what we call an air pocket in the system – a gap created by delayed shipments, empty inventories, and disrupted supply chains. In that case, oil prices are still likely to stay elevated throughout the second and third quarters, rather than quickly returning to pre-crisis levels which were about $70 per barrel at the time. A second scenario would be a prolonged closure. If the disruption continues, the market shifts from substitution to rationing. And rationing means demand has to fall. Historically, that only happens at much higher prices – typically in the range of $130 to $150 per barrel. Now given all this, we’ve revised our base case forecasts higher. We now expect Brent oil prices to average around $110 per barrel in the second quarter, easing only slightly to $90 in the third and $80 by the fourth quarter. But it’s key to realize that reopening the Strait is not the same as repairing the system. This supply chain shock to the oil market will take time to unwind.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Wf-aLW_LRWLEBBjpzDpJPzYodXs4d1SJU-tjwpBBXf4Tue, 24 Mar 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses how the Strait of Hormuz shutdown has created a deep air pocket that will likely keep markets tighter and prices higher for longer than many expect.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today – an update on the global impact on the Strait of Hormuz shutdown.It’s Tuesday, March 24th, at 3pm in London.More than three weeks into the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz disruptions, the numbers are striking. Normally, around 35 oil tankers leave the Gulf each day. Today, that number is closer to zero to two. That amounts to a shock. In fact, we estimate this event has disrupted roughly 20 percent of global oil supply – double the scale of the Suez crisis in the 1950s. Now, you might think: can’t the system adapt? Can’t oil just flow another way? At first, oil kept moving by being stored on ships already inside the Gulf. But that buffer is now full. Floating storage has surged in the area to over 120 million barrels, and new loadings have effectively stopped. Once storage is filled, producers have no choice but to cut output – and that’s exactly what we’re seeing. About 10 million barrels per day of upstream oil and gas production is now offline. Now once we reach this point, the Hormuz closure becomes a real supply loss. There are some partial workarounds. Pipelines that bypass the Strait. Strategic reserve releases. Possibly, naval escorts at some point to help ships move along. But unfortunately, none of these fully solve the problem. Even after accounting for all these offsets, the market still faces a shortfall of around 10 to 12 million barrels per day. Now, that is more than three times the supply shock markets feared in 2022, when Brent oil prices surged to around $130 a barrel. And beyond crude oil, the supply strain is showing up even more in refined products. Now, how so? By comparison, crude oil is still flexible. One barrel can sometimes be substituted with another. But refined products – like jet fuel or petrochemical feedstocks – are much more specific. They’re harder to replace quickly. And we’re already seeing acute shortages. Europe relies on imports for about 37 percent of its jet fuel needs, and those flows have now declined sharply. Middle East exports of naphtha, a key input for plastics and chemicals to destinations in Asia, have fallen from about 1.2 million barrels per day to almost zero. And in shipping hubs like Singapore, marine fuel prices have surged dramatically, with some fuels exceeding $250 per barrel. Once fuel shortages hit logistics, the disruption spreads beyond energy to affect the movement of goods across the economy. So where does this leave us? We envision two broad scenarios. First, a reopening. Even if the Strait reopens relatively quickly, say within one to two weeks, the system doesn’t just snap back. There’s what we call an air pocket in the system – a gap created by delayed shipments, empty inventories, and disrupted supply chains. In that case, oil prices are still likely to stay elevated throughout the second and third quarters, rather than quickly returning to pre-crisis levels which were about $70 per barrel at the time. A second scenario would be a prolonged closure. If the disruption continues, the market shifts from substitution to rationing. And rationing means demand has to fall. Historically, that only happens at much higher prices – typically in the range of $130 to $150 per barrel. Now given all this, we’ve revised our base case forecasts higher. We now expect Brent oil prices to average around $110 per barrel in the second quarter, easing only slightly to $90 in the third and $80 by the fourth quarter. But it’s key to realize that reopening the Strait is...]]>264alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1605fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-s-energy-dependence-meets-a-narrow-strait--75644930insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s research analyst covering energy markets in India and Southeast Asia.Today—how disruptions linked to Iran and the Strait of Hormuz are creating energy-related disruptions across Asia.It’s Monday, March 23rd, at 8am in Singapore.To understand the scale of the impact, let’s start with a simple fact: about a quarter of Asia’s energy—that is oil, liquefied natural gas, and propane—comes from the Middle East, much of it flowing through a single chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption here affects more than just oil prices. It also hits power generation, industrial output and even food supply chains across the region.Asia hasn’t seen a true energy access shock in over 50 years. So that makes this moment very critical. And with oil around $100 per barrel, stress is building in the system. Diesel margins are double pre-conflict levels. Jet fuel premiums have nearly doubled. And Dubai crude—normally cheaper than Brent historically—is now trading at a premium of more than $20 per barrel. This kind of price move signals tightening supply chains.Asia’s dependence on [the] Middle East runs deep. Refiners source up to 80 percent of crude from the region, and 30–40 percent of LNG imports originate there. For major economies like India and China, roughly 40–50 percent of oil demand passes through Hormuz. It’s a critical energy highway. And when flows slow, the entire system backs up.Inventories may look like a buffer. Asia holds around 65–70 days of crude. But the system reacts sooner than waiting to run out. Governments are already rationing energy, industries are cutting LNG and LPG usage, and export restrictions are limiting downstream production of fuels. The tightening has already begun.The real pressure point may not be oil, but natural gas—particularly LNG, as Qatar, which is a big supplier of Asia's LNG, has seen infrastructure damage. Asia accounts for about half of global LNG consumption, with up to 40 percent secured from the Middle East. Unlike oil, LNG has very limited buffers; in number of days, and not in months.This is where the story extends well beyond energy. Around 25 million tons per year of petrochemical capacity has been impacted, along with roughly 10 million tons of fertilizer production. Prices for key materials like polymers have risen 15–25 percent in just a few weeks, and the premiums are still rising. These inputs feed into everyday products—from cars and electronics to packaging and agriculture. Even basic services are affected, with cooking gas shortages hitting restaurants in parts of Asia.Policymakers are responding, but options are limited. Around 100 million barrels of crude has been released from reserves. Countries are securing higher-cost LNG cargoes. And many are turning back to coal for reliability despite environmental trade-offs.Ultimately, the longer this disruption persists, the more pressure builds across energy, power, chemicals, and food systems. And in a region as interconnected and import-dependent as Asia, those ripple effects spread quickly—and widely.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1nnmzKhdO85T0muXH8v_IpjKTaOzepuWBSmyTc5ivy0Mon, 23 Mar 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses how the conflict in the Middle East is sending ripple effects through Asia’s energy, power and food systems.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s research analyst covering energy markets in India and Southeast Asia.Today—how disruptions linked to Iran and the Strait of Hormuz are creating energy-related disruptions across Asia.It’s Monday, March 23rd, at 8am in Singapore.To understand the scale of the impact, let’s start with a simple fact: about a quarter of Asia’s energy—that is oil, liquefied natural gas, and propane—comes from the Middle East, much of it flowing through a single chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption here affects more than just oil prices. It also hits power generation, industrial output and even food supply chains across the region.Asia hasn’t seen a true energy access shock in over 50 years. So that makes this moment very critical. And with oil around $100 per barrel, stress is building in the system. Diesel margins are double pre-conflict levels. Jet fuel premiums have nearly doubled. And Dubai crude—normally cheaper than Brent historically—is now trading at a premium of more than $20 per barrel. This kind of price move signals tightening supply chains.Asia’s dependence on [the] Middle East runs deep. Refiners source up to 80 percent of crude from the region, and 30–40 percent of LNG imports originate there. For major economies like India and China, roughly 40–50 percent of oil demand passes through Hormuz. It’s a critical energy highway. And when flows slow, the entire system backs up.Inventories may look like a buffer. Asia holds around 65–70 days of crude. But the system reacts sooner than waiting to run out. Governments are already rationing energy, industries are cutting LNG and LPG usage, and export restrictions are limiting downstream production of fuels. The tightening has already begun.The real pressure point may not be oil, but natural gas—particularly LNG, as Qatar, which is a big supplier of Asia's LNG, has seen infrastructure damage. Asia accounts for about half of global LNG consumption, with up to 40 percent secured from the Middle East. Unlike oil, LNG has very limited buffers; in number of days, and not in months.This is where the story extends well beyond energy. Around 25 million tons per year of petrochemical capacity has been impacted, along with roughly 10 million tons of fertilizer production. Prices for key materials like polymers have risen 15–25 percent in just a few weeks, and the premiums are still rising. These inputs feed into everyday products—from cars and electronics to packaging and agriculture. Even basic services are affected, with cooking gas shortages hitting restaurants in parts of Asia.Policymakers are responding, but options are limited. Around 100 million barrels of crude has been released from reserves. Countries are securing higher-cost LNG cargoes. And many are turning back to coal for reliability despite environmental trade-offs.Ultimately, the longer this disruption persists, the more pressure builds across energy, power, chemicals, and food systems. And in a region as interconnected and import-dependent as Asia, those ripple effects spread quickly—and widely.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>240alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1604fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/march-madness-for-markets-too--75644997insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the program, a survey of just how quickly key narratives have changed and how lasting that might be. It's Friday, March 20th at 2pm in London. The NCAA basketball tournament, also known as March Madness, is one of my favorite times of the year. The single elimination tournament of 64 teams is wonderfully chaotic with plenty of surprises, especially in the early games. And basketball is one of those sports where momentum often seems real. A team that has somehow forgotten how to shoot in the first half of the game can suddenly look unstoppable in the second. As I said, March is one of my favorite times to watch sports. It is often not one of my favorite times to forecast markets. In 2005, 2008, 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2025, March saw outsized market volatility. And it’s the case again this year. I'm sure, it's just a coincidence. This time, it's not just about a historic disruption to the energy markets, which my colleague Martijn Rats and I discussed on this program last week. It's also a major reversal of the market storyline. If this were a basketball game, the momentum just flipped. In January and February of 2026, there were strong overlapping signals that the U.S. and global economy were in a good – even accelerating – place, boosted by cheap energy, stimulative policy, and robust AI investment. Oil prices were down as metals, transports, cyclicals and financial stocks, all rose. Europe, Asia, and emerging market equities – all more sensitive to global growth – were outperforming. Inflation was moderating. Central banks were planning to lower interest rates. The yield curve was steepening and the U.S. dollar was weakening. The January U.S. Jobs report was pretty good. And then … it all changed. In a moment, the Iran conflict and the subsequent risk of an oil price shock flipped almost every single one of those storylines on its head. Now, oil prices rose and the prices for metals, transports, cyclicals and financial stocks all fell. Equities in Europe and Asia – regions that rely heavily on importing oil – underperformed. The U.S. dollar rose as investors sought out safe haven. Inflation jumped following oil prices. The yield curve flattened on that higher inflation, as we and many other forecasters adjusted our expectations for what central banks would do. And, as it happens, the last U.S. Jobs report was pretty bad. If the Iran conflict ends and oil resumes flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, it's very possible that this story could once again swing back. But until it does, the speed of which this momentum has flipped means that almost by definition, many investors have been caught off guard and left poorly positioned. If you couple that with the challenge of diversifying in this new environment – where the prices for stocks, bonds, and even gold have all been moving in the same direction – the path of least resistance for investors may be to continue to reduce their exposure to ride out the storm, driving further near term weakness.Unfortunately, that could make for an uncomfortable few weeks. At least, there's some good basketball on. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EqNrevlNWYPtGKkfF9GKrMZX68Dux9Z3EiAoSvR1PAEFri, 20 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs the Iran conflict upends market narratives, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets offers his take on how to view the historic disruption happening in March and what the next few weeks could bring.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the program, a survey of just how quickly key narratives have changed and how lasting that might be. It's Friday, March 20th at 2pm in London. The NCAA basketball tournament, also known as March Madness, is one of my favorite times of the year. The single elimination tournament of 64 teams is wonderfully chaotic with plenty of surprises, especially in the early games. And basketball is one of those sports where momentum often seems real. A team that has somehow forgotten how to shoot in the first half of the game can suddenly look unstoppable in the second. As I said, March is one of my favorite times to watch sports. It is often not one of my favorite times to forecast markets. In 2005, 2008, 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2025, March saw outsized market volatility. And it’s the case again this year. I'm sure, it's just a coincidence. This time, it's not just about a historic disruption to the energy markets, which my colleague Martijn Rats and I discussed on this program last week. It's also a major reversal of the market storyline. If this were a basketball game, the momentum just flipped. In January and February of 2026, there were strong overlapping signals that the U.S. and global economy were in a good – even accelerating – place, boosted by cheap energy, stimulative policy, and robust AI investment. Oil prices were down as metals, transports, cyclicals and financial stocks, all rose. Europe, Asia, and emerging market equities – all more sensitive to global growth – were outperforming. Inflation was moderating. Central banks were planning to lower interest rates. The yield curve was steepening and the U.S. dollar was weakening. The January U.S. Jobs report was pretty good. And then … it all changed. In a moment, the Iran conflict and the subsequent risk of an oil price shock flipped almost every single one of those storylines on its head. Now, oil prices rose and the prices for metals, transports, cyclicals and financial stocks all fell. Equities in Europe and Asia – regions that rely heavily on importing oil – underperformed. The U.S. dollar rose as investors sought out safe haven. Inflation jumped following oil prices. The yield curve flattened on that higher inflation, as we and many other forecasters adjusted our expectations for what central banks would do. And, as it happens, the last U.S. Jobs report was pretty bad. If the Iran conflict ends and oil resumes flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, it's very possible that this story could once again swing back. But until it does, the speed of which this momentum has flipped means that almost by definition, many investors have been caught off guard and left poorly positioned. If you couple that with the challenge of diversifying in this new environment – where the prices for stocks, bonds, and even gold have all been moving in the same direction – the path of least resistance for investors may be to continue to reduce their exposure to ride out the storm, driving further near term weakness.Unfortunately, that could make for an uncomfortable few weeks. At least, there's some good basketball on. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>248alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1603fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/europe-s-banks-navigate-uncertainty--75645018insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Alvaro Serrano: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Alvaro Serrano, Head of European Banks.Giulia Aurora Miotto: And I'm Giulia Aurora Miotto, European Equity Research Banks Analyst.Alvaro Serrano: Today we're at our annual European Financials Conference.It's Thursday, March 19th at 1:30pm, London.We're at our European Financials conference. Attendance is up almost at record levels, a great deal of engagement with both investors and companies – with three main topics dominating the debate: geopolitics, private credit, and AI. I think, on the Middle East, clearly a lot of focus during the whole three days. I think the message from banks has been about the resilience of the business model, acknowledging the loan growth could be weaker. Some of the investment decisions could be delayed, given the uncertainty. And of course, fees could also be affected as a result. On the flip side, there's an acknowledgement that during stress, savings rates go up. Deposit growth could be better, and with a steeper curve that could be better monetized. So, the message from the banks is about the resilience of the pre-provision profit outlook. Some banks have been talking about top-up of provisions if the situation persists in a IFRS9 world. But we do believe the overall outlook for earnings is of a resilient picture. However, we acknowledge the positioning of the sector is much richer than it was this time last year. The positioning; that means if stress continues, we could see the multiple suffering. And that, to be honest, is what we see the biggest channel of contagion to the sector is – is multiple de-rating if the stress continues, in what otherwise looks like a pretty resilient earnings picture. Giulia, what did you learn on private credit? Giulia Aurora Miotto: Yes, private credit was definitely another area of big focus and worrying from investors. From a bank's perspective, all the banks that are involved in private credit highlighted a couple of things. First of all, they tend to be senior when they lend to B2Cs. Secondly, they are over collateralized by hundreds, if not thousands of loans. And then thirdly, most investment banks have been doing this for a decade or more, and they tend to partner only with prime sponsors. So overall, the message was actually rather reassuring. Alvaro, AI was the other big topic at the conference. What did you learn there? Alvaro Serrano: It's even a bigger topic than last year. And obviously some of the volatility we've seen year-to-date contributed to that. I think overall the banks are seen as net beneficiaries of AI from an operational perspective. There's an acknowledgement that in an AI world, competition might increase, deposit competition has come up. Some fee products has also come up. But you have banks guiding to 9 percentage points improvement in cost income ratio in the next three years. So, the operational savings from productivity are seeing them more than offsetting any potential increase in competition. I think the known-unknown is employment; consequences of the improved productivity further down the line. But the message in Europe is relatively reassuring considering that over 20 percent of the workforce in Europe is expected to retire [in] the next 10 years. So, overall, seen as net beneficiaries.There's also discussions around regulation Giulia… Giulia Aurora Miotto: Yes, we had Maria Luís Albuquerque, European Commissioner in charge of the Savings and Investment Union project. This was one of the most attended sessions. And we heard on one side definitely determination to deliver on the project of the savings and investment union and deepen European capital markets. And mobilize savings towards more productive investments. On the other side, investors were rather skeptical and are really in wait and see mode. Some banks highlighted that they expect the progress on some of the key packages like securitization or market integration package as soon as May. So, we think this is a key area to monitor over the coming months – from a European competitiveness standpoint, Alvaro Serrano:  I think that's a great place to wrap it up. And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy listening to Thoughts on the Market, do let us know wherever you listen and share the podcast with friends and a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hrAYxu6FH7AFBJWAymuJAfiRfP89AokHZzRJCfOizAQThu, 19 Mar 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyLive from Morgan Stanley’s European Financials Conference, our Head of European Banks Alvaro Serrano and European Equity Research Banks Analyst Giulia Aurora Miotto discuss how geopolitics, private credit risk and AI are testing how resilient banks...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Alvaro Serrano: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Alvaro Serrano, Head of European Banks.Giulia Aurora Miotto: And I'm Giulia Aurora Miotto, European Equity Research Banks Analyst.Alvaro Serrano: Today we're at our annual European Financials Conference.It's Thursday, March 19th at 1:30pm, London.We're at our European Financials conference. Attendance is up almost at record levels, a great deal of engagement with both investors and companies – with three main topics dominating the debate: geopolitics, private credit, and AI. I think, on the Middle East, clearly a lot of focus during the whole three days. I think the message from banks has been about the resilience of the business model, acknowledging the loan growth could be weaker. Some of the investment decisions could be delayed, given the uncertainty. And of course, fees could also be affected as a result. On the flip side, there's an acknowledgement that during stress, savings rates go up. Deposit growth could be better, and with a steeper curve that could be better monetized. So, the message from the banks is about the resilience of the pre-provision profit outlook. Some banks have been talking about top-up of provisions if the situation persists in a IFRS9 world. But we do believe the overall outlook for earnings is of a resilient picture. However, we acknowledge the positioning of the sector is much richer than it was this time last year. The positioning; that means if stress continues, we could see the multiple suffering. And that, to be honest, is what we see the biggest channel of contagion to the sector is – is multiple de-rating if the stress continues, in what otherwise looks like a pretty resilient earnings picture. Giulia, what did you learn on private credit? Giulia Aurora Miotto: Yes, private credit was definitely another area of big focus and worrying from investors. From a bank's perspective, all the banks that are involved in private credit highlighted a couple of things. First of all, they tend to be senior when they lend to B2Cs. Secondly, they are over collateralized by hundreds, if not thousands of loans. And then thirdly, most investment banks have been doing this for a decade or more, and they tend to partner only with prime sponsors. So overall, the message was actually rather reassuring. Alvaro, AI was the other big topic at the conference. What did you learn there? Alvaro Serrano: It's even a bigger topic than last year. And obviously some of the volatility we've seen year-to-date contributed to that. I think overall the banks are seen as net beneficiaries of AI from an operational perspective. There's an acknowledgement that in an AI world, competition might increase, deposit competition has come up. Some fee products has also come up. But you have banks guiding to 9 percentage points improvement in cost income ratio in the next three years. So, the operational savings from productivity are seeing them more than offsetting any potential increase in competition. I think the known-unknown is employment; consequences of the improved productivity further down the line. But the message in Europe is relatively reassuring considering that over 20 percent of the workforce in Europe is expected to retire [in] the next 10 years. So, overall, seen as net beneficiaries.There's also discussions around regulation Giulia… Giulia Aurora Miotto: Yes, we had Maria Luís Albuquerque, European Commissioner in charge of the Savings and Investment Union project. This was one of the most attended sessions. And we...]]>277alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1602fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/oil-shock-hits-the-u-s-consumer--75645026insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Policy Strategy.Arunima Sinha: Today – what are the implications of the ongoing oil disruption for the U.S. consumer?It's Wednesday, March 18th at 10am in New York.Ariana, let's start with where we are in week three of this particular oil disruption and what you are thinking about in terms of what the paths to resolution could look like.Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. Great place to start. So, I would say before we get into what the resolution could look like, we need to think about how long could this conflict possibly last? And that's the most relevant question for investors as well. And there I would say there's very little conviction just because of the uncertainty associated with this conflict. But I'm keeping my eye on three different things.The first is a clearer prioritization of the objectives tied to the conflict. The Trump administration has laid out a number of different goals for this conflict, some of which are shorter in nature than others. The second thing I think we're looking at – that's really important – is traffic at the Strait of Hormuz. And there, the Trump administration has spoken about insurance, you know, naval escorts – all of these things that we think will take some time to really come to fruition. And at the time that we're recording this, it seems that we're still getting about low single digit number of tankers through the strait on a daily basis. So that's the second thing.The third point I would make is any type of escalation is really critical here. So, whether it's vertical – meaning different types of weapons used, different types of targets being hit. Or horizontal escalation, broadening out into different proxies and, and more so throughout the region. Those are really important indicators, and right now all of these things are pointing to a slightly longer-term conflict than I think most people expected at the start.Now, in terms of what that means for markets, for domestic gasoline prices, all these are really important questions that I'm sure we're going to get into. But what we should note is that the president has spoken about a number of policy offsets to mitigate those price increases, ranging from the Treasury actually loosening up some of the sanctions on Russia to sell some oil. You know, we've heard some talk of invoking the Jones Act waiver. That's a temporary fix.On net, we think that these policy offsets are not going to really be enough to mitigate that supply loss that we're getting. That's a 20 million barrel per day loss. Some of these efforts mainly will, kind of, target about 7 or 8 million barrels per day. You're still in a deficit of about 10 to 13 [million]. And that's really meaningful for markets, for consumption as you well know, and everything else in between.Arunima Sinha: That's really helpful perspective, Ariana. And it's also a useful segue to think about the note that we jointly put out a few days ago. And just thinking about what this means for the U.S. consumer. And there, I think there's the first point to start with is that the consumer is now going to be living through the third supply shock in about five years. So, after COVID, after tariffs, here comes the next. And I think this particular oil shock is going to be somewhat different from tariffs in the sense that this is going to hit consumers at the front end and directly. This is not something that is going to have to pass through business costs. And some of them could be absorbed by businesses and not fully passed on to the consumer. So, I think that's an important point.The second point here is that in terms of the share of spending of gasoline out of total spend, we are at pretty low numbers. We're somewhere in the 2 to 3 percent range. So, it could give a little bit of a cushion. So, the longer-term average can be somewhere about 4 percent. So, there could be some cushion. But we know that consumers have already been stretched by, sort of, several years of high prices.And so, the way that we thought about what some of the channels could be for how higher oil prices, which translate into higher gas prices, could matter for the consumer. I think there are, sort of, three to identify.The first one is that it is really just a hit to your real purchasing power because this is a type of good that is actually really hard to substitute away from. And you could look through some of it, at the start. So maybe in the first month you don't react very much. You pull down on some savings; you take out a little bit of short-term credit.But the longer it lasts, the bigger the consumption response is going to be. And the second channel then to identify is – you start to build up some precautionary savings motives because there's this uncertainty that's also lasting for some time. And what do you pull back on? You'll typically pull back on discretionary types of spending.And so, we sized out this impact to say that if oil prices were to be about 50 percent higher and they last for two to three quarters, it could hit real personal spending growth by about 40 [basis points] after 12 months. And most of that is really just coming from the impact on good spending, specifically through durable goods.So, there could be some meaningful impact to real consumer spending in the U.S., if this shock were to go on longer. And the last point I would just say is, you know, how do inflation expectations move? Because that's an important point for the Fed and it's an important point for just people who are thinking about their spending decisions over the next year or so.And one interesting thing I think came out in the University of Michigan survey that came out this Friday; and this was a preliminary survey. About half of it was conducted before the conflict started, and half of it was after the conflict started. And what we saw was that inflation expectations in the year ahead, so the 12-month-ahead expectations that had been trending down, paused.So, they are no longer trending down. And, in its release, the University of Michigan noted that for the responses that were collected after the conflict started, inflation expectations did tick up. And interestingly, the strains were the most for the bottom income cohort. So, they saw a bigger uptick in inflation expectations. They actually also saw a bigger uptick in their unemployment expectations over the next year.Ariana Salvatore: So, Arunima, if I can ask, we've been talking a lot about the K-shape economy this year, right? So, consumption really being led by the upper; let's call it the upper income cohort. When we think about this translation to consumption, like you said, more of the stresses on the lower income side, how do you square that with the economic impact that you guys are expecting?Arunima Sinha: The way that I would square it is the longer it lasts and the greater the, sort of, uncertainty in asset markets – that might actually begin to weigh on the upper income consumer as well. So that might make some of those wealth effects less supportive, than what we have seen, over most of 2025. Just given where consumption has been running in terms of its pace.So not only might we see a bigger strain on the lower-income cohorts as we see this shock lasting longer, we might actually see some pressures not through the direct spending channel on gas, but really just, you know, how it's impacting their balance sheets.Ariana Salvatore: And that's a really important point because it also, to me, resonates with the concept of affordability, which has been a really key political topic for the past few months, I would say.And the way we're thinking about this is, like I mentioned, there are limited policy offsets that can be used to mitigate the potential increase in domestic gasoline prices. And that matters a lot for the midterm elections. Typically voters don't really rank foreign policy as a top issue when it comes to their choice for candidates – in midterm elections and elections in general.But once you see that feed through to, you know, inflation, cost of living, job expectations, that's when it starts to really matter for people. And what we've been saying, it's not a perfect rule of thumb, but looking back at the past few elections. If gasoline prices here in the U.S. are something like $3 a gallon, that tends to be pretty good for the incumbent party. [$]4 [a gallon], let's say it's a little bit more politically challenging. And [$]5 [a gallon], you know, is when you kind of get into that even more challenging territory for the administration and for Republicans in Congress.So again, not a perfect benchmark, but something that we'll be keeping an eye on too as this conflict evolves.Arunima Sinha: Ok! So, we'll be keeping an eye on how that oil disruption plays out and matters for the U.S. consumer.Ariana Salvatore: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today. 
Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rM_IERSBxYEqq8v_9Bqffo5phB5qgtLQ2GokmXsDPB8Wed, 18 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyA prolonged oil disruption is pushing gas prices higher. Arunima Sinha from our U.S. and Global Economics team joins Head of U.S. Policy Strategy Ariana Salvatore to discuss what that means for consumer spending, inflation expectations and the U.S....insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Policy Strategy.Arunima Sinha: Today – what are the implications of the ongoing oil disruption for the U.S. consumer?It's Wednesday, March 18th at 10am in New York.Ariana, let's start with where we are in week three of this particular oil disruption and what you are thinking about in terms of what the paths to resolution could look like.Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. Great place to start. So, I would say before we get into what the resolution could look like, we need to think about how long could this conflict possibly last? And that's the most relevant question for investors as well. And there I would say there's very little conviction just because of the uncertainty associated with this conflict. But I'm keeping my eye on three different things.The first is a clearer prioritization of the objectives tied to the conflict. The Trump administration has laid out a number of different goals for this conflict, some of which are shorter in nature than others. The second thing I think we're looking at – that's really important – is traffic at the Strait of Hormuz. And there, the Trump administration has spoken about insurance, you know, naval escorts – all of these things that we think will take some time to really come to fruition. And at the time that we're recording this, it seems that we're still getting about low single digit number of tankers through the strait on a daily basis. So that's the second thing.The third point I would make is any type of escalation is really critical here. So, whether it's vertical – meaning different types of weapons used, different types of targets being hit. Or horizontal escalation, broadening out into different proxies and, and more so throughout the region. Those are really important indicators, and right now all of these things are pointing to a slightly longer-term conflict than I think most people expected at the start.Now, in terms of what that means for markets, for domestic gasoline prices, all these are really important questions that I'm sure we're going to get into. But what we should note is that the president has spoken about a number of policy offsets to mitigate those price increases, ranging from the Treasury actually loosening up some of the sanctions on Russia to sell some oil. You know, we've heard some talk of invoking the Jones Act waiver. That's a temporary fix.On net, we think that these policy offsets are not going to really be enough to mitigate that supply loss that we're getting. That's a 20 million barrel per day loss. Some of these efforts mainly will, kind of, target about 7 or 8 million barrels per day. You're still in a deficit of about 10 to 13 [million]. And that's really meaningful for markets, for consumption as you well know, and everything else in between.Arunima Sinha: That's really helpful perspective, Ariana. And it's also a useful segue to think about the note that we jointly put out a few days ago. And just thinking about what this means for the U.S. consumer. And there, I think there's the first point to start with is that the consumer is now going to be living through the third supply shock in about five years. So, after COVID, after tariffs, here comes the next. And I think this particular oil shock is going to be somewhat different from tariffs in the sense that this is going to hit consumers at the front end and...]]>531alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1601fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/japan-s-bull-market-takes-shape--75645010insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sho Nakazawa, Japan Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Today: How Japan’s Takaichi administration could define Japan’s stock market for years to come.It’s Tuesday, March 17th, at 3 PM in Tokyo.Sanae Takaichi became Japan's first female prime minister on October 21, 2025. She leads a conservative administration that emphasizes defense spending and economic resilience. When Takaichi took office in February, this signaled the start of a structural pivot in Japan’s economy. And markets have responded quickly. Over the past several months, stocks with high exposure to the administration’s 17 strategic domains have outperformed TOPIX by 15 percentage points. That kind of divergence suggests something bigger than a cyclical rebound. Capital is positioned to a structural shift. First, there’s the Japanese government’s increased emphasis on economic security and supply chain resilience. This reflects a philosophical shift. For years efficiency ruled: just-in-time supply chains and global optimization. The pandemic and the reorientation towards a multipolar world changed that workflow. Now the emphasis is on redundancy and autonomy – and this has implications for Defense & Space, Advanced Materials & Critical Minerals, Shipbuilding, and Cybersecurity. The second pillar of Japan’s structural market shift is AI and the compute revolution. Yes, some investors worry about overinvestment in AI, but we believe in [the] possibility of nonlinear returns as AI breakthroughs occur. And, keep in mind, AI isn’t just software. It requires data-center cooling, communications networks, expanded power grids, and critical minerals. This is a full industrial stack upgrade. Looking further out, the global humanoid robotics market could reach US$7.5 trillion annually by 2050 according to our global robotics team estimates. That’s roughly three times the combined 2024 revenue of the world’s top 20 automakers at about US$2.5 trillion. The third force reshaping Japan’s market is infrastructure. The 2026 budget slated towards national resilience initiatives exceeds ¥5 trillion. With aging infrastructure and intensifying natural disasters, resilience spending relates directly to economic security. Ports, logistics, and communications systems are increasingly becoming strategic assets. Our work suggests the long-term construction cycle is entering an expansion phase as bubble-era buildings from the late 1980s reach replacement timing. That points to durable demand rather than a temporary spike. With all of this said, what’s also important is how stock market leadership spreads. It tends to move from upstream to downstream – from materials and power infrastructure, to AI, to defense and communications, and eventually to applications like drug discovery, quantum technologies, cybersecurity, and content. Right now, the strongest three-month returns are in Advanced Materials and Critical Minerals, and in Next-Gen Power and Grid Infrastructure. Meanwhile, areas like Cybersecurity and Content have lagged but remain tightly connected in the network. If leadership broadens, those linkages matter. The real constraint isn’t political opposition. It’s [the] market itself. If investors decide this is a temporary stimulus rather than sustainable earnings growth, valuations might adjust. But we do believe that Japan’s equity market isn’t simply rallying. It is reorganizing around economic security, AI infrastructure, and national resilience.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend and colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_dqB-xDjLB6BX5FrRGfSmjD3ock9zqTWe0mpBft4JU4Tue, 17 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley MUFG ’s Japan Equity Strategist Sho Nakazawa talks about the sectors that are leading the current rebound of Japanese stocks and why these gains may be more than a cyclical shift.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sho Nakazawa, Japan Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Today: How Japan’s Takaichi administration could define Japan’s stock market for years to come.It’s Tuesday, March 17th, at 3 PM in Tokyo.Sanae Takaichi became Japan's first female prime minister on October 21, 2025. She leads a conservative administration that emphasizes defense spending and economic resilience. When Takaichi took office in February, this signaled the start of a structural pivot in Japan’s economy. And markets have responded quickly. Over the past several months, stocks with high exposure to the administration’s 17 strategic domains have outperformed TOPIX by 15 percentage points. That kind of divergence suggests something bigger than a cyclical rebound. Capital is positioned to a structural shift. First, there’s the Japanese government’s increased emphasis on economic security and supply chain resilience. This reflects a philosophical shift. For years efficiency ruled: just-in-time supply chains and global optimization. The pandemic and the reorientation towards a multipolar world changed that workflow. Now the emphasis is on redundancy and autonomy – and this has implications for Defense & Space, Advanced Materials & Critical Minerals, Shipbuilding, and Cybersecurity. The second pillar of Japan’s structural market shift is AI and the compute revolution. Yes, some investors worry about overinvestment in AI, but we believe in [the] possibility of nonlinear returns as AI breakthroughs occur. And, keep in mind, AI isn’t just software. It requires data-center cooling, communications networks, expanded power grids, and critical minerals. This is a full industrial stack upgrade. Looking further out, the global humanoid robotics market could reach US$7.5 trillion annually by 2050 according to our global robotics team estimates. That’s roughly three times the combined 2024 revenue of the world’s top 20 automakers at about US$2.5 trillion. The third force reshaping Japan’s market is infrastructure. The 2026 budget slated towards national resilience initiatives exceeds ¥5 trillion. With aging infrastructure and intensifying natural disasters, resilience spending relates directly to economic security. Ports, logistics, and communications systems are increasingly becoming strategic assets. Our work suggests the long-term construction cycle is entering an expansion phase as bubble-era buildings from the late 1980s reach replacement timing. That points to durable demand rather than a temporary spike. With all of this said, what’s also important is how stock market leadership spreads. It tends to move from upstream to downstream – from materials and power infrastructure, to AI, to defense and communications, and eventually to applications like drug discovery, quantum technologies, cybersecurity, and content. Right now, the strongest three-month returns are in Advanced Materials and Critical Minerals, and in Next-Gen Power and Grid Infrastructure. Meanwhile, areas like Cybersecurity and Content have lagged but remain tightly connected in the network. If leadership broadens, those linkages matter. The real constraint isn’t political opposition. It’s [the] market itself. If investors decide this is a temporary stimulus rather than sustainable earnings growth, valuations might adjust. But we do believe that Japan’s equity market isn’t simply rallying. It is reorganizing around economic security, AI infrastructure, and national resilience.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review...]]>318alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1600fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-market-correction-ending--75645022insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll discuss how the equity market has been processing recent headlines for months. It's Monday, March 16th at 1 pm in New York. So, let’s get after it. Last week on the podcast, I noted it was clear to me that the current equity market correction began last fall when liquidity first started to tighten. As soon as funding markets started to show stress from that tightening, the Fed responded by announcing it would end its balance sheet reduction program earlier than expected. It then followed that up by restarting asset purchases in December. This pivot subsequently led to better equity performance in January. It also happened alongside a sharp decline in the U.S. dollar and concentrated returns in emerging markets and commodity-oriented sectors like gold and silver, industrial metals, oil and memory stocks. More recently, the dollar has rallied and these same areas have noticeably cooled off. The key point is that before the attacks in Iran two weeks ago, the correction in equities was already very well advanced in both time and price. In fact, 50 percent of all stocks in the Russell 3000 are now down 20 percent from their 52-week highs. In many ways, we find ourselves in a similar position to last year. Recall that the major indices started to accelerate lower in February and early March. The concern at that time was centered around tariffs. But like today equity markets had been trading poorly for months under the surface on additional concerns that had nothing to do with tariffs. More specifically, equity markets had been worried about risks related to DeepSeek, immigration controls, and DOGE. Tariffs then provided the final blow. This time around, markets have been worried about AI disruption on labor markets, private credit defaults and liquidity tightness well before the Iran conflict escalated. Now it’s interesting to note – but not surprising – that crude and volatility began to rise in January, signaling the market was ahead of this risk, too. Corrections typically don’t end though until the best stocks and highest quality indices get hit, and that usually takes a capitulatory shock. Last year, this was Liberation Day. This time around, that event is the Iran conflict and concern about a sustained rise in crude prices above $100 a barrel. This final corrective phase has begun, in our view, with the S&P 500 having its worst two-week stretch since last April. To be clear, I don’t expect this capitulation or drawdown to be as bad as last year for several reasons. First, last year’s events came at the end of what we were calling a rolling recession at the time and effectively marked the end of that downturn. That means equities were pricing in a recession at the lows in April 2025 and that’s why the S&P 500 was down 20 percent from its highs. Second, the current backdrop for earnings and economic growth is much better than a year ago. Third, fiscal support is much greater today, too. Specifically, personal income tax cuts are flowing through right now with tax refunds running 17 percent higher year-over-year. Tax incentives in the [One] Big Beautiful Bill [act] should drive higher capital spending. Lastly, the Fed is much more accommodative with asset purchases versus balance sheet contraction in 2025.  Bottom line, equity markets have been digesting many of the concerns for months that are now hitting the headlines. We think this means that we are closer to the end of this correction rather than the beginning and investors should be getting ready to buy any final capitulation that may occur on the next bad headline.  One scenario that might create that final downdraft is a combination of a more hawkish Fed this week on backward looking inflation concerns combined with Triple Witching options expiration. Or maybe the upcoming trade meeting between the United States and China is delayed or cancelled. Whatever it might be, market lows happen faster than tops. So be ready to add risk in anticipation of the bull market resuming. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/D9miE6fsmqBoWnXRijUr6l-8h_Gcu2Jrd4dNgh9CU6EMon, 16 Mar 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyWith volatility and oil prices up while Fed policy is easing, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson breaks down why today’s selloff is giving flashbacks to March 2025—and why he believes his bull case still holds.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast I’ll discuss how the equity market has been processing recent headlines for months. It's Monday, March 16th at 1 pm in New York. So, let’s get after it. Last week on the podcast, I noted it was clear to me that the current equity market correction began last fall when liquidity first started to tighten. As soon as funding markets started to show stress from that tightening, the Fed responded by announcing it would end its balance sheet reduction program earlier than expected. It then followed that up by restarting asset purchases in December. This pivot subsequently led to better equity performance in January. It also happened alongside a sharp decline in the U.S. dollar and concentrated returns in emerging markets and commodity-oriented sectors like gold and silver, industrial metals, oil and memory stocks. More recently, the dollar has rallied and these same areas have noticeably cooled off. The key point is that before the attacks in Iran two weeks ago, the correction in equities was already very well advanced in both time and price. In fact, 50 percent of all stocks in the Russell 3000 are now down 20 percent from their 52-week highs. In many ways, we find ourselves in a similar position to last year. Recall that the major indices started to accelerate lower in February and early March. The concern at that time was centered around tariffs. But like today equity markets had been trading poorly for months under the surface on additional concerns that had nothing to do with tariffs. More specifically, equity markets had been worried about risks related to DeepSeek, immigration controls, and DOGE. Tariffs then provided the final blow. This time around, markets have been worried about AI disruption on labor markets, private credit defaults and liquidity tightness well before the Iran conflict escalated. Now it’s interesting to note – but not surprising – that crude and volatility began to rise in January, signaling the market was ahead of this risk, too. Corrections typically don’t end though until the best stocks and highest quality indices get hit, and that usually takes a capitulatory shock. Last year, this was Liberation Day. This time around, that event is the Iran conflict and concern about a sustained rise in crude prices above $100 a barrel. This final corrective phase has begun, in our view, with the S&P 500 having its worst two-week stretch since last April. To be clear, I don’t expect this capitulation or drawdown to be as bad as last year for several reasons. First, last year’s events came at the end of what we were calling a rolling recession at the time and effectively marked the end of that downturn. That means equities were pricing in a recession at the lows in April 2025 and that’s why the S&P 500 was down 20 percent from its highs. Second, the current backdrop for earnings and economic growth is much better than a year ago. Third, fiscal support is much greater today, too. Specifically, personal income tax cuts are flowing through right now with tax refunds running 17 percent higher year-over-year. Tax incentives in the [One] Big Beautiful Bill [act] should drive higher capital spending. Lastly, the Fed is much more accommodative with asset purchases versus balance sheet contraction in 2025.  Bottom line, equity markets have been digesting many of the concerns for months that are now hitting the headlines. We think this means that we are closer to the...]]>296alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1599fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-looming-bottleneck-for-global-tech--75645054insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team.Today: why the Strait of Hormuz closure may matter to the global technology industry.It’s Friday, March 13th, at 8 pm in Taipei. AI and advanced chips may represent the cutting edge of technology, but they depend on something far more basic: that’s energy. And a large share of that energy flows through one narrow shipping lane in the Middle East – the Strait of Hormuz. When energy supply chains are disrupted, the effects can quickly ripple into semiconductor manufacturing.Advanced semiconductor fabrication is, in fact, one of the most energy‑intensive industrial processes in the world. Take Taiwan, for example – home of the world’s largest share of leading-edge chip production. Just one major manufacturer alone accounts for roughly 9–10 percent of the country's total electricity consumption. That scale of energy use means the stability of power supply is critical.Taiwan relies heavily on imported LNG to generate electricity. But storage levels are limited. It maintains roughly one and half weeks worth of LNG inventory, with several additional weeks supplied by vessels currently at sea. If shipping through the Strait of Hormuz were significantly disrupted, that supply chain could come under pressure. The immediate impact might not necessarily be an outright shortage – but rising energy costs could still affect semiconductor production economics. And that's important because advanced chips are foundational to everything from cloud computing to artificial intelligence systems.Energy isn't the only potential bottleneck. Another lesser-known input in the semiconductor ecosystem is sulfur. More than 90 percent of the world's sulfur supply is produced as a by‑product of oil refining. That sulfur is then used to produce sulfuric acid, a key chemical that supports semiconductor materials, metal processing, and battery components.Disruptions in oil refining tied to shipping constraints or energy market shocks could also affect sulfur supply. In other words, a disruption in energy markets could trigger second‑order effects across multiple layers of the technological supply chain. And those effects extend beyond chips themselves. The downstream impact touches industries tied to electrification, data centers, and advanced electronics manufacturing.History also offers some lessons learned about how technology markets react when energy prices spike. During periods of major oil price surges – such as in 2008 and again in 2021 through 2022 – semiconductor equities experienced significant drawdowns. In both cases, semiconductor stocks declined by roughly 30 percent before reaching an inflection point. The mechanism is fairly intuitive. Higher oil prices raise costs across the economy and can weaken consumer spending. At the same time, companies building energy‑intensive infrastructure – like large‑scale AI data centers – may face higher operating costs and low revenues.So when energy markets move sharply, technology markets often move with them. A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz wouldn’t automatically halt chip production, but it could ripple through power costs, materials supply, and the economics of building AI infrastructure. And that highlights an important reality for investors: the future of technology isn’t just written in code. It’s powered by energy, by infrastructure, and the fragile global networks behind the digital economy.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/n3GGoFskb0BTgN2cmNLS1qp3M4-UFVf5ezgr0ovxwcwFri, 13 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim explains what disruptions to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz could mean for the global semiconductor supply chain and the immediate future of AI infrastructure.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team.Today: why the Strait of Hormuz closure may matter to the global technology industry.It’s Friday, March 13th, at 8 pm in Taipei. AI and advanced chips may represent the cutting edge of technology, but they depend on something far more basic: that’s energy. And a large share of that energy flows through one narrow shipping lane in the Middle East – the Strait of Hormuz. When energy supply chains are disrupted, the effects can quickly ripple into semiconductor manufacturing.Advanced semiconductor fabrication is, in fact, one of the most energy‑intensive industrial processes in the world. Take Taiwan, for example – home of the world’s largest share of leading-edge chip production. Just one major manufacturer alone accounts for roughly 9–10 percent of the country's total electricity consumption. That scale of energy use means the stability of power supply is critical.Taiwan relies heavily on imported LNG to generate electricity. But storage levels are limited. It maintains roughly one and half weeks worth of LNG inventory, with several additional weeks supplied by vessels currently at sea. If shipping through the Strait of Hormuz were significantly disrupted, that supply chain could come under pressure. The immediate impact might not necessarily be an outright shortage – but rising energy costs could still affect semiconductor production economics. And that's important because advanced chips are foundational to everything from cloud computing to artificial intelligence systems.Energy isn't the only potential bottleneck. Another lesser-known input in the semiconductor ecosystem is sulfur. More than 90 percent of the world's sulfur supply is produced as a by‑product of oil refining. That sulfur is then used to produce sulfuric acid, a key chemical that supports semiconductor materials, metal processing, and battery components.Disruptions in oil refining tied to shipping constraints or energy market shocks could also affect sulfur supply. In other words, a disruption in energy markets could trigger second‑order effects across multiple layers of the technological supply chain. And those effects extend beyond chips themselves. The downstream impact touches industries tied to electrification, data centers, and advanced electronics manufacturing.History also offers some lessons learned about how technology markets react when energy prices spike. During periods of major oil price surges – such as in 2008 and again in 2021 through 2022 – semiconductor equities experienced significant drawdowns. In both cases, semiconductor stocks declined by roughly 30 percent before reaching an inflection point. The mechanism is fairly intuitive. Higher oil prices raise costs across the economy and can weaken consumer spending. At the same time, companies building energy‑intensive infrastructure – like large‑scale AI data centers – may face higher operating costs and low revenues.So when energy markets move sharply, technology markets often move with them. A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz wouldn’t automatically halt chip production, but it could ripple through power costs, materials supply, and the economics of building AI infrastructure. And that highlights an important reality for investors: the future of technology isn’t just written in code. It’s powered by energy, by infrastructure, and the fragile global networks behind the digital economy.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on...]]>263alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1598fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-could-make-u-s-homes-more-affordable--75644954insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: It is March and there's some madness going on. I'm Jay Bacow, here with Jim Egan, noted Wahoo Wa fan. James Egan: Hey, it looks like Virginia's going to be back in the tournament this year, hoping for a three seed, looking like a four seed. It's the first year that my son is really excited about it. So, hoping we can win a few games. Jay Bacow: Let's hope they don't lose the first game and make him cry like you did a few years ago. But … Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today, with everything going on in the world, we thought it'd be prudent to discuss the U.S. mortgage and housing market. It's Thursday, March 12th at 10:30am in New York. James Egan: Jay, as you mentioned, there is a lot going on in markets right now, but hey, people need to live somewhere. And those somewheres remain pretty unaffordable. But this administration has been very focused on affordability, and we also have some updates on what is clearly the most exciting part of the housing and mortgage markets – regulation. What's going on there? Jay Bacow: Look, nothing gets me more excited than thinking about the regulatory outlook for the mortgage market. We've been focusing a lot on what's happening in D.C. with possible changes that could be helping out affordability, changes to the investor program, changes to the policy rate. But Michelle Bowman, who is the Vice Chair of Supervision, has been recently on the tape saying that we could get an update and a proposal for the Basel Endgame by the end of this month; and that proposal for the Basel Endgame is likely to make it easier for banks to hold loans on their balance sheet. It's going to give banks excess capital and the combination of these, along with some other changes that are going to be coming from the Fed, the FDIC and the OCC around: For instance, the GSIB surcharge that our banking analysts led by Manan Gosalia have spoken about – it's really going to help out the mortgage market in our view. James Egan: Alright, so freeing up capital, helping the mortgage market. When we think about the implications to affordability specifically, what do you think it means for mortgage rates? Jay Bacow: Right. So, it's important that [when] we think about the mortgage rate, we realize where it's coming from. The mortgage rate starts off with the level of Treasury rates, and then you add upon that a spread. And the spread is dependent among a number of different factors. But one of the biggest ones is just the demand. And one of the reasons why mortgage rates have been so high over the previous four years was (a) Treasury rates were high, but also the spread was wide. And we think one of the biggest reasons why the spread was wide is that the domestic banks, who are the largest asset type investor in mortgages – they own $3 trillion of mortgages – basically weren't buying them over the past four years. And one of the reasons they weren't buying was they didn't have the regulatory clarity. And so, if the banks come back, that will cause that spread to tighten, which will likely cause the mortgage rate to come down. That is presumably, Jim, good about affordability, right? James Egan: Yes. And I want to clarify, or at least emphasize, that affordability itself has been improving. Over the course of the past four to five months at this point, we've been close to, if not at the lowest mortgage rate we've seen in three years. And when we think about what that has practically done to the monthly principal and interest payment on homes purchased today. Like that monthly payment on the median priced home is down $150 over the past year. That's about a 7 percent decrease. When we lay in incomes – or when we layer in incomes to get into that actual affordability equation, we're at our most affordable place since the second quarter of 2022. So yes, big picture, this is still a challenge to affordability environment. But it's not as challenged as it's been over the past three years. Jay Bacow: All right, so affordability improving. It's still challenged though. What does that mean for home prices then? James Egan: So, when we think about the home price implication of mortgage rates coming down; of mortgage rates coming down in an environment where incomes are going up – we're thinking about demand for shelter, purchase volumes and supply of that shelter. And demand really has not reacted to the improved affordability environment. That's not unusual. Normally takes about 12 months for affordability improvement to pull through in terms of increased transaction volumes. But we do think that the lock-in effect that we've talked about in detail on this podcast in the past, that is going to play a role here. Mortgage rates end of February finally hit a five handle, really, for the first time in three years. They're back above that now with the volatility in the interest rate markets. But from 4 percent to 6 percent, mortgage rates is effectively an air pocket. We don't think you're going to get a lot of unlocking at these levels. So we think that transaction volumes will pick up. We're calling for 3 to 4 percent growth in purchase volumes this year. But they've been largely flat for two to three years at this point. And more importantly, any improvement in affordability that comes from a decrease in mortgage rates is going to lead to commensurately more supply alongside that growth in demand – which is going to keep home prices, specifically, very range bound here. The pace of growth is slowed to about 1.3 to 1.5 percent right now. We've been here for four or five months. We think we're pretty much going to stay here. We we're calling for 2 percent growth, so a little bit acceleration. But we think you're in a very range bound home price market. Jay Bacow: All right, so home prices range bound, affordability improved. But still has a little bit of room to go. Some possible tailwinds from the deregulatory path that will make homes being a little bit more affordable. Fair amount going on. Jim, always a pleasure speaking to you James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/k4gx_ptISUlyOsC_XLrejJM7H42MOTwPEkFrBhPcJ98Thu, 12 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur co-heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan discuss the impact of upcoming regulatory changes on U.S. mortgage rates and home sales.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: It is March and there's some madness going on. I'm Jay Bacow, here with Jim Egan, noted Wahoo Wa fan. James Egan: Hey, it looks like Virginia's going to be back in the tournament this year, hoping for a three seed, looking like a four seed. It's the first year that my son is really excited about it. So, hoping we can win a few games. Jay Bacow: Let's hope they don't lose the first game and make him cry like you did a few years ago. But … Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today, with everything going on in the world, we thought it'd be prudent to discuss the U.S. mortgage and housing market. It's Thursday, March 12th at 10:30am in New York. James Egan: Jay, as you mentioned, there is a lot going on in markets right now, but hey, people need to live somewhere. And those somewheres remain pretty unaffordable. But this administration has been very focused on affordability, and we also have some updates on what is clearly the most exciting part of the housing and mortgage markets – regulation. What's going on there? Jay Bacow: Look, nothing gets me more excited than thinking about the regulatory outlook for the mortgage market. We've been focusing a lot on what's happening in D.C. with possible changes that could be helping out affordability, changes to the investor program, changes to the policy rate. But Michelle Bowman, who is the Vice Chair of Supervision, has been recently on the tape saying that we could get an update and a proposal for the Basel Endgame by the end of this month; and that proposal for the Basel Endgame is likely to make it easier for banks to hold loans on their balance sheet. It's going to give banks excess capital and the combination of these, along with some other changes that are going to be coming from the Fed, the FDIC and the OCC around: For instance, the GSIB surcharge that our banking analysts led by Manan Gosalia have spoken about – it's really going to help out the mortgage market in our view. James Egan: Alright, so freeing up capital, helping the mortgage market. When we think about the implications to affordability specifically, what do you think it means for mortgage rates? Jay Bacow: Right. So, it's important that [when] we think about the mortgage rate, we realize where it's coming from. The mortgage rate starts off with the level of Treasury rates, and then you add upon that a spread. And the spread is dependent among a number of different factors. But one of the biggest ones is just the demand. And one of the reasons why mortgage rates have been so high over the previous four years was (a) Treasury rates were high, but also the spread was wide. And we think one of the biggest reasons why the spread was wide is that the domestic banks, who are the largest asset type investor in mortgages – they own $3 trillion of mortgages – basically weren't buying them over the past four years. And one of the reasons they weren't buying was they didn't have the regulatory clarity. And so, if the banks come back, that will cause that spread to tighten, which will likely cause the mortgage rate to come down. That is presumably, Jim, good about affordability, right? James Egan: Yes. And I want to clarify, or at least emphasize, that affordability itself has been improving. Over the course of the past four to five months at this point, we've been close to, if not at the lowest mortgage rate we've seen in three years. And when we think about what that has...]]>384alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1597fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-20-million-barrels-of-oil-conundrum--75645021insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today on the program we're going to talk about why investors everywhere are tracking ships through the Strait of Hormuz.It's Wednesday, March 11th at 2pm in London.Andrew Sheets: Martijn, the oil market, which is often volatile, has been historically volatile over the last couple of weeks following renewed military conflict between the United States and Iran.Now, there are a lot of different angles to this, but the oil market is really at the center of the market's focus on this conflict. And so, I think before we get into the specifics, I think it's helpful to set some context. How big is the global oil market and where does the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz fit within that global picture?Martijn Rats: Yeah, so the global oil consumption is a little bit more than a 100 million barrels a day. But that splits in two parts. There is a pipeline market and there is a seaborne market. And when it comes to prices, the seaborne market is really where it's at. If you're sitting in China, you're buying oil from the Middle East, all of a sudden, it's not available. Sure, if there is a pipeline that goes from Canada into the United States, that doesn't really help you all that much.Andrew Sheets: So, it's the oil on the ships that really matters.Martijn Rats: It's the oil on ships that is the flexible part of the market that we can redirect to where the oil is needed. And that is also the market where prices are formed. The seaborne market is in the order of 60 million barrels a day. So, only a subset of the 100 [million]. Now relative to that 60 million barrel a day, the Strait of Hormuz flows about 20 [million]. So, the Strait of Hormuz is responsible for about a third of seaborne supply, which is, of course, very large and therefore, you know, very critical to the system.Andrew Sheets: And I think an important thing we should also discuss here, which we were just discussing earlier today on another call, is – this is a market that could be quite sensitive to actually quite small disruptions in oil. So, can you give just some sense of sensitivity? I mean, in normal times, what sort of disruptions, in terms of barrels of oil, kind of, move markets; get investors' attention?Martijn Rats: Yeah, look, this is part of why this situation is so unusual, and oil analysts really sort of struggle with this. Look normally, at relative to the 100 million barrels a day of consumption, we care about supply demand imbalances of a couple of 100,000 barrels a day. That becomes interesting.If that, increases to say 1 million barrel a day, over- or undersupplied, you can expect prices to move. You can expect them to move by meaningful amounts. We can write research; the clients can trade. You have a tradable idea in front of you. When that becomes 2 to 3 million barrels a day, either side, you have major historical market moving events.So, in [20]08-09, oil famously fell from over 100 [million] down to something like 30 [million], on the basis that the oil market was 2-2.5 million barrel day oversupplied for two quarters. In 2022, we all thought – this actually never happened, but we all thought that Russia was going to lose about 3 million barrel day of supply. And on that basis, just on the basis of the expectation alone, Brent went to $130 per barrel. So, 2-3 [million] either side you have historically large moves. Now we're talking about 20 [million].Andrew Sheets: And I think that's what's so striking. I mean, again, I think investors, people listening to this, they can do that arithmetic too. If this is a market where 2 to 3 million barrels a day have caused some of the largest moves that we've seen in history, something that's 20 [million] is exceptional. And I think it's also fair to say this type of closure of the Strait [of Hormuz] is something we haven't seen before.Martijn Rats: No, which also made it very hard to forecast, by the way. Because the historical track records did not point in that direction, and yet here we are. The historical track record – look, you can look at other major disruptions historically.The largest disruption in the history of the oil market is the Suez Crisis in the mid-1950s that took away about 10 percent of global oil consumption. This is easily double that. So really unusual. If you look at supply and demand shocks of this order of magnitude, you can think about COVID. In April 2020, for one month, at the peak of COVID, when we're all sitting at home. Nobody driving, nobody flying. Yeah, we lost very briefly 20 million barrels a day of demand. Now we're losing 20 million barrels a day of supply. So, look, the sign is flipped, but it's in the same order of magnitude. And yeah, these are unusual events that you wouldn't actually, sort of, forecast them that easily. But that is what is in front of us at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So, I think the next kind of logical question is if shipping remains disrupted, and I'd love for you to talk a little bit about, you know, you're sitting there with satellite maps on your screen tracking shipping, which is – a development. But, you know, what are the options that are available in the region, maybe globally to temporarily balance this supply and create some offset?Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, like of course when we have a big disruption like this one, of course the market is going to try to solve for this. There are a few blocks that we can work with. I'll run you through them one by one, including some of the numbers. But very quickly you arrive at the conclusion that this is; this puzzle – we can't really solve it.Like in 2022, the market was very stressed. We thought Russia was going to lose 3 million barrels a day of supply, but we could move things around in our supply demand model. Russia oil goes to China and India. Oil that they buy, we can get in Europe, we can move stuff around to kind of sort of solve a puzzle.This puzzle is very, very difficult to solve. So, through the Strait of Hormuz, 15 million barrels a day have crude, 5 million barrels a day of refined product, 20 million barrels a day in total. What can we do?Well, the biggest offset, is arguably the Saudi EastWest pipeline. Saudi Arabia has a pipeline that effectively allows it to ship oil to the Red Sea at the Port of Yanbu, where it can be evacuated on tankers there. That pipeline has a capacity of 7 million barrels a day. We think it was probably already flowing at something like 3 million barrels a day. So, there's probably an incremental 4 [million] that can become available through that. That's the biggest block, that we can see of workaround capacity, so to say.After that the numbers do get smaller. The UAE has a pipeline that goes through Fujairah that's also beyond the Strait of Hormuz. We think there is maybe 0.5 million barrel a day of capacity there. Then you're basically, sort of, done within the region, and you have to look globally for other sources of oil.If there are sanctions relief, maybe on Russian oil, you can find a 0.5 million barrel day there. Here, there and everywhere. 100,000 barrels a day, 200,000 barrels a day. But the numbers get…Andrew Sheets: It’s still not… So, if you kind of put all of those, you know, kind of, almost in a best-case scenario relative to the 20 million that's getting disrupted.Martijn Rats: If you add another one or two from a massive SPR release, the fastest release from SPR…Andrew Sheets: That's the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.Martijn Rats: Yeah, exactly. Earlier today, we got an announcement, that the IEA is proposing to release 400 million barrels from Strategic Reserve across its member countries. That is a very large number. But – and that is important. But more important is how fast can it flow because the extraction rate from these tanks is not infinite. The fastest ever rate of SPR release is only 1.3 million barrels a day. Now, maybe the circumstances are so extraordinary, we can do better than that and we can get it to 2 [million]. But beyond that, you're really in very, very uncharted territory.So maybe in the region, work around sanctions relief, SPR release, we can probably find like 7 million barrels a day out of a problem that is 20 [million]. You're left with another 13 [million]. The 13 [million] is four times what we thought Russia would lose. So, you're left with this conclusion: Look, this really needs to come to an end.Andrew Sheets: And the other rebalancing mechanism, which again, you know, when we come back to markets and forecasting, this is obviously price. And, you know, you talk about this idea of demand destruction, which I think we could paraphrase as – the price is higher so people use less of it and then you can rebalance the market that way.But give us just a little sense of, you know, as you and your team are sitting there modeling, how do you think about, kind of, the price of oil? Where it would need to go to – to potentially rebalance this the other way.Martijn Rats: Yeah, that price is very high. So, what it's a[n] really interesting analysis to do is to look at the historical frequency distribution of inflation adjusted oil prices.You take 20 years of oil prices. You convert it all in money of the day, adjusted for inflation, and then simply plot the frequency distribution. What you get is not one single bell curve centered around the middle with some variation around the midpoint. You get, sort of, two par]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jR8hamoofaLTngiAzdnt57ZkHWeV4PZA4DTeBPUwow0Wed, 11 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Andrew Sheets and Martijn Rats discuss why a prolonged disruption of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz would be unprecedented—and nearly impossible for the market to absorb.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today on the program we're going to talk about why investors everywhere are tracking ships through the Strait of Hormuz.It's Wednesday, March 11th at 2pm in London.Andrew Sheets: Martijn, the oil market, which is often volatile, has been historically volatile over the last couple of weeks following renewed military conflict between the United States and Iran.Now, there are a lot of different angles to this, but the oil market is really at the center of the market's focus on this conflict. And so, I think before we get into the specifics, I think it's helpful to set some context. How big is the global oil market and where does the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz fit within that global picture?Martijn Rats: Yeah, so the global oil consumption is a little bit more than a 100 million barrels a day. But that splits in two parts. There is a pipeline market and there is a seaborne market. And when it comes to prices, the seaborne market is really where it's at. If you're sitting in China, you're buying oil from the Middle East, all of a sudden, it's not available. Sure, if there is a pipeline that goes from Canada into the United States, that doesn't really help you all that much.Andrew Sheets: So, it's the oil on the ships that really matters.Martijn Rats: It's the oil on ships that is the flexible part of the market that we can redirect to where the oil is needed. And that is also the market where prices are formed. The seaborne market is in the order of 60 million barrels a day. So, only a subset of the 100 [million]. Now relative to that 60 million barrel a day, the Strait of Hormuz flows about 20 [million]. So, the Strait of Hormuz is responsible for about a third of seaborne supply, which is, of course, very large and therefore, you know, very critical to the system.Andrew Sheets: And I think an important thing we should also discuss here, which we were just discussing earlier today on another call, is – this is a market that could be quite sensitive to actually quite small disruptions in oil. So, can you give just some sense of sensitivity? I mean, in normal times, what sort of disruptions, in terms of barrels of oil, kind of, move markets; get investors' attention?Martijn Rats: Yeah, look, this is part of why this situation is so unusual, and oil analysts really sort of struggle with this. Look normally, at relative to the 100 million barrels a day of consumption, we care about supply demand imbalances of a couple of 100,000 barrels a day. That becomes interesting.If that, increases to say 1 million barrel a day, over- or undersupplied, you can expect prices to move. You can expect them to move by meaningful amounts. We can write research; the clients can trade. You have a tradable idea in front of you. When that becomes 2 to 3 million barrels a day, either side, you have major historical market moving events.So, in [20]08-09, oil famously fell from over 100 [million] down to something like 30 [million], on the basis that the oil market was 2-2.5 million barrel day oversupplied for two quarters. In 2022, we all thought – this actually never happened, but we all thought that Russia was going to lose about 3 million barrel day of supply. And on that basis, just on the basis of the expectation alone, Brent went to $130 per barrel. So, 2-3 [million] either side you have historically large moves. Now we're talking about 20...]]>747alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1596fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/oil-rally-tests-diversification-strategy--75645008insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today: what happens if your main diversification strategy suddenly stops working because of oil price moves? It’s Tuesday, March 10th, at 10am in New York. For decades, investors have relied on the idea that stocks and bonds return tend to move in opposite directions. When equities fall, bonds often rise, helping cushion portfolio losses. But that relationship isn’t guaranteed. Between 2021 and 2023, coming out of the pandemic, stocks and bonds sold off together, and the traditional 60/40 equity-bond portfolio suffered its worst annual performance in nearly a century. Now, recent geopolitical tensions and rising oil prices are raising a familiar concern for investors: Could that uncertainty dynamic return? At first glance, oil prices may seem like a narrow commodity story. But in reality, they can shape the entire macroeconomic environment. The classic negative correlation between stocks and bonds depends on a fairly simple economic pattern: growth and inflation moving in the same direction. When economic growth accelerates, inflation often rises as well. In that environment, equities may perform well while bonds weaken. But when growth and inflation move in opposite directions, the relationship between stocks and bonds can flip. That’s what happened coming out of the pandemic. Bond investors worried about rising inflation, while equity investors were worried about slowing growth. In that scenario, both asset classes' returns declined at the same time.A sustained oil price shock could potentially recreate those conditions. Higher oil prices can push up inflation while also weighing on economic activity – a combination that economists often refer to as stagflation. If markets begin to price in that kind of environment again, the relationship between stocks and bonds could shift back toward that less favorable regime. Despite recent volatility tied to tensions in the Middle East, the relationship between stocks and bonds today still largely reflects the traditional pattern. Overall, stock-bond returns correlation remains negative, meaning bonds can still help diversify equity risk. In fact, correlations between U.S. stocks and 2-year Treasury returns have been trending negative since 2024, and on a longer-term basis they are now extremely negative relative to the past three years. But the key point here is that not all bonds behave the same way. Many investors think of government bonds as a single asset class. But the maturity of the bond – how long it takes to repay – matters a lot for diversification. Shorter-dated bonds, such as 2-year U.S. Treasuries, have maintained stronger negative correlations with equities. Longer-dated bonds, however – particularly the 30-year Treasury – have behaved a bit differently. Their correlation with stocks has been stickier and less negative, partly because markets increasingly view longer-dated bonds as risky. As a result, the difference between how 2-year and 30-year Treasuries move relative to stocks has remained unusually wide for several years. In recent days oil prices have been rising -- linked in part to concerns around the Strait of Hormuz. That’s pushing up yields at the front end of the Treasury curve, creating what’s known as a bear-flattening. In other words, short-term interest rates are rising faster than long-term ones, reflecting markets placing more emphasis on inflation risks. And that brings us to the key questions for investors: Which risks will dominate from here – is it going to be higher inflation or slower growth? The answer could determine which assets provide better diversifications in the months ahead. So the takeaway is this: Higher oil prices and geopolitical risks could increase the chances that stocks and bonds move together again. But diversification isn’t disappearing. It’s just becoming more nuanced. For investors, the real question isn’t whether bonds diversify portfolios. It’s which bonds do. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3qxERWgqmCR0ALj4S5PPOS0tXRR5by2Uf95wsedWgRcTue, 10 Mar 2026 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses how rising oil prices and geopolitical tensions could make stocks and bonds move in the same direction, challenging one of the key principles of portfolio diversification.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today: what happens if your main diversification strategy suddenly stops working because of oil price moves? It’s Tuesday, March 10th, at 10am in New York. For decades, investors have relied on the idea that stocks and bonds return tend to move in opposite directions. When equities fall, bonds often rise, helping cushion portfolio losses. But that relationship isn’t guaranteed. Between 2021 and 2023, coming out of the pandemic, stocks and bonds sold off together, and the traditional 60/40 equity-bond portfolio suffered its worst annual performance in nearly a century. Now, recent geopolitical tensions and rising oil prices are raising a familiar concern for investors: Could that uncertainty dynamic return? At first glance, oil prices may seem like a narrow commodity story. But in reality, they can shape the entire macroeconomic environment. The classic negative correlation between stocks and bonds depends on a fairly simple economic pattern: growth and inflation moving in the same direction. When economic growth accelerates, inflation often rises as well. In that environment, equities may perform well while bonds weaken. But when growth and inflation move in opposite directions, the relationship between stocks and bonds can flip. That’s what happened coming out of the pandemic. Bond investors worried about rising inflation, while equity investors were worried about slowing growth. In that scenario, both asset classes' returns declined at the same time.A sustained oil price shock could potentially recreate those conditions. Higher oil prices can push up inflation while also weighing on economic activity – a combination that economists often refer to as stagflation. If markets begin to price in that kind of environment again, the relationship between stocks and bonds could shift back toward that less favorable regime. Despite recent volatility tied to tensions in the Middle East, the relationship between stocks and bonds today still largely reflects the traditional pattern. Overall, stock-bond returns correlation remains negative, meaning bonds can still help diversify equity risk. In fact, correlations between U.S. stocks and 2-year Treasury returns have been trending negative since 2024, and on a longer-term basis they are now extremely negative relative to the past three years. But the key point here is that not all bonds behave the same way. Many investors think of government bonds as a single asset class. But the maturity of the bond – how long it takes to repay – matters a lot for diversification. Shorter-dated bonds, such as 2-year U.S. Treasuries, have maintained stronger negative correlations with equities. Longer-dated bonds, however – particularly the 30-year Treasury – have behaved a bit differently. Their correlation with stocks has been stickier and less negative, partly because markets increasingly view longer-dated bonds as risky. As a result, the difference between how 2-year and 30-year Treasuries move relative to stocks has remained unusually wide for several years. In recent days oil prices have been rising -- linked in part to concerns around the Strait of Hormuz. That’s pushing up yields at the front end of the Treasury curve, creating what’s known as a bear-flattening. In other words, short-term interest rates are rising faster than long-term ones, reflecting markets placing more emphasis on inflation risks. And that brings us to the key questions for investors: Which risks will dominate...]]>328alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1595fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-reasons-for-the-bull-market-to-resume--75645014insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing the conflict in Iran and what it means for equities. It's Monday, March 9th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. While most believe the current equity market correction began in February, it's clear to me that it actually began last fall when liquidity began to tighten. In fact, back in September I warned that the Fed was not doing enough with the balance sheet – and financial conditions were likely to tighten and cause some stress in equities. Starting in October, that stress manifested as a sharp correction in the most speculative parts of the equity market and crypto currencies. The Fed responded by ending its balance sheet reduction earlier than expected and restarting asset purchases which led to strong equity performance in January. At this point, the correction is very well advanced in both time and price, with many stocks down 30 percent, or more. Meanwhile, dispersion has rarely been higher with the spread between winners and losers the highest we have seen in 20+ years. As usual, the markets got it right by anticipating many of the concerns that are now obvious to all. The questions for equity investors now are what will the world look like in six months and are prices cheap enough to start assuming a better future? The short answer is not yet, but get your shopping lists ready. In many ways, we find ourselves in a very similar position to last year. Recall that the major indices started to accelerate lower in Late February and early March. The concern at the time was centered around tariffs, but like today, equity markets had already been trading poorly for months on concerns that had nothing to do with tariffs. This time around, markets have been worried about AI labor disruption, private credit defaults and liquidity shortages long before the Iran conflict escalated.  Corrections typically don’t end until the best stocks and highest quality indices get hit and that usually takes a bigger shock, like Liberation Day or war. That process has begun with the S&P 500 having its worst week since October. The other thing to consider is that market levels tend to be tied to where they were a year ago. This year-over-year comparison is very important when thinking about support.  Given the sharp decline last year, it tells me we have another month during which the equity markets are likely to struggle. Based on this simple observation and other technical indicators, I think the S&P 500 could trade toward 6300 by early April before our favorable fundamental outlook can take hold again.  Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about the conflict in Iran taking oil prices sustainably above $100? No, but since no one seems to be able to predict the outcome of military conflicts or oil prices, I am not going to try either. Instead, I am going to assume that in six months, things have likely settled down after this initial surge, much like we saw after Russia invaded Ukraine. Importantly, the spike in oil prices is the result of a logistical logjam in the Straits of Hormuz rather than a shortage of supply. That logjam is a real constraint, but necessity is the mother of ingenuity and will likely be solved.  Another reason to be optimistic six months out is the broadening in earnings growth, a trend that remains intact and a key call in our 2026 outlook. Secondarily, the US is much more resilient than Asia and Europe to an oil shock given its energy independence. This should attract investor flows back to the US. And finally, tax incentives for capital spending and tax cuts for individuals in the [One] Big Beautiful Bill should provide a positive offset to the higher oil prices in the short term. On the negative side, the flight to quality and safety could lead to more US dollar strength which is a headwind to global liquidity.  Bottom line, oil and US dollar strength is likely to persist until the conflict simmers down. While much of the damage has likely been done to the most vulnerable parts of the equity market, the index remains vulnerable to another 5-7 percent downside in my opinion while crowded stocks could see double digit declines before a final low appears next month. Remember market lows happen faster than tops so be ready to add risk in anticipation of the bull market resuming later this year. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9v23wSsP8FXVOaGfCswf1MfeZNMuvjj52m9I41W4stAMon, 09 Mar 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why history, technicals and fundamentals suggest a clearer runway for U.S. stocks six months out, despite geopolitical concerns.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.  Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing the conflict in Iran and what it means for equities. It's Monday, March 9th at 11:30 am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. While most believe the current equity market correction began in February, it's clear to me that it actually began last fall when liquidity began to tighten. In fact, back in September I warned that the Fed was not doing enough with the balance sheet – and financial conditions were likely to tighten and cause some stress in equities. Starting in October, that stress manifested as a sharp correction in the most speculative parts of the equity market and crypto currencies. The Fed responded by ending its balance sheet reduction earlier than expected and restarting asset purchases which led to strong equity performance in January. At this point, the correction is very well advanced in both time and price, with many stocks down 30 percent, or more. Meanwhile, dispersion has rarely been higher with the spread between winners and losers the highest we have seen in 20+ years. As usual, the markets got it right by anticipating many of the concerns that are now obvious to all. The questions for equity investors now are what will the world look like in six months and are prices cheap enough to start assuming a better future? The short answer is not yet, but get your shopping lists ready. In many ways, we find ourselves in a very similar position to last year. Recall that the major indices started to accelerate lower in Late February and early March. The concern at the time was centered around tariffs, but like today, equity markets had already been trading poorly for months on concerns that had nothing to do with tariffs. This time around, markets have been worried about AI labor disruption, private credit defaults and liquidity shortages long before the Iran conflict escalated.  Corrections typically don’t end until the best stocks and highest quality indices get hit and that usually takes a bigger shock, like Liberation Day or war. That process has begun with the S&P 500 having its worst week since October. The other thing to consider is that market levels tend to be tied to where they were a year ago. This year-over-year comparison is very important when thinking about support.  Given the sharp decline last year, it tells me we have another month during which the equity markets are likely to struggle. Based on this simple observation and other technical indicators, I think the S&P 500 could trade toward 6300 by early April before our favorable fundamental outlook can take hold again.  Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about the conflict in Iran taking oil prices sustainably above $100? No, but since no one seems to be able to predict the outcome of military conflicts or oil prices, I am not going to try either. Instead, I am going to assume that in six months, things have likely settled down after this initial surge, much like we saw after Russia invaded Ukraine. Importantly, the spike in oil prices is the result of a logistical logjam in the Straits of Hormuz rather than a shortage of supply. That logjam is a real constraint, but necessity is the mother of ingenuity and will likely be solved.  Another reason to be optimistic six months out is the broadening in earnings growth, a trend that remains intact and a key call in our 2026 outlook. Secondarily, the US is much more resilient than Asia and Europe to an oil shock given its energy independence. This should attract...]]>305alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1594fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-s-3-trillion-question-how-to-pay-the-bill--75645039insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome back to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome to part two of our conversation live from the Technology, Media and Telecom conference. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Today we're continuing our conversation with Stephen Byrd, Josh Baer and Lindsay Tyler. This time looking at financing AI and some of the risks to the story. It's Friday, March 6th at 11am in San Francisco. So yesterday we spoke about AI adoption. And while there's a lot of excitement on this theme, there've also been some concerns bubbling up. Lindsay, I want to start with you around financing. That's another critical component of the AI build out. What's your latest on the magnitude of the data center financing gap, and what role [are] credit markets playing here? Lindsay Tyler:  Yeah, in partnership with Thematic Research, Stephen and team, and colleagues across fixed income research last summer, we did put out a note, thinking about the data center financing gap, right? So, Stephen and team modeled a $3 trillion global data center CapEx need over a four-year timeframe. So, in partnership with fixed income across asset classes, we thought: okay, how will that really be funded? And we came to the conclusion that the hyperscalers, the high quality hyperscalers, generate a good amount of cash flow, right? So, there's cash from ops that can fund approximately half of that. But then we think that fixed income markets are critical to fund the rest of the funding gap. And really private credit is the leader in that and then aided by corporate credit and also securitized credit. What we've seen since is that yes, private credit has served a role. There is this difference between private credit 1.0, which is more of that middle market direct lending. And then private credit 2.0, which is more ABF – Asset Based Finance or Asset Backed Finance. And what we see there is an interest in leases of hyperscaler tenants, right? We've also seen in the market over the past nine months or so, investment grade bond issuance by hyperscalers. Obviously, a use of cash flow by hyperscalers. We've seen the construction loans with banks and also private credit per reports. We've also seen high yield bond issuance, which is kind of a new trend for construction financing. We've seen ABS and CMBS as well. And then something new that's emerging in focus for investors is more of a chip-backed or compute contract backed financings, like more creative solutions.   We're really in early innings of the spend right now. And so, there is this shift. As we start to work through the construction early phases, the next focus is: okay, but what about the chips? And so, I think a big focus is that, you know, chips are more than 50 percent of the spend for if you're looking at a gigawatt site. And it depends what type of chips and kind of what generation. But that's the next leg of this too. So, it's kind of a focus, you know, for 2026. Michelle Weaver: And how do you view balance sheet leverage and financing when you think about hyperscaler debt raising magnitude and timelines? Lindsay Tyler: So just to bring it down to more of a basic level, if you need compute, you really might need two things, right? A powered shell and then the chips. And so, if you're looking for that compute, you could kind of go in three basic ways. You could look to build the shell and kind of build and buy the whole thing. You could lease the shell, from, you know, a developer, maybe a Bitcoin miner too – that is converted to HBC. And then you kind of buy the chips and you put them in yourselves. Or you could lease all the compute; quote unquote lease, it's more of a contract.  In terms of the funding, if you're thinking about the cash flows of some of the big companies – think of that as primarily being put towards chip spend. If you're thinking about the construction that's kind of split between cash CapEx but also leases. And so, what we've seen is that there is more than [$]600 billion of un-commenced lease obligations that will commence over the next two to five years, across the big four or five players. And then my equity counterparts estimate around [$]700 billion of cash CapEx that needs this year for some of those players as well. So, these are big numbers. But that's kind of how, at a basic level, they're approaching some of the financing. It's a split approach. Michelle Weaver: And what have you learned around financing the past few days at the conference? Anything incremental to share there? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. Yeah. I think I found confirmation of some key themes here at the conference. The first being that numerous funding buckets are available. That was a big focus of our note last year is that you can kind of look at asset level financing. You can look at public bonds, you can look at some equity.   There are these different funding buckets available.The second is that tenant quality matters for construction financing. I think I've seen this more in the markets than maybe at this conference over the past two to three weeks. But that has been a focus of pricing for the deals, but also market depth for the deals. A third confirmation of a key theme was around the neo clouds and also the GPU as a service business models. Thinking about those creative financings, right. Are they thinking about from their compute counterparties? Would they like upfront payments? Might they look to move financing off [the] balance sheet, if they have a very high-quality investment grade rated counterparty? So, there is some of this evolution around those solutions. And then a fourth key theme is just around the credit support. And Stephen has and I have talked about this around some of the Bitcoin miners – is that, you know, there can be these higher quality investment grade players that might look to lend their credit support. Maybe a lease backstop to other players in the ecosystem in order to get a better pricing on construction financing. And we are seeing some press pickup around how that might play out in chip financing down the road too. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. AI driven risk and potential disruption has been a big feature of the price action we've seen year-to-date in this theme. Stephen, what are some asset classes or businesses you see as resistant to some of this disruption? Stephen Byrd: We spend a lot of time thinking about, sort of, asset classes that are resistant to deflation and disruption. And what's interesting is there's actually a handful of economists in the world that are doing remarkable work on this concept. That they would call it the economics of transformative AI. There are three Americans, two Canadians, two Brits, a number of others who are doing really, really interesting work. And essentially what they're looking at is what do economies look like? As we see very powerful AI enter many industries – cause price reductions, deflation… What does that do? They have a lot of interesting takeaways, but one is this idea that the relative value of assets that cannot be deflated by AI goes up. Very simple idea. But think of it this way, I mean, there's only, you know, one principle resort on Kauai. You know, there's a limited amount of metals. And so, what we go through is this list that's gotten a lot of investor attention of resistant asset classes or more of the resistant asset classes that can go up in value. So, there are obvious ones like land, though you have to be a little careful with real estate in the sense that like, office real estate probably wouldn't be where you would go. Nor would you potentially go sort of towards middle income, lower income housing. But more, you know, think of industrial REITs, higher-end real estate. But there are a lot of other categories that are interesting to me. All kinds of infrastructure should be quite resistant, all kinds of critical materials. Metals should do extremely well in this. But then when you go beyond that, it's actually kind of interesting that there; arguably there's a longer list than those classic sort of land and metals examples.Examples here would be compute… Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: I thought Jensen put it, well, you know, if there's a limited amount of infrastructure available, you want to put the best compute. And ultimately, in some ways, intelligence becomes the new coin of the realm in the world, right? So, I would want to own the purveyors of intelligence.  It could include high-end luxury. It could include unique human experiences. So, I don't know how many of y'all have children who are sort of college age. But my children are college age, and they absolutely hate what they would call AI slop.They want legit human content, and they seek it out. And they absolutely hate it when they see bad copies of human content. And so, I think there is a place in many parts of the economy for unique human experiences, unique human content, and it's interesting to kind of seek out where that might be in the economy. So those would be some examples of resistant assets. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, software's been at really the center of this AI disruption debate. How would you compare the current pullback in software multiples to prior periods of peak uncertainty? And do you think any of these concerns are valid? Or how are you thinking about that? Josh Baer: Great question. I mean, software multiples on an EV to sales basis are down 30 – 35 percent just from the fall, I will say. And that's overall in the group. A lot of stocks, multiple handfuls,]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/q-CXi5gT19LhasSxlndm796aZUFkBb5bTISFZZlgYLQFri, 06 Mar 2026 19:30:00 +0000gtyIn the second of our two-part panel discussion from Morgan Stanley’s TMT conference, our analysts break down the complexity of financing AI’s infrastructure and the technological disruption happening across industries.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome back to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome to part two of our conversation live from the Technology, Media and Telecom conference. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Today we're continuing our conversation with Stephen Byrd, Josh Baer and Lindsay Tyler. This time looking at financing AI and some of the risks to the story. It's Friday, March 6th at 11am in San Francisco. So yesterday we spoke about AI adoption. And while there's a lot of excitement on this theme, there've also been some concerns bubbling up. Lindsay, I want to start with you around financing. That's another critical component of the AI build out. What's your latest on the magnitude of the data center financing gap, and what role [are] credit markets playing here? Lindsay Tyler:  Yeah, in partnership with Thematic Research, Stephen and team, and colleagues across fixed income research last summer, we did put out a note, thinking about the data center financing gap, right? So, Stephen and team modeled a $3 trillion global data center CapEx need over a four-year timeframe. So, in partnership with fixed income across asset classes, we thought: okay, how will that really be funded? And we came to the conclusion that the hyperscalers, the high quality hyperscalers, generate a good amount of cash flow, right? So, there's cash from ops that can fund approximately half of that. But then we think that fixed income markets are critical to fund the rest of the funding gap. And really private credit is the leader in that and then aided by corporate credit and also securitized credit. What we've seen since is that yes, private credit has served a role. There is this difference between private credit 1.0, which is more of that middle market direct lending. And then private credit 2.0, which is more ABF – Asset Based Finance or Asset Backed Finance. And what we see there is an interest in leases of hyperscaler tenants, right? We've also seen in the market over the past nine months or so, investment grade bond issuance by hyperscalers. Obviously, a use of cash flow by hyperscalers. We've seen the construction loans with banks and also private credit per reports. We've also seen high yield bond issuance, which is kind of a new trend for construction financing. We've seen ABS and CMBS as well. And then something new that's emerging in focus for investors is more of a chip-backed or compute contract backed financings, like more creative solutions.   We're really in early innings of the spend right now. And so, there is this shift. As we start to work through the construction early phases, the next focus is: okay, but what about the chips? And so, I think a big focus is that, you know, chips are more than 50 percent of the spend for if you're looking at a gigawatt site. And it depends what type of chips and kind of what generation. But that's the next leg of this too. So, it's kind of a focus, you know, for 2026. Michelle Weaver: And how do you view balance sheet leverage and financing when you think about hyperscaler debt raising magnitude and timelines? Lindsay Tyler: So just to bring it down to more of a basic level, if you need compute, you really might need two things, right? A powered shell and then the chips. And so, if you're looking for that compute, you could kind of go in three basic ways. You could look to build the shell and kind of build and buy the whole thing. You could lease the shell, from, you know, a developer, maybe a Bitcoin miner too – that is converted to HBC. And then you kind of...]]>863alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1593fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-s-tangible-wins-and-disruption--75645046insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today we've got a special episode on AI adoption. And this is a first in a two-part conversation live from our Technology, Media and Telecom conference.It's Thursday, March 5th at 11am in San Francisco.We're really excited to be here with all of you taping live. And we've got on stage with me. Stephen Byrd, he's our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research; Josh Baer, Software Analyst; and Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst.So, Stephen, I want to start with you, pretty broad, pretty high level. We recently published our fifth AI Mapping Survey that identifies how different companies are exposed to the broad AI theme. Can you just share with us some insights from that piece and how stocks are performing with this AI exposure?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, we've been doing this survey now, thanks to you, Michelle, and your excellent work, for quite a while. And every six months it is pretty telling to see the progression.I would say a few things that got my attention from our most recent mapping was the number of companies that are quantifying the adoption benefits continues to go up quite a bit. And to me that feels like that's going to be table stakes very soon as in every industry you see two or three companies that are really laying out quite specifically what they expect to be able to do with AI and lay out the math. I think that really is going to pull all the other companies to follow suit. So, we're seeing that in a big way.We do see adopters, with real tangible benefits performing well. But a new thing that we're seeing now, of course, in the market is concerns that in some cases adoption can lead to dramatic deflation, disruption, et cetera. That's coming up as well. So, we're seeing greater concerns around disruption as well.But broadly, I'd say a proliferation of adoption, that that universe of companies continues to grow, increases in quantification of the benefits. So, that is good. What's really surprised me though, is the narrative among investors has so quickly moved from those benefits which we've talked about into flipping that to toggle all negative, which I know some of our analysts have to deal with every day. The mapping work suggests significant benefits. But the market is fast forwarding to very powerful AI that is very disruptive in deflation. And that's been a surprise to me.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, I want to bring software into this. Your team has been arguing that AI is actually good for software. And it's really something that you need that application layer to then enable other companies to adopt AI. Can you tell us a little bit about how much GenAI could add to the broader enterprise software market? And how are you thinking about monetization these days?Josh Baer: Of course. I think the best starting place is a reminder that AI is software, and so we see software as a TAM expander. And in many ways, even though this is extremely exciting innovation, it's following past innovation trends where first you see value accrue and market cap accrue to semiconductors, and then hardware and devices, and then eventually software and services. And we do think that that absolutely will occur just given [$]3 trillion in infrastructure investment into data centers and GPUs.There's got to be an application layer that brings all of these productivity and efficiency gains to enterprises and advanced capabilities to consumers as well. And so we see AI more as an evolution for software than a revolution. An evolution of capabilities and expansion of capabilities. LLMs and diffusion engines absolutely unlocked all of these new features of what software can do. But incumbents will play a key role in this unlock.And our CIO surveys really support that. Quarterly we ask chief information officers about their spending intentions, and these application vendors who we cover in the public markets are increasingly selected as vendors that companies will go to, to help deploy and apply AI and LLM technologies.So, to answer your question, we estimate GenAI could unlock [$]400 billion in incremental TAM for software; for enterprise software by 2028. And this is based on looking at the type of work able to be automated, the labor costs associated with that work, the scope of automation, and then thinking about how much of that value is captured typically by software vendors.Michelle Weaver: And you have a bit of a different lens on AI adoption. So, what are some of the ways you're hearing software customers using these AI tools and anything interesting that popped up at the conference?Josh Baer: To echo what Stephen laid out, I mean, all of our software companies are using AI internally, both to drive efficiencies, but also to move faster. So thinking about product. Innovation, you know, the incumbents are able to use all of the same coding tools and, you know, …Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.Josh Bear: … products geared to developers to move faster and more efficiently on R&D. So, they're doing more. From a sales and marketing perspective, a G&A perspective, every area of OpEx, our software companies are in a great position to deploy the AI tools internally.I think more important[ly], speaking to this TAM and expanded opportunity, is our companies have skews that they're monetizing. It might be a separate suite that incorporates advanced AI functionality. It might be a standalone offering, or it might be embedded into the core platform because the essence of software is AI and it, you know, leading to better retention rates and acceleration from here.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And Stephen, going back to you on the state of play for AI, we had the AI labs here and we heard a lot about the developments and what's to come. So, what's your view on the trajectory for LLM advancements and what are some of the key signposts or catalysts you're watching here?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, this is for me, maybe the most important takeaway of the conference – is this continued non-linear improvement of LLMs, which we've been writing about for quite some time. And just to give you an example, we think many of the labs have achieved a step change up in terms of the compute that they have, in some cases 10 x the amount of compute to train their LLMs. And that [if] the scaling laws hold – and we see every sign that they will – a 10x increase in compute used to train the models results in about a doubling of the model capabilities.Now just let that sink in for a moment. Let's just think about that. A doubling from here in a relatively short period of time is difficult to predict. It's obviously very significant and I think several of the LLM execs at our event sounded to me extremely bullish on what that will be. A lot of that I think will be evident in greater agentic capabilities.But also, I'd say greater creativity. It was about three weeks ago, three of the best physics minds in the world worked with an LLM to achieve a true breakthrough in physics – solving a problem that had never been solved before. A couple of days ago, a math team did the same thing. And so, what we're seeing is sort of these breakthrough capabilities in creativity. This morning I thought Sam speaking to, you know, incredible increases in what these models can do – which also brings risk. You know, I think it was interesting he spoke to, you know, the risk of misalignment, the risk of what these models are doing.But for me, that's the single biggest thing that I'm thinking about, and that's going to be evident in the next several months.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.Stephen Byrd: So, you know, on the positive side, it leads to greater benefits from AI adoption. And to Josh's point that, you know – more and more the economy can be addressed by AI, I do get concerned about the risk that that kind of step change will create greater concerns about disruption and deflation.That causes me to think a lot about that dynamic. Interestingly, we think the Chinese labs will not be able to keep pace just for one reason, which is compute. We think the Chinese labs have everything else they need. They have the talent, the infrastructure. They certainly have the energy, power. But they don't have the chips.If what we laid out with the American models turns out to be true, I could see a chain reaction where the Chinese government pushes the Trump administration for full transfer of the best technology to China. And China could use their rare earth trade position to ensure that. So, that's sort of the chain reaction I've been thinking about.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. So, let's think about then bottlenecks in the U.S. Power is still one of the main bottlenecks. We had several of the solutions providers here at the conference. So, what are you thinking in terms of the size of the power bottleneck in the U.S. and how are we going to fix that?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, absolutely. I am bullish on the companies that can de-bottleneck power, not just in the U.S., a few other places. Let's go through the math in terms of the problem we face and then the solution.So, we have this very cool – it is cool if you're a nerd – power model that starts in the chip level up, from our semiconductor teams. And from that, we build a global power demand model for data centers. We then apply that to the U.S.Through 2028 we need about 74 gigawatts of data centers, both AI and non-AI to be built in the United States. I don't think we'll be able to achieve that for lots of reasons. But starting from tha]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xflUXHhP7KBEmoZU4hdfR9DWkyf0BahxBM4KCNvQZRkFri, 06 Mar 2026 00:30:00 +0000gtyLive from Morgan Stanley’s TMT conference, our panel break down where AI is already delivering real returns—and where rapid advances are raising new risks.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today we've got a special episode on AI adoption. And this is a first in a two-part conversation live from our Technology, Media and Telecom conference.It's Thursday, March 5th at 11am in San Francisco.We're really excited to be here with all of you taping live. And we've got on stage with me. Stephen Byrd, he's our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research; Josh Baer, Software Analyst; and Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst.So, Stephen, I want to start with you, pretty broad, pretty high level. We recently published our fifth AI Mapping Survey that identifies how different companies are exposed to the broad AI theme. Can you just share with us some insights from that piece and how stocks are performing with this AI exposure?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, we've been doing this survey now, thanks to you, Michelle, and your excellent work, for quite a while. And every six months it is pretty telling to see the progression.I would say a few things that got my attention from our most recent mapping was the number of companies that are quantifying the adoption benefits continues to go up quite a bit. And to me that feels like that's going to be table stakes very soon as in every industry you see two or three companies that are really laying out quite specifically what they expect to be able to do with AI and lay out the math. I think that really is going to pull all the other companies to follow suit. So, we're seeing that in a big way.We do see adopters, with real tangible benefits performing well. But a new thing that we're seeing now, of course, in the market is concerns that in some cases adoption can lead to dramatic deflation, disruption, et cetera. That's coming up as well. So, we're seeing greater concerns around disruption as well.But broadly, I'd say a proliferation of adoption, that that universe of companies continues to grow, increases in quantification of the benefits. So, that is good. What's really surprised me though, is the narrative among investors has so quickly moved from those benefits which we've talked about into flipping that to toggle all negative, which I know some of our analysts have to deal with every day. The mapping work suggests significant benefits. But the market is fast forwarding to very powerful AI that is very disruptive in deflation. And that's been a surprise to me.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, I want to bring software into this. Your team has been arguing that AI is actually good for software. And it's really something that you need that application layer to then enable other companies to adopt AI. Can you tell us a little bit about how much GenAI could add to the broader enterprise software market? And how are you thinking about monetization these days?Josh Baer: Of course. I think the best starting place is a reminder that AI is software, and so we see software as a TAM expander. And in many ways, even though this is extremely exciting innovation, it's following past innovation trends where first you see value accrue and market cap accrue to semiconductors, and then hardware and devices, and then eventually software and services. And we do think that that absolutely will occur just given [$]3 trillion in infrastructure investment into data centers and GPUs.There's got to be an application layer that brings all of these productivity and efficiency gains to enterprises and advanced capabilities to consumers as well. And so we see AI more as an evolution for software than a...]]>768alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1592fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-the-iran-conflict-could-move-markets--75645012insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the escalating U.S.-Iran conflict, the market reaction, and what investors should be watching for next. It's Wednesday, March 4th at 7:30am in San Francisco. Ariana Salvatore: And 10:30am in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, I'm in San Francisco at Morgan Stanley's TMT Conference, but obviously events in the Middle East have captured everyone's attention. There's uncertainty around the conflict and really important questions about how it affects all of us. And of course, markets have to discount all sorts of future uncertainty about very specific impacts – to financial asset prices, to commodity prices – and really look at it through that narrow lens.And so, Ariana, the administration has suggested that this conflict and this campaign could last a few weeks. But also it said it could continue as long as it takes. So, what are the clearest signals investors should watch for to gauge duration? Ariana Salvatore: For now, we're focused on three main indicators. First, I would say, and most important, is clarity around the objectives. The president and others in the administration have referenced things like eliminating Iran's missile arsenal, its navy and limiting proxy activity. Those goals are broader than the earlier focus on just the nuclear programs. Each objective, of course, implies a different timeline. A narrower objective likely means a shorter engagement. Broader ambitions, conversely, would extend it. So that's the first thing. Second, obviously extremely important is traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We'd viewed a full closure as unlikely, given the economic consequences for Iran itself. But tanker flows have at least temporarily fallen close to zero, and that's significant because production across the region has not been impaired. This is not about oil fields going offline. It's about whether or not oil can actually move. If shipping lanes normalize within weeks, markets can recalibrate. However, if flows remain materially curtailed beyond five weeks, the risks rise meaningfully. Third, the frequency of strikes and proxy activity. Sustained or escalating engagement would suggest a longer conflict. Signs of diplomacy, on the other hand, might indicate de-escalation. Michael Zezas: Right. So, let's build on that and talk about oil. And our colleague, Martijn Rats has really laid this out with a lot of different scenarios. But what we're seeing right now is that when it comes to oil, this is really a shock to the transport of it, not necessarily a shock to its production. So, oil supply exists. The question is really – can it be delivered or not? So, if tanker flows normalize and the geopolitical risk premium fades, what Martijn is saying is that global oil prices could move back towards $60 to $65 a barrel. If the logistical disruption lasts four to five weeks, then prices maybe trade in the $75 to $80 range. And if disruption extends beyond five weeks and flows are materially constrained, then you could see a situation where oil prices have to rise towards $120 or $130 a barrel. And at that level, demand destruction is what becomes the balancing mechanism in setting price for oil. So, one signal to watch is longer dated oil prices. Early month contracts can spike during geopolitical stress, but a sustained move materially above $80 to $85 [per] barrel would likely require longer dated prices to move higher as well. And that might signal that markets believe the disruption is persistent and not temporary. Ariana, what about natural gas here? How does gas situation fit into the energy story? Ariana Salvatore: As of this recording, Qatar has halted liquified natural gas production putting roughly 20 percent of global supply at risk. Prices have, as you might expect, risen sharply, which likely reflects expectations of a relatively short disruption. If exports were to resume quickly, prices could retrace. But, of course, if the outage lasts longer, prices could move meaningfully higher. Again, duration of the conflict is really critical here. Michael Zezas: So, let's bring this back to the U.S. Ariana, how does this conflict feed into the domestic, political and economic backdrop? Ariana Salvatore: When we're thinking about the midterm elections later this year, the way we see it, the clearest transmission channel is gasoline prices. Polling shows a majority of Americans oppose military action related to Iran, but voters typically prioritize domestic issues: things like inflation, cost of living, affordability over foreign policy. However, there's a very clear caveat here. If oil prices stay elevated, gasoline prices rise, and that's where this becomes politically more salient. Michael Zezas: Right, and so our economists and our chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen has been all over this. And the way he assesses it is if oil prices remain about 10 percent higher than where they were before the conflict for several months, headline inflation would likely rise by 0.3 percent before dissipating. Historically, oil price shocks primarily affect headline inflation rather than underlying inflation. That's an important distinction that they point out. So maybe that could delay Federal Reserve rate cuts, even if policymakers ultimately look through the move. But if oil prices rise enough to weaken economic activity, particularly in the labor market or consumer spending, then our economists say the Fed could pivot toward easing despite elevated inflation. Ariana Salvatore: So, given that backdrop, what's the simple takeaway for investors in stocks or bonds? Michael Zezas: Right. So, I think we have to think about this in terms of duration of conflict and economic impact. So, if tanker flows normalize within a few weeks and oil prices move back towards that $60 to $65 range, then our economists are saying economic damage would be limited. And historically geopolitical events alone have not led to sustained volatility for U.S. equities. So, in that environment, our cross-asset team points out that stocks would likely remain supported. If instead, oil prices remain elevated long enough to push inflation higher and weigh on growth, the picture would change. A sharp and persistent rise in oil prices – that can pose a risk to the duration of the business cycle, and in that scenario, we'd expect stocks to struggle. Importantly, bonds may not provide the same diversification benefit if inflation remains sticky as a consequence of all of this. We could see stock and bond prices move in the same direction. That could challenge traditional balanced portfolios. Ariana Salvatore: And what are we seeing specifically in U.S. Treasury markets? Michael Zezas: So, as Matt Hornbach and our global macro strategy team have pointed out here, you've got two competing forces in the U.S. Treasury market. There's been some demand for safety, but investors are also focused on the risk that higher oil prices would lift inflation. So far, inflation concerns have taken precedence over growth concerns. How long that balance holds – that might depend on incoming data, especially labor market data. If you get weaker labor market data suggesting that growth could weaken, then you could see treasuries rally more meaningfully and yields come down. If you don't see that and inflation concerns dominate, then maybe you're not going to see yields come down as much. And bonds rally as much. Ariana Salvatore: So, stepping back, it seems like the key variables remain tanker traffic, longer dated oil prices and duration of the conflict itself. Michael Zezas: I think that's right. Ariana, thanks for speaking with me. Ariana Salvatore: Always a pleasure, Mike. Michael Zezas: And thanks to our listeners for joining us. We'll continue tracking developments and what they mean for markets. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague.
Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/phzMhO-Ih77fOLUezdSLU3LSLyAzkoBsHB90rRFXb_8Wed, 04 Mar 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore assess the potential market outcomes of the Middle East conflict, weighing its possible duration and economic impact.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the escalating U.S.-Iran conflict, the market reaction, and what investors should be watching for next. It's Wednesday, March 4th at 7:30am in San Francisco. Ariana Salvatore: And 10:30am in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, I'm in San Francisco at Morgan Stanley's TMT Conference, but obviously events in the Middle East have captured everyone's attention. There's uncertainty around the conflict and really important questions about how it affects all of us. And of course, markets have to discount all sorts of future uncertainty about very specific impacts – to financial asset prices, to commodity prices – and really look at it through that narrow lens.And so, Ariana, the administration has suggested that this conflict and this campaign could last a few weeks. But also it said it could continue as long as it takes. So, what are the clearest signals investors should watch for to gauge duration? Ariana Salvatore: For now, we're focused on three main indicators. First, I would say, and most important, is clarity around the objectives. The president and others in the administration have referenced things like eliminating Iran's missile arsenal, its navy and limiting proxy activity. Those goals are broader than the earlier focus on just the nuclear programs. Each objective, of course, implies a different timeline. A narrower objective likely means a shorter engagement. Broader ambitions, conversely, would extend it. So that's the first thing. Second, obviously extremely important is traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We'd viewed a full closure as unlikely, given the economic consequences for Iran itself. But tanker flows have at least temporarily fallen close to zero, and that's significant because production across the region has not been impaired. This is not about oil fields going offline. It's about whether or not oil can actually move. If shipping lanes normalize within weeks, markets can recalibrate. However, if flows remain materially curtailed beyond five weeks, the risks rise meaningfully. Third, the frequency of strikes and proxy activity. Sustained or escalating engagement would suggest a longer conflict. Signs of diplomacy, on the other hand, might indicate de-escalation. Michael Zezas: Right. So, let's build on that and talk about oil. And our colleague, Martijn Rats has really laid this out with a lot of different scenarios. But what we're seeing right now is that when it comes to oil, this is really a shock to the transport of it, not necessarily a shock to its production. So, oil supply exists. The question is really – can it be delivered or not? So, if tanker flows normalize and the geopolitical risk premium fades, what Martijn is saying is that global oil prices could move back towards $60 to $65 a barrel. If the logistical disruption lasts four to five weeks, then prices maybe trade in the $75 to $80 range. And if disruption extends beyond five weeks and flows are materially constrained, then you could see a situation where oil prices have to rise towards $120 or $130 a barrel. And at that level, demand destruction is what becomes the balancing mechanism in setting price for oil. So, one signal to watch is longer dated oil prices. Early month contracts can spike during geopolitical stress, but a sustained move materially above $80 to $85 [per] barrel would likely...]]>497alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1591fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/travel-becomes-a-new-growth-engine-for-china--75644978insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong / China Transportation Analyst. Today, I'll share my thoughts on why travel is quickly emerging as one of [the] key drivers of China's economic rebalancing.It’s Tuesday, March the 3rd, at 2pm in Hong Kong. I've just gotten back from my Lunar New Year trip to mainland China. With the longest Chinese New Year break in history, people were out roaming, exploring, laughing, and the whole country felt like it was buzzing with people on a mission to enjoy every minute. According to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, total domestic tourism spending recorded a robust 19 percent year-on-year growth during the holiday. In fact, China’s tourism industry isn’t just rebounding after the pandemic. It’s entering a structurally stronger phase, supported by policy tailwinds, demographic shifts, and a clear pivot toward experience-driven consumption. By 2030, tourism revenue could reach RMB 12 trillion – equal to roughly USD $1.7 trillion – implying 11 percent annual growth from the mid-2020s. Over the next five years, cumulative domestic and inbound revenue may approach RMB 50 trillion, or USD $7.2 trillion. That scale makes travel more than a cyclical recovery – it’s becoming a core pillar of China’s consumption-led growth. We expect tourism’s share of GDP to rise to about 6.7 percent by 2030, up from 4.8 percent in 2024.Domestic travel remains the backbone.  People aren’t just traveling again; they’re traveling more than before. Policy is reinforcing demand. Extended public holidays, new school breaks, and event-driven tourism are boosting activity. In 2025 alone, around 3,000 large-scale performances attracted more than 43 million attendees. And spending reflects that shift. Domestic tourism spending reached RMB 6.3 trillion in 2025, about 11 percent above pre-COVID levels. Even with slightly lower spend per trip, more frequent travel is lifting overall revenue.International travel is emerging as a second growth engine. By 2030, inbound travel could represent 16 percent of total tourism revenue. In late 2025, inbound visitor growth in major cities was up about 30–50 percent year-over-year, supported by expanded visa-free access, which now accounts for the majority of foreign arrivals. These visitors often stay longer and spend more. Outbound travel is strengthening too. International air traffic grew 22 percent in 2025, far outpacing domestic growth, and now contributes a meaningful share of airline revenue. Demographics and technology are reinforcing the trend. Younger consumers prioritize travel, while older households – with substantial savings – are beginning to spend more as services improve. At the same time, smart hotels, virtual reality attractions, and data-driven operations are enhancing engagement and willingness to pay. This isn’t just pent-up demand. It’s policy, demographics, technology, and supply aligning at once. – with travel at the center of China’s consumption story.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MkeaKRkQwo5jPlLUpT1e2z1prFopn0rLhuNoJi4yHrQTue, 03 Mar 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan discusses how China’s travel industry is shifting from a post-pandemic rebound to a multi-year expansion.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong / China Transportation Analyst. Today, I'll share my thoughts on why travel is quickly emerging as one of [the] key drivers of China's economic rebalancing.It’s Tuesday, March the 3rd, at 2pm in Hong Kong. I've just gotten back from my Lunar New Year trip to mainland China. With the longest Chinese New Year break in history, people were out roaming, exploring, laughing, and the whole country felt like it was buzzing with people on a mission to enjoy every minute. According to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, total domestic tourism spending recorded a robust 19 percent year-on-year growth during the holiday. In fact, China’s tourism industry isn’t just rebounding after the pandemic. It’s entering a structurally stronger phase, supported by policy tailwinds, demographic shifts, and a clear pivot toward experience-driven consumption. By 2030, tourism revenue could reach RMB 12 trillion – equal to roughly USD $1.7 trillion – implying 11 percent annual growth from the mid-2020s. Over the next five years, cumulative domestic and inbound revenue may approach RMB 50 trillion, or USD $7.2 trillion. That scale makes travel more than a cyclical recovery – it’s becoming a core pillar of China’s consumption-led growth. We expect tourism’s share of GDP to rise to about 6.7 percent by 2030, up from 4.8 percent in 2024.Domestic travel remains the backbone.  People aren’t just traveling again; they’re traveling more than before. Policy is reinforcing demand. Extended public holidays, new school breaks, and event-driven tourism are boosting activity. In 2025 alone, around 3,000 large-scale performances attracted more than 43 million attendees. And spending reflects that shift. Domestic tourism spending reached RMB 6.3 trillion in 2025, about 11 percent above pre-COVID levels. Even with slightly lower spend per trip, more frequent travel is lifting overall revenue.International travel is emerging as a second growth engine. By 2030, inbound travel could represent 16 percent of total tourism revenue. In late 2025, inbound visitor growth in major cities was up about 30–50 percent year-over-year, supported by expanded visa-free access, which now accounts for the majority of foreign arrivals. These visitors often stay longer and spend more. Outbound travel is strengthening too. International air traffic grew 22 percent in 2025, far outpacing domestic growth, and now contributes a meaningful share of airline revenue. Demographics and technology are reinforcing the trend. Younger consumers prioritize travel, while older households – with substantial savings – are beginning to spend more as services improve. At the same time, smart hotels, virtual reality attractions, and data-driven operations are enhancing engagement and willingness to pay. This isn’t just pent-up demand. It’s policy, demographics, technology, and supply aligning at once. – with travel at the center of China’s consumption story.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>270alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1590fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-risks-of-private-credit-s-software-exposure--75645040insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Head of Credit Strategy. Vishy Tirupattur: While potential disruption from AI has been a key driver for markets [in the] last few weeks, the focus of investor agenda has been in the software sector. On today's podcast, we will talk about software in the credit markets and its implications. It's Monday, March 2nd at 10am in New York. Vishwas, let's start by understanding how the exposure in software manifests in the credit markets. How does it compare to software, say, in the equity market? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so the software exposure in credit markets is large, and understandably that's why investors are closely watching what's happening with software in the equity market. But what's interesting and important for investors to note is the exposure in credit is very different from what it is in equities. So, for instance, a good chunk of exposure in the credit market is around private issuers. So, we estimate about 80 percent of companies are private in the whole sample set that we looked at. And that's largely a function of the fact that software is not a big part of the more liquid spaces like Investment Grade and High Yield. But it is heavily represented in the more opaque parts of the market, like leveraged loans, CLOs, and, you know, BDCs. So, our analysis found that about 25 percent of BDC portfolios are in software, closely followed by private credit CLOs. And leveraged loan market was about 16 percent. So, that's an important distinction to keep in mind versus the equity market. The second thing I would flag is – because the software sector grew a lot in the loan market through the LBO wave of 2020 and 2021, it has a weaker credit quality skew to it than the overall market. So about 50 percent of borrowers in the sector are rated B - or lower. So, that's the lowest rungs of the rating spectrum. Many of these software deals were underwritten with higher leverage than the broad market. And as a result of that you also have more front-loaded maturities in the sector, which brings the risks of refinancing, if some of this disruption persists. But Vishy, that's a nice segue to you. Over the past couple of years, you looked at the private credit market in depth and that's where I think the exposure we found is the highest in BDCs, you know, which is the public face of private credit. So, in your assessment, what is the risk of software to private credit, given all of the headlines that are popping up? Vishy Tirupattur: Public face of private credit – Vishwas, that's a great line. BDCs – business development corporations for those who are not familiar – are companies that invest in the debt of small and medium sized companies, sourced through non-bank channels. BDCs fund themselves through equity and debt issuance. So, if you look at the portfolios of BDCs to look at their exposure to software, there's a wide variation across the various BDC portfolios. What makes the assessment of these software risks in BDCs challenging is that many of these companies are private companies without the reporting obligations of public companies. So, no earnings reports, no 10-Ks or cues or broadly publicly available financials look at. So, in effect, these companies need to be re underwritten to evaluate which of these companies would be disrupted from AI; and which companies could actually benefit from AI and see their margins expand. So, in the context of BDCs, liability spreads are something we are watching closely. BDC liability spreads have widened but we think more needs to happen there. The clearing levels need to wait for the full resolution of the companies that benefit and that get hurt by disruption that is still awaited. So, we expect credit spreads of BDCs to remain volatile for some time to come. Vishwas Patkar: Okay. So, seems like this is a significant, or at least a non-trivial risk factor for credit markets, given the growth of the sector, leverage, the skew and quality. But Vishy, do you think this could be systemic for risk markets at large? Vishy Tirupattur: So, I do think that this is a significant risk, but I don't think it's a systemic risk. The amount of leverage in BDC is fairly small. About 2x is the kind of leverage. You compare that to the kind of leverage that existed in the financial system before the financial crisis – that’s orders of magnitude smaller risk. And also the linkage to the banking system comes through the back leverage provided to the non-bank lenders. But this leverage is substantially risk remote with very high subordination levels. So, my conclusion here is this is a significant risk but not a systemic risk. So let me turn the same question to you, Vishwas. Taking on a sort of historical perspective as well as a macro perspective, how do you see this risk manifesting in the broader credit space? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so I would agree with you Vishy, that we need to see a valuation reset. We think spreads should go wider because of disruption concerns, even if they affect a relatively narrow part of the market. But a lot of that's happening against issuance that's rising. But I would say the risk of systemic concerns really emerging is relatively low. if you look at historical cycles where credit has been the weak link in the economy, those are typically characterized by a lot of corporate re-leveraging. So, think about the late 1990s or from 2004 to 2007 or the early 2000-teens. These are all cycles where corporates were being very aggressive, adding a lot of debt. And you know, when the economy slowed, credit became the source of some default and downgrade concerns. We haven't really seen that type of credit cycle play out at all in the past few years. If you look at corporate debt to GDP, for example, it's gone down each of the last five years. Balance sheet corporate leverage has been flat or actually gone lower in spots. M&A activity, which is usually a good indicator of corporate aggressiveness, still remains below trend. So, I think we have had a fairly restrained credit cycle where in place fundamentals are quite strong. And that's why I think the systemic contagion from any credit spread weakness, I think could be relatively muted. Vishy Tirupattur: So, the key takeaway from us is that software and credit is a significant risk but is not quite systemic risk. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/04fkhiwUaHwId9ekas_w27o7V0-vFbB8Cf78d12c0bgMon, 02 Mar 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and U.S. Head of Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar discuss the implications of private credit’s exposure to the software industry.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Head of Credit Strategy. Vishy Tirupattur: While potential disruption from AI has been a key driver for markets [in the] last few weeks, the focus of investor agenda has been in the software sector. On today's podcast, we will talk about software in the credit markets and its implications. It's Monday, March 2nd at 10am in New York. Vishwas, let's start by understanding how the exposure in software manifests in the credit markets. How does it compare to software, say, in the equity market? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so the software exposure in credit markets is large, and understandably that's why investors are closely watching what's happening with software in the equity market. But what's interesting and important for investors to note is the exposure in credit is very different from what it is in equities. So, for instance, a good chunk of exposure in the credit market is around private issuers. So, we estimate about 80 percent of companies are private in the whole sample set that we looked at. And that's largely a function of the fact that software is not a big part of the more liquid spaces like Investment Grade and High Yield. But it is heavily represented in the more opaque parts of the market, like leveraged loans, CLOs, and, you know, BDCs. So, our analysis found that about 25 percent of BDC portfolios are in software, closely followed by private credit CLOs. And leveraged loan market was about 16 percent. So, that's an important distinction to keep in mind versus the equity market. The second thing I would flag is – because the software sector grew a lot in the loan market through the LBO wave of 2020 and 2021, it has a weaker credit quality skew to it than the overall market. So about 50 percent of borrowers in the sector are rated B - or lower. So, that's the lowest rungs of the rating spectrum. Many of these software deals were underwritten with higher leverage than the broad market. And as a result of that you also have more front-loaded maturities in the sector, which brings the risks of refinancing, if some of this disruption persists. But Vishy, that's a nice segue to you. Over the past couple of years, you looked at the private credit market in depth and that's where I think the exposure we found is the highest in BDCs, you know, which is the public face of private credit. So, in your assessment, what is the risk of software to private credit, given all of the headlines that are popping up? Vishy Tirupattur: Public face of private credit – Vishwas, that's a great line. BDCs – business development corporations for those who are not familiar – are companies that invest in the debt of small and medium sized companies, sourced through non-bank channels. BDCs fund themselves through equity and debt issuance. So, if you look at the portfolios of BDCs to look at their exposure to software, there's a wide variation across the various BDC portfolios. What makes the assessment of these software risks in BDCs challenging is that many of these companies are private companies without the reporting obligations of public companies. So, no earnings reports, no 10-Ks or cues or broadly publicly available financials look at. So, in effect, these companies need to be re underwritten to evaluate which of these companies would be disrupted from AI; and which companies could actually benefit from AI and see their margins expand. So, in the context of BDCs, liability spreads are...]]>400alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1589fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-as-new-global-power--75645041insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Head of Global Research.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Michael Zezas: Today – is AI becoming the new anchor of geopolitical power?It's Wednesday, February 27th at noon in New York.So, Stephen, at the recent India AI Impact Summit, the U.S. laid out a vision to promote global AI adoption built around what it calls “real AI sovereignty.” Or strategic autonomy through integration with the American AI stack. But several nations from the global south and possibly parts of Europe – they appear skeptical of dependence on proprietary systems, citing concerns about control, explainability, and data ownership. And it appears that stake isn't just technology policy. It's the future structure of global power, economic stratification, and whether sovereign nations can realistically build competitive alternatives outside the U.S. and China.So, Stephen, you were there and you've been describing a growing chasm in the AI world in terms of access to strategies between the U.S. and much of the global south, and possibly Europe. So, from what you heard at the summit, what are the core points of disagreement driving that divide?Stephen Byrd: There definitely are areas of agreement; and we've seen a couple of high-profile agreements reached between the U.S. government and the Indian government just in the last several days. So there certainly is a lot of overlap. I point to the Pax Silica agreement that's so important to secure supply chains, to secure access to AI technology. I think the focus, for example, for India is, as you said; it is, you know, explainability, open access. I was really struck by Prime Minister Modi's focus on ensuring that all Indians have access to AI tools that can help them in their everyday life.You know, a really tangible example that really stuck with me is – someone in a remote village in India who has a medical condition and there's no doctor or nurse nearby using AI to, you know, take a photo of the condition, receive diagnosis, receive support, figure out what the next steps should be. That's very powerful. So, I'd say, open access explainability is very important.Now, the American hyperscalers are very much trying to serve the Indian market and serve the objectives really of the Indian government. And so, there are versions of their models that are open weights, that are being made freely available for health agencies in India, as an example; to the Indian government, as an example.So, there is an attempt to really serve a number of objectives, but I think this key is around open access, explainability, that I do see that there's a tension.Michael Zezas: So, let's talk about that a little bit more. Because it seems one of the concerns raised is this idea of being captive within proprietary Large Language Models. And maybe that includes the risk of having to pay more over time or losing control of citizen data. But, at the same time, you've described that there are some real benefits to AI that these countries want to adopt.So, what is effectively the tension between being captive to a model or the trade off instead for pursuing open and free models? Is it that there's a major quality difference? And is that trade off acceptable?Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so fascinating, Mike, is, you know, what we need to be thinking about is not just where the technology is today, but where is it in six months, 12 months, 24 months? And from my perspective, it's very clear. That the proprietary American models are going to be much, much more capable.So, let's put some numbers around that. The big five American firms have assembled about 10 times the compute to train their current LLMs compared to their prior LLMs, and that's a big deal. If the scaling laws hold, then a 10x increase in training compute to result in models are about twice as capable.Now just let that sink in for a minute, twice as capable from here. That's a big deal. And so, when we think about the benefit of deploying these models, whether it's in the life sciences or any number of other disciplines, those benefits could start to get very large. And the challenge for the open models will be – will they be able to keep up in terms of access to compute, to training, access to data to train those models? That's a big question.Now, again, there's room for both approaches and it's very possible for the Indian government to continue to experiment and really see which approach is going to serve their citizens the best. And I was really struck by just how focused the Indian government is on serving all of their citizens. Most notably, you know, the poorest of the poor in their nation. So, we'll just have to see.But the pure technologist would say that these proprietary models are going to be increasing capability much faster than the open-source models.So, Mike, let's pivot from the technology layer to the geopolitical layer because the U.S. strategy unveiled at the summit goes way beyond innovation.Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's a good point. And within this discussion of whether or not other countries will choose to pursue open models or more closely adhere to U.S. based models is really a question about how the United States exercises power globally and how it creates alliances going forward.Clearly some part of the strategy is that the U.S. assumes that if it has technology that's alluring to its partners, that they'll want to align with the U.S.’ broad goals globally. And that they'll want to be partners in supporting those goals, which of course are tied to AI development.So, the Pax Silica [agreement], which you mentioned earlier, is an interesting point here because this is clearly part of the U.S. strategy to develop relationships with other countries – such that the other countries get access to U.S. models and access to U.S. AI in general. And what the U.S. gets in return is access to supply chain, critical resources, labor, all the things that you need to further the AI build out. Particularly as the U.S. is trying to disassociate more and more from China, and the resources that China might have been able to bring to bear in an AI build out.Stephen Byrd: So, Mike, the U.S. framed “real AI sovereignty” as strategic autonomy rather than full self-sufficiency. So, essentially the. U.S. is encouraging nations to integrate components of the American AI stack. Now, from your perspective, Mike, from a macro and policy standpoint, how significant is that distinction?Michael Zezas: Well, I think it's extremely important. And clearly the U.S. views its AI strategy as not just economic strategy, but national security strategy.There are maybe some analogs to how the U.S. has been able to, over the past 80 years or so, use its dominance in military and military equipment to create a security umbrella that other countries want to be under. And do something similar with AI, which is if there is dominant technology and others want access to it for the societal or economic benefits, then that is going to help when you're negotiating with those countries on other things that you value – whether it be trade policy, foreign policy, sanctions versus another country. That type of thing.So, in a lot of ways, it seems like the U.S. is talking about AI and developing AI as an anchor asset to its power, in a way that military power has been that anchor asset for much of the post World War II period.Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so interesting, Mike, [be]cause you've highlighted before to me that you believe AI could replace weaponry as really the anchor asset for U.S. global power. Almost a tech equivalent of a defense umbrella.So how durable is that strategy, especially given that some countries are expressing unease about dependency?Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's really hard to know, and I think the tension you and I talked about earlier, Stephen, about whether countries will be willing to make the trade off for access to superior AI models versus open and free models that might be inferior, that'll tell us if this is a viable strategy or not. And it appears like this is still playing out because, correct me if I'm wrong, it's not like we've received some very clear signals from India or other countries about their willingness to make that trade off.Stephen Byrd: No, I think that's right. And just building on the concept of the trade-offs and, sort of, the standard for AI deployment, you know, the U.S. has explicitly rejected centralized global AI governance in favor of national control aligned with domestic values.So, what does that signal about how global technology standards may evolve, particularly as in the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, works to develop interoperable standards for agentic AI systems.Michael Zezas: Yeah, Stephen, I think it's hard to know. It might be that the U.S. is okay with other countries having substantial degrees of freedom with how they use U.S.-based AI models because they could use U.S. law to, at a later date, change how those models are being used – if there's a use case that comes out of it that they find is against U.S. values. Similar in some way to how the U.S. dollar being the predominant currency and, therefore, being the predominant payment system globally, gives the U.S. degrees of freedom to impose sanctions and limit other types of economic transactions when it's in the U.S. interest.So, I don't know that t]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/l4ku4GYQht9Y9Ao1cq_0NR-UyWT-5L-FDCf2SiGszfsFri, 27 Feb 2026 17:30:00 +0000gtyOur Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas and Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research, discuss how the U.S. is positioning AI as a pillar of geopolitical influence and what that means for nations and investors.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Head of Global Research.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Michael Zezas: Today – is AI becoming the new anchor of geopolitical power?It's Wednesday, February 27th at noon in New York.So, Stephen, at the recent India AI Impact Summit, the U.S. laid out a vision to promote global AI adoption built around what it calls “real AI sovereignty.” Or strategic autonomy through integration with the American AI stack. But several nations from the global south and possibly parts of Europe – they appear skeptical of dependence on proprietary systems, citing concerns about control, explainability, and data ownership. And it appears that stake isn't just technology policy. It's the future structure of global power, economic stratification, and whether sovereign nations can realistically build competitive alternatives outside the U.S. and China.So, Stephen, you were there and you've been describing a growing chasm in the AI world in terms of access to strategies between the U.S. and much of the global south, and possibly Europe. So, from what you heard at the summit, what are the core points of disagreement driving that divide?Stephen Byrd: There definitely are areas of agreement; and we've seen a couple of high-profile agreements reached between the U.S. government and the Indian government just in the last several days. So there certainly is a lot of overlap. I point to the Pax Silica agreement that's so important to secure supply chains, to secure access to AI technology. I think the focus, for example, for India is, as you said; it is, you know, explainability, open access. I was really struck by Prime Minister Modi's focus on ensuring that all Indians have access to AI tools that can help them in their everyday life.You know, a really tangible example that really stuck with me is – someone in a remote village in India who has a medical condition and there's no doctor or nurse nearby using AI to, you know, take a photo of the condition, receive diagnosis, receive support, figure out what the next steps should be. That's very powerful. So, I'd say, open access explainability is very important.Now, the American hyperscalers are very much trying to serve the Indian market and serve the objectives really of the Indian government. And so, there are versions of their models that are open weights, that are being made freely available for health agencies in India, as an example; to the Indian government, as an example.So, there is an attempt to really serve a number of objectives, but I think this key is around open access, explainability, that I do see that there's a tension.Michael Zezas: So, let's talk about that a little bit more. Because it seems one of the concerns raised is this idea of being captive within proprietary Large Language Models. And maybe that includes the risk of having to pay more over time or losing control of citizen data. But, at the same time, you've described that there are some real benefits to AI that these countries want to adopt.So, what is effectively the tension between being captive to a model or the trade off instead for pursuing open and free models? Is it that there's a major quality difference? And is that trade off acceptable?Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so fascinating, Mike, is, you know, what we need to be thinking about is not just where the technology is today, but where is it in six months, 12 months, 24 months? And...]]>791alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1586fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/oil-rallies-on-fresh-uncertainty--75644989----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.Today – what’s fueling the latest oil market rally.It’s Thursday, February 26th, at 3pm in London.What happens when oil prices jump, even though there’s no actual shortage of oil? That’s the situation we’re in right now. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated again. Naturally, markets are paying attention.Over the past week, Brent crude rose about $3 to around $72 per barrel. WTI climbed into the mid-$60s. Shipping costs surged. And traders have started paying a premium for protection against a sudden oil spike – the levels we haven’t seen since the early days of the Ukrainian invasion.But here’s the key point: there’s no clear evidence that global oil supply has tightened. Exports are still flowing. Tankers are still moving. And some near-term indicators of physical tightness have actually softened. When oil is truly scarce, buyers scramble for immediate barrels and short-term prices spike relative to future delivery. Instead, those spreads have narrowed, and physical premiums have eased.This isn’t a supply shock. It’s a risk premium. In simple terms, investors are buying insurance. So what could happen next? We see four broad scenarios.Before I outline them though, here’s something we do not see as a core case: a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 15 million barrels per day of crude and another 5 million of refined product moves through that corridor. A sustained shutdown would be enormously disruptive. But we think the probability is very low.Now coming back to our four scenarios. The first is straightforward. A negotiated settlement; conflict is avoided. Iranian exports continue and shipping lanes remain open. In that scenario, what unwinds is the geopolitical risk premium – which we estimate at roughly $7 to $9 per barrel. If that fades, Brent could drift back to the low-to-mid $60s, similar to past episodes where prices spiked on fear and then retraced once supply proves unaffected.Second, we could see short-lived frictions – shipping delays, higher insurance costs, temporary logistical issues. That might remove a few hundred thousand barrels per day for, say, a few weeks.. Prices could briefly spike into the $75–80 range. But balancing forces would kick in relatively quickly. For example, China has been building inventories at a steady pace. At higher prices, that stockbuilding would likely slow, helping offset temporary disruptions. That points to some further upside in prices – but then normalization.The third scenario is more serious, but still contained: localized export losses of perhaps 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day for a month or two. Prices would stay elevated longer, but spare capacity and demand adjustments could eventually stabilize the market.Now our last scenario is the more serious and considers a potential shipping shock. The real risk here isn’t wells shutting down – it’s shipping disruption. Global trade of crude oil depends on efficient tanker movement. If transit times were extended even modestly, effective shipping capacity could fall sharply, creating what amounts to a temporary tightening of about 2 to 3 million barrels per day – or about 6 percent of global seaborne supply. That is a logistics shock, not a production outage – but it would push prices toward early-2022-type levels, at least briefly.Now let’s zoom out. Beyond geopolitics, the fundamentals look weak. OPEC+ supply is rising, and our forecasts show a sizable surplus building in 2026. Even if some of that oil ends up in China’s stockpiles, a lot would still likely flow into core OECD inventories. Historically, when the market looks like this, prices tend to fall, not rise.Which brings us back to the central point. Oil isn’t rallying because the world has run out of barrels. It’s rallying because markets are pricing geopolitical risk. And unless that risk turns into actual, sustained disruption, insurance premiums tend to expire.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.This podcast references jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/502zzU0ayp-XooHiCgO-B6J8u4OpwX-AcGMMoZPfCVYThu, 26 Feb 2026 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the geopolitical drivers behind the recent spike in oil prices and outlines four Iran scenarios.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.Today – what’s fueling the latest oil market rally.It’s Thursday, February 26th, at 3pm in London.What happens when oil prices jump, even though there’s no actual shortage of oil? That’s the situation we’re in right now. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated again. Naturally, markets are paying attention.Over the past week, Brent crude rose about $3 to around $72 per barrel. WTI climbed into the mid-$60s. Shipping costs surged. And traders have started paying a premium for protection against a sudden oil spike – the levels we haven’t seen since the early days of the Ukrainian invasion.But here’s the key point: there’s no clear evidence that global oil supply has tightened. Exports are still flowing. Tankers are still moving. And some near-term indicators of physical tightness have actually softened. When oil is truly scarce, buyers scramble for immediate barrels and short-term prices spike relative to future delivery. Instead, those spreads have narrowed, and physical premiums have eased.This isn’t a supply shock. It’s a risk premium. In simple terms, investors are buying insurance. So what could happen next? We see four broad scenarios.Before I outline them though, here’s something we do not see as a core case: a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 15 million barrels per day of crude and another 5 million of refined product moves through that corridor. A sustained shutdown would be enormously disruptive. But we think the probability is very low.Now coming back to our four scenarios. The first is straightforward. A negotiated settlement; conflict is avoided. Iranian exports continue and shipping lanes remain open. In that scenario, what unwinds is the geopolitical risk premium – which we estimate at roughly $7 to $9 per barrel. If that fades, Brent could drift back to the low-to-mid $60s, similar to past episodes where prices spiked on fear and then retraced once supply proves unaffected.Second, we could see short-lived frictions – shipping delays, higher insurance costs, temporary logistical issues. That might remove a few hundred thousand barrels per day for, say, a few weeks.. Prices could briefly spike into the $75–80 range. But balancing forces would kick in relatively quickly. For example, China has been building inventories at a steady pace. At higher prices, that stockbuilding would likely slow, helping offset temporary disruptions. That points to some further upside in prices – but then normalization.The third scenario is more serious, but still contained: localized export losses of perhaps 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day for a month or two. Prices would stay elevated longer, but spare capacity and demand adjustments could eventually stabilize the market.Now our last scenario is the more serious and considers a potential shipping shock. The real risk here isn’t wells shutting down – it’s shipping disruption. Global trade of crude oil depends on efficient tanker movement. If transit times were extended even modestly, effective shipping capacity could fall sharply, creating what amounts to a temporary tightening of about 2 to 3 million barrels per day – or about 6 percent of global seaborne supply. That is a logistics shock, not a production outage – but it would push prices toward early-2022-type levels, at least briefly.Now let’s zoom out. Beyond geopolitics, the fundamentals look weak. OPEC+ supply is rising, and our forecasts show a sizable surplus building in 2026. Even if some of that oil ends up in China’s stockpiles, a lot would still likely flow into core OECD inventories. Historically, when the market looks like this, prices tend to fall, not rise.Which...]]>296alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1588fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-for-better-or-warsh--75644998insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view.  For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there's a huge amount of influence, let's say, there. But in order to actually get a specific outcome, there really is a vote. And we only have to look back a couple weeks to the last FOMC meeting when there were two dissents against the policy decision. So, dissents are not super common. They don't happen at every single meeting, but they're not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination either. And if we go back over the past few years, lots going on with inflation and how the economy was going was uncertain. Chair Powell took some dissents. If we go back to the financial crisis Chair Bernanke took a bunch of dissents. If we go back even further through time, Paul Volcker, when he was there trying to staunch the flow of the high inflation of the 1970s, faced a lot of resistance within his committee. And reportedly threatened to quit if he couldn't get his way. And had to be very aggressive in trying to bring the committee along. So, the chair has to find a way to bring the committee along with the plan that the chair wants to execute. Lots of tools at their disposal, but not endless power or influence. Does that make sense? Andrew Sheets: That makes complete sense.  So, maybe my final question, Seth, is this is a tough job. This is a tough job in… Seth Carpenter: You mean your job and my job, or… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Not at all. The chair of the Fed. And it seems especially tricky now. You know, inflation is above the Fed's target. Interest rates are still elevated. You know, certainly mortgage rates are still higher than a lot of Americans are used to over the last several years. And asset prices are high. You know, the valuation of the equity market is high. The level of credit spreads is tight. So, you could say, well, financial conditions are already quite easy, which can create some complications. I am sure Kevin Warsh is receiving lots of advice from lots of different angles. But, you know, if you think about what you've seen from the Fed over the years, what would be your advice to a new Fed chair – and to navigate some of these challenges? Seth Carpenter: I think first and foremost, you are absolutely right. This is a tough job in the best of times, and we are in some of the most difficult and difficult to understand macroeconomic times right now. So, you noted interest rates being high, mortgage rates being high. There's very much an eye of the beholder phenomenon going on here. Now you're younger than I am. The first mortgage I had. It was eight and a half percent. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: I bought a house in 2000 or something like that. So, by those standards, mortgage rates are actually quite low. So, it really comes down to a little bit of what you're used to. And I think that fact translates into lots of other places. So, inflation is now much higher than the committee's target. Call it 3 percent inflation instead core inflation on PCE, rather than 2 percent inflation target. Now, on the one hand that's clearly missing their target and the Fed has been missing their target for years. And we know that tariffs are pushing up inflation, at least for consumer goods. And Chair Powell and this committee have said they get that. They think that inflation will be temporary, and so they're going to look through that inflation. So again, there's a lot of judgment going on here. The labor market is quite weak. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: We don't have the latest months worth of job market data because of the government shutdown; that'll be delayed by a few days. But we know that at the end of last year, non-farm payrolls were running well below 50,000. Under most circumstances, you would say that is a clear indication of a super weak economy. But! But if we look at aggregate spending data, GDP, private-domestic final purchases, consumer spending, CapEx spending. It's actually pretty solid right now. And so again, that sense of judgment; what's the signal you're going to look for? That's very, very difficult right now, and that's part of what the chair is going to have to do to try to bring the committee together, in order to come to a decision.  So, one intellectually coherent argument is – the main way you could get strong aggregate demand, strong spending numbers, strong GDP numbers, but with pretty tepid labor force growth is if productivity is running higher and if productivity is going higher because of AI, for example, over time you could easily expect that to be disinflationary. And if it's disinflationary, then you can cut it. Interest rates now. Not worry as much as you would normally about high inflation. And so, the result could be a lower path for policy rates. So that's one version of the argument that I suspect you're going to hear. On the other hand, inflation is high and it's been high for years. So what does that mean? Well. History suggests that if inflation stays too high for too long, inflation psychology starts to change the way busin]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/k4JLxgSlEdASfke0_TYk7D12Iyy6ppojumshbYg28zoThu, 26 Feb 2026 01:30:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: Feb 6, 2026Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view.  For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a...]]>742alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1587fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-stocks-keep-rising-despite-ai-anxiety--75645011insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing recent concerns around AI disruption. It's Tuesday, February 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. Last week you could feel it, that anxious undercurrent in the market. The headlines were noisy, volatility ticked higher, and AI disruption, once again, dominated investor conversations. But beneath the surface level unease something important happened. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index pushed to a new relative high, keeping our broadening thesis alive and well. On one hand, investors are worried about AI driven disruption, CapEx intensity, and potential labor force reductions. On the other hand, capital is still flowing into formerly lagging areas of the market, just as the median stock is seeing its strongest earnings growth in four years. Let's unpack this. First, there's concern AI will lead to job losses. But even if that's the case, there's typically a phase-in period. Companies don't just eliminate labor overnight. Importantly, before these productivity gains are fully realized, we need broad enterprise adoption. That means building out the agentic application layer, integrating AI into workflows, retraining systems and processes. That takes time, and it is still early days in that regard. Second, what we're seeing now is typical of a major investment cycle. Volatility increases as markets challenge the pace of unbridled spending. Dispersion increases as investors debate winners and losers. Leadership rotates, sometimes sharply. There's also something different this time compared to the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Today we're in an early cycle earnings backdrop. We've just emerged from what was effectively a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. So, as capital rotates out of the perceived structural losers, it's not just chasing long-term AI beneficiaries, it's also finding classic cyclical winners. On the losing side is long duration services-oriented sectors, particularly software. These areas are more sensitive to uncertainty around longer term cash flows. This area also has a large overhang of private capital deployed over the last 10 to 15 years. There are other forces at play too. Small cap growth, arguably the longest duration segment of the market, began breaking down in late January around the time Kevin Warsh was nominated as Fed chair. While major indices barely reacted, more speculative areas may be responding to expectations of tighter liquidity given Warsh’s, reputation as a balance sheet hawk. Finally, equity markets are typically more volatile when new Fed chairs assume office. Bottom line, our broader thesis of an early cycle rolling recovery remains intact. Market internals are supportive even if index level action feels choppy. That said, near term volatility is likely to persist as we enter a weaker seasonal window for retail demand, while liquidity remains ample, but far from abundant. With this backdrop, a quality cyclical barbell with healthcare makes sense. In small caps, the higher quality S&P 600 looks more attractive than the Russell 2000. And any short-term volatility could present opportunities to add exposure in preferred cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Industrials, and Financials. Of course, risks remain. AI adoption could accelerate faster than expected, pressuring labor markets more abruptly. Pricing power could erode as efficiency spread, and policy makers could react in ways that slow the CapEx cycle while crowded momentum positioning remains vulnerable. Nevertheless, the signal from the internals is clear. Beneath the volatility this looks less like a market rolling over, and more like one that is confirming an early cycle economic expansion. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Gb6FDZwgk7vqQHBuBOKxU7_yXNxJkl0Xy0c-fOxqymITue, 24 Feb 2026 22:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he still believes in a growth cycle for equity markets, even as investors show growing concerns around AI.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing recent concerns around AI disruption. It's Tuesday, February 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. Last week you could feel it, that anxious undercurrent in the market. The headlines were noisy, volatility ticked higher, and AI disruption, once again, dominated investor conversations. But beneath the surface level unease something important happened. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index pushed to a new relative high, keeping our broadening thesis alive and well. On one hand, investors are worried about AI driven disruption, CapEx intensity, and potential labor force reductions. On the other hand, capital is still flowing into formerly lagging areas of the market, just as the median stock is seeing its strongest earnings growth in four years. Let's unpack this. First, there's concern AI will lead to job losses. But even if that's the case, there's typically a phase-in period. Companies don't just eliminate labor overnight. Importantly, before these productivity gains are fully realized, we need broad enterprise adoption. That means building out the agentic application layer, integrating AI into workflows, retraining systems and processes. That takes time, and it is still early days in that regard. Second, what we're seeing now is typical of a major investment cycle. Volatility increases as markets challenge the pace of unbridled spending. Dispersion increases as investors debate winners and losers. Leadership rotates, sometimes sharply. There's also something different this time compared to the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Today we're in an early cycle earnings backdrop. We've just emerged from what was effectively a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. So, as capital rotates out of the perceived structural losers, it's not just chasing long-term AI beneficiaries, it's also finding classic cyclical winners. On the losing side is long duration services-oriented sectors, particularly software. These areas are more sensitive to uncertainty around longer term cash flows. This area also has a large overhang of private capital deployed over the last 10 to 15 years. There are other forces at play too. Small cap growth, arguably the longest duration segment of the market, began breaking down in late January around the time Kevin Warsh was nominated as Fed chair. While major indices barely reacted, more speculative areas may be responding to expectations of tighter liquidity given Warsh’s, reputation as a balance sheet hawk. Finally, equity markets are typically more volatile when new Fed chairs assume office. Bottom line, our broader thesis of an early cycle rolling recovery remains intact. Market internals are supportive even if index level action feels choppy. That said, near term volatility is likely to persist as we enter a weaker seasonal window for retail demand, while liquidity remains ample, but far from abundant. With this backdrop, a quality cyclical barbell with healthcare makes sense. In small caps, the higher quality S&P 600 looks more attractive than the Russell 2000. And any short-term volatility could present opportunities to add exposure in preferred cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Industrials, and Financials. Of course, risks remain. AI adoption could accelerate faster than expected, pressuring labor markets more abruptly. Pricing power could erode as efficiency spread, and policy makers could react in ways that slow the CapEx cycle while crowded...]]>280alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1585fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-trade-in-flux-what-s-next-after-tariff-ruling--75644977insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TQxXsheQ47Ja7mcmoa614qWBXVqtJRVttMCPTzNqs60Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyThe Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something...]]>437alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1584fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-at-work-the-transformation-is-already-underway--75645034insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market. It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London. You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills. Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos. We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption. In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging. Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting. Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies. If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027. In our survey, the most frequently cited goals of AI deployment in the U.S. are boosting productivity, personalizing customer interactions, and accelerating data insights. Other common use cases include search, content generation, dashboards, and virtual agents. What's becoming clear is AI is no longer theoretical. Our survey data suggests that it is reshaping hiring, productivity and margins. The investor question is not whether AI matters, but who captures the value. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/GJlFtKhI9cxokpogXqgMrTCd0adFFuL1NLe5i-mXerwFri, 20 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of European Sustainability Research Rachel Fletcher talks about how AI’s is quickly reshaping employment and productivity across key industries and regions.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market. It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London. You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills. Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos. We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption. In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging. Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting. Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies. If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027. In our survey, the most frequently cited...]]>287alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1583fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/could-the-u-s-target-a-weaker-dollar--75645003insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got  news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to  Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter.    So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy,  that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in  standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government  adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean?  It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague,  deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means,  presumably the sort of ambiguity still  leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's  global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy?  Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is.So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time. I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, consistent view in this regard, in the following very specific sense. When now Governor Myron was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, he penned a piece on the Council of Economics website that said that the reserve currency status of the dollar had brought with it some adverse effects on the U.S., and in terms of what happened in terms of trade flows and that sort of thing.So again, this administration has also tried to find ways to increase the nuance about what the currency policy is, and putting forward the idea that too strong of a dollar in the FX sense. In the sense that you and your colleagues in FX markets would think about is a high valuation of the dollar relative to other currencies – could have contributed to these trade deficits that they're trying to push back against. So, I would say we went from the previous broad, perhaps vague definition of strong dollar. And now we're in an even murkier regime where there could be other motivations for changing the value of the dollar. Seth Carpenter:  So, James, that's been our view in terms of the Fed, but let me come back to you because there are lots of different forces going on at the same time. The central bank is clearly an important one, but it's only one factor among many. So, if you think about where the dollar is likely to go over the next three months, over the next six months, maybe over the next year, what is it that you and your team are looking for? Where are the questions that you're getting from clients? James Lord: Yeah, so when we came into the start of this year, we did have a bearish view on the dollar. I would say that the drivers of it, we'd split up into two components. The first component was a lot more of the conventional stuff about growth expectations, what we see the Fed doing. And then there was another component to it where – what we defined as risk premia, I suppose. The more unconventional catalysts that can push the dollar around, as we saw, come very much to market attention during the second quarter of last year, when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced and the dollar weakened far in excess of what rate differentials would imply. And so, I would say so far this year, the majority of the dollar move that we've seen, the weakening in the dollar that we've seen, has been driven by that second component. What we've kind of called risk premia. And the conversations that, you know, investors have been having about U.S. policy towards Greenland, and then more recently, the conversations that people have been having around FX intervention following the dollar-yen rate check. These sorts of things have been really driving the currency up until , when the Kevin Warsh nomination was announced. When we look at the extent of the risk premia that we see in the dollar now, it is pretty close to the levels that we saw in the second quarter of last year, which is to say it's pretty big. Euro dollar would probably be closer to 1-10, if we were just thinking about the impact of rate differentials and none of this risk premia stuff over the past year had materialized. That's obviously a very big gap. And I think for now that gap probably isn't going to widen much further, particularly now that  market attention is much more focused on the impact that Kevin Warsh will have on markets and the dollar. We also have, you know, the ECB and the Bank of England;  , house call for those two central banks is for them to be cutting rates.    That could also put some downward pressure on those currencies, relative to the dollar. So all of that is to say for some of the major currencies within the G10 space, like sterling, like euro against the dollar, this probably isn't the time to be pushing a weaker dollar. But I think there are some other currencies which still have some opportunity in the short term, but also over the longer run as well. And that's really in emerging markets. So all of that is to say, I think there is a strong monetary policy anchor for emerging market currencies. This is an asset class that has been under invested in for some time. And we do think that there are more gains there in the short term and over the medium term as well. Seth Carpenter: So on that topic, James, would you then agree? So if I think about some of the EM central banks, think about Banxico, think about the BCB – where the dollar falling in value, their currency gaining in value – that could actually have a couple things go on to allow the central bank, maybe to ease more than they would've otherwise. One, in terms of imported inflation, their currency strengthening on a relative basis probably helps with a bit lower inflation. And secondly, a lot of EM central banks have to worry a bit about defending their currency, especially in a volatile geopolitical time. And you were pointing to sort of lower volatility more broadly. So is this a reinforcing trend perhaps, where if the dollar is coming down a little bit, especially against DM currencies, it allows more external stability for those central banks, allowing them to just focus]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZZsM9as4-3XIQqrcUrQ06de6TraG6waHbxEhZ9SZf9gThu, 19 Feb 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what’s driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got  news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to  Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter.    So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy,  that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in  standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government  adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean?  It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague,  deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means,  presumably the sort of ambiguity still  leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's  global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you...]]>645alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1582fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-political-cost-of-the-ai-buildout--75644969insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZwwxeoSH3A05mnRYe9U6iconQNUU9usury59L9h3gJMWed, 18 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyMore Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns...]]>260alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1581fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-novel-way-to-shop-online--75645062insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet ResearchNathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst.Brian Nowak: Today, how AI-powered shopping assistants are set to revolutionize the e-commerce experience.It's Tuesday, February 17th at 8am in New York.Nathan, let's talk a little bit about agentic commerce. When was the last time you reordered groceries? Or bought household packaged goods? Or compared prices for items you [b]ought online and said, ‘Boy, I wish there was an easier way to do this. I wish technology could solve this for me.’Nathan Feather: Yeah. Yesterday, about 24 hours ago.Brian Nowak: Well, our work on agentic commerce shows a lot of these capabilities could be [coming] sooner than a lot of people appreciate. We believe that agentic commerce could grow to be 10 to 20 percent of overall U.S. e-commerce by 2030, and potentially add 100 to 300 basis points of overall growth to e-commerce.There are certain categories of spend we think are going to be particularly large unlocks for agentic commerce. I mentioned grocery, I mentioned household essentials. We think these are some of the items that agentic commerce is really going to drive a further digitization of over the next five years.So maybe Nathan, let's start at the very top. Our work we did together shows that 40 to 50 percent of consumers in the U.S. already use different AI tools for product research, but only a mid single digit percentage of them are actually really starting their shopping journey or buying things today. What does that gap tell you about the agentic opportunity and some of the hurdles we have to overcome to close that gap from research to actual purchasing?Nathan Feather: Well, I think what it shows is that clearly there is demand from consumers for these products. We think agentic opens up both evolutionary and revolutionary ways to shop online for consumers. But at the moment, the tools aren't fully developed and the consumer behavior isn't yet there. And so, we think it'll take time for these tools to develop. But once they do, it's clear that the consumer use case is there and you'll start to see adoption.And building on that, Brian, on the large cap side, you've done a lot of work here on how the shopping funnel itself could evolve. Traditionally discovery has flowed through search, social or direct traffic. Now we're seeing agents begin to sit in the start of the funnel acting as the gatekeeper to the transaction. For the biggest platforms with massive reach, how meaningful is that shift?Brian Nowak: It is very meaningful. And I think that this agentic shift in how people research products, price compare products, purchase products, is going to lead to even more advertis[ing] and value creation opportunity for the big social media platforms, for the big video platforms. Because essentially these big platforms that have large corpuses of users, spending a lot of time on them are going to be more important than ever for companies that want to launch new products. Companies that want to introduce their products to new customers.People that want to start new businesses entirely, it's going to be harder to reach new potential customers in an agentic world. So, I think some of these leading social and reach based video platforms are going to go up in value and you'll see more spend on those for people to build awareness around new and existing products.On this point of the products, you know, our work shows that grocery and consumer packaged goods are probably going to be one of the largest category unlocks. You know, we already know that over 50 percent of incremental e-commerce growth in the U.S. is going to come from grocery and CPG. And we think agentic is going to be a similar dynamic where grocery and CPG is going to drive a lot of agentic spend.Why do you think that is? And sort of walk us through, what has to happen in your mind for people to really pivot and start using agents to shop for their weekly grocery basket?Nathan Feather: I think one of the key things about the grocery category is it's a very high friction category online. You have to go through and select each individual ingredient you want [in] the order, ensure that you have the right brand, the right number of units, and ensure that the substitutions – when somebody actually gets to the store – are correct.And so for a user, it just takes a substantial amount of time to build a basket for online grocery. We think agentic can change that by becoming your personal digital shopper. You can say something as simple as, ‘I want to make steak tacos for dinner.’ And it can add all of the ingredients you want to your order. Go from the grocery store you like. And hey, it'll know your preferences. It'll know you already like a certain brand of tortillas, and it'll add those to the cart. And so it just dramatically reduces the friction.Now, that will take time to build the tools. The tools aren't there today, but we think that can come sooner than people expect. Even over the next one to two years that you start to get this revolutionary grocery experience.And so, it's coming. And from your perspective, Brian, once agentic grocery shopping does start to work, how does that impact the broader e-commerce adoption curve? Does it pull forward agentic behavior in other categories as well?Brian Nowak: I think it does. I think it does lead to more durable multi-year, overall e-commerce growth. And potentially in some of our more bull case scenarios, we've built out – even an acceleration in e-commerce growth, even though the numbers and the dollars added are getting larger. But there is some tension around profitability.We are in a world where a lot of e-commerce companies, they generate an outsized percentage of their profit from advertising and retail media that is attached to current transactions. Agentic commerce and agents wedging themself between the consumer and these platforms potentially put some of these high-margin retail media ad dollars at risk.So talk us through some of the math that we've run on that potential risk to any of the companies that are feeding into these agents for people to shop through.Nathan Feather: Well, in our work for most e-commerce companies, a majority – or sometimes even all – of their e-commerce profitability comes from the advertising side. And so this is the key profit pool for e-commerce. To the extent that goes away, there is one potential offset here, which is the lower fee that agentic offers for companies that currently have high marketing spend. To the extent that agentic offers a lower take rate, that could be an offset.But we think it's going to be very important for companies to monitor the retail media landscape and ensure they can try to keep direct traffic as best as possible. And things like onsite agents could be really important to making sure you're staying top of mind and owning that customer relationship.Now, on the platform side, search today captures an implied take rates that are 5-10 times higher than what we're seeing in the early agentic transaction fees. If this model does shift from CPC – or cost per click – towards a more commission based model, Brian, how do you think search platforms respond?Brian Nowak: I think the punchline is the percentage of traffic and transactions that retailers or brands or companies selling their items online that's paid is going to go up. You know, while search is a relatively more expensive channel on a per transaction basis, search works because there's a very large amount of unpaid and direct traffic that retailers benefit from post the first time they spend on search.Just some math on this. We're still at a situation where 80 percent of retailers' online traffic is free. Or direct. And so if we do get into a situation where there's a transition from a higher monetizing per transaction search to a lower monetizing per transaction agent, I would expect the search platforms to react by essentially making it more challenging to get free and direct and unpaid traffic. And we'll have that transition from more transactions at a lower rate; as opposed to fewer transactions at a higher rate, which is what we have now,Nathan, in our work, we also talked about a Five I’s framework. We talked about inventory, infrastructure, innovation, incrementality and income statement, sort of a retailer framework to assess positioning within the agentic transition. Maybe walk us through what your big takeaways were from the Five I’s framework and what it means that retailers need to be mindful of throughout this agentic transition.Nathan Feather: Well, for retailers, I think it's going to be very important that you're winning by differentiation. Having unique, competitively priced inventory with infrastructure that can fulfill that quickly to the consumer and critically staying on the leading edge of innovation.It's one thing to have the inventory. It's another thing to be able to be actively plugged into these agentic tools and make sure you're developing good experiences for your customers that actually are on this cutting edge. In addition, it's one thing to have all of that, but you want to make sure there's also incrementality opportunity.So [the] ability to go out, expand the TAM and gain market share. And of course what we just talked about with the margin risk, I think all of those are going to be very important. And so on balance for retailers, we do see a lot of opportunity. That's balanced with a lot of risk. But this is]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YFnGv86uGxTuJBfpmAHlJVOWkemsvp49zirH_yH-up8Tue, 17 Feb 2026 23:30:00 +0000gtyOur Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak joins U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst Nathan Feather to explain why the future of agentic commerce is closer than you think.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet ResearchNathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst.Brian Nowak: Today, how AI-powered shopping assistants are set to revolutionize the e-commerce experience.It's Tuesday, February 17th at 8am in New York.Nathan, let's talk a little bit about agentic commerce. When was the last time you reordered groceries? Or bought household packaged goods? Or compared prices for items you [b]ought online and said, ‘Boy, I wish there was an easier way to do this. I wish technology could solve this for me.’Nathan Feather: Yeah. Yesterday, about 24 hours ago.Brian Nowak: Well, our work on agentic commerce shows a lot of these capabilities could be [coming] sooner than a lot of people appreciate. We believe that agentic commerce could grow to be 10 to 20 percent of overall U.S. e-commerce by 2030, and potentially add 100 to 300 basis points of overall growth to e-commerce.There are certain categories of spend we think are going to be particularly large unlocks for agentic commerce. I mentioned grocery, I mentioned household essentials. We think these are some of the items that agentic commerce is really going to drive a further digitization of over the next five years.So maybe Nathan, let's start at the very top. Our work we did together shows that 40 to 50 percent of consumers in the U.S. already use different AI tools for product research, but only a mid single digit percentage of them are actually really starting their shopping journey or buying things today. What does that gap tell you about the agentic opportunity and some of the hurdles we have to overcome to close that gap from research to actual purchasing?Nathan Feather: Well, I think what it shows is that clearly there is demand from consumers for these products. We think agentic opens up both evolutionary and revolutionary ways to shop online for consumers. But at the moment, the tools aren't fully developed and the consumer behavior isn't yet there. And so, we think it'll take time for these tools to develop. But once they do, it's clear that the consumer use case is there and you'll start to see adoption.And building on that, Brian, on the large cap side, you've done a lot of work here on how the shopping funnel itself could evolve. Traditionally discovery has flowed through search, social or direct traffic. Now we're seeing agents begin to sit in the start of the funnel acting as the gatekeeper to the transaction. For the biggest platforms with massive reach, how meaningful is that shift?Brian Nowak: It is very meaningful. And I think that this agentic shift in how people research products, price compare products, purchase products, is going to lead to even more advertis[ing] and value creation opportunity for the big social media platforms, for the big video platforms. Because essentially these big platforms that have large corpuses of users, spending a lot of time on them are going to be more important than ever for companies that want to launch new products. Companies that want to introduce their products to new customers.People that want to start new businesses entirely, it's going to be harder to reach new potential customers in an agentic world. So, I think some of these leading social and reach based video platforms are going to go up in value and you'll see more spend on those for people to build awareness around new and existing products.On this point of the products, you know, our work shows that grocery and consumer packaged goods are probably going to be one...]]>681alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1580fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/introducing-hard-lessons--75645042favorite platform.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/z6orgVEMGlsnxbhIduw3er62iorY4-M31AahO05BlxoMon, 16 Feb 2026 18:00:00 +0000gtyIconic investors sit down with Morgan Stanley leaders to go behind the scenes on the critical moments – both successes and setbacks – that shaped who they are today.Watch and listen to the series on your...favorite platform.
]]>141alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1580bonushttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-a-tariff-ruling-could-mean-consumer-relief--75644996insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Today: How a single Supreme Court ruling could change the tariff math for U.S. consumers.It's Friday, February 13th at 10am in New York.The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. president has legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. That decision could come as soon as next Friday. IEEPA, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is the legal backbone for a significant share of today's consumer goods tariffs. If the Supreme Court limits how it can be used, tariffs on many everyday items could fall quickly – affecting prices on the shelf, margins for retailers, and the broader inflation outlook.As of now, effective tariff rates on consumer goods are running about 15 percent, and that's based on late 2025 November data. And that's quite a bit higher than the roughly 10 percent average, which we're seeing as tariffs on all goods. In a post IEEPA scenario, we think that the effective tariff rate on consumer goods could fall to the mid-11 percent range.It's not zero, but it is meaningfully lower.An important caveat is that this is not going to be eliminating all tariffs. Other trade tools – like Section 232s, which are the national security tariffs, Section 301s, the tariffs that are related to unfair trade practices – would remain in place. Autos and metals, for example, are largely outside the IEEPA discussion.The main pressure point we think is consumer goods. IEEPA has been used for two major sets of tariffs. The fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and the so-called reciprocal tariffs applied broadly across trading partners. And these often stack on top of the existing tariffs, such as the MFN, the Most Favored Nation rates, and the section 301 duties on China that were already existing before 2025.The exposure is really concentrated in certain categories of consumer goods. So, for example, in apparel and footwear, about 60 percent of the applied tariffs are IEEPA related. For furniture and home improvement, it's over 70 percent. For toys, games, and sporting equipment, it's more than 90 percent. So, if the IEEPA authority is curtailed, the category level effects would be meaningful.There are caveats, of course. The court's decision may not be all or nothing. And policymakers could turn to alternative authorities. One example is Section 122, which allows across the board tariffs for up to 15 percent for 150 days. So, tariffs could just reappear under different tools. But in the near term, fully replacing IEEPA-based tariffs on consumer goods may not be straightforward, especially given ongoing affordability concerns.So, how does that matter for the real economy? There are two key channels, prices and margins. On prices we estimate that about 60 percent of the tariff costs are typically passed on to the consumers over two to three quarters, but it’s not instant. Margins though could respond faster. If companies get cost relief before they adjust prices downwards, that creates a temporary margin tailwind. That could influence hiring, investment and earnings across retail and consumer supply chains.Over time, lower tariffs could also reinforce that broader return to core goods disinflation starting in the second quarter of this year. And because tariff driven inflation has weighed more heavily on the middle- and lower-income households, any eventual price relief could disproportionately benefit those groups.At the end of the day, this isn't just a legal story. It is a timing story. If IEEPA authority is curtailed, the arithmetic shifts pretty quickly. Margins move first, prices follow later, and the path back to goods disinflation could accelerate. That's why this is one ruling worth watching before the gavel drops.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yZejYAl-g7L4UBjNCOAvX6zpmvWiI64vROg8U0-79Y4Fri, 13 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyArunima Sinha, from the U.S. and Global Economics team, discusses how an upcoming Supreme Court decision could reshape consumer prices, retail margins and the inflation outlook in 2026.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Today: How a single Supreme Court ruling could change the tariff math for U.S. consumers.It's Friday, February 13th at 10am in New York.The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. president has legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. That decision could come as soon as next Friday. IEEPA, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is the legal backbone for a significant share of today's consumer goods tariffs. If the Supreme Court limits how it can be used, tariffs on many everyday items could fall quickly – affecting prices on the shelf, margins for retailers, and the broader inflation outlook.As of now, effective tariff rates on consumer goods are running about 15 percent, and that's based on late 2025 November data. And that's quite a bit higher than the roughly 10 percent average, which we're seeing as tariffs on all goods. In a post IEEPA scenario, we think that the effective tariff rate on consumer goods could fall to the mid-11 percent range.It's not zero, but it is meaningfully lower.An important caveat is that this is not going to be eliminating all tariffs. Other trade tools – like Section 232s, which are the national security tariffs, Section 301s, the tariffs that are related to unfair trade practices – would remain in place. Autos and metals, for example, are largely outside the IEEPA discussion.The main pressure point we think is consumer goods. IEEPA has been used for two major sets of tariffs. The fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and the so-called reciprocal tariffs applied broadly across trading partners. And these often stack on top of the existing tariffs, such as the MFN, the Most Favored Nation rates, and the section 301 duties on China that were already existing before 2025.The exposure is really concentrated in certain categories of consumer goods. So, for example, in apparel and footwear, about 60 percent of the applied tariffs are IEEPA related. For furniture and home improvement, it's over 70 percent. For toys, games, and sporting equipment, it's more than 90 percent. So, if the IEEPA authority is curtailed, the category level effects would be meaningful.There are caveats, of course. The court's decision may not be all or nothing. And policymakers could turn to alternative authorities. One example is Section 122, which allows across the board tariffs for up to 15 percent for 150 days. So, tariffs could just reappear under different tools. But in the near term, fully replacing IEEPA-based tariffs on consumer goods may not be straightforward, especially given ongoing affordability concerns.So, how does that matter for the real economy? There are two key channels, prices and margins. On prices we estimate that about 60 percent of the tariff costs are typically passed on to the consumers over two to three quarters, but it’s not instant. Margins though could respond faster. If companies get cost relief before they adjust prices downwards, that creates a temporary margin tailwind. That could influence hiring, investment and earnings across retail and consumer supply chains.Over time, lower tariffs could also reinforce that broader return to core goods disinflation starting in the second quarter of this year. And because tariff driven inflation has weighed more heavily on the middle- and lower-income households, any eventual price relief could disproportionately benefit those groups.At the end of the day, this isn't just a legal story. It is a timing...]]>298alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1579fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/signs-that-global-growth-may-be-ahead--75645017insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about the unusual alignment of a number of key indicators. It's Thursday, February 12th at 2pm in London. A frustrating element of investing is that any indicator at any time can let you down. That makes sense. With so much on the line, the secret to markets probably isn't just one of a hundreds of data series that a thousand of us can access at the push of a button. But many indicators all suggesting the same? That's far more notable. And despite a volatile start to 2026 with big swings in everything from Japanese government bonds to software stocks, it is very much what we think is happening below the surface. Specifically, a variety of indicators linked to optimism around the global cyclical outlook are all stronger, all moving up and to the right. Copper, which is closely followed as an economically sensitive commodity, is up strongly. Korean equities, which have above average cyclicality and sensitivity to global trade is the best performing of any major global equity market over the last year. Financials, which lie at the heart of credit creation, have been outperforming across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. And more recently, year-to-date cyclicals and transports are outperforming. Small caps are leading, breadth is improving, and the yield curve is bear steepening. All of these are the outcomes that you'd expect, all else equal, if global growth is going to be stronger in the future than it is today. Now individually, these data points can be explained away. Maybe Copper is just part of an AI build out story. Maybe Korea is just rebounding off extreme levels of valuation. Maybe Financials are just about deregulation in a steeper yield curve. Maybe the steeper yield curve is just about the policy uncertainty. And small cap stocks have been long-term laggards – maybe every dog has its day. But collectively, well, they're exactly what investors will be looking for to confirm that the global growth backdrop is getting stronger, and we believe they form a pretty powerful, overlapping signal worthy of respect. But if things are getting better, how much is too much. In the face of easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy, the market may focus on other signposts to determine whether we now have too much of a good thing. For example, is there signs of significant inflation on the horizon? Is volatility in the bond market increasing? Is the U.S. dollar deviating significantly from its fair value? Is the credit market showing weakness? And do stocks and credit now react badly when the data is good? So far, not yet. As we discussed on this program last week, long run inflation expectations in the U.S. and euro area remain pretty consistent with central bank targets. Expected volatility in U.S. interest rates has actually fallen year-to-date. The U.S. dollar’s valuation is pretty close to what purchasing power parity would suggest. Credit has been very stable. And better than expected labor market data on Wednesday was treated well. Any single indicator can and eventually will let investors down. But when a broad set of economically sensitive signals all point in the same direction, we listen. Taken together, we think this alignment is still telling a story of supportive fundamental tailwinds while key measures of stress hold. Until that evidence changes, we think those signals deserve respect. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/24LDGNJGAHqvM4AqGvix73VgXNqemidRE048Bqdax0QThu, 12 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains how key market indicators reflect a constructive view around the global cyclical outlook, despite a volatile start to 2026.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about the unusual alignment of a number of key indicators. It's Thursday, February 12th at 2pm in London. A frustrating element of investing is that any indicator at any time can let you down. That makes sense. With so much on the line, the secret to markets probably isn't just one of a hundreds of data series that a thousand of us can access at the push of a button. But many indicators all suggesting the same? That's far more notable. And despite a volatile start to 2026 with big swings in everything from Japanese government bonds to software stocks, it is very much what we think is happening below the surface. Specifically, a variety of indicators linked to optimism around the global cyclical outlook are all stronger, all moving up and to the right. Copper, which is closely followed as an economically sensitive commodity, is up strongly. Korean equities, which have above average cyclicality and sensitivity to global trade is the best performing of any major global equity market over the last year. Financials, which lie at the heart of credit creation, have been outperforming across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. And more recently, year-to-date cyclicals and transports are outperforming. Small caps are leading, breadth is improving, and the yield curve is bear steepening. All of these are the outcomes that you'd expect, all else equal, if global growth is going to be stronger in the future than it is today. Now individually, these data points can be explained away. Maybe Copper is just part of an AI build out story. Maybe Korea is just rebounding off extreme levels of valuation. Maybe Financials are just about deregulation in a steeper yield curve. Maybe the steeper yield curve is just about the policy uncertainty. And small cap stocks have been long-term laggards – maybe every dog has its day. But collectively, well, they're exactly what investors will be looking for to confirm that the global growth backdrop is getting stronger, and we believe they form a pretty powerful, overlapping signal worthy of respect. But if things are getting better, how much is too much. In the face of easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy, the market may focus on other signposts to determine whether we now have too much of a good thing. For example, is there signs of significant inflation on the horizon? Is volatility in the bond market increasing? Is the U.S. dollar deviating significantly from its fair value? Is the credit market showing weakness? And do stocks and credit now react badly when the data is good? So far, not yet. As we discussed on this program last week, long run inflation expectations in the U.S. and euro area remain pretty consistent with central bank targets. Expected volatility in U.S. interest rates has actually fallen year-to-date. The U.S. dollar’s valuation is pretty close to what purchasing power parity would suggest. Credit has been very stable. And better than expected labor market data on Wednesday was treated well. Any single indicator can and eventually will let investors down. But when a broad set of economically sensitive signals all point in the same direction, we listen. Taken together, we think this alignment is still telling a story of supportive fundamental tailwinds while key measures of stress hold. Until that evidence changes, we think those signals deserve respect. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a...]]>252alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1578fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-of-north-american-trade--75645056insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA’s 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics front, last year, we argued that the review would reinforce North America as a manufacturing block, even if it didn't fully resolve supply chain diversification from China. We think that remains true today, but with the added nuance that some of the more ambitious integration pathways may be pushed further out or structured outside of the formal USMCA chapters. So bottom line, our base case remains a measured, pragmatic outcome that reduces uncertainty, but preserves the core benefits of North American trade and supports growth across key asset classes. But it also increasingly looks like an outcome that may leave some strategic opportunities on the table for now, setting the stage for deeper alignment later – on a slightly longer horizon, or through a more flexible framework. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CAib99a9PMFstvfoT-TtOQeQyYP8IV4BnfbsYAbLQmsWed, 11 Feb 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyWith the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement coming up for review, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks whether our 2025 call for deeper trade integration still holds.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA’s 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics...]]>271alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1577fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-thematic-look-at-market-volatility--75645002insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Stephen Byrd: I was recently on the show to discuss Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2026. Today, a look at how those themes could actually play out in the real world over the course of this year. It's Tuesday, February 10th at 10am in New York. So one of the biggest challenges for investors right now is separating signal from noise. Markets are reacting to headlines by the minute, but the real drivers of long-term returns tend to move much more slowly and much more powerfully. That's why thematic analysis has been such an important part of how we think about markets, particularly during periods of high volatility. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal shifts. In other words, three familiar themes and one meaningful evolution from last year. So Michelle, let's start at the top. When investors hear four key themes, what's different about the 2026 framework versus what we laid out in 2025? Michelle Weaver: Well, like you mentioned before, three of our four key themes are the same as last year, so we're gonna continue to see important market impacts from AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy and the multipolar world.But our fourth key theme, societal shifts, is really an expansion of our prior key theme longevity from last year. And while three of the four themes are the same broad categories, the way they impact the market is going to evolve. And these themes don't exist in isolation. They collide and they intersect with one another, having other important market implications. And we'll talk about many of those intersections today as they relate to multiple themes. Let's start with AI. How does the AI and tech diffusion theme specifically evolve since last year? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. You know, you mentioned earlier the evolution of all of our themes, and that was certainly the case with AI and tech diffusion. What I think we'll see in 2026 is a few major evolutions. So, one is a concept that we think of as two worlds of LLM progress and AI adoption; and let me walk through what I mean by that. On LLM progress, we do think that the handful of American LLM developers that have 10 times the compute they had last year are going to be training and producing models of unprecedented capability. We do not think the Chinese models will be able to keep up because they simply do not have the compute required for the training. And so we will see two worlds, very different approaches. That said, the Chinese models are quite excellent in terms of providing low cost solutions to a wide range of very practical business cases. So that's one case of two worlds when we think about the world of AI and tech diffusion. Another is that essentially we could see a really big gap between what you can do with an LLM and what the average user is actually doing with LLMs. Now there're going to be outliers where really leaders will be able to fully utilize LLMs and achieve fairly substantial and breathtaking results. But on average, that won't be the case. And so you'll see a bit of a lag there. That said, I do think when investors see what those frontier capabilities are, I think that does eventually lead to bullishness. So that's one dynamic. Another really big dynamic in 2026 is the mismatch between compute demand and compute supply. We dove very deeply into this in our note, and essentially where we come out is we believe, and our analysis supports this, that the demand for compute is going to be systematically much higher than the supply. That has all kinds of implications. Compute becomes a very precious resource, both at the company level, at the national level. So those are a couple of areas of evolution.So Michelle, let's shift over to the future of energy, which does feel very different today than it did a year ago. Can you kind of walk through what's changed? Michelle Weaver: Well, we absolutely still think that power is one of the key bottlenecks for data center growth. And our power modeling work shows around a 47 gigawatt shortfall before considering innovative time to power solutions. We get down to around a 10 to 20 percent shortfall in power needed in the U.S. though, even after considering those solutions. So power is still very much a bottleneck. But the power picture is becoming even more challenged for data centers, and that's largely because of a major political overhang that's emerging. Consumers across the U.S. have seen their electricity bills rise and are increasingly pointing to data centers as the culprit behind this. I really want to emphasize though this is a nuanced issue and data center power demand is driving consumer bills higher in some areas like the Mid-Atlantic. But this isn't the case nationwide and really depends on a number of factors like data center density in the region and whether it's a regulated or unregulated utility market.But public perception has really turned against data centers and local pushback is causing planned data centers to be canceled or delayed. And you're seeing similar opinions both across political affiliations and across different regional areas. So yes, in some areas data centers have impacted consumer power bills, but in other areas that hasn't been the case. But this is good news though, for companies that offer off-grid power generation, who are able to completely insulate consumers because they're not connecting to the grid.Stephen, the multipolar theme was already strong last year. Why has it become even more central for 2026? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you're right. It was strong in 2025. In fact, of our 21 categories of stocks, the top three performing were really driven by multipolar world dynamics. Let me walk through three areas of focus that we have for multipolar world in 2026. Number one is an aggressive U.S. policy agenda, and that's going to show up in a number of ways. But examples here would be major efforts to reshore manufacturing, a real evolution in military spending towards a wide range of newer military technologies, reducing power prices and inflation more broadly. And also really focusing on trying to eliminate dependency on China for rare earths. So that's the first big area of focus. The second is around AI technology transfer. And this is quite closely linked to rare earths. So here's the dynamic as we think about U.S. and China. China has a commanding position in rare earths. The United States has a leading position in access to computational resources. Those two are going to interplay quite a bit in 2026. So, for example, we have a view that in 2026, when those American models, these LLMs achieve these step changes up in capabilities that China cannot match, we think that it's very likely that China may exert pressure in terms of rare earths access in order to force the transfer of technology, the best AI technology to China. So that's an example of this linkage between AI and rare earths. And the last dynamic, I'd say broadly, would be the politics of energy, which you described quite well. I think that's going to be a big multipolar world dynamic everywhere around the world. A focus on how much of an impact our data centers are having – whether it's water access, price of power, et cetera. What are the impacts to jobs? And that's going to show up in a variety of policy actions in 2026. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: So Michelle, the last of our four key themes is societal shifts, and you walked through that briefly before. This expands on our prior longevity work. What does this broader framing capture? Michelle Weaver: Societal shifts will include important topics from longevity still. So, things like preparing for an aging population and AI in healthcare. But the expansion really lets us look at the full age range of the demographic spectrum, and we can also now start thinking about what younger consumers want. It also allows us to look at other income based demographics, like what's been going on with the K-economy, which has been an important theme around the world. And a really critical element, though, of this new theme is AI's impact on the labor market. Last year we did a big piece called The Future of Work. And in it we estimated that around 90 percent of jobs would be impacted by AI. I want to be clear: That's not to say that 90 percent of jobs would be lost by AI or automated by AI. But rather some task or some component of that job could be automated or augmented using AI. And so you might have, you know, the jobs of today looking very different five years from now. Workers are adaptable and, and we do expect many to reskill as part of this evolving job landscape. We've talked about the evolution of our key themes, but now let's focus a little on the results. So how have these themes actually performed from an investment standpoint? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. I was very happy with the results in 2025. When we looked across our categories of thematic stocks; we have 21 categories of thematic stocks within our four big themes. On average in 2025, our thematic stock categories outperformed MSCI World by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent respectively. So, I was very happy with that result. When you look at the breakdown, it is interesting in terms of the categories, you did reall]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/aXq14vubO64nj8UDnrYkAwST9U2i3pXQTpBS3_9020cTue, 10 Feb 2026 23:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver lay out Morgan Stanley’s four key Research themes for 2026, and how those themes could unfold across markets for the rest of...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Stephen Byrd: I was recently on the show to discuss Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2026. Today, a look at how those themes could actually play out in the real world over the course of this year. It's Tuesday, February 10th at 10am in New York. So one of the biggest challenges for investors right now is separating signal from noise. Markets are reacting to headlines by the minute, but the real drivers of long-term returns tend to move much more slowly and much more powerfully. That's why thematic analysis has been such an important part of how we think about markets, particularly during periods of high volatility. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal shifts. In other words, three familiar themes and one meaningful evolution from last year. So Michelle, let's start at the top. When investors hear four key themes, what's different about the 2026 framework versus what we laid out in 2025? Michelle Weaver: Well, like you mentioned before, three of our four key themes are the same as last year, so we're gonna continue to see important market impacts from AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy and the multipolar world.But our fourth key theme, societal shifts, is really an expansion of our prior key theme longevity from last year. And while three of the four themes are the same broad categories, the way they impact the market is going to evolve. And these themes don't exist in isolation. They collide and they intersect with one another, having other important market implications. And we'll talk about many of those intersections today as they relate to multiple themes. Let's start with AI. How does the AI and tech diffusion theme specifically evolve since last year? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. You know, you mentioned earlier the evolution of all of our themes, and that was certainly the case with AI and tech diffusion. What I think we'll see in 2026 is a few major evolutions. So, one is a concept that we think of as two worlds of LLM progress and AI adoption; and let me walk through what I mean by that. On LLM progress, we do think that the handful of American LLM developers that have 10 times the compute they had last year are going to be training and producing models of unprecedented capability. We do not think the Chinese models will be able to keep up because they simply do not have the compute required for the training. And so we will see two worlds, very different approaches. That said, the Chinese models are quite excellent in terms of providing low cost solutions to a wide range of very practical business cases. So that's one case of two worlds when we think about the world of AI and tech diffusion. Another is that essentially we could see a really big gap between what you can do with an LLM and what the average user is actually doing with LLMs. Now there're going to be outliers where really leaders will be able to fully utilize LLMs and achieve fairly substantial and breathtaking results. But on average, that won't be the case. And so you'll see a bit of a lag there. That said, I do think when investors see what those frontier capabilities are, I think that does eventually lead to bullishness. So that's one dynamic. Another really big dynamic in 2026 is the mismatch between...]]>607alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1576fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-latin-america-s-trifecta-could-reshape-global-portfolios--75645063insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Nikolaj Lippmann: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Equity Strategist. If you ever felt like Latin America is too complicated to follow, today's episode is for you. It's Monday, February 9th at 10am in New York. The big idea in our research is simple. Latin America is facing a trifecta of change that could set up a very different investment story from what investors have gotten used to. We could be moving towards an investment or CapEx cycle in the shadow of the global AI CapEx cycle, and this is a stark departure from prior consumer cycles in Latin America. Latin America's GDP today is about $6 trillion. Yet Latin American equities account for just about 80 basis points of the main global index MSCI All Country World Equity benchmark. In plain English, it's really easy for investors to overlook such a vast region. But the narrative seems to be changing thanks to three key factors. Number one, shifting geopolitics in this increasingly global multipolar world. We can see this with trade rules, security priorities, supply chains that are getting rewritten. Capital and investment will often move alongside with these changing rules. Clearly, as we can all see U.S. priorities in Latin America have shifted, and with them have local priorities and incentives. Second, interest rates may very well have been peaking and could decline into [20]26. When borrowing cost fall, it just becomes easier to fund factories, infrastructure, AI, and expansion into all kinds of different investment, which become more feasible. What is more, we see a big shift in the size and growth of domestic capital markets in almost every country in Latin America – something that happens courtesy of reform and is certainly new versus prior cycles. And finally, elections that could lead to an important policy shift across Latin America. We see signs of movement towards greater fiscal responsibility in many sites of the region, with upcoming elections in Colombia and Brazil. We have already seen new policy makers in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, depart from prior populism. So, when we put all this together -- geopolitics, rates and local election -- you get to the core of our thesis, a possible LatAm spring; meaning a decisive break from the status quo towards fiscal consolidation, monetary easing, and structural reform. And we think that that could be a potential move that restores some confidence and attracts private capital. In our spring scenario, we see interest rates coming down, not rising in a scenario of higher growth to 6 percent in Brazil and Mexico, 7 percent in Argentina, and just 4 percent in Chile. This helps the rerating of the region. There's another powerful factor that I think many investors overlook, and that is a key difference versus prior cycles, as already mentioned. And that's the domestic savings. Local portfolios today are much bigger, much deeper capital markets, and they're heavily skewed towards fixed income. 75 percent of Latin American portfolios are in fixed income versus 25 percent in equity. In Brazil, the number's even higher with 90 to 95 percent in fixed income. If this shifts even halfway towards equity, it can deepen and support local capital markets; it supports valuation. For the region as a whole, sectors most impacted by this transformation would be Financial Services, Energy, Utilities, IT and Healthcare. Up until now, I think Latin America has been viewed as a region where a lot could go wrong. We asked the reverse question. What could go right? If the trifecta lines up: geopolitics, peaking rates and elections that enable a more investment friendly policy and CapEx cycle, Latin America could shift from being seen mainly as a supply of commodities and labor to far more investment driven engine of growth. That's why investors should put Latin America on the radar now and not wait until spring is already in full bloom. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/64n6t-6BsMFFoNa3vDh51G4USia7giHsIwoCRMDZf3sMon, 09 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief LatAm Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discusses why Latin America may be approaching a rare “Spring” moment – where geopolitics, peaking rates, and elections set the scene for an investment-led growth cycle with meaningful market...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Nikolaj Lippmann: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Equity Strategist. If you ever felt like Latin America is too complicated to follow, today's episode is for you. It's Monday, February 9th at 10am in New York. The big idea in our research is simple. Latin America is facing a trifecta of change that could set up a very different investment story from what investors have gotten used to. We could be moving towards an investment or CapEx cycle in the shadow of the global AI CapEx cycle, and this is a stark departure from prior consumer cycles in Latin America. Latin America's GDP today is about $6 trillion. Yet Latin American equities account for just about 80 basis points of the main global index MSCI All Country World Equity benchmark. In plain English, it's really easy for investors to overlook such a vast region. But the narrative seems to be changing thanks to three key factors. Number one, shifting geopolitics in this increasingly global multipolar world. We can see this with trade rules, security priorities, supply chains that are getting rewritten. Capital and investment will often move alongside with these changing rules. Clearly, as we can all see U.S. priorities in Latin America have shifted, and with them have local priorities and incentives. Second, interest rates may very well have been peaking and could decline into [20]26. When borrowing cost fall, it just becomes easier to fund factories, infrastructure, AI, and expansion into all kinds of different investment, which become more feasible. What is more, we see a big shift in the size and growth of domestic capital markets in almost every country in Latin America – something that happens courtesy of reform and is certainly new versus prior cycles. And finally, elections that could lead to an important policy shift across Latin America. We see signs of movement towards greater fiscal responsibility in many sites of the region, with upcoming elections in Colombia and Brazil. We have already seen new policy makers in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, depart from prior populism. So, when we put all this together -- geopolitics, rates and local election -- you get to the core of our thesis, a possible LatAm spring; meaning a decisive break from the status quo towards fiscal consolidation, monetary easing, and structural reform. And we think that that could be a potential move that restores some confidence and attracts private capital. In our spring scenario, we see interest rates coming down, not rising in a scenario of higher growth to 6 percent in Brazil and Mexico, 7 percent in Argentina, and just 4 percent in Chile. This helps the rerating of the region. There's another powerful factor that I think many investors overlook, and that is a key difference versus prior cycles, as already mentioned. And that's the domestic savings. Local portfolios today are much bigger, much deeper capital markets, and they're heavily skewed towards fixed income. 75 percent of Latin American portfolios are in fixed income versus 25 percent in equity. In Brazil, the number's even higher with 90 to 95 percent in fixed income. If this shifts even halfway towards equity, it can deepen and support local capital markets; it supports valuation. For the region as a whole, sectors most impacted by this transformation would be Financial Services, Energy, Utilities, IT and Healthcare. Up until now, I think Latin America has been viewed as a region where a lot could go wrong. We asked the reverse...]]>297alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1575fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/for-better-or-warsh--75645052insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view.  For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there's a huge amount of influence, let's say, there. But in order to actually get a specific outcome, there really is a vote. And we only have to look back a couple weeks to the last FOMC meeting when there were two dissents against the policy decision. So, dissents are not super common. They don't happen at every single meeting, but they're not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination either. And if we go back over the past few years, lots going on with inflation and how the economy was going was uncertain. Chair Powell took some dissents. If we go back to the financial crisis Chair Bernanke took a bunch of dissents. If we go back even further through time, Paul Volcker, when he was there trying to staunch the flow of the high inflation of the 1970s, faced a lot of resistance within his committee. And reportedly threatened to quit if he couldn't get his way. And had to be very aggressive in trying to bring the committee along. So, the chair has to find a way to bring the committee along with the plan that the chair wants to execute. Lots of tools at their disposal, but not endless power or influence. Does that make sense? Andrew Sheets: That makes complete sense.  So, maybe my final question, Seth, is this is a tough job. This is a tough job in… Seth Carpenter: You mean your job and my job, or… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Not at all. The chair of the Fed. And it seems especially tricky now. You know, inflation is above the Fed's target. Interest rates are still elevated. You know, certainly mortgage rates are still higher than a lot of Americans are used to over the last several years. And asset prices are high. You know, the valuation of the equity market is high. The level of credit spreads is tight. So, you could say, well, financial conditions are already quite easy, which can create some complications. I am sure Kevin Warsh is receiving lots of advice from lots of different angles. But, you know, if you think about what you've seen from the Fed over the years, what would be your advice to a new Fed chair – and to navigate some of these challenges? Seth Carpenter: I think first and foremost, you are absolutely right. This is a tough job in the best of times, and we are in some of the most difficult and difficult to understand macroeconomic times right now. So, you noted interest rates being high, mortgage rates being high. There's very much an eye of the beholder phenomenon going on here. Now you're younger than I am. The first mortgage I had. It was eight and a half percent. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: I bought a house in 2000 or something like that. So, by those standards, mortgage rates are actually quite low. So, it really comes down to a little bit of what you're used to. And I think that fact translates into lots of other places. So, inflation is now much higher than the committee's target. Call it 3 percent inflation instead core inflation on PCE, rather than 2 percent inflation target. Now, on the one hand that's clearly missing their target and the Fed has been missing their target for years. And we know that tariffs are pushing up inflation, at least for consumer goods. And Chair Powell and this committee have said they get that. They think that inflation will be temporary, and so they're going to look through that inflation. So again, there's a lot of judgment going on here. The labor market is quite weak. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: We don't have the latest months worth of job market data because of the government shutdown; that'll be delayed by a few days. But we know that at the end of last year, non-farm payrolls were running well below 50,000. Under most circumstances, you would say that is a clear indication of a super weak economy. But! But if we look at aggregate spending data, GDP, private-domestic final purchases, consumer spending, CapEx spending. It's actually pretty solid right now. And so again, that sense of judgment; what's the signal you're going to look for? That's very, very difficult right now, and that's part of what the chair is going to have to do to try to bring the committee together, in order to come to a decision.  So, one intellectually coherent argument is – the main way you could get strong aggregate demand, strong spending numbers, strong GDP numbers, but with pretty tepid labor force growth is if productivity is running higher and if productivity is going higher because of AI, for example, over time you could easily expect that to be disinflationary. And if it's disinflationary, then you can cut it. Interest rates now. Not worry as much as you would normally about high inflation. And so, the result could be a lower path for policy rates. So that's one version of the argument that I suspect you're going to hear. On the other hand, inflation is high and it's been high for years. So what does that mean? Well. History suggests that if inflation stays too high for too long, inflation psychology starts to change the way businesses start to set. Andrew Sheets: Mm-h]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yy4klwOYvgI0pn3TfIfjB6OuueSZeEgDzebMiDEiG9AFri, 06 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view.  For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this...]]>735alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1574fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-fed-s-course-under-a-new-chair--75645051insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause. The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time. So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway. Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference? Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May.  But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine. And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet. And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in? So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like. Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh… Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going. Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question.  I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term? Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function. His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them. Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair's primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public. So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won't change. It'll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don't look for material change. Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed's balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He's called the Fed's balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet. But what I would just say on that is it'll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it'll take study, it'll take patience. I wouldn't look for big material changes right out of the box. So Matt, what I'd like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we're thinking it'd be one candidate. The next day it'd be thinking at the next it was somebody else. How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting. Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world.  But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how? If the Fed's balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it's other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public. And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there's some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets. And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward. So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we'll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting. Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/udcTsPyo4ckkzgAUjGgnUMVb-K_lLyiEb0zdacm5W-oThu, 05 Feb 2026 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the path for U.S. interest rates after the nomination of Kevin Warsh for next Fed chair.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause. The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time. So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway. Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference? Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May.  But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine. And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet. And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in? So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like. Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh… Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going. Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question.  I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if...]]>661alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1573fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/affordability-takes-center-stage-in-u-s-policy--75644980insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes. But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective? Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior. Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments. Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient. So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed. Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_xvJayxwDvD8XMZ6AueD4YzYcMSux4Q_FjXjZQXpv_oWed, 04 Feb 2026 23:00:00 +0000gtyAffordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So,...]]>374alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1572fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-new-playbook-for-equity-investors--75645023insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I’d love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.’ And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view? Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative.So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap. Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration? Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging.  But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters.The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too. Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier. So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general? Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom  peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet. So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI. Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names. Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14! Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process? Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.’ But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do?  All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally. But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake. Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third.Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or some]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HzAg2eoBxkkPxc_6LaKw24ePaCo7KF3lxF4hkrhh_G4Tue, 03 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership.  Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I’d love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.’ And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps...]]>857alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1571fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-fed-chair-new-market-signals--75645066insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast: The implications of Kevin Warsh’s nomination as the next Fed Chair. It's Monday, February 2nd at 10 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Last Friday, President Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next Chair of the Fed. The prevailing narrative around Warsh is fairly straightforward: he’s seen as more hawkish on the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, potentially more flexible on interest rates, and less comfortable with open-ended liquidity support than the current leadership. That characterization is fair, but it doesn’t answer the more important question—why pick Warsh now, and what problem is this nomination trying to solve?In my view, the answer starts with markets, not politics. Over the past several months, we’ve witnessed parabolic moves in precious metals alongside persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar. While this administration has been very clear that a weaker dollar is not inherently a bad thing—especially as part of a broader economic rebalancing strategy—there’s an important distinction between a controlled decline and a disorderly one.To understand why this matters so much, you need to zoom out. The administration is attempting to rebalance the U.S. economy across three dimensions simultaneously, all with the same ultimate goal—growing out of an enormous debt burden that’s been building for more than two decades. At this point, simply cutting spending isn’t realistic, economically or politically. Nominal growth is the only viable path forward.The current strategy is more supply side driven. It focuses on rebalancing trade through tariffs and a weaker dollar, shifting the economy away from over-consumption and toward investment, and addressing inequality through immigration enforcement and deregulation. The goal is to let companies—not the government—make capital allocation decisions, while boosting income through wages rather than entitlements. If it works, the result should be higher nominal growth with a healthier mix of real growth driven by productivity.Markets, to some extent, have already started to price this in. Since last spring, cyclical stocks have outperformed, market breadth has improved, and leadership has begun to rotate away from the mega-cap names that dominated the last cycle. Small and mid-cap stocks are working again too. That’s exactly what you’d expect in the middle stages of a ‘hotter but shorter’ expansion, my core view. At the same time, the surge in gold tells us something else is going on. Precious metals don’t move like that unless investors are questioning the endgame.That’s where Kevin Warsh comes in. His nomination appears designed to restore credibility around the balance sheet and slow the momentum of that skepticism. Based on Friday’s price action, it worked. Gold and silver sold off sharply, the dollar strengthened modestly, and equities and rates stayed relatively stable. That combination buys time—and time is exactly what this strategy needs to work.One of the best ways to track whether markets are buying into this story is by watching the ratio of the S&P 500 to gold. It’s a simple but powerful proxy for confidence in productive growth. The recent collapse was driven mostly by gold rising—and Friday’s sharp reversal was mainly gold prices falling, one of the largest on record.That doesn’t mean skepticism has been eliminated. Instead, it tells me the administration is paying attention and understands they need to restore confidence. If the ratio continues to recover, it will likely come first through lower gold prices and tighter liquidity expectations, and later through stronger earnings growth driven by productivity gains. That could mean near term risk for other risk assets, including equities. Bottom line, the current ‘run it hot’ approach has a better chance of delivering sustainable growth than prior policy mixes—but it won’t be smooth, and confidence will ebb and flow along the way. Watching how markets respond, especially through signals like gold, the dollar, and capital spending trends, will tell us whether this strategy ultimately succeeds. My view is that it’s the best approach which keeps me bullish on 2026 even if the near term is more rocky.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7f1pZ2CNXiewS2o1Kr_KqITvf4JCPuBmnm89HvAFJC0Mon, 02 Feb 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how the nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed could move markets.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast: The implications of Kevin Warsh’s nomination as the next Fed Chair. It's Monday, February 2nd at 10 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Last Friday, President Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next Chair of the Fed. The prevailing narrative around Warsh is fairly straightforward: he’s seen as more hawkish on the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, potentially more flexible on interest rates, and less comfortable with open-ended liquidity support than the current leadership. That characterization is fair, but it doesn’t answer the more important question—why pick Warsh now, and what problem is this nomination trying to solve?In my view, the answer starts with markets, not politics. Over the past several months, we’ve witnessed parabolic moves in precious metals alongside persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar. While this administration has been very clear that a weaker dollar is not inherently a bad thing—especially as part of a broader economic rebalancing strategy—there’s an important distinction between a controlled decline and a disorderly one.To understand why this matters so much, you need to zoom out. The administration is attempting to rebalance the U.S. economy across three dimensions simultaneously, all with the same ultimate goal—growing out of an enormous debt burden that’s been building for more than two decades. At this point, simply cutting spending isn’t realistic, economically or politically. Nominal growth is the only viable path forward.The current strategy is more supply side driven. It focuses on rebalancing trade through tariffs and a weaker dollar, shifting the economy away from over-consumption and toward investment, and addressing inequality through immigration enforcement and deregulation. The goal is to let companies—not the government—make capital allocation decisions, while boosting income through wages rather than entitlements. If it works, the result should be higher nominal growth with a healthier mix of real growth driven by productivity.Markets, to some extent, have already started to price this in. Since last spring, cyclical stocks have outperformed, market breadth has improved, and leadership has begun to rotate away from the mega-cap names that dominated the last cycle. Small and mid-cap stocks are working again too. That’s exactly what you’d expect in the middle stages of a ‘hotter but shorter’ expansion, my core view. At the same time, the surge in gold tells us something else is going on. Precious metals don’t move like that unless investors are questioning the endgame.That’s where Kevin Warsh comes in. His nomination appears designed to restore credibility around the balance sheet and slow the momentum of that skepticism. Based on Friday’s price action, it worked. Gold and silver sold off sharply, the dollar strengthened modestly, and equities and rates stayed relatively stable. That combination buys time—and time is exactly what this strategy needs to work.One of the best ways to track whether markets are buying into this story is by watching the ratio of the S&P 500 to gold. It’s a simple but powerful proxy for confidence in productive growth. The recent collapse was driven mostly by gold rising—and Friday’s sharp reversal was mainly gold prices falling, one of the largest on record.That doesn’t mean skepticism has been eliminated. Instead, it tells me the administration is paying attention and understands they need to restore confidence. If the ratio continues to recover, it will likely come first through lower...]]>302alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1569fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-markets-should-keep-running-hot--75645064insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but.It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London.A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer.We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking.Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress?Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight.Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding.While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/P5cfMvoizW62MSkbrUTJO2PV1By7D0cybJ6h1ptbvUkFri, 30 Jan 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets discusses key market metrics indicating that valuations should stay higher for longer, despite some investors’ concerns.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but.It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London.A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer.We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking.Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress?Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight.Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding.While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>226alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1568fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-what-s-driving-european-stocks-in-2026--75645061insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete.Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance.Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe.Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart.To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it’s more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one.Paul Walsh: Understood.Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital…Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it.Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed?Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising.Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance.As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently.Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in ou]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jhBPFkQ5_gPyMNWnVIIO8qdHpFz6wKUakjUago8p55IFri, 30 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: January 16, 2026Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's...]]>702alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1567fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-stakes-of-another-government-shutdown--75645009insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Deputy Head of Global Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, we’ll discuss the possibility of a U.S. government shutdown later this week, and what investors should – and should not – be worried about. It’s Wednesday, January 28th at 10:30 am in New York. In recent weeks investors have had to consider all manner of policy catalysts for the markets – including the impact to oil supply and emerging markets from military action in Venezuela, potential military action in Iran, and risks of fracturing of the U.S.-Europe relationship over Greenland. By comparison, a potential U.S. government shutdown may seem rather quaint. But, a good investor aggressively manages all risks, so let's break this down. Amidst funding negotiations in the Senate, Democrats are pressing for tighter rules and more oversight on how immigration enforcement is carried out given recent events. Republicans have signaled some openness to negotiations, but the calendar is really a constraint. With the House out of session until early next week any Senate changes this week could lead to a lapse in funding. So, a brief shutdown this weekend, followed by a short continuing resolution once the House returns, is a very plausible path – not because either side wants a shutdown, but because they haven’t fully coalesced around the strategy and time is short. Of course, once a shutdown happens, there’s a risk it could drag on. But in general our base case is that the economic impact would be manageable. Historically, shutdowns create meaningful hardship for affected workers and contractors. But the aggregate macro effects tend to be modest and reversible. Most spending is eventually made up, and disruptions to growth typically unwind quickly once funding is restored. A useful rule of thumb is that a full shutdown trims roughly one‑tenth of a percentage point from the annualized quarterly GDP for each week it lasts. With several appropriations bills already passed, what we’d face now is a partial shutdown, meaning that figure would be even smaller. For markets, that means the reaction should also be modest. Shutdowns tend not to reprice the fundamental path of earnings, inflation, or the Fed – which are still the dominant drivers of asset performance. So, the market’s inclination will likely be to look past the noise and focus on more substantive catalysts ahead. Finally, it’s worth unpacking the politics here, because they’re relevant. But not in the way investors might think. The shutdown risk is emerging from actions that have contributed to sagging approval ratings for the President and Republicans – leading many investors to ask us what this means for midterm elections and resulting public policy choices. And taken together, one could read these dynamics as an early sign that the Republicans may face a difficult midterm environment. We think it's too early to draw any confident conclusions about this, but even if we could, we’re not sure it matters. First, many of the most market‑relevant policies—on trade, regulation, industrial strategy, re‑shoring, and increasingly AI—are being executed through executive authority, not congressional action. That means their trajectory is unlikely to be altered by near‑term political turbulence. Second, the President would almost certainly veto any effort to roll back last year’s tax bill, which created a suite of incentives aimed at corporate capex. A key driver of the 2026 outlook. Putting it all together, the bottom line is this: A short, calendar‑driven shutdown is a risk worth monitoring, but not one to overreact to. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review. And tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Uw9iboTpJMIio77patXfH-JGpUCL-Hir_IylopUQxQEWed, 28 Jan 2026 22:30:00 +0000gtyOur Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas explains why the risk of a new U.S. government shutdown is worth investor attention, but not overreaction.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Deputy Head of Global Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, we’ll discuss the possibility of a U.S. government shutdown later this week, and what investors should – and should not – be worried about. It’s Wednesday, January 28th at 10:30 am in New York. In recent weeks investors have had to consider all manner of policy catalysts for the markets – including the impact to oil supply and emerging markets from military action in Venezuela, potential military action in Iran, and risks of fracturing of the U.S.-Europe relationship over Greenland. By comparison, a potential U.S. government shutdown may seem rather quaint. But, a good investor aggressively manages all risks, so let's break this down. Amidst funding negotiations in the Senate, Democrats are pressing for tighter rules and more oversight on how immigration enforcement is carried out given recent events. Republicans have signaled some openness to negotiations, but the calendar is really a constraint. With the House out of session until early next week any Senate changes this week could lead to a lapse in funding. So, a brief shutdown this weekend, followed by a short continuing resolution once the House returns, is a very plausible path – not because either side wants a shutdown, but because they haven’t fully coalesced around the strategy and time is short. Of course, once a shutdown happens, there’s a risk it could drag on. But in general our base case is that the economic impact would be manageable. Historically, shutdowns create meaningful hardship for affected workers and contractors. But the aggregate macro effects tend to be modest and reversible. Most spending is eventually made up, and disruptions to growth typically unwind quickly once funding is restored. A useful rule of thumb is that a full shutdown trims roughly one‑tenth of a percentage point from the annualized quarterly GDP for each week it lasts. With several appropriations bills already passed, what we’d face now is a partial shutdown, meaning that figure would be even smaller. For markets, that means the reaction should also be modest. Shutdowns tend not to reprice the fundamental path of earnings, inflation, or the Fed – which are still the dominant drivers of asset performance. So, the market’s inclination will likely be to look past the noise and focus on more substantive catalysts ahead. Finally, it’s worth unpacking the politics here, because they’re relevant. But not in the way investors might think. The shutdown risk is emerging from actions that have contributed to sagging approval ratings for the President and Republicans – leading many investors to ask us what this means for midterm elections and resulting public policy choices. And taken together, one could read these dynamics as an early sign that the Republicans may face a difficult midterm environment. We think it's too early to draw any confident conclusions about this, but even if we could, we’re not sure it matters. First, many of the most market‑relevant policies—on trade, regulation, industrial strategy, re‑shoring, and increasingly AI—are being executed through executive authority, not congressional action. That means their trajectory is unlikely to be altered by near‑term political turbulence. Second, the President would almost certainly veto any effort to roll back last year’s tax bill, which created a suite of incentives aimed at corporate capex. A key driver of the 2026 outlook. Putting it all together, the bottom line is this: A short, calendar‑driven shutdown is a risk worth monitoring, but not one to overreact to. Thanks...]]>242alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1566fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-rebound-for-hong-kong-s-property-market--75645044insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Praveen Choudhary, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research. Today – a look at a market that global investors often watch but may not fully appreciate: Hong Kong real estate. It’s Tuesday, January 27th, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Why should investors in New York, London, or Singapore care about trends in Hong Kong property? That’s easy to answer. Because Hong Kong remains one of the world’s most globally sensitive real estate markets. When [the] cycle turns here, it often reflects – and sometimes predicts – broader shift in liquidity, capital flows, and macro sentiment across Asia. And right now, for the first time since 2018, all three major Hong Kong property segments – residential prices, office rents in the Central district of Hong Kong, and retail sales – are set to grow together. That synchronized upturn hasn’t happened in almost a decade. What’s driving this shift? Residential real estate is the engine of this turnaround. Prices have finally bottomed after a 30 percent decline since 2018, and 2026 is shaping out to be a strong year. We actually expect home prices to grow more than 10 percent in 2026, after going up by 5 percent in 2025. And we think that it will grow further in 2027. There are three factors that give us confidence on this out-of-consensus call. The first one is policy. Back in February 2024, Hong Kong scrapped all extra stamp duty that had made it tougher for mainland Chinese or foreign buyers to enter the market. Stamp duty is basically a tax you pay when buying property, or even selling property; and it has been a key way for [the] government to control demand and raise revenue. With those extra charges gone, buying and selling real estate in Hong Kong, especially for mainlanders, is a lot more straightforward and penalty-free. In fact, post the removal of the stamp duty, [the] percentage of units that has been sold to mainlanders have gone to 50 percent of total; earlier it used to be 10-20 percent. Why is it non-consensus? That is because consensus believes that Hong Kong property price can’t go up when China residential outlook is negative. In mid-2025, consensus thought that the recovery was simply a cyclical response to a sharp drop in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, or HIBOR.But we believe the drivers are supply/demand mismatch, positive carry as rental go up but rates go down, and Hong Kong as a place for global monetary interconnection between China and the world that’s still thriving. Second, demand fundamentals are strengthening. Hong Kong’s population turned positive again, rising to 7.5 million in the first half of 2025. During COVID we had a population decline. Now, talent attraction scheme is driving around 140,000 visa approvals in 2025, which is double what it used to be pre-COVID level. New household formation is tracking above the long‑term average, and mainland buyers are now a powerful force. The third factor is affordability. So, after years of declines, the housing prices have come to a point where affordability is back to a long‑term average. In fact, the income versus the price is now back to 2011 level. You combine this with lower mortgage rates as the Fed cut moves through, and you have pent‑up demand finally returning. And don’t forget the wealth effect: Hang Seng Index climbed almost 30 percent in 2025. That kind of equity rebound historically spills over into property buying. As the recovery in residential real estate picks up speed, we're also seeing a fresh wave of optimism and actions across Hong Kong office and retail markets. So big picture: Hong Kong property market isn't just stabilizing. It’s turning. A 10 percent or more residential price rebound, a Central office market finding its footing, and an improved retail environment – all in the same year – marks the clearest green lights this market has seen since 2018.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yCGEpy4hZTFbPc8Z_hDayIo_O8txcIe49hGmKyGKLyMTue, 27 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research Praveen Choudhary discusses the first synchronized growth cycle for Hong Kong’s major real estate segments in almost a decade.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Praveen Choudhary, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research. Today – a look at a market that global investors often watch but may not fully appreciate: Hong Kong real estate. It’s Tuesday, January 27th, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Why should investors in New York, London, or Singapore care about trends in Hong Kong property? That’s easy to answer. Because Hong Kong remains one of the world’s most globally sensitive real estate markets. When [the] cycle turns here, it often reflects – and sometimes predicts – broader shift in liquidity, capital flows, and macro sentiment across Asia. And right now, for the first time since 2018, all three major Hong Kong property segments – residential prices, office rents in the Central district of Hong Kong, and retail sales – are set to grow together. That synchronized upturn hasn’t happened in almost a decade. What’s driving this shift? Residential real estate is the engine of this turnaround. Prices have finally bottomed after a 30 percent decline since 2018, and 2026 is shaping out to be a strong year. We actually expect home prices to grow more than 10 percent in 2026, after going up by 5 percent in 2025. And we think that it will grow further in 2027. There are three factors that give us confidence on this out-of-consensus call. The first one is policy. Back in February 2024, Hong Kong scrapped all extra stamp duty that had made it tougher for mainland Chinese or foreign buyers to enter the market. Stamp duty is basically a tax you pay when buying property, or even selling property; and it has been a key way for [the] government to control demand and raise revenue. With those extra charges gone, buying and selling real estate in Hong Kong, especially for mainlanders, is a lot more straightforward and penalty-free. In fact, post the removal of the stamp duty, [the] percentage of units that has been sold to mainlanders have gone to 50 percent of total; earlier it used to be 10-20 percent. Why is it non-consensus? That is because consensus believes that Hong Kong property price can’t go up when China residential outlook is negative. In mid-2025, consensus thought that the recovery was simply a cyclical response to a sharp drop in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, or HIBOR.But we believe the drivers are supply/demand mismatch, positive carry as rental go up but rates go down, and Hong Kong as a place for global monetary interconnection between China and the world that’s still thriving. Second, demand fundamentals are strengthening. Hong Kong’s population turned positive again, rising to 7.5 million in the first half of 2025. During COVID we had a population decline. Now, talent attraction scheme is driving around 140,000 visa approvals in 2025, which is double what it used to be pre-COVID level. New household formation is tracking above the long‑term average, and mainland buyers are now a powerful force. The third factor is affordability. So, after years of declines, the housing prices have come to a point where affordability is back to a long‑term average. In fact, the income versus the price is now back to 2011 level. You combine this with lower mortgage rates as the Fed cut moves through, and you have pent‑up demand finally returning. And don’t forget the wealth effect: Hang Seng Index climbed almost 30 percent in 2025. That kind of equity rebound historically spills over into property buying. As the recovery in residential real estate picks up speed, we're also seeing a fresh wave of optimism and...]]>290alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1565fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/four-key-themes-shaping-markets-in-2026--75645027insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – the four key themes that will define markets and economies in 2026. It’s Monday, January 26th, at 10am in New York. If you're feeling overwhelmed by all the market noise and constant swings, you're not alone. One of the biggest hurdles for investors today is really figuring out how to tune out the short-term ups and downs and focus on the bigger trends that are truly changing the world. At Morgan Stanley Research, thematic analysis has long been central to how we think about markets, especially in periods of extreme volatility. A thematic lens helps us step back from the noise and really focus on the structural forces reshaping economies, industries, and societies. And that perspective has delivered results. In 2025, on average, our thematic stock categories outperformed the MSCI World Index by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent. And this really reinforces our view that long-term themes can be powerful drivers of alpha. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and Tech Diffusion, The Future of Energy, The Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. Now three of these themes carry forward from last year, but each has evolved meaningfully – and one of our themes represents a major expansion on our prior work. First, the AI and Tech Diffusion theme remains central, but has clearly matured and evolved. In 2025, the focus was on rapid capability gains. In 2026, the emphasis shifts to non-linear improvement and the growing gap between AI capabilities and real-world adoption. A critical evolution is our view that compute demand is likely to exceed supply meaningfully, even as software and hardware become more efficient. As AI use cases multiply and grow more complex, the infrastructure – especially computing power – emerges as a defining constraint. Next is The Future of Energy, which has taken on new urgency. Energy demand in developed markets, long assumed to be flat, is now inflecting upwards. And this is driven largely by AI infrastructure and data centers. Compared with 2025, this theme has expanded from a supply conversation into one focused on policy. Rising energy costs are becoming increasingly visible to consumers, elevating a concept we call the ‘politics of energy.’ Policymakers are under pressure to prioritize low-cost, reliable energy, even when trade-offs exist, and new strategies are emerging to secure power without destabilizing grids or increasing household bills. Our third theme, The Multipolar World, also builds on last year but with sharper edges. Globalization continues to fragment as countries prioritize security, resilience, and national self-sufficiency. Since 2025, competition has become more clearly defined by access to critical inputs – such as energy, materials, defense capabilities, and advanced technology. Notably, the top-performing thematic categories in 2025 were driven by Multipolar World dynamics, underscoring how geopolitical and industrial shifts are translating directly into market outcomes. Now the biggest evolution comes with our fourth key theme – which we call Societal Shifts – and this expands on our prior work on Longevity. This new framework captures a wider range of forces shaping societies globally: AI-driven labor disruption and evolution, aging populations, changing consumer preferences, the K-economy, the push for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many regions. These shifts increasingly influence government policy, corporate strategy, and economic growth – and their impact spans far more industries than investors often expect. Now crucially these themes don’t operate in isolation. AI accelerates energy demand. Energy costs shape politics. Politics influence supply chains and national priorities. And all of this feeds directly into societal outcomes: from employment to consumption patterns. The power of thematic investing lies in understanding these intersections, where multiple forces reinforce one another in underappreciated ways. So to sum it up, the most important investment questions for 2026 aren’t just about growth rates. They’re about structure. Understanding how technology, energy, geopolitics, and society evolve together may be the clearest way to see where opportunity, and risk, are truly heading. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HR3z7Vu289HHTmYQ_wbUKjQwueRydzxFAKxviAHcnicMon, 26 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd discusses Morgan Stanley’s key investment themes for this year and how they’re influencing markets and economies.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – the four key themes that will define markets and economies in 2026. It’s Monday, January 26th, at 10am in New York. If you're feeling overwhelmed by all the market noise and constant swings, you're not alone. One of the biggest hurdles for investors today is really figuring out how to tune out the short-term ups and downs and focus on the bigger trends that are truly changing the world. At Morgan Stanley Research, thematic analysis has long been central to how we think about markets, especially in periods of extreme volatility. A thematic lens helps us step back from the noise and really focus on the structural forces reshaping economies, industries, and societies. And that perspective has delivered results. In 2025, on average, our thematic stock categories outperformed the MSCI World Index by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent. And this really reinforces our view that long-term themes can be powerful drivers of alpha. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and Tech Diffusion, The Future of Energy, The Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. Now three of these themes carry forward from last year, but each has evolved meaningfully – and one of our themes represents a major expansion on our prior work. First, the AI and Tech Diffusion theme remains central, but has clearly matured and evolved. In 2025, the focus was on rapid capability gains. In 2026, the emphasis shifts to non-linear improvement and the growing gap between AI capabilities and real-world adoption. A critical evolution is our view that compute demand is likely to exceed supply meaningfully, even as software and hardware become more efficient. As AI use cases multiply and grow more complex, the infrastructure – especially computing power – emerges as a defining constraint. Next is The Future of Energy, which has taken on new urgency. Energy demand in developed markets, long assumed to be flat, is now inflecting upwards. And this is driven largely by AI infrastructure and data centers. Compared with 2025, this theme has expanded from a supply conversation into one focused on policy. Rising energy costs are becoming increasingly visible to consumers, elevating a concept we call the ‘politics of energy.’ Policymakers are under pressure to prioritize low-cost, reliable energy, even when trade-offs exist, and new strategies are emerging to secure power without destabilizing grids or increasing household bills. Our third theme, The Multipolar World, also builds on last year but with sharper edges. Globalization continues to fragment as countries prioritize security, resilience, and national self-sufficiency. Since 2025, competition has become more clearly defined by access to critical inputs – such as energy, materials, defense capabilities, and advanced technology. Notably, the top-performing thematic categories in 2025 were driven by Multipolar World dynamics, underscoring how geopolitical and industrial shifts are translating directly into market outcomes. Now the biggest evolution comes with our fourth key theme – which we call Societal Shifts – and this expands on our prior work on Longevity. This new framework captures a wider range of forces shaping societies globally: AI-driven labor disruption and evolution, aging populations, changing consumer preferences, the K-economy, the push for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many regions. These shifts increasingly influence government policy, corporate strategy,...]]>297alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1564fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-consumers-capex-and-fiscal-policy-are-driving-growth--75645070insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jen Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. And we spent a lot of time talking about monetary policy around the world. Today, let's go back to them, talk about the real side of the economy. It's Friday, January 23rd at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Michael, let me start with you, back on the U.S. And when I think about the U.S. economy, we have to start by talking about the U.S. consumer. Walk us through what investors need to understand about consumer spending in the U.S. What's driving it, what's going to hold it up, and where are the risks? Michael Gapen: I think the primary thing to remember here is that the upper income consumer drives about 40 percent or more of total spending.  So, there can be higher inflation that eats into real labor market income growth. There can be inflation dispersion, which hits lower income households more than upper income households. We can have tariffs that get applied to goods and lower- and middle-income households buy goods more than upper income households. But when asset markets continue to appreciate, when home prices hold on to their prior gains, sometimes that doesn't matter in the aggregate statistics because that upper income household keeps spending.I do think that's a lot of what happened in 2025. So, there is a K-shaped economy. I think one of the main risks about the U.S. is that its expansion is narrowly driven.  We think that will broaden out in 2026. If we're right, that inflation comes down and we're past, kind of, the peak effect of tariffs, then we think that lower- and middle-income household can have a little more residual spending power. And you might get the consumer operating on two fronts, rather than one. Seth Carpenter:     Another part of domestic spending that gets a lot of attention is business investment spending, CapEx spending. First would you agree with that statement that CapEx spending last year was characterized by AI CapEx spending? Second, should we feel confident that that underlying sort of momentum in CapEx spending should continue for this year? And then third, what's it going to take for there to be a broadening out, maybe like what you said about consumers, but a broadening out of investment spending so that it's not just the AI story that's driving CapEx. Michael Gapen:  I do agree that the primary, almost exclusive story in 2025 for business spending was AI. So, when you look at residential and non-residential spending, unrelated to AI, that I think did feel the effects of policy uncertainty in a changing environment.  what keeps kind of sustainability around business spending? Obviously, it's a multi-year investment story around AI. There's a level versus growth rate argument here where you can have a heck of a lot of CapEx spending. May not always show up in GDP because some of it is intermediate goods, some of it is imported. But that doesn't diminish, I think, the quality of the overall story. What gets business spending to broaden out, I do think is related to whether consumer spending broadens out. Most business spending kind of follows demand with a lag. So, AI is a different story, but there's a cyclical component to business spending. There could be a housing related component, if mortgage rates come down and stimulate at least a little more turnover in the housing market. So, if the recovery does broaden out, we see greater real income growth in low- and middle-income households. The labor market stabilizes. Maybe mortgage rates come down a little bit, then I think you could get carry through momentum to non-AI related business spending. That would look more like a cyclical upswing for the economy. May be a heavy lift, but that's what I think it would take to get there. Seth Carpenter: So, Jens, let me come to you. We talked yesterday about the ECB possibly easing more on disinflation. But when I think of disinflation, I think of a weak economy. And that's maybe not really the case. So, I guess the first question to you would you characterize euro area economic growth as strong, or a little bit more complicated? Jens Eisenschmidt: A little bit more complicated. And that's always the right answer for an economist – I think it depends. Well, it is strong in some quarters. And these quarters will change from where it has been in the past.So concretely, we think the German economy has most potential to catch up and actually accelerate, and that's due to fiscal stimulus mainly.  While we have other quarters, the French and the Italian one, which will be below potential and so weak – each of them for their own reason. And then we have the Spanish economy, which performs exceptionally and is really strong, but it's only a small part of the euro area economy. If we had everything together, I think the outlook is an economy that's accelerating mildly and only towards the end of our projection horizon, which is [20]27. So, in say two years, hits growth rates that are above potential. Here we are really talking about quarterly increments above 0.3. So, we are currently between 0.1 and 0.2. So, you sort of get the picture of a mildly accelerating economy that goes from 0.15 to 0.035 say in the span of two years. Seth Carpenter: One of the key narratives in markets is about fiscal policy in Germany, potentially driving growth. I know in equity markets it’s been a key investing theme. So how excited should people be about the possibility of fiscal policy in Germany driving a resilient European economy? Jens Eisenschmidt: Pretty excited, I would say, in a sense that the positioning of the German government for its economy is actually exceptional in terms of the amount of fiscal space that exists and that has been made available. It's just that, of course, the connection of that sort of abstract excitement that we economists have to what actually happens in markets is sometimes a little bit loose; in the sense that equity [markets would like to see everything coming online tomorrow, and that's going to be a more drawn-out process. So, to my point before, it will take some time. We do have implementation lags. We do have lags in say, for instance, on defense procurement. There is maybe not as much capacity in the economy to deliver into everything. But the direction of travel is clear and up. So, from that perspective, I have no doubts that the future is better for the German economy over the medium term for all the reasons mentioned, but it won't be immediate. And we have just seen in recent headlines, Germany is the most trade exposed European economy. If we get more friction in global trade, that's not great. So, you could even have short term, more negative news on GDP than positive ones. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, I'm going to turn to you. Yesterday when we talked about Asia, we focused on Japan. But, of course, when it comes to the real side of the economy, the big mover in Asia is China.So, let's talk a little bit about how you see China evolving. What the key themes are for China. Last year in particular, we talked a lot about the deflationary cycle in China and how it was protracted. It wasn't going away. That policy was not sufficient to drive a huge surge in demand to push things away. Are we in the same place for China in 2026? What kind of growth should we expect and what sort of policy reactions should we be expecting from China? Chetan Ahya: Well, I think the macro backdrop for China we think will still be challenging in 2026. But at the same time, we expect the micro positives to continue. Now on the macro backdrop, when I say it's going to remain challenging because the number one issue that we are focused on from a macro perspective in China is deflation. Now we do expect some easing of deflationary pressures, but [the] economy will still stay in deflation in 2026. And on the micro front what we've seen is that China is emerging from a situation where it is making inroads into advanced manufacturing, and that's enabling it to increase market share in global goods exports. And it's also one of the reasons why when you see the numbers coming out from China on exports, they seem to be outperforming. Even just the latest month number as we saw, China's exports were surprising on the upside relative to market expectations. And that's the micro story – that you'll see China continuing to gain market share in global goods export. And that supports the corporate micro positive story. Seth Carpenter:   We know collectively that export is a key part of China's economy. The productive capacity, as you point out, important for China. When you think about exports from China, the currency has to come in. And recently the renminbi has been appreciating. Lots of questions from clients here or there. How important is the renminbi in reflating or rebalancing the China economy? Can you walk us through a little bit some of these considerations about the role that the currency is playing now and over the next few quarters for China and its economic outlook. Chetan Ahya: Yeah, that's right, Seth. Actually, I've been getting a number of clients calling me and asking whether PBOC is going to allow a significant appreciation in RNB. We've seen it appreciate quite a lot in the last few days. And then whether this will mean China's economy will rebal]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-MjUv835k_rsBCfWKk8gqPXM0yzJpsA8-drxCqgWmj0Fri, 23 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyIn the second of their two-part roundtable, Seth Carpenter and Morgan Stanley’s top economists break down the forces influencing growth across different regions.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jen Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. And we spent a lot of time talking about monetary policy around the world. Today, let's go back to them, talk about the real side of the economy. It's Friday, January 23rd at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Michael, let me start with you, back on the U.S. And when I think about the U.S. economy, we have to start by talking about the U.S. consumer. Walk us through what investors need to understand about consumer spending in the U.S. What's driving it, what's going to hold it up, and where are the risks? Michael Gapen: I think the primary thing to remember here is that the upper income consumer drives about 40 percent or more of total spending.  So, there can be higher inflation that eats into real labor market income growth. There can be inflation dispersion, which hits lower income households more than upper income households. We can have tariffs that get applied to goods and lower- and middle-income households buy goods more than upper income households. But when asset markets continue to appreciate, when home prices hold on to their prior gains, sometimes that doesn't matter in the aggregate statistics because that upper income household keeps spending.I do think that's a lot of what happened in 2025. So, there is a K-shaped economy. I think one of the main risks about the U.S. is that its expansion is narrowly driven.  We think that will broaden out in 2026. If we're right, that inflation comes down and we're past, kind of, the peak effect of tariffs, then we think that lower- and middle-income household can have a little more residual spending power. And you might get the consumer operating on two fronts, rather than one. Seth Carpenter:     Another part of domestic spending that gets a lot of attention is business investment spending, CapEx spending. First would you agree with that statement that CapEx spending last year was characterized by AI CapEx spending? Second, should we feel confident that that underlying sort of momentum in CapEx spending should continue for this year? And then third, what's it going to take for there to be a broadening out, maybe like what you said about consumers, but a broadening out of investment spending so that it's not just the AI story that's driving CapEx. Michael Gapen:  I do agree that the primary, almost exclusive story in 2025 for business spending was AI. So, when you look at residential and non-residential spending, unrelated to AI, that I think did feel the effects of policy uncertainty in a changing environment.  what keeps kind of sustainability around business spending? Obviously, it's a multi-year investment story around AI. There's a level versus growth rate argument here where you can have a heck of a lot of CapEx spending. May not always show up in GDP because some of it is intermediate goods, some of it is imported. But that doesn't diminish, I think, the quality of the overall story. What gets business spending to broaden out, I do think is related to whether consumer spending broadens out. Most business spending kind of follows demand with a lag. So, AI is a different story, but there's a cyclical component to business spending. There could be a housing related component, if mortgage rates come down and stimulate at least a little...]]>916alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1563fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mapping-global-central-bank-paths--75645072insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're kicking off our quarterly economic roundtable for the year. We're going to try to think about everything that matters in economics around the world. And today we're going to focus a little bit more on central banking. And when we get to tomorrow,  we'll focus on the nuts and bolts of the real side of the economy. I'm joined by our chief regional economists. Michael Gapen: Hi, Seth. I'm Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley. Chetan Ahya: I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe economist. Seth Carpenter: It's Thursday, January 22nd at 10 am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4 pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9 pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter:  So, Mike Gapen, let me start with you as we head into 2026, what are we thinking about? Are we going into a more stable expansion? Is this just a different phase with the same amount of volatility? What do you think is going to be happening in the U.S. as a baseline outlook? And then if we're going to be wrong, which direction would we be wrong? Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth, we took the view that we would have more policy certainty. Recent weeks have maybe suggested we're incorrect on that front. But I still believe that when it comes to deregulation, immigration policy and fiscal policy, we have much more clarity there than we did a year ago. So, I think it's another year of modest growth, above trend growth. We're forecasting something around 2.4 percent for 2026. That's about where we finished 2025. I think what's key for markets and the outlook overall will be whether inflation comes down. Firms are still passing through tariffs to the consumer. We think that'll happen at least through the end of the first quarter. It's our view that after that, inflation pressures will start to diminish. If that's the case, then we think the Fed can execute one or two more rate cuts.  But we have those coming [in] the second half of the year. So, it looks like growth is strong enough. The labor market has stabilized enough for the Fed to wait and see, to look around, see the effects of their prior rate cuts, and then push policy closer to neutral if inflation comes down. Seth Carpenter: And if we go back to last year to 2025, I will give you the credit first. Morgan Stanley did not shift its forecast for recession in the U.S. the way some of our main competitors did. On the other hand, and this is where I maybe tweak you just a little bit. We underestimated how much growth there would be in the United States. CapEx spending from AI firms was strong. Consumer spending, especially from the top half of the income distribution in the U.S. was strong. Growth overall for the year was over 2 percent, close to 2.5 percent. So, if that's what we just came off of, why isn't it the case that we'd see even stronger growth? Maybe even a re-acceleration of growth in 2026? Michael Gapen: Well, some of that, say, improvement vis-à-vis our forecast, the outperformance. Some of that I think comes mechanically from trade and inventory variability. So, . I'm not sure that that says a lot about an improving trend rate of growth. Where there was other outperformance was, as you noted, from the consumer. Now our models, and I don't mean to get too technical here, but our model suggests that consumption is overshooting its fundamentals.  Which I think makes it harder for the economy to accelerate further. And then AI; it's harder for AI spending to say get incrementally stronger than where it is. So, we’re getting a little extra boost from fiscal. We've got that coming through. And I just think what it is, is more of the same rather than further acceleration from here. Seth Carpenter:    Do you think there's a chance that the Fed in fact does not cut rates like you have in your forecast? Michael Gapen: Yes, I do think... Where we could be wrong  is we've made assumptions around the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it will contribute to the economy. But as you know, there's a lot of variability around those estimates. If the bill is more catalytic to animal spirits and business spending than we've assumed, you could get, say, a demand driven animal spirits upside to the economy, which may mean inflation doesn't decelerate all that much. But I do think that that's, say, the main upside risk that we're considering. Markets have been gradually taking out probabilities of Fed cuts as growth has come in stronger. So far, the inflation data has been positive in terms of signaling about disinflation, but I would say the jury's still out on how much that continues. Seth Carpenter:   Chetan,   When I think about Japan, we know that it's been the developed market central bank that's been going in the opposite direction. They've been hiking when other central banks have been cutting. We got some news recently that probably put some risk into our baseline outlook that we published in our year ahead view about both growth and inflation in Japan. And with it what the Bank of Japan is going to do in terms of its normalization. Can you just walk us through a little bit about our outlook for Japan? Because right now I think that the yen, Japanese rates, they're all part of the ongoing market narrative around the world. Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, look, I mean, on a big picture basis, we are constructive on the Japan macro-outlook. We think normal GDP growth remains strong. We are expecting to see the transition for the consumers from them seeing, you know, supply side inflation. Keeping their real wage growth low to a dynamic where we transition to real wage growth accelerating. That supports real consumption growth, and we move away from that supply side driven inflation to demand side driven inflation. So broadly we are constructive, but I think in the backdrop, what we are seeing on currency depreciation is making things a bit more challenging for the BOJ. While we are expecting that demand side pressure to build up and drive inflation, in the trailing data, it is still pretty much currency depreciation and supply side factors like food inflation driving inflation. And so, BOJ has been hesitant.  So, while we had the expectation that BOJ will hike in January of 2027, we do see the risk that they may have to take up rate hike earlier to manage the currency not getting out of hand and adding on to the inflation pressures. Seth Carpenter Would I be right in saying that up until now, the yen has swung pretty widely in both directions. But the weakening of the yen until now hasn't been really the key driver of the Bank of Japan's policy reaction. It's been growth picking up, inflation picking up, wanting to get out of negative interest rates first, wanting to get away from the zero lower bounds. Second, the weaker yen in some sense could have actually been seen as a positive up until now because Japan did go through 25 years of essentially stagnant nominal growth. Is this actually that much of a fundamental change in the Bank of Japan's thinking – needing to react to the weakness of the yen? Chetan Ahya: Broadly what you're saying is right, Seth, but there is also a threshold of where the currency can be. And beyond a point, it begins to hurt the households in form of imported inflation pressures. And remember that inflation has been somewhat high, even if it is driven by currency depreciation and supply side factors for some time. And so, BOJ has to be watchful of potential lift in inflation expectations for the households. And at the same time, they are also watching the underlying inflation impact of this currency depreciation – because what we have seen is that over period workers have been demanding for higher wages. And that is also influenced by what happens to headline inflation, which is driven by currency depreciation. So, I would say that, yes, it's been true up until now. But, when currency reaches these very high levels of range, you are going to see BOJ having to act. Seth Carpenter:  Jens, let's shift then to Europe. The ECB had been on a cutting cycle. They came to the end of that. President Lagarde said that she thought the disinflationary process had ended. In your year ahead forecast and a bunch of your writing recently, you've said maybe not so fast. There could still be some more disinflationary, at least risk, in the pipeline for Europe. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on in terms of European inflation and what it could mean for the European Central Bank? Because clearly that's going to be first order important for markets.Jens Eisenschmidt: I think that is right. I think we have a crucial inflation print ahead of us that comes out on the 4th of February. So, early February we get some signal, whether our anticipated fall of headline inflation here below the ECB’s target is actually materializing. We think the chances for this are pretty good. There's a mix why this is happening. One is energy. Energy disinflation and base effects. But the other thing is services inflation resets always at the beginning of the year. January and February are the crucial month here. We had significant services upward pressure on prices the last years. And so just from base effects, we think we will see less of that. Another picture or another element of that picture is that wage disinflation is proceeding nicely. We have notably a significant weakness in the export-oriented manufacturing sector in Germany, which is a key sector of setting wages for]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/cZaV2ML-Cu7zduNmXPEsou21JC1aptGyY626ZUuw4Z4Thu, 22 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter joins our chief regional economists to discuss the outlook for interest rates in the U.S., Japan and Europe.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're kicking off our quarterly economic roundtable for the year. We're going to try to think about everything that matters in economics around the world. And today we're going to focus a little bit more on central banking. And when we get to tomorrow,  we'll focus on the nuts and bolts of the real side of the economy. I'm joined by our chief regional economists. Michael Gapen: Hi, Seth. I'm Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley. Chetan Ahya: I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe economist. Seth Carpenter: It's Thursday, January 22nd at 10 am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4 pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9 pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter:  So, Mike Gapen, let me start with you as we head into 2026, what are we thinking about? Are we going into a more stable expansion? Is this just a different phase with the same amount of volatility? What do you think is going to be happening in the U.S. as a baseline outlook? And then if we're going to be wrong, which direction would we be wrong? Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth, we took the view that we would have more policy certainty. Recent weeks have maybe suggested we're incorrect on that front. But I still believe that when it comes to deregulation, immigration policy and fiscal policy, we have much more clarity there than we did a year ago. So, I think it's another year of modest growth, above trend growth. We're forecasting something around 2.4 percent for 2026. That's about where we finished 2025. I think what's key for markets and the outlook overall will be whether inflation comes down. Firms are still passing through tariffs to the consumer. We think that'll happen at least through the end of the first quarter. It's our view that after that, inflation pressures will start to diminish. If that's the case, then we think the Fed can execute one or two more rate cuts.  But we have those coming [in] the second half of the year. So, it looks like growth is strong enough. The labor market has stabilized enough for the Fed to wait and see, to look around, see the effects of their prior rate cuts, and then push policy closer to neutral if inflation comes down. Seth Carpenter: And if we go back to last year to 2025, I will give you the credit first. Morgan Stanley did not shift its forecast for recession in the U.S. the way some of our main competitors did. On the other hand, and this is where I maybe tweak you just a little bit. We underestimated how much growth there would be in the United States. CapEx spending from AI firms was strong. Consumer spending, especially from the top half of the income distribution in the U.S. was strong. Growth overall for the year was over 2 percent, close to 2.5 percent. So, if that's what we just came off of, why isn't it the case that we'd see even stronger growth? Maybe even a re-acceleration of growth in 2026? Michael Gapen: Well, some of that, say, improvement vis-à-vis our forecast, the outperformance. Some of that I think comes mechanically from trade and inventory variability. So, . I'm not sure that that says a lot about an improving trend rate of growth. Where there was other outperformance was, as you noted, from the consumer. Now our models, and I don't mean to get too technical here, but our model suggests that consumption is overshooting its fundamentals.  Which I think makes it harder for the economy to accelerate further. And then AI; it's harder for AI spending to say get...]]>757alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1562fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/pricing-in-trump-s-speech-at-davos--75645020insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors. It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically. So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know? Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance. Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines. So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today. Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's the type of thing that should manifest in a weaker dollar and higher term premia, steeper yield curves for U.S. Treasuries. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, and that dovetails really nicely with the work that we just put out with the FX team, kind of highlighting some of the policy factors as push factors for countries to move away from the dollar. We think that's happening marginally. We think it's not really a risk in the immediate term, but some of these policy drivers can actually create dollar weakness over the medium to longer term. Michael Zezas: Of course, to the extent that we get news that this is a head fake and that tensions are re-escalating, you'd expect some of those trades to start pushing markets back in the other direction again. Now, President Trump also talked quite a bit about domestic policy, largely about affordability, and some of the policy proposals he's put forward over the last couple of weeks. Was there any new details that you heard that you think are meaningful for investors? Ariana Salvatore: So, the short version is nothing really new, and the reality is that a lot of housing policy in particular is actually out of the hands of the executive. And even if you do see congressional action here, it's likely to be marginal. A lot of housing policy is done at the state level, and even bipartisan efforts to address both the demand and the supply sides of the equation have faced some resistance in Congress. That doesn't mean they can't reemerge. But we would need to see a very large decline in the mortgage rate to get noticeable effects on economic indicators like GDP, inflation and employment. And in terms of what this means for the housing outlook, the programs talked about so far should push sales marginally higher but have little impact on our expectations for our home prices. Now it's important to note that the president didn't spend that much time of the speech talking about housing affordability proposals, as was telegraphed ahead of time. And since that, the head of the NEC Kevin Hassett has said they plan to announce more details on housing in the coming days. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, on the two pieces here that investors have really focused on, which are capping institutional ownership of single-family homes and potentially capping interest rates on credit cards, it sounded like the president talked about he would go to Congress for authorization on those things.Is that right? And if so, how plausible is it that Congress could actually deliver those authorities? Ariana Salvatore: So, here's where I think it's really critical to understand the role that Congress has to play in all of these policy initiatives. So, there are not only political constraints, but there are also procedural ones. If we were to see Republicans kind of push for this 10 percent cap, for example, that likely would have to go through the reconciliation process. And that process, as we know, comes with a number of limitations because something like a 10 percent cap wouldn't have much of an impact on the federal budget in terms of revenues or outlays. We think it's most likely not going to be permissible under that framework. So, understanding that the first filter here is Congress, and the second filter is these procedural limitations that exist in and of themselves is really important context for understanding the president's proposals on housing.Michael Zezas: So, is it fair to say the starting point is that we think Congress is unlikely to act on these things? And what would you have to see that might make you think differently? Ariana Salvatore: I think where we're looking for signals from Republican leadership in Congress – because as of right now, it's been our thinking that a second reconciliation bill ahead of the midterm elections is not feasible. It's too difficult politically, it takes a lot of time, but if you see enough of a push from the president, we do think that can start to become feasible. Again, we have to keep in mind these procedural limitations and where the rest of the party falls on these issues. But I think they're possible if the administration pushes hard enough for them.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, even though we don't think it's likely, we obviously want to prepare in case that happens. When it comes to housing, it seems like our team has said institutional ownership of single-family housing is quite low, 1 percent or less. And so, restrictions there wouldn't necessarily change the game on home prices. What about the 10 percent cap on credit card interests? What are the broader ramifications that our colleagues see? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so I'd say generally speaking, when it comes to consumer credit affordability policies, our strategists think that these could actually translate to a benefit for consumer ABS performance because they tend to be a tailwind for a consumer that's struggled with rising delinquencies and defaults post-COVID, right? However, there are some specific proposals like this cap on credit cards, and that's likely going to have a negative consequence because it's going to limit credit access for consumers, especially for those carrying a balance. So, probably a little bit counterintuitive to the overall affordability agenda that the administration's trying to go for. Michael Zezas: So, lots of interesting stuff coming out of the speech. Lots of things we have to track over the next few weeks and months. It certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be a boring year  two of the Trump term for investors. Ariana Salvatore: Certainly not, and not for us either. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for finding the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/__m-nBSBlxuB1OJmZONsZGDfwwf7Hr_M0ofa_kW_7e0Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000gtyAll eyes have been on President Trump’s address at the World Economic Forum. Michael Zezas, our Deputy Global Head of Research, and Ariana Salvatore, our Head of Public Policy Research, talk about potential implications for policy and the U.S....insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors. It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically. So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know? Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance. Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines. So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today. Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's...]]>521alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1561fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/housing-market-limited-impact-from-policy--75645057insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Jim Egan, I see you sitting across from me wearing a quarter zip. As old things become new again, my teenager would think that is trendy. James Egan: I think this is one of, if not the first, times in my life that a teenager has thought I was trendy, including back when I was a teenager. Jay Bacow: Well, as captain of the chess team in high school, I was never trendy. But Jim… Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, we're here to talk about some of the programs that are being announced and their implications for the mortgage and U.S. housing markets. It's Tuesday, January 20th at 10am in New York. Now, Jay, there have been a lot of announcements from this administration. Some of them focused on affordability, some of them focused on the mortgage market, some of them focused on the housing market. But I think one of them that had the biggest impact, at least in terms of trading sessions immediately following, was a $200 billion buy program from the GSEs. Can you talk to us a little bit about that program? Jay Bacow: Sure. As you mentioned, President Trump announced that there would be a $200 billion purchase of mortgages, which later was confirmed by FHFA director Bill Pulte, to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Now, we would highlight putting this $200 billion number in context. The market was probably expecting the GSEs to buy about a hundred billion dollars of mortgages this year. So, this is maybe an incremental a hundred billion dollars more. The mortgage market round numbers is a $10 trillion market, so in the scope of the size of the market, it's not huge. However, we're only forecasting about [$]175 billion of growth in the mortgage market this year, so this is the GSEs buying more than net issuance. It's also similar in size to the Fed balance sheet runoff, which is something that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant mentioned in his comments last week. And so, the initial impact of this announcement was reasonably meaningful. Mortgage spreads tightened about 15 basis points and headline mortgage rates rallied to below 6 precent for the first time since 2022 on some mortgage measures. James Egan: Alright, so we had a 15 basis point rally almost immediately upon announcement of this program. That took us, I believe, through your bull case for agency mortgages in our 2026 outlook. So, what's next here? Jay Bacow: Well, we have a lot of questions about what is next. There's a lot of things that we're still waiting information on. But we think the initial move has sort of been fully priced in. We don't know the pace of the buying. We don't know if the purchases are going to be outright – like the Fed's purchase programs were. Or purchased and hedging the duration – like historically, the GSEs portfolios have been managed. We don't know how the $200 billion of mortgages will be funded. The way we're kind of thinking about this is if the program is just – and this is a podcast, not a video cast but I'm putting air quotes around just – $200 billion, it is probably priced in and then maybe and then some. However, if the purchases are front loaded or the purchases are increased, or maybe this purchase program indicates possible changes to the composition of the Fed's balance sheet, then there could be further moves in spreads and in mortgage rates.But Jim, what does this mean to the mortgage market writ large? James Egan: Right. So, when we think about what you're talking about, a 15 basis point move in mortgage rates, and we take that into the housing market, the first order implication is on affordability. And this is a move in the right direction, but it is small from a magnitude perspective. You mentioned mortgage rates getting below 6 percent for the first time since 2022. When we think about this in the context of our expectations for 2026, we already had the mortgage rate getting to about 5.75 in the back half of this year. This would take that forecast down to about 5.6 percent. That has a very modest upward implication for our purchase volume forecast, but I want to emphasize the modest piece. We're talking about [$]4.23 million was our original existing home sales forecast. This could take it to [$] 4.25 [million], maybe as high as [$]4.3 [million] with some media effect layered in. But any growth in demand, when we think about the home price side of the equation, we think we'll be met with additional listings. So, it really doesn't change our home price forecast for 2026, which was plus 2 percent. So very modest, slightly upward risk to some of our forecasts. And as we've been saying, when we think about U.S. housing in 2026, the risk to our modest growth forecasts, 3 percent growth in sales, 2 percent growth in home prices. The risk has always been to the upside. That could be because demand responds more to a 5 percent handle in mortgage rates than we're expecting. Or because you get more and more of these programs from the administration. So, on that note, Jay, what else do we think can be done here? Jay Bacow: I mean, there are a lot of potential things that could be done, which could be helpful on the margin or not, depending on how far they are willing to think about the possibilities. Some of the easier changes to make would be changes to the loan level pricing adjustments and the guaranteed fees, and mortgage insurance premiums, which would lower the cost in the roughly 10 to 15 basis points. There are some other changes that could be put through which we think from a legal side which would be much more difficult to make retroactive. That would be either allowing you to take your mortgage with you to the next house, which is what we call portability. Or allowing you to transfer your mortgage to the new home buyer, which is what we call assumability. We think it's extremely difficult to make that retroactive, but that could have some larger impacts, if that were to go through. Now, Jim, speaking of other impacts, mortgages spreads have tightened 15 basis points. What does that do to some of the other sectors that you cover? James Egan: Right. We do think there is a portfolio channel effect here that could be good for risk assets broader than just the agency mortgage space, even though that is clearly the primary impact of that $200 billion buying program. Securitized credit, we think is one of the clear beneficiaries of that tightening, given the relationships it has to agency mortgages. The non-QM mortgage market in particular – one that we're looking at for positive tailwinds as a result of this. Jay Bacow: All right, so we got a big announcement. We got a pretty quick market move after that, and now we're waiting to see what the next steps are. Likely going to have a marginal impact on housing activity, but we got to keep our ears and our eyes open to see what else might come. Jim, always great talking to you. James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.
*** Disclaimer ***
James Egan: It's a shame it's not a video podcast. What a great cardigan. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qHhz9trqftfqxTZddXI6Pp4ennYC8sYSyGD51b1-YL8Tue, 20 Jan 2026 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur co-heads of Securitized Products Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why recent U.S. government measures won’t change much the outlook for mortgage rates, home prices and sales this year.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Jim Egan, I see you sitting across from me wearing a quarter zip. As old things become new again, my teenager would think that is trendy. James Egan: I think this is one of, if not the first, times in my life that a teenager has thought I was trendy, including back when I was a teenager. Jay Bacow: Well, as captain of the chess team in high school, I was never trendy. But Jim… Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, we're here to talk about some of the programs that are being announced and their implications for the mortgage and U.S. housing markets. It's Tuesday, January 20th at 10am in New York. Now, Jay, there have been a lot of announcements from this administration. Some of them focused on affordability, some of them focused on the mortgage market, some of them focused on the housing market. But I think one of them that had the biggest impact, at least in terms of trading sessions immediately following, was a $200 billion buy program from the GSEs. Can you talk to us a little bit about that program? Jay Bacow: Sure. As you mentioned, President Trump announced that there would be a $200 billion purchase of mortgages, which later was confirmed by FHFA director Bill Pulte, to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Now, we would highlight putting this $200 billion number in context. The market was probably expecting the GSEs to buy about a hundred billion dollars of mortgages this year. So, this is maybe an incremental a hundred billion dollars more. The mortgage market round numbers is a $10 trillion market, so in the scope of the size of the market, it's not huge. However, we're only forecasting about [$]175 billion of growth in the mortgage market this year, so this is the GSEs buying more than net issuance. It's also similar in size to the Fed balance sheet runoff, which is something that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant mentioned in his comments last week. And so, the initial impact of this announcement was reasonably meaningful. Mortgage spreads tightened about 15 basis points and headline mortgage rates rallied to below 6 precent for the first time since 2022 on some mortgage measures. James Egan: Alright, so we had a 15 basis point rally almost immediately upon announcement of this program. That took us, I believe, through your bull case for agency mortgages in our 2026 outlook. So, what's next here? Jay Bacow: Well, we have a lot of questions about what is next. There's a lot of things that we're still waiting information on. But we think the initial move has sort of been fully priced in. We don't know the pace of the buying. We don't know if the purchases are going to be outright – like the Fed's purchase programs were. Or purchased and hedging the duration – like historically, the GSEs portfolios have been managed. We don't know how the $200 billion of mortgages will be funded. The way we're kind of thinking about this is if the program is just – and this is a podcast, not a video cast but I'm putting air quotes around just – $200 billion, it is probably priced in and then maybe and then some. However, if the purchases are front loaded or the purchases are increased, or maybe this purchase program indicates possible changes to the composition of the Fed's balance sheet, then there could be further moves in spreads and in mortgage rates.But Jim, what does this mean to the mortgage market writ large? James Egan: Right. So, when we think about what...]]>450alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1560fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-driving-european-stocks-in-2026--75645065insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete.Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance.Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe.Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart.To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it’s more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one.Paul Walsh: Understood.Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital…Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it.Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed?Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising.Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance.As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently.Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in our data-driven sector model, is the semi]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-BTm0ZCxE0I_FcGF-cejV6iaUZEqdpNoKldqsUe0YncFri, 16 Jan 2026 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting...]]>694alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1559fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-boost-from-easing-market-rules--75645043insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a core theme of easing policy, and the latest iteration in the U.S. mortgage market. It's Thursday, January 15th at 2pm in London. Central to our thinking for the year ahead is that we're seeing an unusual combination of easing monetary policy, fiscal policy, and regulatory policy – all at the same time. This isn't normal, and usually this type of support is only deployed under much more dire economic conditions. All this is also happening alongside another large supportive force – over $3 trillion of AI- and datacenter-related spending that Morgan Stanley expects all to happen through the end of 2028. This broad-based easing is a global theme. Equities in Japan have been rallying on hopes of even a larger fiscal leasing in that country. In Europe, we think that Germany will continue to spend more while the European Central Bank and Bank of England cut rates more than the market expects.But like many things these days, it's the United States that's at the heart of the story. We think that the U.S. Federal Reserve will continue to lower interest rates this year, even as core inflation persists above its target. The U.S. government will spend about $1.9 trillion more than it takes in, even after adjusting for tariffs as tax cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kick in. But my focus today is on the third leg of this proverbial three-legged stimulative stool. While easing monetary and fiscal policy probably get the most focus, easing regulatory policy is another big lever that's being pulled in the same direction. Regulatory policy is opaque, and let's face it can be a little boring. But it's extremely important for how financial markets function. Regulation drives the incentives for the buyers of many assets, especially in the all-important banking and insurance sectors. It can set almost by definition what price an asset needs to trade at to be attractive, or how much of an asset a particular actor in the market can or cannot hold. Regulatory policy tightened dramatically in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, but now it's starting to ease. Our U.S. bank equity analysts expect that finalization of key capital rules later this year – an important regulatory step – could free up about [$]5.8 trillion – with a T – of balance sheet capacity across the Global Systematically Important Banks. In mid-December, the office of the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC withdrew lending guidelines from 2013 that had discouraged banks from making loans to more highly indebted companies. And just last week, the U.S. administration announced that the U.S. mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy [$]200 billion of mortgages to hold on their own balance sheet; a significant move that quickly tightens spreads in this key market. For investors, we see several implications. This simultaneous easing across monetary, fiscal, and now regulatory policy supports a market that runs hot and where valuations may overshoot. And in the specific case of these agency mortgages, my colleague Jay Bacow and our mortgage strategy team think that this shift is now very quickly in the price. Having previously been positive on agency mortgage spreads, they've now turned to neutral. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/l-YuUZINy01Rt6T51It2HEvjiStA5HOS_7t8nDpFDw8Thu, 15 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at the implications of the U.S. government’s efforts to ease regulations, from bank balance sheets to asset valuations.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a core theme of easing policy, and the latest iteration in the U.S. mortgage market. It's Thursday, January 15th at 2pm in London. Central to our thinking for the year ahead is that we're seeing an unusual combination of easing monetary policy, fiscal policy, and regulatory policy – all at the same time. This isn't normal, and usually this type of support is only deployed under much more dire economic conditions. All this is also happening alongside another large supportive force – over $3 trillion of AI- and datacenter-related spending that Morgan Stanley expects all to happen through the end of 2028. This broad-based easing is a global theme. Equities in Japan have been rallying on hopes of even a larger fiscal leasing in that country. In Europe, we think that Germany will continue to spend more while the European Central Bank and Bank of England cut rates more than the market expects.But like many things these days, it's the United States that's at the heart of the story. We think that the U.S. Federal Reserve will continue to lower interest rates this year, even as core inflation persists above its target. The U.S. government will spend about $1.9 trillion more than it takes in, even after adjusting for tariffs as tax cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kick in. But my focus today is on the third leg of this proverbial three-legged stimulative stool. While easing monetary and fiscal policy probably get the most focus, easing regulatory policy is another big lever that's being pulled in the same direction. Regulatory policy is opaque, and let's face it can be a little boring. But it's extremely important for how financial markets function. Regulation drives the incentives for the buyers of many assets, especially in the all-important banking and insurance sectors. It can set almost by definition what price an asset needs to trade at to be attractive, or how much of an asset a particular actor in the market can or cannot hold. Regulatory policy tightened dramatically in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, but now it's starting to ease. Our U.S. bank equity analysts expect that finalization of key capital rules later this year – an important regulatory step – could free up about [$]5.8 trillion – with a T – of balance sheet capacity across the Global Systematically Important Banks. In mid-December, the office of the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC withdrew lending guidelines from 2013 that had discouraged banks from making loans to more highly indebted companies. And just last week, the U.S. administration announced that the U.S. mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy [$]200 billion of mortgages to hold on their own balance sheet; a significant move that quickly tightens spreads in this key market. For investors, we see several implications. This simultaneous easing across monetary, fiscal, and now regulatory policy supports a market that runs hot and where valuations may overshoot. And in the specific case of these agency mortgages, my colleague Jay Bacow and our mortgage strategy team think that this shift is now very quickly in the price. Having previously been positive on agency mortgage spreads, they've now turned to neutral. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>251alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1558fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-case-for-india-s-market-comeback--75645007insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today: one of the big debates in Asia this year. Can Indian equities recover their strength after a historic slump?   It’s Wednesday, January 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai.India ended 2025 with its weakest relative performance versus Emerging Markets since 1994. That’s right – three decades. The reason? A mid-cycle growth slowdown, rich valuations, and the fact that India doesn’t offer an explicit AI-related trade. Add in delays on the U.S. trade deal plus India’s low beta in a global bull market, and you’ve got a recipe for underperformance. But we think the tide is turning.  Valuations have corrected meaningfully and likely bottomed out in October. More importantly, India’s growth cycle looks poised for a positive surprise. Policymakers have gone all-in on reflation, deploying a mix of aggressive measures to revive momentum. The Reserve Bank of India has cut rates, reduced the cash reserve ratio, infused liquidity and gone in for bank deregulation which are adding fuel to the fire. The government has front-loaded capital expenditure and announced a massive ₹1.5 trillion GST rate cut to encourage people to spend more on goods and services. All these moves – along with improving ties between India and China, Beijing’s new anti-involution push, and the possibility of a major India-U.S. trade deal – are laying solid groundwork for recovery. Put simply, India’s once-tough, post-pandemic economic stance is easing up. And that could open the door to a major shift in how investors see the market going forward. India’s macro backdrop is also evolving. The reduced reliance on oil in GDP, the growing share of exports, especially in services, the ongoing fiscal consolidation – all indicate a smaller saving imbalance. This means structurally lower interest rates ahead. And flexible inflation targeting, and volatility in both inflation and interest rates should continue to decline. High growth with low volatility and falling rates should translate into higher P/E multiples. And don’t forget the household balance sheet shift toward equities. Systematic flows into domestic mutual funds are evidence of this trend. Investor concerns are understandable, but let’s keep them in context. More companies raising capital often signals growth ahead, not just high valuations. Domestic investment remains strong, thanks to a steady shift toward equities. India’s premium valuations reflect solid long-term growth prospects and expectations for lower real interest rates. On the policy front, efforts to boost growth are robust, and we see real growth potentially surprising to the upside. While India isn’t a leader in AI yet, the upcoming AI summit in February could help address concerns about India’s role in tech innovation. What key catalysts should investors watch? Look for positive earnings revisions, further dovishness from the RBI, reforms from the government including privatization, and the long-awaited U.S. trade deal. But also keep an eye on key risks – slower global growth and shifting geopolitical dynamics. So, after fifteen months of relative pain, could India be on the cusp of a structural re-rating? If growth surprises to the upside – and we think it will – the story of 2026 may just be India’s comeback. Stay tuned.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-SL60QdfFYSfZAhuBHaPNM7T64guKawvXe5Zat4lxMEWed, 14 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai addresses a big debate: whether India stocks are poised for a recovery after underperforming other emerging markets in 2025.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today: one of the big debates in Asia this year. Can Indian equities recover their strength after a historic slump?   It’s Wednesday, January 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai.India ended 2025 with its weakest relative performance versus Emerging Markets since 1994. That’s right – three decades. The reason? A mid-cycle growth slowdown, rich valuations, and the fact that India doesn’t offer an explicit AI-related trade. Add in delays on the U.S. trade deal plus India’s low beta in a global bull market, and you’ve got a recipe for underperformance. But we think the tide is turning.  Valuations have corrected meaningfully and likely bottomed out in October. More importantly, India’s growth cycle looks poised for a positive surprise. Policymakers have gone all-in on reflation, deploying a mix of aggressive measures to revive momentum. The Reserve Bank of India has cut rates, reduced the cash reserve ratio, infused liquidity and gone in for bank deregulation which are adding fuel to the fire. The government has front-loaded capital expenditure and announced a massive ₹1.5 trillion GST rate cut to encourage people to spend more on goods and services. All these moves – along with improving ties between India and China, Beijing’s new anti-involution push, and the possibility of a major India-U.S. trade deal – are laying solid groundwork for recovery. Put simply, India’s once-tough, post-pandemic economic stance is easing up. And that could open the door to a major shift in how investors see the market going forward. India’s macro backdrop is also evolving. The reduced reliance on oil in GDP, the growing share of exports, especially in services, the ongoing fiscal consolidation – all indicate a smaller saving imbalance. This means structurally lower interest rates ahead. And flexible inflation targeting, and volatility in both inflation and interest rates should continue to decline. High growth with low volatility and falling rates should translate into higher P/E multiples. And don’t forget the household balance sheet shift toward equities. Systematic flows into domestic mutual funds are evidence of this trend. Investor concerns are understandable, but let’s keep them in context. More companies raising capital often signals growth ahead, not just high valuations. Domestic investment remains strong, thanks to a steady shift toward equities. India’s premium valuations reflect solid long-term growth prospects and expectations for lower real interest rates. On the policy front, efforts to boost growth are robust, and we see real growth potentially surprising to the upside. While India isn’t a leader in AI yet, the upcoming AI summit in February could help address concerns about India’s role in tech innovation. What key catalysts should investors watch? Look for positive earnings revisions, further dovishness from the RBI, reforms from the government including privatization, and the long-awaited U.S. trade deal. But also keep an eye on key risks – slower global growth and shifting geopolitical dynamics. So, after fifteen months of relative pain, could India be on the cusp of a structural re-rating? If growth surprises to the upside – and we think it will – the story of 2026 may just be India’s comeback. Stay tuned.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>256alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1557fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-u-s-manufacturing-see-a-2026-boom--75645060insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation? It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York. U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026. In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up. Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it? Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here? So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day. Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds? Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?’ What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory. Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date. That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Malaysia, and your U.S. factory is pricing up, that means the return profile is getting better. If your factory in Malaysia is pricing down, it means the returns are getting worse and you're pricing down because it's over-capacitized. That's not a region where you're going to add a factory. You know, what I like to say is – price drives returns, and supply is going to follow returns. And right now, that price data tells us the returns are in the United States. Michelle Weaver: And, for people that might not be familiar with PPI, can you explain it to everyone? It's sort of like CPIs cousin, but how should people think about it? Chris Snyder: Yeah, yeah, so PPI, Producer Price Inflation, it's effectively the prices that my companies, the producers of goods are charging. So maybe this is the price that they would then charge a distributor, who then the distributor ultimately is selling it to a store. And then that's, you know, kind of factoring its way into CPI. But it starts with PPI. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of the key catalysts investors should be looking for in 2026 that could confirm that this greenfield ramp is underway? Chris Snyder: The number one, you know, metric I think the market looks at is manufacturing project starts. Every month there's data that comes out and says how many manufacturing projects were announced in the U.S. that month. And what we've seen coming out of Liberation Day is that number on a project value has gone higher. You know, it hasn't totally inflected, but it has pushed higher. The thing that has inflected is the number of announcements. So, this is not like two or three years ago where we had these mega projects. What we're seeing right now is very broad. And to me that's more important because that shows that there's durability behind it. And it shows that this is because the economics are saying it makes sense. It's not necessarily just because, okay, I got an incentive and I'm trying to follow alongside that. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. The market seems skeptical though, pointing out that the ISM manufacturing purchasing managers index has been shrinking. This could be a sign that demand isn't strong enough to justify building new factories right now. How would you address that concern? Chris Snyder: Yeah, no, I mean, you're definitely right. Like the biggest pushback on the reshoring theme is the demand for goods is not very strong. Consumers are not in a good place. So why would companies add capacity in this backdrop? That's never happened before. Companies only add capacity when they're producing a lot and the utilization goes up. This is not a normal cycle. Throughout history, the motivation to add capacity was when your production rates go higher, your utilization hits a certain level, and then you add capacity. So, it always started with demand to your point. The motivation right now is tariff mitigation. And you do not need higher demand to support that. The U.S. is a $1.2 trillion trade deficit. So, that more than anything gets me confident in the theme and the duration behind it. And I think it's a very different outlook when you look across the international markets. They're the ones that need to find incremental demand to justify investment. Michelle Weaver: And given the scale of U.S. purchasing power and the shift in global capital flows, how do you see these manufacturing trends impacting broader performance in 2026? Chris Snyder: We published our outlook and we're calling for the U.S. Industrial Economy to hit decade high growth levels in the back half of [20]26 and into [20]27. And this is a big reason why. We think about this a lot from a CapEx perspective. And we're seeing the investment, we think that ramps into larger greenfields. But we're also seeing it in the production economy. If you look at the delta between U.S. consumer spend and U.S. manufacturing production, that has really narrowed in recent months. And that tells us that we're increasingly serving U.S. demand through domestic production. So that's another factor that's going to drive activity higher and it doesn't need a cycle. And I think that's what's really important. And I think that is what creates this as a more secular and also durable opportunity. So obviously reassuring is something that's, you know, very close to me and important for the industrial economy. But as you think about the multipolar world theme more broadly, how do you think that evolves in 2026? Michelle Weaver: Yeah, absolutely. Last year the multipolar world was an incredibly powerful theme. And when investors were thinking about the multipolar world last year, it was largely about how are companies going to mitigate the risk of tariffs in the near term. We had the policies come out and surprise everyone in terms of the breadth and the magnitude of the tariffs we saw. We had a lot of policy uncertainty around what is that final level of tariffs going to look like. And a lot of the reaction was really short term. It's how can we use our inventory buffers to try and preserve our margins? How much of these additional tariff costs can we pass off to the end customer? How can we insulate ourselves in the near term? I think this year it's going to turn to more longer-term strategic thinking. Reshoring and a lot of the greenfield projects you were talking about, I think will absolutely be an important component of the multipolar world this year. I think we're also likely to see a greater emphasis on U.S. defense. With the action we just saw in Venezuela. I think we're going to see more of that defense component of the multipolar world starting to be expressed in the U.S. It was a big part of the expression of the theme in Europe last year, but I think it will gain relevance in the U.S. this year. Chris Snyder: Yeah. And I think the next chapter in U.S. industrial growth is just getting going. It's taken 25 years for the U.S. to seed roughly 12 percentage points of global s]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/GbW8owHkNyKKWokRKCb--b8XiSI56dOFT7drptWTqugTue, 13 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver and U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder discuss a North America Big Debate for 2026: Whether investments in efficiency and productivity will spark a transformation of U.S. manufacturing. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation? It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York. U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026. In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up. Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it? Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here? So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day. Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds? Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?’ What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory. Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date. That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in...]]>609alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1556fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-markets-stay-steady-amid-venezuela-developments--75645058insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. On today’s podcast, I will talk about the markets’ response to the complex political developments in Venezuela, and examine the opportunities and risks it presents to the markets. It is Monday, January 12th at 11 am in New York. Despite the far-reaching geopolitical implications of last weekend’s developments in Venezuela, the financial markets have been strikingly calm. Oil prices have barely budged, global equities have rallied, and the reaction in the safe-haven markets – U.S. Treasuries, for example – has been fairly muted. So what explains all of this? Let’s start with oil – the commodity most exposed to the situation in Venezuela. The near-term supply appears very manageable. As Morgan Stanley’s chief commodities strategist Martijn Rats notes, the market entered 2026 oversupplied, and inventories remain flush. That cushion explains why Brent prices have barely budged, and why Martijn sees prices sliding into the mid-$50s in the coming months.The bigger story is medium term. The prospect of reviving Venezuela’s oil industry tilts production risks higher. Despite holding over 300 billion barrels, the world’s largest reserves, [the] current output of Venezuela is just 0.8-1 million barrels per day, making it the smallest producer among the major reserve holders. More Venezuelan barrels hitting global markets could keep prices soft, even against a backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions. For oil, the near-term price risk is low while medium-term price risk leans bearish. Let’s talk about energy stocks. In line with the expectation of our equity energy analysts led by Devin McDermott, energy equities have largely responded favorably, reflecting the potential for increased oil supply and specific company opportunities. U.S. refiners stand out as poised to gain. A post-Maduro Venezuela could mean higher crude exports of the heavy, sour oil that these refiners are built to process. More imported heavy crude is a clear tailwind for U.S. Gulf Coast refiners like Valero (VLO) and Marathon Petroleum (MPC), potentially lowering their input costs and improving their margins. Similarly, Chevron (CVX), the only U.S. major still operating there under a sanctions waiver, is also poised to rally on the back of this. So for energy stocks, while [the] geopolitical story is complex, the market’s message is straightforward. The prospect of greater supply is good news, and some companies appear uniquely positioned to gain as Venezuela’s next chapter unfolds. Nowhere has the market reaction been more dramatic than in Venezuela’s own sovereign debt. As Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley’s global head of sovereign credit strategy anticipated, prices of Venezuela’s defaulted bonds – both the government bonds (VENZ) as well as the bonds of state oil company PDVSA – soared to multi-year highs following the weekend’s events. The bond complex has already rallied over 25 percent since last weekend to reach an average price of about $35, thanks to the increased likelihood of a creditor-friendly transition. A clearer path for a potential debt restructuring deal improves the prospects for future debt recovery. We expect further upside as the markets price a higher recovery rate if Venezuela’s oil production increases further. So what's the bottom line: Last week’s developments in Venezuela are a major geopolitical event, but the financial market reaction reflects both the contained nature of the shock and the prospect of constructive outcomes ahead – more oil supply, creditor-friendly debt resolution, etc. Oil markets are signaling that global supply can weather the storm, equity investors are cheering beneficiaries like refiners and seeing the broader risk backdrop as unchanged, and bond investors are selectively adding Venezuela’s beaten-down debt in hopes of an eventual recovery. For now, the takeaway is that this political event has not affected the market’s positive momentum – if anything, it has created pockets of opportunity and reinforced prevailing trends such as ample oil, and strong credit appetite. As always, we’ll keep you informed of any material changes. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5a2q7czGLrAZ1PT4MGcYZqkJ_xuUmolYIWYsufUOhfQMon, 12 Jan 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategists Vishy Tirupattur discusses the calm market reaction to the latest developments in Venezuela and the potential implications for oil, stocks and bonds.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. On today’s podcast, I will talk about the markets’ response to the complex political developments in Venezuela, and examine the opportunities and risks it presents to the markets. It is Monday, January 12th at 11 am in New York. Despite the far-reaching geopolitical implications of last weekend’s developments in Venezuela, the financial markets have been strikingly calm. Oil prices have barely budged, global equities have rallied, and the reaction in the safe-haven markets – U.S. Treasuries, for example – has been fairly muted. So what explains all of this? Let’s start with oil – the commodity most exposed to the situation in Venezuela. The near-term supply appears very manageable. As Morgan Stanley’s chief commodities strategist Martijn Rats notes, the market entered 2026 oversupplied, and inventories remain flush. That cushion explains why Brent prices have barely budged, and why Martijn sees prices sliding into the mid-$50s in the coming months.The bigger story is medium term. The prospect of reviving Venezuela’s oil industry tilts production risks higher. Despite holding over 300 billion barrels, the world’s largest reserves, [the] current output of Venezuela is just 0.8-1 million barrels per day, making it the smallest producer among the major reserve holders. More Venezuelan barrels hitting global markets could keep prices soft, even against a backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions. For oil, the near-term price risk is low while medium-term price risk leans bearish. Let’s talk about energy stocks. In line with the expectation of our equity energy analysts led by Devin McDermott, energy equities have largely responded favorably, reflecting the potential for increased oil supply and specific company opportunities. U.S. refiners stand out as poised to gain. A post-Maduro Venezuela could mean higher crude exports of the heavy, sour oil that these refiners are built to process. More imported heavy crude is a clear tailwind for U.S. Gulf Coast refiners like Valero (VLO) and Marathon Petroleum (MPC), potentially lowering their input costs and improving their margins. Similarly, Chevron (CVX), the only U.S. major still operating there under a sanctions waiver, is also poised to rally on the back of this. So for energy stocks, while [the] geopolitical story is complex, the market’s message is straightforward. The prospect of greater supply is good news, and some companies appear uniquely positioned to gain as Venezuela’s next chapter unfolds. Nowhere has the market reaction been more dramatic than in Venezuela’s own sovereign debt. As Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley’s global head of sovereign credit strategy anticipated, prices of Venezuela’s defaulted bonds – both the government bonds (VENZ) as well as the bonds of state oil company PDVSA – soared to multi-year highs following the weekend’s events. The bond complex has already rallied over 25 percent since last weekend to reach an average price of about $35, thanks to the increased likelihood of a creditor-friendly transition. A clearer path for a potential debt restructuring deal improves the prospects for future debt recovery. We expect further upside as the markets price a higher recovery rate if Venezuela’s oil production increases further. So what's the bottom line: Last week’s developments in Venezuela are a major geopolitical event, but the financial market reaction reflects both the contained nature of the shock and the prospect of constructive outcomes ahead – more oil...]]>299alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1555fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/signals-align-for-a-growth-cycle--75645055insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about an unusual alignment of signs of optimism for the global cyclical backdrop and why these are important to watch. It's Friday, January 9th at 2pm in London. 2026 is now well underway. Forecasting is difficult and a humbling exercise; and 2025 certainly showed that even in a good year for markets, you can have some serious twists and turns. But overall, Morgan Stanley Research still thinks the year ahead will be a positive one, with equities higher and bond yields modestly lower. It's off to an eventful start, certainly, but we think that core message remains in place. But instead of going back again to our forecasts through the year ahead, I wanted to focus instead on a wide variety of different assets that have long been viewed as leading indicators of the global cyclical environment. I think these are important, and what's notable is that they're all moving in the same direction – all indicating a stronger cyclical backdrop. While today's market certainly has some areas of speculative activity and excessive valuations, the alignment of these things suggests something more substantive may be going on. First, Copper prices, which tend to be volatile but economically sensitive, have been rising sharply up about 40 percent in the last year. A key index of non-traded industrial commodities for everything from Glass to Tin, which is useful because it means it's less likely to be influenced by investor activity, well, it's been up 10 percent over the last year. Korean equities, which tend to be highly cyclical and thus have long been viewed by investors as a proxy for global economic optimism, well, they were the best performing major market last year, up 80 percent. Smaller cap stocks, which again, tend to be more economically sensitive, well, they've been outperforming larger ones. And last but not least, Financial stocks in the U.S. and Europe. Again, a sector that tends to be quite economically sensitive. Well, they've been outperforming the broader market and to a pretty significant degree. These are different assets in different regions that all appear to be saying the same thing – that the outlook for global cyclical activity has been getting better and has now actually been doing so for some time. Now, any individual indicator can be wrong. But when multiple indicators all point in the same direction, that's pretty worthy of attention. And I think this ties in nicely with a key message from my colleague, Mike Wilson from Monday's episode; that the positive case for U.S. equities is very much linked to better fundamental activity. Specifically, our view that earnings growth may be stronger than appreciated. Of course, the data will have a say, and if these indicators turn down, it could suggest a weaker economic and cyclical backdrop. But for now, these various cyclical indicators are giving a positive read. If they continue to do so, it may raise more questions around central bank policy and to what extent further rate cuts are consistent with these signs of a stronger global growth backdrop. For now, we think they remain supporting evidence of our core view that this market cycle can still burn hotter before it burns out. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0YbAoE6viHV8_McX-I7kw8qiB2Z7KSIeZOVg-Tw5I78Fri, 09 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets takes a look at multiple indicators that are pointing on the same direction: strong growth for markets and the economy.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about an unusual alignment of signs of optimism for the global cyclical backdrop and why these are important to watch. It's Friday, January 9th at 2pm in London. 2026 is now well underway. Forecasting is difficult and a humbling exercise; and 2025 certainly showed that even in a good year for markets, you can have some serious twists and turns. But overall, Morgan Stanley Research still thinks the year ahead will be a positive one, with equities higher and bond yields modestly lower. It's off to an eventful start, certainly, but we think that core message remains in place. But instead of going back again to our forecasts through the year ahead, I wanted to focus instead on a wide variety of different assets that have long been viewed as leading indicators of the global cyclical environment. I think these are important, and what's notable is that they're all moving in the same direction – all indicating a stronger cyclical backdrop. While today's market certainly has some areas of speculative activity and excessive valuations, the alignment of these things suggests something more substantive may be going on. First, Copper prices, which tend to be volatile but economically sensitive, have been rising sharply up about 40 percent in the last year. A key index of non-traded industrial commodities for everything from Glass to Tin, which is useful because it means it's less likely to be influenced by investor activity, well, it's been up 10 percent over the last year. Korean equities, which tend to be highly cyclical and thus have long been viewed by investors as a proxy for global economic optimism, well, they were the best performing major market last year, up 80 percent. Smaller cap stocks, which again, tend to be more economically sensitive, well, they've been outperforming larger ones. And last but not least, Financial stocks in the U.S. and Europe. Again, a sector that tends to be quite economically sensitive. Well, they've been outperforming the broader market and to a pretty significant degree. These are different assets in different regions that all appear to be saying the same thing – that the outlook for global cyclical activity has been getting better and has now actually been doing so for some time. Now, any individual indicator can be wrong. But when multiple indicators all point in the same direction, that's pretty worthy of attention. And I think this ties in nicely with a key message from my colleague, Mike Wilson from Monday's episode; that the positive case for U.S. equities is very much linked to better fundamental activity. Specifically, our view that earnings growth may be stronger than appreciated. Of course, the data will have a say, and if these indicators turn down, it could suggest a weaker economic and cyclical backdrop. But for now, these various cyclical indicators are giving a positive read. If they continue to do so, it may raise more questions around central bank policy and to what extent further rate cuts are consistent with these signs of a stronger global growth backdrop. For now, we think they remain supporting evidence of our core view that this market cycle can still burn hotter before it burns out. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>230alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1554fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/driverless-cars-take-the-fast-lane--75645033insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Autos and Shared Mobility Research. Brian Nowak: Today we're going to talk about why we think 2026 could be a game changer and a point of inflection for autonomous vehicles and autonomous driving. It's Thursday, January 8th at 10am in New York. So, Andrew, let's get started. Have you ridden an autonomous car before? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, absolutely. Took a few in L.A., took one in San Francisco not too long ago. Pretty seamless and interesting experience to say the least. Brian Nowak: Any accidents or awkward left turns? Or did you feel pretty comfortable the whole time? Andrew Percoco: No, I felt pretty comfortable the whole time. No edge cases, no issues. So, all five star reviews for me. Brian Nowak: Andrew, we think your answer is going to be a lot more common as we go throughout 2026. As autonomous availability scales throughout more and more cities. Things are changing quickly. And we kind of look at our model on a city-by-city basis. We think that overall availability for autonomous driving in the U.S. is going to go from about 15 percent of the urban population at the end of 2025 to over 30 percent of the urban population by year end 2026. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, totally agree. Brian, I'm just curious. Like maybe layout for us, you know, what you're expecting for 2026 in more detail in terms of city rollouts, players involved and what we should be watching for throughout the next, you know, nine to 12 months. Brian Nowak: We have multiple new cities across the United States where we expect Waymo, Tesla, Zoox, and others to expand their fleet, expand autonomous driving availability, and ultimately make the product a lot more available and commonplace for people. There are also new potential edge cases that we think we're going to see. We're going to have our first snow cities with Waymo expected to launch in Washington, D.C.; potentially in Colorado, potentially in Michigan. So, we could have proof of concept that autonomous driving can also work in snow throughout [20]26 and into 2027 as well. So, in all, we think as we sit here at the start of [20]26, one year from now, there's going to be a lot more people who are going to say: I'm using an autonomous car to drive me around in my everyday practice. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And I guess, what do you think the drivers are to get us there, right? There's also some concerns about safety, adoption, you know, cost structure. What are the main drivers that really make this growth algorithm work and really scales the robotaxi business for some of the key players? Brian Nowak: Part of it is regulatory. You know, we are still in a situation where we are dealing with state-by-state regulatory approvals needed for these autonomous vehicles and autonomous fleets to be built. We'll see if that changes, but for now, it's state by state regulation. After that, it comes down to technology, and each of the platforms needs to prove that their autonomous offerings are significantly safer than human driving. That is also linked to regulatory approval. And so, when we think about fleets becoming safer, proving that they can drive people more miles without having an accident than even a human can – we think about the autonomous players then scaling up their fleets. To make the cars and fleets available to more people. That is sort of the flywheel that we think is going to play out throughout 2026. The other part that we're very focused on across all the players from Waymo to Tesla to Zoox and others is the cost of the cars. And there is a big difference between the cost of a Waymo per mile versus the cost of a Tesla per mile. And we think one of the tension points, Andrew, that you can, you can talk about a little bit here, is the difference in the safety data and what we see on Tesla as of now versus Waymo – versus the cost advantage that Tesla has. So, talk about the cost advantage that Tesla has through all this as of right now. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, definitely. So, you know, as you mentioned, Tesla today has a very clear cost advantage over many of the robotaxi peers that they're competing with. A lot of that's driven by their vertical integration, and their sensor suite, right? So, their vehicle, the cost of their vehicle is – call it $35,000. You've got the camera only sensor approach. So, you don't have lidar, expensive lidar, and radar in the vehicle. And that's just really driven a meaningful cost improvement and cost advantage. On our math about a 40 percent cost advantage relative to Waymo today. Now going forward, you know, as you mentioned, I think the key hurdle here or bottleneck, that Tesla still needs to prove is their safety. And can they reach the same safety standards as a human driver? And, you know, the improvement that you've seen from Waymo. You know, to put some numbers around this. Based on publicly available data in Austin, Tesla's getting in a crash, you know, every about, call it every 50,000 miles; Waymo is closer to every 400,000 miles per crash. So today, Waymo is the leader on safety.I think the one important caveat that I want to mention here is that's on a relatively small number of miles driven for Tesla. They've only driven about 250,000 miles in Austin, whereas Waymo's driven close to, I think, a hundred million miles cumulatively. So, when you look back, I think this is going to be the kind of key catalyst and key data point for investors to watch is – how that data improves over the course of 2026. If you track Waymo – Waymo's data improved substantially as their miles driven improved, and as they launched into new cities.We'd expect Tesla to follow a similar trend. But that's going to be a huge catalyst in validating this camera only approach. If that happens, Tesla's not limited in scale, they're not limited in manufacturing capacity. You can meaningfully see them expand… Or you can see them expand quite quickly once they prove out that safety requirement. Brian Nowak: I think it's a great point because, you know, one of the other big debates that we are all going to have to monitor in the AV space throughout 2026 is: How quickly does Tesla completely pull the safety drivers, and how quickly do they scale up production of the vehicles? Because one of the bank shots around autonomous driving is actually the rideshare industry. You know, we have partnerships; some partnerships between Waymo and Uber and Waymo and Lyft. But Tesla is not partnering with anyone. And so, I think the extent to which we see a faster than expected ramp up in deployment from Tesla can have a lot of impact. Not only on autonomous adoption, competition with Waymo, but also the rideshare industry.So how do you think about the puts and takes on Tesla and sort of removing the drivers and scaling up the fleet this year? What should we be watching? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, so they've already made some strides there in Austin. They’ve pulled the safety monitor. They haven't opened that up to the public yet without the safety monitor. They're still testing, presumably in that geography. They need to be extremely careful in terms of, you know, the regulatory compliance and making sure they're doing this in a safe way. Ultimately that's what matters most to them. We do expect them to roll it out to the public without the safety monitor in 2026. Whether or not, that's the first quarter or the third quarter – is a little bit tougher to predict. But I think it's reasonable to assume whatever the timeline is, they're going to make sure it's the safest way possible to ensure that there's, you know, no unintended consequences as it relates to regulation, et cetera. I think one, also; one important data point or interesting data point here. You know, we model, I think, a 100 percent CAGR in miles driven, autonomous miles driven through 2032. You can talk a little bit about, you know, what the implications for rideshare, but I think important. It's important to contextualize that would still only represent less than 1 percent of total U.S. miles driven in the U.S. So substantial growth over the next, call it six or seven years. But still a massive TAM to be tapped into beyond 2032. And I think the key there is – what's the cost reduction roadmap look like? And can we get robotaxis to a point where they are cheaper than personal car ownership? And could robotaxis at some point disrupt the car ownership process? Brian Nowak: Yeah. And the other more important point around rideshare will be how much do these autonomous offerings expand the addressable market for rideshare and prove to be incremental? As opposed to being cannibalistic on existing ride share rides. Because you're right that, you know, even our out year autonomous projections still have it less than 1 percent of the total trips. But the question is how much does that add to ride share? Because in some scenarios, those autonomous trips could end up being 20 to 30 percent of the rideshare industry. This matters for Uber and Lyft because while they are partnering Waymo and other autonomous players across a handful of markets, they're not partnered in all the markets. And in some markets, Waymo is going alone. Tesla is going at it alone. And so when we look at our model and we say as of 2024, Uber and Lyft make up 100 percent of the ride share industry based on the current partnerships, which includes Waymo and Tesla and all; and Zo]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AkKRkJYtMUpTQP2LgiGgv4oINNDTkggoHUyew-UAVxEThu, 08 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak and Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Autos and Shared Mobility Research, discuss why adoption of autonomous vehicles is likely to gain traction this year.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Autos and Shared Mobility Research. Brian Nowak: Today we're going to talk about why we think 2026 could be a game changer and a point of inflection for autonomous vehicles and autonomous driving. It's Thursday, January 8th at 10am in New York. So, Andrew, let's get started. Have you ridden an autonomous car before? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, absolutely. Took a few in L.A., took one in San Francisco not too long ago. Pretty seamless and interesting experience to say the least. Brian Nowak: Any accidents or awkward left turns? Or did you feel pretty comfortable the whole time? Andrew Percoco: No, I felt pretty comfortable the whole time. No edge cases, no issues. So, all five star reviews for me. Brian Nowak: Andrew, we think your answer is going to be a lot more common as we go throughout 2026. As autonomous availability scales throughout more and more cities. Things are changing quickly. And we kind of look at our model on a city-by-city basis. We think that overall availability for autonomous driving in the U.S. is going to go from about 15 percent of the urban population at the end of 2025 to over 30 percent of the urban population by year end 2026. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, totally agree. Brian, I'm just curious. Like maybe layout for us, you know, what you're expecting for 2026 in more detail in terms of city rollouts, players involved and what we should be watching for throughout the next, you know, nine to 12 months. Brian Nowak: We have multiple new cities across the United States where we expect Waymo, Tesla, Zoox, and others to expand their fleet, expand autonomous driving availability, and ultimately make the product a lot more available and commonplace for people. There are also new potential edge cases that we think we're going to see. We're going to have our first snow cities with Waymo expected to launch in Washington, D.C.; potentially in Colorado, potentially in Michigan. So, we could have proof of concept that autonomous driving can also work in snow throughout [20]26 and into 2027 as well. So, in all, we think as we sit here at the start of [20]26, one year from now, there's going to be a lot more people who are going to say: I'm using an autonomous car to drive me around in my everyday practice. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And I guess, what do you think the drivers are to get us there, right? There's also some concerns about safety, adoption, you know, cost structure. What are the main drivers that really make this growth algorithm work and really scales the robotaxi business for some of the key players? Brian Nowak: Part of it is regulatory. You know, we are still in a situation where we are dealing with state-by-state regulatory approvals needed for these autonomous vehicles and autonomous fleets to be built. We'll see if that changes, but for now, it's state by state regulation. After that, it comes down to technology, and each of the platforms needs to prove that their autonomous offerings are significantly safer than human driving. That is also linked to regulatory approval. And so, when we think about fleets becoming safer, proving that they can drive people more miles without having an accident than even a human can – we think about the autonomous players then scaling up their fleets. To make the cars and fleets available to more people. That is sort of the flywheel that we think is going to play out throughout...]]>612alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1553fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-revolution-in-credit-markets--75645074insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today is a special edition of our podcast. We are joined by Dan Toscano, Chairman of Markets in Private Equity at Morgan Stanley, and a seasoned practitioner of credit markets over many, many credit cycles. We will get his thoughts on the ongoing evolution and revolution in credit marketsIt's Wednesday, January 7th at 10am in New York. Dan, welcome.Dan Toscano: Glad to be here.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to get our – the listeners familiar with your journey, can you talk a little bit about your experience in the credit markets, and how you got to where we are today?Dan Toscano: Yeah, sure. So, I've been doing this a long time. You used the nice word seasoned. My kids would refer to it as old. But I started in this journey in 1988. And to make a long story short, my first job on Wall Street was buying junk bonds in the infancy of the junk bond market, when most of what we were financing were LBOs. So, if you're familiar with Barbarians at the Gate, one of the first bonds we bought were RJR Nabisco reset notes. And I've been doing this ever since, so over almost four decades now.Vishy Tirupattur: So, the junk bond market evolved into high yield market, syndicated loan market, CLO market, financial crisis. So, talk to us about your experiences during this transition.Dan Toscano: Yeah. I mean, one of the things these markets do is they finance evolution in industries. So, when I think back to the early days of financing leveraged buyouts, they were called bootstrap deals. The first deal I did as an intermediary on Wall Street as opposed to as an investor, was a buyout with Bain Capital in 1993. At the time, Bain Capital had a $600 million AUM private equity platform. Think about that in the scale of what Bain Capital does in private equity today. You know, back then it was corporate carve outs, and trying to make the global economy more efficient. And you remember the rise of the conglomerate. And so, one of the early things we financed a lot of was the de-conglomeration of big corporates. So, they would spin off assets that were not central to the business or the strengths that they had as an organization.So, that was the early days of private equity. There was obviously the telecom build out in the late 90’s and the resulting bust. And then into the GFC. And we sit here today with the distinctions of private capital, private credit, public credit, syndicated credit, and all the amazing things that are being financed in, you know, what I think of as the next industrial revolution.Vishy Tirupattur: In terms of things that have changed a lot – a lot also changed following the financial crisis. So, if you dig deep into that one thing that happened was the introduction of leveraged lending guidelines. Can you talk about what leveraged lending guidelines did to the credit markets?Dan Toscano: Yeah, I mean, it was a big change for underwriters because it dictated what you could and couldn't participate in as an underwriter or a lender, and so it really cut off one end of the market that was determined by – and I think the thing most famously attributed to the leveraged lending guidelines was this maximum leverage notion of six times leverage is the cap. Nothing beyond that. And so that really limited the ability for Wall Street firms to underwrite and distribute capital to support those deals.And inadvertently, or maybe by plan, really gave rise to the growth in the private credit market. So, when you think about everything that's going on in the world today, including, which I'm sure we'll talk about, the relaxation of the leveraged lending guidelines, it was really fuel for private credit.Vishy Tirupattur: So private credit, this relaxation that you mentioned, you know, a few weeks ago, the FDIC and the OCC withdrew the leveraged lending guidelines in total. What do you expect that will do to the private credit markets? Will that make private credit market share decrease and bank market share increase?Dan Toscano: I think many people think of these as being mutually exclusive. We've never thought of it that way. It exists more on a continuum. And so, what I think the relaxation of those guidelines or the elimination of those guidelines really frees the banks to participate in the entire continuum, either as lenders or as underwriters.And so, in addition to the opportunity that gives the banks to really find the best solutions for their clients, I think this will also continue the blurring of distinctions between public market credit and private market credit. Because now the banks can participate in all of it. And when you think about what defines in people's minds – public credit versus private credit, in many cases it's driven by what terms look like. Customary terms for a syndicated bond or loan versus a private credit loan.Also, who's participating in it. You know, these things have been blurring, right? There's a cost differential or a perceived cost differential that has been blurring for some time now. That will continue to happen, in my opinion anyway.Vishy Tirupattur: I totally agree with you, Dan, on that. I think not only the distinction between public credit and private credit, but also within the various credit channels – secured, unsecured, securitized, structured – all these distinctions are also blurring. So, in that context, let's talk a little bit more about what private credit's focus has been and where private credit focus will be going forward. So, what we'll call private credit 1.0. Focused predominantly on lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. And we now see that potentially changing. What is driving private credit 2.0 in your mind?Dan Toscano: Well, the elephant in the room is digital infrastructure. Absolutely. When you think about the scale of what is happening, the type of capital that's required for the build out, the structure you need around it, the ability to use elements of structure. You mentioned several of them earlier. To come up with an appropriate risk structure for lending is really where the market is heading. When you think about the trillions of dollars that we anticipate is needed for the technology industry to complete this transformation – not just around digital infrastructure, but around everything associated with it.And the big one I think of most often is power, right? So, you need capital to build out sources of power, and you need capital to build out the data centers to be able to handle the compute demand that is expected to be there. This is a scale unlike anything we have ever seen. It is the backbone of what will be the next industrial revolution.We’ve never seen anything like this in terms of the scale of the capital needed for the transformation that is already underway.Vishy Tirupattur: We are very much on board with this idea as well, Dan, in terms of the scale of the investment, the capital investment that is needed. So, when you look ahead for 2026, what worries you about the ind ustrial revolution financing that is underway?Dan Toscano: Given all that's going on in the world, this massive capital investment that's going on globally around digital infrastructure, we've never seen this before. And so, when I look at the capital raising that has been done in 2025 versus what will be done in 2026, I think one of the differences that we have to be mindful of is – nothing's gone wrong while we were raising capital in 2025 because we were very much in the infancy of these buildouts. Once you get further into these buildouts and the capital raises in 2025 that are funding the development of data centers start to season, problems will emerge. The essence of credit risk is there will be problems and it's really trying to predict and foresee where the problems will be and make sure you can manage your way through them.That is the essence of successful credit investing. And so there will definitely be issues when you think about the scale of the build out that is happening. Even if you look just in the U.S., where you need access to all sorts of commodities to build out. And you know, people focus on chips, but you also need steel and roofing, and importantly labor.And as we talk to people about the build outs, one of the concerns is supply of labor supply and cost of labor. So, when you run into situations where maybe a project is delayed a bit, or the costs are a bit more than what was expected, there will be a reaction. And we haven't had that yet. We will start to see that in 2026 and how investors and the markets react to that, I think will be very important. And I'm a little bit worried that there could be some overreaction because people have trained themselves in 2025 to think of like, ‘I'm operating in a perfect environment,’ because we haven't really done anything yet. And now that we've done something, something can and will go wrong. So, you know, we'll see how that plays out.I am very fixated in 2026 on the laws of supply and demand. When I think about what's going on right now, we usually have visibility on demand. And we usually have some level of visibility on supply. Right now, we have neither – and I say that in a positive way. We don't know how big the demand is in the capital world to fund these projects. We don't know how big that can be. And almost with every passing day, the supply – and what we're hearing from our clients about what they need to execute their plans – continues to grow in a way that we don't know]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Q7ZgURkHBF1cvJMlbO8WKYUku3K4KTRyf5LCt68jAhAWed, 07 Jan 2026 22:30:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur is joined by Dan Toscano, the firm’s Chairman of Markets in Private Equity, unpack how credit markets are changing—and what the AI buildup means for the road ahead.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today is a special edition of our podcast. We are joined by Dan Toscano, Chairman of Markets in Private Equity at Morgan Stanley, and a seasoned practitioner of credit markets over many, many credit cycles. We will get his thoughts on the ongoing evolution and revolution in credit marketsIt's Wednesday, January 7th at 10am in New York. Dan, welcome.Dan Toscano: Glad to be here.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to get our – the listeners familiar with your journey, can you talk a little bit about your experience in the credit markets, and how you got to where we are today?Dan Toscano: Yeah, sure. So, I've been doing this a long time. You used the nice word seasoned. My kids would refer to it as old. But I started in this journey in 1988. And to make a long story short, my first job on Wall Street was buying junk bonds in the infancy of the junk bond market, when most of what we were financing were LBOs. So, if you're familiar with Barbarians at the Gate, one of the first bonds we bought were RJR Nabisco reset notes. And I've been doing this ever since, so over almost four decades now.Vishy Tirupattur: So, the junk bond market evolved into high yield market, syndicated loan market, CLO market, financial crisis. So, talk to us about your experiences during this transition.Dan Toscano: Yeah. I mean, one of the things these markets do is they finance evolution in industries. So, when I think back to the early days of financing leveraged buyouts, they were called bootstrap deals. The first deal I did as an intermediary on Wall Street as opposed to as an investor, was a buyout with Bain Capital in 1993. At the time, Bain Capital had a $600 million AUM private equity platform. Think about that in the scale of what Bain Capital does in private equity today. You know, back then it was corporate carve outs, and trying to make the global economy more efficient. And you remember the rise of the conglomerate. And so, one of the early things we financed a lot of was the de-conglomeration of big corporates. So, they would spin off assets that were not central to the business or the strengths that they had as an organization.So, that was the early days of private equity. There was obviously the telecom build out in the late 90’s and the resulting bust. And then into the GFC. And we sit here today with the distinctions of private capital, private credit, public credit, syndicated credit, and all the amazing things that are being financed in, you know, what I think of as the next industrial revolution.Vishy Tirupattur: In terms of things that have changed a lot – a lot also changed following the financial crisis. So, if you dig deep into that one thing that happened was the introduction of leveraged lending guidelines. Can you talk about what leveraged lending guidelines did to the credit markets?Dan Toscano: Yeah, I mean, it was a big change for underwriters because it dictated what you could and couldn't participate in as an underwriter or a lender, and so it really cut off one end of the market that was determined by – and I think the thing most famously attributed to the leveraged lending guidelines was this maximum leverage notion of six times leverage is the cap. Nothing beyond that. And so that really limited the ability for Wall Street firms to underwrite and distribute capital to support those deals.And inadvertently, or maybe by plan, really gave rise to the growth in the private credit market. So, when you think...]]>703alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1552fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-venezuela-events-could-affect-markets-and-policy--75645050insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the latest events in Venezuela and its implications for global markets.It's Tuesday, January 6th at 10am in New York. So, Ariana, before we get into it: Long time listeners might have noticed in our intro, a changeup in our titles. Ariana, you're stepping in to lead day-to-day public policy research. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And Mike, you're taking on more of a leadership role across the research department globally. Michael Zezas: Right, which is great news for both of us. And because the interaction between public policy choices and financial markets is as critical as ever, and because collaboration is so important to how we do investment research at Morgan Stanley – tapping into expertise and insight wherever we can find it – you’re still going to hear from one of – and sometimes both of us – here on Thoughts on the Market on a weekly basis. Ariana Salvatore: And this week is a great example of this dynamic as we start the New Year with investors trying to decide what, if anything, the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela means for the outlook for markets. Michael Zezas: Right. So, to that point, the New Year's barely begun, but it's already brought a dramatic geopolitical situation: The U.S. capture and arrest of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro – an event that can have far reaching implications for oil markets, energy, equities, sovereign credit, and politics. Ariana, thinking from the perspective of the investor, what's catching your attention right now? Ariana Salvatore: I think clients have been trying to get their arms around what this means for the future of U.S. foreign policy, as well as domestic policy making here too. On the first point, I would say this isn't necessarily a surprise or out of step with the goals that the Trump administration has been at least rhetorically emphasizing all year. Which is to say we think this is really just another data point in a pre-existing longer term trend toward multipolarity. Remember that involves linkage of economic and national security interest. It comes with its own set of investment themes, many of which we've written about, but one in particular would be elevated levels of defense spending globally, as we're in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. Another tangible takeaway I would say is on the USMCA review. I think the U.S. has likely even more leverage in the upcoming negotiations, and likely is going to push even harder for Mexico to put up trade barriers or take active steps to limit Chinese investment or influence in the country. Enforcement here obviously will be critical, as we've said. And ultimately, we do still think the review results in a slightly deeper trade integration than we have right now. But it's possible that you see tariffs on non-USMCA compliant goods higher, for example, throughout these talks. Michael Zezas: And does this affect at all your expectations for domestic policy choices from the U.S.? Ariana Salvatore: I think it's important to emphasize here that we're just seeing an increasingly diminished role for Congress to play. The past year has been punctuated by one-off US foreign policy actions and a usage of executive authority over a number of different policy areas like immigration, tariffs, and so on. So, I would say the clearest takeaway on the domestic front is we're seeing a policy making pattern that is faster and more unilateral, right? If you don't need time for consensus building on some of these issues, decisions are being made by a smaller and smaller group of people. That in itself just increases policy uncertainty and risk premia, I would say across the board. But Mike, let's turn it back specifically to Venezuela. One of the most important questions is on – what this all means for global oil markets. What are our strategists saying there? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, oil markets are the natural first place to look when it comes to the impact of these geopolitical events. And the answer more often than not is that the oil market tends not to react too much. And that seems to be the case here following the weekend’s Venezuela developments. That's because we don't expect there to be much short-term supply impact. Over the medium-term risks to Venezuela’s production skew higher. But while Venezuela famously holds one of the largest oil reserves in the world – it's about 17 percent of the world’s oil reserves – in terms of production, its contribution is relatively small. It's less than 1 percent of global output. So, among the top 10 reserve holders, Venezuela is by far the smallest producer. So, you wouldn't expect there to be any real meaningful supply impact in the markets, at least in the near term. So, one area where there has been price movement is in the market for Venezuela sovereign bonds. They have been priced for low recovery values and the potential restructuring that was far off. But now with the U.S. more involved and the prospect of greater foreign investment into the country's oil production, investors have been bidding up the bond price in anticipation of potentially a sooner restructuring and higher recovery value for the bonds. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And to that point, our EM sovereign credit strategists anticipate limited spillover to broader LatAm sovereign credit. Any differentiation is more likely to reflect degrees of alignment with the U.S. and exposure to oil prices and potential increases in Venezuelan production, which could leave Mexico and Columbia among relative under underperformers. Michael Zezas: Right. And this seems like it's going to be an important theme all year because the U.S. actions in Venezuela seem to be a demonstration of the government's willingness to intervene in the Western Hemisphere to protect its interests more broadly. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, it's a topic that we could be spending much more time talking about this year. Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3IgucyKp1BVF_E43UmbniPCJrK4h3P4B4K962hex3cETue, 06 Jan 2026 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Deputy Director of Global Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore discuss the implications of the U.S action in Venezuela for global markets, foreign and domestic policy.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the latest events in Venezuela and its implications for global markets.It's Tuesday, January 6th at 10am in New York. So, Ariana, before we get into it: Long time listeners might have noticed in our intro, a changeup in our titles. Ariana, you're stepping in to lead day-to-day public policy research. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And Mike, you're taking on more of a leadership role across the research department globally. Michael Zezas: Right, which is great news for both of us. And because the interaction between public policy choices and financial markets is as critical as ever, and because collaboration is so important to how we do investment research at Morgan Stanley – tapping into expertise and insight wherever we can find it – you’re still going to hear from one of – and sometimes both of us – here on Thoughts on the Market on a weekly basis. Ariana Salvatore: And this week is a great example of this dynamic as we start the New Year with investors trying to decide what, if anything, the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela means for the outlook for markets. Michael Zezas: Right. So, to that point, the New Year's barely begun, but it's already brought a dramatic geopolitical situation: The U.S. capture and arrest of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro – an event that can have far reaching implications for oil markets, energy, equities, sovereign credit, and politics. Ariana, thinking from the perspective of the investor, what's catching your attention right now? Ariana Salvatore: I think clients have been trying to get their arms around what this means for the future of U.S. foreign policy, as well as domestic policy making here too. On the first point, I would say this isn't necessarily a surprise or out of step with the goals that the Trump administration has been at least rhetorically emphasizing all year. Which is to say we think this is really just another data point in a pre-existing longer term trend toward multipolarity. Remember that involves linkage of economic and national security interest. It comes with its own set of investment themes, many of which we've written about, but one in particular would be elevated levels of defense spending globally, as we're in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. Another tangible takeaway I would say is on the USMCA review. I think the U.S. has likely even more leverage in the upcoming negotiations, and likely is going to push even harder for Mexico to put up trade barriers or take active steps to limit Chinese investment or influence in the country. Enforcement here obviously will be critical, as we've said. And ultimately, we do still think the review results in a slightly deeper trade integration than we have right now. But it's possible that you see tariffs on non-USMCA compliant goods higher, for example, throughout these talks. Michael Zezas: And does this affect at all your expectations for domestic policy choices from the U.S.? Ariana Salvatore: I think it's important to emphasize here that we're just seeing an increasingly diminished role for Congress to play. The past year has been punctuated by one-off US foreign policy actions and a usage of executive authority over a number of different policy areas like immigration, tariffs, and so on. So, I would say the clearest takeaway on the domestic front is we're seeing a...]]>359alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1551fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-bullish-signals-that-investors-overlook--75645071insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the converging market forces bolstering our bullish outlook for 2026. It's Monday, January 5th at 11:30am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. The New Year is usually a time to look forward. But today, I want to take a step back and talk about what the market is missing. A series of bullish catalysts are lining up at the same time, and the market is still underestimating their collective impact. There’s been a lot of focus on individual positives—solid earnings growth, further Fed easing—but in our view, the real story is how these forces are reinforcing one another. Deregulation, positive operating leverage, accommodative monetary policy, and increasingly supportive fiscal policy are all working in the same direction. And as we head into mid-term elections later this year, these policy levers are likely to stay supportive.Importantly, this isn’t a market that’s already priced for the outcomes I envision. Positioning in cyclical trades remains relatively light, and sentiment in economically sensitive areas is far from exuberant. That combination—of improving fundamentals with cautious positioning—is exactly what tends to characterize the early stages of a recovery. I continue to believe these tailwinds are most underappreciated in cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Financials, Industrials, and small- and mid-cap stocks. Many of the indicators we track are only just beginning to turn higher. This doesn’t look late-cycle to me—it looks early in what I have deemed to be a rolling recovery. One reason investors have been hesitant is the sluggishness of traditional business-cycle indicators, particularly the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index. There’s been a reluctance to press cyclical trades until those gauges clearly re-accelerate; and beneath that hesitation is a lingering anxiety that the U.S. economy could even slip back into a growth scare. My view is different. I believe a three year rolling recession ended with Liberation Day. If that’s true, then the moderate softness we’re now witnessing in lagging labor data is constructive for equities because it keeps the Fed leaning dovish for longer and more aggressive—a positive for equities. I see the second half of 2025 as the bottoming process for key macro indicators; with 2026 shaping up as a year of re-acceleration. Longer-cycle analysis supports this. Specifically, the 45-month cycle of the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index points to a rebound. That recovery has been delayed—but not cancelled. Another tailwind that doesn’t get nearly enough attention is energy prices. Gasoline prices in particular are sitting near five-year lows, which is providing real economic relief for lower- and middle-income consumers. That cushion matters, especially as other parts of the economy firm. This past weekend’s events in Venezuela argue for lower oil prices for longer. From a sector standpoint, Financials stand out as the key beneficiary of deregulation and these stocks have been great performers over the past year in anticipation of these changes. I think there is more to go in 2026. Housing could be another important piece of the recovery. Subdued wage growth and falling rents may pressure home prices, while some builders are prioritizing volume over margins. While that may cap profitability for the builders, it could unlock housing velocity and feed into a more dovish inflation backdrop. Of course, there are also risks. Liquidity has been our top concern since September, and markets have reflected that through weakness in speculative assets. The good news is that the Fed has responded by ending quantitative tightening early and restarting asset purchases through the Reserve Management Program. This effectively adds liquidity to a system that was showing signs of stress this past several months. Another risk is a renewed slowdown in AI CapEx, particularly as markets demand clearer payback from debt-funded spending. And geopolitically, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela raises new questions. Strategically, it reinforces U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere and supports our ‘Run It Hot’ thesis—but the key wildcard remains whether China chooses to react. Net-net, we think the balance of risks and rewards still favor leaning into this early-cycle recovery and our bullish outlook for US equities in 2026.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ffCxUHKxP9UnuqPcwABdh970uhnFAYBEfo-X04iSYM4Mon, 05 Jan 2026 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses key catalysts that investors may be missing, but that are likely to boost U.S. equities in 2026.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the converging market forces bolstering our bullish outlook for 2026. It's Monday, January 5th at 11:30am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. The New Year is usually a time to look forward. But today, I want to take a step back and talk about what the market is missing. A series of bullish catalysts are lining up at the same time, and the market is still underestimating their collective impact. There’s been a lot of focus on individual positives—solid earnings growth, further Fed easing—but in our view, the real story is how these forces are reinforcing one another. Deregulation, positive operating leverage, accommodative monetary policy, and increasingly supportive fiscal policy are all working in the same direction. And as we head into mid-term elections later this year, these policy levers are likely to stay supportive.Importantly, this isn’t a market that’s already priced for the outcomes I envision. Positioning in cyclical trades remains relatively light, and sentiment in economically sensitive areas is far from exuberant. That combination—of improving fundamentals with cautious positioning—is exactly what tends to characterize the early stages of a recovery. I continue to believe these tailwinds are most underappreciated in cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Financials, Industrials, and small- and mid-cap stocks. Many of the indicators we track are only just beginning to turn higher. This doesn’t look late-cycle to me—it looks early in what I have deemed to be a rolling recovery. One reason investors have been hesitant is the sluggishness of traditional business-cycle indicators, particularly the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index. There’s been a reluctance to press cyclical trades until those gauges clearly re-accelerate; and beneath that hesitation is a lingering anxiety that the U.S. economy could even slip back into a growth scare. My view is different. I believe a three year rolling recession ended with Liberation Day. If that’s true, then the moderate softness we’re now witnessing in lagging labor data is constructive for equities because it keeps the Fed leaning dovish for longer and more aggressive—a positive for equities. I see the second half of 2025 as the bottoming process for key macro indicators; with 2026 shaping up as a year of re-acceleration. Longer-cycle analysis supports this. Specifically, the 45-month cycle of the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index points to a rebound. That recovery has been delayed—but not cancelled. Another tailwind that doesn’t get nearly enough attention is energy prices. Gasoline prices in particular are sitting near five-year lows, which is providing real economic relief for lower- and middle-income consumers. That cushion matters, especially as other parts of the economy firm. This past weekend’s events in Venezuela argue for lower oil prices for longer. From a sector standpoint, Financials stand out as the key beneficiary of deregulation and these stocks have been great performers over the past year in anticipation of these changes. I think there is more to go in 2026. Housing could be another important piece of the recovery. Subdued wage growth and falling rents may pressure home prices, while some builders are prioritizing volume over margins. While that may cap profitability for the builders, it could unlock housing velocity and feed into a more dovish inflation backdrop. Of course, there are also risks. Liquidity has been our top concern...]]>313alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1550fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bigger-tax-refunds-likely-to-power-the-economy--75645067insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market and Happy New Year! I’m Heather Berger, from Morgan Stanley’s US Economics Team. On today’s episode – why U.S. consumers can expect higher tax refunds, and what that means for the overall economy. It’s Friday, January 2nd, at 10am in New York.As we kick off 2026, it’s not just a fresh start. It’s also the time when tax refund season is right around the corner. For many of us, those refunds aren’t just numbers on a page; they shape the way we budget for many everyday expenses. The timing and size of our refunds this year could make a real difference in how much we’re able to save, spend, or get ahead on bills.In the wake of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, this year’s tax refund season is shaping up to be bigger than usual. The new fiscal bill packed in a variety of tax cuts for consumers. It also included spending cuts to programs such as SNAP benefits and Medicaid, but most of those cuts don’t pick up until later this decade. Altogether, this means that we’ll likely see personal incomes and spending power get a boost in 2026.Many of the new deductions and tax credits for consumers in the bill were made retroactive to the 2025 fiscal year. These include deductions for tips and overtime, a higher child tax credit, an increased senior deduction, and a higher cap on state and local tax deductions, among others. The retroactive portion of these measures should be reflected in tax refunds early this year. Overall, we’re expecting these changes to increase refunds by 15 to 20 percent on average. And different groups will benefit from different parts of the bill. For example, the higher state and local tax cap is likely to help high-income consumers the most, while deductions for tips and overtime will be most valuable to middle-income earners.Historically, U.S. consumers receive about 30 to 45 percent of tax refunds by the end of February, with then 60 to 70 percent arriving by the end of March. Because of the new tax provisions, we're anticipating a noticeable boost in personal income during the first quarter of the year. While we do also expect this legislation to encourage higher spending, it's unlikely that we'll see spending rise as sharply as income right away. According to surveys, most consumers say they use their refunds mainly for saving or paying down debt. This can lead to healthier balance sheets, which is shown by higher prepayment rates and fewer loan delinquencies during the tax refund season.When people choose to spend all or some of their tax refunds, they typically put that money toward everyday needs, travel, new clothes, or home improvements. Looking ahead, we do still see some near-term headwinds to spending, such as expected increases in inflation from tariffs and the expiration of the Affordable Care Act credits, which will most affect low-income consumers. As we progress throughout the year, though, we’re anticipating steady growth in real consumer spending as the labor market stabilizes, inflation decelerates, and lagged effects of easier monetary policy flow through. On top of that, this year’s larger tax refunds should give another lift to household spending.The boost to spending, along with other corporate provisions in the bill, should give the broader economy a push this year too. We expect the bill as a whole to support GDP growth in 2026.  But it then becomes a drag on growth in later years when more of the spending cuts take effect.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Rc-oyZqB31AeIC-9g6D_BO2JMKYtPwQRsbHTcB1JgxoFri, 02 Jan 2026 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Economist Heather Berger discusses how larger tax refunds in 2026 could boost income and help support consumer balance sheets throughout the year.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market and Happy New Year! I’m Heather Berger, from Morgan Stanley’s US Economics Team. On today’s episode – why U.S. consumers can expect higher tax refunds, and what that means for the overall economy. It’s Friday, January 2nd, at 10am in New York.As we kick off 2026, it’s not just a fresh start. It’s also the time when tax refund season is right around the corner. For many of us, those refunds aren’t just numbers on a page; they shape the way we budget for many everyday expenses. The timing and size of our refunds this year could make a real difference in how much we’re able to save, spend, or get ahead on bills.In the wake of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, this year’s tax refund season is shaping up to be bigger than usual. The new fiscal bill packed in a variety of tax cuts for consumers. It also included spending cuts to programs such as SNAP benefits and Medicaid, but most of those cuts don’t pick up until later this decade. Altogether, this means that we’ll likely see personal incomes and spending power get a boost in 2026.Many of the new deductions and tax credits for consumers in the bill were made retroactive to the 2025 fiscal year. These include deductions for tips and overtime, a higher child tax credit, an increased senior deduction, and a higher cap on state and local tax deductions, among others. The retroactive portion of these measures should be reflected in tax refunds early this year. Overall, we’re expecting these changes to increase refunds by 15 to 20 percent on average. And different groups will benefit from different parts of the bill. For example, the higher state and local tax cap is likely to help high-income consumers the most, while deductions for tips and overtime will be most valuable to middle-income earners.Historically, U.S. consumers receive about 30 to 45 percent of tax refunds by the end of February, with then 60 to 70 percent arriving by the end of March. Because of the new tax provisions, we're anticipating a noticeable boost in personal income during the first quarter of the year. While we do also expect this legislation to encourage higher spending, it's unlikely that we'll see spending rise as sharply as income right away. According to surveys, most consumers say they use their refunds mainly for saving or paying down debt. This can lead to healthier balance sheets, which is shown by higher prepayment rates and fewer loan delinquencies during the tax refund season.When people choose to spend all or some of their tax refunds, they typically put that money toward everyday needs, travel, new clothes, or home improvements. Looking ahead, we do still see some near-term headwinds to spending, such as expected increases in inflation from tariffs and the expiration of the Affordable Care Act credits, which will most affect low-income consumers. As we progress throughout the year, though, we’re anticipating steady growth in real consumer spending as the labor market stabilizes, inflation decelerates, and lagged effects of easier monetary policy flow through. On top of that, this year’s larger tax refunds should give another lift to household spending.The boost to spending, along with other corporate provisions in the bill, should give the broader economy a push this year too. We expect the bill as a whole to support GDP growth in 2026.  But it then becomes a drag on growth in later years when more of the spending cuts take effect.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>226alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1549fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-what-s-driving-u-s-growth-in-2026--75645049insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist.Today I'll review our 2026 U.S. Economic Outlook and what it means for growth, inflation, jobs and the Fed.It’s Tuesday, November 25th, at 10am in New York.If 2025 was the year of fast and furious policy changes, then 2026 is when the dust settles.Last year, we predicted slow growth and sticky inflation, mainly because of strict trade and immigration policies – and this proved accurate. But this year, the story is changing. We see the U.S. economy finally moving past the high-uncertainty phase. Looking ahead, we see a return to modest growth of 1.8 percent in 2026 and 2 percent in 2027. Inflation should cool but it likely won’t hit the Fed’s 2 percent target. By the end of 2026, we see headline PCE inflation at 2.5 percent, core inflation at 2.6 percent, and both stay above the 2 percent target through 2027. In other words, the inflation fight isn’t over, but the worst is behind us.So, if 2025 was slow growth and sticky inflation, then 2026 and [20]27 could be described as moderate growth and disinflation. The impact of trade and immigration policies should fade, and the economic climate should improve. Now, there are still some risks. Tariffs could push prices higher for consumers in the near term; or if firms cannot pass through tariffs, we worry about additional layoffs. But looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and beyond, we think those risks shift to the upside, with a better chance of positive surprises for growth.After all, AI-related business spending remains robust and upper income consumers are faring well. There is reason for optimism. That said, we think the most likely path for the economy is the return to modest growth. U.S. consumers start to rebound, but slowly. Tariffs will keep prices firm in the first half of 2026, squeezing purchasing power for low- and middle-income households. These households consume mainly through labor market income, and until inflation starts to retreat, purchasing power should be constrained.Real consumption should rise 1.6 percent in 2026 and 1.8 [percent] in 2027 – better, but not booming. The main culprit is a labor market that’s still in ‘low-hire, low-fire’ mode driven by immigration controls and tariff effects that keep hiring soft. We see unemployment peaking at 4.7 percent in the second quarter of 2026, then easing to 4.5 percent by year-end. Jobs are out there, but the labor market isn’t roaring. It'll be hard for hiring to pick up until after tariffs have been absorbed.And when jobs cool, the Fed steps in. The Fed is cutting rates – but at a cost. After two 25 basis point rate cuts in September and October, we expect 75 basis points more by mid 2026, bringing the target range to 3.0-3.25 percent. Why? To insure against labor market weakness. But that insurance comes with a price: inflation staying above target longer. Think of it as the Fed walking a tightrope—lean too far toward jobs, and inflation lingers; lean too far toward inflation, and growth stumbles. For now the Fed has chosen the former.And how does AI fit into the macro picture? It’s definitely a major growth driver. Spending on AI-related hardware, software, and data centers adds about 0.4 percent to growth in both 2026 and 2027. That’s roughly 20 percent of total growth. But here’s the twist: imports dilute the impact. After accounting for imported tech, AI’s net contribution falls sharply. Still, we expect AI to boost productivity by 25-35 basis points by 2027, over our forecast horizon, marking the start of a new innovation cycle. In short: AI is planting the seeds now for bigger gains later.Of course, there are risks to our outlook. And let me flag three important ones. First, demand upside – meaning fiscal stimulus and business optimism push growth higher; under this scenario inflation stays hot, and the Fed pauses cuts. If the economy really picks up, then the Fed may need to take back the risk management cuts it's putting in now. That would be a shock to markets. Second, there’s a productivity upside – in which case AI delivers bigger productivity gains, disinflation resumes, and rates drift lower. And lastly, a potential mild recession where tariffs and tight policy bite harder, GDP turns negative in early 2026, and the Fed slashes rates to near 1 percent. So in summary: 2026 looks to be a transition year with less drama but more nuance, as growth returns and inflation cools, while AI keeps rewriting the playbook.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/djdPwL6hQvYYjK2leKMqSi7a23THtZle3AJ1mvUZLBwWed, 31 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: November 25, 2025Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen breaks down how growth, inflation and the AI revolution could play out in 2026.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist.Today I'll review our 2026 U.S. Economic Outlook and what it means for growth, inflation, jobs and the Fed.It’s Tuesday, November 25th, at 10am in New York.If 2025 was the year of fast and furious policy changes, then 2026 is when the dust settles.Last year, we predicted slow growth and sticky inflation, mainly because of strict trade and immigration policies – and this proved accurate. But this year, the story is changing. We see the U.S. economy finally moving past the high-uncertainty phase. Looking ahead, we see a return to modest growth of 1.8 percent in 2026 and 2 percent in 2027. Inflation should cool but it likely won’t hit the Fed’s 2 percent target. By the end of 2026, we see headline PCE inflation at 2.5 percent, core inflation at 2.6 percent, and both stay above the 2 percent target through 2027. In other words, the inflation fight isn’t over, but the worst is behind us.So, if 2025 was slow growth and sticky inflation, then 2026 and [20]27 could be described as moderate growth and disinflation. The impact of trade and immigration policies should fade, and the economic climate should improve. Now, there are still some risks. Tariffs could push prices higher for consumers in the near term; or if firms cannot pass through tariffs, we worry about additional layoffs. But looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and beyond, we think those risks shift to the upside, with a better chance of positive surprises for growth.After all, AI-related business spending remains robust and upper income consumers are faring well. There is reason for optimism. That said, we think the most likely path for the economy is the return to modest growth. U.S. consumers start to rebound, but slowly. Tariffs will keep prices firm in the first half of 2026, squeezing purchasing power for low- and middle-income households. These households consume mainly through labor market income, and until inflation starts to retreat, purchasing power should be constrained.Real consumption should rise 1.6 percent in 2026 and 1.8 [percent] in 2027 – better, but not booming. The main culprit is a labor market that’s still in ‘low-hire, low-fire’ mode driven by immigration controls and tariff effects that keep hiring soft. We see unemployment peaking at 4.7 percent in the second quarter of 2026, then easing to 4.5 percent by year-end. Jobs are out there, but the labor market isn’t roaring. It'll be hard for hiring to pick up until after tariffs have been absorbed.And when jobs cool, the Fed steps in. The Fed is cutting rates – but at a cost. After two 25 basis point rate cuts in September and October, we expect 75 basis points more by mid 2026, bringing the target range to 3.0-3.25 percent. Why? To insure against labor market weakness. But that insurance comes with a price: inflation staying above target longer. Think of it as the Fed walking a tightrope—lean too far toward jobs, and inflation lingers; lean too far toward inflation, and growth stumbles. For now the Fed has chosen the former.And how does AI fit into the macro picture? It’s definitely a major growth driver. Spending on AI-related hardware, software, and data centers adds about 0.4 percent to growth in both 2026 and 2027. That’s roughly 20 percent of total growth. But here’s the twist: imports dilute the impact. After accounting for imported tech, AI’s net contribution falls sharply. Still, we expect AI to boost productivity by 25-35 basis points by 2027, over our forecast horizon, marking the start of a new innovation cycle. In short: AI is...]]>427alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1545fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-investors-top-questions-for-2026--75645069insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about key investor debates coming out of our year ahead outlook.It's Wednesday, December 3rd at 10:30am in New York.So, Serena, it was a couple weeks ago that you led the publication of our cross-asset outlook for 2026. And so, you've been engaging with clients over the past few weeks about our views – where they differ. And it seems there's some common themes, really common questions that come up that represent some important debates within the market.Is that fair?Serena Tang: Yeah, that's very fair. And, by the way, I think those important debates, are from investors globally. So, you have investors in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, all kind of wanting to understand our views on AI, on equity valuations, on the dollar.Michael Zezas: So, let's start with talking about equity markets a bit. And one of the common questions – and I get it too, even though I don't cover equity markets – is really about how AI is affecting valuations. One of the concerns is that the stock market might be too high, might be overvalued because people have overinvested in anything related to AI. What does the evidence say? How are you addressing that question?Serena Tang: It is interesting you say that because I think when investors talk about equities being too high, of valuations – AI related valuations being very stretched, it's very much about parallels to that 1990s valuation bubble.But the way I approach it is like there are some very important differences from that time period, from valuations back then. First of all, I think companies in major equity indices are higher quality than the past. They operate more efficiently. They deliver strong profitability, and in general pretty solid free cash flow.I think we also need to consider how technology now represents a larger share of the index, which has helped push overall net margins to about 14 percent compared to 8 percent during that 1990s valuation bubble. And you know, when margins are higher, I think paying premium for stocks is more justified.In other words, I think multiples in the U.S. right now look more reasonable after adjusting for profit margins and changes in index composition. But we also have to consider, and this is something that we stress in our outlook, the policy backdrop is unusually favorable, right? Like you have economists expecting the Fed to continue easing rates into next year. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could lower corporate taxes, and deregulation is continuing to be a priority in the U.S.And I think this combination, you know, monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, deregulation. That combination rarely occurs outside of a recession. And I think this creates an environment that supports valuation, which is by the way why we recommend an overweight position in U.S. equities, even if absolute and relative valuation look elevated.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, if I'm hearing you right, what I think you're saying is that comparisons to some bubbles of the past don't necessarily stack up because profitability is better. There aren't excesses in the system. Monetary policy might be on the path that's more accommodative. And so, when compared against all of that, the valuations actually don't look that bad.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Got it. And sticking with the equity markets, then another common question is – it's related to AI, but it's sort of around this idea that a small set of companies have really been driving most of the growth in the market recently. And it would be better or healthier if the equity market were to perform across a wider set of companies and names, particularly in mid- and small cap companies. Is that something that we see on the horizon?Serena Tang: Yes. We are expecting U.S. stock earnings to sort of broaden out here and it's one of the reasons why our U.S. equity strategy team has upgraded small caps and now prefer it over large caps. And I think like all of this – it comes from the fact that we are in a new bull market. I think we have a very early cycle earnings recovery here. I mean, as discussed before, the macro environment is supportive. And Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months, growth positive tax and regulatory policies, they don't just support valuations. They also act as a tailwind to earnings.And I think like on top of that, leaner cost structures, improving earnings revisions, AI driven efficiency gains. They all support a broad-based earnings upturn. and our U.S. equity strategy team do see above consensus 2026 earnings growth at 17 percent. The only other region where we have earnings growth above consensus in 2026 is Japan; for both Europe and the EM we are below, which drive out equal weight and slight underweight position in those two indices respectively.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, since we can't seem to get away from talking about AI and how it's influencing markets, the other common question we get here is around debt issuance related to AI.So, our colleagues put together a report from earlier this year talking about the potential for nearly $3 trillion of AI related CapEx spending over the next few years. And we think about half of that is going to have to be debt financed. That seems to be a lot of debt, a lot of potential bonds that might be issued into the market – which, are credit investors supposed to be concerned about that?Serena Tang: We really can't get away from AI as a topic. And I think this will continue because AI-related CapEx is a long-term trend, with much of the CapEx still really ahead. And I think this goes to your question. Because this really means that we expect nearly another [$]3 trillion of data center related CapEx from here to 2028. You know, while half of the spend will come from operating cash flows of hyperscalers, it still leaves a financing gap of around [$]1.5 trillion, which needs to be sourced through various credit channels.Now, part of it will be via private credit, part of it would be via Asset Backed Securities. But some of it would also be via the U.S. investment grade corporate credit bond space. So, add in financing for faster M&A cycle, we forecast around [$]1 trillion in net investment grade bond issuance, you know, up 60 percent from this year.And I think given this technical backdrop, even though credit fundamentals should stay fine, we have doubled downgraded U.S. investment grade corporate credit to underweight within our cross asset allocation.Michael Zezas: Okay, so the fundamentals are fine, but it's just a lot of debt to consume over the next year. And so somewhat strangely, you might expect high yield corporate bonds actually do better.Serena Tang: Yes, because I think a high yield doesn't really see the same headwind from the technical side of things. And on the fundamentals front, our credit team actually has default rates coming down over the next 12 months, which again, I think supports high yield much better than investment grade.Michael Zezas: So, before we wrap up, moving away from the equity markets, let's talk about foreign exchange. The U.S. dollar spent much of last year weakening, and that's a call that our team was early to – eventually became a consensus call. It was premised on the idea that the U.S. was going to experience growth weakness, that there would also be these questions among investors about the role of the dollar in the world as the U.S. was raising trade barriers. It seemed to work out pretty well.Going into 2026 though, I think there's some more questions amongst our investors about whether or not that trend could continue. Where do we land?Serena Tang: I think in the first half of next year that downward pressure on the dollar should still persist. And you know, as you said, we've had a very differentiated view for most of this year, expecting the dollar to weaken in the first half versus G10 currencies. And several things drive this. There is a potential for higher dollar negative risk premium, driven by, I think, near term worries about the U.S. labor markets in the short term. And as investors, I think, debate the likely composition of the FOMC next year. Also, you know, compression in U.S. versus rest of the world. Rate differentials should reduce FX hedging costs, which also adds incentive for hedging activity and dollar selling.All this means that we see downward pressure on the dollar persisting in the first half of next year with EUR/USD at 123 and USD/JPY at 140 by the end of first half 2026.Michael Zezas: All right. Well, that's a pretty good survey about what clients care about and what our view is. So, Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk with me today.Serena Tang: And thank you for inviting me to the show today.Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pFVhoB03Y7nkEeNb-TLPy9tw3Mvu-cPB_lacCEaLvkETue, 30 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: December 3, 2025Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang address themes that are key for markets next year.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about key investor debates coming out of our year ahead outlook.It's Wednesday, December 3rd at 10:30am in New York.So, Serena, it was a couple weeks ago that you led the publication of our cross-asset outlook for 2026. And so, you've been engaging with clients over the past few weeks about our views – where they differ. And it seems there's some common themes, really common questions that come up that represent some important debates within the market.Is that fair?Serena Tang: Yeah, that's very fair. And, by the way, I think those important debates, are from investors globally. So, you have investors in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, all kind of wanting to understand our views on AI, on equity valuations, on the dollar.Michael Zezas: So, let's start with talking about equity markets a bit. And one of the common questions – and I get it too, even though I don't cover equity markets – is really about how AI is affecting valuations. One of the concerns is that the stock market might be too high, might be overvalued because people have overinvested in anything related to AI. What does the evidence say? How are you addressing that question?Serena Tang: It is interesting you say that because I think when investors talk about equities being too high, of valuations – AI related valuations being very stretched, it's very much about parallels to that 1990s valuation bubble.But the way I approach it is like there are some very important differences from that time period, from valuations back then. First of all, I think companies in major equity indices are higher quality than the past. They operate more efficiently. They deliver strong profitability, and in general pretty solid free cash flow.I think we also need to consider how technology now represents a larger share of the index, which has helped push overall net margins to about 14 percent compared to 8 percent during that 1990s valuation bubble. And you know, when margins are higher, I think paying premium for stocks is more justified.In other words, I think multiples in the U.S. right now look more reasonable after adjusting for profit margins and changes in index composition. But we also have to consider, and this is something that we stress in our outlook, the policy backdrop is unusually favorable, right? Like you have economists expecting the Fed to continue easing rates into next year. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could lower corporate taxes, and deregulation is continuing to be a priority in the U.S.And I think this combination, you know, monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, deregulation. That combination rarely occurs outside of a recession. And I think this creates an environment that supports valuation, which is by the way why we recommend an overweight position in U.S. equities, even if absolute and relative valuation look elevated.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, if I'm hearing you right, what I think you're saying is that comparisons to some bubbles of the past don't necessarily stack up because profitability is better. There aren't excesses in the system. Monetary policy might be on the path that's more accommodative. And so, when compared against all of that, the valuations actually don't look that bad.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Got it. And sticking with the equity markets,...]]>678alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1544fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-who-s-disrupting-and-funding-the-ai-boom--75645053insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It’s fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know,  and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI.  And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers’ buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have a revenue base and that are challenging a subset of the products of those businesses. So again, it's perfectly understandable that investors would worry.  In that context, it's not a potential threat on the horizon. It's a real threat that exists today against certainly their businesses. I think software is probably the most interesting. I'd put it in the kind of final bucket where I actually believe… Well, I think first of all, we certainly wouldn't take the view that there's  no risk of disruption and things aren't going to change. Clearly that is going to be the case. I think what we'd want to do though is we'd want to continue to use frameworks that we've used historically to think about how software companies differentiate themselves, what the barriers to entry are. We don't think we need to throw all of those things away just because we have GenAI, this new set of capabilities. And I think investors will come back most easily to that space. Paul Walsh: Emmet, you talked a little bit there before about the fact that you haven't seen a huge amount of progress or additional insight from the telco space around AI; how AI is diffusing across the space. Do you get any discussions around disruption as it relates to telco space? Emmet Kelly: Very, very little. I think the biggest threat that telcos do see is – it is from the hyperscalers. So, if I look at and separate the B2C market out from the B2B, the telcos are still extremely dominant in the B2C space, clearly. But on the B2B space, the hyperscalers have come in on the cloud side, and if you look at their market share, they're very, very dominant in cloud – certainly from a wholesale perspective. So, if you look at the cloud market shares of the big three hyperscalers in Europe, this number is courtesy of my colleague George Webb. He said it's roughly 85 percent; that's how much they have of the cloud space today. The telcos, what they're doing is they're actually reselling the hyperscale service under the telco brand name. But we don't see much really in terms of the pure kind of AI disruption, but there are concerns definitely within the telco space that the hyperscalers might try and move from the B2B space into the B2C space at some stage. And whether it's through virtual networks, cloudified networks, to try and get into the B2C space that way. Paul Walsh: Understood. And Lee maybe less about disruption, but certainly adoption, some insights from your side around adoption across the tech hardware space? Lee Simpson: Sure. I think, you know, it's always seen that are enabling the AI move, but, but there is adoption inside semis companies as well, and I think I'd point to design flow. So, if you look at the design guys,  they're embracing the agentic system thing really quickly and they're putting forward this capability of an agent engineer, so like a digital engineer. And it – I guess we've got to get this right. It is going to enable a faster time to market for the design flow on a chip. So, if you have that design flow time, that time to market. So, you're creating double the value there for the client. Do you share that 50-50 with them? So, the challenge is going to be exactly as Adam was saying, how do you monetize this stuff? So, this is kind of the struggle that we're seeing in adoption. Paul Walsh:   And Emmet, let's move to you on data centers. I mean, there are just some incredible numbers that we've seen emerging, as it relates to the hyperscaler investment that we're seeing in building out the infrastructure. I know data centers is something that you have focused tremendously on in your research, bringing our global perspectives together. Obviously, Europe sits within that. And there is a market here in Europe that might be more challenged. But I'm interested to understand how you're thinking about framing the whole data center story? Implications for Europe. Do European companies feed off some of that U.S. hyperscaler CapEx? How should we be thinking about that through the European lens? Emmet Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. So, big question, Paul. What… Paul Walsh: We've got a few minutes! Emmet Kelly: We've got a few minutes. What I would say is there was a great paper that came out from Harvard just two weeks ago, and they were looking at the scale of data center investments in the United States. And clearly the U.S. economy is ticking along very, very nicely at the moment. But this Harvard paper concluded that if you take out data center investments, U.S. economic growth today is actually zero. Paul Walsh: Wow. Emmet Kelly: That is how big the data center investments are.  And what we've said in our research very clearly is if you want to build a megawatt of data center capacity that's going to cost you roughly $35 million today. Let's put that number out there. 35 million. Roughly, I'd say 25… Well, 20 to 25 million of that goes into the  chips. But what's really interesting is the other remaining $10 million per megawatt, and I like to call that the picks and shovels of data centers; and I'm very convinced there is no bubble in that area whatsoever.So, what's in that area? Firstly, the first building block of a data center is finding a powered land bank. And this is a big thing that private equity is doing at the moment. So, find some real estate that's close to a mass population that's got a good fiber connection. Probably needs a little bit of water, but most importantly needs some power. And the demand for that is still infinite at the moment. Then beyond that, you've got the construction angle and there's a very big shortage of labor today to build the shells of these data centers. Then the third layer is the likes of capital goods,  and there are serious supply bottlenecks there as well.And I could go on and on, but roughly that first $10 million, there's no bubble there. I'm very, very sure of that. Paul Walsh: And we conducted some extensive survey work recently as part of your analysis into the global data center m]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/I6EksIyWGcPjYAlRbXibhV-Ssc-F0KdheEeZB1JhkzMMon, 29 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: November 13, 2025Live from Morgan Stanley’s European Tech, Media and Telecom Conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discusses tech disruptions and datacenter growth, and how Europe factors in.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It’s fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know,  and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI.  And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers’ buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have...]]>892alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1543fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-2026-u-s-outlook-the-bull-market-s-underappreciated-narrative--75645073insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss our outlook for 2026 that we published earlier this week.  It’s Wednesday, Nov 19th at 6:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it. 2026 is a continuation of the story we have been telling for the past year. Looking back to a year ago, our U.S. equity outlook was for a challenging first half, followed by a strong second half. At the time of publication, this was an out of consensus stance. Many expected a strong first half, as President Trump took office for his second term. And then a more challenging second half due to the return of inflation. We based our differentiated view on the notion that policy sequencing in the new Trump administration would intentionally be growth negative to start. We likened the strategy to a new CEO choosing to ‘kitchen sink’ the results in an effort to clear the decks for a new growth positive strategy. We thought that transition would come around mid-year. The U.S. economy had much less slack when President Trump took office the second time, compared to the first time he came into office. And this was the main reason we thought it was likely to be sequenced differently. Earnings revisions breadth and other cyclical indicators were also in a phase of deceleration at the end of 2024. In contrast, at the beginning of 2017—when we were out of consensus bullish—earnings revisions breadth and many cyclical gauges were starting to reaccelerate after the manufacturing and commodity downturn of 2015/2016. Looking back on this year, this cadence of policy sequencing did broadly play out—it just happened faster and more dramatically than we expected. Our views on the policy front still appear to be out of consensus. Many industry watchers are questioning whether policies enacted this year will ultimately lead to better growth going forward, especially for the average stock. From our perspective, the policy choices being made are growth positive for 2026 and are largely in line with our ‘run it hot’ thesis.  There’s another factor embedded in our more constructive take. April marked the end of a rolling recession that began three years prior. The final stages were a recession in government thanks to DOGE, a rate of change trough in expectations around AI CapEx growth and trade policy, and a recession in consumer services that is still ongoing. In short, we believe a new bull market and rolling recovery began in April which means it’s still early days, and not obvious—especially for many lagging parts of the economy and market. That is the opportunity.  The missing ingredient for the typical broadening in stock performance that happens in a new business cycle is rate cuts. Normally, the Fed would have cut rates more in this type of weakening labor market. But due to the imbalances and distortions of the COVID cycle, we think the Fed is later than normal in easing policy, and that has held back the full rotation toward early cycle winners. Ironically, the government shutdown has weakened the economy further, but has also delayed Fed action due to the lack of labor data releases. This is a near-term risk to our bullish 12-month forecasts should delays in the data continue, or lagging labor releases do not corroborate the recent weakness in non-govt-related jobs data. In our view, this type of labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to ‘run it hot’ means that, ultimately, the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. It's really just a question of timing. But that is a near-term risk for equity markets and why many stocks have been weaker recently.  In short, we believe a new bull market began in April with the end of a rolling recession and bear market. Remember the S&P [500] was down 20 percent and the average S&P stock was down more than 30 percent into April.  This narrative remains underappreciated, and we think there is significant upside in earnings over the next year as the recovery broadens and operating leverage returns with better volumes and pricing in many parts of the economy. Our forecasts reflect this upside to earnings which is another reason why many stocks are not as expensive as they appear despite our acknowledgement that some areas of the market may appear somewhat frothy.  For the S&P 500, our 12-month target is now 7800 which assumes 17 percent earnings growth next year and a very modest contraction in valuation from today’s levels. Our favorite sectors include Financials, Industrials, and Healthcare. We are also upgrading Consumer Discretionary to overweight and prefer Goods over Services for the first time since 2021.  Another relative trade we like is Software over Semiconductors given the extreme relative underperformance of that pair and positioning at this point. Finally, we like small caps over large for the first time since March 2021, as the early cycle broadening in earnings combined with a more accommodative Fed provides the backdrop we have been patiently waiting for. We hope you enjoy our detailed report published earlier this week and find it helpful as you navigate a changing marketplace on many levels. Thanks for tuning in. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4qzxyFl_brnaTjhVDFMzAW1-QrMI7yxrsBU8bbIj7N8Fri, 26 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: November 19, 2025Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he continues to hold on to an out-of-consensus view of a growth positive 2026, despite near-term risks.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss our outlook for 2026 that we published earlier this week.  It’s Wednesday, Nov 19th at 6:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it. 2026 is a continuation of the story we have been telling for the past year. Looking back to a year ago, our U.S. equity outlook was for a challenging first half, followed by a strong second half. At the time of publication, this was an out of consensus stance. Many expected a strong first half, as President Trump took office for his second term. And then a more challenging second half due to the return of inflation. We based our differentiated view on the notion that policy sequencing in the new Trump administration would intentionally be growth negative to start. We likened the strategy to a new CEO choosing to ‘kitchen sink’ the results in an effort to clear the decks for a new growth positive strategy. We thought that transition would come around mid-year. The U.S. economy had much less slack when President Trump took office the second time, compared to the first time he came into office. And this was the main reason we thought it was likely to be sequenced differently. Earnings revisions breadth and other cyclical indicators were also in a phase of deceleration at the end of 2024. In contrast, at the beginning of 2017—when we were out of consensus bullish—earnings revisions breadth and many cyclical gauges were starting to reaccelerate after the manufacturing and commodity downturn of 2015/2016. Looking back on this year, this cadence of policy sequencing did broadly play out—it just happened faster and more dramatically than we expected. Our views on the policy front still appear to be out of consensus. Many industry watchers are questioning whether policies enacted this year will ultimately lead to better growth going forward, especially for the average stock. From our perspective, the policy choices being made are growth positive for 2026 and are largely in line with our ‘run it hot’ thesis.  There’s another factor embedded in our more constructive take. April marked the end of a rolling recession that began three years prior. The final stages were a recession in government thanks to DOGE, a rate of change trough in expectations around AI CapEx growth and trade policy, and a recession in consumer services that is still ongoing. In short, we believe a new bull market and rolling recovery began in April which means it’s still early days, and not obvious—especially for many lagging parts of the economy and market. That is the opportunity.  The missing ingredient for the typical broadening in stock performance that happens in a new business cycle is rate cuts. Normally, the Fed would have cut rates more in this type of weakening labor market. But due to the imbalances and distortions of the COVID cycle, we think the Fed is later than normal in easing policy, and that has held back the full rotation toward early cycle winners. Ironically, the government shutdown has weakened the economy further, but has also delayed Fed action due to the lack of labor data releases. This is a near-term risk to our bullish 12-month forecasts should delays in the data continue, or lagging labor releases do not corroborate the recent weakness in non-govt-related jobs data. In our view, this type of labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to ‘run it hot’ means that, ultimately, the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. It's...]]>391alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1542fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-2026-global-outlook-slower-growth-and-inflation--75645059insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Serena Tang: Today, we'll focus on [the] all-important macroeconomic backdrop. Serena Tang: It's Monday, November 17th at 10am in New York. So, Seth, 2025 has been a year of transition. Global growth slowed under the weight of tariffs and policy uncertainty. Yet resilience in consumer spending and AI driven investments kept recession fears at bay. Your team has published its economic outlook for 2026. So, what's your view on global growth for the year ahead? Seth Carpenter: We really think next year is going to be the global economy slowing down a little bit more just like it did this year, settling into a slower growth rate. But at the same time, we think inflation is going to keep drifting down in most of the world. Now that anodyne view, though, masks some heterogeneity around the world; and importantly, some real uncertainty about different ways things could possibly go. Here in the U.S., we think there is more slowing to come in the near term, especially the fourth quarter of this year and the beginning of next year. But once the economy works its way through the tariffs, maybe some of the lagged effects of monetary policy, we'll start to see things pick up a bit in the second half of the year. China's a different story. We see the really tepid growth there pushed down by the deflationary spiral they've been in. We think that continues for next year, and so they're probably not quite going to get to their 5 percent growth target. And in Europe, there's this push and pull of fiscal policy across the continent. There's a central bank that thinks they've achieved their job in terms of inflation, but overall, we think growth there is, kind of, unremarkable, a little bit over 1 percent. Not bad, but nothing to write home about at all. So that's where we think things are going in general. But I have to say next year, may well be a year for surprises. Serena Tang: Right. So where do you see the biggest drivers of global growth in 2026, and what are some of the key downside risks? Seth Carpenter: That's a great question. I really do think that the U.S. is going to be a real key driver of the story here. And in fact – and maybe we'll talk about this later – if we're wrong, there's some upside scenarios, there's some downside scenarios. But most of them around the world are going to come from the U.S. Two things are going on right now in the U.S. We've had strong spending data. We've also had very, very weak employment data. That usually doesn't last for very long. And so that's why we think in the near term there's some slowdown in the U.S. and then over time things recover. We could be wrong in either direction. And so, if we're wrong and the labor market sending the real signal, then the downside risk to the U.S. economy – and by extension the global economy – really is a recession in the U.S. Now, given the starting point, given how low unemployment is, given the spending businesses are doing for AI, if we did get that recession, it would be mild. On the other hand, like I said, spending is strong. Business spending, especially CapEx for AI; household spending, especially at the top end of the income distribution where wealth is rising from stocks, where the liability side of the balance sheet is insulated with fixed rate mortgages. That spending could just stay strong, and we might see this upside surprise where the spending really dominates the scene. And again, that would spill over for the rest of the world. What I don't see is a lot of reason to suspect that you're going to get a big breakout next year to the upside or the downside from either Europe or China, relative to our baseline scenarios. It could happen, but I really think most of the story is going to be driven in the U.S. Serena Tang: So, Seth, markets have been focused on the Fed, as it should. What is the likely path in 2026 and how are you thinking about central bank policy in general in other regions? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. The Fed is always of central importance to most people in markets. Our view – and the market's view, I have to say, has been evolving here. Our view is that the Fed's actually got a few more rate cuts to get through, and that by the time we get to the middle of next year, the middle of 2026, they're going to have their policy rate down just a little bit above 3 percent. So roughly where the committee thinks neutral is. Why do we think that? I think the slowing in the labor market that we talked about before, we think there's something kind of durable there. And now that the government shutdown has ended and we're going to start to get regular data prints again, we think the data are going to show that job creation has been below 50,000 per month on average, and maybe even a few of them are going to get to be negative over the next several months. In that situation, we think the Fed's going to get more inclination to guard against further deterioration in the labor market by keeping cutting rates and making sure that the central bank is not putting any restraint on the economy. That's similar, I would say, to a lot of other developed markets’ central banks. But the tension for the ECB, for example, is that President Lagarde has said she thinks; she thinks the disinflationary process is over. She thinks sitting at 2 percent for the policy rate, which the ECB thinks of as neutral, then that's the right place for them to be. Our take though is that the data are going to push them in a different direction. We think there is clearly growth in Europe, but we think it's tepid. And as a result, the disinflationary process has really still got some more room to run and that inflation will undershoot their 2 percent target, and as a result, the ECB is probably going to cut again. And in our view, down to about 1.5 percent. Big difference is in Japan. Japan is the developed market central bank that's hiking. Now, when does that happen? Our best guess is next month in December at the policy meeting. We've seen this shift towards reflation. It hasn't been smooth, hasn't been perfectly linear. But the BoJ looks like they're set to raise rates again in December. But the path for inflation is going to be a bit rocky, and so, they're probably on hold for most of 2026. But we do think eventually, maybe not till 2027, they get back to hiking again – so that Governor Ueda can get the policy rate back close to neutral before he steps down. Serena Tang: So, one of the main investor debates is on AI. Whether it's CapEx, productivity, the future of work. How is that factoring into your team's view on growth and inflation for the next year? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I mean that is absolutely a key question that we get all the time from investors around the world. When I think about AI and how it's affecting the economy, I think about the demand side of the economy, and that's where you think about this CapEx spending – building data centers, buying semiconductors, that sort of thing. That's demand in the economy. It's using up current resources in the economy, and it's got to be somewhat inflationary. It's part of what has kept the U.S. economy buoyant and resilient this year – is that CapEx spending. Now you also mentioned productivity, and for me, that's on the supply side of the economy. That's after the technology is in place. After firms have started to adopt the technology, they're able to produce either the same amount with fewer workers, or they're able to produce more with the same amount of workers. Either way, that's what productivity means, and it's on the supply side. It can mean faster growth and less inflation. I think where we are for 2026, and it's important that we focus it on the near term, is the demand side is much more important than the supply side. So, we think growth continues. It's supported by this business investment spending. But we still think inflation ends 2026, notably above the Fed's inflation target. And it's going to make five, five and a half years that we've been above target. Productivity should kick in. And we've written down something close to a quarter percentage point of extra productivity growth for 2026, but not enough to really be super disinflationary. We think that builds over time, probably takes a couple of years. And for example, if we think about some of the announcements about these data centers that are being built, where they're really going to unleash the potential of AI, those aren't going to be completed for a couple of years anyway. So, I think for now, AI is dominating the demand side of the economy. Over the next few years, it's going to be a real boost to the supply side of the economy. Serena Tang: So that makes a lot of sense to me, Seth. But can you put those into numbers? Seth Carpenter: Sure, Serena totally. In numbers, that's about 3 percent growth. A little bit more than that for global GDP growth on like a Q4-over-Q4 basis. But for the U.S. in particular, we've got about 1.75 percent. So that's not appreciably different from what we're looking for this year in 2025. But the number really, kind of, masks the evolution over time. We think the front part of the year is going to be much weaker. And only once we get into the second half of next year will things start to pick up. That said,]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rzNfey1RAlf09Eyv9cZscO3Thq0Fl09A57A5XZ--Vy8Wed, 24 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: November 17, 2025In the first of a two-part episode presenting our 2026 outlooks, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang has Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter explain his thoughts on how economies around the world...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Serena Tang: Today, we'll focus on [the] all-important macroeconomic backdrop. Serena Tang: It's Monday, November 17th at 10am in New York. So, Seth, 2025 has been a year of transition. Global growth slowed under the weight of tariffs and policy uncertainty. Yet resilience in consumer spending and AI driven investments kept recession fears at bay. Your team has published its economic outlook for 2026. So, what's your view on global growth for the year ahead? Seth Carpenter: We really think next year is going to be the global economy slowing down a little bit more just like it did this year, settling into a slower growth rate. But at the same time, we think inflation is going to keep drifting down in most of the world. Now that anodyne view, though, masks some heterogeneity around the world; and importantly, some real uncertainty about different ways things could possibly go. Here in the U.S., we think there is more slowing to come in the near term, especially the fourth quarter of this year and the beginning of next year. But once the economy works its way through the tariffs, maybe some of the lagged effects of monetary policy, we'll start to see things pick up a bit in the second half of the year. China's a different story. We see the really tepid growth there pushed down by the deflationary spiral they've been in. We think that continues for next year, and so they're probably not quite going to get to their 5 percent growth target. And in Europe, there's this push and pull of fiscal policy across the continent. There's a central bank that thinks they've achieved their job in terms of inflation, but overall, we think growth there is, kind of, unremarkable, a little bit over 1 percent. Not bad, but nothing to write home about at all. So that's where we think things are going in general. But I have to say next year, may well be a year for surprises. Serena Tang: Right. So where do you see the biggest drivers of global growth in 2026, and what are some of the key downside risks? Seth Carpenter: That's a great question. I really do think that the U.S. is going to be a real key driver of the story here. And in fact – and maybe we'll talk about this later – if we're wrong, there's some upside scenarios, there's some downside scenarios. But most of them around the world are going to come from the U.S. Two things are going on right now in the U.S. We've had strong spending data. We've also had very, very weak employment data. That usually doesn't last for very long. And so that's why we think in the near term there's some slowdown in the U.S. and then over time things recover. We could be wrong in either direction. And so, if we're wrong and the labor market sending the real signal, then the downside risk to the U.S. economy – and by extension the global economy – really is a recession in the U.S. Now, given the starting point, given how low unemployment is, given the spending businesses are doing for AI, if we did get that recession, it would be mild. On the other hand, like I said, spending is strong. Business spending, especially CapEx for AI; household spending, especially at the top end of the income distribution where wealth is rising from stocks, where the liability side of the balance sheet is insulated with fixed rate...]]>654alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1541fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-the-data-center-boom-impact-your-wallet--75648285insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, U.S. Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, a hot topic. Are data centers’ raising your electricity bills?It's Tuesday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.Most of us have probably noticed our electricity bills have been creeping up. And it's putting pressure on U.S. consumers, especially with higher prices and paychecks not keeping pace. More and more people are pointing to data centers as the reason behind these rising costs, but the story isn't that simple.Regional differences, shifting policies and local utility responses are all at play here. Dave, there's no doubt that data centers are becoming a much bigger part of the story when it comes to U.S. electricity demand. For listeners who might not follow these numbers every day, could you break down how data centers' share of overall electricity use is expected to grow over the next 10 years? And what does that mean for the grid and for the average consumer?David Arcaro: Definitely they're becoming much bigger, much more important and more impactful across the industry in a big way. Data centers were 6 percent of total electricity consumption in the U.S. last year. We're actually forecasting that to triple to 18 percent by 2030, and then hit 20 percent in the early 2030s. So very strong growth, and increasing proportion of the overall utility, electricity use.In aggregate, this is reflecting about 150 gigawatts of new data centers by 2030. Just a very large amount. And this is going to cause a major strain on the electric grid and is going to require substantial build out and upgrading of the transmission system along with construction of new power generation – like gas plants and large-scale renewables, wind, solar, and battery storage across the entire U.S.And generally, when we see utilities investing in additional infrastructure, they need to get that cost recovered. We would typically expect that to lead to higher electric rates for consumers. That's the overall pressure that we're facing right now on the system, from all these data centers coming in.We've got these substantial infrastructure needs. That means utilities will need to charge higher prices to consumers to cover the cost of those investments.Michelle Weaver: What are the main challenges utilities companies face in meeting this rising demand from data centers?David Arcaro: There are a number of challenges. If I were to pick a few of the biggest ones that I see, I think managing affordability is one of the biggest challenges the industry faces right now, because this overall data center growth is absolutely a shock to their business, and it needs to be managed carefully given the political and regulatory challenges that can arise when customer bills are getting are escalating faster than expected. The utility industry faces scrutiny and constant attention from a political and regulatory standpoint, so it's a balance that has to be very carefully managed. There are also reliability challenges that are important.Utilities have to keep the lights on, you know, that's priority number one. The demand for electricity is growing much faster than the supply of new generation that we're seeing; new power plants just aren't being built fast enough. New transmission assets are not being built, as quickly as the data centers are coming on. So, in many areas we're seeing that leads to essentially less of a buffer, and more risk of outages during periods of extreme weather.Michelle Weaver: And you mentioned, companies are thinking about how can they insulate consumers. Can you take us through some of the specifics of what these utility companies are doing? And what regulators are doing to respond, to protect existing customers from rate increases driven by data centers?David Arcaro: Definitely. The industry is getting creative and trying to be proactive in addressing this issue. Many utilities, we're seeing them isolate data centers and charge them higher electric rates, specifically for those data center customers to try to cover all of the grid costs that are attributable to the data center's needs.A couple examples. In Indiana, we're seeing that there's a utility there who's building new power plants, specifically for a very large data center that's coming into the state and they're ring fencing it. They're only charging the data center itself for those costs of the power plants. In Georgia, a utility there is charging a higher rate for the data centers that are coming in to the Atlanta area – such that it actually more than covers the costs and compensates other consumers in the form of bill credits or even bill reductions as those data centers come on.Similarly, then, in Pennsylvania, there's a utility that has excess transmission infrastructure than the state’s [infrastructure]. They're better able to absorb data center activity. They're able to lower customer bills as the data centers come on, as they spread their costs over a larger customer base in that case. So, this isn't universal though. There are some areas around the country where there are costs related to data center growth that get socialized across all consumers.One approach I also wanted to mention that we're seeing data centers pursue more and more actively is to power themselves. Essentially bring their own power, and they're using gas turbines, engines, and fuel cells that they're deploying right on site. This is actually in many cases faster than connecting to the grid, but it also avoids any consumer impact. Companies like Solaris Energy and Bloom Energy are two providers of that type of solution. And we're also seeing at a broader industry level. Another approach is the idea of data centers being flexible or turning off and not consuming power from the grid at certain times when the grid is facing stress, in an extreme weather scenario in the winter or summer. And that idea is gaining traction as well. So, we think the industry is looking for approaches that could ease the pressure on the system and on reliability, manage the affordability issues while continuing to enable and build data centers.Michelle Weaver: You mentioned what a few different states are doing on this front. But data centers are not evenly distributed through states or evenly distributed across regions. Are there regional differences in how data center growth is impacting electricity prices?David Arcaro: There are a couple of key differences that we're seeing around the country. Some areas just aren't getting that many data centers, you know, so I'd point out the northeast – in New England, in New York, we're just not seeing that much data center growth. So, it's less of an issue, the impact of data center power demand impacting customer bills in those areas. And then in some regions around the country, the utility structure is important to be aware of. There are some regions where the price of electricity fluctuates based on the supply and demand of power, rather than being directly set and controlled by a regulator. In those markets, data centers can actually more directly impact the price of electricity and there just isn't an easy way in that case to ring fence them and protect consumers from the impact of price increases.So that's where we think unique challenges can arise. And over time, we would expect to see the most meaningful rate impacts to consumers in those areas specifically. And examples would be New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio. Those are a couple of the states where we're seeing those more volatile and directly impacted prices.So, as we look at utilities, we think the state exposure is going to be more and more important. And so, a few companies like NextEra, Sempra and AEP are a few utilities that are in states that have less affordability concerns and less direct exposure to rate impacts from data centers. And then several power companies like Vistra and Talen have more of their power plants that are in states that have excess infrastructure; and as a result, potentially less affordability concerns.So, clearly the energy sector is facing real challenges and changes. So, Michelle, how are rising electricity bills actually affecting U.S. households?Michelle Weaver: It's putting even more pressure on a consumer that's already being stretched thin by multiple years of inflation and elevated price levels, and electricity is a really different type of good. It's very different from gasoline or other consumer goods or staples – in that it's an essential good. You need to have it. And it's a network service that households are structurally locked into. Unlike gas where you could adjust your trip frequency or take a different type of transport, there really aren't good substitutes for electricity.And so this dynamic weighs on consumers. They have to continue paying these bills, and it weighs particularly heavily on lower income consumers where utility bills make up a much larger portion of their household budget.So, it crowds out some of that other potential spending.David Arcaro: That makes a lot of sense. It's an important expense to consider in terms of the impact on consumers. And, you know, as a result, are consumers blaming data center electricity demand for this rise that we're seeing in bills or are they pushing back?Michelle Weaver: Yeah. Data center development is quickly becoming a NIMBY or “not in my backyard” issue with communities pushing back]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/upKhMnaHdpOhrsT5lc_Fu_xigzQ8VvQddXXIGAE7XugTue, 23 Dec 2025 16:30:00 +0000gtyOur Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver and Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst David Arcaro discuss how investments in AI data centers are affecting electricity bills for U.S. consumers.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, U.S. Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, a hot topic. Are data centers’ raising your electricity bills?It's Tuesday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.Most of us have probably noticed our electricity bills have been creeping up. And it's putting pressure on U.S. consumers, especially with higher prices and paychecks not keeping pace. More and more people are pointing to data centers as the reason behind these rising costs, but the story isn't that simple.Regional differences, shifting policies and local utility responses are all at play here. Dave, there's no doubt that data centers are becoming a much bigger part of the story when it comes to U.S. electricity demand. For listeners who might not follow these numbers every day, could you break down how data centers' share of overall electricity use is expected to grow over the next 10 years? And what does that mean for the grid and for the average consumer?David Arcaro: Definitely they're becoming much bigger, much more important and more impactful across the industry in a big way. Data centers were 6 percent of total electricity consumption in the U.S. last year. We're actually forecasting that to triple to 18 percent by 2030, and then hit 20 percent in the early 2030s. So very strong growth, and increasing proportion of the overall utility, electricity use.In aggregate, this is reflecting about 150 gigawatts of new data centers by 2030. Just a very large amount. And this is going to cause a major strain on the electric grid and is going to require substantial build out and upgrading of the transmission system along with construction of new power generation – like gas plants and large-scale renewables, wind, solar, and battery storage across the entire U.S.And generally, when we see utilities investing in additional infrastructure, they need to get that cost recovered. We would typically expect that to lead to higher electric rates for consumers. That's the overall pressure that we're facing right now on the system, from all these data centers coming in.We've got these substantial infrastructure needs. That means utilities will need to charge higher prices to consumers to cover the cost of those investments.Michelle Weaver: What are the main challenges utilities companies face in meeting this rising demand from data centers?David Arcaro: There are a number of challenges. If I were to pick a few of the biggest ones that I see, I think managing affordability is one of the biggest challenges the industry faces right now, because this overall data center growth is absolutely a shock to their business, and it needs to be managed carefully given the political and regulatory challenges that can arise when customer bills are getting are escalating faster than expected. The utility industry faces scrutiny and constant attention from a political and regulatory standpoint, so it's a balance that has to be very carefully managed. There are also reliability challenges that are important.Utilities have to keep the lights on, you know, that's priority number one. The demand for electricity is growing much faster than the supply of new generation that we're seeing; new power plants just aren't being built fast enough. New transmission assets are not being built, as quickly as the data centers are coming on. So, in many areas we're seeing that leads to essentially less of a buffer, and more risk of outages...]]>652alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1548fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rebalancing-portfolios-as-risk-premiums-drop--75648451insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.Today – does the 60/40 portfolio still make sense, and what can investors expect from long-term market returns?It’s Monday, December 22nd at 10am in New York.Global equities have rallied by more than 35 percent from lows made in April. And U.S. high grade fixed income has seen the last 12 months’ returns reach 5 percent, above the averages over the last 10 years. This raises important questions about future returns and how investors might want to adapt their portfolios.Now, our work shows that long-run expected returns for equities are lower than in previous decades, while fixed income – think government bonds and corporate bonds – still offers relatively elevated returns, thanks to higher yields.Let’s put some numbers to it. Over the next decade, we project global equities to deliver an annualized return of nearly 7 percent, with the S&P 500 just behind at 6.8 percent. European and Japanese equities stand out, potentially returning about 8 percent. Emerging markets, however, lag at just about 4 percent. On the bond side, we think U.S. Treasuries with a 10-year maturity will return nearly 5 percent per year, German Bunds nearly 4 [percent], and Japanese government bonds nearly 2 [percent]. They may sound low, but it’s all above their long-run averages.But here’s where it gets interesting. The extra return you get for taking on risk – what we call the risk premium – has compressed across the board. In the U.S., the equity risk premium is just 2 percent. And for emerging markets, it’s actually negative at around -1 percent. In very plain terms, investors aren’t being paid as much for taking on risk as they used to be.Now, why is this the case? It’s because valuations are rich, especially in the U.S. But we also need to put these valuations in context. Yes, the S&P 500’s cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio is near the highest level since the dotcom bubble. But the quality of the S&P 500 has improved dramatically over the past few decades. Companies are more profitable, and free cash flow -- money left after expenses -- is almost three times higher than it was in 2000. So, while valuations are rich, there’s some justification for it.The lower risk premiums for stocks and credits, regardless of whether we think they are justified or not, has very interesting read across for investors’ multi-asset portfolios. The efficient frontier – meaning the best possible return for any given level of portfolio risk – has shifted. It’s now flatter and lower than in previous years. So, it means taking on more risk in a portfolio right now won’t necessarily boost returns as much as before.Now, let’s turn our attention to the classic 60/40 portfolio – the mix of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds that’s been a staple strategy for generations. After a tough 2022, this strategy has bounced back, delivering above-average returns for three years in a row. Looking ahead, though, we expect only around 6 percent annual returns for a 60/40 portfolio over the next decade versus around 9 percent average return historically. Importantly though, advances in AI could keep stocks and bonds moving more in sync than they used to be. If that happens, investors might benefit from increasing their equity allocation beyond the traditional 60/40 split.Either way, it’s important to realize that the optimal mix of stocks and bonds is not static and should be revisited as market dynamics evolve.In a world where risk assets feel expensive and the old rules don’t quite fit, it’s essential to understand how risk, return, and correlation work together. This will help you navigate the next decade. The 60/40 portfolio isn’t dead – and optimal multi-asset allocation weights are evolving. And so should you.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FAL-Yxsgv1fuzdjxyYVBhZgxc-uCmZlefMwSb7oAD8MMon, 22 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses how current market conditions are challenging traditional investment strategies and what that means for asset allocation.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.Today – does the 60/40 portfolio still make sense, and what can investors expect from long-term market returns?It’s Monday, December 22nd at 10am in New York.Global equities have rallied by more than 35 percent from lows made in April. And U.S. high grade fixed income has seen the last 12 months’ returns reach 5 percent, above the averages over the last 10 years. This raises important questions about future returns and how investors might want to adapt their portfolios.Now, our work shows that long-run expected returns for equities are lower than in previous decades, while fixed income – think government bonds and corporate bonds – still offers relatively elevated returns, thanks to higher yields.Let’s put some numbers to it. Over the next decade, we project global equities to deliver an annualized return of nearly 7 percent, with the S&P 500 just behind at 6.8 percent. European and Japanese equities stand out, potentially returning about 8 percent. Emerging markets, however, lag at just about 4 percent. On the bond side, we think U.S. Treasuries with a 10-year maturity will return nearly 5 percent per year, German Bunds nearly 4 [percent], and Japanese government bonds nearly 2 [percent]. They may sound low, but it’s all above their long-run averages.But here’s where it gets interesting. The extra return you get for taking on risk – what we call the risk premium – has compressed across the board. In the U.S., the equity risk premium is just 2 percent. And for emerging markets, it’s actually negative at around -1 percent. In very plain terms, investors aren’t being paid as much for taking on risk as they used to be.Now, why is this the case? It’s because valuations are rich, especially in the U.S. But we also need to put these valuations in context. Yes, the S&P 500’s cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio is near the highest level since the dotcom bubble. But the quality of the S&P 500 has improved dramatically over the past few decades. Companies are more profitable, and free cash flow -- money left after expenses -- is almost three times higher than it was in 2000. So, while valuations are rich, there’s some justification for it.The lower risk premiums for stocks and credits, regardless of whether we think they are justified or not, has very interesting read across for investors’ multi-asset portfolios. The efficient frontier – meaning the best possible return for any given level of portfolio risk – has shifted. It’s now flatter and lower than in previous years. So, it means taking on more risk in a portfolio right now won’t necessarily boost returns as much as before.Now, let’s turn our attention to the classic 60/40 portfolio – the mix of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds that’s been a staple strategy for generations. After a tough 2022, this strategy has bounced back, delivering above-average returns for three years in a row. Looking ahead, though, we expect only around 6 percent annual returns for a 60/40 portfolio over the next decade versus around 9 percent average return historically. Importantly though, advances in AI could keep stocks and bonds moving more in sync than they used to be. If that happens, investors might benefit from increasing their equity allocation beyond the traditional 60/40 split.Either way, it’s important to realize that the optimal mix of stocks and bonds is not static and should be revisited as market dynamics evolve.In a world where risk assets feel expensive and the old rules don’t quite fit, it’s...]]>308alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1547fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-will-credit-markets-fare-in-2026--75648462insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I am Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: Yesterday we focused on the topic of a higher for longer inflation regime, and I was asking the questions. Today, Lisa will grill me on my views for the next year. It's Friday, December 19th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. All right, Andrew, I'm happy to turn tables on you now. I'm very interested in your thoughts about the past year – 2025 – and looking towards 2026. In 2026, Morgan Stanley Research seems to expect a resilient global growth backdrop, with inflation moderating and central banks easing policy gradually. What do you think are the main drivers behind this more constructive inflation outlook, especially taking into account the market's prevailing concerns about persistent price pressures. Andrew Sheets: There are a couple of factors that we think are going to be near term helps for inflation, although I don't think they totally rule out what you're talking about over that longer term period.So first, we, at Morgan Stanley, are very cautious, very negative on oil prices. We think that there's going to be more supply of oil over the next year than demand for it. And so lower oil prices should help bring inflation down. There's also some measures of just how the inflation indices measure shelter and housing. And so, while we think, kind of, looking further ahead, there are some real shortages emerging in things like the rental markets – where you just haven't had a whole lot of new rental construction coming online, as you look out a year or two ahead. But in the near term, rental markets have been softer. Home prices are coming down with a lag in the data. And so, shelter inflation is relatively soft. So, we think that helps. While at the same time fiscal policy is very supportive and corporates, as we discussed in our last conversation, they're really embracing animal spirits – with more spending, more spending on AI, more capital investment generally, more M&A. And so, those factors together, we think, can over the next 12 months, still mean pretty reasonable growth and Inflation that's still above target – but at least trending a little bit lower. Lisa Shalett: You believe that central banks, including the Fed, will cut rates more slowly given better growth. And this slower pace of easing could actually be positive for the credit markets. So, could you elaborate on your expertise on credit and why a gradual Fed approach may be preferable? What risks and opportunities might this create? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think this is kind of one of these big debates going into this year is – which would we rather have? Would we rather have a Fed that was more active, cutting more aggressively? Or cutting more slowly? And, indeed, we're having this conversation on the heels of a Fed meeting. There's a lot of uncertainty about that path. But the way that we're thinking about it is that the biggest risk to credit would be that this outlook for growth that we have is just too optimistic. That actually growth is weaker than expected. That this rise in the unemployment rate is signaling something far more challenging for the economy ahead and in that scenario the Fed would be justified in cutting a lot more. But I think historically in those periods where growth has deteriorated more significantly while the Fed has been cutting more, those have been periods where credit – and indeed the equity market – have actually done poorly despite more quote unquote Fed assistance. So, periods where the Fed is cutting more gradually tend to be more consistent with policy in the right place. The economy being in an okay place. And so, we think, that that's the better outcome. So again, we have to kind of monitor the situation. But a scenario where the Fed ends up doing a little bit less than the market, or even we expect with rate cuts – because the economy's holding up. That can still be, we think, an okay scenario for markets. Lisa Shalett: So, things are okay and animal spirits are returning. What does that mean for credit markets? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think this is the bigger challenge: is that if our growth scenario holds up, corporates I think have a lot of incentives to start taking more risk – in a way that could be good for stock markets, but a lot more challenging to the lenders, to these companies for credit. Corporates have been impressively restrained over the last several years. They've really, kind of, held back despite lots of fiscal easing, despite very low rates. Those reasons for waiting are falling away. And so, in this backdrop that you, Lisa, were describing the other day around – easier monetary policy, easier fiscal policy, easy regulatory policy, and you know, just for good measure, maybe the biggest capital spending cycle since the railroads through AI. These are some pretty powerful forces of animal spirits. And that's a reason why we think ultimately, we see a lot more issuance. We see roughly a trillion dollars of net supply. So, total supply, less redemptions in U.S. investment grade. That's a huge uptick from this year, and we think that drives spreads wider, even if my colleague Mike Wilson is correct that equity markets rise. Lisa Shalett: So, wow. So, we have very strong U.S. equities. But perhaps an investment grade credit market that underperforms those equities. How else would you think about your asset allocation more broadly, and how might those dynamics around credit issuance and equity success play out regionally? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so, I think this scenario where equities are up, credit is underperforming. The cycle is getting more aggressive. It's a little unusual, but I think we do have some templates for it and specifically I think investors could look to 2005 or 1997 and 1998. Those were all years where equities were up double digits, where credit spreads were wider. Where yields were somewhat range bound, where corporate aggression was increasing. That is all very consistent with Morgan Stanley's 2026 story. And yet, you did have this divergence between equities and credit market. So, I think it is a market where we see better risk-reward in stocks than in credit. I think it's a market where we want to be in somewhat smaller credits or somewhat smaller equities. We like small and mid cap stocks in the U.S. over large caps. We like high yield over investment grade. And we do think that European credit might outperform as it's somewhat lagging this animal spirits theme that we think will be led by the U.S. Lisa Shalett: So, if that's the outlook, what are the risks? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think there are two risks, and you know, we alluded to one of them early on in this conversation – would be just that growth is weaker than we expect. Usually when the unemployment rate is rising, that's a pretty bad time to be in credit. The unemployment rate is rising. Now, Morgan Stanley economists think that that rise will be temporary, that it will reverse as we go through 2026. And so, it'll be less of a thing to worry about. But you know, a sign that maybe companies have been holding off on firing, waiting for more tariff clarity, if that doesn't come, then that would be a risk to growth. The other risk to growth is just around this AI-related spending. It is very large and the companies that are doing it are some of the wealthiest companies in the world, and they see this spending potentially as really core to their long-term strategic thinking. And so, if you were to ever have an issuer or a set of issuers who were just less price sensitive, who would keep issuing into the market, even if it was starting to reprice that market and push spreads wider, this might be the group. And so, a scenario where that spending is even larger than we expect, and those issuers are less price sensitive than we expect – that could also drive spreads wider, even if the underlying economic backdrop is somewhat okay. Lisa Shalett: Super. That's probably a great place for us to wrap up. So, I'll hand it back to you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Well, great, Lisa, always a pleasure to have this conversation. And, as a reminder for all you listening, if you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, it helps more people find the show.  *****Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CW9oiUBgQ56DCuocRRO-XfBm-eArH05XQrenAQVsiDAFri, 19 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyTo conclude their two-part discussion, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss the outlook for inflation and monetary policy, with implications for...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I am Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: Yesterday we focused on the topic of a higher for longer inflation regime, and I was asking the questions. Today, Lisa will grill me on my views for the next year. It's Friday, December 19th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. All right, Andrew, I'm happy to turn tables on you now. I'm very interested in your thoughts about the past year – 2025 – and looking towards 2026. In 2026, Morgan Stanley Research seems to expect a resilient global growth backdrop, with inflation moderating and central banks easing policy gradually. What do you think are the main drivers behind this more constructive inflation outlook, especially taking into account the market's prevailing concerns about persistent price pressures. Andrew Sheets: There are a couple of factors that we think are going to be near term helps for inflation, although I don't think they totally rule out what you're talking about over that longer term period.So first, we, at Morgan Stanley, are very cautious, very negative on oil prices. We think that there's going to be more supply of oil over the next year than demand for it. And so lower oil prices should help bring inflation down. There's also some measures of just how the inflation indices measure shelter and housing. And so, while we think, kind of, looking further ahead, there are some real shortages emerging in things like the rental markets – where you just haven't had a whole lot of new rental construction coming online, as you look out a year or two ahead. But in the near term, rental markets have been softer. Home prices are coming down with a lag in the data. And so, shelter inflation is relatively soft. So, we think that helps. While at the same time fiscal policy is very supportive and corporates, as we discussed in our last conversation, they're really embracing animal spirits – with more spending, more spending on AI, more capital investment generally, more M&A. And so, those factors together, we think, can over the next 12 months, still mean pretty reasonable growth and Inflation that's still above target – but at least trending a little bit lower. Lisa Shalett: You believe that central banks, including the Fed, will cut rates more slowly given better growth. And this slower pace of easing could actually be positive for the credit markets. So, could you elaborate on your expertise on credit and why a gradual Fed approach may be preferable? What risks and opportunities might this create? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think this is kind of one of these big debates going into this year is – which would we rather have? Would we rather have a Fed that was more active, cutting more aggressively? Or cutting more slowly? And, indeed, we're having this conversation on the heels of a Fed meeting. There's a lot of uncertainty about that path. But the way that we're thinking about it is that the biggest risk to credit would be that this outlook for growth that we have is just too optimistic. That actually growth is weaker than expected. That this rise in the unemployment rate is signaling something far more challenging for the economy ahead and in that scenario the Fed would be justified in cutting a lot more. But I think historically in those periods where growth has deteriorated more significantly...]]>503alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1546fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-navigate-a-high-inflation-regime--75648302insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today, is inflation really transitory or are we entering a new era where higher prices are the norm? Andrew Sheets: It's Thursday, December 18th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to talk to you again. And, you know, we're having this conversation in the aftermath of, kind of, an unusual dynamic in markets when it comes to inflation. Because inflation is still hovering around 3 percent. That's well above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target. And yet the Federal Reserve recently lowered interest rates again. Fiscal policy remains very stimulative, and I think there's this real question around whether inflation will moderate? Or whether we're going to see inflation be higher for longer. And you know, you are out with a new report touching on some of the issues behind this and why this might be a structural shift higher in inflation. So, we'd love to get your thoughts on that, and we'll drill down into the various drivers as this conversation goes on. Lisa Shalett: Thanks Andrew. And look, I think as we take a step back, and the reason we're calling this a regime change is because we see factors for inflation coming from both the demand side and the supply side. For example, on the demand side, the role of the infrastructure boom, the GenAI infrastructure boom, has become global. It has caused material appreciation of many commodities in 2025. We're seeing it obviously in some of the dynamics around precious metals. But we're also seeing it in industrial metals. Things like copper, things like nickel. We're also seeing demand factors that may stem from the K-shaped economy. And the K-shaped economy, as we know, is really about this idea that the wealthiest folks are increasingly dominating consumption. And they are getting wealthy through financial asset inflation. On the supply side, there are dynamics like immigration, dynamics around the housing market that we can talk about. But perhaps the wrapper around all of it is how policy is shifting – because increasingly policymakers are being constrained by very high levels of debt and deficits. And determining how to fund those debts and deficits actually removes some of the degrees of freedom that central bankers may have when it comes to actually using interest rates to constrain demand. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, this is such a great point because we're financial analysts. We're not political analysts. But it seems safe to say that voters really don't like inflation. But they also don't like some of the policies that would traditionally be assigned to fight inflation – be they higher interest rates or tighter fiscal policy. And even some of the more recent political shifts that we've seen – I’m talking about the U.S. around, say, immigration policy could arguably be further tightening of that supply side of the economy – measures designed to raise wages, almost explicitly in their policy goals. So how do you see that dynamic? And, again, kind of where does that leave, you think, policy going forward? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. I think the very short answer – our best guess is that policy becomes constrained. So, on the monetary side, we're already seeing the Fed beginning to signal that perhaps they're going to rely on other tools in the toolkit. And what are those tools in the toolkit? Well, they're managing the size of their balance sheet, managing the duration or the mix of things that they hold in the balance sheet. And it's actual, you know, returns to how they think about reserve management in the banking system. All of those things, all of those constraints may enable the U.S. government to fund debts, right? By buying the Treasury bill issuance, which is, you know, swollen to almost [$]2 trillion a year in terms of U.S. deficits. But on the fiscal side, right, the interest payments on debt, begins to crowd out other government spending. So, policy itself in this era of fiscal dominance becomes constrained – both in, you know, Washington, D.C. and from Congress – what they can do, their degrees of freedom – and what the central bank can do to actually control inflation. Andrew Sheets: Another area that you touch on in your report is energy and technology, which are obviously related with this large boom that we're seeing – and continue to expect in AI data center construction. This is a lot of spending on the technology. This is a lot of power needed to power that technology and U.S. data center electricity demand is growing at a rapid rate. And transmission constraints are causing prices to go up. A price that is a pretty visible price for a lot of people when they get their utility bill. So, how do these factors you think shape the story? And where do you think they're going to go as we look into the future? Lisa Shalett: Yeah, 100 percent. I mean, I think, you know, when we talk about, you know, who's going to dominate in Generative AI globally, one of the factors that we have to take into consideration is what is the cost of power? What is the cost of electricity? What is the age of the infrastructure to both generate that electricity and transport it? And transmit it? This is one of the areas where the U.S., at the minute, is facing genuine constraints. When you think about some of the forecasts that have been put out there in terms of $10 trillion of spending related to Generative AI, the number of data centers that are going to be built, and the power shortfall that has been forecast. We're talking about someone having to pay the price, if you will, to ration power until you can upgrade the grid. And in the U.S., that grid upgrade, to be blunt, has lagged some of the rest of the world. Not only because the rest of the world was slower to modernize and leapfrogged in many ways. But we know in China, for example, they have one of the lowest electricity generation costs on the planet. That is an advantage for them. So, we have to consider that power generation writ large is potentially a force for upward inflation, at least in the short term. Andrew Sheets: So we have the fiscal policy backdrop. We have an AI spending backdrop both contributing to the demand side of inflation. We have these supply constraints, whether it's housing or labor also, you know, potentially being more structural drivers of higher inflation. The question I'm sure that investors are asking you is, what should they do about it? So, can you walk us through the key strategies that investors might want to consider as they navigate a new inflationary regime? Lisa Shalett: Sure. So, the first thing that we think it's really important for folks to appreciate is that typically when we've been in these higher inflation regimes in the past, stocks and bonds become positively correlated. And what that means is that the power of a very simple 60-40 or stock-bond-cash portfolio to provide complete or optimal diversification fades. And it requires investors to potentially consider investing, especially beyond fixed income.  Stocks very often are pro-inflationary assets; meaning many, many companies have the power to pass through price increases. If you are consuming income from a fixed income or a bond instrument, inflation is your enemy, right? Because it's eating into your real returns. And so, one of the things that we're talking with our clients a lot about in terms of portfolio construction are things like adding real assets, adding infrastructure assets, adding energy, transportation assets, adding commodities. Adding gold even, to a certain extent. You know, there may be cryptocurrencies that have lower correlations to their portfolios. Andrew Sheets: Just to play devil's advocate, you can imagine that some investors might say, ‘Well, I can look in the market at long-term inflation expectations.’ And those long-term inflation expectations have been kind of stable and a bit above the Fed's target. But not dramatically. So, what do you say to that? And what do you think those markets either might be missing? Or how could investors leverage that more benign view that's out there in the market? Lisa Shalett: Yeah, so look, I think here's where the debate, right? Our perception has been that inflation expectations have remained extraordinarily anchored – because investors have actually reasonably short memories on the one hand, and we have, by and large, been in disinflationary times. Second, there's extraordinary faith in policy makers – that policy makers will fight inflation. And I think the third thing is that there's extraordinary faith in the deflationary forces of technology. Now, all three of those things may absolutely, positively be true. The problem that we have is that the alternate case, right? The case that we’re making – that maybe we’re in a new inflationary regime is not priced, and the risk is non-zero. And so, what we see, and what we’re watching is – how steep does the yield curve get, right? As we look at yields in the 10-30-year tenure – what is driving those rates higher? Is it a generic term premium? Or are we starting to see an unanchoring, if you will, of inflation expectations. And it takes a while for people to appreciate regime change. And so, look, as is always the case, there’s no absolutes in the market. There’s no one theory that is priced an]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IAcyFuf3a2RoUItcKNQnlejsiYKMwzdRD6boXNxwwOMThu, 18 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Research Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Lisa Shalett unpack what’s fueling persistent U.S. inflation and how investors could adjust their portfolios to this new landscape.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today, is inflation really transitory or are we entering a new era where higher prices are the norm? Andrew Sheets: It's Thursday, December 18th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to talk to you again. And, you know, we're having this conversation in the aftermath of, kind of, an unusual dynamic in markets when it comes to inflation. Because inflation is still hovering around 3 percent. That's well above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target. And yet the Federal Reserve recently lowered interest rates again. Fiscal policy remains very stimulative, and I think there's this real question around whether inflation will moderate? Or whether we're going to see inflation be higher for longer. And you know, you are out with a new report touching on some of the issues behind this and why this might be a structural shift higher in inflation. So, we'd love to get your thoughts on that, and we'll drill down into the various drivers as this conversation goes on. Lisa Shalett: Thanks Andrew. And look, I think as we take a step back, and the reason we're calling this a regime change is because we see factors for inflation coming from both the demand side and the supply side. For example, on the demand side, the role of the infrastructure boom, the GenAI infrastructure boom, has become global. It has caused material appreciation of many commodities in 2025. We're seeing it obviously in some of the dynamics around precious metals. But we're also seeing it in industrial metals. Things like copper, things like nickel. We're also seeing demand factors that may stem from the K-shaped economy. And the K-shaped economy, as we know, is really about this idea that the wealthiest folks are increasingly dominating consumption. And they are getting wealthy through financial asset inflation. On the supply side, there are dynamics like immigration, dynamics around the housing market that we can talk about. But perhaps the wrapper around all of it is how policy is shifting – because increasingly policymakers are being constrained by very high levels of debt and deficits. And determining how to fund those debts and deficits actually removes some of the degrees of freedom that central bankers may have when it comes to actually using interest rates to constrain demand. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, this is such a great point because we're financial analysts. We're not political analysts. But it seems safe to say that voters really don't like inflation. But they also don't like some of the policies that would traditionally be assigned to fight inflation – be they higher interest rates or tighter fiscal policy. And even some of the more recent political shifts that we've seen – I’m talking about the U.S. around, say, immigration policy could arguably be further tightening of that supply side of the economy – measures designed to raise wages, almost explicitly in their policy goals. So how do you see that dynamic? And, again, kind of where does that leave, you think, policy going forward? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. I think the very short answer – our best guess is that policy becomes constrained. So, on the monetary side, we're already seeing the Fed beginning to signal that perhaps they're going to rely on other tools in the toolkit. And what are...]]>702alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1540fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-policy-breaks-past-peak-uncertainty--75648540insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about the outlook for U.S. public policy and its interaction with markets into 2026.It's Wednesday, December 17th at 10:30am in New York.So, Ariana, we published our year ahead outlook last month. And since then, you've been out there talking to clients about U.S. public policy, its interaction with markets, and how that plays into 2026. What sorts of topics are on investors' minds around this theme?Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I'd say is clients are definitely interested in our more bullish outlook, in particular for the U.S. equity market. And normally we would start these conversations by talking through the policy variables, right? Immigration, deregulation, fiscal, and trade policy. But I think now we're actually post peak uncertainty for those variables, and we're talking through how the policy choices that have been made interact with the outlook.So, in particular for the equity market, we do think that some of the upside actually is pretty isolated from the fact that we're post peak uncertainty on tariffs, for example. Consumer discretionary – the double upgrade that our strategists made in the outlook has very little to do with the policy backdrop, and more to do with fundamentals, and things like AI and the dollar tailwind and all of all those factors.So, I think that that's a key difference. I would say it's more about the implementation of these policy decisions rather than which direction is the policy going to go in.Michael Zezas: Picking up on that point about policy uncertainty, when we were having this conversation a year ago, right after the election, looking into 2025, the key policy variables that we were going to care about – trade, fiscal policy regulation – there was a really wide range of plausible outcomes there.With tariffs, for example, you could make a credible argument that they weren't going to increase at all. But you could also make a credible argument that the average effective tariff rate was going to go up to 50 or 60 percent. While the tariff story certainly isn't over going into 2026, it certainly feels like we've landed in a place that's more range bound. It's an average effective tariff rate that's four to five times higher than where we started the year, but not nearly as high as some of the projections would have. There's still some negotiation that's going on between the U.S. and China and ways in which that could temporarily escalate; and with some other geographies as well. But we think the equilibrium rate is roughly around where we're at right now.Fiscal policy is another area where the projections were that we were going to have anything from a very substantial deficit expansion. Tax cuts that wouldn't be offset in any meaningful way by spending cuts; to a fiscal contraction, which was going to be more focused on heavier spending cuts that would've more than offset any tax cuts. We landed somewhere in between. It seems like there's some modest stimulus in the pipe for next year. But again, that is baked. We don't expect Congress to do much more there.And in terms of regulation, listen, this is a little bit more difficult, but regulatory policy tends to move slowly. It's a bureaucratic process. We thought that some of it would start last year, but it would be in process and potentially hit next year and the year after. And that's kind of where we are.So, we more or less know how these variables have become something closer to constants, and to your point, Ariana now it's about observing how economic actors, companies, consumers react to those policy choices. And what that means for the economy next year.All that said, there's always the possibility that we could be wrong. So, going back to tariffs for a minute, what are you looking at that could change or influence trade policy in a way that investors either might not expect or just have to account for in a new way?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say the clearest catalyst is the impending decision from the Supreme Court on the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. I think on that front, there are really two things to watch. The first is what President Trump does in response. Right now, there's an expectation that he will just replace the tariffs with other existing authorities, which I think probably should still be our base case. There's obviously a growing possibility, we think, that he actually takes a lighter touch on tariffs, given the concerns around affordability. And then the second thing I would say is on the refunds piece. So, if the Supreme Court does, in fact, say that the Treasury has to pay back the tariff revenue that it's collected, we've investigated some different scenarios what that could look like. In short, we think it's going to be dragged out over a long time period, probably six months at a minimum. And a lot of this will come down to the implementation and what specifically Treasury and CBP, its Customs and Border Protection, sets up to get that money back out to companies.The second catalyst on the trade front is really the USMCA review. So, this is an important topic because it matters a lot for the nearshoring narrative, for the trade relationship that the U.S. has with Mexico and Canada. And there are a number of sectors that come into scope. Obviously, Autos is the clearest impact.So, that's something that's going to happen by the middle of next year. But early in January, the USTR has to give his evaluation of the effectiveness of the USMCA to Congress. I think at that point we're going to start to see headlines. We're going to go start to see lawmakers engage more publicly with this topic. And again, a lot at stake in terms of North American supply chains. So that's going to be a really interesting development to keep an eye on next year too.Michael Zezas: So, what about things that Congress might do? Recently the President and Democrats have been talking about the concept of affordability in the wake of some of the off-cycle elections, where that appeared to influence voter behavior and give Democrats an advantage. So are there policies, any legislative policies in particular, that might come to the forefront that might impact how consumers behave?Ariana Salvatore: So a really important starting point here is just on the process itself, right? So, as we've said, one of the more reliable historical priors is that it's difficult to legislate during election years. That's a function of the fact that lawmakers just aren't in D.C. as often. You also have limited availabilities in terms of procedure itself because Republicans would have to probably do another Reconciliation Bill unless you get some bipartisan support.But hitting on this topic of affordability, there really are a few different things on the table right now. Obviously, the President has spoken about these tariff dividend checks, the $2,000. They've spoken about making changes on housing policy, so housing deregulation, and then the third is on these expanded ACA subsidies.Those were obviously the crux of the government shutdown debate. And for a variety of reasons, I think each of these are really challenging to see moving over the finish line in the coming months. We think that you would need to see some sort of exogenous economic downturn, which is not currently in our economists’ baseline forecast, to really get that kind of more reactive fiscal policy.And because of those procedural constraints, I would just go back to the point we were saying earlier around tariff policy and maybe the Supreme Court decision, giving Trump this opportunity to pull back a little bit. It's really the easiest and most available policy lever he has to address affordability. And to that point, the administration has already taken steps in this direction. They provided a number of exemptions on agricultural products and said they weren't going to move forward with the Section 232 tariffs on semiconductors in the very near term. So, we're already seeing directionally, I would say, movement in this area.Michael Zezas: Yeah. And I think we should also keep our eye on potential legislation around energy exploration. This is something that in the past has had bipartisan support loosening up regulations around that, and it's something that also ties into the theme of developing AI as a national imperative. That being said, it's not in our base case because Democrats and Republicans might agree on the high points of loosening up regulations for energy exploration. But there's a lot of disagreements on the details below the surface.But there's also the midterm elections next year. So, how do you think investors should be thinking about that – as a major catalyst for policy change? Or is it more of the same: It's an interesting story that we should track, but ultimately not that consequential.Ariana Salvatore: So obviously we're still a year out. A lot can change. But obviously we're keeping an eye on polling and that sort of data that's coming in daily at this point. The historical precedent will tell you that the President's party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. And in the House with a three-seat majority for Republicans, the bar's actually pretty low for Democrats to shift control back. In the Senate, the map is a little bit different. But let's say you were to get something like a split Congress, we think the policy ramificat]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EcaB49okPNFEosJv_NKOjRUGias6beldGMJtkfXLwe8Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Public Policy Strategists Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore break down key moves from the White House, U.S. Congress and Supreme Court that could influence markets 2026.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about the outlook for U.S. public policy and its interaction with markets into 2026.It's Wednesday, December 17th at 10:30am in New York.So, Ariana, we published our year ahead outlook last month. And since then, you've been out there talking to clients about U.S. public policy, its interaction with markets, and how that plays into 2026. What sorts of topics are on investors' minds around this theme?Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I'd say is clients are definitely interested in our more bullish outlook, in particular for the U.S. equity market. And normally we would start these conversations by talking through the policy variables, right? Immigration, deregulation, fiscal, and trade policy. But I think now we're actually post peak uncertainty for those variables, and we're talking through how the policy choices that have been made interact with the outlook.So, in particular for the equity market, we do think that some of the upside actually is pretty isolated from the fact that we're post peak uncertainty on tariffs, for example. Consumer discretionary – the double upgrade that our strategists made in the outlook has very little to do with the policy backdrop, and more to do with fundamentals, and things like AI and the dollar tailwind and all of all those factors.So, I think that that's a key difference. I would say it's more about the implementation of these policy decisions rather than which direction is the policy going to go in.Michael Zezas: Picking up on that point about policy uncertainty, when we were having this conversation a year ago, right after the election, looking into 2025, the key policy variables that we were going to care about – trade, fiscal policy regulation – there was a really wide range of plausible outcomes there.With tariffs, for example, you could make a credible argument that they weren't going to increase at all. But you could also make a credible argument that the average effective tariff rate was going to go up to 50 or 60 percent. While the tariff story certainly isn't over going into 2026, it certainly feels like we've landed in a place that's more range bound. It's an average effective tariff rate that's four to five times higher than where we started the year, but not nearly as high as some of the projections would have. There's still some negotiation that's going on between the U.S. and China and ways in which that could temporarily escalate; and with some other geographies as well. But we think the equilibrium rate is roughly around where we're at right now.Fiscal policy is another area where the projections were that we were going to have anything from a very substantial deficit expansion. Tax cuts that wouldn't be offset in any meaningful way by spending cuts; to a fiscal contraction, which was going to be more focused on heavier spending cuts that would've more than offset any tax cuts. We landed somewhere in between. It seems like there's some modest stimulus in the pipe for next year. But again, that is baked. We don't expect Congress to do much more there.And in terms of regulation, listen, this is a little bit more difficult, but regulatory policy tends to move slowly. It's a bureaucratic process. We thought that some of it would start last year, but it would be in process and potentially hit next year and the year after. And that's kind of where we are.So, we more...]]>645alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1539fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-investors-agree-or-don-t-with-our-2026-outlook--75648320insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today, I consider the pushback we've received on our 2026 outlooks – distilling the themes that drew the most debate and our responses to the debates. It’s Tuesday, Dec 16th at 3:30pm in New York. It's been a few weeks [since] we published our 2026 outlooks for the global economy and markets. We’ve had lots of wide-ranging conversations, much dialogue and debate with our clients across the globe on the key themes that we laid out in our outlook. Feedback has ranged from strong alignment to pointed disagreement, with many nuanced views in between. We welcome this dialogue, especially the pushback, as it forces us to re-examine our assumptions and refine our thinking. Our constructive stance on AI and data center-related CapEx, along with the pivotal role we see for the credit market channels, drew notable scrutiny. Our 2026 CapEx projections was anchored by a strong conviction – that demand for compute will far outstrip the supply over the next several years. We remain confident that credit markets across unsecured, structured, and securitized instruments in both public and private domains will be central to the financing of the next wave of AI-driven investments. The crucial point here is that we think this spending will be relatively insensitive to the macro conditions, i.e., the level of interest rates and economic growth. Regarding the level of AI investment, we received a bit of pushback on our economics forecast: Why don’t we forecast even more growth from AI CapEx? From our perspective, that is going to be a multi-year process, so the growth implications also extend over time. Our U.S. credit strategists’ forecast for IG bond supply – $2.25 trillion in gross issuance; that’s up 25 percent year-over-year, or $1 trillion in net issuance; that’s 60 percent year-over-year – garnered significant attention. There was some pushback to the volume of the issuance we project. As CapEx growth outpaces revenue and pressures free cash flow, credit becomes a key financing bridge. Importantly, AI is not the sole driver of the surge that we forecast. A pick-up in M&A activity and the resulting increase in acquisition-driven IG supply also will play a key role, in our view. We also received pushback on our expectation for modest widening in credit spreads, roughly 15 basis points in investment grade, which we still think will remain near the low end of the historical ranges despite this massive surge in supply. Some clients argued for more widening, but we note that the bulk of the AI-related issuance will come from high-quality – you know AAA-AA rated issuers – which are currently underrepresented in credit markets relative to their equity market weight. Additionally, continued policy easing – two more rate cuts – modest economic re-acceleration, and persistent demand from yield-focused buyers should help to anchor the spreads. Our macro strategists’ framing of 2026 as a transition year for global rates – from synchronized tightening to asynchronous normalization as central banks approach equilibrium – was broadly well received, as was their call for government bond yields to remain broadly range-bound. However, their view that markets will price in a dovish tilt to Fed policy sparked considerable debate. While there was broad agreement on the outlook for yield curve steepening, the nature of that steepening – bull steepening or bear steepening – remained a point of contention. Outside the U.S., the biggest pushback was to the call on the ECB cutting rates two more times in 2026. Our economists disagreed with President Lagarde – that the disinflationary process has ended. Even with moderate continued euro area growth on German fiscal expansion, but consolidation elsewhere, we still see an output gap that will eventually lead inflation to undershoot the ECB’s 2 percent target. We also engaged in lively dialogue and debate on China. The key debate here comes down to a micro versus macro story. Put differently, the market is not the economy and the economy is not the market. Sentiment on investments in China has turned around this year, and our strategists are on board with that view. However, from an economics point of view, we see deflation continuing and fiscal policy from Beijing as a bit too modest to spark near-term reflation. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-LmxlxU8VJZd0Gt_h9K3FWaIQZc2d71AkSBYLyYobe4Tue, 16 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur responds to some of the feedback from clients on Morgan Stanley’s 2026 global outlooks.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today, I consider the pushback we've received on our 2026 outlooks – distilling the themes that drew the most debate and our responses to the debates. It’s Tuesday, Dec 16th at 3:30pm in New York. It's been a few weeks [since] we published our 2026 outlooks for the global economy and markets. We’ve had lots of wide-ranging conversations, much dialogue and debate with our clients across the globe on the key themes that we laid out in our outlook. Feedback has ranged from strong alignment to pointed disagreement, with many nuanced views in between. We welcome this dialogue, especially the pushback, as it forces us to re-examine our assumptions and refine our thinking. Our constructive stance on AI and data center-related CapEx, along with the pivotal role we see for the credit market channels, drew notable scrutiny. Our 2026 CapEx projections was anchored by a strong conviction – that demand for compute will far outstrip the supply over the next several years. We remain confident that credit markets across unsecured, structured, and securitized instruments in both public and private domains will be central to the financing of the next wave of AI-driven investments. The crucial point here is that we think this spending will be relatively insensitive to the macro conditions, i.e., the level of interest rates and economic growth. Regarding the level of AI investment, we received a bit of pushback on our economics forecast: Why don’t we forecast even more growth from AI CapEx? From our perspective, that is going to be a multi-year process, so the growth implications also extend over time. Our U.S. credit strategists’ forecast for IG bond supply – $2.25 trillion in gross issuance; that’s up 25 percent year-over-year, or $1 trillion in net issuance; that’s 60 percent year-over-year – garnered significant attention. There was some pushback to the volume of the issuance we project. As CapEx growth outpaces revenue and pressures free cash flow, credit becomes a key financing bridge. Importantly, AI is not the sole driver of the surge that we forecast. A pick-up in M&A activity and the resulting increase in acquisition-driven IG supply also will play a key role, in our view. We also received pushback on our expectation for modest widening in credit spreads, roughly 15 basis points in investment grade, which we still think will remain near the low end of the historical ranges despite this massive surge in supply. Some clients argued for more widening, but we note that the bulk of the AI-related issuance will come from high-quality – you know AAA-AA rated issuers – which are currently underrepresented in credit markets relative to their equity market weight. Additionally, continued policy easing – two more rate cuts – modest economic re-acceleration, and persistent demand from yield-focused buyers should help to anchor the spreads. Our macro strategists’ framing of 2026 as a transition year for global rates – from synchronized tightening to asynchronous normalization as central banks approach equilibrium – was broadly well received, as was their call for government bond yields to remain broadly range-bound. However, their view that markets will price in a dovish tilt to Fed policy sparked considerable debate. While there was broad agreement on the outlook for yield curve steepening, the nature of that steepening – bull steepening or bear steepening – remained a point of contention. Outside the U.S., the biggest pushback was to the call on the ECB cutting rates two more times in...]]>308alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1538fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-market-stability-matters-to-the-fed--75648421insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Fed’s decision last week and what it means for stocks.It's Monday, December 15th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Last week's Fed meeting provided incremental support for our positive 2026 outlook on equities. The Fed delivered on its expected hawkish rate cut but also indicated it would do more if the labor market continues to soften. More important than the rate cut was the Fed's decision to restart asset purchases. More specifically, the Fed intends to immediately begin buying $40 billion of T-Bills per month to ensure the smooth operation of financial markets. Based on our conversations with investors prior to the announcement, this amount and timing of bill buying exceeded both consensus, and my own expectations. It also confirms a key insight I have been discussing for months and highlighted in our Year Ahead Outlook. First, the Fed is not independent of markets, and market stability often plays a dominant role in Fed policy beyond the stated dual mandate of full employment and price stability.Second, given the size of the debt and deficit, the Fed has an additional responsibility to assist Treasury in funding the government, and will likely continue to work more closely with Treasury in this regard.Finally, the decision to intervene in funding markets sooner and more aggressively than expected may not be ‘Quantitative Easing’ as defined by the Fed. However, it is a form of debt monetization that directly helps to reduce the crowding out from the still growing Treasury issuance, especially as Treasury issues more Bills over Bonds.At the Fed's October meeting, it indicated some concern about tightening liquidity which I have discussed on this podcast as the single biggest risk to the bull market in stocks. Evidence of this tightness can be seen in the performance of asset prices most sensitive to liquidity, including crypto currencies and profitless growth stocks.While the Fed probably isn't too concerned about the performance of these asset classes, it does care about financial stability in the bond, credit and funding markets. This is what likely prompted it to restart asset purchases sooner and in a more significant way than most expected.We view this as a form of debt monetization as I mentioned, given the Treasury's objective to issue more bills going forward. More importantly, these purchases provide additional liquidity for markets, and in combination with rate cuts, suggest the Fed is likely less worried about missing its inflation target. This is very much in line with our run it hot thesis dating back to early 2021. As a reminder, accelerating inflation is positive for asset prices as long as it doesn’t force the Fed’s hand to take the punch bowl away like in 2022.  Ironically, the risk in the near-term is that this larger than expected asset purchase program may be insufficient if the Fed has materially underestimated the level of reserves necessary for markets to operate smoothly. This is what happened in 2019 and why the Fed created the Standing Repo Facility in the first place. However, this is more of a tool that is used on an as-needed basis. What the markets may want or need is a larger buffer if the Fed has underestimated the level of reserves required for smoothly functioning financial markets.To be clear, I don’t know what that level is, but I do believe markets will tell us if the Fed has done enough with this latest provision. Liquidity-sensitive asset classes and areas of the equity market will be important to watch in this regard, particularly given how weak they traded last Friday and this morning.Bottom line, the Fed has reacted to the markets' tremors over the past few months. Should markets wobble again, we are highly confident the Fed will once again react until things calm down. Last week's FOMC meeting only increases our conviction in that case and keeps us bullish over the next 6-12 months, and our 7800 price target on the S&P 500. We would welcome a correction in the short term as a buying opportunity. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YLQ_pmb9JcJo59nIvUDR5qUYS8XgZluSeBhuMZ5rbVAMon, 15 Dec 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the significance of the Fed’s decision to resume buying $40 billion of Treasury bills monthly.  Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Fed’s decision last week and what it means for stocks.It's Monday, December 15th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.Last week's Fed meeting provided incremental support for our positive 2026 outlook on equities. The Fed delivered on its expected hawkish rate cut but also indicated it would do more if the labor market continues to soften. More important than the rate cut was the Fed's decision to restart asset purchases. More specifically, the Fed intends to immediately begin buying $40 billion of T-Bills per month to ensure the smooth operation of financial markets. Based on our conversations with investors prior to the announcement, this amount and timing of bill buying exceeded both consensus, and my own expectations. It also confirms a key insight I have been discussing for months and highlighted in our Year Ahead Outlook. First, the Fed is not independent of markets, and market stability often plays a dominant role in Fed policy beyond the stated dual mandate of full employment and price stability.Second, given the size of the debt and deficit, the Fed has an additional responsibility to assist Treasury in funding the government, and will likely continue to work more closely with Treasury in this regard.Finally, the decision to intervene in funding markets sooner and more aggressively than expected may not be ‘Quantitative Easing’ as defined by the Fed. However, it is a form of debt monetization that directly helps to reduce the crowding out from the still growing Treasury issuance, especially as Treasury issues more Bills over Bonds.At the Fed's October meeting, it indicated some concern about tightening liquidity which I have discussed on this podcast as the single biggest risk to the bull market in stocks. Evidence of this tightness can be seen in the performance of asset prices most sensitive to liquidity, including crypto currencies and profitless growth stocks.While the Fed probably isn't too concerned about the performance of these asset classes, it does care about financial stability in the bond, credit and funding markets. This is what likely prompted it to restart asset purchases sooner and in a more significant way than most expected.We view this as a form of debt monetization as I mentioned, given the Treasury's objective to issue more bills going forward. More importantly, these purchases provide additional liquidity for markets, and in combination with rate cuts, suggest the Fed is likely less worried about missing its inflation target. This is very much in line with our run it hot thesis dating back to early 2021. As a reminder, accelerating inflation is positive for asset prices as long as it doesn’t force the Fed’s hand to take the punch bowl away like in 2022.  Ironically, the risk in the near-term is that this larger than expected asset purchase program may be insufficient if the Fed has materially underestimated the level of reserves necessary for markets to operate smoothly. This is what happened in 2019 and why the Fed created the Standing Repo Facility in the first place. However, this is more of a tool that is used on an as-needed basis. What the markets may want or need is a larger buffer if the Fed has underestimated the level of reserves required for smoothly functioning financial markets.To be clear, I don’t know what that level is, but I do believe markets will tell us if the Fed has done enough with this latest provision. Liquidity-sensitive asset classes and areas of the equity...]]>280alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1537fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-credit-cycle-overheating--75648527insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about our outlook for global credit markets in 2026 and why we think the credit cycle burns hotter before it burns out.It's Friday, December 12th at 2pm in London.Surely it can't go on like this. That phrase is probably coming up a lot as global credit investors sit down and plan for 2026. Credit spreads are sitting at 25 year plus tights in the U.S. and Asia. Issuance in corporate activity are increasingly aggressive. Corporate CapEx is surging. Signs of pressure are clear in the lowest rated parts of the market. And credit investors are trained to worry. Aren't all of these and more signs that a credit cycle is starting to crack under its own weight?Not quite yet, according to our views here at Morgan Stanley. Instead, we think that 2026 brings a credit cycle that burns hotter before it burns out. The reason is partly due to an unusually stimulative backdrop. Central banks are cutting interest rates. Governments are spending more money, and regulatory policy is easing. All of that, alongside maybe the largest investment cycle in a generation around artificial intelligence, should spur more risk taking from a corporate sector that has the capacity to do so.In turn, we think the playbook for credit is going to look a lot like 2005 or 1997-1998. Both periods saw levels of capital expenditure, merger activity, interest rates, and an unemployment rate that are pretty similar to what Morgan Stanley expects next year. And so, looking ahead to 2026, these two periods offer two competing ways to view the year ahead.2025 might be more similar to a period where the low-end consumer really is starting to struggle, but that another force – back then it was China, now it might be AI spending – keeps the broader market humming. 1997 or 1998, on the other hand, would be more similar to a narrative that investors are growing more confident that a new technology is really transformative. Back then, it was the internet and now it's AI.Corporate bond issuance we think will be central to how this resolves itself. This is a strong regional theme and a key driver of our views across U.S., European and Asia Credit. We forecast net issuance to rise significantly in U.S. investment grade up over 60 percent versus 2025 to a total of around $1 trillion.That rise is powered by a continued increase in technology spending to fund AI as well as a broader increase in capital expenditure and merger activity. All of those bonds being sold to the market should mean that U.S. spreads need to move wider to adjust. And that's true, even if underlying demand for credit remains pretty healthy, thanks to high yields, and the economy ultimately holds up.We think this story is a bit better in other areas and regions that have less relative issuance, including European and Asian investment grade and global high yield. They all outperform U.S. investment grade on our forecast. In total returns, we think that all of these markets produce a return of around 4 to 6 percent, and if that's true, it would underperform, say U.S. equities, but outperform cash.More granularly similar to 2025 or 2005, we think that single name and sector dispersion remain major themes. And where you position in maturity should also matter. Credit curves are steep and our U.S. interest rate strategist are expecting the U.S. Treasury curve to steepen significantly Further. That should mean that so-called carry and roll down and where you position on the maturity curve are a pretty big driver of your ultimate result. In our view, corporate bonds between five- and 10-year maturity in both the U.S. and Europe will offer the best risk reward.The most significant risk for global credit remains recession, which we think would argue for wider spreads on both economic rounds, but also through weaker demand as yields would fall. It would mean that our spread forecasts are too optimistic and that our expectation that high yield outperforms investment grade would be wrong. And then there's a milder version of this bear case – that aggression and corporate supply are even stronger than we think, and that creates conditions closer to late 1998 or 1999.Back then, U.S. investment grade spreads were roughly 30 basis points wider than current levels, even though the economy was strong and even though the equity market kept going up.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0GxBOWC1rhYf-H7tx_mu7XEoOi4FamfkMqdXPXzExtUFri, 12 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why 2026 might bring a credit cycle that burns hotter before it burns out.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about our outlook for global credit markets in 2026 and why we think the credit cycle burns hotter before it burns out.It's Friday, December 12th at 2pm in London.Surely it can't go on like this. That phrase is probably coming up a lot as global credit investors sit down and plan for 2026. Credit spreads are sitting at 25 year plus tights in the U.S. and Asia. Issuance in corporate activity are increasingly aggressive. Corporate CapEx is surging. Signs of pressure are clear in the lowest rated parts of the market. And credit investors are trained to worry. Aren't all of these and more signs that a credit cycle is starting to crack under its own weight?Not quite yet, according to our views here at Morgan Stanley. Instead, we think that 2026 brings a credit cycle that burns hotter before it burns out. The reason is partly due to an unusually stimulative backdrop. Central banks are cutting interest rates. Governments are spending more money, and regulatory policy is easing. All of that, alongside maybe the largest investment cycle in a generation around artificial intelligence, should spur more risk taking from a corporate sector that has the capacity to do so.In turn, we think the playbook for credit is going to look a lot like 2005 or 1997-1998. Both periods saw levels of capital expenditure, merger activity, interest rates, and an unemployment rate that are pretty similar to what Morgan Stanley expects next year. And so, looking ahead to 2026, these two periods offer two competing ways to view the year ahead.2025 might be more similar to a period where the low-end consumer really is starting to struggle, but that another force – back then it was China, now it might be AI spending – keeps the broader market humming. 1997 or 1998, on the other hand, would be more similar to a narrative that investors are growing more confident that a new technology is really transformative. Back then, it was the internet and now it's AI.Corporate bond issuance we think will be central to how this resolves itself. This is a strong regional theme and a key driver of our views across U.S., European and Asia Credit. We forecast net issuance to rise significantly in U.S. investment grade up over 60 percent versus 2025 to a total of around $1 trillion.That rise is powered by a continued increase in technology spending to fund AI as well as a broader increase in capital expenditure and merger activity. All of those bonds being sold to the market should mean that U.S. spreads need to move wider to adjust. And that's true, even if underlying demand for credit remains pretty healthy, thanks to high yields, and the economy ultimately holds up.We think this story is a bit better in other areas and regions that have less relative issuance, including European and Asian investment grade and global high yield. They all outperform U.S. investment grade on our forecast. In total returns, we think that all of these markets produce a return of around 4 to 6 percent, and if that's true, it would underperform, say U.S. equities, but outperform cash.More granularly similar to 2025 or 2005, we think that single name and sector dispersion remain major themes. And where you position in maturity should also matter. Credit curves are steep and our U.S. interest rate strategist are expecting the U.S. Treasury curve to steepen significantly Further. That should mean that so-called carry and roll down and where you position on the maturity curve are a pretty big driver of your ultimate result. In our...]]>301alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1536fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fed-s-next-steps-and-markets-reactions--75648450insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Yesterday, the FOMC meeting delivered another quarter percentage point rate cut. Today we're here to discuss what happens next.It's Thursday, December 11th at 8:30 AM in New York. So, Mike, once again, the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. That outcome was not a surprise, and the markets reacted positively. But there were some surprises. A bit of a divided FOMC, if you will. How did things play out during the meeting and what are some important takeaways to keep in mind? Michael Gapen: Yeah, well certainly Matt, it is a divided committee. I think that's clear. I think one key takeaway for me is the idea that the Fed is done with risk management rate cuts, and now we're back to data dependent. So, what does that mean? I mean, a risk management rate cut isn't necessarily about the data you have in hand and the data you see; it's your view about the distribution of risks around that. So, in some ways, you're not data dependent when you're making those cuts. Now, I think the challenge at this press conference for Powell was to say, ‘Well, now things are different.’ And it was a nuance in the sense that cuts from here, if and when they come, will be data dependent. But I think at the same time he did not want to communicate that the bar for those rate cuts were exceptionally high. But I think he threaded the needle quite well in transitioning from risk management cuts, which aren't data dependent to an outlook, which is now more data dependent. And I thought he did that artfully well. So, for me, that's the big key. Secondarily I'd add a takeaway for me was he seems fairly confident that inflation will be coming down, and I think he still believes the labor market is cooling. The blend of that came across as a bit dovish to me. And then the third thing I would add is he fairly explicitly ruled out the risk of rate hikes. So, I think the combination of those three things: data dependence, still concerns about cooling in the labor market, and chopping off the upper half of the rate path distribution – those were kind of the key takeaways from my point. Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, with respect to the labor market, Chair Powell did address it in a couple of different ways. But one of the ways that stood out to my ears was how he described some technical factors that people are well aware of – that could mean the economy is actually shedding jobs to the tune of about 20,000 per month. I was wondering if you could just briefly address what those factors – that are supposedly so well known – might be. Michael Gapen: Sure. So, obviously the data that gets released, there are the initial releases and then there are revisions. And in the labor market, there are what are called annual benchmark revisions. So, the BLS released a preliminary estimate of that benchmark revision several months ago, and if you apply that initial estimate, it would suggest that job growth in 2025 could be about 60,000 jobs per month, less than has already been reported. But at the same time, we know immigration controls are slowing growth in the labor force. So, this is what Powell is calling the really curious balance. How can you have employment growth basically zero, maybe even negative, after these revisions come in – and the unemployment rate relatively stable. Yes, it's gone up a few tenths, but not like you would normally expect that rise would be if we were shedding jobs. So that to me is why he… You know; the technical factors about revisions and things that lead them to be, I think, very unsure about where the labor market is; and lean in the direction of thinking lower rates are better to manage those risks than where they were six months ago. Matthew Hornbach: One of the points that you raised in your opening explanation of the meeting was about inflation. And Chair Powell mentioned an expectation that the inflation related to tariffs would be peaking in the first quarter of the year. That sounded very familiar to me because I believe that's your expectation as well. I'm curious. How are you looking at tariffs and the inflation related to tariffs today? And do you agree with Chair Powell still? Michael Gapen: We do. Our modeling of the tariff pass through and our conversations with clients and firms and what we hear on corporate earnings calls suggests that this is a long process. Meaning tariffs go in place, prices don't go up the next month. Firms make pricing decisions that take time to implement. So, we agree that the tariff pass through story will extend into 2026 and likely through the end of the first quarter. And if that's true, then goods prices should continue to move higher. The year-on-year rate of inflation should move higher, peaking at 3 percent or a little above in the first quarter of the year. And then tat effect should we think be over, which would open the door for overall inflation to start coming back down. So, I will use the dreaded T-word. We think ultimately inflation from tariffs will be transitory. And I agree with the Chair's timeline; inflation should peak in the first quarter of the year and then start to trend down. That said, we think inflation will be above the Fed's 2 percent target into 2027, and this is the cost of providing insurance to the labor market. Matthew Hornbach: So finally, all things considered, what is your outlook for Fed policy in 2026? Michael Gapen: Yeah, and the key here, Matt, is that exactly what you just implied about tariffs and inflation still going on into 2026, right? Because what we know is while firms are gauging exactly where they should be pricing, they've been offsetting tariffs through lower demand for labor. So, we think the Fed will be cutting again in January. We have three months of employment data that come across two employment reports between now and the January meeting. We think they will show continued cooling in the labor market. And then we have a second cut next year in in April. So, while tariffs are getting passed through, we think the labor market will continue to cool. And this Fed will be biased to cutting rates to provide support to the labor market in the process. That would mean the federal funds rate gets to 3 – 3.25 percent in the second quarter of 2026, where we think it'll stay.So Matt, I'd like to ask you a question. What I noticed was the rate market backed up going into the meeting, despite the fact that market participants were projecting a cut. And then the rate market rallied, in my view, significantly during the meeting and right after. What do you think was happening there? Matthew Hornbach: So, there's a phenomenon that happens in all markets where investors often speculate on a potential outcome. And if the outcome is then delivered, the follow-on price action is underwhelming. That is colloquially known as buying the rumor and selling the fact. So, I think going into this meeting kind of in line with your expectations, investors were forming very similar expectations about how the FOMC statement itself would change and the implications that that might have for the future of Fed policy. When that hawkish cut was delivered almost exactly as you had expected, Mike, I think, investors started thinking about the future in a slightly different way. Now that their expectations were met with the meeting outcome, they started to consider, the data that is forthcoming. And whenever, officials at the Fed talk about data in the way that Chair Powell spoke about the data – and by which I mean labeled the labor market as potentially losing jobs at the moment, and labeling inflation as transitory, that we'd be past the peak of tariff related inflation after the first quarter of the year. Investors can kind of look at those factors and extrapolate going forward, what that may mean for Fed policy in the first half of 2026. So, I think similar to your expectations for policy after this meeting, investors probably became a bit more confident in your outlook for Fed policy that we would see additional rate cuts in the first half of next year. And then, of course, after the April meeting, the baton will be passed to the next Fed chair, and I think investors are considering what policy might look like under that new regime at the Fed. And on the margin, the view is that the next Fed chair would be more likely than not to continue the process of lowering policy rates. So, I think all of those factors played into the post press conference, and even during the press conference reaction. Michael Gapen: Okay Matt, one last question, if I may. How did the events of the FOMC this week and the market reaction, how does that dovetail with how you're thinking about longer term rates, in particular where you see 10-year yields going? And the dollar? Matthew Hornbach: So, 10-year yields are relatively close to 4 percent at this juncture, and we expect them to drift modestly lower in the first half of 2026, as the Fed continues this process of lowering the policy rate. One point that's very important to make here is that the longer-term Treasury yields today are now sitting well above the Fed's policy rate, and that hasn't been the case for many, many years now. A lot of investors with whom we speak think that longer term yields can head a lot higher from here. But we're skeptical – because the higher that those yields go relative to the Fed's policy rate, the more attractive those bonds beco]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3me5QXA3cgTVmc7BdzZB3JyEMreyjymCLp_pHU9DoQ4Thu, 11 Dec 2025 22:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the Fed’s path as inflation remains above its target and the labor market continues cooling.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Yesterday, the FOMC meeting delivered another quarter percentage point rate cut. Today we're here to discuss what happens next.It's Thursday, December 11th at 8:30 AM in New York. So, Mike, once again, the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. That outcome was not a surprise, and the markets reacted positively. But there were some surprises. A bit of a divided FOMC, if you will. How did things play out during the meeting and what are some important takeaways to keep in mind? Michael Gapen: Yeah, well certainly Matt, it is a divided committee. I think that's clear. I think one key takeaway for me is the idea that the Fed is done with risk management rate cuts, and now we're back to data dependent. So, what does that mean? I mean, a risk management rate cut isn't necessarily about the data you have in hand and the data you see; it's your view about the distribution of risks around that. So, in some ways, you're not data dependent when you're making those cuts. Now, I think the challenge at this press conference for Powell was to say, ‘Well, now things are different.’ And it was a nuance in the sense that cuts from here, if and when they come, will be data dependent. But I think at the same time he did not want to communicate that the bar for those rate cuts were exceptionally high. But I think he threaded the needle quite well in transitioning from risk management cuts, which aren't data dependent to an outlook, which is now more data dependent. And I thought he did that artfully well. So, for me, that's the big key. Secondarily I'd add a takeaway for me was he seems fairly confident that inflation will be coming down, and I think he still believes the labor market is cooling. The blend of that came across as a bit dovish to me. And then the third thing I would add is he fairly explicitly ruled out the risk of rate hikes. So, I think the combination of those three things: data dependence, still concerns about cooling in the labor market, and chopping off the upper half of the rate path distribution – those were kind of the key takeaways from my point. Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, with respect to the labor market, Chair Powell did address it in a couple of different ways. But one of the ways that stood out to my ears was how he described some technical factors that people are well aware of – that could mean the economy is actually shedding jobs to the tune of about 20,000 per month. I was wondering if you could just briefly address what those factors – that are supposedly so well known – might be. Michael Gapen: Sure. So, obviously the data that gets released, there are the initial releases and then there are revisions. And in the labor market, there are what are called annual benchmark revisions. So, the BLS released a preliminary estimate of that benchmark revision several months ago, and if you apply that initial estimate, it would suggest that job growth in 2025 could be about 60,000 jobs per month, less than has already been reported. But at the same time, we know immigration controls are slowing growth in the labor force. So, this is what Powell is calling the really curious balance. How can you have employment growth basically zero, maybe even negative, after these revisions come in – and the unemployment rate relatively stable. Yes, it's gone up a few tenths, but not like you would normally expect that rise would be if we were shedding jobs. So...]]>731alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1535fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-s-economy-and-markets-in-2026--75648455insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Laura Wang: Today – our 2026 macro outlook for Asia with a particular focus on China's equity market.It's Wednesday, December 10th at 10am in Hong Kong.Chetan, as 2025 draws to a close; and if we try to remember what we were thinking about this time last year, I think, probably a lot of the market participants were expecting headwinds going into 2025 on the exports and trade front. But turns out that Asia's export growth is tracking at 8 percent this year so far. What's your explanation for this surprise?Chetan Ahya: Well, yes, Laura, you know, we were all concerned that there will potentially be tariffs, especially on China. And therefore, we were concerned that [the] regions’ exports may be affected negatively. However, what has happened is that tech exports have driven the strength in the overall exports for the region. And that is all because of the story on AI and tech development that we have all been watching.But the good news is that non-tech exports will recover in 2026. In fact, that's the key call we are making – that from early next year, you will see that improvement in the U.S. domestic demand that helps Asia's exports. And at the same time, we are expecting that bulk of this tariff-related uncertainty would be behind us. And so those are the two factors we think will support this recovery in non-tech exports in 2026.Laura Wang: That's great. How significant is the shift in exports from tech to non-tech?Chetan Ahya: Well, we think that's very important for [the] regions’ economic outlook. Because when you think about the tech exports recovery, it was helpful to keep [the] regions’ overall exports growth strong, but it did not have the broader multiplier effect on the economy. So, for example, when you think about the tech exports, it tends to be more capital intensive, and we don't see much benefit on job growth.I think the best example I can give you is when you look at the Taiwan economic numbers. We've seen very strong GDP growth year-to-date. But at the same time, consumption numbers have been very weak. And so, non-tech exports recovery is very important for the broader economic recovery, and that is precisely what we expect in 2026. You will see that broadening out of growth with follow up in CapEx, job growth, and consumption recovery.Laura Wang: Your work suggests that Asia inflation will pick up modestly in 2026. What factors are behind this trend?Chetan Ahya: Well, as the non-tech exports recovery materializes, you should see improvement in capacity utilization across the board in the region. That should reduce the disinflationary pressures that we've been seeing year-to-date. And at the same time, we are expecting that the disinflationary pressures that the region was facing from China is also going to ease in 2026.Laura Wang: How will Asia central banks respond to keep inflation within their comfort zones? And what does this mean for monetary policy across the region in 2026?Chetan Ahya: Well actually, there's not much concern about keeping the inflation within the central bank's comfort zone because what we've seen year-to-date in Asia is that Inflation has been much lower than the central bank's target for a number of economies in the region. And they have been responding to this with more interest rate cuts.But going forward, as disinflationary pressure is reduced, we are expecting that the central banks in the region would end their rate cutting cycle. We should see just about one to two more rate cuts for some of the central banks. And then policy rates should remain largely stable through to the end of 2026.So, Laura, let me come to you now. So, 2025 was a very strong year for China markets. And you see 2026 as a ‘keep it steady’ year rather than a breakout year. What does stability look like for investors and companies?Laura Wang: That’s right, 2025 was a very good year for China equity market. We saw both MSCI China and Han Sang Index delivering more than 30 percent return in absolute terms. Going into 2026, we see it as a year for investors and for the market to preserve and protect what has been achieved in 2025 so far, but not with significantly much higher upside at this point. This is because the valuation re-reading we've seen so far in 2025 is already more than 30 percent, close to 40 percent.In [20]26, we think the valuation will largely stay at its current level, and further upside for the market will be more driven by solid earnings growth. For 2026, we see MSCI China's earnings growth year-on-year at around 6 percent.Chetan Ahya: So, with that backdrop, Laura, do you expect more inflows into the market next year?Laura Wang: Absolutely. Actually, we have already talked to so many investors on a global basis, and we are seeing much higher level of interest in investing in Chinese equities, particularly in some R&D and innovation heavy sectors.That being said, what we are seeing also is relatively light positioning by global investors in Chinese equities – actually across the board, still a quite sizable underweight, which means there will be much higher room for them to increase their allocation gradually in 2026 back to China.Chetan Ahya: And with the U.S.-China tensions easing a bit, and China doubling down on AI and smart manufacturing, where do you see the real-world opportunities from that?Laura Wang: There will be a lot of opportunities inside Chinese equity market, but we do want to stay with the names that will be delivering very solid earnings growth in the next few years. And we also want to highlight the next five years growth strategy laid out by Chinese policy makers.We want to make sure that we focus on the sectors that are very well aligned with the national growth strategy with a strong focus in R&D and innovation – and that would include AI as well as smart manufacturing, automation, robotics, and biotech. We also have collected very high level of interest from global investors in these sectors.At the same time, as we start to see less deflation pressure in 2026, but still with it potentially persisting into 2027, we want investors to still hold on to some exposure to high quality dividend plays. The steady cash returns from these stocks will help you navigate through some volatilities in the market in next year.Chetan Ahya: So, you expect global investors returning, mainland investors shifting money from savings into stocks, and strong cross-border trading within Hong Kong. What does that mean for market behavior and thematic opportunities?Laura Wang: One very positive development we have observed in 2025 is the strong capital market activities in Hong Kong. Hong Kong at single stock exchange basis actually is the most active IPO market in the world in 2025, and with policy support for Hong Kong to continue as a global financial hub, we expect this trend to continue. So, we are seeing more and more capital market activities happening in Hong Kong and mainland China in the next year. And in terms of thematic opportunities, I already mentioned that opportunities align with the national growth strategy with very heavy innovation and R&D focus. Along these opportunities, we're also heavy recommending investors to focus on thematic opportunities such as anti-evolution, as well as corporate governance reform.That summarizes our New Year outlook for Asia economy as well as China equity market. Chetan, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me.Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Laura.Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iI0h4yRKKyhFiispbkZid1jtaKGCz9mAYjV9X0yfQFEWed, 10 Dec 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang unpack Asia’s broadening economic recovery and focus on China’s path to market stability in 2026.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Laura Wang: Today – our 2026 macro outlook for Asia with a particular focus on China's equity market.It's Wednesday, December 10th at 10am in Hong Kong.Chetan, as 2025 draws to a close; and if we try to remember what we were thinking about this time last year, I think, probably a lot of the market participants were expecting headwinds going into 2025 on the exports and trade front. But turns out that Asia's export growth is tracking at 8 percent this year so far. What's your explanation for this surprise?Chetan Ahya: Well, yes, Laura, you know, we were all concerned that there will potentially be tariffs, especially on China. And therefore, we were concerned that [the] regions’ exports may be affected negatively. However, what has happened is that tech exports have driven the strength in the overall exports for the region. And that is all because of the story on AI and tech development that we have all been watching.But the good news is that non-tech exports will recover in 2026. In fact, that's the key call we are making – that from early next year, you will see that improvement in the U.S. domestic demand that helps Asia's exports. And at the same time, we are expecting that bulk of this tariff-related uncertainty would be behind us. And so those are the two factors we think will support this recovery in non-tech exports in 2026.Laura Wang: That's great. How significant is the shift in exports from tech to non-tech?Chetan Ahya: Well, we think that's very important for [the] regions’ economic outlook. Because when you think about the tech exports recovery, it was helpful to keep [the] regions’ overall exports growth strong, but it did not have the broader multiplier effect on the economy. So, for example, when you think about the tech exports, it tends to be more capital intensive, and we don't see much benefit on job growth.I think the best example I can give you is when you look at the Taiwan economic numbers. We've seen very strong GDP growth year-to-date. But at the same time, consumption numbers have been very weak. And so, non-tech exports recovery is very important for the broader economic recovery, and that is precisely what we expect in 2026. You will see that broadening out of growth with follow up in CapEx, job growth, and consumption recovery.Laura Wang: Your work suggests that Asia inflation will pick up modestly in 2026. What factors are behind this trend?Chetan Ahya: Well, as the non-tech exports recovery materializes, you should see improvement in capacity utilization across the board in the region. That should reduce the disinflationary pressures that we've been seeing year-to-date. And at the same time, we are expecting that the disinflationary pressures that the region was facing from China is also going to ease in 2026.Laura Wang: How will Asia central banks respond to keep inflation within their comfort zones? And what does this mean for monetary policy across the region in 2026?Chetan Ahya: Well actually, there's not much concern about keeping the inflation within the central bank's comfort zone because what we've seen year-to-date in Asia is that Inflation has been much lower than the central bank's target for a number of economies in the region. And they have been responding to this with more interest rate cuts.But going forward, as disinflationary pressure is reduced, we are expecting that the central banks in the region would end their rate cutting cycle. We should...]]>513alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1534fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-outlook-for-european-stocks-in-2026--75648552insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: And today – our views on what 2026 holds for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, December 9th at 10am in London.As we look ahead to 2026, there's a lot going on in Europe stock markets. From shifting economic wins to new policies coming out of Brussels and Washington, the investment landscape is evolving quite rapidly. Interest rates, profit forecasts, and global market connections are all in play.And Marina, the first question I wanted to ask you really relates to the year 2025. Why don't you synthesize your, kind of, review of the year that we've just had?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, I'll keep it brief so we can focus ahead. But the year 2025, I would say is a year of two halves. So, we began the year with a lot of, kind of, under performance at the end of 2024 after U.S. elections, for Europe and a decline in the euro. The start of 2025 saw really strong performance for Europe, which surprised a lot of investors. And we had kind of catalyst after catalyst, for that upside, which was Germany’s ‘whatever it takes’ fiscal moment happened early this year, in the first quarter.We had a lot of headlines and kind of anticipation on Russia-Ukraine and discussions, negotiations around peace, which led to various themes emerging within the European equities market as well, which drove upside. And then alongside that, heading into Liberation Day, in the months, kind of, preceding that as investors were worried about tariffs, there was a lot of interest in diversifying out of U.S. equities. And Europe was one of the key beneficiaries of that diversification theme.That was a first half kind of dynamic. And then in the second half, Europe has kept broadly performing, but not as strongly as the U.S. We made the call, in March that European optimism had peaked. And the second half was more, kind of, focused on the execution on Germany's fiscal. And post the big headlines, the pace of execution, which has been a little bit slower than investors were anticipating. And also, Europe just generally has had weak earnings growth. So, we started the year at 8 percent consensus earnings growth for 2025. At this point, we're at -1, for this year.Paul Walsh: So, as you've said there, Marina, it's been a year of two halves. And so that's 2025 in review. But we're here to really talk about the outlook for 2026, and there are kind of three buckets that we're going to dive into. And the first of those is really around this notion of slipstream, and the extent to which Europe can get caught up in the slipstream that the U.S., is going to create – given Mike Wilson's view on the outlook for U.S. equity markets. What's the thesis there?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, and thank you for the title suggestion, by the way, Paul of ‘Slipstream.’ so basically our view is that, well, our U.S. equity strategist is very bullish, as I think most know. At this stage he has 15 percent upside to his S&P target to the end of next year; and very, very strong earnings growth in the U.S. And the thesis is that you're getting a broadening in the strength of the U.S. economic recovery.For Europe, what that means is that it's very, very hard for European equities to go down – if the U.S. market is up 15 percent. But our upside is more driven by multiple expansion than it is by earnings growth. Because what we continue to see in Europe and what we anticipate for next year is that consensus is too high for next year. Consensus is anticipating almost 13 percent earnings growth. We're anticipating just below 4 percent earnings growth. So, we do expect downgrades.But at the same time, if the U.S. recovery is broadening, the hopes will be that that will mean that broadening comes to Europe and Europe trades at such a big discount, about 26 percent relative to the U.S. at the moment – sector neutral – that investors will play that anticipation of broadening eventually to Europe through the multiple.Paul Walsh: So, the first point you are making is that the direction of travel in the U.S. really matters for European stock markets. The second bucket I wanted to talk about, and we're in a thematically driven market. So, what are the themes that are going to be really resonating for Europe as we move into 2026?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, so let me pick up on the earnings point that I just made. So, we have 3.6 percent earnings growth for next year. That's our forecast. And consensus – bottom-up consensus – is 12.7 percent. It's a very high bar. Europe typically comes in and sees high numbers at the beginning of the year and then downgrades through the course of the year. And thematically, why do we see these downgrades? And I think it's something that investors probably don't focus on enough. It's structurally rising China competition and also Europe's old economy exposure, especially in regards to the China exposure where demand isn't really picking up.Every year, for the last few years, we've seen this kind of China exposure and China competition piece drive between 60 and 90 percent of European earnings downgrades. And looking at especially the areas of consensus that are too high, which tend to be highly China exposed, that have had negative growth this year, in prior years. And we don't see kind of the trigger for that to mean revert. That is where we expect thematically the most disappointment. So, sectors like chemicals, like autos, those are some of the sectors towards the bottom of our model. Luxury as well. It's a bit more debated these days, but that's still an underweight for us in our model.Then German fiscal, this is a multi-year story. German fiscal, I mentioned that there's a lot of excitement on it in the first half of the year. The focus for next year will be the pace of execution, and we think there's two parts of this story. There's an infrastructure fund, a 500-billion-euro infrastructure fund in Germany where we're seeing, according to our economists, a very likely reallocation to more kind of social-related spend, which is not as great for our companies in the German index or earnings. And execution there hasn't been very fast.And then there's the Defense side of the story where we're a lot more optimistic, where we're seeing execution start to pick up now, where the need is immense. And we're seeing also upgrades from corporates on the back of that kind of execution pickup and the need. And we're very bullish on Defense. We're overweight the issue for taking that defense optimism and projecting out for all of Europe is that defense makes up less than 2 percent of the European index. And we do think that broadens to other sectors, but that will take years to start to impact other sectors.And then, couple other things. We have pockets of AI exposure in the enabler category. So, we're seeing a lot of strength in those pockets. A lot of catch up in some of those pockets right now. Utilities is a great example, which I can talk about. So, we think that will continue.But one thing I'm really watching, and I think a lot of strategists, across regions are watching is AI adoption. And this is the real bull case for me in Europe. If AI adoption, ROI starts to become material enough that it's hard to ignore, which could start, in my opinion, from the second half of next year. Then Europe could be seen as much more of a play on AI adoption because the majority of our index is exposed to adoption. We have a lot of low hanging fruit, in terms of productivity challenges, demographics, you know, the level of returns. And if you track our early adopters, which is something we do, they are showing ROI. So, we think that will broaden up to more of the European index.Paul Walsh: Now, Marina, you mentioned, a number of sectors there, as it relates to the thematic focus. So, it brings us onto our third and final bucket in terms of what your model is suggesting in terms of your sector preferences…Marina Zavolock: Yeah. So, we have, data driven model, just to take a step back for a moment. And our model incorporates; it's quantum-mental. It incorporates themes. It incorporates our view on the cycle, which is in our view, we're late cycle now, which can be very bullish for returns. And it includes quant factors; things like price target, revisions breadth, earnings revisions breadth, management sentiment.We use a Large Language Model to measure for the first time since inception. We have reviewed the performance of our model over the last just under two years. And our top versus bottom stocks in our model have delivered 47 percent in returns, the top versus bottom performance. So now on the basis of the latest refresh of our model, banks are screening by far at the top.And if you look – whether it's at our sector model or you look at our top 50 preferred stocks in Europe, the list is full of Banks. And I didn't mention this in the thematic portion, but one of the themes in Europe outside of Germany is fiscal constraints. And actually, Banks are positively exposed to that because they're exposed to the steepness – positively to the steepness – of the yield curve.And I think investors – specialists are definitely optimistic on the sector, but I think you're getting more and more generalists noticing that Banks is the sector that consistently delivers the highest positive earnings upgrades of any sector in Europe. And is still not expensive at all. It's one of the cheapest sectors in Europe, trading at abou]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WylMlE2Xz0nOs559-bj0HZUFNrXrHvmEaX-aP6SIcV8Tue, 09 Dec 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the key drivers, risks, and sector shifts shaping European equities in 2026. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: And today – our views on what 2026 holds for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, December 9th at 10am in London.As we look ahead to 2026, there's a lot going on in Europe stock markets. From shifting economic wins to new policies coming out of Brussels and Washington, the investment landscape is evolving quite rapidly. Interest rates, profit forecasts, and global market connections are all in play.And Marina, the first question I wanted to ask you really relates to the year 2025. Why don't you synthesize your, kind of, review of the year that we've just had?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, I'll keep it brief so we can focus ahead. But the year 2025, I would say is a year of two halves. So, we began the year with a lot of, kind of, under performance at the end of 2024 after U.S. elections, for Europe and a decline in the euro. The start of 2025 saw really strong performance for Europe, which surprised a lot of investors. And we had kind of catalyst after catalyst, for that upside, which was Germany’s ‘whatever it takes’ fiscal moment happened early this year, in the first quarter.We had a lot of headlines and kind of anticipation on Russia-Ukraine and discussions, negotiations around peace, which led to various themes emerging within the European equities market as well, which drove upside. And then alongside that, heading into Liberation Day, in the months, kind of, preceding that as investors were worried about tariffs, there was a lot of interest in diversifying out of U.S. equities. And Europe was one of the key beneficiaries of that diversification theme.That was a first half kind of dynamic. And then in the second half, Europe has kept broadly performing, but not as strongly as the U.S. We made the call, in March that European optimism had peaked. And the second half was more, kind of, focused on the execution on Germany's fiscal. And post the big headlines, the pace of execution, which has been a little bit slower than investors were anticipating. And also, Europe just generally has had weak earnings growth. So, we started the year at 8 percent consensus earnings growth for 2025. At this point, we're at -1, for this year.Paul Walsh: So, as you've said there, Marina, it's been a year of two halves. And so that's 2025 in review. But we're here to really talk about the outlook for 2026, and there are kind of three buckets that we're going to dive into. And the first of those is really around this notion of slipstream, and the extent to which Europe can get caught up in the slipstream that the U.S., is going to create – given Mike Wilson's view on the outlook for U.S. equity markets. What's the thesis there?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, and thank you for the title suggestion, by the way, Paul of ‘Slipstream.’ so basically our view is that, well, our U.S. equity strategist is very bullish, as I think most know. At this stage he has 15 percent upside to his S&P target to the end of next year; and very, very strong earnings growth in the U.S. And the thesis is that you're getting a broadening in the strength of the U.S. economic recovery.For Europe, what that means is that it's very, very hard for European equities to go down – if the U.S. market is up 15 percent. But our upside is more driven by multiple expansion than it is by earnings growth. Because what we continue to see in Europe and what we anticipate for next year is that consensus is too high...]]>661alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1533fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/stocks-in-2026-what-s-next-for-retail-investors--75648559insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson. Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Daniel Skelly: And I'm Dan Skelly, Senior Investment Strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Mike Wilson: Today we're going to have a conversation about our views on the U.S. stock market in 2026, and what matters most to retail investors in particular. It's Monday, December 8th at 9am in New York. So, let's get after it. Dan, it's great to see you. We always talk about the markets together. I think this is a great opportunity for us to share those thoughts with listeners. Our view coming into this year is still pretty bullish for 2026. We've been bullish on [20]25 as you have, probably for, you know, similar – maybe some slightly different reasons. I think one of our differentiating views is that we do think inflation is still a major risk for individual investors. And institutional investors, quite frankly, which is why stocks have done so much better. A concept, I think you're well aware of. And I think, you know, the risk for retail is that there's going to be; it's going to be volatile. So, point-to-point, we're still bullish as you are. How are you thinking about managing that point-to-point path? And how are you structuring your portfolio as we go into 2026 with a bullish outlook – but understanding that it's not always going to be smooth. Daniel Skelly: So, like you said, we've also shared this view that next year's going to be positive, albeit there's going to be more volatility. And when I think about the two main risks that retail investors are facing today, one of them is definitely inflation. We're seeing that in services. We're seeing that in housing. We've had the labor market shrink over the recent couple of quarters, so who knows if wage inflation pops up again. But there are ways to definitely hedge against that in an equity portfolio. We think, for instance, owning parts of the AI infrastructure cohort is one of the ways of hedging, whether that be in utilities, pipelines, energy infrastructure in general. These are areas that we think are a necessary hedge against inflation risk. And number two are a positive diversifier. And second key point, Mike, just thinking about that diversification comment. Look, we all know that in many ways the Mag 7 – and the technology strength that we've seen this past year – has driven a fairly concentrated market. I think what people, particularly on the individual side, are recognizing less is just how much AI cuts across many other sectors in parts of the market. And again, we think that risk of over concentration is still out there. And we like the idea of thinking of embedding natural diversification into the equity portfolio. Mike Wilson: Yeah. I mean, it's interesting. Inflation, you know, is part of that story too because AI is somewhat disinflationary or deflationary. I think, you know, investing in things that can drive higher productivity even away from AI can mitigate some of that risk in the economic outlook. But if I think about, you know, the Mag 7 dominance, and just this concentrated market risk, which you spoke about. If inflation re-accelerates next year, which, you know, is one of our core views as the economy improves – doesn't that broaden out the opportunity set? And you know, like there's been this idea that, ‘Oh, you have to own these seven stocks and nothing else.’ I mean, part of our view for next year is that we think the market's going to broaden out. How are you set up for that broadening out? And how are you thinking about picking stocks and new themes that can work – that maybe people aren't paying attention to right now? Daniel Skelly: Yeah, it's a great point, Mike. And so, on the first topic, we do think there's broadening, and that's a combination of factors. Number one is just the market becoming more convicted about the Fed cutting path, which we've talked about, and the firm's view reaffirms for next year. Number two is starting to see some of the benefits of deregulation, right, which should impact maybe some of the more cyclical sectors out there – Financials, Energy being two of them. Maybe seeing more M&A activity too as a byproduct of deregulation. And that should bode better for mid- and maybe small caps as well as they receive a M&A premia in the valuations. And I know you've talked about small caps recently in your commentary. But last point I'll make Mike, and it comes back to AI. It almost feels like AI is this huge inflationary ramp at first to get to that deflationary nirvana down the road – with productivity. I think one of the key factors we think about, in terms of a bottom-up perspective, which is what we focus on in across the portfolio, is definitely pricing power. Who owns the pricing power and the key data and the key AI adoption outlook in order to absorb all the different tools and technology diffusion we've seen in the last three years. And that's going to play out, Mike, as you well know, across a variety of sectors and themes. So, agreed, we should see broadening for all those varying reasons. Mike Wilson: So, I mean, there are a couple areas I think, where we overlap. Financials…Daniel Skelly: Yep. Mike Wilson: Industrials, Healthcare, some of the themes that I think we both; we share our bullish views. And what do you think those areas are, within those sectors? You think that you have a differentiated view maybe than the consensus being Financials, Industrials, Healthcare? That the market may be missing, which offers more upset? Daniel Skelly: Sure. I'll start with Financials, which has been an overweight call for us for some time, as I know it has for you as well. And I think that kind of cyclical re-acceleration in the economy is one part. I think the Fed cutting is another part. I think deregulation is clearly another driver. Fourth Capital Markets recovery, which we have seen now. We had a little bit of a technical lull with the government shutdown in terms of filings and issuance, but we see all of the pipeline indicators, indicating green lights for next year in terms of recovery. I think the one thing I would argue that I've observed in looking at all of our vast data sets is that despite all these different bullish factors, this still maybe has been a theme or a sector that investors have traded in and out of, right? I don't think I've even seen like a real strong, consistent overweight. So, I think number one, that's an opportunity. And last point is, listen, there's different sub-sector bifurcation going on, as you know, within the industry, whereas money centers and large banks are performing really well. The same is not the case of regionals and alts managers. And there are varying reasons for that. But we would even argue, Mike, there could be catchup trades within the sector next year. Mike Wilson: Yeah, I would agree on that. I mean, the regional over money centers and actually regionals over alt managers, because I mean – I think the Treasury Secretary has talked about this, you know. Trying to get the regulated banking system kind of back in the game may actually be an opportunity to take share back from some of those alt managers, which have actually done quite well. What about on Healthcare? We upgraded that back in the summer. I think you've been constructive on parts of Healthcare, right. Wwhat do you think people are missing there and why could that be a good sector for next year? Daniel Skelly: Yeah. We were definitely, I'll say, earlier than you and wrong. You had really good timing in terms of your Healthcare upgrade last summer. And look, the sector was out of favor for two years. What we think we observed in the kind of July-August period is: First and foremost, I think we got past the point of maximum policy concern and risk. And ironically, we saw some kind of nominal or surface level deal signed with the government around most favored nation pricing. And it was really, not a lot to write home about. It wasn't as egregious as a policy inflection as some had feared. So, I think that was the first key catalyst. Second, we just saw a really good revisions breadth. And I know this is a comment you make a lot in your work. But we saw across big pharma, tools and life science, medical technology, and devices. We saw really good positive earnings revisions coming out of third and even starting the second quarter. Thirdly, I think if you're talking about an M&A in capital markets recovery, you can't not talk about Healthcare. I think that's a space that'll be ripe for deal making. And then just fourth, right? Look, as the market broadens out, and as people are stopping or maybe slowing the crowding and the key leadership, they're going to go again from AI enablers to AI adopters. And we think AI is going to be a vector that cuts across the Healthcare industry in a really positive way. Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, the efficiencies that are, you know, possible in the Healthcare sector seem immense. I mean, it, it appears to me that that's going to be an area where there's probably some new solutions, some new companies we don't even know about yet. So, to me that's a very exciting area that's been dormant for quite a while. What about Consumer, Dan? It's been this K economy. It's been very bifurcated, you know, high-end versus middle-income, lower-income. I mean, what are the themes within consumer that you're finding in putting to work in your portfolio? Daniel Skelly: Yeah. We've talked a lot, Mike, in]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HUlp_V7u0RJ3855fKgSvSyeEV8YKc1SlaEQHMkqeOsUMon, 08 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyMike Wilson, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, and Dan Skelly, Senior Investment Strategist at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discuss the outlook for the U.S. stock market in 2026 and the most significant themes for retail investors. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson. Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Daniel Skelly: And I'm Dan Skelly, Senior Investment Strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Mike Wilson: Today we're going to have a conversation about our views on the U.S. stock market in 2026, and what matters most to retail investors in particular. It's Monday, December 8th at 9am in New York. So, let's get after it. Dan, it's great to see you. We always talk about the markets together. I think this is a great opportunity for us to share those thoughts with listeners. Our view coming into this year is still pretty bullish for 2026. We've been bullish on [20]25 as you have, probably for, you know, similar – maybe some slightly different reasons. I think one of our differentiating views is that we do think inflation is still a major risk for individual investors. And institutional investors, quite frankly, which is why stocks have done so much better. A concept, I think you're well aware of. And I think, you know, the risk for retail is that there's going to be; it's going to be volatile. So, point-to-point, we're still bullish as you are. How are you thinking about managing that point-to-point path? And how are you structuring your portfolio as we go into 2026 with a bullish outlook – but understanding that it's not always going to be smooth. Daniel Skelly: So, like you said, we've also shared this view that next year's going to be positive, albeit there's going to be more volatility. And when I think about the two main risks that retail investors are facing today, one of them is definitely inflation. We're seeing that in services. We're seeing that in housing. We've had the labor market shrink over the recent couple of quarters, so who knows if wage inflation pops up again. But there are ways to definitely hedge against that in an equity portfolio. We think, for instance, owning parts of the AI infrastructure cohort is one of the ways of hedging, whether that be in utilities, pipelines, energy infrastructure in general. These are areas that we think are a necessary hedge against inflation risk. And number two are a positive diversifier. And second key point, Mike, just thinking about that diversification comment. Look, we all know that in many ways the Mag 7 – and the technology strength that we've seen this past year – has driven a fairly concentrated market. I think what people, particularly on the individual side, are recognizing less is just how much AI cuts across many other sectors in parts of the market. And again, we think that risk of over concentration is still out there. And we like the idea of thinking of embedding natural diversification into the equity portfolio. Mike Wilson: Yeah. I mean, it's interesting. Inflation, you know, is part of that story too because AI is somewhat disinflationary or deflationary. I think, you know, investing in things that can drive higher productivity even away from AI can mitigate some of that risk in the economic outlook. But if I think about, you know, the Mag 7 dominance, and just this concentrated market risk, which you spoke about. If inflation re-accelerates next year, which, you know, is one of our core views as the economy improves – doesn't that broaden out the opportunity set? And you know, like there's been this idea that, ‘Oh, you have to own these seven stocks and nothing else.’ I mean, part of our view for next year is that we think the market's going to broaden out. How are you set up for that...]]>834alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1532fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-rewrites-the-retail-playbook--75648583insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. We're coming to you live from Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York City, where we have more than 120 leading companies in attendance. Today's episode is the second part of our live discussion of the U.S. consumer and how AI is changing consumer companies. With me on stage, we have Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics team, Simeon Guttman, our U.S. Hardlines, Broad Lines, and Food Retail Analyst, and Megan Clap, U.S. Food Producers and Leisure Analyst. It's Friday, December 5th at 10am in New York. So, Simeon, I want to start with you. You recently put out a piece assessing the AI race. Can you take us through how you're assessing current AI implementation? And can you give us some real-world examples of what it looks like when a company significantly integrates AI into their business? Simeon Gutman: Sure. So, the Consumer Discretionary and Staples teams went to each of their covered companies, and we started searching for what those companies have disclosed and communicated regarding their AI. In some cases, we used AI to do this search. But we created a search and created this universe of factors and different ways AI is being implemented. We didn't have a framework until we had the entire universe of all of these AI use cases. Once we did, then we were able to compartmentalize them. And the different groups; we came up with six groups that we were able to cluster. First, personalization and refined search; second, customer acquisition; third product innovation; fourth, labor productivity; fifth, supply chain and logistics. And lastly, inventory management. And using that framework, we were able to rank companies on a 1 to 10 scale. Across – that was the implementation part – across three different dimensions: breadth, how widely the AI is deployed across those categories; the depth, the quality, which we did our best to be able to interpret. And then the last one was proprietary initiatives. So, that's partnerships, could be with leading AI firms. So that helped us differentiate the leaders with others, not necessarily laggards, but those who were ahead of in the race. In some cases, companies that have communicated more would naturally scream more, so there is some potential bias in that. But otherwise, the fact pattern was objective. Walmart has full scale AI deployment. They're integrated across their business. They've introduced GenAI tools. That's like their Sparky shopping assistant. As well as integrated to in-store features. They talked about it. It's been driving a 25 percent increase in average shopper spend. They've recently partnered with OpenAI to enable ChatGPT powered Search and Checkout, positioning where the company, where the customer is shopping. They're also layering on augmented reality for holiday shopping, computer vision for shelf monitoring. LLMs for inventory replenishment. Autonomous lifts, the list goes on and on. But it covers all the functional categories in our framework. Michelle Weaver: And how about a couple examples of the ways companies are using these? Any interesting real world use cases you've seen so far? Simeon Gutman: So, one of them was in marketing personalization, as well as in product cataloging. That was one of the more sided themes at this conference. So, it was good timing. So, the idea is when product is staged on a company's website; I don't think we all appreciate how much time and many hours and people and resources it takes to get the correct information, to get the right pictures and to show all the assortment – those type of functions AI is helping enable. And it sounds like we're on the cusp of a step change in personalization. It sounds like AI, machine learning or algorithm driven suggestions to consumers. We didn't get practical use cases, but a lot of companies talked about the deployment of this into 2026, which sounds like it's something to look forward to. Michelle Weaver: And Megan, how would you describe AI adoption in your space in terms of innings and what kind of criteria are you using to assess the future for AI opportunity and potential? Megan Clapp: Yeah, I would say; I'd characterize adoption in the Food and broader Staples space today is still relatively early innings. I think most companies are still standing up the data infrastructure, experimenting with various tools. We're seeing companies pilot early use cases and start to talk about them, and that was evident in the work we did with the note that Simeon just talked about. And so, the opportunity, I think, going ahead, lies in kind of what we see in terms of scaling those pilots to become more impactful. And for Staples broadly, and Food, you know, ties into this. I think, these companies start with an advantage and that they sit on a tremendous amount of high frequency consumption data. So, the data availability is quite large. The question now is, you know, can these large organizations move with speed and translate that data into action? And that's something that we're focused on when we think about feasibility. I think we think about the opportunity for Food and Staples broadly as we'd put it into kind of two areas. One is what can they do on the top line? Marketing, innovation, R&D, kind of the lifeblood of CPG companies, and that's where we're seeing a lot of the early use cases. I think ultimately that will be the most important driver – driving top line, you know, tends to be the most important thing in most consumer companies. But then on the other side, there are a lot of cost efforts, supply chain savings, labor productivity. Those are honestly a bit easier to quantify. And we're seeing real tangible things come out of that. But overall I think the way we think about it is the large companies with scale and the ability to go after the opportunity because they have the scale and the balance sheet to do so – will be winners here, as well as the smaller, more nimble companies that, you know, can move a little bit faster. And so that's how we're thinking about the opportunity. Michelle Weaver: Can you give us also just a couple examples of AI adoption that's been successful that you've seen so far? Megan Clapp: Yeah, so on the top line side, like I said, kind of marketing innovation, R&D. One quick example on the Food side. Hershey, for example, they're using algorithms to reallocate advertising spend by zip code, based on the real time sell through. So, they can just be much more targeted and more efficient, honestly, with that advertising spend. I think from an innovation perspective too, these companies are able to identify on trend things faster and incorporate that and take the idea to shelf time down significantly. And then on the cost side, you know, General Mills is a company is actually relatively, far ahead, I'd say, in the AI adoption curve in Staples broadly. And what they've done is deployed what they call digital twins across their network, and it has improved forecast accuracy. They've taken their historical productivity savings from 4 percent annually to 5 percent. That's something that's structural. So, seeing real tangible benefits that are showing up in the PNL. And so, I think broadly the theme is these companies are using AI to make faster, and more precise decisions. And then I thought, I'd just mention on the leisure side, something that I felt was interesting that we learned from Shark Ninja yesterday at the conference is – when asked about the role of Agentic AI in future commerce, thinks it'll be huge was how he described; the CEO described it. And what they're doing actively right now is optimizing their D2C website for LLMs like ChatGPT and Gemini. And his point was that what drives conversion on D2C today may not ultimately be what ranks on AI driven search. But he said the expectation is that by Christmas of next year, commerce via these AI platforms will be meaningful; mentioned that OpenAI is already experimenting with curated product transactions. So, they're really focused on optimizing their portfolio. He thinks brands will win; but you have got to get ahead of it as well. Michelle Weaver: And that's great that you just brought up Agentic commerce. We've heard about it quite a bit over the past couple of days, Simeon. And I know you recently put out a big piece on this theme. Agentic commerce introduces a lot of possibility for incremental sales, but it also introduces the possibility for cannibalization. Where do you see this shaking out in your space? Are you really concerned about that cannibalization possibility? Simeon Gutman: Yeah, so the larger debate is a little bit of sales cannibalization and a potential bit of retail media cannibalization. So, your first point is Agentic theoretically opens up a bigger e-commerce penetration and just more commerce. And once you go to more e-commerce, that could be beneficial for some of these companies. We can also put the counter argument of when e-commerce came, direct-to-consumer type of selling could disintermediate the captive retailer sales again. Maybe, maybe not. Part of this answer is we created a framework to think about what retailers can protect themselves most from this. Two of them; two of the five I’s are infrastructure and inventory. So, the more that your inventory is forward position, the more infrastructure you have; the AI and the agent will still prioritize that retailer within that network. That business will likely not go elsewhere. And that's our premise. Now, retail media is a different can of worms. We don't know what models are goi]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/cWkGIojQbD-LwYi16XBiHuJZTzsDOBovPSBYRlPxylAFri, 05 Dec 2025 23:00:00 +0000gtyLive from the Morgan Stanley Global Consumer & Retail Conference, our analysts discuss how AI is reshaping the future of shopping in the U.S.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. We're coming to you live from Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York City, where we have more than 120 leading companies in attendance. Today's episode is the second part of our live discussion of the U.S. consumer and how AI is changing consumer companies. With me on stage, we have Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics team, Simeon Guttman, our U.S. Hardlines, Broad Lines, and Food Retail Analyst, and Megan Clap, U.S. Food Producers and Leisure Analyst. It's Friday, December 5th at 10am in New York. So, Simeon, I want to start with you. You recently put out a piece assessing the AI race. Can you take us through how you're assessing current AI implementation? And can you give us some real-world examples of what it looks like when a company significantly integrates AI into their business? Simeon Gutman: Sure. So, the Consumer Discretionary and Staples teams went to each of their covered companies, and we started searching for what those companies have disclosed and communicated regarding their AI. In some cases, we used AI to do this search. But we created a search and created this universe of factors and different ways AI is being implemented. We didn't have a framework until we had the entire universe of all of these AI use cases. Once we did, then we were able to compartmentalize them. And the different groups; we came up with six groups that we were able to cluster. First, personalization and refined search; second, customer acquisition; third product innovation; fourth, labor productivity; fifth, supply chain and logistics. And lastly, inventory management. And using that framework, we were able to rank companies on a 1 to 10 scale. Across – that was the implementation part – across three different dimensions: breadth, how widely the AI is deployed across those categories; the depth, the quality, which we did our best to be able to interpret. And then the last one was proprietary initiatives. So, that's partnerships, could be with leading AI firms. So that helped us differentiate the leaders with others, not necessarily laggards, but those who were ahead of in the race. In some cases, companies that have communicated more would naturally scream more, so there is some potential bias in that. But otherwise, the fact pattern was objective. Walmart has full scale AI deployment. They're integrated across their business. They've introduced GenAI tools. That's like their Sparky shopping assistant. As well as integrated to in-store features. They talked about it. It's been driving a 25 percent increase in average shopper spend. They've recently partnered with OpenAI to enable ChatGPT powered Search and Checkout, positioning where the company, where the customer is shopping. They're also layering on augmented reality for holiday shopping, computer vision for shelf monitoring. LLMs for inventory replenishment. Autonomous lifts, the list goes on and on. But it covers all the functional categories in our framework. Michelle Weaver: And how about a couple examples of the ways companies are using these? Any interesting real world use cases you've seen so far? Simeon Gutman: So, one of them was in marketing personalization, as well as in product cataloging. That was one of the more sided themes at this conference. So, it was good timing. So, the idea is when product is staged on a company's website; I don't think we all appreciate how much time and many hours and people and resources it takes to get the correct information, to get the right pictures and to show all the assortment – those type of functions AI...]]>830alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1531fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trends-and-challenges-for-consumers-in-2026--75648210insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. We're coming to you live from Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York City, where we have more than 120 leading companies in attendance. Today's episode is the first in a two-part special focused on the consumer where we'll focus on the K economy and the health of the U.S. Consumer. Tomorrow for the next episode, we'll turn our attention to AI. My colleagues and I are eager to dig into this discussion. With me on stage, we have Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics team, Simeon Guttman, our U.S. Hardlines, Broad Lines, and Food Retail Analyst, and Megan Clap, U.S. Food Producers and Leisure Analyst.It's Thursday, December 4th at 10:00 AM in New York. So, to start, I want to go through the health of the consumer. That's of course been a theme that's been on display at the conference today. And 2025 has really been a year of mixed signals. But overall spending has held up while inflation has weighed on confidence, especially among lower- and middle-income households. Arunima, I want to start with you on the macro front as we head into year end. How would you describe the overall state of the consumer? What are you expecting in terms of real wage growth and spending? Arunima Sinha: If we'll just look at the rearview mirror in terms of Q1 through Q3, this year spending growth on a real basis has been holding up. So, in the first half of this year, about 1.5 percent on average. For the third quarter, given the data that we do now have in hand, we're tracking about 3 percent, quarter-on-quarter, on a real basis. But I think it is important to emphasize that this is already a step down than the numbers that we were seeing last year. So, in 2024 on these Q-on-Q numbers, we were running somewhere between 3.9-4 percent. So there already has been some slowdown. The recurring theme that we've had this year is how are the drivers of consumption going to weigh on different cohorts? And so, how is the labor market going away and how are wealth effects going to play out? And that, sort of, tied in squarely with the narrative that we've been emphasizing this whole year, which is that for the upper income cohorts, those net wealth effects have been very, very supportive. $50 trillion in net wealth that's been created just over the last three years. And that has continued for this year as well. And so, meanwhile the labor market has downshifted and that's had a read through into both just nominal wage growth as well as real wage growth. So, for example, on a three-month, three-month basis, that real wage growth, after we've adjusted for the nominal for inflation, has slowed down essentially to stall speed. It used to run, somewhere between 2-2.5 percent, in the first part of this year. And that we think is going to have a read through as we go into this upcoming quarter of Q4, as well as in the first quarter of next year. So just this lagged effect from the slowdown on labor market income is going to weigh; continue to weigh on the middle-income and sort of the upper-, lower- part of the income cohort. So, in terms of our growth forecasts for spending, over this quarter in Q4 and over next quarter in Q1, we are expecting about 1 percent real growth for consumption. That is a two-percentage point step down from where we were in Q3. And then just in terms of disposable income, we're also thinking this particular quarter in Q4 is going to be fairly weak. Michelle Weaver: You spoke a little bit about the different income cohorts there, but I want to double click on that. The K economy has been a really persistent theme as higher income households have benefited from strong market returns. But higher price levels have weighed on lower-income households. What are your expectations for the high versus low-income consumer next year? Arunima Sinha: So next year, we do think that there could be some broadening out in consumption growth. Just overall we have a sequential step up in growth that begins to take place, starting in the second quarter of [20]26. So, we have consumption growth that starts to slowly inch up from about just under 1 percent in the first quarter of [20]26 – all the way up to about 2 percent by the end of the year. What that's going to be driven by, we think that there are going to be some lessening of pressures on the middle-income cohorts. And where is that going to come from? It's going to come from perhaps a still moderate labor market. So, we're not – we don't think we're going to be seeing these big 100,000-150,000 plus jobs being added every month. We're thinking maybe about 60,000 on average per month, for most of next year. But just less policy uncertainty, some boost from the fiscal bill, the fact that monetary policy is going to be heading towards neutral. All of those things should be supportive. Given that the upper-income didn't really slow down this year, we'd also don't think there's going to be a giant acceleration next year. And so, some of that uptick in consumption growth, we think could actually come from the middle-income. And we also think that some of those tariff pressures on inflation are going to start to dissipate after peaking in the first quarter next year. Michelle Weaver: And Simeon, I want to bring the company side into the conversation. What's the early read you've gotten on Black Friday? Expectations into the shopping season were pretty weak. Do you think things could turn out to be better than feared? And are you seeing any differences by income cohort there? Simeon Gutman: The overall take is, it's mixed – to maybe slightly a little worse. I’ll answer it in a few different ways. First, the old-fashioned tire kicking that the retail analysts have done during the holiday season. In our hard line, broad line, food retail space mixed to slightly a little worse. In Alex Straton’s softline world sounded a little bit better. And then if we combine the takeaways that we've had from companies, at least who presented yesterday, Walmart, Target and some other category killer retailers, it sounded about inline. Underlying trend is relatively stable.I sat on a panel earlier today, with a data aggregator who suggested that the holiday was a little underwhelming. What we don't see; and the underwhelming being at a minus 2 percent run rate for the – I guess, the November to date period, that doesn't include Cyber Monday. What this doesn't account for is the market share shifts. So, one of the ongoing themes across the entire retail landscape has been this big, getting bigger – we say it a lot – but the narrowing funnel of market share. So, the inline updates are probably coming from some of the largest companies, even if the overall holiday was a little underwhelming. Now inline is not anything to write home about. It's harder to get to an inline holiday if you started out below. So inline's okay but not gangbusters. That's probably the right way to characterize it. Michelle Weaver: Megan, same question to you. How is holiday shopping tracking in your space? Have you learned anything surprising about holiday during the conference? Megan Clapp: Yeah, I would agree with Simeon relatively inline. I'd say kind of so far so good is what we heard from companies at the conference. We had both Mattel and Shark Ninja product companies that sell into many of the larger retailers that are winning that – that Simeon talked about.Holiday matters a lot for both of them. So, we're still many weeks ahead of us in terms of POS, but Mattel talked about positive POS continuing through the Black Friday season. They left their guidance unchanged today. They're seeing replenishment from their retailers and orders in line with expectations, which was a question just given some of the uncertainty in the landscape. Shark Ninja sells small appliances. They spoke to a strong Black Friday – again, seeing the fourth quarter and holiday play out in line with their expectations. Maybe a couple themes that stood out and one of them was particularly interesting to me. You talked about the K economy, I think, you know, it was very clear the higher end consumer continues to spend and outperform. Value and innovation continue to be things that consumers are looking for. Online seem to do better than in stores. That's what we heard from a lot of companies coming out of last week. And then newer channels like TikTok Shop are coming into the mix and, and brands are seeing, you know, strong growth from those channels as well. Michelle Weaver: And Arunima, I want to wrap this section on Fed policy. How do you expect Fed policy in 2026 to influence consumer spending and recovery, especially for those middle- and lower-income households? Arunima Sinha: We still have the Fed on an easing path into the first half of 2026. So we think 75 basis points and additional policy cuts into next year. But that more or less just takes monetary policy to some estimate of neutral. So, the point is that it's not monetary policy's becoming easier, it is simply just getting too neutral. And so, if we think about the most interest sensitive types of consumption, it's going to come from Housing and it's going to come from Durables. And what our housing strategists are thinking is that given this sort of front end of the curve, our tenure forecast for the middle of next year is still at about 3.75. And so, mortgage rates could dip below 6 percent. So, it's not the front end of the curve. It is that sort of belly of the curve there that's important there. And so there could be some pickup in housing that's going]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/q7ES2iu1zEPCnn1OLIOf2-gcHaHMMsadS7vLIrq1DYIThu, 04 Dec 2025 22:30:00 +0000gtyLive from the Morgan Stanley Global Consumer & Retail Conference in New York, our analysts discuss the latest macro trends and pressures impacting the U.S. consumer.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. We're coming to you live from Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York City, where we have more than 120 leading companies in attendance. Today's episode is the first in a two-part special focused on the consumer where we'll focus on the K economy and the health of the U.S. Consumer. Tomorrow for the next episode, we'll turn our attention to AI. My colleagues and I are eager to dig into this discussion. With me on stage, we have Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics team, Simeon Guttman, our U.S. Hardlines, Broad Lines, and Food Retail Analyst, and Megan Clap, U.S. Food Producers and Leisure Analyst.It's Thursday, December 4th at 10:00 AM in New York. So, to start, I want to go through the health of the consumer. That's of course been a theme that's been on display at the conference today. And 2025 has really been a year of mixed signals. But overall spending has held up while inflation has weighed on confidence, especially among lower- and middle-income households. Arunima, I want to start with you on the macro front as we head into year end. How would you describe the overall state of the consumer? What are you expecting in terms of real wage growth and spending? Arunima Sinha: If we'll just look at the rearview mirror in terms of Q1 through Q3, this year spending growth on a real basis has been holding up. So, in the first half of this year, about 1.5 percent on average. For the third quarter, given the data that we do now have in hand, we're tracking about 3 percent, quarter-on-quarter, on a real basis. But I think it is important to emphasize that this is already a step down than the numbers that we were seeing last year. So, in 2024 on these Q-on-Q numbers, we were running somewhere between 3.9-4 percent. So there already has been some slowdown. The recurring theme that we've had this year is how are the drivers of consumption going to weigh on different cohorts? And so, how is the labor market going away and how are wealth effects going to play out? And that, sort of, tied in squarely with the narrative that we've been emphasizing this whole year, which is that for the upper income cohorts, those net wealth effects have been very, very supportive. $50 trillion in net wealth that's been created just over the last three years. And that has continued for this year as well. And so, meanwhile the labor market has downshifted and that's had a read through into both just nominal wage growth as well as real wage growth. So, for example, on a three-month, three-month basis, that real wage growth, after we've adjusted for the nominal for inflation, has slowed down essentially to stall speed. It used to run, somewhere between 2-2.5 percent, in the first part of this year. And that we think is going to have a read through as we go into this upcoming quarter of Q4, as well as in the first quarter of next year. So just this lagged effect from the slowdown on labor market income is going to weigh; continue to weigh on the middle-income and sort of the upper-, lower- part of the income cohort. So, in terms of our growth forecasts for spending, over this quarter in Q4 and over next quarter in Q1, we are expecting about 1 percent real growth for consumption. That is a two-percentage point step down from where we were in Q3. And then just in terms of disposable income, we're also thinking this particular quarter in Q4 is going to be fairly weak. Michelle Weaver: You spoke a little bit about the different income cohorts there, but I want to double click on that. The K economy has been a...]]>675alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1530fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investors-top-questions-for-2026--75648534insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about key investor debates coming out of our year ahead outlook.It's Wednesday, December 3rd at 10:30am in New York. So, Serena, it was a couple weeks ago that you led the publication of our cross-asset outlook for 2026. And so, you've been engaging with clients over the past few weeks about our views – where they differ. And it seems there's some common themes, really common questions that come up that represent some important debates within the market. Is that fair?Serena Tang: Yeah, that's very fair. And, by the way, I think those important debates, are from investors globally. So, you have investors in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, all kind of wanting to understand our views on AI, on equity valuations, on the dollar.Michael Zezas: So, let's start with talking about equity markets a bit. And one of the common questions – and I get it too, even though I don't cover equity markets – is really about how AI is affecting valuations. One of the concerns is that the stock market might be too high, might be overvalued because people have overinvested in anything related to AI. What does the evidence say? How are you addressing that question? Serena Tang: It is interesting you say that because I think when investors talk about equities being too high, of valuations – AI related valuations being very stretched, it's very much about parallels to that 1990s valuation bubble.But the way I approach it is like there are some very important differences from that time period, from valuations back then. First of all, I think companies in major equity indices are higher quality than the past. They operate more efficiently. They deliver strong profitability, and in general pretty solid free cash flow.I think we also need to consider how technology now represents a larger share of the index, which has helped push overall net margins to about 14 percent compared to 8 percent during that 1990s valuation bubble. And you know, when margins are higher, I think paying premium for stocks is more justified.In other words, I think multiples in the U.S. right now look more reasonable after adjusting for profit margins and changes in index composition. But we also have to consider, and this is something that we stress in our outlook, the policy backdrop is unusually favorable, right? Like you have economists expecting the Fed to continue easing rates into next year. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could lower corporate taxes, and deregulation is continuing to be a priority in the U.S. And I think this combination, you know, monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, deregulation. That combination rarely occurs outside of a recession. And I think this creates an environment that supports valuation, which is by the way why we recommend an overweight position in U.S. equities, even if absolute and relative valuation look elevated.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, if I'm hearing you right, what I think you're saying is that comparisons to some bubbles of the past don't necessarily stack up because profitability is better. There aren't excesses in the system. Monetary policy might be on the path that's more accommodative. And so, when compared against all of that, the valuations actually don't look that bad.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Got it. And sticking with the equity markets, then another common question is – it's related to AI, but it's sort of around this idea that a small set of companies have really been driving most of the growth in the market recently. And it would be better or healthier if the equity market were to perform across a wider set of companies and names, particularly in mid- and small cap companies. Is that something that we see on the horizon?Serena Tang: Yes. We are expecting U.S. stock earnings to sort of broaden out here and it's one of the reasons why our U.S. equity strategy team has upgraded small caps and now prefer it over large caps. And I think like all of this – it comes from the fact that we are in a new bull market. I think we have a very early cycle earnings recovery here. I mean, as discussed before, the macro environment is supportive. And Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months, growth positive tax and regulatory policies, they don't just support valuations. They also act as a tailwind to earnings.And I think like on top of that, leaner cost structures, improving earnings revisions, AI driven efficiency gains. They all support a broad-based earnings upturn. and our U.S. equity strategy team do see above consensus 2026 earnings growth at 17 percent. The only other region where we have earnings growth above consensus in 2026 is Japan; for both Europe and the EM we are below, which drive out equal weight and slight underweight position in those two indices respectively.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, since we can't seem to get away from talking about AI and how it's influencing markets, the other common question we get here is around debt issuance related to AI.So, our colleagues put together a report from earlier this year talking about the potential for nearly $3 trillion of AI related CapEx spending over the next few years. And we think about half of that is going to have to be debt financed. That seems to be a lot of debt, a lot of potential bonds that might be issued into the market – which, are credit investors supposed to be concerned about that?Serena Tang: We really can't get away from AI as a topic. And I think this will continue because AI-related CapEx is a long-term trend, with much of the CapEx still really ahead. And I think this goes to your question. Because this really means that we expect nearly another [$]3 trillion of data center related CapEx from here to 2028. You know, while half of the spend will come from operating cash flows of hyperscalers, it still leaves a financing gap of around [$]1.5 trillion, which needs to be sourced through various credit channels.Now, part of it will be via private credit, part of it would be via Asset Backed Securities. But some of it would also be via the U.S. investment grade corporate credit bond space. So, add in financing for faster M&A cycle, we forecast around [$]1 trillion in net investment grade bond issuance, you know, up 60 percent from this year.And I think given this technical backdrop, even though credit fundamentals should stay fine, we have doubled downgraded U.S. investment grade corporate credit to underweight within our cross asset allocation.Michael Zezas: Okay, so the fundamentals are fine, but it's just a lot of debt to consume over the next year. And so somewhat strangely, you might expect high yield corporate bonds actually do better.Serena Tang: Yes, because I think a high yield doesn't really see the same headwind from the technical side of things. And on the fundamentals front, our credit team actually has default rates coming down over the next 12 months, which again, I think supports high yield much better than investment grade.Michael Zezas: So, before we wrap up, moving away from the equity markets, let's talk about foreign exchange. The U.S. dollar spent much of last year weakening, and that's a call that our team was early to – eventually became a consensus call. It was premised on the idea that the U.S. was going to experience growth weakness, that there would also be these questions among investors about the role of the dollar in the world as the U.S. was raising trade barriers. It seemed to work out pretty well. Going into 2026 though, I think there's some more questions amongst our investors about whether or not that trend could continue. Where do we land?Serena Tang: I think in the first half of next year that downward pressure on the dollar should still persist. And you know, as you said, we've had a very differentiated view for most of this year, expecting the dollar to weaken in the first half versus G10 currencies. And several things drive this. There is a potential for higher dollar negative risk premium, driven by, I think, near term worries about the U.S. labor markets in the short term. And as investors, I think, debate the likely composition of the FOMC next year. Also, you know, compression in U.S. versus rest of the world. Rate differentials should reduce FX hedging costs, which also adds incentive for hedging activity and dollar selling. All this means that we see downward pressure on the dollar persisting in the first half of next year with EUR/USD at 123 and USD/JPY at 140 by the end of first half 2026.Michael Zezas: All right. Well, that's a pretty good survey about what clients care about and what our view is. So, Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk with me today.Serena Tang: And thank you for inviting me to the show today.Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/vbp1Xofcwb0frf-CquDcLCzHtQIKsLXGbDBR1kbqo9sWed, 03 Dec 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang address themes that are key for markets next year.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about key investor debates coming out of our year ahead outlook.It's Wednesday, December 3rd at 10:30am in New York. So, Serena, it was a couple weeks ago that you led the publication of our cross-asset outlook for 2026. And so, you've been engaging with clients over the past few weeks about our views – where they differ. And it seems there's some common themes, really common questions that come up that represent some important debates within the market. Is that fair?Serena Tang: Yeah, that's very fair. And, by the way, I think those important debates, are from investors globally. So, you have investors in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, all kind of wanting to understand our views on AI, on equity valuations, on the dollar.Michael Zezas: So, let's start with talking about equity markets a bit. And one of the common questions – and I get it too, even though I don't cover equity markets – is really about how AI is affecting valuations. One of the concerns is that the stock market might be too high, might be overvalued because people have overinvested in anything related to AI. What does the evidence say? How are you addressing that question? Serena Tang: It is interesting you say that because I think when investors talk about equities being too high, of valuations – AI related valuations being very stretched, it's very much about parallels to that 1990s valuation bubble.But the way I approach it is like there are some very important differences from that time period, from valuations back then. First of all, I think companies in major equity indices are higher quality than the past. They operate more efficiently. They deliver strong profitability, and in general pretty solid free cash flow.I think we also need to consider how technology now represents a larger share of the index, which has helped push overall net margins to about 14 percent compared to 8 percent during that 1990s valuation bubble. And you know, when margins are higher, I think paying premium for stocks is more justified.In other words, I think multiples in the U.S. right now look more reasonable after adjusting for profit margins and changes in index composition. But we also have to consider, and this is something that we stress in our outlook, the policy backdrop is unusually favorable, right? Like you have economists expecting the Fed to continue easing rates into next year. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could lower corporate taxes, and deregulation is continuing to be a priority in the U.S. And I think this combination, you know, monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, deregulation. That combination rarely occurs outside of a recession. And I think this creates an environment that supports valuation, which is by the way why we recommend an overweight position in U.S. equities, even if absolute and relative valuation look elevated.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, if I'm hearing you right, what I think you're saying is that comparisons to some bubbles of the past don't necessarily stack up because profitability is better. There aren't excesses in the system. Monetary policy might be on the path that's more accommodative. And so, when compared against all of that, the valuations actually don't look that bad.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Got it. And sticking with the equity markets, then another common question is –...]]>615alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1529fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-sparks-new-economics-for-electricity--75648284insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mayank Maheshwari: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s South Asia Energy Analyst. Today: how AI and electrification are rewriting the rules of global power. It’s Tuesday, December 2nd at 9 pm in Singapore. If you’ve noticed your electricity bills are climbing and headlines are buzzing with talk of AI, you’re not alone. The way we use – and need – power is changing fast, and it’s impacting everyone from homeowners to major tech companies. Global power consumption is surging at the fastest pace in over a decade. Annual demand is set to rise by more than one trillion kilowatt-hours every year through 2030, with AI-driven data centers contributing nearly a fifth of that growth. We estimate about [U.S.]$3 trillion investments in datacenters by 2028, with power consumption growth of nearly about 126GW in these three years till [20]28. This is almost as large as Canada’s total [annual] power consumption. And in this context, power prices are set to further rise. In 2024 – the latest full-year data available – global power sector investments hit a new high of $1.5 trillion, and consumer power prices have risen by about 15 percent. By 2030, U.S. power markets will account for half of the global data center power consumption. And Asia will also see about a 15 percent spillover of that U.S. hyperscaler demand, which will be also part of why some of the power markets in Asia will get a lot tighter. As power consumption rises, the difference between the price at which electricity is sold and the cost to generate it – also known as power spreads – are likely to rise by nearly 15 percent. This expansion in profit margins could lead to higher earnings forecasts for power generation companies and create $350 billion in value creation through the entire power supply chain. At the same time, years of under-investments in electric grids have led to bottlenecks, sparking a wave of new spending and pushing the industry to rely more on natural gas and energy storage and other new technologies – while also supporting that option of renewable power. In 2024, gas investments hit record highs, and starting in 2026 gas is set to become a new truly global source of new power generation. Looking ahead, natural gas is expected to meet about a fifth of [the] world’s new power needs, excluding China. And nuclear energy is well positioned for increased investments; while batteries – which is energy storage – is also getting to get a new set in terms of new investments across datacenters and in markets like China . Moving forward, the power industry faces a multi-decade transformation, marked by unexpected shifts and opportunities. We’ll see increased collaboration between fossil and non-fossil fuels, wider adoption of tiered pricing, and a surge in spot market and behind-the-meter sales all driving longer-lasting, elevated power spreads. Gas, nuclear, energy storage, and fuel cell supply chains – especially in Asia and the U.S. – stand to gain from stronger pricing power [and] new growth prospects, while grid operators benefit from higher investment and better returns. On the flip side, pure solar and wind producers may continue to see rising costs in Asia, something we have already seen in [the] U.S. and Europe, as [the] global grid leans more on batteries and steady fossil fuel supplies to balance the requirements of the rising needs of power across the supply chains – in AI as well as domestic utilization of manufacturing. Ultimately, as AI and electrification supercharge power demand, the real challenge isn’t just adding renewables. It’s about building a resilient, flexible grid and navigating the new economics of energy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BC5i9ZwU22-liJupiWux1W98ZSttEZ6P-_K6wUaxYswTue, 02 Dec 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur South Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses how the unprecedented demand to power AI is set to transform the power industry for years to come.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mayank Maheshwari: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s South Asia Energy Analyst. Today: how AI and electrification are rewriting the rules of global power. It’s Tuesday, December 2nd at 9 pm in Singapore. If you’ve noticed your electricity bills are climbing and headlines are buzzing with talk of AI, you’re not alone. The way we use – and need – power is changing fast, and it’s impacting everyone from homeowners to major tech companies. Global power consumption is surging at the fastest pace in over a decade. Annual demand is set to rise by more than one trillion kilowatt-hours every year through 2030, with AI-driven data centers contributing nearly a fifth of that growth. We estimate about [U.S.]$3 trillion investments in datacenters by 2028, with power consumption growth of nearly about 126GW in these three years till [20]28. This is almost as large as Canada’s total [annual] power consumption. And in this context, power prices are set to further rise. In 2024 – the latest full-year data available – global power sector investments hit a new high of $1.5 trillion, and consumer power prices have risen by about 15 percent. By 2030, U.S. power markets will account for half of the global data center power consumption. And Asia will also see about a 15 percent spillover of that U.S. hyperscaler demand, which will be also part of why some of the power markets in Asia will get a lot tighter. As power consumption rises, the difference between the price at which electricity is sold and the cost to generate it – also known as power spreads – are likely to rise by nearly 15 percent. This expansion in profit margins could lead to higher earnings forecasts for power generation companies and create $350 billion in value creation through the entire power supply chain. At the same time, years of under-investments in electric grids have led to bottlenecks, sparking a wave of new spending and pushing the industry to rely more on natural gas and energy storage and other new technologies – while also supporting that option of renewable power. In 2024, gas investments hit record highs, and starting in 2026 gas is set to become a new truly global source of new power generation. Looking ahead, natural gas is expected to meet about a fifth of [the] world’s new power needs, excluding China. And nuclear energy is well positioned for increased investments; while batteries – which is energy storage – is also getting to get a new set in terms of new investments across datacenters and in markets like China . Moving forward, the power industry faces a multi-decade transformation, marked by unexpected shifts and opportunities. We’ll see increased collaboration between fossil and non-fossil fuels, wider adoption of tiered pricing, and a surge in spot market and behind-the-meter sales all driving longer-lasting, elevated power spreads. Gas, nuclear, energy storage, and fuel cell supply chains – especially in Asia and the U.S. – stand to gain from stronger pricing power [and] new growth prospects, while grid operators benefit from higher investment and better returns. On the flip side, pure solar and wind producers may continue to see rising costs in Asia, something we have already seen in [the] U.S. and Europe, as [the] global grid leans more on batteries and steady fossil fuel supplies to balance the requirements of the rising needs of power across the supply chains – in AI as well as domestic utilization of manufacturing. Ultimately, as AI and electrification supercharge power demand, the real challenge isn’t just adding renewables. It’s about building a resilient,...]]>277alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1528fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/home-affordability-still-under-pressure--75648443insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Jim, why did the cranberry turn red? James Egan: Please enlighten me. Jay Bacow: Because it saw the turkey dressing. Jay Bacow: I hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving. Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Today we're here to talk about our views from mortgage rates in 2026 and how that flows through to our U.S. housing outlook.It's Monday, December 1st at 11:30am in New York.Now, Jay, as we all get over our turkey induced naps over the weekend, how are we thinking about mortgage rates evolving in 2026?Jay Bacow: Well, as you and I discussed previously on this podcast, the Fed cutting rates in and of itself doesn't actually cause the 30-year fixed rate mortgage to come down. However, our rate strategists’ forecast for lower rates in the front end should be helpful to where the primary rate ends up this year. And we would also expect some compression between primary mortgage rates and Treasury rates given our bullish outlook for the mortgage asset class. So, our expectation is that the 30-year fixed rate ends 2026 around 5.75 percent.James Egan: Alright, if we get to 5.75, maybe a little bit lower than that in the middle of next year, that's enough to send affordability into a healthier place. But that's a relative term. Affordability is still going to be under pressure, but it will have improved. And it will have improved at a pretty healthy amount from where we were in the fourth quarter of 2023, which was multi-decade levels of challenged.Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, so clearly the mortgage rate coming down does make homes more affordable, but is it enough to cause more homes to actually transact?James Egan: So, the answer is yes, but it's going to be a ‘Yes, but’ answer from that perspective. We do think that transaction volumes are going to increase. But to put into context where we sit from a housing market perspective – we already saw a healthy increase in affordability from the fourth quarter of [20]23 through the end of 2024, right? But if we put that affordability improvement in context, we've seen that about 10 times over the past 40 years. The only times where sales responded more tepidly than they just did in 2025 – were in 2009, the teeth of the Great Financial Crisis; and in 2020, when the market really slowed down in the immediate aftermath of COVID. The lock-in effect is still playing a very big role. We do think that this sustained marginal improvement and affordability will help purchase volumes. But this is not what's going to get us to kind of escape velocity. We're calling for about a 3 percent growth in purchase volumes next year. Jay Bacow: Alright. Now, you mentioned this a little bit already, but if there's less lock-in because the mortgage rate has come down, will more people be willing to list their homes for sale? Are we going to get more inventory on the market? James Egan: I think that's the other piece of how we're thinking about housing moving forward. Any improvement we get in affordability from lower mortgage rates is going to be paired with increasing inventory volumes. We've already seen that. Listed inventories are up roughly 30 percent from historic lows in 2023. They're still 20 percent worth below where they were in 2019. So, we're not talking about oversupply at this point. But that increase in listed inventories without a contemporaneous increase in demand is weighed on the pace of home price growth. We started this year at +4 percent nationally. We're below +1.5 percent. We think that any growth and demand will come coincident with the growth in listing volumes. That's going to keep home price appreciation under control. We're only calling for 2 percent growth in HPA next year, 3 percent out in 2027. But the high level thought here is that the housing market is well supported at these levels. Difficult to see big decreases in sales volumes or prices next year. But also going to be difficult to really achieve any more material growth in this low single digits we're calling for. But Jay, as you and I are talking about this outlook with market participants, one question that gets brought up frequently is what else can the administration do, especially on the affordability side, to help with instigating more housing activity. Jay Bacow: In order to really help affordability, given the challenges that you've discussed around the supply and demand issues; then the other aspect of that is just what is the mortgage rate? And if they were to do things that would cause the mortgage rate to come down, that would be helpful. Now, the Fed already has made an announcement that they're going to continue mortgage runoff from their balance sheet. If they ended mortgage runoff, that would've helped. But that window seems to have passed. There's been some discussion from the administration around new types of programs. In particular, there was a lot of headlines around a 50-year program. A 50-year amortization schedule would likely result in a material drop in the monthly payment that the homeowner would make – which would help. However, the total interest payments for that homeowner, depending on exactly where this hypothetical 50-year mortgage rate would price, are probably about double over the life of the loan relative to a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. So, we're not really sure that this product would see a huge amount of upkeep. There's also some technical challenges around whether it meets the definition of a qualified mortgage and some other in the weeds discussions. James Egan: What about all the discussion we're hearing around assumability of mortgages, portability of mortgages? Is there anything there? Jay Bacow: Based on our understanding of contract law, which I have to confess is limited as I am not a lawyer, we don't think you can retroactively make mortgages portable or assumable that were not already portable or assumable. So, you can make new mortgages portable and assumable. Portable as a reminder means that if you have a mortgage, you take it with you to your new house, and assumable means that the mortgage stays with the house. If you sell it to somebody else, they get that mortgage. But realistically, we think this would have to be a new product. And because it would be a new product with new benefits to the homeowner, it would actually probably cause their mortgage rate to be higher, not lower. James Egan: I guess one last question. We're talking about affordability and we're addressing it through interest rates being lower, we’re addressing it through the potential for new products to be put out there, even if there are some challenges around that piece of it. But what about just demand for mortgages themselves? You said the Fed might not be a buyer going forward, but are there other pockets of demand for mortgages that could help bring down mortgage rates? Jay Bacow: Sure. So, we expect the GSEs to grow their portfolio next year, that would certainly be helpful. On the margin, we expect them to buy about a little less than a third of the net issuance that comes to the market. We also think that domestic banks could come back to the market and they could help bring the mortgage rates lower. But these changes are going to help mortgage rates by, in the context of maybe an eighth of a point to a quarter of a point at most. It's not a panacea, unfortunately. James Egan: Alright. So, we expect a little bit of an improvement in mortgage rates, a little bit of affordability improvement next year. That should lead to growth in purchase volumes, and I think it will lead to a little bit of growth in home prices. But the housing market is well supported range bound here. Jay Bacow: Jim, pleasure talking to you. And to all our regular listeners, thank you for adding Thoughts on the Market to your playlist. James Egan: Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: And as my kids would say, go smash that subscribe button.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lZtEZy-2em0WjzNFo8u0S8p0r60VUC8pfIfJkE2_9rIMon, 01 Dec 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Co-Heads of Securitized Product Research Jay Bacow and James Egan discuss the outlook for mortgage rates and the U.S. housing market in 2026.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Jim, why did the cranberry turn red? James Egan: Please enlighten me. Jay Bacow: Because it saw the turkey dressing. Jay Bacow: I hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving. Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Today we're here to talk about our views from mortgage rates in 2026 and how that flows through to our U.S. housing outlook.It's Monday, December 1st at 11:30am in New York.Now, Jay, as we all get over our turkey induced naps over the weekend, how are we thinking about mortgage rates evolving in 2026?Jay Bacow: Well, as you and I discussed previously on this podcast, the Fed cutting rates in and of itself doesn't actually cause the 30-year fixed rate mortgage to come down. However, our rate strategists’ forecast for lower rates in the front end should be helpful to where the primary rate ends up this year. And we would also expect some compression between primary mortgage rates and Treasury rates given our bullish outlook for the mortgage asset class. So, our expectation is that the 30-year fixed rate ends 2026 around 5.75 percent.James Egan: Alright, if we get to 5.75, maybe a little bit lower than that in the middle of next year, that's enough to send affordability into a healthier place. But that's a relative term. Affordability is still going to be under pressure, but it will have improved. And it will have improved at a pretty healthy amount from where we were in the fourth quarter of 2023, which was multi-decade levels of challenged.Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, so clearly the mortgage rate coming down does make homes more affordable, but is it enough to cause more homes to actually transact?James Egan: So, the answer is yes, but it's going to be a ‘Yes, but’ answer from that perspective. We do think that transaction volumes are going to increase. But to put into context where we sit from a housing market perspective – we already saw a healthy increase in affordability from the fourth quarter of [20]23 through the end of 2024, right? But if we put that affordability improvement in context, we've seen that about 10 times over the past 40 years. The only times where sales responded more tepidly than they just did in 2025 – were in 2009, the teeth of the Great Financial Crisis; and in 2020, when the market really slowed down in the immediate aftermath of COVID. The lock-in effect is still playing a very big role. We do think that this sustained marginal improvement and affordability will help purchase volumes. But this is not what's going to get us to kind of escape velocity. We're calling for about a 3 percent growth in purchase volumes next year. Jay Bacow: Alright. Now, you mentioned this a little bit already, but if there's less lock-in because the mortgage rate has come down, will more people be willing to list their homes for sale? Are we going to get more inventory on the market? James Egan: I think that's the other piece of how we're thinking about housing moving forward. Any improvement we get in affordability from lower mortgage rates is going to be paired with increasing inventory volumes. We've already seen that. Listed inventories are up roughly 30 percent from historic lows in 2023. They're still 20 percent worth below where they were in 2019. So, we're not talking about oversupply at this point. But that increase in listed inventories without a contemporaneous increase in demand is weighed on the pace of home price growth. We started this year at +4 percent nationally. We're below +1.5...]]>518alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1527fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-how-japan-s-stablecoin-could-reshape-global-finance--75648440insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – Japan’s stablecoin revolution and why it matters to global investors. It’s Friday, October 31st, at 4pm in Tokyo. Japan may be late to the crypto market. But its first yen-denominated stablecoin is just around the corner. And it has the potential to quietly reshape how digital money moves across the country and globally. You may have heard of digital money like Bitcoin. It’s significantly more volatile than traditional financial assets like stocks and bonds. Stablecoins are different. They are digital currencies designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to assets such as the yen or U.S. dollar. And in June 2023, Japan amended its Payment Services Acts to create a legal framework for stablecoins. Market participants in Japan and abroad are watching closely whether the JPY stablecoin can establish itself as a major global digital currency, such as Tether. Stablecoins promise to make payments faster, cheaper, and available 24/7. Japan’s cashless payment ratio jumped from about 30 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2024, and there’s still room to grow compared to other countries. The government’s push for fintech and digital payments is accelerating, and stablecoins could be the missing link to a truly digital economy. Unlike Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are designed to suppress price volatility. They’re managed by private companies and backed by assets—think cash, government bonds, or even commodities like gold. Industry watchers think stablecoins can make digital payments as reliable as cash, but with the speed and flexibility of the internet. Japan’s regulatory approach is strict: stablecoins must be 100 percent backed by high-quality, liquid assets, and algorithmic stablecoins are prohibited. Issuers must meet transparency and reserve requirements, and monthly audits are standard. This is similar to new rules in the U.S., EU, and Hong Kong. What does this mean in practice? Financial institutions are exploring stablecoins for instant payments, asset management, and lending. For example, real-time settlement of stock and bond trades normally take days. These transactions could happen in seconds with stablecoins. They also enable new business models like Banking-as-a-Service and Web3 integration, although regulatory costs and low interest rates remain hurdles for profitability.Or think about SWIFT transactions, the backbone of international payments. Stablecoins will not replace SWIFT, but they can supplement it. Payments that used to take days can now be completed in seconds, with up to 80 percent lower fees. But trust in issuers and compliance with anti-money laundering rules are critical. There’s another topic on top of investors’ minds. CBDCs – Central Bank Digital Currencies. Both      stablecoins and CBDCs are digital. But digital currencies are issued by central banks and considered legal tender, whereas stablecoins are private-sector innovations. Japan is the world’s fourth-largest economy and considered a leader in technology. But it takes a cautious approach to financial transformation. It is preparing for a CBDC but hasn’t committed to launching one yet. If and when that happens, stablecoins and CBDCs can coexist, with the digital currency serving as public infrastructure and stablecoins driving innovation. So, what’s the bottom line? Japan’s stablecoin journey is just beginning, but its impact could ripple across payments, asset management, and even global finance. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5TGzdq9ZSxkw7XmqvUofG18BjW8X9LNLYSfyn45IoaUFri, 28 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: October 31, 2025Our Japan Financials Analyst Mia Nagasaka discusses how the country’s new stablecoin regulations and digital payments are set to transform the flow of money not only locally, but globally.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – Japan’s stablecoin revolution and why it matters to global investors. It’s Friday, October 31st, at 4pm in Tokyo. Japan may be late to the crypto market. But its first yen-denominated stablecoin is just around the corner. And it has the potential to quietly reshape how digital money moves across the country and globally. You may have heard of digital money like Bitcoin. It’s significantly more volatile than traditional financial assets like stocks and bonds. Stablecoins are different. They are digital currencies designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to assets such as the yen or U.S. dollar. And in June 2023, Japan amended its Payment Services Acts to create a legal framework for stablecoins. Market participants in Japan and abroad are watching closely whether the JPY stablecoin can establish itself as a major global digital currency, such as Tether. Stablecoins promise to make payments faster, cheaper, and available 24/7. Japan’s cashless payment ratio jumped from about 30 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2024, and there’s still room to grow compared to other countries. The government’s push for fintech and digital payments is accelerating, and stablecoins could be the missing link to a truly digital economy. Unlike Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are designed to suppress price volatility. They’re managed by private companies and backed by assets—think cash, government bonds, or even commodities like gold. Industry watchers think stablecoins can make digital payments as reliable as cash, but with the speed and flexibility of the internet. Japan’s regulatory approach is strict: stablecoins must be 100 percent backed by high-quality, liquid assets, and algorithmic stablecoins are prohibited. Issuers must meet transparency and reserve requirements, and monthly audits are standard. This is similar to new rules in the U.S., EU, and Hong Kong. What does this mean in practice? Financial institutions are exploring stablecoins for instant payments, asset management, and lending. For example, real-time settlement of stock and bond trades normally take days. These transactions could happen in seconds with stablecoins. They also enable new business models like Banking-as-a-Service and Web3 integration, although regulatory costs and low interest rates remain hurdles for profitability.Or think about SWIFT transactions, the backbone of international payments. Stablecoins will not replace SWIFT, but they can supplement it. Payments that used to take days can now be completed in seconds, with up to 80 percent lower fees. But trust in issuers and compliance with anti-money laundering rules are critical. There’s another topic on top of investors’ minds. CBDCs – Central Bank Digital Currencies. Both      stablecoins and CBDCs are digital. But digital currencies are issued by central banks and considered legal tender, whereas stablecoins are private-sector innovations. Japan is the world’s fourth-largest economy and considered a leader in technology. But it takes a cautious approach to financial transformation. It is preparing for a CBDC but hasn’t committed to launching one yet. If and when that happens, stablecoins and CBDCs can coexist, with the digital currency serving as public infrastructure and stablecoins driving innovation. So, what’s the bottom line? Japan’s stablecoin journey is just beginning, but its impact could ripple across payments, asset management, and...]]>303alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1526fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-an-unprecedented-wave-of-inheritances-is-coming--75648189insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----    Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, a powerful force reshaping the financial lives of millions of Americans: inheritance.It's Friday, October 10th at 10am in New York.Americans are living longer and they're passing on their wealth later. Longevity is one of Morgan Stanley Research's four key themes, and this is an interesting element of longevity. As baby boomers age, they're expected to transfer their wealth to Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to the tune of tens or even hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars.Estimates vary widely, but the amounts are unprecedented. And so, inheritance isn't just a family milestone; it's becoming an important cornerstone of financial planning and longevity. And understanding who's receiving, expecting, and using their inheritances is key to forecasting how Americans save, spend, and invest.According to our latest AlphaWise survey, 17 percent of U.S. consumers have received an inheritance, and another 14 percent expect to receive one in the future. Younger Americans are especially optimistic. Their expectations split evenly between those anticipating an inheritance within the next 10 years and those expecting it further out.But here's the kicker; income plays a huge role. Only 17 percent of lower income consumers report receiving or expecting an inheritance, but that number jumps to 43 percent among higher income households highlighting a clear wealth divide.What about the size of the inheritance? In our survey, those who received or expect to receive an inheritance fall broadly into three categories. About half reported amounts under $100,000 dollars. For about a third, that amount rose to under $500,000. And then meanwhile, 10 per cent reported an inheritance of half a million dollars or more.Younger consumers tend to report smaller amounts, while inheritance size rises with income. One important thing to remember about our survey though, is it looks more at the average person. We are missing some of those very high net worth demographics in there where I would expect inheritance to rise much higher than half a million.And so, when we think about this, how will recipients use this wealth? That's a really important question. The majority, about 60 percent, say they have or will put their inheritance towards savings, retirement, or investments. About a third say they'll use it for housing or paying down debt. Day-to-day consumption, travel, education and even starting a business or giving to charity also featured in the survey responses – but to a lesser extent.The financial impact of inheritance is significant: 46 percent of recipients say it makes them feel more financially secure; 40 percent cite improvements in savings; and 22 percent associate it with increased spending. Some even report retiring earlier or lightening their workloads.Inheritance trends are shaping consumer behavior and have the power to influence spending patterns across industries. To sum it up, inheritance isn't just a family matter, it's a market mover.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Q1O3meQao6mpsWZ-uXT-4V_TAAu4X4-Jqc7hKym_D2sWed, 26 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: October 10, 2025Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses how the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history could reshape saving, spending and investment behavior across America.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----    Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, a powerful force reshaping the financial lives of millions of Americans: inheritance.It's Friday, October 10th at 10am in New York.Americans are living longer and they're passing on their wealth later. Longevity is one of Morgan Stanley Research's four key themes, and this is an interesting element of longevity. As baby boomers age, they're expected to transfer their wealth to Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to the tune of tens or even hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars.Estimates vary widely, but the amounts are unprecedented. And so, inheritance isn't just a family milestone; it's becoming an important cornerstone of financial planning and longevity. And understanding who's receiving, expecting, and using their inheritances is key to forecasting how Americans save, spend, and invest.According to our latest AlphaWise survey, 17 percent of U.S. consumers have received an inheritance, and another 14 percent expect to receive one in the future. Younger Americans are especially optimistic. Their expectations split evenly between those anticipating an inheritance within the next 10 years and those expecting it further out.But here's the kicker; income plays a huge role. Only 17 percent of lower income consumers report receiving or expecting an inheritance, but that number jumps to 43 percent among higher income households highlighting a clear wealth divide.What about the size of the inheritance? In our survey, those who received or expect to receive an inheritance fall broadly into three categories. About half reported amounts under $100,000 dollars. For about a third, that amount rose to under $500,000. And then meanwhile, 10 per cent reported an inheritance of half a million dollars or more.Younger consumers tend to report smaller amounts, while inheritance size rises with income. One important thing to remember about our survey though, is it looks more at the average person. We are missing some of those very high net worth demographics in there where I would expect inheritance to rise much higher than half a million.And so, when we think about this, how will recipients use this wealth? That's a really important question. The majority, about 60 percent, say they have or will put their inheritance towards savings, retirement, or investments. About a third say they'll use it for housing or paying down debt. Day-to-day consumption, travel, education and even starting a business or giving to charity also featured in the survey responses – but to a lesser extent.The financial impact of inheritance is significant: 46 percent of recipients say it makes them feel more financially secure; 40 percent cite improvements in savings; and 22 percent associate it with increased spending. Some even report retiring earlier or lightening their workloads.Inheritance trends are shaping consumer behavior and have the power to influence spending patterns across industries. To sum it up, inheritance isn't just a family matter, it's a market mover.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>219alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1525fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-driving-u-s-growth-in-2026--75648297insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist.Today I'll review our 2026 U.S. Economic Outlook and what it means for growth, inflation, jobs and the Fed.It’s Tuesday, November 25th, at 10am in New York.If 2025 was the year of fast and furious policy changes, then 2026 is when the dust settles.Last year, we predicted slow growth and sticky inflation, mainly because of strict trade and immigration policies – and this proved accurate. But this year, the story is changing. We see the U.S. economy finally moving past the high-uncertainty phase. Looking ahead, we see a return to modest growth of 1.8 percent in 2026 and 2 percent in 2027. Inflation should cool but it likely won’t hit the Fed’s 2 percent target. By the end of 2026, we see headline PCE inflation at 2.5 percent, core inflation at 2.6 percent, and both stay above the 2 percent target through 2027. In other words, the inflation fight isn’t over, but the worst is behind us.So, if 2025 was slow growth and sticky inflation, then 2026 and [20]27 could be described as moderate growth and disinflation. The impact of trade and immigration policies should fade, and the economic climate should improve. Now, there are still some risks. Tariffs could push prices higher for consumers in the near term; or if firms cannot pass through tariffs, we worry about additional layoffs. But looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and beyond, we think those risks shift to the upside, with a better chance of positive surprises for growth.After all, AI-related business spending remains robust and upper income consumers are faring well. There is reason for optimism. That said, we think the most likely path for the economy is the return to modest growth. U.S. consumers start to rebound, but slowly. Tariffs will keep prices firm in the first half of 2026, squeezing purchasing power for low- and middle-income households. These households consume mainly through labor market income, and until inflation starts to retreat, purchasing power should be constrained.Real consumption should rise 1.6 percent in 2026 and 1.8 [percent] in 2027 – better, but not booming. The main culprit is a labor market that’s still in ‘low-hire, low-fire’ mode driven by immigration controls and tariff effects that keep hiring soft. We see unemployment peaking at 4.7 percent in the second quarter of 2026, then easing to 4.5 percent by year-end. Jobs are out there, but the labor market isn’t roaring. It'll be hard for hiring to pick up until after tariffs have been absorbed.And when jobs cool, the Fed steps in. The Fed is cutting rates – but at a cost. After two 25 basis point rate cuts in September and October, we expect 75 basis points more by mid 2026, bringing the target range to 3.0-3.25 percent. Why? To insure against labor market weakness. But that insurance comes with a price: inflation staying above target longer. Think of it as the Fed walking a tightrope—lean too far toward jobs, and inflation lingers; lean too far toward inflation, and growth stumbles. For now the Fed has chosen the former.And how does AI fit into the macro picture? It’s definitely a major growth driver. Spending on AI-related hardware, software, and data centers adds about 0.4 percent to growth in both 2026 and 2027. That’s roughly 20 percent of total growth. But here’s the twist: imports dilute the impact. After accounting for imported tech, AI’s net contribution falls sharply. Still, we expect AI to boost productivity by 25-35 basis points by 2027, over our forecast horizon, marking the start of a new innovation cycle. In short: AI is planting the seeds now for bigger gains later.Of course, there are risks to our outlook. And let me flag three important ones. First, demand upside – meaning fiscal stimulus and business optimism push growth higher; under this scenario inflation stays hot, and the Fed pauses cuts. If the economy really picks up, then the Fed may need to take back the risk management cuts it's putting in now. That would be a shock to markets. Second, there’s a productivity upside – in which case AI delivers bigger productivity gains, disinflation resumes, and rates drift lower. And lastly, a potential mild recession where tariffs and tight policy bite harder, GDP turns negative in early 2026, and the Fed slashes rates to near 1 percent. So in summary: 2026 looks to be a transition year with less drama but more nuance, as growth returns and inflation cools, while AI keeps rewriting the playbook.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KGW_jiR_3R7M1u1frQy6BRW6_Biirhd_ABil-O-XNewTue, 25 Nov 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen breaks down how growth, inflation and the AI revolution could play out in 2026.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist.Today I'll review our 2026 U.S. Economic Outlook and what it means for growth, inflation, jobs and the Fed.It’s Tuesday, November 25th, at 10am in New York.If 2025 was the year of fast and furious policy changes, then 2026 is when the dust settles.Last year, we predicted slow growth and sticky inflation, mainly because of strict trade and immigration policies – and this proved accurate. But this year, the story is changing. We see the U.S. economy finally moving past the high-uncertainty phase. Looking ahead, we see a return to modest growth of 1.8 percent in 2026 and 2 percent in 2027. Inflation should cool but it likely won’t hit the Fed’s 2 percent target. By the end of 2026, we see headline PCE inflation at 2.5 percent, core inflation at 2.6 percent, and both stay above the 2 percent target through 2027. In other words, the inflation fight isn’t over, but the worst is behind us.So, if 2025 was slow growth and sticky inflation, then 2026 and [20]27 could be described as moderate growth and disinflation. The impact of trade and immigration policies should fade, and the economic climate should improve. Now, there are still some risks. Tariffs could push prices higher for consumers in the near term; or if firms cannot pass through tariffs, we worry about additional layoffs. But looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and beyond, we think those risks shift to the upside, with a better chance of positive surprises for growth.After all, AI-related business spending remains robust and upper income consumers are faring well. There is reason for optimism. That said, we think the most likely path for the economy is the return to modest growth. U.S. consumers start to rebound, but slowly. Tariffs will keep prices firm in the first half of 2026, squeezing purchasing power for low- and middle-income households. These households consume mainly through labor market income, and until inflation starts to retreat, purchasing power should be constrained.Real consumption should rise 1.6 percent in 2026 and 1.8 [percent] in 2027 – better, but not booming. The main culprit is a labor market that’s still in ‘low-hire, low-fire’ mode driven by immigration controls and tariff effects that keep hiring soft. We see unemployment peaking at 4.7 percent in the second quarter of 2026, then easing to 4.5 percent by year-end. Jobs are out there, but the labor market isn’t roaring. It'll be hard for hiring to pick up until after tariffs have been absorbed.And when jobs cool, the Fed steps in. The Fed is cutting rates – but at a cost. After two 25 basis point rate cuts in September and October, we expect 75 basis points more by mid 2026, bringing the target range to 3.0-3.25 percent. Why? To insure against labor market weakness. But that insurance comes with a price: inflation staying above target longer. Think of it as the Fed walking a tightrope—lean too far toward jobs, and inflation lingers; lean too far toward inflation, and growth stumbles. For now the Fed has chosen the former.And how does AI fit into the macro picture? It’s definitely a major growth driver. Spending on AI-related hardware, software, and data centers adds about 0.4 percent to growth in both 2026 and 2027. That’s roughly 20 percent of total growth. But here’s the twist: imports dilute the impact. After accounting for imported tech, AI’s net contribution falls sharply. Still, we expect AI to boost productivity by 25-35 basis points by 2027, over our forecast horizon, marking the start of a new innovation cycle. In short: AI is planting the seeds now for bigger gains...]]>363alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1524fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bull-market-keeps-an-eye-on-the-fed--75648564insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, why the Fed may hold the key for both near term and medium-term stock market performance. It's Monday, November 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let’s get after it. At the end of September, we discussed the building tension between the Fed and markets in terms of both the fed funds rate and liquidity, suggesting this had the potential to lead to a correction in the short-term. This scenario is playing out with high momentum and low-quality stocks responding more to tightening liquidity back in September, while the high-quality S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 responded more to the incremental hawkishness on rate cuts relayed at the October 29th Fed meeting.While downside for the S&P 500 has been limited to just 5 percent, the damage under the surface has been more significant with two-thirds of the largest 1000 stocks seeing more than a 10 percent drawdown and one quarter down more than 20 percent. Similarly, Bitcoin is down close to 30 percent and topped even earlier than high momentum stocks. Gold also felt the impact of tighter liquidity earlier than the S&P 500, as one would expect.We’re staying vigilant around this dynamic related to monetary policy and can't rule out more index-level downside in the short-term, especially if breadth remains weak. Having said that, we think the weakness under the hood is a sign that we're closer to the end of this correction than the beginning for the weaker areas of the market. Historically, the Generals tend to fall the most at the end of corrections. As I said on this podcast back in September, we would view this type of correction and reset on expectations as an opportunity to double down on our rolling recovery thesis which remains out of consensus.From our perspective, private labor data are showing signs of weakness that suggest the Fed should be cutting rates more aggressively. This is very much in line with my core view that the rate of change trough in the labor data occurred back in April with the lows in the equity market. The official government labor data that the Fed is waiting for is lagging and will simply confirm what we, and the markets, already know. With the official October jobs data cancelled due to the shutdown and the November series not available until December 16th, the equity market may continue to wrestle with the Fed that dragging its feet and delaying rate cuts.The good news is that we expect a meaningful decline in the Treasury’s General Account in the coming weeks as the government re-opens. This should help to provide a much-needed boost to liquidity at the same time the Fed ends quantitative tightening. The question is whether these changes will be enough to improve liquidity conditions in a durable way. In my view, the clearest indication will be if we see relief in areas of the equity market and asset classes most sensitive to these dynamics over the next two weeks. That means low quality profitless growth stocks in the equity world should rally the most.Bottom line, I remain convinced in our bullish 12-month outlook for the S&P 500 and stocks more broadly. Initial feedback from investors to our recently published 2026 outlook indicates that several of our core views for 2026 remain out of consensus. More specifically, our early cycle narrative versus consensus thinking that we’re late cycle; 17 percent earnings growth next year versus the consensus at 14 percent. And finally, our upgrades of small/mid cap stocks and consumer discretionary goods to overweight. Use near term weakness related to a Fed that is moving too slow for the markets’ liking to reposition portfolio to sectors and stocks that have lagged behind for most of the past several years – but will benefit the most from the more aggressive Fed action that we expect to come.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZaQb8yYsy9N5ICl_PY3IECr-vLJuOHTCN6_mUvfT6QcMon, 24 Nov 2025 22:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors might want to reassess their portfolios, keeping in mind the gap between market moves and monetary policy.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, why the Fed may hold the key for both near term and medium-term stock market performance. It's Monday, November 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let’s get after it. At the end of September, we discussed the building tension between the Fed and markets in terms of both the fed funds rate and liquidity, suggesting this had the potential to lead to a correction in the short-term. This scenario is playing out with high momentum and low-quality stocks responding more to tightening liquidity back in September, while the high-quality S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 responded more to the incremental hawkishness on rate cuts relayed at the October 29th Fed meeting.While downside for the S&P 500 has been limited to just 5 percent, the damage under the surface has been more significant with two-thirds of the largest 1000 stocks seeing more than a 10 percent drawdown and one quarter down more than 20 percent. Similarly, Bitcoin is down close to 30 percent and topped even earlier than high momentum stocks. Gold also felt the impact of tighter liquidity earlier than the S&P 500, as one would expect.We’re staying vigilant around this dynamic related to monetary policy and can't rule out more index-level downside in the short-term, especially if breadth remains weak. Having said that, we think the weakness under the hood is a sign that we're closer to the end of this correction than the beginning for the weaker areas of the market. Historically, the Generals tend to fall the most at the end of corrections. As I said on this podcast back in September, we would view this type of correction and reset on expectations as an opportunity to double down on our rolling recovery thesis which remains out of consensus.From our perspective, private labor data are showing signs of weakness that suggest the Fed should be cutting rates more aggressively. This is very much in line with my core view that the rate of change trough in the labor data occurred back in April with the lows in the equity market. The official government labor data that the Fed is waiting for is lagging and will simply confirm what we, and the markets, already know. With the official October jobs data cancelled due to the shutdown and the November series not available until December 16th, the equity market may continue to wrestle with the Fed that dragging its feet and delaying rate cuts.The good news is that we expect a meaningful decline in the Treasury’s General Account in the coming weeks as the government re-opens. This should help to provide a much-needed boost to liquidity at the same time the Fed ends quantitative tightening. The question is whether these changes will be enough to improve liquidity conditions in a durable way. In my view, the clearest indication will be if we see relief in areas of the equity market and asset classes most sensitive to these dynamics over the next two weeks. That means low quality profitless growth stocks in the equity world should rally the most.Bottom line, I remain convinced in our bullish 12-month outlook for the S&P 500 and stocks more broadly. Initial feedback from investors to our recently published 2026 outlook indicates that several of our core views for 2026 remain out of consensus. More specifically, our early cycle narrative versus consensus thinking that we’re late cycle; 17 percent earnings growth next year versus the consensus at 14 percent. And finally, our upgrades of small/mid cap stocks and consumer discretionary goods...]]>253alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1523fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-capex-boom-puts-credit-markets-to-the-test--75648301insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at a very different type of challenge for credit markets. It's Friday, November 21st at 6pm in Singapore. It has now been well over 15 years since the Global Financial Crisis shook the credit markets to its very core. It's hard to state just how extreme that period was. How many usual relationships and valuation approaches broke. It saw the worst credit losses in 80 years; I think, and hope, that this record will hold for the next 80. This shock, however, did have a silver lining for the credit market. After a crisis that was driven by bank balance sheets being too large and complex, they shrank and simplified. After companies saw capital markets suddenly shut, they increased their cash levels and often managed themselves more conservatively. The housing market long, the engine of debt growth in the U.S. saw much tighter lending standards and less overall borrowing. And so, all these trends had a common theme. Less bond supply. The credit market has seen numerous bouts of volatility in the years since. But these have generally been driven by concerns around the macro economy, like the eurozone crisis or COVID. Or they've been driven by companies’ specific issues such as weakness around the oil sector in the mid 2010s or the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. The idea that there would be too much borrowing for the level of demand and that this causes market weakness, well, it just hasn't been an issue. Until – that is – now. As we've discussed on this program, there is an enormous increase underway in the amount of capital expenditure by technology companies as they look to build out the infrastructure that supports their cloud and AI ambitions. Morgan Stanley Equity Research estimates that the largest spenders will commit about $470 billion of spending this year and [$]620 billion of spending next year. That's over $1 trillion of spending in just a two-year period. And it's still growing. We see a lot of momentum behind this spending, as the companies doing it have both enormous financial resources and see it as central to their future ambitions. But all this spending, however, will need to come from somewhere. These are often very profitable companies and so we think about half will be funded from their cash flows. The other half, well, debt markets will play a big role, especially as these companies are often highly rated and so have significant capacity to borrow more. And over the last few weeks, those spigots have now turned on. Several large technology hyperscalers have been borrowing tens of billions at a clip, and they've been doing this in short succession. There is some good news here. This new borrowing has been coming at a discount, with the issuers willing to pay investors a bit more than their existing debt to take it on. Demand in turn has been very high for this debt. And in most cases, this borrowing is still well below anything that could feasibly trigger rating agency action. But it is raising a very different type of issue after a long period where, generally speaking, investors have rarely worried about excessive supply – these are very large deals coming at very large discounts, and they are moving the market. If a AA rated company is in the market willing to pay the same as a current single A, well, that existing single A credit just simply looks less attractive. As far as problems go, we think this is a generally less scary one for the market to face but is a new challenge – something we haven't encountered for some time. And based on the aforementioned spending plans, it may be with us for some time to come. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kFs7Dq9oPZDqP9JAUiEEeCYhMRH5-s4Lhy8erIqFwKYFri, 21 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyAs market murmurs about an AI bubble, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets offers some perspective on the impacts of the increasing demand for debt.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at a very different type of challenge for credit markets. It's Friday, November 21st at 6pm in Singapore. It has now been well over 15 years since the Global Financial Crisis shook the credit markets to its very core. It's hard to state just how extreme that period was. How many usual relationships and valuation approaches broke. It saw the worst credit losses in 80 years; I think, and hope, that this record will hold for the next 80. This shock, however, did have a silver lining for the credit market. After a crisis that was driven by bank balance sheets being too large and complex, they shrank and simplified. After companies saw capital markets suddenly shut, they increased their cash levels and often managed themselves more conservatively. The housing market long, the engine of debt growth in the U.S. saw much tighter lending standards and less overall borrowing. And so, all these trends had a common theme. Less bond supply. The credit market has seen numerous bouts of volatility in the years since. But these have generally been driven by concerns around the macro economy, like the eurozone crisis or COVID. Or they've been driven by companies’ specific issues such as weakness around the oil sector in the mid 2010s or the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. The idea that there would be too much borrowing for the level of demand and that this causes market weakness, well, it just hasn't been an issue. Until – that is – now. As we've discussed on this program, there is an enormous increase underway in the amount of capital expenditure by technology companies as they look to build out the infrastructure that supports their cloud and AI ambitions. Morgan Stanley Equity Research estimates that the largest spenders will commit about $470 billion of spending this year and [$]620 billion of spending next year. That's over $1 trillion of spending in just a two-year period. And it's still growing. We see a lot of momentum behind this spending, as the companies doing it have both enormous financial resources and see it as central to their future ambitions. But all this spending, however, will need to come from somewhere. These are often very profitable companies and so we think about half will be funded from their cash flows. The other half, well, debt markets will play a big role, especially as these companies are often highly rated and so have significant capacity to borrow more. And over the last few weeks, those spigots have now turned on. Several large technology hyperscalers have been borrowing tens of billions at a clip, and they've been doing this in short succession. There is some good news here. This new borrowing has been coming at a discount, with the issuers willing to pay investors a bit more than their existing debt to take it on. Demand in turn has been very high for this debt. And in most cases, this borrowing is still well below anything that could feasibly trigger rating agency action. But it is raising a very different type of issue after a long period where, generally speaking, investors have rarely worried about excessive supply – these are very large deals coming at very large discounts, and they are moving the market. If a AA rated company is in the market willing to pay the same as a current single A, well, that existing single A credit just simply looks less attractive. As far as problems go, we think this is a generally less scary one for the market to face but is a new challenge – something we haven't...]]>252alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1522fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2026-global-outlook-micro-themes-take-the-spotlight--75648465insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist, coming to you from the Morgan Stanley Asia Pacific Summit underway in Singapore. Much of the client conversation at the summit was about the market outlook for 2026. In the last few days, you've heard from my colleagues about our outlook for the global economy, equities and cross asset markets. On today's podcast, I will focus on the outlook and key themes ahead for the global fixed income market. It's Thursday, November 20th at 10am in Singapore. Last year, the difficulty of predicting policy really complicated our task. This year brings its own challenges. But what we see is micro trends driving the markets in ways that adapt to a generally positive stance on risk. Our economists’ base case sees continued disinflation and growth converging towards potential by 2027, with the possibility that the potential itself improves. Notably, they present upside scenarios exploring stronger demand and rising productivity, while the downside case remains relatively benign. The U.S. remains pivotal, and the U.S. led shocks – positive and negative – should drive outcomes for the global economy and markets in 2026, In 2025, the combination of a resilient U.S. consumer supported by healthy balance sheets and rising wealth alongside robust AI driven CapEx has underpinned growth and helped avoid recession despite the headwinds of trade policy. These same dynamics should continue to support the baseline outlook in 2026, even though the path will be likely uneven. The Fed faces a familiar conundrum softening labor markets versus solid spending. The baseline assumes cuts to neutral as unemployment rises, followed by a recovery in the second half. Outside the U.S., most economies trend towards potential growth and neutral policy rates by end of 2026, but the timing and the trajectory vary. And as in recent years, global outcomes will likely hinge on U.S.-led effects and their spillovers. Our macro strategists expect government bond yields to stay range bound, and it is really a story of two halves. A front-loaded rally as the Fed cuts 50 basis points, pushing 10-year yields lower by mid-year before drifting higher into the fourth quarter. Curve steepening remains our high conviction call, especially two tens curve. The dollar follows a similar arc, softening mid-year, and then rebounding into the year end. AI financing moves to the forefront putting credit markets in focus, a topic that has come up repeatedly in every single meeting I've had in Singapore so far. So, from unsecured to structured and securitized credit in both public markets and private markets, credit will likely play a central role in enabling the next wave of AI related investments. Our credit and securitized credit strategists see data center financing in 2026 dominated by investment grade issuance. While fundamentals in corporate and securitized credit remain solid, the very scale of issuance ahead points to spread widening investment grade and in data center related ABS. Carry remains a key driver for credit returns, but dispersion should rise. Segments relatively insulated from the AI related supply such as U.S. high yield, agency brokerage backed securities, non-agency CMBS and RMBS are poised to outperform. We favor agency MBS and senior securitized tranches over U.S. investment grade, especially as domestic bank demand for agency MBS returns post finalization of the Basel III. 2025 was a tough year to navigate, and while we are constructive on 2026, it won't be a walk in the park. The challenges ahead look different. Less about macro shocks, more about micro shifts and market nuance. More details in our outlooks published just a few days ago. Thanks for listening If you like the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/f-HnAZXmDtbR4AJIJTP2vsPwYoGeKCye8ECSget0tfkThu, 20 Nov 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyLive from Morgan Stanley’s Asian Pacific Summit, our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur explains why micro trends are likely to be more on focus than macro shocks next year.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist, coming to you from the Morgan Stanley Asia Pacific Summit underway in Singapore. Much of the client conversation at the summit was about the market outlook for 2026. In the last few days, you've heard from my colleagues about our outlook for the global economy, equities and cross asset markets. On today's podcast, I will focus on the outlook and key themes ahead for the global fixed income market. It's Thursday, November 20th at 10am in Singapore. Last year, the difficulty of predicting policy really complicated our task. This year brings its own challenges. But what we see is micro trends driving the markets in ways that adapt to a generally positive stance on risk. Our economists’ base case sees continued disinflation and growth converging towards potential by 2027, with the possibility that the potential itself improves. Notably, they present upside scenarios exploring stronger demand and rising productivity, while the downside case remains relatively benign. The U.S. remains pivotal, and the U.S. led shocks – positive and negative – should drive outcomes for the global economy and markets in 2026, In 2025, the combination of a resilient U.S. consumer supported by healthy balance sheets and rising wealth alongside robust AI driven CapEx has underpinned growth and helped avoid recession despite the headwinds of trade policy. These same dynamics should continue to support the baseline outlook in 2026, even though the path will be likely uneven. The Fed faces a familiar conundrum softening labor markets versus solid spending. The baseline assumes cuts to neutral as unemployment rises, followed by a recovery in the second half. Outside the U.S., most economies trend towards potential growth and neutral policy rates by end of 2026, but the timing and the trajectory vary. And as in recent years, global outcomes will likely hinge on U.S.-led effects and their spillovers. Our macro strategists expect government bond yields to stay range bound, and it is really a story of two halves. A front-loaded rally as the Fed cuts 50 basis points, pushing 10-year yields lower by mid-year before drifting higher into the fourth quarter. Curve steepening remains our high conviction call, especially two tens curve. The dollar follows a similar arc, softening mid-year, and then rebounding into the year end. AI financing moves to the forefront putting credit markets in focus, a topic that has come up repeatedly in every single meeting I've had in Singapore so far. So, from unsecured to structured and securitized credit in both public markets and private markets, credit will likely play a central role in enabling the next wave of AI related investments. Our credit and securitized credit strategists see data center financing in 2026 dominated by investment grade issuance. While fundamentals in corporate and securitized credit remain solid, the very scale of issuance ahead points to spread widening investment grade and in data center related ABS. Carry remains a key driver for credit returns, but dispersion should rise. Segments relatively insulated from the AI related supply such as U.S. high yield, agency brokerage backed securities, non-agency CMBS and RMBS are poised to outperform. We favor agency MBS and senior securitized tranches over U.S. investment grade, especially as domestic bank demand for agency MBS returns post finalization of the Basel III. 2025 was a tough year to navigate, and while we are constructive on 2026, it won't be a walk in...]]>289alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1521fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2026-u-s-outlook-the-bull-market-s-underappreciated-narrative--75648446insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss our outlook for 2026 that we published earlier this week.  It’s Wednesday, Nov 19th at 6:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it. 2026 is a continuation of the story we have been telling for the past year. Looking back to a year ago, our U.S. equity outlook was for a challenging first half, followed by a strong second half. At the time of publication, this was an out of consensus stance. Many expected a strong first half, as President Trump took office for his second term. And then a more challenging second half due to the return of inflation. We based our differentiated view on the notion that policy sequencing in the new Trump administration would intentionally be growth negative to start. We likened the strategy to a new CEO choosing to ‘kitchen sink’ the results in an effort to clear the decks for a new growth positive strategy. We thought that transition would come around mid-year. The U.S. economy had much less slack when President Trump took office the second time, compared to the first time he came into office. And this was the main reason we thought it was likely to be sequenced differently. Earnings revisions breadth and other cyclical indicators were also in a phase of deceleration at the end of 2024. In contrast, at the beginning of 2017—when we were out of consensus bullish—earnings revisions breadth and many cyclical gauges were starting to reaccelerate after the manufacturing and commodity downturn of 2015/2016. Looking back on this year, this cadence of policy sequencing did broadly play out—it just happened faster and more dramatically than we expected. Our views on the policy front still appear to be out of consensus. Many industry watchers are questioning whether policies enacted this year will ultimately lead to better growth going forward, especially for the average stock. From our perspective, the policy choices being made are growth positive for 2026 and are largely in line with our ‘run it hot’ thesis.  There’s another factor embedded in our more constructive take. April marked the end of a rolling recession that began three years prior. The final stages were a recession in government thanks to DOGE, a rate of change trough in expectations around AI CapEx growth and trade policy, and a recession in consumer services that is still ongoing. In short, we believe a new bull market and rolling recovery began in April which means it’s still early days, and not obvious—especially for many lagging parts of the economy and market. That is the opportunity.  The missing ingredient for the typical broadening in stock performance that happens in a new business cycle is rate cuts. Normally, the Fed would have cut rates more in this type of weakening labor market. But due to the imbalances and distortions of the COVID cycle, we think the Fed is later than normal in easing policy, and that has held back the full rotation toward early cycle winners. Ironically, the government shutdown has weakened the economy further, but has also delayed Fed action due to the lack of labor data releases. This is a near-term risk to our bullish 12-month forecasts should delays in the data continue, or lagging labor releases do not corroborate the recent weakness in non-govt-related jobs data. In our view, this type of labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to ‘run it hot’ means that, ultimately, the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. It's really just a question of timing. But that is a near-term risk for equity markets and why many stocks have been weaker recently.  In short, we believe a new bull market began in April with the end of a rolling recession and bear market. Remember the S&P [500] was down 20 percent and the average S&P stock was down more than 30 percent into April.  This narrative remains underappreciated, and we think there is significant upside in earnings over the next year as the recovery broadens and operating leverage returns with better volumes and pricing in many parts of the economy. Our forecasts reflect this upside to earnings which is another reason why many stocks are not as expensive as they appear despite our acknowledgement that some areas of the market may appear somewhat frothy.  For the S&P 500, our 12-month target is now 7800 which assumes 17 percent earnings growth next year and a very modest contraction in valuation from today’s levels. Our favorite sectors include Financials, Industrials, and Healthcare. We are also upgrading Consumer Discretionary to overweight and prefer Goods over Services for the first time since 2021.  Another relative trade we like is Software over Semiconductors given the extreme relative underperformance of that pair and positioning at this point. Finally, we like small caps over large for the first time since March 2021, as the early cycle broadening in earnings combined with a more accommodative Fed provides the backdrop we have been patiently waiting for. We hope you enjoy our detailed report published earlier this week and find it helpful as you navigate a changing marketplace on many levels. Thanks for tuning in. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IgmusukINcaG8C37IbFX1w7_oVWq1xCFtxkHL8iAakMWed, 19 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he continues to hold on to an out-of-consensus view of a growth positive 2026, despite near-term risks.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss our outlook for 2026 that we published earlier this week.  It’s Wednesday, Nov 19th at 6:30 am in New York. So, let’s get after it. 2026 is a continuation of the story we have been telling for the past year. Looking back to a year ago, our U.S. equity outlook was for a challenging first half, followed by a strong second half. At the time of publication, this was an out of consensus stance. Many expected a strong first half, as President Trump took office for his second term. And then a more challenging second half due to the return of inflation. We based our differentiated view on the notion that policy sequencing in the new Trump administration would intentionally be growth negative to start. We likened the strategy to a new CEO choosing to ‘kitchen sink’ the results in an effort to clear the decks for a new growth positive strategy. We thought that transition would come around mid-year. The U.S. economy had much less slack when President Trump took office the second time, compared to the first time he came into office. And this was the main reason we thought it was likely to be sequenced differently. Earnings revisions breadth and other cyclical indicators were also in a phase of deceleration at the end of 2024. In contrast, at the beginning of 2017—when we were out of consensus bullish—earnings revisions breadth and many cyclical gauges were starting to reaccelerate after the manufacturing and commodity downturn of 2015/2016. Looking back on this year, this cadence of policy sequencing did broadly play out—it just happened faster and more dramatically than we expected. Our views on the policy front still appear to be out of consensus. Many industry watchers are questioning whether policies enacted this year will ultimately lead to better growth going forward, especially for the average stock. From our perspective, the policy choices being made are growth positive for 2026 and are largely in line with our ‘run it hot’ thesis.  There’s another factor embedded in our more constructive take. April marked the end of a rolling recession that began three years prior. The final stages were a recession in government thanks to DOGE, a rate of change trough in expectations around AI CapEx growth and trade policy, and a recession in consumer services that is still ongoing. In short, we believe a new bull market and rolling recovery began in April which means it’s still early days, and not obvious—especially for many lagging parts of the economy and market. That is the opportunity.  The missing ingredient for the typical broadening in stock performance that happens in a new business cycle is rate cuts. Normally, the Fed would have cut rates more in this type of weakening labor market. But due to the imbalances and distortions of the COVID cycle, we think the Fed is later than normal in easing policy, and that has held back the full rotation toward early cycle winners. Ironically, the government shutdown has weakened the economy further, but has also delayed Fed action due to the lack of labor data releases. This is a near-term risk to our bullish 12-month forecasts should delays in the data continue, or lagging labor releases do not corroborate the recent weakness in non-govt-related jobs data. In our view, this type of labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to ‘run it hot’ means that, ultimately, the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. It's really just a question of timing. But that...]]>328alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1520fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2026-global-outlook-a-strong-year-for-risk-assets--75648566insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth Carpenter: Yesterday, Serena, we discussed our views on the global economy, and today I'm going to turn the tables on you and start asking you questions about our market outlook and how to invest across regions and across asset classes.It's Tuesday, November 18th at 10am in New York.Alright, Serena in 2025, global markets rode some significant volatility driven by tariffs, policy uncertainty. Things went up, they went down. Equities ultimately outperformed bonds as rate cuts began. But cross-asset strategy depended so much on identifying correlations, opportunities – all in a world that is still adapting to the new geopolitical dynamics and what seemed like evolving rules.So, with that backdrop, could you just broadly tell us what the investment strategy should be in 2026?Serena Tang: We think 2026 will be a strong year for risk assets as you have unusually pro-cyclical policy mix that's supportive of earnings. And that frees up markets to shift the focus from global macro concerns, which of course have dominated this year, to more micro asset specific narratives. Particularly those related to AI CapEx investment.And I think such a constructive environment really calls for a risk on tilt. We recommend equities over credit and government bonds, with a preference for U.S. assets.Seth Carpenter: Okay. I think last year we had some preference, at least for U.S. equities. Are there any other big rotations versus more of the same that you really want to highlight for folks?Serena Tang: In terms of, I think the strategy outlook itself, a big shift has been what we think drive investor focus the most. Our strategy mid-year outlook had focused heavily on global macro risks, right? Especially those, I think, emanated from trade tensions, which you alluded to earlier.I think this time around as the distribution of outcomes on tariffs, I think, has become a bit narrower, it's very much more about asset specific stories. And yes, you know, to your point about being, bullish on U.S. equities, we've maintained that view this time round and believe that U.S. equities can generally do better than rest of world.As you know, Mike Wilson, a colleague and chief U.S. equity strategist, he has a price target of 7800 for the S&P 500 index …Seth Carpenter: Wow.Serena Tang: Beating the expected returns from other regional equities by like quite a bit. So that's not changed. But I think that with this backdrop of post cyclical policy combo lifting U.S. earnings, we've also turned more bullish on high-yield corporate credit – that is bonds which are riskier.I think very much like U.S. equities, we believe that the asset class can benefit from the combination of monetary deregulation policy. But there's also like a very interesting technical component there, which is, as we expect, a surge in investment grade issuance to fund AI related CapEx. I think the high-yield market will be more insulated from this, which means outperformance versus higher quality corporate bonds.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay. So, as you're coming up with these strategies and these recommendations in lots of ways, it just relies on forecasting. And I have to say I'm sympathetic to how hard forecasting is, especially when it comes to the future. In our economic forecast, we also included a bunch of different alternate scenarios because I just see that much uncertainty in the global economy.So, with that as a backdrop, nothing is for sure. But where would you say your highest conviction calls are when it comes to investing in 2026?Serena Tang: Well, as I mentioned, we like U.S. equities and that remains a very high conviction call for us. [I] sort of dug through the details of that already. And so, I want to turn to a[n]other high conviction view, which is curve steepening. We see pretty material U.S. treasury curve steepening over the next year. I think even as a macro strategist, actually expect yields at least in the backend to be mostly range bound. And this steepening will be very much driven by what happens in the two-year point – I think as markets continue to, we think, underpriced, future Fed easing and growth slow down tail risks.Seth Carpenter: So that's super helpful in terms of the places where you're convicted. Let me be perhaps a little bit unfair because nothing is in fact certain. And so, if there are things that we feel pretty sure about, there've got to be things where we're either not sure or parts of the market that really pose the most risk.So, if I asked you then, where do you see the biggest risk for investors in markets next year, what would you say?Serena Tang: So, one of them really is AI investment cycle abruptly ending. And this has been a topic of huge debate in all of the investor meetings that we've had over the last several weeks. Because the idea is you have a sharp pullback in investment in the next 12 months, which could trigger a pretty cascading effect. And of course that would likely pressure U.S. equities, I think given hyperscalers index weight. But could weirdly enough benefit IG credit by reducing issuance, which has been the main driver of wider spreads in our forecast. But I think the other risk here actually is if animal spirits run a bit too hot. Underlying our equities over credit over rates allocation is some revival in animal spirits, but it's not the kind of irrational exuberance that marks the end of cycle in our view.Given, I think there's still rational belief in that policy triumvirate that we touched on earlier, that can still be supportive of risk. But you know, I think if sentiment does overheat then our allocation tilt towards cyclicals and beta would be wrong. And historically late cycle expansions see investment grade outperforming high yield inequities, with bonds eventually leading returns.The last risk, I think, to our asset allocation, is really the Fed. Either the FOMC not easing further over the next 12 months or if it changes its reaction function. And I think both of those will have very different implications of what happens to the front end of the yield curve. So, my question to you, Seth, is what do you see as the probability around both of those scenarios?Seth Carpenter: Look, with the data that we have before the government shut down, it was clear there was a tension. Spending by households, spending by businesses was strong. Employment data were getting weaker and weaker, and the Fed has decided to start cutting to err on the side of insulating against further deterioration in the labor market.So, one thing that could upend our forecast is that the real signal is from the spending. Spending stays strong, the labor market eventually catches up to the stronger spending, and we start to see job gains come back. If that happens, especially with inflation now running notably above the Fed's target, I just don't really think we're going to get anywhere near the number of rate cuts that we forecast or that are already priced into market. So, you'd have to see a reversal.How likely is that you can't rule it out? I'd say 20 percent or something like that. Maybe a little bit more. On the other hand, to the downside. I wonder if what you're getting at a little bit is there's going to be some turnover in the personnel at the Fed. And do we have to worry about a fundamentally different reaction function from the Fed going forward and cutting rates aggressively, even if the macro considerations don't warrant? Is that really what you were getting at?Serena Tang: Yes. I think that has been the question on the forefront of investors' minds…Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I think that's a real question. The way I look at it is Chair Powell is in charge of the Fed now. His term goes through May of next year. And so, until we get to the middle of next year, I don't really think there's any fundamental change in how the Fed does business. But it really does seem like we're going to have a new Fed chair in June of next year. But even there, we have got to remember that the committee is a committee and that's how policy is decided. And so, if there was a new chair who really, really, really wanted to take policy in a truly unorthodox way, I also don't think that's really feasible over the second half of next year – because there just won't have been that much turnover in terms of the personnel of the Fed. That's how we're looking at it for now. I really don't think that latter version of the world is a big risk. That said, I'm going to throw it back to you [be]cause I always have to get the last word.You talked about asset classes, bullish on U.S. equities. We talked about high yield bonds; we talked about some of the risks that markets have to face. But one thing I didn't hear – and we do have a global investor base – Is about currencies and specifically the dollar.So, this time last year, the team made a pretty bold call that the dollar would depreciate a great deal. And here we are and the dollar has come off a lot on net over this year. That stabilized a little bit. Maybe not for the whole year [be]cause that kind of forecasting is hard for currencies. But what do you see over the next few months called the next half year for the dollar? Is it going to continue the trend or do you think we should see a reversal?Serena Tang: So, we do think the dollar will continue its trend downwards]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/efuEDB3O7jZ3nOUNcEwNGjdDPMtMZ_12mnaAxbnSxXYTue, 18 Nov 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter and Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang return to conclude their two-part episode on 2026 outlooks and explain why the market environment is turning in favor of risk assets, especially U.S. stocks.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth Carpenter: Yesterday, Serena, we discussed our views on the global economy, and today I'm going to turn the tables on you and start asking you questions about our market outlook and how to invest across regions and across asset classes.It's Tuesday, November 18th at 10am in New York.Alright, Serena in 2025, global markets rode some significant volatility driven by tariffs, policy uncertainty. Things went up, they went down. Equities ultimately outperformed bonds as rate cuts began. But cross-asset strategy depended so much on identifying correlations, opportunities – all in a world that is still adapting to the new geopolitical dynamics and what seemed like evolving rules.So, with that backdrop, could you just broadly tell us what the investment strategy should be in 2026?Serena Tang: We think 2026 will be a strong year for risk assets as you have unusually pro-cyclical policy mix that's supportive of earnings. And that frees up markets to shift the focus from global macro concerns, which of course have dominated this year, to more micro asset specific narratives. Particularly those related to AI CapEx investment.And I think such a constructive environment really calls for a risk on tilt. We recommend equities over credit and government bonds, with a preference for U.S. assets.Seth Carpenter: Okay. I think last year we had some preference, at least for U.S. equities. Are there any other big rotations versus more of the same that you really want to highlight for folks?Serena Tang: In terms of, I think the strategy outlook itself, a big shift has been what we think drive investor focus the most. Our strategy mid-year outlook had focused heavily on global macro risks, right? Especially those, I think, emanated from trade tensions, which you alluded to earlier.I think this time around as the distribution of outcomes on tariffs, I think, has become a bit narrower, it's very much more about asset specific stories. And yes, you know, to your point about being, bullish on U.S. equities, we've maintained that view this time round and believe that U.S. equities can generally do better than rest of world.As you know, Mike Wilson, a colleague and chief U.S. equity strategist, he has a price target of 7800 for the S&P 500 index …Seth Carpenter: Wow.Serena Tang: Beating the expected returns from other regional equities by like quite a bit. So that's not changed. But I think that with this backdrop of post cyclical policy combo lifting U.S. earnings, we've also turned more bullish on high-yield corporate credit – that is bonds which are riskier.I think very much like U.S. equities, we believe that the asset class can benefit from the combination of monetary deregulation policy. But there's also like a very interesting technical component there, which is, as we expect, a surge in investment grade issuance to fund AI related CapEx. I think the high-yield market will be more insulated from this, which means outperformance versus higher quality corporate bonds.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay. So, as you're coming up with these strategies and these recommendations in lots of ways, it just relies on forecasting. And I have to say I'm sympathetic to how hard forecasting is, especially when it comes to the future. In our economic forecast, we also included a bunch of different alternate scenarios because I just...]]>635alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1519fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2026-global-outlook-slower-growth-and-inflation--75648486insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Serena Tang: So today and tomorrow, a two-part conversation on Morgan Stanley's year ahead outlook. Today, we'll focus on the all-important macroeconomic backdrop. And tomorrow, we'll be back with our views on investing across asset classes and markets. Serena Tang: It's Monday, November 17th at 10am in New York. So, Seth, 2025 has been a year of transition. Global growth slowed under the weight of tariffs and policy uncertainty. Yet resilience in consumer spending and AI driven investments kept recession fears at bay. Your team has published its economic outlook for 2026. So, what's your view on global growth for the year ahead? Seth Carpenter: We really think next year is going to be the global economy slowing down a little bit more just like it did this year, settling into a slower growth rate. But at the same time, we think inflation is going to keep drifting down in most of the world. Now that anodyne view, though, masks some heterogeneity around the world; and importantly, some real uncertainty about different ways things could possibly go. Here in the U.S., we think there is more slowing to come in the near term, especially the fourth quarter of this year and the beginning of next year. But once the economy works its way through the tariffs, maybe some of the lagged effects of monetary policy, we'll start to see things pick up a bit in the second half of the year. China's a different story. We see the really tepid growth there pushed down by the deflationary spiral they've been in. We think that continues for next year, and so they're probably not quite going to get to their 5 percent growth target. And in Europe, there's this push and pull of fiscal policy across the continent. There's a central bank that thinks they've achieved their job in terms of inflation, but overall, we think growth there is, kind of, unremarkable, a little bit over 1 percent. Not bad, but nothing to write home about at all. So that's where we think things are going in general. But I have to say next year, may well be a year for surprises. Serena Tang: Right. So where do you see the biggest drivers of global growth in 2026, and what are some of the key downside risks? Seth Carpenter: That's a great question. I really do think that the U.S. is going to be a real key driver of the story here. And in fact – and maybe we'll talk about this later – if we're wrong, there's some upside scenarios, there's some downside scenarios. But most of them around the world are going to come from the U.S. Two things are going on right now in the U.S. We've had strong spending data. We've also had very, very weak employment data. That usually doesn't last for very long. And so that's why we think in the near term there's some slowdown in the U.S. and then over time things recover. We could be wrong in either direction. And so, if we're wrong and the labor market sending the real signal, then the downside risk to the U.S. economy – and by extension the global economy – really is a recession in the U.S. Now, given the starting point, given how low unemployment is, given the spending businesses are doing for AI, if we did get that recession, it would be mild. On the other hand, like I said, spending is strong. Business spending, especially CapEx for AI; household spending, especially at the top end of the income distribution where wealth is rising from stocks, where the liability side of the balance sheet is insulated with fixed rate mortgages. That spending could just stay strong, and we might see this upside surprise where the spending really dominates the scene. And again, that would spill over for the rest of the world. What I don't see is a lot of reason to suspect that you're going to get a big breakout next year to the upside or the downside from either Europe or China, relative to our baseline scenarios. It could happen, but I really think most of the story is going to be driven in the U.S. Serena Tang: So, Seth, markets have been focused on the Fed, as it should. What is the likely path in 2026 and how are you thinking about central bank policy in general in other regions? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. The Fed is always of central importance to most people in markets. Our view – and the market's view, I have to say, has been evolving here. Our view is that the Fed's actually got a few more rate cuts to get through, and that by the time we get to the middle of next year, the middle of 2026, they're going to have their policy rate down just a little bit above 3 percent. So roughly where the committee thinks neutral is. Why do we think that? I think the slowing in the labor market that we talked about before, we think there's something kind of durable there. And now that the government shutdown has ended and we're going to start to get regular data prints again, we think the data are going to show that job creation has been below 50,000 per month on average, and maybe even a few of them are going to get to be negative over the next several months. In that situation, we think the Fed's going to get more inclination to guard against further deterioration in the labor market by keeping cutting rates and making sure that the central bank is not putting any restraint on the economy. That's similar, I would say, to a lot of other developed markets’ central banks. But the tension for the ECB, for example, is that President Lagarde has said she thinks; she thinks the disinflationary process is over. She thinks sitting at 2 percent for the policy rate, which the ECB thinks of as neutral, then that's the right place for them to be. Our take though is that the data are going to push them in a different direction. We think there is clearly growth in Europe, but we think it's tepid. And as a result, the disinflationary process has really still got some more room to run and that inflation will undershoot their 2 percent target, and as a result, the ECB is probably going to cut again. And in our view, down to about 1.5 percent. Big difference is in Japan. Japan is the developed market central bank that's hiking. Now, when does that happen? Our best guess is next month in December at the policy meeting. We've seen this shift towards reflation. It hasn't been smooth, hasn't been perfectly linear. But the BoJ looks like they're set to raise rates again in December. But the path for inflation is going to be a bit rocky, and so, they're probably on hold for most of 2026. But we do think eventually, maybe not till 2027, they get back to hiking again – so that Governor Ueda can get the policy rate back close to neutral before he steps down. Serena Tang: So, one of the main investor debates is on AI. Whether it's CapEx, productivity, the future of work. How is that factoring into your team's view on growth and inflation for the next year? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I mean that is absolutely a key question that we get all the time from investors around the world. When I think about AI and how it's affecting the economy, I think about the demand side of the economy, and that's where you think about this CapEx spending – building data centers, buying semiconductors, that sort of thing. That's demand in the economy. It's using up current resources in the economy, and it's got to be somewhat inflationary. It's part of what has kept the U.S. economy buoyant and resilient this year – is that CapEx spending. Now you also mentioned productivity, and for me, that's on the supply side of the economy. That's after the technology is in place. After firms have started to adopt the technology, they're able to produce either the same amount with fewer workers, or they're able to produce more with the same amount of workers. Either way, that's what productivity means, and it's on the supply side. It can mean faster growth and less inflation. I think where we are for 2026, and it's important that we focus it on the near term, is the demand side is much more important than the supply side. So, we think growth continues. It's supported by this business investment spending. But we still think inflation ends 2026, notably above the Fed's inflation target. And it's going to make five, five and a half years that we've been above target. Productivity should kick in. And we've written down something close to a quarter percentage point of extra productivity growth for 2026, but not enough to really be super disinflationary. We think that builds over time, probably takes a couple of years. And for example, if we think about some of the announcements about these data centers that are being built, where they're really going to unleash the potential of AI, those aren't going to be completed for a couple of years anyway. So, I think for now, AI is dominating the demand side of the economy. Over the next few years, it's going to be a real boost to the supply side of the economy. Serena Tang: So that makes a lot of sense to me, Seth. But can you put those into numbers? Seth Carpenter: Sure, Serena totally. In numbers, that's about 3 percent growth. A little bit more than that for global GDP growth on like a Q4-over-Q4 basis. But for the U.S. in particular, we've got about 1.75 percent. So that's not appreciably different from what we're looking for this year in 2025. But the number really, kind of, masks the evolution over time. We think the front part o]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/T2cQArd0Wgx1dWlWt0JTESGO8NC-6mopb7fSakpTdqcMon, 17 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyIn the first of a two-part episode presenting our 2026 outlooks, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang has Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter explain his thoughts on how economies around the world are expected to perform and how central...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Serena Tang: So today and tomorrow, a two-part conversation on Morgan Stanley's year ahead outlook. Today, we'll focus on the all-important macroeconomic backdrop. And tomorrow, we'll be back with our views on investing across asset classes and markets. Serena Tang: It's Monday, November 17th at 10am in New York. So, Seth, 2025 has been a year of transition. Global growth slowed under the weight of tariffs and policy uncertainty. Yet resilience in consumer spending and AI driven investments kept recession fears at bay. Your team has published its economic outlook for 2026. So, what's your view on global growth for the year ahead? Seth Carpenter: We really think next year is going to be the global economy slowing down a little bit more just like it did this year, settling into a slower growth rate. But at the same time, we think inflation is going to keep drifting down in most of the world. Now that anodyne view, though, masks some heterogeneity around the world; and importantly, some real uncertainty about different ways things could possibly go. Here in the U.S., we think there is more slowing to come in the near term, especially the fourth quarter of this year and the beginning of next year. But once the economy works its way through the tariffs, maybe some of the lagged effects of monetary policy, we'll start to see things pick up a bit in the second half of the year. China's a different story. We see the really tepid growth there pushed down by the deflationary spiral they've been in. We think that continues for next year, and so they're probably not quite going to get to their 5 percent growth target. And in Europe, there's this push and pull of fiscal policy across the continent. There's a central bank that thinks they've achieved their job in terms of inflation, but overall, we think growth there is, kind of, unremarkable, a little bit over 1 percent. Not bad, but nothing to write home about at all. So that's where we think things are going in general. But I have to say next year, may well be a year for surprises. Serena Tang: Right. So where do you see the biggest drivers of global growth in 2026, and what are some of the key downside risks? Seth Carpenter: That's a great question. I really do think that the U.S. is going to be a real key driver of the story here. And in fact – and maybe we'll talk about this later – if we're wrong, there's some upside scenarios, there's some downside scenarios. But most of them around the world are going to come from the U.S. Two things are going on right now in the U.S. We've had strong spending data. We've also had very, very weak employment data. That usually doesn't last for very long. And so that's why we think in the near term there's some slowdown in the U.S. and then over time things recover. We could be wrong in either direction. And so, if we're wrong and the labor market sending the real signal, then the downside risk to the U.S. economy – and by extension the global economy – really is a recession in the U.S. Now, given the starting point, given how low unemployment is, given the spending businesses are doing for AI, if we did get that recession, it would be mild. On the other hand, like I said, spending is strong. Business spending, especially CapEx for AI; household spending, especially at the top end of the...]]>601alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1518fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2026-midterm-elections-what-s-at-stake-for-markets--75648661insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we’re tackling a question that’s top of mind after last week’s off-cycle elections in New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and California: What could next year’s midterm elections mean for investors, especially if Democrats take control of Congress?It’s Friday, Nov 14th at 10:30am in New York.In last week's elections, Democrats outperformed expectations. In California, a new redistricting measure could flip several house seats; and in New Jersey and Virginia Democrat candidates, won with meaningfully higher margins than polls suggested was likely. As such prediction markets now give Democrats a roughly 70 percent chance of winning the House next year.But before we jump to conclusions, let’s pump the brakes. It might not be too early to think about the midterms as a market catalyst. We’ll be doing plenty of that. But we think it's too early to strategize around it. Why? First, a lot can change—both in terms of likely outcomes and the issues driving the electorate. While Democrats are favored today, redistricting, turnout, and evolving voter concerns could reshape the landscape in the months to come. Second, even if Democrats take control of the House, it may not change the trajectory of the policies that matter most to market pricing. In our view, Republicans already achieved their main legislative goals through the tax and fiscal bill earlier this year. The other market-moving policy shifts this year—think tariffs and regulatory changes—have come through executive action, not legislation. The administration has leaned heavily on executive powers to set trade policy, including the so-called Liberation Day tariffs, and to push regulatory changes. Future potential moves investors are watching, like additional regulation or targeted stimulus, would likely come the same way. Meanwhile, the plausible Republican legislative agenda—like further tax cuts—would face steep hurdles. Any majority would be slim, and fiscal hawks in the party nearly blocked the last round of cuts due to concerns over spending offsets. Moderates, for their part, are unlikely to tolerate deeper cuts, especially after the contentious debate over Medicaid in the OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act). So, what could change this view? If we’re wrong, it’s likely because the economy slows and tips into recession, making fiscal stimulus more politically appealing—consistent with historical patterns. Or, Democrats could win so decisively on economic and affordability issues that the White House considers standalone stimulus measures, like reducing some tariffs. How does this all connect to markets? For U.S. equities, the current policy mix—industrial incentives, tax cuts, and AI-driven capex—has supported risk assets and driven opportunities in sectors like technology and manufacturing. But it also means that, looking deeper into next year, if growth disappoints, fiscal concerns could emerge as a risk factor challenging the market. There doesn’t appear an obvious political setup to shift policies to deal with elevated U.S. deficits, meaning the burden is on better growth to deal with this issue. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast. We’ll keep you updated as the story unfolds.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LidBx--oJZ5chh1zRE0vwLx3ZqbfaSX0EKTIgNyrbHEFri, 14 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyMichael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, highlights what investors need to watch out for ahead of next year’s U.S. congressional elections.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we’re tackling a question that’s top of mind after last week’s off-cycle elections in New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and California: What could next year’s midterm elections mean for investors, especially if Democrats take control of Congress?It’s Friday, Nov 14th at 10:30am in New York.In last week's elections, Democrats outperformed expectations. In California, a new redistricting measure could flip several house seats; and in New Jersey and Virginia Democrat candidates, won with meaningfully higher margins than polls suggested was likely. As such prediction markets now give Democrats a roughly 70 percent chance of winning the House next year.But before we jump to conclusions, let’s pump the brakes. It might not be too early to think about the midterms as a market catalyst. We’ll be doing plenty of that. But we think it's too early to strategize around it. Why? First, a lot can change—both in terms of likely outcomes and the issues driving the electorate. While Democrats are favored today, redistricting, turnout, and evolving voter concerns could reshape the landscape in the months to come. Second, even if Democrats take control of the House, it may not change the trajectory of the policies that matter most to market pricing. In our view, Republicans already achieved their main legislative goals through the tax and fiscal bill earlier this year. The other market-moving policy shifts this year—think tariffs and regulatory changes—have come through executive action, not legislation. The administration has leaned heavily on executive powers to set trade policy, including the so-called Liberation Day tariffs, and to push regulatory changes. Future potential moves investors are watching, like additional regulation or targeted stimulus, would likely come the same way. Meanwhile, the plausible Republican legislative agenda—like further tax cuts—would face steep hurdles. Any majority would be slim, and fiscal hawks in the party nearly blocked the last round of cuts due to concerns over spending offsets. Moderates, for their part, are unlikely to tolerate deeper cuts, especially after the contentious debate over Medicaid in the OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act). So, what could change this view? If we’re wrong, it’s likely because the economy slows and tips into recession, making fiscal stimulus more politically appealing—consistent with historical patterns. Or, Democrats could win so decisively on economic and affordability issues that the White House considers standalone stimulus measures, like reducing some tariffs. How does this all connect to markets? For U.S. equities, the current policy mix—industrial incentives, tax cuts, and AI-driven capex—has supported risk assets and driven opportunities in sectors like technology and manufacturing. But it also means that, looking deeper into next year, if growth disappoints, fiscal concerns could emerge as a risk factor challenging the market. There doesn’t appear an obvious political setup to shift policies to deal with elevated U.S. deficits, meaning the burden is on better growth to deal with this issue. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast. We’ll keep you updated as the story unfolds.]]>213alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1517fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-s-disrupting-and-funding-the-ai-boom--75648622insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It’s fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know,  and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI.  And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers’ buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have a revenue base and that are challenging a subset of the products of those businesses. So again, it's perfectly understandable that investors would worry.  In that context, it's not a potential threat on the horizon. It's a real threat that exists today against certainly their businesses. I think software is probably the most interesting. I'd put it in the kind of final bucket where I actually believe… Well, I think first of all, we certainly wouldn't take the view that there's  no risk of disruption and things aren't going to change. Clearly that is going to be the case. I think what we'd want to do though is we'd want to continue to use frameworks that we've used historically to think about how software companies differentiate themselves, what the barriers to entry are. We don't think we need to throw all of those things away just because we have GenAI, this new set of capabilities. And I think investors will come back most easily to that space. Paul Walsh: Emett, you talked a little bit there before about the fact that you haven't seen a huge amount of progress or additional insight from the telco space around AI; how AI is diffusing across the space. Do you get any discussions around disruption as it relates to telco space? Emmet Kelly: Very, very little. I think the biggest threat that telcos do see is – it is from the hyperscalers. So, if I look at and separate the B2C market out from the B2B, the telcos are still extremely dominant in the B2C space, clearly. But on the B2B space, the hyperscalers have come in on the cloud side, and if you look at their market share, they're very, very dominant in cloud – certainly from a wholesale perspective. So, if you look at the cloud market shares of the big three hyperscalers in Europe, this number is courtesy of my colleague George Webb. He said it's roughly 85 percent; that's how much they have of the cloud space today. The telcos, what they're doing is they're actually reselling the hyperscale service under the telco brand name. But we don't see much really in terms of the pure kind of AI disruption, but there are concerns definitely within the telco space that the hyperscalers might try and move from the B2B space into the B2C space at some stage. And whether it's through virtual networks, cloudified networks, to try and get into the B2C space that way. Paul Walsh: Understood. And Lee maybe less about disruption, but certainly adoption, some insights from your side around adoption across the tech hardware space? Lee Simpson: Sure. I think, you know, it's always seen that are enabling the AI move, but, but there is adoption inside semis companies as well, and I think I'd point to design flow. So, if you look at the design guys,  they're embracing the agentic system thing really quickly and they're putting forward this capability of an agent engineer, so like a digital engineer. And it – I guess we've got to get this right. It is going to enable a faster time to market for the design flow on a chip. So, if you have that design flow time, that time to market. So, you're creating double the value there for the client. Do you share that 50-50 with them? So, the challenge is going to be exactly as Adam was saying, how do you monetize this stuff? So, this is kind of the struggle that we're seeing in adoption. Paul Walsh:   And Emmett, let's move to you on data centers. I mean, there are just some incredible numbers that we've seen emerging, as it relates to the hyperscaler investment that we're seeing in building out the infrastructure. I know data centers is something that you have focused tremendously on in your research, bringing our global perspectives together. Obviously, Europe sits within that. And there is a market here in Europe that might be more challenged. But I'm interested to understand how you're thinking about framing the whole data center story? Implications for Europe. Do European companies feed off some of that U.S. hyperscaler CapEx? How should we be thinking about that through the European lens? Emmet Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. So, big question, Paul. What… Paul Walsh: We've got a few minutes! Emmet Kelly: We've got a few minutes. What I would say is there was a great paper that came out from Harvard just two weeks ago, and they were looking at the scale of data center investments in the United States. And clearly the U.S. economy is ticking along very, very nicely at the moment. But this Harvard paper concluded that if you take out data center investments, U.S. economic growth today is actually zero. Paul Walsh: Wow. Emmet Kelly: That is how big the data center investments are.  And what we've said in our research very clearly is if you want to build a megawatt of data center capacity that's going to cost you roughly $35 million today. Let's put that number out there. 35 million. Roughly, I'd say 25… Well, 20 to 25 million of that goes into the  chips. But what's really interesting is the other remaining $10 million per megawatt, and I like to call that the picks and shovels of data centers; and I'm very convinced there is no bubble in that area whatsoever.So, what's in that area? Firstly, the first building block of a data center is finding a powered land bank. And this is a big thing that private equity is doing at the moment. So, find some real estate that's close to a mass population that's got a good fiber connection. Probably needs a little bit of water, but most importantly needs some power. And the demand for that is still infinite at the moment. Then beyond that, you've got the construction angle and there's a very big shortage of labor today to build the shells of these data centers. Then the third layer is the likes of capital goods,  and there are serious supply bottlenecks there as well.And I could go on and on, but roughly that first $10 million, there's no bubble there. I'm very, very sure of that. Paul Walsh: And we conducted some extensive survey work recently as part of your analysis into the global data center market. You've sort of touched on a few]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/O7cBkM9ugUeyU4mzG2XILJyYETeYPf6ZfO3KuX-oa5kThu, 13 Nov 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyLive from Morgan Stanley’s European Tech, Media and Telecom Conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discusses tech disruptions and datacenter growth, and how Europe factors in.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It’s fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know,  and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI.  And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers’ buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have a revenue base and that are challenging...]]>917alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1516fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/europe-in-the-global-ai-race--75648658insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European head of research product. We are bringing you a special episode today live from Morgan Stanley's, 25th European TMT Conference, currently underway. The central theme we're focused on: Can Europe keep up from a technology development perspective?It's Wednesday, November the 12th at 8:00 AM in Barcelona. Earlier this morning I was live on stage with my colleagues, Adam Wood, Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology Hardware. The larger context of our conversation was tech diffusion, one of our four key themes that we've identified at Morgan Stanley Research for 2025. For the panel, we wanted to focus further on agentic AI in Europe, AI disruption as well as adoption, and data centers. We started off with my question to Adam. I asked him to frame our conversation around how Europe is enabling the Agentic AI wave.  Adam Wood: I mean, I think obviously the debate around GenAI, and particularly enterprise software, my space has changed quite a lot over the last three to four months. Maybe it's good if we do go back a little bit to the period before that – when everything was more positive in the world. And I think it is important to think about, you know, why we were excited, before we started to debate the outcomes. And the reason we were excited was we've obviously done a lot of work with enterprise software to automate business processes. That's what; that's ultimately what software is about. It's about automating and standardizing business processes. They can be done more efficiently and more repeatably. We'd done work in the past on RPA vendors who tried to take the automation further. And we were getting numbers that, you know, 30 – 40 percent of enterprise processes have been automated in this way. But I think the feeling was it was still the minority. And the reason for that was it was quite difficult with traditional coding techniques to go a lot further. You know, if you take the call center as a classic example, it's very difficult to code what every response is going to be to human interaction with a call center worker. It's practically impossible. And so, you know, what we did for a long time was more – where we got into those situations where it was difficult to code every outcome, we'd leave it with labor. And we'd do the labor arbitrage often, where we'd move from onshore workers to offshore workers, but we'd still leave it as a relatively manual process with human intervention in it. I think the really exciting thing about GenAI is it completely transforms that equation because if the computers can understand natural human language, again to our call center example, we can train the models on every call center interaction. And then first of all, we can help the call center worker predict what the responses are going to be to incoming queries. And then maybe over time we can even automate that role. I think it goes a lot further than, you know, call center workers. We can go into finance where a lot of work is still either manual data re-entry or a remediation of errors. And again, we can automate a lot more of those tasks. That's obviously where, where SAP's involved. But basically what I'm trying to say is if we expand massively the capabilities of what software can automate, surely that has to be good for the software sector that has to expand the addressable markets of what software companies are going to be able to do. Now we can have a secondary debate around: Is it going to be the incumbents, is it going to be corporates that do more themselves? Is it going to be new entrants that that benefit from this? But I think it's very hard to argue that if you expand dramatically the capabilities of what software can do, you don't get a benefit from that in the sector. Now we're a little bit more consumer today in terms of spending, and the enterprises are lagging a little bit. But I think for us, that's just a question of timing. And we think we'll see that come through.I'll leave it there. But I think there's lots of opportunities in software. We're probably yet to see them come through in numbers, but that shouldn't mean we get, you know, kind of, we don't think they're going to happen. Paul Walsh: Yeah. We’re going to talk separately about AI disruption as we go through this morning's discussion. But what's the pushback you get, Adam, to this notion of, you know, the addressable market expanding? Adam Wood: It's one of a number of things. It's that… And we get onto the kind of the multiple bear cases that come up on enterprise software. It would be some combination of, well, if coding becomes dramatically cheaper and we can set up, you know, user interfaces on the fly in the morning, that can query data sets; and we can access those data sets almost in an automated way. Well, maybe companies just do this themselves and we move from a world where we've been outsourcing software to third party software vendors; we do more of it in-house. That would be one. The other one would be the barriers to entry of software have just come down dramatically. It's so much easier to write the code, to build a software company and to get out into the market. That it's going to be new entrants that challenge the incumbents. And that will just bring price pressure on the whole market and bring… So, although what we automate gets bigger, the price we charge to do it comes down. The third one would be the seat-based pricing issue that a lot of software vendors to date have expressed the value they deliver to customers through. How many seats of the software you have in house. Well, if we take out 10 – 20 percent of your HR department because we make them 10, 20, 30 percent more efficient. Does that mean we pay the software vendor 10, 20, 30 percent less? And so again, we're delivering more value, we're automating more and making companies more efficient. But the value doesn't accrue to the software vendors. It's some combination of those themes I think that people would worry about. Paul Walsh: And Lee, let’s bring you into the conversation here as well, because around this theme of enabling the agentic AI way, we sort of identified three main enabler sectors. Obviously, Adam’s with the software side. Cap goods being the other one that we mentioned in the work that we've done. But obviously semis is also an important piece of this puzzle. Walk us through your thoughts, please. Lee Simpson: Sure. I think from a sort of a hardware perspective, and really we're talking about semiconductors here and possibly even just the equipment guys, specifically – when seeing things through a European lens. It's been a bonanza. We've seen quite a big build out obviously for GPUs. We've seen incredible new server architectures going into the cloud. And now we're at the point where we're changing things a little bit. Does the power architecture need to be changed? Does the nature of the compute need to change? And with that, the development and the supply needs to move with that as well. So, we're now seeing the mantle being picked up by the AI guys at the very leading edge of logic. So, someone has to put the equipment in the ground, and the equipment guys are being leaned into. And you're starting to see that change in the order book now.  Now, I labor this point largely because, you know, we'd been seen as laggards frankly in the last couple of years. It'd been a U.S. story, a GPU heavy story. But I think for us now we're starting to see a flipping of that and it's like, hold on, these are beneficiaries. And I really think it's 'cause that bow wave has changed in logic. Paul Walsh: And Lee, you talked there in your opening remarks about the extent to which obviously the focus has been predominantly on the U.S. ways to play, which is totally understandable for global investors. And obviously this has been an extraordinary year of ups and downs as it relates to the tech space. What's your sense in terms of what you are getting back from clients? Is the focus shifts may be from some of those U.S. ways to play to Europe? Are you sensing that shift taking place? How are clients interacting with you as it relates to the focus between the opportunities in the U.S. and Asia, frankly, versus Europe? Lee Simpson: Yeah. I mean, Europe's coming more into debate. It's more; people are willing to talk to some of the players. We've got other players in the analog space playing into that as well. But I think for me, if we take a step back and keep this at the global level, there's a huge debate now around what is the size of build out that we need for AI? What is the nature of the compute? What is the power pool? What is the power budgets going to look like in data centers? And Emmet will talk to that as well. So, all of that… Some of that argument’s coming now and centering on Europe. How do they play into this? But for me, most of what we're finding people debate about – is a 20-25 gigawatt year feasible for [20]27? Is a 30-35 gigawatt for [20]28 feasible? And so, I think that's the debate line at this point – not so much as Europe in the debate. It's more what is that global pool going to look like? Paul Walsh: Yeah. This whole infrastructure rollout's got significant implications for your coverage universe… Lee Simpson: It does. Yeah. Paul Walsh: Emmet, it may be a bit tangential for the telco space, but was there anything you wanted to add there as it relates to]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZPpHF2Lx7nAjeRJ1u2MydA7lc1uQxWIlWXtJziaZ4ugThu, 13 Nov 2025 00:30:00 +0000gtyLive from Morgan Stanley’s European Tech, Media and Telecom conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discuss artificial intelligence in Europe, and how the region could enable the Agentic AI wave.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European head of research product. We are bringing you a special episode today live from Morgan Stanley's, 25th European TMT Conference, currently underway. The central theme we're focused on: Can Europe keep up from a technology development perspective?It's Wednesday, November the 12th at 8:00 AM in Barcelona. Earlier this morning I was live on stage with my colleagues, Adam Wood, Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology Hardware. The larger context of our conversation was tech diffusion, one of our four key themes that we've identified at Morgan Stanley Research for 2025. For the panel, we wanted to focus further on agentic AI in Europe, AI disruption as well as adoption, and data centers. We started off with my question to Adam. I asked him to frame our conversation around how Europe is enabling the Agentic AI wave.  Adam Wood: I mean, I think obviously the debate around GenAI, and particularly enterprise software, my space has changed quite a lot over the last three to four months. Maybe it's good if we do go back a little bit to the period before that – when everything was more positive in the world. And I think it is important to think about, you know, why we were excited, before we started to debate the outcomes. And the reason we were excited was we've obviously done a lot of work with enterprise software to automate business processes. That's what; that's ultimately what software is about. It's about automating and standardizing business processes. They can be done more efficiently and more repeatably. We'd done work in the past on RPA vendors who tried to take the automation further. And we were getting numbers that, you know, 30 – 40 percent of enterprise processes have been automated in this way. But I think the feeling was it was still the minority. And the reason for that was it was quite difficult with traditional coding techniques to go a lot further. You know, if you take the call center as a classic example, it's very difficult to code what every response is going to be to human interaction with a call center worker. It's practically impossible. And so, you know, what we did for a long time was more – where we got into those situations where it was difficult to code every outcome, we'd leave it with labor. And we'd do the labor arbitrage often, where we'd move from onshore workers to offshore workers, but we'd still leave it as a relatively manual process with human intervention in it. I think the really exciting thing about GenAI is it completely transforms that equation because if the computers can understand natural human language, again to our call center example, we can train the models on every call center interaction. And then first of all, we can help the call center worker predict what the responses are going to be to incoming queries. And then maybe over time we can even automate that role. I think it goes a lot further than, you know, call center workers. We can go into finance where a lot of work is still either manual data re-entry or a remediation of errors. And again, we can automate a lot more of those tasks. That's obviously where, where SAP's involved. But basically what I'm trying to say is if we expand massively the capabilities of what software can automate, surely that has to be good for the software sector that has to expand the addressable markets of what software companies are going to be able to do. Now we...]]>690alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1515fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/crypto-goes-mainstream--75648477insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges for Morgan Stanley Research.Denny Galindo: And I'm Denny Galindo, Investment Strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Michael Cyprys: Today we break down the forces making crypto more accessible and what this shift means for investors everywhere.It's Tuesday, November 11th at 10am in New York.We've seen cryptocurrencies move from the fringes of finance to being considered a legitimate part of mainstream asset allocation. Financial platforms, especially those serving institutional clients, are starting to integrate crypto more than ever.Denny, you've written extensively about the crypto market for some time now among your many jobs here at Morgan Stanley. So, from your perspective in wealth management, what are you hearing from retail clients about their growing interest in crypto?Denny Galindo: Yeah, we actually started writing about crypto back in 2017. We had our first explainer deck, and we started writing extensive educational reports in 2021. So, we've covered it for a while.Advisors who dabble in crypto typically had this one client. He asked a lot of questions about when they could do more. We also had some clients who were curious, maybe their neighbor made a lot of money, bought a new boat and they were like wondering, you know, what is this Bitcoin thing?Now, this year we've seen a sea change. I think it was the election really started it; the Genius Act, and some of the legislation also kind of added to it. Almost all this interest is really on Bitcoin only, although we also have gotten a decent amount of interest about stablecoins and how those might impact things. But it's really just the beginning and I think it's an area that's; it's not going to go away.Mike, on the institutional side, what trends are you seeing among asset managers and brokers in terms of crypto adoption integration?Michael Cyprys: So, we've seen a big move into the ETF space as large money managers make crypto easier to access for both retail and institutional investors. Now this comes on the back of the SEC approving the first spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs back in 2024. And since then, we've seen firms from BlackRock to Fidelity, Franklin, Invesco, and many others, including crypto native firms having launched spot Bitcoin ETFs and spot Ethereum ETFs. And these steps in the minds of many investors have legitimized crypto as an investible asset class.Most recently, we've seen the SEC adopt generic ETF listing standards for crypto ETFs that can make it easier to accelerate ETF launches in reduced regulatory frictions. And today the crypto ETF space is about $200 billion of assets under management and saw inflows of over [$]40 billion last year, over [$]45 billion so far this year – despite some of the near-term volatility. And most of the asset class today is in Bitcoin, single token ETFs, with BlackRock and Fidelity managing the largest ETFs in the space.Speaking of products, what types of crypto are retail investors most curious about? And why do those particular ones make sense for their portfolios?Denny Galindo: Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. The most popular products are really the Bitcoin products. We as a firm allowed solicitation in Bitcoin ETPs more than a year ago in brokerage accounts. We just expanded them to allow them in Advisory in October. So, we're still early days here. There really hasn't been that much interest in the other crypto products.Now when people think about this, there's three buckets here. There are some people that think of it like digital gold. And they're worried about inflation. They're worried about government deficits. And that's kind of the angle that they're approaching crypto from. A second group think of it like a venture capital, like a disruptive innovation in tech that's going after this big addressable market. And, you know, hopefully the penetration will rise in the future. And then the third bucket is really thinking [of it] out it as a diversifier. So, they're saying, ‘Hey, this thing is volatile. It doesn't match stocks, bonds, other assets. And so, I kind of want to use it for diversification.’Now, Mike, when you have these discussions with institutional clients, how do they view the risk and potential of these different cryptocurrencies?Michael Cyprys: What's interesting with the crypto space is adoption started on the retail side with institutions now slowly beginning to explore allocations. And that's the opposite of what we've seen historically with institutions leaning in ahead of retail in areas, whether it's commodities or private markets. But it's still early days.On the institutional side, we're starting to see some pensions, endowments, foundations begin to make some small allocations to Bitcoin as a long-term inflation hedge. But keep in mind, institutions tend to make investments in the context of strategic asset allocations, often with a broader macro framework.Denny, you've written quite a bit about the four-year crypto cycle. Could you explain what that is and where you think we are in the current crypto cycle?Denny Galindo: Yeah, if you look at the data, you see a pretty clear trend of a four-year cycle. So, there's three up years and one down year, and it's been like clockwork, since Bitcoin was invented.Now when you see something like that, you always try to explain like: why is this happening? So, there's two kind of dominant explanations that we've seen. So, one's macro, one's micro. Now the macro version for crypto is really the M2 cycle. So, we see that M2 to that global M2 money supply has kind of accelerated and decelerated in four-year cycles, and Bitcoin tends to really match that cycle. It tends to accelerate when M2's accelerating and it tends to decline when it's decelerating or declining.But there's also this bottoms-up way of looking at it, and commodities are really the place we go to for that analysis. So, a lot of commodities, you know, could be coffee, could be oil – if something disrupts supply, you tend to get the shortage, you get the price moving up.Then you get commodity speculators piling in, adding leverage. And it'll just kind of go parabolic. At some point something pops the bubble, usually more supply, and then you get like a great depression. You get like an 80 percent draw down. All the leverage comes out and the whole thing crashes. So crypto has also followed that.Now, we break the four-year cycle into four seasons: spring, summer, fall, and winter. And each season has a different characteristic about which parts of the market work, which don't work, what things look like. We are in the fall season right now. And that tends to last about a year. We wrote a note last year on this. Fall is the time for harvest. So, it's the time you want to take your gains.But the debate is, you know, how long will this fall last? When will the next winter start? Or maybe this pattern won't even hold in the future. And so, this is the big debate in the crypto circles these days.And Mike, given the volatility, given the great depressions we talked about in Bitcoin with these, you know, 70-80 percent drawdowns, how do you see it fitting into institutional portfolios compared to other cryptocurrencies?Michael Cyprys: Compared to other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is still viewed as the flagship asset within the crypto space – just given higher adoption, greater liquidity, the sheer market value. It has longer history and better regulatory clarity as compared to other tokens. But given the volatility as you mentioned, and the early days nature of cryptocurrencies, adoption is still quite nascent amongst institutional investors.Some institutional investors view Bitcoin as digital gold or macro hedge against inflation and monetary debasement. It's also sometimes viewed as a low correlation diversifier within multi-asset portfolios. But even that's also been a debate in the marketplace too.As we look forward from here, crypto adoption within institutional portfolios could potentially expand as regulatory clarity establishes a clear framework for digital assets, right? We had the Genius Act recently that focused on stablecoins. Next up is market structure. There's a bill working its way through Congress.We've also had developments on the ETF side that lower[s] barriers for institutions to gain exposure there. Not only is it more accessible within traditional portfolios, but the ETF fits nicely into day-to-day workflow.So, bottom line is institutional views on Bitcoin and crypto are evolving, and how firms view Bitcoin – we think will depend upon the institution's objectives, their risk tolerance and portfolio context. And keep in mind that institutional allocations don't turn on a dime. They tend to be slower moving.Denny, do retail clients take a similar approach or are they more likely to take bigger bets?Denny Galindo: Our clients struggle with this question. And so, we get a lot of questions like, ‘Okay, I don't want to miss this. I'm a little nervous about it. What allocation should I use here?’ And so, we go back to our three, kind of, typical investors when we try to answer this question. We really try and help people figure out where is equal weight.So, we wrote a note in February called “Are you Underweight Bitcoin?” And we have three different answers depending on how you're thinking of it. And, you know, there's a big debate. There's no clear answer. And that's not really where we want our clients. We want them to be smaller where]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Y75og-xoefpMb_n3ux_cfw5cNAcA2_mTKb3WOPnDOigTue, 11 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Research Analyst Michael Cyprys joins Wealth Management Strategist Denny Galindo to discuss how and why cryptocurrencies are transitioning from niche speculation to portfolio staples. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges for Morgan Stanley Research.Denny Galindo: And I'm Denny Galindo, Investment Strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Michael Cyprys: Today we break down the forces making crypto more accessible and what this shift means for investors everywhere.It's Tuesday, November 11th at 10am in New York.We've seen cryptocurrencies move from the fringes of finance to being considered a legitimate part of mainstream asset allocation. Financial platforms, especially those serving institutional clients, are starting to integrate crypto more than ever.Denny, you've written extensively about the crypto market for some time now among your many jobs here at Morgan Stanley. So, from your perspective in wealth management, what are you hearing from retail clients about their growing interest in crypto?Denny Galindo: Yeah, we actually started writing about crypto back in 2017. We had our first explainer deck, and we started writing extensive educational reports in 2021. So, we've covered it for a while.Advisors who dabble in crypto typically had this one client. He asked a lot of questions about when they could do more. We also had some clients who were curious, maybe their neighbor made a lot of money, bought a new boat and they were like wondering, you know, what is this Bitcoin thing?Now, this year we've seen a sea change. I think it was the election really started it; the Genius Act, and some of the legislation also kind of added to it. Almost all this interest is really on Bitcoin only, although we also have gotten a decent amount of interest about stablecoins and how those might impact things. But it's really just the beginning and I think it's an area that's; it's not going to go away.Mike, on the institutional side, what trends are you seeing among asset managers and brokers in terms of crypto adoption integration?Michael Cyprys: So, we've seen a big move into the ETF space as large money managers make crypto easier to access for both retail and institutional investors. Now this comes on the back of the SEC approving the first spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs back in 2024. And since then, we've seen firms from BlackRock to Fidelity, Franklin, Invesco, and many others, including crypto native firms having launched spot Bitcoin ETFs and spot Ethereum ETFs. And these steps in the minds of many investors have legitimized crypto as an investible asset class.Most recently, we've seen the SEC adopt generic ETF listing standards for crypto ETFs that can make it easier to accelerate ETF launches in reduced regulatory frictions. And today the crypto ETF space is about $200 billion of assets under management and saw inflows of over [$]40 billion last year, over [$]45 billion so far this year – despite some of the near-term volatility. And most of the asset class today is in Bitcoin, single token ETFs, with BlackRock and Fidelity managing the largest ETFs in the space.Speaking of products, what types of crypto are retail investors most curious about? And why do those particular ones make sense for their portfolios?Denny Galindo: Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. The most popular products are really the Bitcoin products. We as a firm allowed solicitation in Bitcoin ETPs more than a year ago in brokerage accounts. We just expanded them to allow them in Advisory in October. So, we're still early days here. There really hasn't been that much interest in the other crypto products.Now when people think about this, there's three buckets here....]]>643alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1514fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/relief-and-volatility-ahead-for-u-s-stocks--75648503insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing recent concerns for equities and how that may be changing. It's Monday, November 10th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.We’re right in the middle of earnings season. Under the surface, there may appear to be high dispersion. But we’re actually seeing positive developments for a broadening in growth. Specifically, the median stock is seeing its best earnings growth in four years. And the S&P 500 revenue beat rate is running 2 times its historical average. These are clear signs that the earning recovery is broadening and that pricing power is firming to offset tariffs. We’re also watching out for other predictors of soft spots. And over the past week, the seasonal weakness in earnings revision breath appears to be over. For reference, this measure troughed at 6 percent on October 21st, and is now at 11 percent. The improvement is being led by Software, Transports, Energy, Autos and Healthcare. Despite this improvement in earnings revisions, the overall market traded heavy last week on the back of two other risks. The first risk relates to the Fed's less dovish bias at October's FOMC meeting. The Fed suggested they are not on a preset course to cut rates again in December. So, it’s not a coincidence the U.S. equity market topped on the day of this meeting. Meanwhile investors are also keeping an eye on the growth data during the third quarter. If it’s stronger than anticipated, it could mean there’s less dovish action from the Fed than the market expects or needs for high prices.I have been highlighting a less dovish Fed as a risk for stocks. But it’s important to point out that the labor market is also showing increasing signs of weakness. Part of this is directly related to the government shutdown. But the private labor data clearly illustrates a jobs market that's slowing beyond just government jobs. This is creating some tension in the markets – that the Fed will be late to cut rates, which increases the risk the recovery since April falls flat.  In my view, labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to "run it hot" means that ultimately the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. But, without official jobs data confirming this trend, the Fed is moving slower than the equity market may like.  The other risk the market has been focused on is the government shutdown itself. And there appears to be two main channels through which these variables are affecting stock prices. The first is tighter liquidity as reflected in the recent decline in bank reserves. The government shutdown has resulted in fewer disbursements to government employees and other programs. Once the government shutdown ends which appears imminent, these payments will resume, which translates into an easing of liquidity.The second impact of the shutdown is weaker consumer spending due to a large number of workers furloughed and benefits, like SNAP, halted. As a result, Consumer Discretionary company earnings revisions have rolled over. The good news is that the shutdown may be coming to an end and alleviate these market concerns.  Finally, tariffs are facing an upcoming Supreme Court decision. There were questions last week on how affected stocks were reacting to this development. Overall, we saw fairly muted relative price reactions from the stocks that would be most affected. We think this relates to a couple of variables. First, the Trump administration could leverage a number of other authorities to replace the existing tariffs. Second, even in a scenario where the Supreme Court overturns tariffs, refunds are likely to take a significant amount of time, potentially well into 2026.So what does all of this all mean? Weak earnings seasonality is coming to an end along with the government shutdown. Both of these factors should lead to some relief in what have been softer equity markets more recently. But we expect volatility to persist until the Fed fully commits to the run it hot strategy of the administration.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zEsLfEQ_MtM3_VtC8Zk22wVxO7OdnAIdsEerNcDniqMMon, 10 Nov 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson unpacks why stocks are likely to stay resilient despite uncertainties related to Fed rates, government shutdown and tariffs.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing recent concerns for equities and how that may be changing. It's Monday, November 10th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.We’re right in the middle of earnings season. Under the surface, there may appear to be high dispersion. But we’re actually seeing positive developments for a broadening in growth. Specifically, the median stock is seeing its best earnings growth in four years. And the S&P 500 revenue beat rate is running 2 times its historical average. These are clear signs that the earning recovery is broadening and that pricing power is firming to offset tariffs. We’re also watching out for other predictors of soft spots. And over the past week, the seasonal weakness in earnings revision breath appears to be over. For reference, this measure troughed at 6 percent on October 21st, and is now at 11 percent. The improvement is being led by Software, Transports, Energy, Autos and Healthcare. Despite this improvement in earnings revisions, the overall market traded heavy last week on the back of two other risks. The first risk relates to the Fed's less dovish bias at October's FOMC meeting. The Fed suggested they are not on a preset course to cut rates again in December. So, it’s not a coincidence the U.S. equity market topped on the day of this meeting. Meanwhile investors are also keeping an eye on the growth data during the third quarter. If it’s stronger than anticipated, it could mean there’s less dovish action from the Fed than the market expects or needs for high prices.I have been highlighting a less dovish Fed as a risk for stocks. But it’s important to point out that the labor market is also showing increasing signs of weakness. Part of this is directly related to the government shutdown. But the private labor data clearly illustrates a jobs market that's slowing beyond just government jobs. This is creating some tension in the markets – that the Fed will be late to cut rates, which increases the risk the recovery since April falls flat.  In my view, labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to "run it hot" means that ultimately the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. But, without official jobs data confirming this trend, the Fed is moving slower than the equity market may like.  The other risk the market has been focused on is the government shutdown itself. And there appears to be two main channels through which these variables are affecting stock prices. The first is tighter liquidity as reflected in the recent decline in bank reserves. The government shutdown has resulted in fewer disbursements to government employees and other programs. Once the government shutdown ends which appears imminent, these payments will resume, which translates into an easing of liquidity.The second impact of the shutdown is weaker consumer spending due to a large number of workers furloughed and benefits, like SNAP, halted. As a result, Consumer Discretionary company earnings revisions have rolled over. The good news is that the shutdown may be coming to an end and alleviate these market concerns.  Finally, tariffs are facing an upcoming Supreme Court decision. There were questions last week on how affected stocks were reacting to this development. Overall, we saw fairly muted relative price reactions from the stocks that would be most affected. We think this relates to a couple of variables. First, the Trump administration could...]]>271alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1513fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fed-s-path-uncertain-as-key-data-lags--75648463insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: The October FOMC meeting delivered a quarter percent rate cut as widely expected – but things are more complicated, and policy is not on a preset path from here.It's Friday, November 7th at 10am in New York.So, Mike, the Fed did cut by 25 basis points in October, but it was not a unanimous decision. And the Federal Open Market Committee decided to end the reduction of its balance sheet on December 1st – earlier than we expected. How did things unfold and does this change your outlook in any way?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me. Not so much the statement or the decision, but there were dissents. There was a dissent in favor of a 50-basis point cut. There was a dissent in favor of no cut. And that foreshadowed the press conference – where really the conversation was about, I think, a divided committee; and a committee that didn't have a lot of consensus on what would come next.The balance sheet discussion, which we can get into, it came a little sooner than we thought, but it was largely in line with our view. And I'm not sure it's a macro critical decision right now. But I do think it was a surprise to markets and it was certainly a surprise to me – how much Powell's tone shifted between September and October, in terms of what the market could expect from the Fed going forward.So, what he said in essence, the key points, you know. The policy's not on a preset path from here. Or [a] cut in December is maybe not decidedly part of the baseline; or certainly is not a foregone conclusion. And I think what that reflects is a couple of things.One is that they're recalibrating policy based on a risk management view. So, you can cut almost independent of the data, at least in the beginning. And so now I think Powell's saying, ‘Well, at least from here, future cuts are probably more data dependent than those initial cuts.’ But second, and I think most importantly is the division that appeared within the Fed. I think there's one group that's hawkish, one group that's dovish, and I think it reflects the division and the tension that we have in the economic data.So, I think the hawkish crowd is looking at strong activity data, strong AI spending, an upper income consumer that seems to be doing just fine. And they're saying, ‘Why are we cutting? Financial conditions for the business community is pretty easy. Maybe the neutral rate of interest is higher. We're probably less restrictive than you think.’ And then I think the other side of the committee, which I believe still that Chair Powell is in, is looking at a market slowdown in hiring a weak labor market. What that means for growth in real income for those households that depend on labor market income to consume; there's probably some front running of autos that artificially boosted growth in the third quarter.So, I think that the dissents, or I should say the division within the FOMC, I think reflects the tension in the underlying data. So, to know which way monetary policy evolves, Matt, it's essentially trying to decide: does the labor market rebound towards the activity data or does the activity data decelerate at least temporarily to the labor market?Matthew Hornbach: Mike, you talked a lot about data just now, and we're not exactly getting a lot of government data at the moment. How are you thinking about the path for the data in terms of its availability between now and the December FOMC meeting? And how do you think that may affect the Fed's willingness to move forward with another rate cut in the cycle?Michael Gapen: Right. So that's key and critical to understanding, right? We're operating under the assumption, of course the federal government shutdowns going to end at some point. We're going to get all this back data released and we can assess where the economy is or has been. I think the way markets should think about this is if the government shutdown has ended in the next few weeks, say before Thanksgiving – then I think we, markets, the Fed will have the bulk of the data in front of them and available to assess the economy at the December FOMC meeting.They may not have it all, but they should get at least some of that data released. We can assess it. If the economy has moderated and weakened a bit, the labor market has continued to cool, the Fed can cut. If it shows maybe the labor market rebounding downside risk to employment being diminished, maybe the Fed doesn't cut.So that's a world and it is our expectation the shutdown should end in the next few weeks. We're already at the longest shutdown on record, so we will get some data in hand to make the decision for December. Perhaps that's wishful thinking, Matt, and maybe we go beyond Thanksgiving, and the shutdown extends into December.My suspicion though, is if the government is still shut down in December, I can't imagine the economy's getting better. So, I think the Fed could lean in the direction of taking one more step.Matthew Hornbach: This is going to be very critical for how the markets think about the outlook in 2026 and price the outlook for 2026. The last FOMC meeting of the year has that type of importance for markets – pricing, the path of Fed policy, and the path of the economy into 2026. Because if we end up receiving a rate cut from the Fed, the dialogue in the investment community will be focused on when might the next cut arrive. Versus if we don't get that rate cut in December, the dialogue will focus on, maybe we will never see another rate cut in the cycle. And what if we see a rate hike as we make our way through the second half of 2026? So that can have a dramatic impact on the U.S. Treasury market and how investors think about the outlook for policy and the economy.Michael Gapen: So, I think that's right. And as you know, our baseline outlook is at least through the first quarter, if not into the second quarter. The private sector will still be attempting to pass through tariffs into prices. And I think in the meantime, demand for labor and the hiring rate will remain low.And so, we look for additional labor market slack to build. Not a lot, but the unemployment rate moving to more like 4.6, maybe 4.7 – and that underpins our expectation the Fed will be reducing rates in in 2026. But I think as you note, and as I mentioned earlier, there is this tension in the data and it's not inconceivable that the labor market accelerates. And you get, kind of, an animal spirits driven 2026; where a combination of momentum in the data, AI-related business spending, wealth effects for upper income consumers and maybe a larger fiscal stimulus from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, lead the economy to outperform.And to your point, if that is happening, it's not farfetched to think, well, if the Fed put in risk management insurance cuts, perhaps they need to take those out. And that could build in a way where that expectation, let's say towards the second half or the fourth quarter maybe of 2026, maybe it takes into 2027. But I agree with you that if the Fed can't cut in December because the economy's doing well and the data show that, and we learn more of that in 2026, you're right.So, it would… And may maybe to put it more simply, the more the Fed cuts, the more you need to open both sides of the rate path distribution, right? The deeper they cut, the greater the probability over time, they're going to have to raise those rates. And so, if the Fed is forced to stop in December, yeah, you can make that argument.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed, a lot of the factors that you mentioned are factors that are coming up in investor conversations increasingly. The way I've been framing it in my discussions is that investors want to see the glass as half full today, versus in the middle of this year the glass was looking half empty. And of course, as we head into the holiday season, the glass will be filled with something perhaps a bit tastier than water. And so…Michael Gapen: Fill my glass please.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. So, I do think that we could be setting up for a bright 2026 ahead. And so, with that, Mike, look forward to seeing you again in December – with a glass of eggnog perhaps. And a decision in hand for the meeting that the Fed holds then. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qyTEb4stYx2AwnpYX4ZgUkRvz_jD7HCyLyhwMInbyRAFri, 07 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss potential next steps for the FOMC and the risks to their views from the U.S. government shutdown. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: The October FOMC meeting delivered a quarter percent rate cut as widely expected – but things are more complicated, and policy is not on a preset path from here.It's Friday, November 7th at 10am in New York.So, Mike, the Fed did cut by 25 basis points in October, but it was not a unanimous decision. And the Federal Open Market Committee decided to end the reduction of its balance sheet on December 1st – earlier than we expected. How did things unfold and does this change your outlook in any way?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me. Not so much the statement or the decision, but there were dissents. There was a dissent in favor of a 50-basis point cut. There was a dissent in favor of no cut. And that foreshadowed the press conference – where really the conversation was about, I think, a divided committee; and a committee that didn't have a lot of consensus on what would come next.The balance sheet discussion, which we can get into, it came a little sooner than we thought, but it was largely in line with our view. And I'm not sure it's a macro critical decision right now. But I do think it was a surprise to markets and it was certainly a surprise to me – how much Powell's tone shifted between September and October, in terms of what the market could expect from the Fed going forward.So, what he said in essence, the key points, you know. The policy's not on a preset path from here. Or [a] cut in December is maybe not decidedly part of the baseline; or certainly is not a foregone conclusion. And I think what that reflects is a couple of things.One is that they're recalibrating policy based on a risk management view. So, you can cut almost independent of the data, at least in the beginning. And so now I think Powell's saying, ‘Well, at least from here, future cuts are probably more data dependent than those initial cuts.’ But second, and I think most importantly is the division that appeared within the Fed. I think there's one group that's hawkish, one group that's dovish, and I think it reflects the division and the tension that we have in the economic data.So, I think the hawkish crowd is looking at strong activity data, strong AI spending, an upper income consumer that seems to be doing just fine. And they're saying, ‘Why are we cutting? Financial conditions for the business community is pretty easy. Maybe the neutral rate of interest is higher. We're probably less restrictive than you think.’ And then I think the other side of the committee, which I believe still that Chair Powell is in, is looking at a market slowdown in hiring a weak labor market. What that means for growth in real income for those households that depend on labor market income to consume; there's probably some front running of autos that artificially boosted growth in the third quarter.So, I think that the dissents, or I should say the division within the FOMC, I think reflects the tension in the underlying data. So, to know which way monetary policy evolves, Matt, it's essentially trying to decide: does the labor market rebound towards the activity data or does the activity data decelerate at least temporarily to the labor market?Matthew Hornbach: Mike, you talked a lot about data just now, and we're not exactly getting a lot of government data at the moment. How are you thinking about the path for the data in terms of its availability between now and the...]]>580alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1512fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/supreme-court-tests-trump-tariffs--75648460insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we discuss the challenge against tariffs at the Supreme Court and how it might affect markets.It’s Thursday, Nov 6th at 11am in New York.This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of most of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Investors are paying close attention because if the Supreme rules against the administration, it could undo much of the four-five times tariff increase that’s taken place in the U.S. this year. That would seem to set up this hearing, and a subsequent ruling which could come as early as this month, as a clear market catalyst. But, like many policy issues affecting the economic and markets outlook, the reality is more complicated. Here’s what you need to know.First, there’s ample debate among experts about how the court will rule. That may seem surprising given the court’s makeup. Three of the nine judges were appointed by President Trump, and six of the nine by Republican Presidents. But it's not clear they’ll agree that the President used his executive power in a way consistent with the law that granted the executive branch this particular power. That law is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. And, without getting into too much detail, the law appears to have been designed to deal with economic crises and foreign adversaries, which the court might argue is not evident when considering tariffs levied against traditional allies.But, the next important point is that a ruling against the Trump administration might not actually change much around U.S. tariff levels. How is that possible? It's because the administration has other executive tariff powers it can deploy if needed, and ones that are arguably more durable. For example, Section 301 gives a President wide latitude to designate a trading partner as undertaking unfair trade practices. So this authority could be swapped in for IEEPA. That could take time, as Section 301 requires a study to be submitted, but there are other temporary authorities that could bridge the gap. So the U.S. can likely ensure continuity of current tariff levels if it wants – keeping tariffs more of a constant than a variable in our outlook.Of course, we have to consider ways we could be wrong. For example, the administration could use a ruling against it to re-focus instead on product specific tariffs through Section 232. That likely would result in U.S. effective tariff rates drifting a bit lower, alleviating some of the pressure our economists see on the consumer and corporate importers, adding more support to risk assets. But that scenario might come with some volatility along the way if the administration feels the need to float larger product specific tariff levels before settling on more palatable levels – similar to what happened in April.So bottom line, there’s more tariff policy noise to navigate this year. It could bring some market volatility, and maybe even a bit of upside, but the most likely outcome is that we circle back to the approximate levels we are today. Setting up for 2026, that means other debates – like how companies respond to tariffs and capital spending incentives – are probably more important to the outlook than the level of tariffs themselves. We’re digging in on all that and will keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lbMr1ZbAypXpDhvBU5z6ruNK-gUnZCml5DTa7lFTadkThu, 06 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyEarlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case challenging the current administration’s tariff policy. Our Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Research explains the potential magnitude of the case’s outcome for markets.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we discuss the challenge against tariffs at the Supreme Court and how it might affect markets.It’s Thursday, Nov 6th at 11am in New York.This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of most of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Investors are paying close attention because if the Supreme rules against the administration, it could undo much of the four-five times tariff increase that’s taken place in the U.S. this year. That would seem to set up this hearing, and a subsequent ruling which could come as early as this month, as a clear market catalyst. But, like many policy issues affecting the economic and markets outlook, the reality is more complicated. Here’s what you need to know.First, there’s ample debate among experts about how the court will rule. That may seem surprising given the court’s makeup. Three of the nine judges were appointed by President Trump, and six of the nine by Republican Presidents. But it's not clear they’ll agree that the President used his executive power in a way consistent with the law that granted the executive branch this particular power. That law is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. And, without getting into too much detail, the law appears to have been designed to deal with economic crises and foreign adversaries, which the court might argue is not evident when considering tariffs levied against traditional allies.But, the next important point is that a ruling against the Trump administration might not actually change much around U.S. tariff levels. How is that possible? It's because the administration has other executive tariff powers it can deploy if needed, and ones that are arguably more durable. For example, Section 301 gives a President wide latitude to designate a trading partner as undertaking unfair trade practices. So this authority could be swapped in for IEEPA. That could take time, as Section 301 requires a study to be submitted, but there are other temporary authorities that could bridge the gap. So the U.S. can likely ensure continuity of current tariff levels if it wants – keeping tariffs more of a constant than a variable in our outlook.Of course, we have to consider ways we could be wrong. For example, the administration could use a ruling against it to re-focus instead on product specific tariffs through Section 232. That likely would result in U.S. effective tariff rates drifting a bit lower, alleviating some of the pressure our economists see on the consumer and corporate importers, adding more support to risk assets. But that scenario might come with some volatility along the way if the administration feels the need to float larger product specific tariff levels before settling on more palatable levels – similar to what happened in April.So bottom line, there’s more tariff policy noise to navigate this year. It could bring some market volatility, and maybe even a bit of upside, but the most likely outcome is that we circle back to the approximate levels we are today. Setting up for 2026, that means other debates – like how companies respond to tariffs and capital spending incentives – are probably more important to the outlook than the level of tariffs themselves. We’re digging in on all that and will keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the...]]>228alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1511fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/future-of-work-ai-s-paradigm-shift-for-labor--75648491insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Kathryn Huberty: Welcome to Thoughts in The Market, and to part two of our conversation on AI adoption. I'm Katy Huberty, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Research. Once again, I'm joined by Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic Research, and Jeff McMillan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Firm-wide AI. Today, let's focus on the human level. What this paradigm shift means for individual workers. It's Wednesday, November 5th at 10am in New York. Kathryn Huberty: Stephen, there's a lot of simultaneous fear and excitement around widespread AI adoption. There's obviously concern that AI could lead to massive job losses. But you seem optimistic about this paradigm shift. Why is that? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, as I mentioned in part one, this is the most popular discussion topic with my children. And I would say younger folks are quite concerned about this. There's a lot of angst among young folks thinking about what is that job market really going to look like for them. And admittedly, AI could be quite disruptive. So, we don't want to sugarcoat that. There's clearly going to be impacts across many jobs. Our work showed that around 90 percent of jobs will be impacted in some way. Oh, in the long term, I would guess nearly every job will be impacted in some way. The reason we are more optimistic is that what we see is a range of what we would think of as augmentation, where AI can essentially help you do something much better. It can help you expand your capabilities. And it will result in entirely new jobs. Now with any new technology, it's always hard to predict exactly what those new jobs are. But examples that I see in my world of energy would be smart grid analysis, predictive maintenance, managing systems in a much more efficient way. Systems that are so complicated that they're really beyond the capability of humans to manage very effectively. So, I'm quite excited there. I'm extremely excited in the life sciences where we could see entire new approaches to curing some of the worst diseases plaguing humankind. So, I am really very excited in terms of those new areas of job creation. In terms of job losses, one interesting analysis that a lot of investors are really focused on that we included in our Future of Work report was the ratio – within a job – of augmentation to automation. The lower the ratio, the higher the risk of job loss in the sense that that shows a sign that more of what AI is going to do, is going to replace that type of human work. Examples of that would be in professional services. As I mentioned, you know, one of my former professions, law would be an example of an area where you could see this. But essentially, tasks that don't require a lot of proprietary data, require less creativity. Those are the types of tasks that are more likely to be automated. Kathryn Huberty: One theme I hear both in Silicon Valley and in our industry is the value of domain expertise goes up. So, the lawyer that's very good in the courtroom or handling a really complicated situation because they have decades of experience, the value of that labor and talent goes up. And so, when my friends ask me what their kids should pursue in school and as a career, I tell them it's less about what job they pursue. Pick a passion and become a domain expert really quickly. Stephen Byrd: I think that's excellent advice. Kathryn Huberty: Jeff, how do you see AI changing the skills we'll need at Morgan Stanley and the way that people should think about their careers? Jeff McMillan: I think you have to break this down into three pieces – and Stephen sort of alluded to it. One, you have to look at the jobs that are likely to disappear. Two, you have to look at the jobs that are going to change. And then finally, you have to look at the new jobs that are going to actually emerge from this phenomena. You should be thinking right now about how you are going to prepare yourself with the right skills around learning how to prompt and learning how to move into those functions that are not going to be eliminated. In terms of jobs that are changing, they're going to require a far, far greater sense of collaboration, creativity. And again, prompting; prompt engineering is sort of the center of that. And I would highly encourage every single person who's listening to this to become the single best prompt engineer in their group, in their friend[s group], in their organization. And then in terms of the jobs that are being created, I'm actually pretty optimistic here. As we build agents, there's actually a bull case that we're going to create so much complexity in our environment that we're going to need more people to help manage that. But the skills are not going to be repetitive linear skills. They're going to require real time decision-making, leadership skills, collaboration skills. But again, I would go back to every single person: learn how to talk to the machine, learn how to be creative, and practice every day your engagement with this technology. Kathryn Huberty: So then how are companies balancing the re-skilling with the inevitable culture shifts that come with any new paradigm? Jeff McMillan: So, first of all, I think if you think about this as a tool, you've already lost the plot. I think that number one, you have to remind yourself what your strategy is; whatever that strategy is, this is an enabler of your strategy. The second point I'd make is that you have to go from both – the top down, in terms of leadership messaging that this change is here, it's important and it needs to be embraced. And then it's a bottoms-up because you have to empower people with the right tools and the technology to transform their own work. Because if you're trying to tell people that this is the path that they have to follow. You don't get the buy-in that you need. You really want to empower people to leverage these tools. And what excites me most is when people walk into my office and say, ‘Hey Jeff, let me show you what I built today.’ And it could be some 22-year-old who; it's their first month on the job. And what's exciting about this technology is you do not need a technology background. You need to be smart; you need to be creative. And if you've got those skills, you can build things that are really innovative. And I think that's what's exciting. So, if you can combine the top down that this is important and the bottoms up with giving people the skills and the technology and the motivation – that's the secret sauce. Kathryn Huberty: Jeff, what's your advice for the next generation college students, recent college graduates as they're thinking about navigating the early parts of their career in this environment? Jeff McMillan: Well, Katy, I first of all, I'd agree with what you say. You know, everyone's like, ‘What should I study?’ And the answer is – I don't actually know the answer to that question. But I would study what you care about. I would do something that you're passionate about. And the second point, and I hate to be a broken record on this. But I would be the single best user of GenerativeAI at your college. Volunteer with some nonprofit, build a use case with your friends. When you walk into your first job, impress in your interview that you are able to use this technology in really effective ways – because that will make a difference, in your first job. Kathryn Huberty: And I'm curious, are there areas where you think humans will always beat AI, whether it's in financial services or other industries? Jeff McMillan: I like to think that we are human and that gives us the ability to build trust and emotional relationships. And I think not only are we going to be better at that than machines are. But I think that's something that we as humans will always want. I think that there may be some individuals in the society that may feel differently. But I think as a general rule, the human-to-human relationship is something that's really important. And I like to think that it will be a differentiator for a long time to come. So, Katy, from where you sit as the Head of Global Research, how has GenAI changed the way research is being done? Kathryn Huberty: With the help of your team, Jeff, we have now embedded AI through the life cycle of investigating a hypothesis, doing the analysis, writing the research in a concise, effective way. Pushing that through our publishing process, developing digital content in our analysts’ voice, in the local language of the client. And now we're working on a client engagement tool that helps direct our research team's time. And so, the impact here is it reduces the time to market to get a alpha generating idea to our clients and, you know, and it's freeing up time for our teams. Stephen Byrd: So, Katy, I want to build on that. Productivity is a big theme. And away from the research itself, from a management perspective, how are you and your team using AI? And what do you see as the benefits? And how are you spending the extra time that's freed up by AI? Kathryn Huberty: I like to say that the research AI strategy is less about the tools. I mean, those are critical and foundational. But it's more about how we're evolving workflow and how our teams are spending time. And so, the savings are being reinvested in actually your area – thematic research – which takes a lot more coordination, collaboration. A global cross-asset view, which just takes more time to develop, and test a hypothesis, and debate internally, and get those reports to market. But it's critical for our core strategy, which is to help our clients generate alpha. When you look at equity markets ov]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hZGMznbqTbuHZTsz4G1cpjmbrNGPXPSvO-dMOiU3frsWed, 05 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyConcluding a two-part roundtable discussion, our global heads of Research, Thematic Research and Firmwide AI focus on the human impacts of AI adoption in the workplace.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Kathryn Huberty: Welcome to Thoughts in The Market, and to part two of our conversation on AI adoption. I'm Katy Huberty, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Research. Once again, I'm joined by Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic Research, and Jeff McMillan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Firm-wide AI. Today, let's focus on the human level. What this paradigm shift means for individual workers. It's Wednesday, November 5th at 10am in New York. Kathryn Huberty: Stephen, there's a lot of simultaneous fear and excitement around widespread AI adoption. There's obviously concern that AI could lead to massive job losses. But you seem optimistic about this paradigm shift. Why is that? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, as I mentioned in part one, this is the most popular discussion topic with my children. And I would say younger folks are quite concerned about this. There's a lot of angst among young folks thinking about what is that job market really going to look like for them. And admittedly, AI could be quite disruptive. So, we don't want to sugarcoat that. There's clearly going to be impacts across many jobs. Our work showed that around 90 percent of jobs will be impacted in some way. Oh, in the long term, I would guess nearly every job will be impacted in some way. The reason we are more optimistic is that what we see is a range of what we would think of as augmentation, where AI can essentially help you do something much better. It can help you expand your capabilities. And it will result in entirely new jobs. Now with any new technology, it's always hard to predict exactly what those new jobs are. But examples that I see in my world of energy would be smart grid analysis, predictive maintenance, managing systems in a much more efficient way. Systems that are so complicated that they're really beyond the capability of humans to manage very effectively. So, I'm quite excited there. I'm extremely excited in the life sciences where we could see entire new approaches to curing some of the worst diseases plaguing humankind. So, I am really very excited in terms of those new areas of job creation. In terms of job losses, one interesting analysis that a lot of investors are really focused on that we included in our Future of Work report was the ratio – within a job – of augmentation to automation. The lower the ratio, the higher the risk of job loss in the sense that that shows a sign that more of what AI is going to do, is going to replace that type of human work. Examples of that would be in professional services. As I mentioned, you know, one of my former professions, law would be an example of an area where you could see this. But essentially, tasks that don't require a lot of proprietary data, require less creativity. Those are the types of tasks that are more likely to be automated. Kathryn Huberty: One theme I hear both in Silicon Valley and in our industry is the value of domain expertise goes up. So, the lawyer that's very good in the courtroom or handling a really complicated situation because they have decades of experience, the value of that labor and talent goes up. And so, when my friends ask me what their kids should pursue in school and as a career, I tell them it's less about what job they pursue. Pick a passion and become a domain expert really quickly. Stephen Byrd: I think that's excellent advice. Kathryn Huberty: Jeff, how do you see AI changing the skills we'll need at Morgan Stanley and the way that people should think about their careers? Jeff McMillan: I think you have to break this down into three pieces – and Stephen sort of alluded to it. One, you have to look at...]]>759alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1510fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/future-of-work-ai-s-impact-on-industries--75648196insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Kathryn Huberty: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Katy Huberty, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Research, and I'm joined by Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic Research, and Jeff McMillan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Firm-wide AI.Today and tomorrow, we have a special two-part episode on the number one question everyone is asking us: What does the future of work look like as we scale AI?It's Tuesday, November 4th at 10am in New York.I wanted to talk to you both because Stephen, your groundbreaking work provides a foundation for thinking through labor and economic impacts of implementing AI across industries. And Jeff, you're leading Morgan Stanley's efforts to implement AI across our more than 80,000 employee firm, requiring critical change management to unlock the full value of this technology.Let's start big picture and look at this from the industry level. And then tomorrow we'll dig into how AI is changing the nature of work for individuals.Stephen, one of the big questions in the news – and from investors – is the size of AI adoption opportunity in terms of earnings potential for S&P 500 companies and the economy as a whole. What's the headline takeaway from your analysis?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, this is the most popular topic with my children when we talk about the work that I do. And the impacts are so broad. So, let's start with the headline numbers. We did a deep dive into the S&P 500 in terms of AI adoption benefits. The net benefits based on where the technology is now, would be about little over $900 billion. And that can translate to well over 20 percent increased earnings power that could generate over $13 trillion of market cap upon adoption. And importantly, that's where the technology is now.So, what's so interesting to me is the technology is evolving very, very quickly. We've been writing a lot about the nonlinear rate of improvement of AI. And what's especially exciting right now is a number of the big American labs, the well-known companies developing these LLMs, are now gathering about 10 times the computational power to train their next model. If scaling laws hold that would result in models that are about twice as capable as they are today. So, I think 2026 is going to be a big year in terms of thinking about where we're headed in terms of adoption. So, it's frankly challenging to basically take a snapshot because the picture is moving so quickly.Kathryn Huberty: Stephen, you referenced just the fast pace of change and the daily news flow. What's the view of the timeline here? Are we measuring progress at the industry level in months, in years?Stephen Byrd: It's definitely in years. It's fast and slow. Slow in the sense that, you know, it's taken some companies a little while now and some over a year to really prepare. But now what we're seeing in our CIO survey is many companies are now moving into the first, I'd say, full fledged adoption of AI, when you can start to really see this in numbers.So, it sort of starts with a trickle, but then in 2026, it really turns into something much, much bigger. And then I go back to this point about non-linear improvement. So, what looks like, areas where AI cannot perform a task six months from now will look very different. And I think – I'm a former lawyer myself. In the field of law, for example, this has changed so quickly as to what AI can actually do. So, what I expect is it starts slow and then suddenly we look at a wide variety of tasks and AI is fairly suddenly able to do a lot more than we expect.Kathryn Huberty: Which industries are likely to be most impacted by the shift? And when you broke down the analysis to the industry and job level, what were some of the surprises?Stephen Byrd: I thought what we would see would be fairly high-tech oriented sectors – and including our own – would be top of the list. What I found was very different. So, think instead of sectors where there's fairly low profit per employee, often low margin businesses, very labor-intensive businesses. A number of areas in healthcare staples came to the top. A few real estate management businesses. So, very different than I expected.The very high-tech sectors actually had some of the lowest numbers, simply because those companies in high-tech tend to have extremely high profit per employee. So, the impact is a lot less. So that was surprising learning. A lot of clients have been digging into that.Kathryn Huberty: I could see why that would've surprised you. But let's focus on banking for a moment since we have the expert here. Jeff, what are some of the most exciting AI use cases in banking right now?Jeff McMillan: You know, I would start with software development, which was probably the first Gen AI use case out of the gate. And not only was it first, but it continues to be the most rapidly advancing. And that's probably; mostly a function of the software, you know, development community. I mean, these are developers that are constantly fiddling and making the technology better.But productivity continues to advance at a linear pace. You know, we have over 20,000 folks here at Morgan Stanley. That's 25 percent of our population. And, you know, the impact both in terms of the size of that population and the efficiencies are really, really significant.So, I would start there. And then, you know, once you start moving past that, it may not seem, you know, sexy. It's really powerful around things like document processing. Financial services firms move massive amounts of paper. We take paper in, whether it be an account opening, whether it be a contract. Somebody reads that information, they reason about it, and then they type that information into a system. AI is really purpose built for that.And then finally, just document generation. I mean, the number of presentations, portfolio reviews, you know, even in your world, Katy, research reports that we create. Once again, AI is really just – it's right down the middle in terms of its ability to generate just content and help people reduce the time and effort to do that.Kathryn Huberty: There's a lot of excitement around AI, but as Stephen mentioned, it's not a linear path. What are the biggest challenges, Jeff, to AI adoption for a big global enterprise like Morgan Stanley? What keeps you up at night?Jeff McMillan: I've often made the analogy that we own a Ferrari and we're driving around circles in a parking lot. And what I mean by that is that the technology has so far advanced beyond our own capacity to leverage it. And the biggest issue is – it's our own capacity and awareness and education.So, what keeps me up at night? it's the firm's understanding. It's each person's and each leader's ability to understand what this technology can do. Candidly, it's the basics of prompting. We spend a lot of time here at the firm just teaching people how to prompt, understanding how to speak to the machine because until you know how to do that, you don't really understand the art of the possible. I tell people, if you have $100 to spend, you should start spending [$]90, on educating your employee base. Because until you do that, you cannot effectively get the best out of the technology.Kathryn Huberty: And as we look out to 2026, what AI trends are you watching closely and how are we preparing the firm to take advantage of that?Jeff McMillan: You and I were just out in Silicon Valley a couple of weeks ago, and seemingly overnight, every firm has become an agentic one. While much of that is aspirational, I think it's actually going to be, in the long term, a true narrative, right? And I think that step where we are right now is really about experimentation, right? I think we have to learn which tools work, what new governance processes we need to put in place, where the lines are drawn. I think we're still in the early stage, but we're leaning in really hard.We've got about 20 use cases that we're experimenting with right now. As things settle down and the vendor landscape really starts to pan out, we'll be down position to fully take advantage of that.Kathryn Huberty: A key element of the agentic solutions is linking to the data, the tools, the application that we use every day in our workflow. And that ecosystem is developing, and it feels that we're now on the cusp of those agentic workflow applications taking hold.Stephen Byrd: So, Katy, I want to jump in here and ask you a question too. With your own background as an IT hardware analyst, how does the AI era compare to past tech or computing cycles? And what sort of lessons from those cycles shape your view of the opportunities and challenges ahead?Kathryn Huberty: The other big question in the market right now is whether an AI bubble is forming. You hear that in the press. It's one of the questions all three of us are hearing regularly from clients. And implicit in that question is a view that this doesn't look like past cycles, past trends. And I just don't believe that to be the case.We actually see the development of AI following a very similar path. If you go back to mainframe and then minicomputer, the PC, internet, mobile, cloud, and now AI. Each compute cycle is roughly 10 times larger in terms of the amount of installed compute.The reality is we've gone from millions to billions to trillions, and so it feels very different. But the reality is we have a trillion dollars of installed CPU compute, and that means we likely need $10 trillion of installed GPU compute. And so, we are following the same pattern. Yes, the numbers are bigger because we keep 10x-ing, but the pattern]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NCDqvTWHzSziE0mlfqjRvkeZ46WXAjNy9dz5lsmHtFMTue, 04 Nov 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyIn the first of a two-part roundtable discussion, our Global Head of Research joins our Global Head of Thematic Research and Head of Firmwide AI to discuss how the economic and labor impacts of AI adoption.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Kathryn Huberty: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Katy Huberty, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Research, and I'm joined by Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic Research, and Jeff McMillan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Firm-wide AI.Today and tomorrow, we have a special two-part episode on the number one question everyone is asking us: What does the future of work look like as we scale AI?It's Tuesday, November 4th at 10am in New York.I wanted to talk to you both because Stephen, your groundbreaking work provides a foundation for thinking through labor and economic impacts of implementing AI across industries. And Jeff, you're leading Morgan Stanley's efforts to implement AI across our more than 80,000 employee firm, requiring critical change management to unlock the full value of this technology.Let's start big picture and look at this from the industry level. And then tomorrow we'll dig into how AI is changing the nature of work for individuals.Stephen, one of the big questions in the news – and from investors – is the size of AI adoption opportunity in terms of earnings potential for S&P 500 companies and the economy as a whole. What's the headline takeaway from your analysis?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, this is the most popular topic with my children when we talk about the work that I do. And the impacts are so broad. So, let's start with the headline numbers. We did a deep dive into the S&P 500 in terms of AI adoption benefits. The net benefits based on where the technology is now, would be about little over $900 billion. And that can translate to well over 20 percent increased earnings power that could generate over $13 trillion of market cap upon adoption. And importantly, that's where the technology is now.So, what's so interesting to me is the technology is evolving very, very quickly. We've been writing a lot about the nonlinear rate of improvement of AI. And what's especially exciting right now is a number of the big American labs, the well-known companies developing these LLMs, are now gathering about 10 times the computational power to train their next model. If scaling laws hold that would result in models that are about twice as capable as they are today. So, I think 2026 is going to be a big year in terms of thinking about where we're headed in terms of adoption. So, it's frankly challenging to basically take a snapshot because the picture is moving so quickly.Kathryn Huberty: Stephen, you referenced just the fast pace of change and the daily news flow. What's the view of the timeline here? Are we measuring progress at the industry level in months, in years?Stephen Byrd: It's definitely in years. It's fast and slow. Slow in the sense that, you know, it's taken some companies a little while now and some over a year to really prepare. But now what we're seeing in our CIO survey is many companies are now moving into the first, I'd say, full fledged adoption of AI, when you can start to really see this in numbers.So, it sort of starts with a trickle, but then in 2026, it really turns into something much, much bigger. And then I go back to this point about non-linear improvement. So, what looks like, areas where AI cannot perform a task six months from now will look very different. And I think – I'm a former lawyer myself. In the field of law, for example, this has changed so quickly as to what AI can actually do. So, what I expect is it starts slow and then suddenly we look at a wide variety of tasks and AI is fairly suddenly able to do a lot more than we expect.Kathryn Huberty: Which industries are likely to be most...]]>771alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1509fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/more-confidence-in-a-bull-market--75648567insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing recent macro events and third quarter earnings results.It's Monday, November 3rd at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Last week marked the passage of two key macro events: the meeting on trade between Presidents Trump and Xi and the October Fed meeting. On the trade front, the U.S. agreed to cut tariffs on China by 10 percent and delay newly proposed tech export controls for a year. In exchange, China agreed to pause its proposed export controls on rare earths, and resume soybean purchases while cracking down on fentanyl. This is a major positive relative to how developments could have gone following the sharp escalation a few weeks ago, and markets have responded accordingly.With respect to the Fed meeting, Powell suggested policy is not on a preset course which took the bond market probability of a December rate cut down from 92 percent before the meeting to 68 percent currently. It also led to some modest consolidation in equity prices while breadth remained very weak. In my view, the market is saying that if growth holds up but the Fed only cuts rates modestly, leadership is likely to remain narrow and up the quality curve.Over the next 6 to 12 months, we think moderate weakness in lagging labor data, and a stronger than expected earnings backdrop ultimately sets the stage for a broadening in market leadership. However, we are also respectful of the signals the markets are sending in the near term. This means it's still too early to press the small cap/low quality/deep cyclical rotation trade until the Fed shows a clear willingness to get ahead of the curve. Perhaps just as important for markets was the Fed's decision to end Quantitative Tightening, or QT, in December.Recently, Jay Powell has acknowledged the potential for rising stress in the funding markets and indicated the Fed could end QT sooner rather than later. Over the past month, expectations for the timing of this QT termination ranged from immediately to as late as February. Powell seemed to split the difference at last week's meeting and this could be viewed as disappointing to some market participants.In order to monitor this development, I will be watching how short-term funding markets behave. Specifically, overnight repo usage has been on the rise and if that continues along with the widening spreads between the Secured Overnight Financing Rate and fed funds, I believe equity markets are likely to trade poorly, especially in some of the more speculative areas. In short, we think higher quality areas of the market are likely to continue to outperform until this dynamic is settled.Meanwhile, earnings season is in full swing and the real standout has been the upside in revenue surprises, which is currently more than double the historical run-rate. We think this could provide further support that our rolling recovery thesis is under way which leads to much better earnings growth than most are expecting.Bottom line, we are gaining more confidence in our core view that a new bull market began in April with the end of the rolling recession and the beginning of a new cycle. This means higher and broader earnings growth in 2026 and a potentially different leadership in the equity market. The full broadening out to lower quality, smaller capitalization stocks is being held back by a Fed that continues to fight inflation; perhaps not realizing how much the private economy and average consumer needs lower rates for this rolling recovery to fully blossom. Last week’s Fed meeting could be disappointing in that regard in the short run for equity markets. As a result, stay up the quality curve until we get more clarity on the timing of a more dovish path by the Fed and look for stress in funding markets as a possible buying opportunity into year end.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WdOMC2PORiMTbBiND-YFSTIFHAWLpGeYcaCwrecJ_E0Mon, 03 Nov 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at buying opportunities approaching year-end, as U.S. trade policy and the Fed find middle ground. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing recent macro events and third quarter earnings results.It's Monday, November 3rd at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Last week marked the passage of two key macro events: the meeting on trade between Presidents Trump and Xi and the October Fed meeting. On the trade front, the U.S. agreed to cut tariffs on China by 10 percent and delay newly proposed tech export controls for a year. In exchange, China agreed to pause its proposed export controls on rare earths, and resume soybean purchases while cracking down on fentanyl. This is a major positive relative to how developments could have gone following the sharp escalation a few weeks ago, and markets have responded accordingly.With respect to the Fed meeting, Powell suggested policy is not on a preset course which took the bond market probability of a December rate cut down from 92 percent before the meeting to 68 percent currently. It also led to some modest consolidation in equity prices while breadth remained very weak. In my view, the market is saying that if growth holds up but the Fed only cuts rates modestly, leadership is likely to remain narrow and up the quality curve.Over the next 6 to 12 months, we think moderate weakness in lagging labor data, and a stronger than expected earnings backdrop ultimately sets the stage for a broadening in market leadership. However, we are also respectful of the signals the markets are sending in the near term. This means it's still too early to press the small cap/low quality/deep cyclical rotation trade until the Fed shows a clear willingness to get ahead of the curve. Perhaps just as important for markets was the Fed's decision to end Quantitative Tightening, or QT, in December.Recently, Jay Powell has acknowledged the potential for rising stress in the funding markets and indicated the Fed could end QT sooner rather than later. Over the past month, expectations for the timing of this QT termination ranged from immediately to as late as February. Powell seemed to split the difference at last week's meeting and this could be viewed as disappointing to some market participants.In order to monitor this development, I will be watching how short-term funding markets behave. Specifically, overnight repo usage has been on the rise and if that continues along with the widening spreads between the Secured Overnight Financing Rate and fed funds, I believe equity markets are likely to trade poorly, especially in some of the more speculative areas. In short, we think higher quality areas of the market are likely to continue to outperform until this dynamic is settled.Meanwhile, earnings season is in full swing and the real standout has been the upside in revenue surprises, which is currently more than double the historical run-rate. We think this could provide further support that our rolling recovery thesis is under way which leads to much better earnings growth than most are expecting.Bottom line, we are gaining more confidence in our core view that a new bull market began in April with the end of the rolling recession and the beginning of a new cycle. This means higher and broader earnings growth in 2026 and a potentially different leadership in the equity market. The full broadening out to lower quality, smaller capitalization stocks is being held back by a Fed that continues to fight inflation; perhaps not realizing how much the private economy and average consumer needs lower rates for this rolling recovery to...]]>259alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1508fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-japan-s-stablecoin-could-reshape-global-finance--75648488insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – Japan’s stablecoin revolution and why it matters to global investors. It’s Friday, October 31st, at 4pm in Tokyo. Japan may be late to the crypto market. But its first yen-denominated stablecoin is just around the corner. And it has the potential to quietly reshape how digital money moves across the country and globally. You may have heard of digital money like Bitcoin. It’s significantly more volatile than traditional financial assets like stocks and bonds. Stablecoins are different. They are digital currencies designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to assets such as the yen or U.S. dollar. And in June 2023, Japan amended its Payment Services Acts to create a legal framework for stablecoins. Market participants in Japan and abroad are watching closely whether the JPY stablecoin can establish itself as a major global digital currency, such as Tether. Stablecoins promise to make payments faster, cheaper, and available 24/7. Japan’s cashless payment ratio jumped from about 30 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2024, and there’s still room to grow compared to other countries. The government’s push for fintech and digital payments is accelerating, and stablecoins could be the missing link to a truly digital economy. Unlike Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are designed to suppress price volatility. They’re managed by private companies and backed by assets—think cash, government bonds, or even commodities like gold. Industry watchers think stablecoins can make digital payments as reliable as cash, but with the speed and flexibility of the internet. Japan’s regulatory approach is strict: stablecoins must be 100 percent backed by high-quality, liquid assets, and algorithmic stablecoins are prohibited. Issuers must meet transparency and reserve requirements, and monthly audits are standard. This is similar to new rules in the U.S., EU, and Hong Kong. What does this mean in practice? Financial institutions are exploring stablecoins for instant payments, asset management, and lending. For example, real-time settlement of stock and bond trades normally take days. These transactions could happen in seconds with stablecoins. They also enable new business models like Banking-as-a-Service and Web3 integration, although regulatory costs and low interest rates remain hurdles for profitability.Or think about SWIFT transactions, the backbone of international payments. Stablecoins will not replace SWIFT, but they can supplement it. Payments that used to take days can now be completed in seconds, with up to 80 percent lower fees. But trust in issuers and compliance with anti-money laundering rules are critical. There’s another topic on top of investors’ minds. CBDCs – Central Bank Digital Currencies. Both      stablecoins and CBDCs are digital. But digital currencies are issued by central banks and considered legal tender, whereas stablecoins are private-sector innovations. Japan is the world’s fourth-largest economy and considered a leader in technology. But it takes a cautious approach to financial transformation. It is preparing for a CBDC but hasn’t committed to launching one yet. If and when that happens, stablecoins and CBDCs can coexist, with the digital currency serving as public infrastructure and stablecoins driving innovation. So, what’s the bottom line? Japan’s stablecoin journey is just beginning, but its impact could ripple across payments, asset management, and even global finance. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7Hl9FL5lI-3zZh4w9fhx0Zsj5S-rQY63ypPyFKgkA40Fri, 31 Oct 2025 14:30:00 +0000gtyOur Japan Financials Analyst Mia Nagasaka discusses how the country’s new stablecoin regulations and digital payments are set to transform the flow of money not only locally, but globally.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mia Nagasaka, Head of Japan Financials Research at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities. Today – Japan’s stablecoin revolution and why it matters to global investors. It’s Friday, October 31st, at 4pm in Tokyo. Japan may be late to the crypto market. But its first yen-denominated stablecoin is just around the corner. And it has the potential to quietly reshape how digital money moves across the country and globally. You may have heard of digital money like Bitcoin. It’s significantly more volatile than traditional financial assets like stocks and bonds. Stablecoins are different. They are digital currencies designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to assets such as the yen or U.S. dollar. And in June 2023, Japan amended its Payment Services Acts to create a legal framework for stablecoins. Market participants in Japan and abroad are watching closely whether the JPY stablecoin can establish itself as a major global digital currency, such as Tether. Stablecoins promise to make payments faster, cheaper, and available 24/7. Japan’s cashless payment ratio jumped from about 30 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2024, and there’s still room to grow compared to other countries. The government’s push for fintech and digital payments is accelerating, and stablecoins could be the missing link to a truly digital economy. Unlike Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are designed to suppress price volatility. They’re managed by private companies and backed by assets—think cash, government bonds, or even commodities like gold. Industry watchers think stablecoins can make digital payments as reliable as cash, but with the speed and flexibility of the internet. Japan’s regulatory approach is strict: stablecoins must be 100 percent backed by high-quality, liquid assets, and algorithmic stablecoins are prohibited. Issuers must meet transparency and reserve requirements, and monthly audits are standard. This is similar to new rules in the U.S., EU, and Hong Kong. What does this mean in practice? Financial institutions are exploring stablecoins for instant payments, asset management, and lending. For example, real-time settlement of stock and bond trades normally take days. These transactions could happen in seconds with stablecoins. They also enable new business models like Banking-as-a-Service and Web3 integration, although regulatory costs and low interest rates remain hurdles for profitability.Or think about SWIFT transactions, the backbone of international payments. Stablecoins will not replace SWIFT, but they can supplement it. Payments that used to take days can now be completed in seconds, with up to 80 percent lower fees. But trust in issuers and compliance with anti-money laundering rules are critical. There’s another topic on top of investors’ minds. CBDCs – Central Bank Digital Currencies. Both      stablecoins and CBDCs are digital. But digital currencies are issued by central banks and considered legal tender, whereas stablecoins are private-sector innovations. Japan is the world’s fourth-largest economy and considered a leader in technology. But it takes a cautious approach to financial transformation. It is preparing for a CBDC but hasn’t committed to launching one yet. If and when that happens, stablecoins and CBDCs can coexist, with the digital currency serving as public infrastructure and stablecoins driving innovation. So, what’s the bottom line? Japan’s stablecoin journey is just beginning, but its impact could ripple across payments, asset management, and even global finance. Thanks for...]]>296alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1507fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-shutdown-standoff-raises-stakes-for-healthcare--75648525insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Erin Wright: And I'm Erin Wright, U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll talk about what the U.S. government shutdown means for healthcare. It's Thursday, October 30th at 12pm in New York. Thus far, it seems like markets haven't really been paying too much attention to the government shutdown. Obviously, we're aware of the cumulative economic impact that builds every week that it lasts. But we haven't seen any movement from the political front either this week or last, which signals that it could be going on for a while longer. That being said, the end of this month is an important catalyst for a few reasons. First of all, you have the potential rollover of SNAP benefits. You have another potential missed military paycheck. And most importantly, the open enrollment period for healthcare plans. Polling is still showing neither side coming out on top with a clear advantage. Absent that changing, you probably need to see one of two things happen to have any movement forward on this front. Either more direct involvement from President Trump as he wraps up the APEC meeting or some sort of exogenous economic event, like a strike from air traffic controllers. Those types of events obviously are difficult to predict this far in advance. But up until now we know that President Trump has not really been involved in the debate. And the FAA seems to be operating a little bit with delays, but as usual. So, Erin, let's pivot to what's topical in here from a healthcare policy perspective. What are investors that you speak with paying the most attention to? Erin Wright: You bring up some important points Ariana. But from a policy perspective, it's very much an always top of mind for healthcare investors here. Right now, it is a key negotiating factor when it comes to the government shutdown. So, the shutdown debate is predominantly centered around the Affordable Care Act or the healthcare exchanges. This was a part of Obamacare. It was a program where individuals can purchase standalone health insurance through an exchange marketplace.The program has been wildly popular. It's been wildly popular in recent years with 24 million members. Growing 30 per cent last year, particularly with enhanced subsidies that are being offered today. So those subsidies are expected to expire at the end of this year, and those exchange members could be left with some real sticker shock – especially when we're going to see premium increases that could, on average, increase about 25 to 30 percent, in some states even more. So, folks are really starting to see that now. November 1st will be a key date here as open enrollment period begins. Ariana Salvatore: Right. So, as you mentioned, this is pretty key to the entire shutdown debate. Republicans are in favor of letting the expanded subsidies roll off. Democrats want to restore them to that COVID level enhancement. Of course, there's probably some middle path here, and we have seen some background reporting indicating that lawmakers are talking about a potential middle path or concession.  So, talk me through what's on the table in terms of negotiating a potential compromise or extension of these subsidies. Erin Wright: So, we could see a permutation of outcomes here. Maybe we don't get a full extension, but we could see something partial come through. We could see something in terms of income caps, which restrict, kind of, the level of participants in the AC exchanges. You could see out-of-pocket minimums, which would eliminate some of those shadow members that we've been seeing and have been problematic across the space. And then you could also grandfather in some existing members that get subsidies today. So, all of those could offer some degrees of positive. And some degrees of relief when it comes to broader healthcare services, when it comes to insurance companies, when it comes to others that are participating in this program, as well as the individuals themselves. So, it's really a patient dynamic that's getting real here. A lot is on the table, but a lot is at stake with the potential for the sunsetting of these subsidies to drive 4 million in uninsured lives. So, it is meaningful, and I think that that's something we have to kind of put into perspective here.So, would love to know Ariana though, beyond healthcare, what are some of those key debates in terms of the negotiations around the shutdown? Ariana Salvatore: Healthcare really is central to this debate. So aside from just the ACA subsidies that we talked about, some Democrats have also been pushing for a repeal or rollback of some of the pieces of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed earlier this year. That was the fiscal bill of Republicans passed through the reconciliation process – that included some cuts to Medicaid down the line. So, there's been talk around that front. I think more of a clear path on the subsidies front, because that seems to be something that Republicans are treating as an absolute no-go. Some of the other really key debates are around just kind of how to keep the ball rolling while we're still in the shutdown. So, I mentioned SNAP at first, the potential release of some contingency funds there. Again, the military paychecks are really critical. And, of course, what this all means for incoming data, which is really important – not just for investors but also for the Fed, as it kind of calibrate[s] their next move. In particular, as we head into the December meeting. I think we got a little bit of a hawkish surprise in yesterday's meeting, and that's something that investors were not expecting. So, obviously the longer that this goes on, the more those risks just continue to grow, and this deadline that we're talking about is a really critical one. It's coming up soon. So we should have a sense of how our prognosis pans out in the coming days. Thanks for the conversation, Erin. Erin Wright: Great talking to you, Ariana. Ariana Salvatore: And to our audience, thanks for listening. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review wherever you listen. And if you like Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about the podcast today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9ektR90cOEoiIXKTG2rk42Q869pX6KxveJlJFoTqPzIThu, 30 Oct 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Ariana Salvatore and Erin Wright explain the pivotal role of healthcare in negotiations to end the government shutdown.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Erin Wright: And I'm Erin Wright, U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll talk about what the U.S. government shutdown means for healthcare. It's Thursday, October 30th at 12pm in New York. Thus far, it seems like markets haven't really been paying too much attention to the government shutdown. Obviously, we're aware of the cumulative economic impact that builds every week that it lasts. But we haven't seen any movement from the political front either this week or last, which signals that it could be going on for a while longer. That being said, the end of this month is an important catalyst for a few reasons. First of all, you have the potential rollover of SNAP benefits. You have another potential missed military paycheck. And most importantly, the open enrollment period for healthcare plans. Polling is still showing neither side coming out on top with a clear advantage. Absent that changing, you probably need to see one of two things happen to have any movement forward on this front. Either more direct involvement from President Trump as he wraps up the APEC meeting or some sort of exogenous economic event, like a strike from air traffic controllers. Those types of events obviously are difficult to predict this far in advance. But up until now we know that President Trump has not really been involved in the debate. And the FAA seems to be operating a little bit with delays, but as usual. So, Erin, let's pivot to what's topical in here from a healthcare policy perspective. What are investors that you speak with paying the most attention to? Erin Wright: You bring up some important points Ariana. But from a policy perspective, it's very much an always top of mind for healthcare investors here. Right now, it is a key negotiating factor when it comes to the government shutdown. So, the shutdown debate is predominantly centered around the Affordable Care Act or the healthcare exchanges. This was a part of Obamacare. It was a program where individuals can purchase standalone health insurance through an exchange marketplace.The program has been wildly popular. It's been wildly popular in recent years with 24 million members. Growing 30 per cent last year, particularly with enhanced subsidies that are being offered today. So those subsidies are expected to expire at the end of this year, and those exchange members could be left with some real sticker shock – especially when we're going to see premium increases that could, on average, increase about 25 to 30 percent, in some states even more. So, folks are really starting to see that now. November 1st will be a key date here as open enrollment period begins. Ariana Salvatore: Right. So, as you mentioned, this is pretty key to the entire shutdown debate. Republicans are in favor of letting the expanded subsidies roll off. Democrats want to restore them to that COVID level enhancement. Of course, there's probably some middle path here, and we have seen some background reporting indicating that lawmakers are talking about a potential middle path or concession.  So, talk me through what's on the table in terms of negotiating a potential compromise or extension of these subsidies. Erin Wright: So, we could see a permutation of outcomes here. Maybe we don't get a full extension, but we could see something partial come through. We could see something in terms of income caps, which restrict, kind of, the level of participants in the AC exchanges. You could see out-of-pocket minimums, which would eliminate some of those...]]>343alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1506fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/m-a-poised-to-gain-momentum--75648303insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – a discussion of merger and acquisition activity or M&A. Last year, we had a view that this activity would pick up significantly. We think we're seeing that increase now. It has further to go. It's Wednesday, October 29th at 2pm in London. We have been firm believers at Morgan Stanley in a significant multi-year uplift in global merger and acquisition activity or M&A. That conviction remains. The incentives for this type of action are strong in our view; activity still lags what fundamentals would suggest, and supportive regulatory shifts are real. M&A has now returned, and importantly, we think there's much further to go. Indeed, M&A is very closely linked to corporate confidence, and we think investors need to consider the possibility that we'll see an even bigger surge in this confidence – or a boom. First, policy uncertainty is declining as U.S. tax legislation has now passed, and tariff rates get finalized. It's the relative direction of this uncertainty that we think matters most for corporate confidence. Second, interest rates are declining with the Fed, European Central Bank, and Bank of England all set to cut rates further over the next 12 months. Third, bank capital requirements may decline in the view of Morgan Stanley analysts, which would unlock more lending for these types of transactions. Fourth, and very importantly, the regulatory backdrop is becoming more accommodative in both the U.S. and in Europe. Indeed, we think that companies may think that this is going to be the most permissive regulatory window for transactions that they might get for some time. Fifth, private equity, which is a big driver of M&A activity, is sitting on over $4 trillion of dry powder in our view – at a time when credit markets look very wide open for financing their transactions. And finally, we're seeing a surge in capital expenditure on Morgan Stanley estimates, which we see as a sign of rising corporate confidence, and importantly an urgency to act – with corporates far less content to simply sit back and repurchase their stock. All of these favorable conditions together argue for activity to push even higher. We forecast global M&A volumes to increase by 32 percent this year, an additional 20 percent next year, and reach $7.8 trillion in volume in 2027. This is a global story with M&A rising across regions, especially in Japan. It has cross-asset implications with M&A already being one of the biggest drivers of bond outperformance within the U.S. high-yield market. And this is also a story where we see a lot of value in bringing together macro and micro perspectives. While we think the top-down conditions look favorable for all the reasons I just mentioned, we also see a very encouraging picture bottom up. We polled a large number of Morgan Stanley sector analyst teams and asked them about M&A conditions in their sector. A large majority of them see more activity. So, where could these more specific implications lie? Well, as you heard on yesterday's episode, Healthcare and Biotech may see an uptick in activity. In the U.S., we also think that Banking and Media stand out. In Europe, Business Services, Metals and Mining, and Telecom seem most ripe for more M&A. Aerospace and Defense is an interesting sector that may see more M&A within multiple regions, including the U.S. and Europe, as companies look for scale. And with smaller companies trading at a valuation discount to their larger peers across the world, Morgan Stanley analysts generally see the strongest case for activity in larger companies acquiring these smaller ones. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/g1h4ipSldahV1N4oIeIcvM15R56BIqeIH4z6ivjWEcEWed, 29 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why the recent revival of M&A activity has room to accelerate.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – a discussion of merger and acquisition activity or M&A. Last year, we had a view that this activity would pick up significantly. We think we're seeing that increase now. It has further to go. It's Wednesday, October 29th at 2pm in London. We have been firm believers at Morgan Stanley in a significant multi-year uplift in global merger and acquisition activity or M&A. That conviction remains. The incentives for this type of action are strong in our view; activity still lags what fundamentals would suggest, and supportive regulatory shifts are real. M&A has now returned, and importantly, we think there's much further to go. Indeed, M&A is very closely linked to corporate confidence, and we think investors need to consider the possibility that we'll see an even bigger surge in this confidence – or a boom. First, policy uncertainty is declining as U.S. tax legislation has now passed, and tariff rates get finalized. It's the relative direction of this uncertainty that we think matters most for corporate confidence. Second, interest rates are declining with the Fed, European Central Bank, and Bank of England all set to cut rates further over the next 12 months. Third, bank capital requirements may decline in the view of Morgan Stanley analysts, which would unlock more lending for these types of transactions. Fourth, and very importantly, the regulatory backdrop is becoming more accommodative in both the U.S. and in Europe. Indeed, we think that companies may think that this is going to be the most permissive regulatory window for transactions that they might get for some time. Fifth, private equity, which is a big driver of M&A activity, is sitting on over $4 trillion of dry powder in our view – at a time when credit markets look very wide open for financing their transactions. And finally, we're seeing a surge in capital expenditure on Morgan Stanley estimates, which we see as a sign of rising corporate confidence, and importantly an urgency to act – with corporates far less content to simply sit back and repurchase their stock. All of these favorable conditions together argue for activity to push even higher. We forecast global M&A volumes to increase by 32 percent this year, an additional 20 percent next year, and reach $7.8 trillion in volume in 2027. This is a global story with M&A rising across regions, especially in Japan. It has cross-asset implications with M&A already being one of the biggest drivers of bond outperformance within the U.S. high-yield market. And this is also a story where we see a lot of value in bringing together macro and micro perspectives. While we think the top-down conditions look favorable for all the reasons I just mentioned, we also see a very encouraging picture bottom up. We polled a large number of Morgan Stanley sector analyst teams and asked them about M&A conditions in their sector. A large majority of them see more activity. So, where could these more specific implications lie? Well, as you heard on yesterday's episode, Healthcare and Biotech may see an uptick in activity. In the U.S., we also think that Banking and Media stand out. In Europe, Business Services, Metals and Mining, and Telecom seem most ripe for more M&A. Aerospace and Defense is an interesting sector that may see more M&A within multiple regions, including the U.S. and Europe, as companies look for scale. And with smaller companies trading at a valuation discount to their larger peers across the world, Morgan Stanley analysts...]]>261alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1505fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-turnaround-in-sight-for-healthcare--75648136insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Sean Laaman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sean Laaman, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Biotech Analyst. Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Biopharma Analyst. Sean Laaman: Today, we'll discuss how a rally in the healthcare sector is being driven by more favorable macro conditions. It's Tuesday, October 28th at 10am in New York. So, Terence, healthcare has lagged the broader market year-to-date, and valuations have been near historical lows. But recent weeks show strengthening performance. Policy headwinds have been front and center.What's changed in the regulatory environment and how is the biopharma sector adapting to these pricing and tariff dynamics? Terence Flynn: Sean, as you know, with many other sectors, tariffs were initially a focus earlier this year. But a number of companies in our space have subsequently announced significant U.S. manufacturing investments to reshore supply chains. And hence, the market's less focused on tariffs in our space right now. But the other policy dynamic and focus is what's called Most Favored Nation or MFN drug pricing. Now, this is where the President's been focused on aligning U.S. drug prices with those in other developed countries. And recently we've seen several companies announce agreements with the administration along these lines, which importantly has provided investors with more visibility here. And we're watching to see if additional agreements get announced. Sean Laaman: Got it. Another hurdle for Large-cap biopharma is a looming expiration of patents with [$]177 billion exposed by 2030. How is this shaping M&A trends and strategic priorities? Terence Flynn: For sure. I mean, as you know, Sean, patent expiry is our normal part of the life cycle of drug development. Every company goes through this at some point, but this does put the focus on company's internal pipelines to continue to progress while also being able to access external innovation via M&A. Recently we have started to see a pickup in deal activity, which could bode well for performance in SMID-cap biotech. Sean Laaman: At the same time, you believe relative valuations look compelling for Large-cap biopharma. Where are valuations versus where they've been historically? What's driving this and how should investors think about positioning? Terence Flynn: Absolutely. Look, on a price to earnings multiple, the sector's trading at about a 30 percent discount to the S&P 500 right now. Now that's in line with prior periods of policy uncertainty. But as policy visibility improves, we expect the focus will shift back to fundamentals. Now, positioning to me still feels light here, given some of the patent cliff dynamics we just discussed. Now, Sean, with the Fed moving toward rate cuts, how do you see this impacting your sector on the biotech side? Sean Laaman: Well, Terence, particularly in my space, which is Small- and Mid-cap biotech companies, they're typically capital consumers are not capital producers. They're particularly sensitive to the current rate environment.Therefore, they're sensitive to spending on pipeline. They're sensitive to M&A. So, as rates come down, we expect more spending on pipeline and more M&A activity, which is generally positive for the sector. Looking forward, biotech sector is generally the best performing sector on a six-to-12-month timeframe post the first rate cut. Terence Flynn: Great. You've also talked about this SMID to Big thesis on the biotech side. Can you explain what's driving that? Sean Laaman: Sure Terence. There’s three pieces to the SMID to Big thematic. So, we in SMID-cap biotech, we cover 80 to 90 companies. About a third of those are newly, kind of profitable companies. Those companies are turning from being capital consumers to capital producers. We see about $15 billion of cash on balance sheets for 2025, going to north of 130 billion by 2030. That's the first piece. The second piece is due to regulatory uncertainty at the USFDA. We're seeing more attractive valuations amongst clinical stage names. That's the second piece. And third piece relates to your coverage, Terence. I refer back to that [$]177 billion of LOE. So, we expect generally that M&A activity will be quite high amongst our sector. Terence Flynn: And let's not forget about AI, which has implications across the healthcare space. How much is this changing the dynamic in biotech, Sean? Sean Laaman: It is changing, but we're really at the beginning. I think there's three things to think about. The first one is faster trial recruitment. The second one is faster regulatory submissions. And the third one, which is the most interesting, but we're really at the beginning of, is faster time to appropriately targeted molecules. Terence Flynn: Great. And maybe lastly, what are the key risks and catalysts for SMID-cap biotech in the current environment? Sean Laaman: As always, we're focused on pipeline failures in terms of risk. Secondly, in terms of risk, we're looking at regulatory risk at the FDA. And thirdly, we're looking at the rise in China biotech and the competitive dynamic there.Whether you're watching large cap biopharma, M&A moves, or the rise of cash-rich, SMID-cap biotechs, the healthcare sector setup is unlike anything we've seen in years.Terence, thanks for speaking with me. Terence Flynn: Always a pleasure to be on the show. Thanks for having me, Sean. Sean Laaman: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/USDZXt9E3rWeGgxP6N0UjB3-HOwuZK_ZaX3RpOXJdckTue, 28 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Biotech and Biopharma analysts Sean Laaman and Terence Flynn discuss the latest developments that could be positioning the healthcare sector for strong outperformance.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Sean Laaman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sean Laaman, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Biotech Analyst. Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Biopharma Analyst. Sean Laaman: Today, we'll discuss how a rally in the healthcare sector is being driven by more favorable macro conditions. It's Tuesday, October 28th at 10am in New York. So, Terence, healthcare has lagged the broader market year-to-date, and valuations have been near historical lows. But recent weeks show strengthening performance. Policy headwinds have been front and center.What's changed in the regulatory environment and how is the biopharma sector adapting to these pricing and tariff dynamics? Terence Flynn: Sean, as you know, with many other sectors, tariffs were initially a focus earlier this year. But a number of companies in our space have subsequently announced significant U.S. manufacturing investments to reshore supply chains. And hence, the market's less focused on tariffs in our space right now. But the other policy dynamic and focus is what's called Most Favored Nation or MFN drug pricing. Now, this is where the President's been focused on aligning U.S. drug prices with those in other developed countries. And recently we've seen several companies announce agreements with the administration along these lines, which importantly has provided investors with more visibility here. And we're watching to see if additional agreements get announced. Sean Laaman: Got it. Another hurdle for Large-cap biopharma is a looming expiration of patents with [$]177 billion exposed by 2030. How is this shaping M&A trends and strategic priorities? Terence Flynn: For sure. I mean, as you know, Sean, patent expiry is our normal part of the life cycle of drug development. Every company goes through this at some point, but this does put the focus on company's internal pipelines to continue to progress while also being able to access external innovation via M&A. Recently we have started to see a pickup in deal activity, which could bode well for performance in SMID-cap biotech. Sean Laaman: At the same time, you believe relative valuations look compelling for Large-cap biopharma. Where are valuations versus where they've been historically? What's driving this and how should investors think about positioning? Terence Flynn: Absolutely. Look, on a price to earnings multiple, the sector's trading at about a 30 percent discount to the S&P 500 right now. Now that's in line with prior periods of policy uncertainty. But as policy visibility improves, we expect the focus will shift back to fundamentals. Now, positioning to me still feels light here, given some of the patent cliff dynamics we just discussed. Now, Sean, with the Fed moving toward rate cuts, how do you see this impacting your sector on the biotech side? Sean Laaman: Well, Terence, particularly in my space, which is Small- and Mid-cap biotech companies, they're typically capital consumers are not capital producers. They're particularly sensitive to the current rate environment.Therefore, they're sensitive to spending on pipeline. They're sensitive to M&A. So, as rates come down, we expect more spending on pipeline and more M&A activity, which is generally positive for the sector. Looking forward, biotech sector is generally the best performing sector on a six-to-12-month timeframe post the first rate cut. Terence Flynn: Great. You've also talked about this SMID to Big thesis on the biotech side. Can you explain what's driving that? Sean Laaman: Sure Terence. There’s three pieces to the SMID to Big...]]>337alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1504fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-the-stock-market-rally-continue--75648542insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the remaining hurdles for equities after what appears to be a preliminary trade deal with China.It's Monday, October 27th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks, trade tensions between the U.S. and China escalated once again focused on rare earths and technology transfers with each country playing its strongest card. Over the weekend, it appears that we have at least a preliminary agreement to de-escalate these tensions which means avoiding prohibitively high tariffs that were scheduled to go on at the end of this month.  While we don’t have many details on what has been agreed to, it appears that critical rare earths will continue to ship to the U.S. while technology transfer restrictions by the U.S. to China will ease. Presumably, Fentanyl tariffs of 20 percent on China are likely to be part of any broader agreement between Presidents Trump and Xi, if they end up meeting at the upcoming Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.Given the sharp sell-off in stocks a few weeks ago on the news of trade tensions re-escalating, it’s not surprising that stocks are rallying sharply this morning on news of a possible deal from last week’s talks.  Our attention now turns to the other big events this week. First, the Federal Reserve is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday to decide its next move on monetary policy. There is a broad consensus view that the Fed will cut another 25 basis points but there are very different views about how they will address its balance sheet run-off known as quantitative tightening, or QT.  Based on my conversations, there is a growing consensus view for the Fed to announce the end of QT but uncertainty around the timing. Our house view is for the Fed to wait until the January meeting to make this official with an end of the program in February. Others believe the Fed could announce something as early as this week.  That dispersion in expectations does create some room for disappointment from markets, especially given the recent increase in funding market spreads. More specifically, the widening in spreads suggests banking reserves may already be too low and restrictive for the pick-up in economic activity and capital spending that requires more liquidity. Second, earnings revision breadth has rolled over sharply the past few weeks. Most of this decline is due to normal seasonality and the fact that revisions breadth had reached unsustainably high levels since bottoming out in April. Therefore, a reset should be expected as we previewed over a month ago. Nevertheless, it needs to stabilize and push higher again for stocks to continue their advance in my view.  Perhaps most importantly for the S&P 500 is the fact that all of the hyperscalers are reporting this week and will likely determine if revision breadth rebounds. It will also be important to see how those stocks react to what is likely to be continued aggressive guidance on AI capex plans. Since April, the hyperscaler stocks have rewarded higher guidance on spending. Should that change, we may see a different tone to how these companies discuss their spending plans.   Bottom line, I remain bullish on my 12 month view for U.S. stocks based on what I believe will be better and broader growth in earnings next year. Nevertheless, the near term window remains a bit cloudy on trade, Fed policy shifts and earnings revisions breadth. Stay patient with new capital deployment and look to take advantage of downdrafts when they arise like a few weeks ago.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JRGvGa-mK3o63bFPhL66gZi9oiBMxd-4RcaXa_IyoOUMon, 27 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses the outlook for stocks after the preliminary U.S.-China trade agreement and ahead of the Fed meeting and big tech earnings.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the remaining hurdles for equities after what appears to be a preliminary trade deal with China.It's Monday, October 27th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks, trade tensions between the U.S. and China escalated once again focused on rare earths and technology transfers with each country playing its strongest card. Over the weekend, it appears that we have at least a preliminary agreement to de-escalate these tensions which means avoiding prohibitively high tariffs that were scheduled to go on at the end of this month.  While we don’t have many details on what has been agreed to, it appears that critical rare earths will continue to ship to the U.S. while technology transfer restrictions by the U.S. to China will ease. Presumably, Fentanyl tariffs of 20 percent on China are likely to be part of any broader agreement between Presidents Trump and Xi, if they end up meeting at the upcoming Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.Given the sharp sell-off in stocks a few weeks ago on the news of trade tensions re-escalating, it’s not surprising that stocks are rallying sharply this morning on news of a possible deal from last week’s talks.  Our attention now turns to the other big events this week. First, the Federal Reserve is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday to decide its next move on monetary policy. There is a broad consensus view that the Fed will cut another 25 basis points but there are very different views about how they will address its balance sheet run-off known as quantitative tightening, or QT.  Based on my conversations, there is a growing consensus view for the Fed to announce the end of QT but uncertainty around the timing. Our house view is for the Fed to wait until the January meeting to make this official with an end of the program in February. Others believe the Fed could announce something as early as this week.  That dispersion in expectations does create some room for disappointment from markets, especially given the recent increase in funding market spreads. More specifically, the widening in spreads suggests banking reserves may already be too low and restrictive for the pick-up in economic activity and capital spending that requires more liquidity. Second, earnings revision breadth has rolled over sharply the past few weeks. Most of this decline is due to normal seasonality and the fact that revisions breadth had reached unsustainably high levels since bottoming out in April. Therefore, a reset should be expected as we previewed over a month ago. Nevertheless, it needs to stabilize and push higher again for stocks to continue their advance in my view.  Perhaps most importantly for the S&P 500 is the fact that all of the hyperscalers are reporting this week and will likely determine if revision breadth rebounds. It will also be important to see how those stocks react to what is likely to be continued aggressive guidance on AI capex plans. Since April, the hyperscaler stocks have rewarded higher guidance on spending. Should that change, we may see a different tone to how these companies discuss their spending plans.   Bottom line, I remain bullish on my 12 month view for U.S. stocks based on what I believe will be better and broader growth in earnings next year. Nevertheless, the near term window remains a bit cloudy on trade, Fed policy shifts and earnings revisions breadth. Stay patient with new capital deployment and look to take advantage of...]]>240alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1503fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-happens-to-software-developers-as-ai-can-code--75648533insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sanjit Singh, the U.S. Software Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Today: how AI is transforming software and what that means for developers.It’s Friday, October 24th, at 10am in New York.There's been a lot of news stories and anecdotal accounts about AI taking over jobs, especially in the software industry. You may have heard of vibe coding, where people can use natural language prompts, guiding AI to build software applications. So yes, AI is creating a world where software writes itself. But at the same time, the demand for human creativity only grows.The introduction of AI coding assistants has dramatically expanded what software can do, fueling a surge in both the volume of code and the complexity of projects. But instead of shrinking the developer workforce, AI is actually supporting continued growth in developer headcount, even as productivity soars.We’re estimating the software development market will grow at a 20 percent compound annual growth rate, reaching $61 billion by 2029. And that’s up from $24 billion in 2024. And in terms of the developer population, [research] firms like IDC expect it to jump from 30 million paid developers in 2024 to 50 million by 2029 – that’s a 10 percent annual growth rate. Even the most conservative estimates, like those from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, see developer jobs growing roughly 2 percent per year through 2033, outpacing overall employment growth.So, what does this mean for people behind the code? AI isn’t replacing developers. It’s redefining them. Routine tasks are increasingly handled by AI agents, and this frees up developers to become curators, reviewers, architects, and most important problem-solvers.The upshot? Companies may need fewer developers for repetitive work, but the overall demand for skilled engineers remains robust. As AI lowers the barrier to entry, the pool of people who can build software applications expands dramatically. But at the same time, the complexity and ambitions of projects rise, keeping experienced developers in high demand.No doubt, AI coding tools are delivering real productivity gains. Some teams are reporting nearly doubling their code capacity and cutting pull request times in half after adopting AI assistants. Test coverage has increased sharply, resulting in 20 percent fewer production incidents for some organizations. But there is a catch with all this AI-generated code. It’s creating significant new bottlenecks downstream.An example of this is code review, which is becoming a major pain point. Many organizations are experiencing pull request fatigue, with developers rubber-stamping changes just to keep up. Some teams now require three reviewers for AI-generated change, compared to just one before. And in terms of automated testing, systems are getting overwhelmed because every change made with AI sets off a complete round of test.Now we estimate productivity gains from AI in software engineering at about 15–20 percent. But in complex projects, the gains are much lower, as the volume of new code often means more bugs and more rework – and hence more human developers.So where do we go from here? In our view, the future isn’t about fully autonomous software development. Instead, large enterprises are likely to favor an integrated approach, where AI agents and human developers work side by side. AI will automate more of the software development lifecycle. And that not only includes coding – which, coding typically accounts for 10-20 percent of the software development effort – but other areas like testing, security, and deployment. But humans will remain in the loop for oversight, design, and decision-making. And as software gets cheaper and faster to build, organizations won’t just do the same work with fewer people – they likely will do more.In short, the need for skilled developers isn’t going away. But it’s definitely evolving. And in the age of AI, it’s not about man versus machine. It’s about man with machine. And so with more software, we see more developers.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TKVozuCoKSrP0eOPKp6tl862SEEn83fzoJhPRpKNK4EFri, 24 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Software Analyst Sanjit Singh explains how AI is reshaping software development and why the future for the sector may be brighter – and busier – than ever.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sanjit Singh, the U.S. Software Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Today: how AI is transforming software and what that means for developers.It’s Friday, October 24th, at 10am in New York.There's been a lot of news stories and anecdotal accounts about AI taking over jobs, especially in the software industry. You may have heard of vibe coding, where people can use natural language prompts, guiding AI to build software applications. So yes, AI is creating a world where software writes itself. But at the same time, the demand for human creativity only grows.The introduction of AI coding assistants has dramatically expanded what software can do, fueling a surge in both the volume of code and the complexity of projects. But instead of shrinking the developer workforce, AI is actually supporting continued growth in developer headcount, even as productivity soars.We’re estimating the software development market will grow at a 20 percent compound annual growth rate, reaching $61 billion by 2029. And that’s up from $24 billion in 2024. And in terms of the developer population, [research] firms like IDC expect it to jump from 30 million paid developers in 2024 to 50 million by 2029 – that’s a 10 percent annual growth rate. Even the most conservative estimates, like those from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, see developer jobs growing roughly 2 percent per year through 2033, outpacing overall employment growth.So, what does this mean for people behind the code? AI isn’t replacing developers. It’s redefining them. Routine tasks are increasingly handled by AI agents, and this frees up developers to become curators, reviewers, architects, and most important problem-solvers.The upshot? Companies may need fewer developers for repetitive work, but the overall demand for skilled engineers remains robust. As AI lowers the barrier to entry, the pool of people who can build software applications expands dramatically. But at the same time, the complexity and ambitions of projects rise, keeping experienced developers in high demand.No doubt, AI coding tools are delivering real productivity gains. Some teams are reporting nearly doubling their code capacity and cutting pull request times in half after adopting AI assistants. Test coverage has increased sharply, resulting in 20 percent fewer production incidents for some organizations. But there is a catch with all this AI-generated code. It’s creating significant new bottlenecks downstream.An example of this is code review, which is becoming a major pain point. Many organizations are experiencing pull request fatigue, with developers rubber-stamping changes just to keep up. Some teams now require three reviewers for AI-generated change, compared to just one before. And in terms of automated testing, systems are getting overwhelmed because every change made with AI sets off a complete round of test.Now we estimate productivity gains from AI in software engineering at about 15–20 percent. But in complex projects, the gains are much lower, as the volume of new code often means more bugs and more rework – and hence more human developers.So where do we go from here? In our view, the future isn’t about fully autonomous software development. Instead, large enterprises are likely to favor an integrated approach, where AI agents and human developers work side by side. AI will automate more of the software development lifecycle. And that not only includes coding – which, coding typically accounts for 10-20 percent of the software development effort – but other areas like testing, security, and deployment. But humans...]]>261alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1502fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-ai-spending-worry-investors--75648188insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – the debate about whether elevated capital expenditure and AI technology is showing classic warning signs of overbuilding and worries for credit.It's Thursday, October 23rd at 2pm in London.Two things are true. AI related investment will be one of the largest investment cycles of this generation. And there is a long history of major investment cycles causing major headaches to the credit market. From the railroads to electrification, to the internet to shale oil, there are a number of instances where heavy investment created credit weakness, even when the underlying technology was highly successful.So, let's dig into this and why we think this AI CapEx cycle actually has much further to run.First, Morgan Stanley has done a lot of good collaborative in-depth work on where the AI related spend is coming from and what's still in the pipeline. And importantly, most of the spending that we expect is still well ahead of us. It's only really ramping up starting now.Next, we think that AI is seen as the most important technology of the next decade by some of the biggest, most profitable companies on the planet. We think this increases their willingness to invest and stick with those investments, even if there's a lot of uncertainty around what the return on all of this expenditure will ultimately be.Third, unlike some other major recent capital expenditure cycles – be they the internet of the late 1990s or shale oil of the mid 2010s, both of which were challenging for credit – much of the spending that we're seeing today on AI is backed by companies with extremely strong balance sheets and significant additional debt capacity. That just wasn't the case with some of those other prior investment cycles and should help this one run for longer.And finally, if we think about really what went wrong with some of these prior capital expenditure cycles, it's often really about overcapacity. A new technology – be it the railroads or electricity or the internet – comes along and it is transformational.And because it's transformational, you build a lot of it. And then sometimes you build too much; you build ahead of the underlying demand. And that can lower returns on that investment and cause losses.We can understand why large levels of AI capital investment and the history of large investment cycles in the past causes understandable concern. But when tying these dynamics together, it's important to remember why large investment cycles have a checkered history. It's usually not about the technology not working per se, but rather a promising technology being built ahead of demand for it and resulting in excess capacity driving down returns in that investment, and the builders lacking the financial resources to bridge that gap.So far, that's not what we see. Data centers are still seeing strong underlying demand and are often backed by companies with exceptionally good resources. We need to watch if either of these change.But for now, we think the AI CapEx cycle has much further to go.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gopI7pTZe0suvgCC-Y72kFZppNZVfpUK-2P1DKHpuD8Thu, 23 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets wades into the debate around whether the boom in artificial intelligence investment is a warning sign for credit markets. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – the debate about whether elevated capital expenditure and AI technology is showing classic warning signs of overbuilding and worries for credit.It's Thursday, October 23rd at 2pm in London.Two things are true. AI related investment will be one of the largest investment cycles of this generation. And there is a long history of major investment cycles causing major headaches to the credit market. From the railroads to electrification, to the internet to shale oil, there are a number of instances where heavy investment created credit weakness, even when the underlying technology was highly successful.So, let's dig into this and why we think this AI CapEx cycle actually has much further to run.First, Morgan Stanley has done a lot of good collaborative in-depth work on where the AI related spend is coming from and what's still in the pipeline. And importantly, most of the spending that we expect is still well ahead of us. It's only really ramping up starting now.Next, we think that AI is seen as the most important technology of the next decade by some of the biggest, most profitable companies on the planet. We think this increases their willingness to invest and stick with those investments, even if there's a lot of uncertainty around what the return on all of this expenditure will ultimately be.Third, unlike some other major recent capital expenditure cycles – be they the internet of the late 1990s or shale oil of the mid 2010s, both of which were challenging for credit – much of the spending that we're seeing today on AI is backed by companies with extremely strong balance sheets and significant additional debt capacity. That just wasn't the case with some of those other prior investment cycles and should help this one run for longer.And finally, if we think about really what went wrong with some of these prior capital expenditure cycles, it's often really about overcapacity. A new technology – be it the railroads or electricity or the internet – comes along and it is transformational.And because it's transformational, you build a lot of it. And then sometimes you build too much; you build ahead of the underlying demand. And that can lower returns on that investment and cause losses.We can understand why large levels of AI capital investment and the history of large investment cycles in the past causes understandable concern. But when tying these dynamics together, it's important to remember why large investment cycles have a checkered history. It's usually not about the technology not working per se, but rather a promising technology being built ahead of demand for it and resulting in excess capacity driving down returns in that investment, and the builders lacking the financial resources to bridge that gap.So far, that's not what we see. Data centers are still seeing strong underlying demand and are often backed by companies with exceptionally good resources. We need to watch if either of these change.But for now, we think the AI CapEx cycle has much further to go.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today]]>228alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1501fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-next-turning-points-in-tech--75648582insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. I'm joined today by Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research and Matt Bombassei from my team.Today we're going to talk about private companies and technology – and how they're showing us the direction of travel for disruptive technologies and emerging investment opportunities.It's Wednesday, October 22nd at 10am in New York.Keith and Matt, we just returned from Morgan Stanley's Spark Private Company Conference last week in Los Angeles. It had over 85 private tech companies, 150 plus investor firms. There were a lot of themes that were discussed across the entire tech space impacting a lot of different sectors, including energy, healthcare, financial services, and cybersecurity.Keith, what were some of the biggest takeaways you took away from Spark this year?Keith Weiss: I'd say just to start off with, the Spark Conference is one of my favorite conferences of the year. It's a more intimate conference where you really get to spend time with both the private company executives and founders, as well as investors from the VC community and public company investors. And the conversations are more broad ranging; they're more about the thematics in the industry. They're more long term in nature.So, it's not just a conversation about what's next quarter going to look like, or what data points are you drumming up. You're having these thoughtful conversations about what's going on in the industry and how that's going to impact business models, how it's going to impact innovation cycles, how it's going to impact pricing models, within these companies. So, it tends to be a very interesting conference for me to attend.So, for me, some of the key takeaways. Typically, when we're in these innovation cycles, it feels like everybody's rowing in the same direction. We all understand where the technology's heading, we're all understanding how it's going to be delivered, and it's a race to get there. And you're having a conversation about who's doing best in that race, who's best positioned, who's got a better motor in their race car, if you will.So, to me, one of the big takeaways was we don't have that agreement today, right? There's different players that are looking at this market evolution differently. On one side of the equation, the application vendors – and a lot of this debate is in SaaS based applications. They see SaaS based applications having a very big role in taking these models that are inherently in-determinative and making them to be more determinative and useful within an enterprise context.Bringing them the data that they need to get the job done and the right data; bringing them the context of the business process being solved; bringing the governance that's necessary to use in an enterprise environment. But most importantly, to make it effective and efficient for the large enterprise.On the other side of the equation, you have venture capital investors and more early-stage investors who are looking at this as a huge phase shift, right? This is going to fundamentally change how we build software, how we utilize software, and they worry about a deprecation of that SaaS application layer. They think the model itself is going to start to encompass, it's going to start to subsume a lot more of that application functionality, a lot more of that analytics. And they see a lot more disruption going forward.So that debate within the marketplace, that's something that's interesting to me. It's something that we don't typically see in these innovation cycles. So that's takeaway number one.Takeaway number two, we're still really early days, and that's a little bit implied in in the first statement; I definitely hear a lot of it when I talk to the end customer. When I talk to CIOs. This wasn't necessarily at Spark, but earlier in the week, I was at a CIO conference, there was 150 CIOs in the room. One of the gentlemen on stage asked a question. ‘Who in the room has a good understanding of what we're talking about when we mean Agentic AI, when we mean agentic computing within our enterprise.’ Of the 150 CIOs, four raised their hands. Still very early days in understanding how this is going to evolve, how we're going to actually deliver these capabilities into the enterprise.And the last takeaway I would say is more excitement about the federal government becoming a better customer for software companies overall. People are more interested in new avenues into that federal government. There's been some very successful companies that have opened the door to getting into these federal government contracts without going through the primes, without doing the typical federal government procurement cycles.And that's very interesting to the startup community, which tends to move faster, which tends to drive on innovation versus relationship building; versus being in an existing kind of incumbent prime. So, I thought that opening was – it was pretty interesting as well.Brian Nowak: it sounds like it's still very early, there are a lot of different points of view and no real consensus as to where technologies could go next. However, one theme with an enterprise software – [it] does seem like cybersecurity has a little more of a unified view.So maybe walk us through what you learned from a cybersecurity perspective and what should we be focused on there?Keith Weiss: Yeah, absolutely. If there is a consensus, the consensus is that generative AI and these innovations and the fast pace of innovation is going to be a positive for cybersecurity spending, right? The reason being, there's three main factors that are driving that overall spending.One is expansion of surface area, right? Cybersecurity in one dimension, you can think of how much is there to be protected, right? And if we think about the major themes that we're talking about, we're going to be developing a lot more software, right? The code generation tools are improving software developer productivity. You have an expanding capability of what you can actually automate.We'll be building a lot more software. That software needs to be protected, right? We have new entities that are going to be operating inside of enterprises, and that's the agents. So, CIOs are thinking about this future state where you have tens, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of agents operating in the environment, doing work on behalf of end users, but having permissions and having ability to execute business processes. How do we secure that side of the equation? We're talking about outside of just the four walls of the large enterprise, going into more operational technologies, being able to automate more of that work. That needs to be secured as well.So, an expanding surface area is definitely good for the cybersecurity budget. You can almost think of cybersecurity as a tax on that surface area. We generally think about it; somewhere between 4 and 6 percent of IT spend is going to be spent on overall security. So, that's one big driver.The second big driver is the elevated threat environment. So, while we're excited to get our hands on these extended capabilities of generative AI, the bad guys are already there, right? They're taking advantage of this. The sophistication, the volume and the velocity of these attacks is all increasing. That makes a harder job for the existing infrastructure to keep up, and it's going to likely necessitate more spending on cybersecurity to tackle these newer challenges; the newer dynamism within the cybersecurity threat appropriately. So, you're going to have to use generative AI to counter the generative AI.And then the last component of it; the last driver would be the regulatory environment. Regulatory tends to have some cybersecurity angles. If we think about it here, we're seeing it in terms of data governance is probably the big one. Where does this data go when it goes into the model? Are we putting the right controls around it? Do we have the right governance on it? So that's a big area of concern.A lot of complaining going on at the conference about the lack of consistency in that regulatory environment. All these different initiatives coming up from the state – really creates a challenging environment to navigate. But that's all good-ness for cybersecurity vendors that can help you get into compliance with these new regulations that are coming up. So overall, a lot of positivity around cybersecurity spending and startups definitely look to take advantage of that.Brian Nowak: Matt, so Keith says there's lack of consensus and boats being rode in every direction on what should be adopted first. And only 3 percent of CIOs know what agentic AI means. What did you learn about early signal on adoption? And some of the barriers to adoption? And hurdles that companies are talking about that they need to overcome to really adopt some of these new tools?Matt Bombassei: Yeah. Well, to Keith's point, it is really early, right? And that was a consistent theme that we heard from our companies at the conference. They are seeing early signs of cost efficiency, making employees more productive as opposed to maybe broad scale layoffs. But it's the deployment of these model technologies into specific sub-verticals – so accounting, legal engineering – where that adoption is driving greater efficiency within the organization.These companies are also adopting models that are smaller and a bit more fine tuned to their specific work product. And so that comes at]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OR9zKzc38piEgKZpzx7Jo10YQNCvpzPtCqJNiE5pIXsWed, 22 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Brian Nowak, Keith Weiss and Matt Bombassei break down the most important tech insights from Morgan Stanley’s Spark Private Company Conference and industry shifts that will likely shape 2026 and beyond. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. I'm joined today by Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research and Matt Bombassei from my team.Today we're going to talk about private companies and technology – and how they're showing us the direction of travel for disruptive technologies and emerging investment opportunities.It's Wednesday, October 22nd at 10am in New York.Keith and Matt, we just returned from Morgan Stanley's Spark Private Company Conference last week in Los Angeles. It had over 85 private tech companies, 150 plus investor firms. There were a lot of themes that were discussed across the entire tech space impacting a lot of different sectors, including energy, healthcare, financial services, and cybersecurity.Keith, what were some of the biggest takeaways you took away from Spark this year?Keith Weiss: I'd say just to start off with, the Spark Conference is one of my favorite conferences of the year. It's a more intimate conference where you really get to spend time with both the private company executives and founders, as well as investors from the VC community and public company investors. And the conversations are more broad ranging; they're more about the thematics in the industry. They're more long term in nature.So, it's not just a conversation about what's next quarter going to look like, or what data points are you drumming up. You're having these thoughtful conversations about what's going on in the industry and how that's going to impact business models, how it's going to impact innovation cycles, how it's going to impact pricing models, within these companies. So, it tends to be a very interesting conference for me to attend.So, for me, some of the key takeaways. Typically, when we're in these innovation cycles, it feels like everybody's rowing in the same direction. We all understand where the technology's heading, we're all understanding how it's going to be delivered, and it's a race to get there. And you're having a conversation about who's doing best in that race, who's best positioned, who's got a better motor in their race car, if you will.So, to me, one of the big takeaways was we don't have that agreement today, right? There's different players that are looking at this market evolution differently. On one side of the equation, the application vendors – and a lot of this debate is in SaaS based applications. They see SaaS based applications having a very big role in taking these models that are inherently in-determinative and making them to be more determinative and useful within an enterprise context.Bringing them the data that they need to get the job done and the right data; bringing them the context of the business process being solved; bringing the governance that's necessary to use in an enterprise environment. But most importantly, to make it effective and efficient for the large enterprise.On the other side of the equation, you have venture capital investors and more early-stage investors who are looking at this as a huge phase shift, right? This is going to fundamentally change how we build software, how we utilize software, and they worry about a deprecation of that SaaS application layer. They think the model itself is going to start to encompass, it's going to start to subsume a lot more of that application functionality, a lot more of that analytics. And they see a lot more disruption going forward.So that debate within the marketplace, that's something that's interesting to me. It's something that we...]]>683alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1500fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-navigate-u-s-china-tensions--75648499insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.  Today, we’re talking about the U.S. and China—why the relationship remains complicated, and what it means for markets. It’s Tuesday, Oct 21st, at 12:30pm in New York. If you’ve been following headlines, you know that U.S.-China relations are rarely out of the news. But beneath the surface, the dynamics are more nuanced than the daily soundbytes suggest. Investors often ask: Are we headed for a decoupling of the two economies, or is there room for cooperation? The answer, as always, is—it’s complicated. Let’s start with the basics. The U.S. and China are deeply intertwined economically, but strategic competition has intensified. Recent years have seen tariffs, export controls, and restrictions on technology transfer. Yet, there’s still plenty of trade between the two countries, and both economies are dependent on each other for growth and innovation. So what’s going on now?  In recent weeks, China has moved to tighten rare earth export controls and the U.S. has proposed 100 percent tariffs in return. If this came to pass, these events could mark a clear economic split. But given the interdependencies we just cited, neither Washington nor Beijing seems eager for a true split, at least not anytime soon. The economic costs would be staggering, and both sides know it. So, a truce seems more likely, perhaps with somewhat different terms than the narrow semis-for-rare earths agreement they made this spring. And longer term, this episode seems to be a part of a broader dynamic, where rolling negotiations and truces are more likely than either a durable trade peace or a hard economic decoupling. For fixed income investors, this drives some important considerations.  First, U.S. industrial policy is ramping up, with clear implications for AI infrastructure. AI is an area where the U.S. views it as essential that they outcompete China. Supported by renewed CapEx incentives from the latest tax bill, it’s clear to us that U.S. companies will be pushing further into AI development, where my colleagues have identified $2.9 trillion of data center financing needs over the next three years, about half of which will come from various credit markets. And for credit investors, this presents an important opportunity. Another consideration is how markets will balance near-term growth risks with an array of medium term growth possibilities. As our U.S. economics team has pointed out, the evidence suggests that corporates haven’t yet been forced to make tough decisions about passing on or absorbing tariff costs, underscoring that trade-related growth pressures aren’t yet in the rearview. The ongoing U.S. government shutdown doesn’t help either. It’s all a good argument for why bond yields could move lower in the near term.  But also, we should expect yield curves could steepen more, with higher relative yields in longer maturities. This would reflect greater uncertainties around higher fiscal deficits, inflation, and economic growth. Our economists have been calling out the mixed messages in economic data, as well as a U.S. fiscal sustainability picture that appears reliant on acceleration in corporate CapEx for a manufacturing and AI-driven growth burst. In sum, the U.S.-China relationship is evolving, with global implications that don’t lend themselves to easy narratives or quick fixes. Our challenge will continue to be crafting investment strategies that reflect durable policy undercurrents, the signal amid news headline noise. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/dfryyCyO1RSiH1eq9OVxsZOuNGGlMgEYWzPz6dvI-lETue, 21 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Michael Zezas discuss the latest developments in U.S.-China relations and how they could affect investors.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.  Today, we’re talking about the U.S. and China—why the relationship remains complicated, and what it means for markets. It’s Tuesday, Oct 21st, at 12:30pm in New York. If you’ve been following headlines, you know that U.S.-China relations are rarely out of the news. But beneath the surface, the dynamics are more nuanced than the daily soundbytes suggest. Investors often ask: Are we headed for a decoupling of the two economies, or is there room for cooperation? The answer, as always, is—it’s complicated. Let’s start with the basics. The U.S. and China are deeply intertwined economically, but strategic competition has intensified. Recent years have seen tariffs, export controls, and restrictions on technology transfer. Yet, there’s still plenty of trade between the two countries, and both economies are dependent on each other for growth and innovation. So what’s going on now?  In recent weeks, China has moved to tighten rare earth export controls and the U.S. has proposed 100 percent tariffs in return. If this came to pass, these events could mark a clear economic split. But given the interdependencies we just cited, neither Washington nor Beijing seems eager for a true split, at least not anytime soon. The economic costs would be staggering, and both sides know it. So, a truce seems more likely, perhaps with somewhat different terms than the narrow semis-for-rare earths agreement they made this spring. And longer term, this episode seems to be a part of a broader dynamic, where rolling negotiations and truces are more likely than either a durable trade peace or a hard economic decoupling. For fixed income investors, this drives some important considerations.  First, U.S. industrial policy is ramping up, with clear implications for AI infrastructure. AI is an area where the U.S. views it as essential that they outcompete China. Supported by renewed CapEx incentives from the latest tax bill, it’s clear to us that U.S. companies will be pushing further into AI development, where my colleagues have identified $2.9 trillion of data center financing needs over the next three years, about half of which will come from various credit markets. And for credit investors, this presents an important opportunity. Another consideration is how markets will balance near-term growth risks with an array of medium term growth possibilities. As our U.S. economics team has pointed out, the evidence suggests that corporates haven’t yet been forced to make tough decisions about passing on or absorbing tariff costs, underscoring that trade-related growth pressures aren’t yet in the rearview. The ongoing U.S. government shutdown doesn’t help either. It’s all a good argument for why bond yields could move lower in the near term.  But also, we should expect yield curves could steepen more, with higher relative yields in longer maturities. This would reflect greater uncertainties around higher fiscal deficits, inflation, and economic growth. Our economists have been calling out the mixed messages in economic data, as well as a U.S. fiscal sustainability picture that appears reliant on acceleration in corporate CapEx for a manufacturing and AI-driven growth burst. In sum, the U.S.-China relationship is evolving, with global implications that don’t lend themselves to easy narratives or quick fixes. Our challenge will continue to be crafting investment strategies that reflect durable policy undercurrents, the signal amid news headline noise. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the...]]>240alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1499fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/time-for-a-bull-market-correction--75648474insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be discussing why we are still in a new bull market even if a correction is likely in the near term. It's Monday, October 20th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. I continue to believe the sharp selloff in April following Liberation Day marked the trough of what was effectively a three-year rolling recession in the U.S. economy. We have written extensively about this view; but it still remains very much out of consensus. Since 2022 most sectors of the private economy have gone through their own individual recession but at different times. The final trough in the rate of change in economic activity came in April  around the tariff announcements which came as a surprise to almost everyone, at least in terms of the magnitude and scope. In short, Liberation Day was really capitulation day on the last piece of bad news for the economic cycle which then bottomed. Stocks seem to agree which is why they have rallied in a straight line since then, much like they do after the trough in any economic cycle. The other proof we have for this claim is the v-shaped recovery in earnings revision breadth, something we have discussed for many months in our written research and on this podcast. Based on our numerous conversations with investors, this view remains very unpopular. Instead, most believe the economy and earnings growth for next year are at risk of being lower rather than higher than expected, as I do. Core to my view is that we are now firmly in an inflationary regime since COVID and the implementation of helicopter money to get us out of that crisis. The government has  to run it hot to get us out of the massive debt and deficit problem created over the past 20 years. The end result is that investors need to expect hotter but shorter cycles rather than the elongated 10-year cycles we experienced between 1980-2020 when inflation was falling. That means two-year up cycles followed by one-year down cycles for U.S. equity markets, which is exactly what's happened since 2020. We are now in the midst of a new up cycle that began in April. The key thing to understand during this new regime is that inflation is not bad for stocks so long as it's accelerating and the Fed is on the sidelines or easing like in 2020-21, 2023 and now today. Higher inflation means higher earnings growth which is why price earnings multiples are high today. With inflation likely to accelerate next year, stocks are anticipating better earnings growth. In other words, stocks are a hedge against inflation. In fact, relative to gold, high quality stocks may offer a cheaper inflation hedge at this point given their dramatic underperformance to precious metals year-to-date and since 2021. Eventually, inflation will be a problem again for stocks like in 2022 when the Fed has to react by tightening policy, but that's a story for another day. Having said all this, the equity markets are a bit frothy at the moment and so a 10-15 percent correction in the S&P 500 is not only possible but would be normal at this stage of a new bull market. I see  three primary reasons for why we could get that in the near term. First, China-U.S. trade relations have recently escalated again, and we are slowly marching toward a November 1st deadline for tariffs on China to go back to Liberation Day levels. While most investors don't want to get sucked into selling at the worst possible time like they did in April, this risk is real and will weigh on stocks if we don't see evidence of a de-escalation in the next few weeks. Second, funding markets have exhibited some signs of increased stress lately. This is likely due to the ongoing quantitative tightening program by the Fed which is draining bank reserves. Should these stresses increase, it could spill over into equities. Third, our earnings revision breadth metric is rolling over now after its historic rise since April. This could continue into earnings season as it's normal to see some retracement from such a high level and tariffs start to flow through from inventories to the income statement. Trade tensions might also weigh on company guidance in the short term. Bottom line, I believe a new bull market began in April with a new rolling economic and earnings recovery that is now quite nascent. However, even new bull markets have corrections along the way, and certain conditions argue we are at risk for the first tradable one since April. Keep your powder dry in the near term for what should be a great buying opportunity, if it arrives. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/a73htriXJ1GBQ2G0I9m7C5_RtusQAl_2OyGJkb_yunUMon, 20 Oct 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyAs the S&P 500 continues to rally, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses three factors that could lead to a stock market correction in the near term.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be discussing why we are still in a new bull market even if a correction is likely in the near term. It's Monday, October 20th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. I continue to believe the sharp selloff in April following Liberation Day marked the trough of what was effectively a three-year rolling recession in the U.S. economy. We have written extensively about this view; but it still remains very much out of consensus. Since 2022 most sectors of the private economy have gone through their own individual recession but at different times. The final trough in the rate of change in economic activity came in April  around the tariff announcements which came as a surprise to almost everyone, at least in terms of the magnitude and scope. In short, Liberation Day was really capitulation day on the last piece of bad news for the economic cycle which then bottomed. Stocks seem to agree which is why they have rallied in a straight line since then, much like they do after the trough in any economic cycle. The other proof we have for this claim is the v-shaped recovery in earnings revision breadth, something we have discussed for many months in our written research and on this podcast. Based on our numerous conversations with investors, this view remains very unpopular. Instead, most believe the economy and earnings growth for next year are at risk of being lower rather than higher than expected, as I do. Core to my view is that we are now firmly in an inflationary regime since COVID and the implementation of helicopter money to get us out of that crisis. The government has  to run it hot to get us out of the massive debt and deficit problem created over the past 20 years. The end result is that investors need to expect hotter but shorter cycles rather than the elongated 10-year cycles we experienced between 1980-2020 when inflation was falling. That means two-year up cycles followed by one-year down cycles for U.S. equity markets, which is exactly what's happened since 2020. We are now in the midst of a new up cycle that began in April. The key thing to understand during this new regime is that inflation is not bad for stocks so long as it's accelerating and the Fed is on the sidelines or easing like in 2020-21, 2023 and now today. Higher inflation means higher earnings growth which is why price earnings multiples are high today. With inflation likely to accelerate next year, stocks are anticipating better earnings growth. In other words, stocks are a hedge against inflation. In fact, relative to gold, high quality stocks may offer a cheaper inflation hedge at this point given their dramatic underperformance to precious metals year-to-date and since 2021. Eventually, inflation will be a problem again for stocks like in 2022 when the Fed has to react by tightening policy, but that's a story for another day. Having said all this, the equity markets are a bit frothy at the moment and so a 10-15 percent correction in the S&P 500 is not only possible but would be normal at this stage of a new bull market. I see  three primary reasons for why we could get that in the near term. First, China-U.S. trade relations have recently escalated again, and we are slowly marching toward a November 1st deadline for tariffs on China to go back to Liberation Day levels. While most investors don't want to get sucked into selling at the worst possible time like they did in April, this risk is real and will weigh on stocks if we don't see...]]>314alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1498fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-china-tensions-what-could-happen-next--75648560insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Today I'll talk about a development keeping markets and investors on alert: a re-escalation of U.S. China trade tensions. It's Friday, October 17th at 10am in New York. Since April, the U.S. and China have been in what we've been calling a very delicate detente. Remember, President Trump paused the additional reciprocal tariffs after Liberation Day. Since then, we've been consistently skeptical that the pause was durable enough to actually allow the U.S. and China to come up with a full-fledged trade agreement. But now we're equally as skeptical that the current escalation will lead to a material disruption in the bilateral relationship. So, what happened last week? China announced stricter export controls on rare earths, which are really critical for manufacturing everything from electric vehicles to defense equipment and advanced electronics. So, in response, the Trump administration on Friday announced a proposed 100 percent tariff, said to go into effect November 1st across all Chinese exports to the U.S. That date matters because that's around the same time that Presidents Trump and Xi were scheduled to meet at the upcoming APEC Summit in South Korea. When we think about this most recent escalation, it's pretty significant because China accounts for about 70 percent of global rare earth mining, and 90 percent of processing and refining. A lot of countries around the world – the U.S. Japan, Korea, and Germany – all rely heavily on these imports from China. And so potential new export controls mean that every economy may have to start negotiating bilaterally with China to secure supplies, which raises the risk of supply chain disruption across Asia, Europe, and the U.S. Looking ahead, we're thinking about four potential scenarios for how the current U.S.-China trade tensions could play out. The most likely outcome, which is our base case, is a return to the recent status quo following a period of rhetorical escalation and likely a reset of expectations heading into this APEC meeting. That's because we think both the U.S. and China would prefer to maintain the existing equilibrium to an abrupt supply chain decoupling. That equilibrium is effectively chips for rare earths. So, the U.S. receives China's rare earths, and then in return the U.S. exports some of its chips to China. But that equilibrium doesn't necessarily mean that the temporary implementation of trade barriers like higher tariffs or more export controls are off the table. The broader trajectory we think will continue to point toward competitive confrontation, which is a bipartisan strategy that encompasses both these traditional trade tactics as well as unilateral domestic investment – either vis-a-vis direct federal spending, or the government taking more stakes in companies involved in these critical industries. So, think things like the IRA, the CHIPS Act, and other bipartisan pieces of legislation. So, in the near and medium term, expect to see these trade barriers persisting and a bipartisan push toward U.S. industrial policy, as the U.S. attempts to undergo selective de-risking from China. Our base case scenario anticipates further short-term tensions, but ultimately a limited agreement that avoids deep structural changes. We've also thought through some alternate scenarios. So, in one downside case, you could see temporary escalation past November 1st. Both sides could fully implement their proposed policies, but after doing so, come back to the status quo once the economic costs become apparent. A more severe downside scenario involves durable escalation. So, in this case, we would see both countries maintain trade barriers for an extended period. That outcome would see both the U.S. and China decide to change calculus on that equilibrium, so that no longer holds. And in that case, we could see a push toward decoupling and a significant strain on supply chains. Finally, our last scenario reflects a quick de-escalation in which heightened rhetoric actually acts as a catalyst for renewed negotiations and a potential framework agreement that could result in some tariffs, but most likely at lower levels than initially proposed. So, what does this all mean? In the base case, our economists expect China's GDP growth to slow to below 4.5 percent in the second half of 2025, with exports supported by robust non-U.S. shipments. Our equity strategists in this outcome see the volatility actually providing a dip buying opportunity, given that they see a rolling recovery that began earlier this year. However, a more durable escalation could possibly prolong China's deflation and necessitate further policy adjustments. Similarly, that outcome could negate the early cycle rolling recovery thesis here in the U.S. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8Yrize_Ap6ctlWM1qEaWcFfDABxdBTsDwr6z9JJ1aMQFri, 17 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore unpacks how China’s announced rare earth export controls and signals of sweeping U.S. tariffs could impact global supply chains, markets and economic growth.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Today I'll talk about a development keeping markets and investors on alert: a re-escalation of U.S. China trade tensions. It's Friday, October 17th at 10am in New York. Since April, the U.S. and China have been in what we've been calling a very delicate detente. Remember, President Trump paused the additional reciprocal tariffs after Liberation Day. Since then, we've been consistently skeptical that the pause was durable enough to actually allow the U.S. and China to come up with a full-fledged trade agreement. But now we're equally as skeptical that the current escalation will lead to a material disruption in the bilateral relationship. So, what happened last week? China announced stricter export controls on rare earths, which are really critical for manufacturing everything from electric vehicles to defense equipment and advanced electronics. So, in response, the Trump administration on Friday announced a proposed 100 percent tariff, said to go into effect November 1st across all Chinese exports to the U.S. That date matters because that's around the same time that Presidents Trump and Xi were scheduled to meet at the upcoming APEC Summit in South Korea. When we think about this most recent escalation, it's pretty significant because China accounts for about 70 percent of global rare earth mining, and 90 percent of processing and refining. A lot of countries around the world – the U.S. Japan, Korea, and Germany – all rely heavily on these imports from China. And so potential new export controls mean that every economy may have to start negotiating bilaterally with China to secure supplies, which raises the risk of supply chain disruption across Asia, Europe, and the U.S. Looking ahead, we're thinking about four potential scenarios for how the current U.S.-China trade tensions could play out. The most likely outcome, which is our base case, is a return to the recent status quo following a period of rhetorical escalation and likely a reset of expectations heading into this APEC meeting. That's because we think both the U.S. and China would prefer to maintain the existing equilibrium to an abrupt supply chain decoupling. That equilibrium is effectively chips for rare earths. So, the U.S. receives China's rare earths, and then in return the U.S. exports some of its chips to China. But that equilibrium doesn't necessarily mean that the temporary implementation of trade barriers like higher tariffs or more export controls are off the table. The broader trajectory we think will continue to point toward competitive confrontation, which is a bipartisan strategy that encompasses both these traditional trade tactics as well as unilateral domestic investment – either vis-a-vis direct federal spending, or the government taking more stakes in companies involved in these critical industries. So, think things like the IRA, the CHIPS Act, and other bipartisan pieces of legislation. So, in the near and medium term, expect to see these trade barriers persisting and a bipartisan push toward U.S. industrial policy, as the U.S. attempts to undergo selective de-risking from China. Our base case scenario anticipates further short-term tensions, but ultimately a limited agreement that avoids deep structural changes. We've also thought through some alternate scenarios. So, in one downside case, you could see temporary escalation past November 1st. Both sides could fully implement their proposed policies, but after doing so,...]]>309alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1497fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/credit-market-s-three-big-debates--75648150Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan StanleyVishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Andrew Sheets: Today, as we're hosting the Morgan Stanley European Leveraged Finance Conference, a discussion of three of the biggest topics on the minds of credit investors worldwide.It's Thursday, October 16th at 4pm in London.Vishy, it's so great to catch up with you here in London. I know you've been running around the world, quite literally, talking to investors about some of the biggest debates in credit – and that's exactly what we wanted to talk. We're here at Morgan Stanley's European Leveraged Finance Conference. We're talking with investors about the biggest debates, the biggest developments in credit markets, and there are really kind of three topics that stand out.There's what's going on with private credit? What's going on with the merger and acquisition, the M&A cycle? And how are we going to fund all of this AI infrastructure?And so maybe I'll throw the first question to you. We hear a lot about private credit, and so maybe just for the listener who's looking at a lot of different things. First, how do you define it? What are we really talking about when we're talking about private credit?Vishy Tirupattur: So, Andrew, when we talk about private credit, the most common understanding of private credit is lending by non-banks to small and medium sized companies. And we probably will discuss a bit later that this definition is actually expanding much beyond this narrow definition. So, when you think about private credit and spend time understanding what is the credit in private credit, what it boils down to is on average, on a leveraged basis, the credit in private credit is comparable to, say CCC to B - on a coverage basis to the public markets.So, the credits in the private credit market are weaker. But on the other hand, the quality of covenants in these deals is significantly better compared to the public credit markets. So, that's the credit in private credit.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishy, with that in mind then, what is the concern in this market? Or conversely, where do people see the opportunity?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the concern in this market comes from the opaqueness in these deals. Many of these private credit borrowers are not public filers. So not much is well known about what the underlying details are. But in a sense, a good part of the public markets, whether it's in high yield bonds or in the public, broadly syndicated leveraged loans are also not public filers. So, there is information asymmetry in those markets as well.So, the issue is not the opaqueness of private markets, but opaqueness in credit in general. But that said, when you look at the metrics of leverage, coverage, cash on balance sheet…Andrew Sheets: Because we can get some kind of high-level sense of what is in these portfolios...Vishy Tirupattur: Yeah. And we look at all those metrics, and we look at a wide range of metrics. We don't get to the conclusion that we are at a precipice of some systemic risk exposure in credit. On the other hand, there are idiosyncratic issues. And these idiosyncratic issues have always been there and will remain there. And we would expect that the default rates are sticky around these levels, which are slightly above the long-term average levels, and we expect that to remain.Andrew Sheets: So, you may see more dispersion within these portfolios. These are weaker, more cyclical, more levered companies. But overall, this is not something that we think at the moment is going to interrupt the credit cycle or the broader markets dynamic.Vishy Tirupattur: Absolutely. That is exactly where we come down to.So, Andrew, let me throw another question back at you. There's a lot of talk of growing M&A, growing LBO activity. And that could potentially lead to some challenges on the credit front. How do you look at it?Andrew Sheets: So, I'd like to actually build upon your answer from private credit, right? Because I think a lot of the questions that we're getting from investors are around this question of how far along in this always, kind of, cyclical process; ebb and flow of lending aggressiveness are we? And, you know, this is a cycle that goes back a hundred years – of lenders becoming more conservative and tighter with lending. And then as times get good, they become somewhat looser. And initially that's fine. And then eventually something, something happens.And so, I think we've seen the development of new markets like private credit that have opened up new lending opportunities and then also new questions. And I think we've also seen this question come up around M&A and corporate activity.And as we start to see headlines of very large leveraged buyouts or LBOs, as we start to see more merger and acquisition – M&A – activity coming back; something we've at Morgan Stanley been believers in. Are we really starting to see the things that we saw in the year 2000, or in the year 2007, when you saw very active capital markets actually coinciding with kind of near the peak of equity markets near the top of major market cycles.And in short, we do not think we're there yet. If we look at the actual volumes that we're seeing, we're actually a little bit below average in terms of corporate activity. There's really been a dearth of corporate activity after COVID. We're still catching up. Secondly, the big transactions that we're seeing are still more conservatively structured, which isn't usually what you see right at the end. And so, I think between these two things with still a lot of supportive factors for more corporate activity, we think we have further to go.Vishy Tirupattur: On that point, Andrew, I think if you look at the LBOs that are happening today versus the LBOs that happened in the 2007 era, the equity contribution is dramatically different. You know, equity to debt, these LBOs that are happening today [are] of a substantially higher amount of equity contribution compared to the LBOs we saw pre-Financial Crisis…Andrew Sheets: That's such a great point. And the listener may not know this, but Vishy and I were working together at Morgan Stanley prior to the Financial Crisis, and we were working in credit research when a lot of these LBOs were happening, and…Vishy Tirupattur: And I used to be tall and good looking.Andrew Sheets: (laughs) And they were just very different. We're still not there. If you go back and pull the numbers, you're looking at transactions still that are far more conservative than what we saw then. So, you know, this activity is cyclical, and I think we do have to watch deregulation, right? You saw a lot of regulations come in after the Financial Crisis that led to more conservative lending. If those regulations get rolled back, we could really move back towards more aggressive lending. But we haven't quite seen that yet.Vishy Tirupattur: Absolutely not.Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, maybe the third question that comes up a lot. We've covered private credit, which is very topical. We've covered kind of corporate aggressiveness. But maybe the icing on the cake. The biggest question is AI – and is AI spending?And it just feels like every day you come into the office and there's another headline on CNBC or Bloomberg about another mega AI funding deal. And the question is, okay, where's all that money going to come from?And maybe some of it comes from these companies themselves. They’re very profitable, but credit might have to fill in some of the gaps. And you and some of our colleagues have done a lot of work on this. Where do you think kind of the lending story and the borrowing story fits into this broader AI theme?Vishy Tirupattur: Our estimate of simply data center related CapEx requirements are close to $3 trillion. You add the power required for the data centers and add another $300-400 billion. So, a lot of this CapEx will come from – roughly about half might come from the operating cash flows of the hyperscalers. But the rest, so [$]1.5 trillion plus, has to come through various channels of credit.So, unsecured corporate credit, we think will play a fairly small role in this. Of that [$]1.5 trillion plus, maybe [$]200 billion to come from unsecured credit issuance by these hyperscalers, and perhaps some of the securitized markets, such as ABS and CMBS that rely on stabilized cash flows may be another 1[$]50 billion. But a different version of private credit, what we will call ABF or asset based finance, will play a very big role. So north of [$]800 billion we think will come from that kind of a private credit version of investment grade, or a private credit markets developing. So, this market is very much in the developmental mode.So, one way or the other, for AI to go from where it is today to substantially improving productivity and the earnings of companies that has to go through CapEx; and that CapEx needs to go through credit markets.Andrew Sheets: And I think that is so fascinating because, right Vishy, so much of the spending is still ahead of us. It hasn't even really started, if you look at the numbers.Vishy Tirupattur: Absolutely. We are in the early stages of this CapEx cycle. We should expect to see a lot more CapEx and that CapEx train has to run through credit markets.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishy, there's obviously a lot of history in financial markets of larger CapEx booms, and some of them work out well]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lYlEnxlKYaahHYsAujtULNCVVzGmgR20ONgoVj3yLUIThu, 16 Oct 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyWith Morgan Stanley’s European Leveraged Finance Conference underway, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets joins Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur to discuss private credit, M&A activity and AI infrastructure. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan StanleyVishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Andrew Sheets: Today, as we're hosting the Morgan Stanley European Leveraged Finance Conference, a discussion of three of the biggest topics on the minds of credit investors worldwide.It's Thursday, October 16th at 4pm in London.Vishy, it's so great to catch up with you here in London. I know you've been running around the world, quite literally, talking to investors about some of the biggest debates in credit – and that's exactly what we wanted to talk. We're here at Morgan Stanley's European Leveraged Finance Conference. We're talking with investors about the biggest debates, the biggest developments in credit markets, and there are really kind of three topics that stand out.There's what's going on with private credit? What's going on with the merger and acquisition, the M&A cycle? And how are we going to fund all of this AI infrastructure?And so maybe I'll throw the first question to you. We hear a lot about private credit, and so maybe just for the listener who's looking at a lot of different things. First, how do you define it? What are we really talking about when we're talking about private credit?Vishy Tirupattur: So, Andrew, when we talk about private credit, the most common understanding of private credit is lending by non-banks to small and medium sized companies. And we probably will discuss a bit later that this definition is actually expanding much beyond this narrow definition. So, when you think about private credit and spend time understanding what is the credit in private credit, what it boils down to is on average, on a leveraged basis, the credit in private credit is comparable to, say CCC to B - on a coverage basis to the public markets.So, the credits in the private credit market are weaker. But on the other hand, the quality of covenants in these deals is significantly better compared to the public credit markets. So, that's the credit in private credit.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishy, with that in mind then, what is the concern in this market? Or conversely, where do people see the opportunity?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the concern in this market comes from the opaqueness in these deals. Many of these private credit borrowers are not public filers. So not much is well known about what the underlying details are. But in a sense, a good part of the public markets, whether it's in high yield bonds or in the public, broadly syndicated leveraged loans are also not public filers. So, there is information asymmetry in those markets as well.So, the issue is not the opaqueness of private markets, but opaqueness in credit in general. But that said, when you look at the metrics of leverage, coverage, cash on balance sheet…Andrew Sheets: Because we can get some kind of high-level sense of what is in these portfolios...Vishy Tirupattur: Yeah. And we look at all those metrics, and we look at a wide range of metrics. We don't get to the conclusion that we are at a precipice of some systemic risk exposure in credit. On the other hand, there are idiosyncratic issues. And these idiosyncratic issues have always been there and will remain there. And we would expect that the default rates are sticky around these levels, which are slightly above the long-term average levels, and we expect that to remain.Andrew Sheets: So, you may see more dispersion within these portfolios. These are...]]>678alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1496fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-politics-affect-global-markets--75648313insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Political developments in Japan and France have brought more volatility to sovereign debt markets. Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha highlights the risks investors need to watch out for.Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams.Today, I'm going to talk about sovereign debt outlooks and elections around the world.It's Wednesday, October 15th at 10am in New York.Last week we wrote about the deterioration of sovereign debt and fiscal outlooks; and right on cue, real life served up a scenario. Elections in Japan and another political upheaval in France drove a reaction in long-end interest rates with fiscal outlooks becoming part of the political narrative. Though markets have largely stabilized now, the volatility should keep the topic of debt and fiscal outlooks on stage.In Japan, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, the LDP, elected Sanae Takaichi as its new leader in something of a surprise to markets. Takaichi's election sets the stage for the first female prime minister of Japan since the cabinet system was established in 1885.That outcome is not assured, however. And recent news suggests that the final decision is a few weeks away. The landmark movement in Japanese post-war politics, in some ways further solidifies the changing tides in the Japanese political economy. Markets have positioned for Takaichi to further the reflation trade in Japan and further support the nominal growth revival.The Japanese curve twists steepened sharply as Tokyo markets reopened with the long-end selling off by 14 basis points amid intensifying fiscal concerns and the unwinding of pre-election flattener positions. Specifically, expectations appear to be aligning for a more activist fiscal agenda – relief measures against inflation, bolstered investment in economic security and supply chains, and stepped-up commitments to food security.Our strategists expect that sectors poised to benefit will include high tech exporters, defense and security names, and infrastructure and energy firms, as capital is likely to rotate towards these areas. Though, as our economists cautioned, the lack of a clear legislative maturity may hamper efforts for outright reorientation of fiscal policy.Meanwhile, we expect the implications for monetary policy to be limited. Our reading is that Taikaichi Sanae is not strongly opposed to Bank of Japan Governor Ueda’s cautious stance reducing expectations for near term hikes. But we also reiterate that a hike late this year remains a possibility, particularly as the yen weakens.Economically, our baseline call has been supported by the election outcome given we did not expect the BoJ to raise rates in the near future. Indeed, market expectations of an increase in interest rates have been priced out for the next meeting.France is the other economy that saw long-end rates react to political shifts since we published our debt sustainability analysis. PM Lecornu's resignation was far quicker than markets expected, especially given the fact that he was only in office for a matter of weeks.A clear majority in the current parliament remains elusive pointing to continued gridlock, and ultimately snap elections remain a possibility for the next weeks or months. At the heart of the political uncertainty is division about how to proceed with fiscal consolidation against a moving target of widening deficits.The lack of fiscal consolidation in France has been a topic for many years. Though the ECB provides an implicit backstop against disruptive widening of OAT spreads through the TPI, our Europe economists view the activation of TPI as unlikely. As the spread widening has been driven by concerns around France's fiscal sustainability, a factor that is likely seen as reflecting fundamentals.In our rather mechanical projections on debt, we highlighted markets would ultimately determine what is and is not sustainable. These political events are the type of catalyst to watch for.So far, the risks have been contained, but we have a clear message that complacency could become costly at any time. With the deterioration in debt and fiscal fundamentals, we suspect there will be more risks ahead.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pK6GcnEbIo10QeAHbxOTuMDw52SuRs0AVEDniwMscYUWed, 15 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyPolitical developments in Japan and France have brought more volatility to sovereign debt markets. Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha highlights the risks investors need to watch out for.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Political developments in Japan and France have brought more volatility to sovereign debt markets. Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha highlights the risks investors need to watch out for.Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams.Today, I'm going to talk about sovereign debt outlooks and elections around the world.It's Wednesday, October 15th at 10am in New York.Last week we wrote about the deterioration of sovereign debt and fiscal outlooks; and right on cue, real life served up a scenario. Elections in Japan and another political upheaval in France drove a reaction in long-end interest rates with fiscal outlooks becoming part of the political narrative. Though markets have largely stabilized now, the volatility should keep the topic of debt and fiscal outlooks on stage.In Japan, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, the LDP, elected Sanae Takaichi as its new leader in something of a surprise to markets. Takaichi's election sets the stage for the first female prime minister of Japan since the cabinet system was established in 1885.That outcome is not assured, however. And recent news suggests that the final decision is a few weeks away. The landmark movement in Japanese post-war politics, in some ways further solidifies the changing tides in the Japanese political economy. Markets have positioned for Takaichi to further the reflation trade in Japan and further support the nominal growth revival.The Japanese curve twists steepened sharply as Tokyo markets reopened with the long-end selling off by 14 basis points amid intensifying fiscal concerns and the unwinding of pre-election flattener positions. Specifically, expectations appear to be aligning for a more activist fiscal agenda – relief measures against inflation, bolstered investment in economic security and supply chains, and stepped-up commitments to food security.Our strategists expect that sectors poised to benefit will include high tech exporters, defense and security names, and infrastructure and energy firms, as capital is likely to rotate towards these areas. Though, as our economists cautioned, the lack of a clear legislative maturity may hamper efforts for outright reorientation of fiscal policy.Meanwhile, we expect the implications for monetary policy to be limited. Our reading is that Taikaichi Sanae is not strongly opposed to Bank of Japan Governor Ueda’s cautious stance reducing expectations for near term hikes. But we also reiterate that a hike late this year remains a possibility, particularly as the yen weakens.Economically, our baseline call has been supported by the election outcome given we did not expect the BoJ to raise rates in the near future. Indeed, market expectations of an increase in interest rates have been priced out for the next meeting.France is the other economy that saw long-end rates react to political shifts since we published our debt sustainability analysis. PM Lecornu's resignation was far quicker than markets expected, especially given the fact that he was only in office for a matter of weeks.A clear majority in the current parliament remains elusive pointing to continued gridlock, and ultimately snap elections remain a possibility for the next weeks or months. At the heart of the political uncertainty is division about how to proceed with fiscal consolidation against a moving target of widening deficits.The lack of fiscal consolidation in France has been a topic for many years. Though the ECB provides an implicit backstop against disruptive widening of OAT spreads...]]>307alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1495fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-s-youth-job-crisis--75648324insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today – Asia’s young workforce is facing a significant challenge. How a soft labor market will shape everything from consumer demand to social stability and long-term growth. It’s Tuesday, October 14th, at 2pm in Hong Kong. Across Asia, a concerning trend is emerging. The region’s younger generations face mounting challenges in the job market. Asia’s youth unemployment averages 16 percent, which is much higher than the U.S. rate of 10.5 percent. Youth unemployment rates are running two to three times higher than headline unemployment rates. The underlying situation is even weaker than what is represented by [the] unemployment rate. And within Asia, the challenge is most acute in China, India, and Indonesia, the three most populous economies. Youth unemployment rates for these three economies are running close to double, as compared to other economies in Asia. Now let’s take a closer look at China. The urban youth unemployment rate, i.e. for 16–24-year-olds, has steadily increased since 2019. What’s driving this rise in unemployment? A mismatch in labor demand and supply. The number of university graduates surged 40 percent over the last five years to close to 12 million. But economy-wide employment has declined by 20 million over the same period. Entry-level wages are sluggish, and automation plus subdued services growth mean fewer opportunities for newer entrants.  Turning to India, their unemployment rate is the highest in the region at 17.6 percent. Employment creation has been subdued. And on top of it, India also faces another issue: underemployment. Post-COVID, primary sector – i.e. farming and mining – employment rose by 50 million, reaching a 17-year high. Note that these jobs are relatively low productivity jobs. And this is explained by the fact that [the] primary sector now accounts for less than 20 percent of GDP but it employs about 40 percent of the workforce. That’s a sign of COVID-induced underemployment. How fast must growth be to tackle the unemployment challenge? In our base case, India's GDP will grow at an average of 6.5 percent over the coming decade – and this will mean that India will be one of the fastest-growing economies globally. But this pace of growth will not be sufficient to generate enough jobs. To keep [the] unemployment rate stable, India needs an average GDP growth of close to 7.5 percent; and to address underemployment, the required run rate in GDP growth must be even higher at 12 percent. Shifting to Indonesia, its youth unemployment rate is the second highest in the region. Moreover, close to 60 percent of jobs are in the informal sector. And many of these jobs pay below minimum wage. Similar to India, both these trends signal underemployment. The key reason behind this challenge is weak investment growth. Indonesia's investment-to-GDP ratio has dropped meaningfully over the last five years. So, what’s the way forward? For China, shifting towards consumption and services could reduce labor market mismatches. And for India and Indonesia, boosting investment is key. India in particular needs much stronger growth in its industrial and exports sectors. If reforms fall short, policy makers may need to fall back on increasing social welfare spending to manage social stability risks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OfbYi8Y2jMyp9Eviyz3EgzqgEsdGqSQJWFjeDbRqGm4Tue, 14 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses how youth unemployment will impact future growth and stability across China, India, and Indonesia.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today – Asia’s young workforce is facing a significant challenge. How a soft labor market will shape everything from consumer demand to social stability and long-term growth. It’s Tuesday, October 14th, at 2pm in Hong Kong. Across Asia, a concerning trend is emerging. The region’s younger generations face mounting challenges in the job market. Asia’s youth unemployment averages 16 percent, which is much higher than the U.S. rate of 10.5 percent. Youth unemployment rates are running two to three times higher than headline unemployment rates. The underlying situation is even weaker than what is represented by [the] unemployment rate. And within Asia, the challenge is most acute in China, India, and Indonesia, the three most populous economies. Youth unemployment rates for these three economies are running close to double, as compared to other economies in Asia. Now let’s take a closer look at China. The urban youth unemployment rate, i.e. for 16–24-year-olds, has steadily increased since 2019. What’s driving this rise in unemployment? A mismatch in labor demand and supply. The number of university graduates surged 40 percent over the last five years to close to 12 million. But economy-wide employment has declined by 20 million over the same period. Entry-level wages are sluggish, and automation plus subdued services growth mean fewer opportunities for newer entrants.  Turning to India, their unemployment rate is the highest in the region at 17.6 percent. Employment creation has been subdued. And on top of it, India also faces another issue: underemployment. Post-COVID, primary sector – i.e. farming and mining – employment rose by 50 million, reaching a 17-year high. Note that these jobs are relatively low productivity jobs. And this is explained by the fact that [the] primary sector now accounts for less than 20 percent of GDP but it employs about 40 percent of the workforce. That’s a sign of COVID-induced underemployment. How fast must growth be to tackle the unemployment challenge? In our base case, India's GDP will grow at an average of 6.5 percent over the coming decade – and this will mean that India will be one of the fastest-growing economies globally. But this pace of growth will not be sufficient to generate enough jobs. To keep [the] unemployment rate stable, India needs an average GDP growth of close to 7.5 percent; and to address underemployment, the required run rate in GDP growth must be even higher at 12 percent. Shifting to Indonesia, its youth unemployment rate is the second highest in the region. Moreover, close to 60 percent of jobs are in the informal sector. And many of these jobs pay below minimum wage. Similar to India, both these trends signal underemployment. The key reason behind this challenge is weak investment growth. Indonesia's investment-to-GDP ratio has dropped meaningfully over the last five years. So, what’s the way forward? For China, shifting towards consumption and services could reduce labor market mismatches. And for India and Indonesia, boosting investment is key. India in particular needs much stronger growth in its industrial and exports sectors. If reforms fall short, policy makers may need to fall back on increasing social welfare spending to manage social stability risks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>270alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1494fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-m-a-boom-for-financials--75648581insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Large Cap Banks Analyst and Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research.Michael Cyprys: And I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Research.Betsy Graseck: The asset management and wealth management industries are on the cusp of major consolidation. We're going to unpack today what's driving the race for scale and what it means for investors and the industries at large.It’s Monday, October 13th at 4pm in New York.Mike, before we dive into the setup for M&A, I did want to get out here on the table. What's your outlook for the asset management industry?Michael Cyprys: Sure. So, asset management today is, call it, $135 trillion industry, in terms of assets under management that are managed for a fee. We expect it to grow at about an 8 percent clip annually over the next five years. And that's driven by faster growth in private markets, solutions and passive strategies, while we expect to see slower growth in the core active arena.Two key drivers of growth there. First private markets. We expect to see rising investor allocations from both institutional investors, but also more importantly from retail investors that remain early days in accessing the asset class. So, as we look out in the coming years, we do expect this democratization of private markets to play out, and we see that being helped by product innovation, investor education and technology advances that are all helping unlock access.Second growth driver is solutions. And I think you're looking at me a little dazed on what's solutions. And by that we really mean products and strategies that are addressing demographic challenges around aging populations. So, think about that as solutions that provide for retirement income, as well as those that offer tax efficient solutions. So, think about that as model portfolios, as well as sub-advisory mandates. We also expect to see growth in outsourced Chief Investment Officer, OCIO mandates and broadly retirement focused products.So that's the asset management industry in terms of our outlook. Betsy, what's your outlook for the growth in the wealth management industry?Betsy Graseck: Well, somewhat similar, but a little bit slower – off of a larger base. What does that mean? So, we are looking for global growth in wealth management of 5.5 percent CAGR, and that is off of a base of [$]301 trillion, which is intriguing, right? Because that's larger than the [$]135 trillion you mentioned for asset management.So, in wealth, we were expecting [$]301 trillion in 2024 grows to [$]393 trillion in 2029. And within the wealth industry, what we see as the driver for incremental opportunities here is both in the ultra high net worth segment as well as the affluent segments, as client needs evolve and technology delivers improving efficiencies.And I think one of the interesting things here – as we think about the look forward from industry perspective – is the fact that both asset management and wealth management industries have been very fragmented for a very long time, especially relative to other financial industries. I think one reason is that they need less capital to operate successfully.But Mike, back to the asset management industry, specifically – deal activity seems to be inching up. What are you attributing this increase in M&A to?Michael Cyprys: Yeah, so we do see M&A picking up, and we expect that to continue over the next couple of years. A number of reasons for that. First growth is becoming a bit more scarce, with clients working with fewer partners. And over the next five years, we expect the number of available slots to continue to decline upwards of a third, which concentrates growth opportunities.Betsy Graseck: Wait, wait, wait. Upwards of a third. And number of slots. When you say number of slots, you're talking about it from the asset manager client perspective…Michael Cyprys: Correct. From the asset owner standpoint or intermediary standpoint.Betsy Graseck: They're looking to consolidate their providers?Michael Cyprys: Correct.Betsy Graseck: Okay.Michael Cyprys: They're looking to work with fewer asset managers.Betsy Graseck: Mm-hmm.Michael Cyprys: At the same time, the winners are taking more share, right? So, our work shows that the largest firms are disproportionately capturing a larger share of net new money as they leveraged their scale to reinvest in capabilities as well as in relationships.And also, I'd point to the fact that we have seen a pickup in deal activity already. And we think that's going to lead more firms to consider strategic activity themselves, as they think and rethink what constitutes scale. And we think that that bar is rising…Betsy Graseck: Mm. Michael Cyprys: And firms are thinking about how to compete effectively as the landscape evolves. And look, this is all in the context of already a lot of challenges and changes happening as you think about evolving client needs. The rising cost of doing business, whether it's investing for growth or even harnessing AI, and that's all pressuring profitability. We think this is particularly a challenge for those mid-size money managers that are multi-asset, multi-liquid and global. Those with, call it, [$]0.5 trillion to [$]2 trillion in size, making them more likely to pursue consolidation, opportunities to bolster their capabilities and scale while also generating cost efficiencies.Betsy Graseck: So now looking forward, what type of deals do you expect and how does it differ from past years?Michael Cyprys: Sure. So, a few things are different than past years. First is that the deal activity is encompassing many forms of partnership. And we think that this experimentation around partnership will only accelerate. That allows, for example, for private market managers to access retail distribution without owning the end infrastructure and the last mile to the customer. It also allows traditional managers to provide their retail customers with access to high quality private market strategies from well-known and branded firms.Second is we see a broadening out of the types of acquisitions themselves when we talk about M&A, right? So, three types of deals. First are deals within the same vertical or intersector. So, think about this as an asset manager buying another asset manager to acquire capabilities, to gain cost synergies or bolster distribution.Second type of deals that we're seeing are ones that expand beyond one's own vertical. So intersector deals. So, asset management combining with wealth or insurance, for example, where firms would seek to own a larger, greater portion of the overall value chain. And so, these firms are getting closer to that end client. For example, an asset manager getting closer to that end customer. And the third type being financial sponsor deals where a sponsor is investing either as an in an asset or a wealth manager.Now you didn't ask me around the historical outcomes of M&A. But I would say that the historical outcomes have been mixed in the asset management space. But here we think that the opportunity ahead is so bright that we think firms will find ways to navigate and pursue strategic activity. But it does require addressing some of the culture and integration challenges that have plagued some of the deals in the past.Betsy Graseck: Okay.Michael Cyprys: So, Betsy, what do you see as the key drivers of consolidation in wealth management?Betsy Graseck: There's several. From the wealth manager side, number one is an aging population of advisor and advisor-owners, and the need to address succession and how to best serve their clients when passing on their book of business. So, we've got succession issues as the number one driver. But additionally, the need for scale is clearly getting higher and higher – given the costs of IT infrastructure rising, the needs to be able to leverage AI effectively and to manage your cyber risk effectively. These are just some of the drivers of desire to merge from the wealth manager perspective.Second. We have an increasing buying pool. If you just look at the large cap banks, for example. Significant amount of excess capital. Could we see some of that excess capital be put to work in the wealth management industry? To me, that would make sense. Why? Because wealth management is one of the best, if not the best financial institution service for shareholders. It is a high ROE business. It also is a business that commands a high multiple in the stock market.So, we would not be surprised to see activity there over the course of the next several years. So, Mike, thanks for joining me on the show today.Michael Cyprys: Thanks, Betsy. Always a pleasure.Betsy Graseck: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_8pykwZ7dIlT0z0tbCStXZmb-SV07uWMTCETcnDsWhQMon, 13 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley analysts Betsy Graseck and Michael Cyprys discuss what’s driving unprecedented consolidation for asset and wealth management firms.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Large Cap Banks Analyst and Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research.Michael Cyprys: And I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Research.Betsy Graseck: The asset management and wealth management industries are on the cusp of major consolidation. We're going to unpack today what's driving the race for scale and what it means for investors and the industries at large.It’s Monday, October 13th at 4pm in New York.Mike, before we dive into the setup for M&A, I did want to get out here on the table. What's your outlook for the asset management industry?Michael Cyprys: Sure. So, asset management today is, call it, $135 trillion industry, in terms of assets under management that are managed for a fee. We expect it to grow at about an 8 percent clip annually over the next five years. And that's driven by faster growth in private markets, solutions and passive strategies, while we expect to see slower growth in the core active arena.Two key drivers of growth there. First private markets. We expect to see rising investor allocations from both institutional investors, but also more importantly from retail investors that remain early days in accessing the asset class. So, as we look out in the coming years, we do expect this democratization of private markets to play out, and we see that being helped by product innovation, investor education and technology advances that are all helping unlock access.Second growth driver is solutions. And I think you're looking at me a little dazed on what's solutions. And by that we really mean products and strategies that are addressing demographic challenges around aging populations. So, think about that as solutions that provide for retirement income, as well as those that offer tax efficient solutions. So, think about that as model portfolios, as well as sub-advisory mandates. We also expect to see growth in outsourced Chief Investment Officer, OCIO mandates and broadly retirement focused products.So that's the asset management industry in terms of our outlook. Betsy, what's your outlook for the growth in the wealth management industry?Betsy Graseck: Well, somewhat similar, but a little bit slower – off of a larger base. What does that mean? So, we are looking for global growth in wealth management of 5.5 percent CAGR, and that is off of a base of [$]301 trillion, which is intriguing, right? Because that's larger than the [$]135 trillion you mentioned for asset management.So, in wealth, we were expecting [$]301 trillion in 2024 grows to [$]393 trillion in 2029. And within the wealth industry, what we see as the driver for incremental opportunities here is both in the ultra high net worth segment as well as the affluent segments, as client needs evolve and technology delivers improving efficiencies.And I think one of the interesting things here – as we think about the look forward from industry perspective – is the fact that both asset management and wealth management industries have been very fragmented for a very long time, especially relative to other financial industries. I think one reason is that they need less capital to operate successfully.But Mike, back to the asset management industry, specifically – deal activity seems to be inching up. What are you attributing this increase in M&A to?Michael Cyprys: Yeah, so we do see M&A picking up, and we expect that to continue over the next couple of years. A number of reasons for that. First growth is becoming a bit more scarce, with clients working with fewer...]]>579alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1493fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-unprecedented-wave-of-inheritances-is-coming--75648471insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----    Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, a powerful force reshaping the financial lives of millions of Americans: inheritance.It's Friday, October 10th at 10am in New York.Americans are living longer and they're passing on their wealth later. Longevity is one of Morgan Stanley Research's four key themes, and this is an interesting element of longevity. As baby boomers age, they're expected to transfer their wealth to Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to the tune of tens or even hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars.Estimates vary widely, but the amounts are unprecedented. And so, inheritance isn't just a family milestone; it's becoming an important cornerstone of financial planning and longevity. And understanding who's receiving, expecting, and using their inheritances is key to forecasting how Americans save, spend, and invest.According to our latest AlphaWise survey, 17 percent of U.S. consumers have received an inheritance, and another 14 percent expect to receive one in the future. Younger Americans are especially optimistic. Their expectations split evenly between those anticipating an inheritance within the next 10 years and those expecting it further out.But here's the kicker; income plays a huge role. Only 17 percent of lower income consumers report receiving or expecting an inheritance, but that number jumps to 43 percent among higher income households highlighting a clear wealth divide.What about the size of the inheritance? In our survey, those who received or expect to receive an inheritance fall broadly into three categories. About half reported amounts under $100,000 dollars. For about a third, that amount rose to under $500,000. And then meanwhile, 10 per cent reported an inheritance of half a million dollars or more.Younger consumers tend to report smaller amounts, while inheritance size rises with income. One important thing to remember about our survey though, is it looks more at the average person. We are missing some of those very high net worth demographics in there where I would expect inheritance to rise much higher than half a million.And so, when we think about this, how will recipients use this wealth? That's a really important question. The majority, about 60 percent, say they have or will put their inheritance towards savings, retirement, or investments. About a third say they'll use it for housing or paying down debt. Day-to-day consumption, travel, education and even starting a business or giving to charity also featured in the survey responses – but to a lesser extent.The financial impact of inheritance is significant: 46 percent of recipients say it makes them feel more financially secure; 40 percent cite improvements in savings; and 22 percent associate it with increased spending. Some even report retiring earlier or lightening their workloads.Inheritance trends are shaping consumer behavior and have the power to influence spending patterns across industries. To sum it up, inheritance isn't just a family matter, it's a market mover.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-TAnRVPYXj4IxK6gmv5v4QnBzufKNZp_CyyIcUYRqu0Fri, 10 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses how the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history could reshape saving, spending and investment behavior across America.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----    Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, a powerful force reshaping the financial lives of millions of Americans: inheritance.It's Friday, October 10th at 10am in New York.Americans are living longer and they're passing on their wealth later. Longevity is one of Morgan Stanley Research's four key themes, and this is an interesting element of longevity. As baby boomers age, they're expected to transfer their wealth to Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to the tune of tens or even hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars.Estimates vary widely, but the amounts are unprecedented. And so, inheritance isn't just a family milestone; it's becoming an important cornerstone of financial planning and longevity. And understanding who's receiving, expecting, and using their inheritances is key to forecasting how Americans save, spend, and invest.According to our latest AlphaWise survey, 17 percent of U.S. consumers have received an inheritance, and another 14 percent expect to receive one in the future. Younger Americans are especially optimistic. Their expectations split evenly between those anticipating an inheritance within the next 10 years and those expecting it further out.But here's the kicker; income plays a huge role. Only 17 percent of lower income consumers report receiving or expecting an inheritance, but that number jumps to 43 percent among higher income households highlighting a clear wealth divide.What about the size of the inheritance? In our survey, those who received or expect to receive an inheritance fall broadly into three categories. About half reported amounts under $100,000 dollars. For about a third, that amount rose to under $500,000. And then meanwhile, 10 per cent reported an inheritance of half a million dollars or more.Younger consumers tend to report smaller amounts, while inheritance size rises with income. One important thing to remember about our survey though, is it looks more at the average person. We are missing some of those very high net worth demographics in there where I would expect inheritance to rise much higher than half a million.And so, when we think about this, how will recipients use this wealth? That's a really important question. The majority, about 60 percent, say they have or will put their inheritance towards savings, retirement, or investments. About a third say they'll use it for housing or paying down debt. Day-to-day consumption, travel, education and even starting a business or giving to charity also featured in the survey responses – but to a lesser extent.The financial impact of inheritance is significant: 46 percent of recipients say it makes them feel more financially secure; 40 percent cite improvements in savings; and 22 percent associate it with increased spending. Some even report retiring earlier or lightening their workloads.Inheritance trends are shaping consumer behavior and have the power to influence spending patterns across industries. To sum it up, inheritance isn't just a family matter, it's a market mover.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>212alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1492fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lessons-from-a-bond-issued-90-years-ago--75648333insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----    Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at the first bond that Morgan Stanley helped issue 90 years ago and what it might tell us about market uncertainty. It's Thursday, October 9th at 4pm in London. In times of uncertainty, it's common to turn to history. And this we think also applies to financial markets. The Great Depression began roughly 95 years ago. Of its many causes, one was that the same banks that were shepherding customer deposits were also involved in much riskier and more volatile financial market activity. And so, when the stock market crashed, falling over 40 percent in 1929, and ultimately 86 percent from a peak to a trough in 1932, unsuspecting depositors often found their banks overwhelmed by this market maelstrom. The Roosevelt administration took office in March of 1933 and set about trying to pick up the pieces. Many core aspects that we associate with modern financial life from FDIC insurance to social security to the somewhat unique American 30-year mortgage rose directly out of policies from this administration and the financial ashes of this period. There was also quite understandably, a desire to make banking safer. And so the Glass Steagall Act mandated that banks had a choice. They could either do the traditional deposit taking and lending, or they could be active in financial market trading and underwriting. In response to these new separations, Morgan Stanley was founded 90 years ago in 1935 to do the latter. It was a very uncertain time. The U.S. economy was starting to recover under President Roosevelt's New Deal policies, but unemployment was still over 17 percent. Europe's economy was struggling, and the start of the Second World War would be only four years away. The S&P Composite Equity Index, which currently sits at a level of around 6,700, was at 12. It was into this world that Morgan Stanley brought its first bond deal, a 30-year corporate bond for a AA rated U.S. utility. And so, listeners, what do you think that that sort of bond yielded all those years ago? Luckily for us, the good people at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis digitized a vast array of old financial newspapers. And so, we can see what the original bond yielded in the announcement. The first bond, Morgan Stanley helped issue with a 30-year maturity and a AA rating had a yield of just 3.55 percent. That was just 70 basis points over what a comparable U.S. treasury bond offered at the time. Anniversaries are nice to celebrate, but we think this example has some lessons for the modern day. Above anything, it's a clear data point that even in very uncertain economic times, high quality corporate bonds can trade at very low spreads – much lower than one might intuitively expect. Indeed, the extra spread over government bonds that investors required for a 30-year AA rated utility bond 90 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Depression is almost exactly the same as today. It's one more reason why we think we have to be quite judicious about turning too negative on corporate credit too early, even if the headline spreads look low. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OILLc2yJRF-nVpByBgVXFtL36lltNJa6dcUmwS4u4CkThu, 09 Oct 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyDiving into the history of Morgan Stanley’s first bond deal, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains the value of high-quality corporate bonds.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----    Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at the first bond that Morgan Stanley helped issue 90 years ago and what it might tell us about market uncertainty. It's Thursday, October 9th at 4pm in London. In times of uncertainty, it's common to turn to history. And this we think also applies to financial markets. The Great Depression began roughly 95 years ago. Of its many causes, one was that the same banks that were shepherding customer deposits were also involved in much riskier and more volatile financial market activity. And so, when the stock market crashed, falling over 40 percent in 1929, and ultimately 86 percent from a peak to a trough in 1932, unsuspecting depositors often found their banks overwhelmed by this market maelstrom. The Roosevelt administration took office in March of 1933 and set about trying to pick up the pieces. Many core aspects that we associate with modern financial life from FDIC insurance to social security to the somewhat unique American 30-year mortgage rose directly out of policies from this administration and the financial ashes of this period. There was also quite understandably, a desire to make banking safer. And so the Glass Steagall Act mandated that banks had a choice. They could either do the traditional deposit taking and lending, or they could be active in financial market trading and underwriting. In response to these new separations, Morgan Stanley was founded 90 years ago in 1935 to do the latter. It was a very uncertain time. The U.S. economy was starting to recover under President Roosevelt's New Deal policies, but unemployment was still over 17 percent. Europe's economy was struggling, and the start of the Second World War would be only four years away. The S&P Composite Equity Index, which currently sits at a level of around 6,700, was at 12. It was into this world that Morgan Stanley brought its first bond deal, a 30-year corporate bond for a AA rated U.S. utility. And so, listeners, what do you think that that sort of bond yielded all those years ago? Luckily for us, the good people at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis digitized a vast array of old financial newspapers. And so, we can see what the original bond yielded in the announcement. The first bond, Morgan Stanley helped issue with a 30-year maturity and a AA rating had a yield of just 3.55 percent. That was just 70 basis points over what a comparable U.S. treasury bond offered at the time. Anniversaries are nice to celebrate, but we think this example has some lessons for the modern day. Above anything, it's a clear data point that even in very uncertain economic times, high quality corporate bonds can trade at very low spreads – much lower than one might intuitively expect. Indeed, the extra spread over government bonds that investors required for a 30-year AA rated utility bond 90 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Depression is almost exactly the same as today. It's one more reason why we think we have to be quite judicious about turning too negative on corporate credit too early, even if the headline spreads look low. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>241alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1491fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/when-will-the-shutdown-affect-markets--75648195insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----   Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today: Three checkpoints we’re watching for as the U.S. government shutdown continues. It’s Wednesday, October 8th at 10:30am in New York. The federal government shutdown in the United States has crossed the one week mark. But if you’re watching the markets, you might be surprised at how calm everything seems. Stocks are steady. Bond yields haven’t moved much, and volatility’s low. It’s more or less the scenario my colleague Ariana and I had talked about in anticipation of the impasse in Washington. We’d noted the potential for uncertainty for investors and market reaction depending on how long the shutdown would last. So that raises a big question: what, if anything, about this government shutdown could shake investor confidence and start moving markets? The question is worth considering. Prediction markets now suggest the most likely outcome is that the government shutdown will not end for at least another week. And as we’ve seen in past shutdowns, the longer it drags on, the more likely it is to matter. That’s because risks to the economic outlook start to accumulate, and investors eventually have to start pricing in a weaker growth outlook. There’s a few checkpoints we’re watching for – for when investors might start feeling this way. First, the missed paycheck for furloughed federal workers. The first instance of this comes in a few days. Less pay naturally means less spending. Studies suggest that spending among affected workers can drop by two to four percent during a shutdown. That’s not huge for GDP at first; but it’s a sign the shutdown is having effects beyond Washington, DC. Second, this time might be different because of potential layoffs. The administration has hinted that agencies could move to permanently cut staff — something we haven’t seen before. Unions have already said they’d challenge that in court. But if those actions start, or even if legal uncertainty grows around them, it could raise the economic stakes. Third, we’re watching for real disruptions to economic activity resulting from the shutdown. The last shutdown ended when air traffic in New York was curtailed due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. We’re already seeing substantial air traffic delays across the country. More substantial delays or ground halts obviously impede economic activity related to travel. And if such actions don’t coincide with signals from DC of progress in negotiating a bill to reopen the government, investors’ concern could grow. So here’s the bottom line: markets may be right to stay calm — for now. But the longer this shutdown lasts, the more likely one of these pressure points pushes investors to rethink their optimism. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2qgQxUHodfl5PNTMiBxw6wmCh8hO2QsmMxdq-YKpQuwWed, 08 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyAn extended U.S. government shutdown raises the risk for weaker growth potential. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas suggests key checkpoints that investors should keep in mind.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----   Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today: Three checkpoints we’re watching for as the U.S. government shutdown continues. It’s Wednesday, October 8th at 10:30am in New York. The federal government shutdown in the United States has crossed the one week mark. But if you’re watching the markets, you might be surprised at how calm everything seems. Stocks are steady. Bond yields haven’t moved much, and volatility’s low. It’s more or less the scenario my colleague Ariana and I had talked about in anticipation of the impasse in Washington. We’d noted the potential for uncertainty for investors and market reaction depending on how long the shutdown would last. So that raises a big question: what, if anything, about this government shutdown could shake investor confidence and start moving markets? The question is worth considering. Prediction markets now suggest the most likely outcome is that the government shutdown will not end for at least another week. And as we’ve seen in past shutdowns, the longer it drags on, the more likely it is to matter. That’s because risks to the economic outlook start to accumulate, and investors eventually have to start pricing in a weaker growth outlook. There’s a few checkpoints we’re watching for – for when investors might start feeling this way. First, the missed paycheck for furloughed federal workers. The first instance of this comes in a few days. Less pay naturally means less spending. Studies suggest that spending among affected workers can drop by two to four percent during a shutdown. That’s not huge for GDP at first; but it’s a sign the shutdown is having effects beyond Washington, DC. Second, this time might be different because of potential layoffs. The administration has hinted that agencies could move to permanently cut staff — something we haven’t seen before. Unions have already said they’d challenge that in court. But if those actions start, or even if legal uncertainty grows around them, it could raise the economic stakes. Third, we’re watching for real disruptions to economic activity resulting from the shutdown. The last shutdown ended when air traffic in New York was curtailed due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. We’re already seeing substantial air traffic delays across the country. More substantial delays or ground halts obviously impede economic activity related to travel. And if such actions don’t coincide with signals from DC of progress in negotiating a bill to reopen the government, investors’ concern could grow. So here’s the bottom line: markets may be right to stay calm — for now. But the longer this shutdown lasts, the more likely one of these pressure points pushes investors to rethink their optimism. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>197alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1490fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/get-ready-for-a-steeper-yield-curve--75648515insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today – How the shape of the yield curve has affected credit and housing markets, and the risk of changes to the curve and its implications. It’s Tuesday, October 7th at 1pm in New York. The shape of the yield curve plays a pivotal role in financial markets. It influences everything from credit conditions to housing and mortgage dynamics. And you’ve been hearing on this show for some time about more Fed rate cuts coming. Our economists expect 25 basis point rate cuts at the next three meetings – that is October, December and January. And then two more in April and July of next year. What does this mean to the shape of the curve? Our high conviction call has been that investors should position for a steeper yield curve. Why does the curve matter? It’s not just a macro signal. It’s a transmission mechanism that shapes pricing, risk appetite, and sector flows. Take life insurers, for example. A steeper curve has turbocharged demand for fixed annuity products, which in turn drives flows into spread assets like corporate and securitized credit. Insurance demand has become a powerful technical in credit markets. This year’s steepening has been led by falling front-end yields. For example, 2-year Treasuries are down about 60 basis points, significantly outpacing the 40 basis point drop in 10-year yields and just 5 basis point drop in 30-year yields. That front-end move reflects shifting rate expectations and offers relief to highly leveraged issuers who rely on short-term funding. But longer-dated yields remain sticky, keeping all-in borrowing costs elevated. That is good for insurers – and the sale of fixed annuity products – but acts as a brake on overall issuance, helping keep credit spreads tight despite macro uncertainty. That said, not all markets benefit. Mortgage rates, which track longer yields more closely than the fed funds rate, have actually risen 25 to 30 basis points since the easing cycle began in September of 2024. That’s a headwind for affordability. While a steeper curve may support lending and future housing supply, it’s not helping today’s buyers. A flatter curve with lower long-end yields would offer more meaningful relief—but that is clearly not our base case. Bottom line: Rate cuts matter, but the shape of the curve may matter more. A steeper curve is a tailwind for credit but a headwind for housing. And a reminder that not all markets move in sync. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/s_hVwnfrdjQDWufpDtdOcyGKcpfD_L9xXOa4DFIBKQATue, 07 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur explains how changes in the yield curve are affecting markets such as insurance, Treasury yields and mortgage rates.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today – How the shape of the yield curve has affected credit and housing markets, and the risk of changes to the curve and its implications. It’s Tuesday, October 7th at 1pm in New York. The shape of the yield curve plays a pivotal role in financial markets. It influences everything from credit conditions to housing and mortgage dynamics. And you’ve been hearing on this show for some time about more Fed rate cuts coming. Our economists expect 25 basis point rate cuts at the next three meetings – that is October, December and January. And then two more in April and July of next year. What does this mean to the shape of the curve? Our high conviction call has been that investors should position for a steeper yield curve. Why does the curve matter? It’s not just a macro signal. It’s a transmission mechanism that shapes pricing, risk appetite, and sector flows. Take life insurers, for example. A steeper curve has turbocharged demand for fixed annuity products, which in turn drives flows into spread assets like corporate and securitized credit. Insurance demand has become a powerful technical in credit markets. This year’s steepening has been led by falling front-end yields. For example, 2-year Treasuries are down about 60 basis points, significantly outpacing the 40 basis point drop in 10-year yields and just 5 basis point drop in 30-year yields. That front-end move reflects shifting rate expectations and offers relief to highly leveraged issuers who rely on short-term funding. But longer-dated yields remain sticky, keeping all-in borrowing costs elevated. That is good for insurers – and the sale of fixed annuity products – but acts as a brake on overall issuance, helping keep credit spreads tight despite macro uncertainty. That said, not all markets benefit. Mortgage rates, which track longer yields more closely than the fed funds rate, have actually risen 25 to 30 basis points since the easing cycle began in September of 2024. That’s a headwind for affordability. While a steeper curve may support lending and future housing supply, it’s not helping today’s buyers. A flatter curve with lower long-end yields would offer more meaningful relief—but that is clearly not our base case. Bottom line: Rate cuts matter, but the shape of the curve may matter more. A steeper curve is a tailwind for credit but a headwind for housing. And a reminder that not all markets move in sync. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>190alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1489fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-asia-is-reinventing-itself-for-global-competition--75648246insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----   Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake, Morgan Stanley's Asia Equity and Thematic Strategist. Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley Head of Asia Sustainability Research and Thematic Strategist Daniel Blake: Today, how Asia is reshaping its development strategy, corporate governance, and capital markets to lead globally. It's Monday, October 6th at 8am in Singapore. Tim Chan: And it's also 8am in Hong Kong. Daniel Blake: Asia is experiencing a number of dramatic changes that are reshaping industries, even entire economies. Deglobalization, supply chain shifts, frenetic investment in AI and looming disruption from the adoption of the technology, rapid energy transformation, and the transition to super aged populations as longevity drives investment in innovative healthcare and better nutrition are just some of the overarching themes. Asia's transformation is a story every global investor needs to follow and look for opportunities in. Tim Chan: So, what are the overarching themes, when you look at Asia Pacific? For example, what are the key themes that you're seeing in terms of driving the equity return and the market trend that you're seeing? Daniel Blake: We're approaching the Asia thematic opportunity from the framework of a competitive reinvention. It's competitive because this is deeply rooted in the cultural and business norms across much of the region, which has had an export focus through the modernization process in Japan, and more broadly with the emergence of the Asia Tigers. But we're seeing this competition really stepping up another notch. As countries look at how they can take market share in emerging technologies, and also this overarching competition between the U.S. and China, which sits at the heart of the multipolar world theme we've been laying out in recent years. We're also seeing a reinvention of development strategies of corporate governance frameworks and of capital markets to try to better improve the financial supply chain, to see the capital raising the capital allocation process improved and ultimately drive better returns for an aging population. So, Tim, you've been very focused on the corporate governance improvements that were seen in much of the region. Take us through what you think is most compelling and most important for investors to note. Tim Chan: I think governance reforms is a really key thing for Asia Pacific. Take an example in Japan, in the past we have done some correlation analysis between the major governance factors and what are driving the return. What we have found is that, first of all, there is a significant alpha potential from online companies with leading governance metrics and also companies that may improve their governance metrics over time. So, if we look at the independence of board of directors as an example. There is a positive correlation between the total return and also the independence in Japan market. And overall, we are seeing a major government improvement. As Daniel you have mentioned, China, Korea, India, and Singapore, and Japan as well – all these markets together account for over 70 percent of the market cap in MS Asia Pacific in index. So that's why, we think the governance reform is really driving the return of Asia Pacific as a whole. Daniel, after talking about the governance reform and capital market reform, I know multipolar level is also a key theme for Asia Pacific. So, what you are seeing in terms of multipolar level in Asia Pacific? Daniel Blake: So, the multipolar world theme has come back to the foreground in 2025 as trade tensions have risen, as deal making has been struck or attempted. And we've seen the concept of weaponized interdependence really being proven out in the second quarter of 2025, as China has been in recent years, implementing frameworks for export controls and leverage these quite effectively. So economic security initiatives have come back to the focus for investors. Over recent years, we've seen a number being set up across the region, including Japan's Economic Security Promotion Act, the Self-Reliant India framework, and South Korea's Supply Chain Stabilization Act, as well as Australia's National Reconstruction Fund. So, we see a number of investment opportunities flowing from these reforms. Ultimately the critical mineral and permanent magnet supply chain is very much in focus, but we're also expecting to see semi localization. So, semiconductor localization efforts are continuing to drive investment and activity. Naturally, defense has been a key area of focus for investors in 2025, and overall we see defense spending rising in Asia from 600 U.S. billion dollars in 2024 to [$]1 trillion in 2030.So, Tim, the energy security theme fits as part of this overall future of energy theme that you've been exploring with the team. How do you see this intersection with the multipolar world and what are the key investment opportunities? Tim Chan: For the future of energy, I think the energy story is really at the core of Asia multipolar world positioning. Take an example, we are seeing for Southeast Asia, the region is importing gas from U.S., and then also Korea and Japan are also trying to export their nuclear technology to the Western world as well. I think all these have a part to play in the multipolar world; but at the same time, they are also crucial for these countries to meet their own energy target and strategy. In Asia Pacific, when we look at the future of energy, there are a few driving force[s]. One is the very strong growth of renewable energy. Take an example, in India, we are seeing a huge CapEx going into the renewable energy sector and solar sector as well. China is already the biggest market in solar panel. Then also Korea and Japan are developing their nuclear capacity as well. And as I have mentioned, they also export their nuclear technology to the Western world. So, I would say, these Asian countries are balancing the multipolar world priorities with their future of energy target as well. And then there were also lots of opportunities between these dynamics; I will highlight two examples. One is a nuclear renaissance thesis that we have written extensively in the past two years. We have highlighted Japan and Korea being the key beneficiaries under this multipolar world and future of energy dynamics. And then the other would be the gas globalization in Southeast Asia or ASEAN region, where we see opportunities in the gas distributor, gas infrastructure in Southeast Asia. And then gas is going to be much more important when it comes to the energy, security and transition agenda in Southeast Asia region. So we are seeing lots of development in the future of energy in Asia Pacific. But when it comes to the other big theme that is AI. Asia Pacific is also a leader in a global AI race. So, Danny, what are the most reputable trend that you're seeing on a national or regional level? On tech diffusion and AI in Asia Pacific? Daniel Blake: So, the concept of competitive reinvention also is useful in understanding Asia's response to AI and technology diffusion. So, we've seen China in particular, looking to strengthen its position in the development phase of new technologies. And we're also seeing on the export competition front, more incentives to compete for the next phase of supply chain diversification. We're also seeing the emerging class of China MNCs that are sitting at the heart of our China Emerging Frontiers research. And another key area of discussion and research for us is understanding China's unique AI path. Where we're seeing more of a focus on policy makers and corporates playing to strengths in terms of power, data and talent, given the shortages of compute, and at the same time wanting to pursue a localization strategy over the medium term. On the technology front, we think the India stack is also still underappreciated as a digital enabler of opportunities in the New India. And then more broadly, we are looking for companies that we see in Asia that will prove to be AI adoption leaders. So, this underpins a really another key work stream for us in identifying opportunities from AI and tech diffusion into the region. So, Tim, how about when we turn to the theme of longevity, what are the key investment opportunities you see in Asia Pacific? Tim Chan: First of all, let's look at China. So, China is entering a super age society and by 2030, China's elderly population will hit 260 million. So that is a big number, which accounts for 18 percent of the population. And Japan as well, and Korea as well. Korea is already entering the super aged society. And then there have been reform program on healthcare, financial system pension and labor market in order to support these, old aging population. And for Japan, the focus is really on not just living longer but also living more healthy. Take an example, we have done some reports on the healthy food industry in Japan. And how different companies are providing affordable, healthy food to consumer. And we think that will create opportunities for investor, if they would like to look into longevity as a theme. Overall, we are seeing new market in healthcare, pharmaceutical, and affordable healthy food, as well as the reform in the wealth management and pension system that will create opportunities in the financial market as well. And the longevity economy and or the silver economy is becoming a big theme for Asia Pacific for a long time to come. Daniel Blake: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. Tim Chan: Yeah, great speaking with you,]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/q93R27QofRwVJntTGfOJOOg5QWAJq3ojXbauB-s65RwMon, 06 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur strategists Daniel Blake and Tim Chan discuss how Asia is adapting to multipolar world dynamics, tech innovation and longevity trends to create new opportunities for global investors.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----   Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake, Morgan Stanley's Asia Equity and Thematic Strategist. Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley Head of Asia Sustainability Research and Thematic Strategist Daniel Blake: Today, how Asia is reshaping its development strategy, corporate governance, and capital markets to lead globally. It's Monday, October 6th at 8am in Singapore. Tim Chan: And it's also 8am in Hong Kong. Daniel Blake: Asia is experiencing a number of dramatic changes that are reshaping industries, even entire economies. Deglobalization, supply chain shifts, frenetic investment in AI and looming disruption from the adoption of the technology, rapid energy transformation, and the transition to super aged populations as longevity drives investment in innovative healthcare and better nutrition are just some of the overarching themes. Asia's transformation is a story every global investor needs to follow and look for opportunities in. Tim Chan: So, what are the overarching themes, when you look at Asia Pacific? For example, what are the key themes that you're seeing in terms of driving the equity return and the market trend that you're seeing? Daniel Blake: We're approaching the Asia thematic opportunity from the framework of a competitive reinvention. It's competitive because this is deeply rooted in the cultural and business norms across much of the region, which has had an export focus through the modernization process in Japan, and more broadly with the emergence of the Asia Tigers. But we're seeing this competition really stepping up another notch. As countries look at how they can take market share in emerging technologies, and also this overarching competition between the U.S. and China, which sits at the heart of the multipolar world theme we've been laying out in recent years. We're also seeing a reinvention of development strategies of corporate governance frameworks and of capital markets to try to better improve the financial supply chain, to see the capital raising the capital allocation process improved and ultimately drive better returns for an aging population. So, Tim, you've been very focused on the corporate governance improvements that were seen in much of the region. Take us through what you think is most compelling and most important for investors to note. Tim Chan: I think governance reforms is a really key thing for Asia Pacific. Take an example in Japan, in the past we have done some correlation analysis between the major governance factors and what are driving the return. What we have found is that, first of all, there is a significant alpha potential from online companies with leading governance metrics and also companies that may improve their governance metrics over time. So, if we look at the independence of board of directors as an example. There is a positive correlation between the total return and also the independence in Japan market. And overall, we are seeing a major government improvement. As Daniel you have mentioned, China, Korea, India, and Singapore, and Japan as well – all these markets together account for over 70 percent of the market cap in MS Asia Pacific in index. So that's why, we think the governance reform is really driving the return of Asia Pacific as a whole. Daniel, after talking about the governance reform and capital market reform, I know multipolar level is also a key theme for Asia Pacific. So, what you are seeing in terms of multipolar level in Asia Pacific? Daniel Blake: So, the multipolar world theme has come back to the foreground in 2025 as trade tensions...]]>600alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1488fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/introducing-what-should-i-do-with-my-money-season-3--75648240What Should I Do With My Money, hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô to hear real-life stories about these and other big financial questions.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/540pFdpSy4pqA1VifeQ9zxzwoxpk6G10OWYfrVIljHYSat, 04 Oct 2025 14:00:00 +0000gtyHave you ever wondered -- How much do I really need to retire early and am I on track? How do I balance all of my financial goals? How can I help my children be financially secure? Tune into Season 3 of https://mgstnly.lnk.to/WSIDWMMRS!TOTM, hosted by...What Should I Do With My Money, hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô to hear real-life stories about these and other big financial questions.]]>137alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1487fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/china-s-biotech-revolution--75648521insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Jack Lin: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jack Lin, from Morgan Stanley's China Healthcare Team. Today, the boom in China biotech – and how it's not just a headline for China-focused investors, but a story that touches all of us. It is Friday, October 3rd at 2pm in Hong Kong. Many people might not realize this but some of the next generation healthcare innovation is being developed far from Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The medicines you rely on, treatment plans that could shape your family's future, even investment opportunity that can grow your savings. They are all increasingly influenced by China's rapidly evolving biotech sector, which is transitioning from traditional generics manufacturing into the global innovation ecosystem. In fact, China's biotech industry is set to become a major player in the global innovation ecosystem. By 2040, we project China's originated assets could represent about a third of U.S. FDA approvals – up dramatically from just 5 percent today. And the question isn't if China's biotech will matter, but how global patients could benefit; and how consumers and investors worldwide might engage with its impact.What's driving this transformation? Three key components are driving the globalization of China originated drug innovations: cost, accessibility, and innovation quality. Lower cost in China's biotech sector enables more efficient development. Clinical trial quality is improving with regulatory pathways becoming more streamlined, promoting accessibility of China innovation for global markets. Finally, innovation in China's biotech sector is gaining momentum with more regionally developed medicines now eyeing market approval from leading overseas agencies like the U.S. FDA and EMA.This is all to say China is on track to become a key force on the global biotech stage. That said, right now we're also at a crossroads moment as geopolitical tensions between U.S. and China pose potential risks to the flow of innovation. Despite these uncertainties, we see a likely outcome of co-opetition, a blend of competition and collaboration, as global pharma grapples with the dual imperatives of innovation and resilience. Of course, this rapid evolution brings both opportunities and challenges. It's prompting stakeholders around the world to rethink their strategies and collaborations in this shifting landscape of global medical innovation. As the China biotech industry evolves, the choices made by investors, policy makers, and healthcare communities, both within China and globally, will determine the therapies of the future. It is truly a dynamic space, and we'll continue to bring you updates. Thanks for listening to our thoughts on the market. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review, wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleagues today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fiXEJUcjCkbFd7_shEGgKkuSYVQKCxeNiiAM1gyCJJcFri, 03 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur China Healthcare Analyst Jack Lin discusses how China’s biotech surge is reshaping healthcare, investment and innovation worldwide.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Jack Lin: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jack Lin, from Morgan Stanley's China Healthcare Team. Today, the boom in China biotech – and how it's not just a headline for China-focused investors, but a story that touches all of us. It is Friday, October 3rd at 2pm in Hong Kong. Many people might not realize this but some of the next generation healthcare innovation is being developed far from Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The medicines you rely on, treatment plans that could shape your family's future, even investment opportunity that can grow your savings. They are all increasingly influenced by China's rapidly evolving biotech sector, which is transitioning from traditional generics manufacturing into the global innovation ecosystem. In fact, China's biotech industry is set to become a major player in the global innovation ecosystem. By 2040, we project China's originated assets could represent about a third of U.S. FDA approvals – up dramatically from just 5 percent today. And the question isn't if China's biotech will matter, but how global patients could benefit; and how consumers and investors worldwide might engage with its impact.What's driving this transformation? Three key components are driving the globalization of China originated drug innovations: cost, accessibility, and innovation quality. Lower cost in China's biotech sector enables more efficient development. Clinical trial quality is improving with regulatory pathways becoming more streamlined, promoting accessibility of China innovation for global markets. Finally, innovation in China's biotech sector is gaining momentum with more regionally developed medicines now eyeing market approval from leading overseas agencies like the U.S. FDA and EMA.This is all to say China is on track to become a key force on the global biotech stage. That said, right now we're also at a crossroads moment as geopolitical tensions between U.S. and China pose potential risks to the flow of innovation. Despite these uncertainties, we see a likely outcome of co-opetition, a blend of competition and collaboration, as global pharma grapples with the dual imperatives of innovation and resilience. Of course, this rapid evolution brings both opportunities and challenges. It's prompting stakeholders around the world to rethink their strategies and collaborations in this shifting landscape of global medical innovation. As the China biotech industry evolves, the choices made by investors, policy makers, and healthcare communities, both within China and globally, will determine the therapies of the future. It is truly a dynamic space, and we'll continue to bring you updates. Thanks for listening to our thoughts on the market. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review, wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleagues today.]]>194alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1486fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/opportunities-from-china-s-policy-shifts--75648669Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief China Equity Strategist.Today – a consequential shift in China's economic policy is set to reshape domestic markets and send ripples across the global economy.It’s Thursday, October 2nd at 2pm in Hong Kong.If you’re an investor, it’s important to understand China’s new approach to economic development. The government's policies to drive a recovery from an economic slump are changing the rules of competition, profitability and growth. This affects Chinese companies, and in turn global supply chains and investment flows.Let’s start with the term involution – what is it? In China, involution describes a cycle of excessive competition—think companies fighting for market share by slashing prices, ramping up production, and eroding profits, often to the point where nobody wins. The government’s anti-involution campaign is a direct response to this problem.What factors prompted the launch of this anti-involution initiative? Since 2021, China has faced mounting deflationary pressures—falling prices, a housing market slump, and a surge in manufacturing investment that led to overcapacity. The September 2024 policy pivot began to address these issues, and in mid-2025 the government launched a more targeted anti-involution campaign. This phase focuses on reducing excessive competition and restoring pricing power through market-based consolidation.As we assess the potential effectiveness of China’s anti-involution policy, our base case projects China’s return on equity (ROE) to reach 13.3 percent by 2030, up from a cycle low of 10 percent in May 2024 and 11.6 percent by July 2025. In a bullish scenario, decisive reforms and demand-side stimulus could push ROE as high as 16.3 percent.We also expect earnings growth to accelerate, with our base case showing an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.6 percent in 2025, rising to 11.1 percent by 2027. We forecast valuations to normalize towards 12–13x forward price-to-earnings, in line with emerging market peers, but this could re-rate higher if reforms succeed.In terms of investment opportunities, we believe the EV Batteries industry will benefit the most from the Chinese government’s anti-involution efforts. It’s got strong policy support, cutting-edge technology, and a market that’s consolidating fast—meaning the days of low-quality and excess capacity are fading. We’re seeing a shift toward long-term, sustainable growth. Steel and Cement are industries where the state has a strong hand and capacity controls are well established. These factors help stabilize the market and open the door for steady gains. Finally, Airlines. While the industry has faced persistent losses, there isn’t a[n] oversupply of seats, and regulatory coordination is strong. With the right reforms, Airlines could be poised for a significant turnaround.The sectors best positioned to benefit from China’s anti-involution strategy are more domestically oriented. But this policy is bound to have global implications. And the ripples will likely extend to global supply chains, especially in Materials, Chemicals and Autos.Looking ahead, the pace and success of anti-involution will depend on further structural reforms, demand-side support, and the ability to digest industrial credit risks gradually. The upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan could bring more clarity on tax, social welfare, and local government incentives.So, what should investors be paying attention to? China’s anti-involution campaign is more than a policy tweak—it’s a recalibration of how the country balances growth, innovation, and sustainability. The key is to track sector-level reforms, watch for signs of consolidation, and focus on companies with strong fundamentals and policy tailwinds.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hIcnVHLtATEL41Y2GIOk9IQOHWCutJkF_Lv8w-8IGjoThu, 02 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discusses how China’s new approach to economic development is transforming domestic industries and reshaping the global investment landscape. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief China Equity Strategist.Today – a consequential shift in China's economic policy is set to reshape domestic markets and send ripples across the global economy.It’s Thursday, October 2nd at 2pm in Hong Kong.If you’re an investor, it’s important to understand China’s new approach to economic development. The government's policies to drive a recovery from an economic slump are changing the rules of competition, profitability and growth. This affects Chinese companies, and in turn global supply chains and investment flows.Let’s start with the term involution – what is it? In China, involution describes a cycle of excessive competition—think companies fighting for market share by slashing prices, ramping up production, and eroding profits, often to the point where nobody wins. The government’s anti-involution campaign is a direct response to this problem.What factors prompted the launch of this anti-involution initiative? Since 2021, China has faced mounting deflationary pressures—falling prices, a housing market slump, and a surge in manufacturing investment that led to overcapacity. The September 2024 policy pivot began to address these issues, and in mid-2025 the government launched a more targeted anti-involution campaign. This phase focuses on reducing excessive competition and restoring pricing power through market-based consolidation.As we assess the potential effectiveness of China’s anti-involution policy, our base case projects China’s return on equity (ROE) to reach 13.3 percent by 2030, up from a cycle low of 10 percent in May 2024 and 11.6 percent by July 2025. In a bullish scenario, decisive reforms and demand-side stimulus could push ROE as high as 16.3 percent.We also expect earnings growth to accelerate, with our base case showing an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.6 percent in 2025, rising to 11.1 percent by 2027. We forecast valuations to normalize towards 12–13x forward price-to-earnings, in line with emerging market peers, but this could re-rate higher if reforms succeed.In terms of investment opportunities, we believe the EV Batteries industry will benefit the most from the Chinese government’s anti-involution efforts. It’s got strong policy support, cutting-edge technology, and a market that’s consolidating fast—meaning the days of low-quality and excess capacity are fading. We’re seeing a shift toward long-term, sustainable growth. Steel and Cement are industries where the state has a strong hand and capacity controls are well established. These factors help stabilize the market and open the door for steady gains. Finally, Airlines. While the industry has faced persistent losses, there isn’t a[n] oversupply of seats, and regulatory coordination is strong. With the right reforms, Airlines could be poised for a significant turnaround.The sectors best positioned to benefit from China’s anti-involution strategy are more domestically oriented. But this policy is bound to have global implications. And the ripples will likely extend to global supply chains, especially in Materials, Chemicals and Autos.Looking ahead, the pace and success of anti-involution will depend on further structural reforms, demand-side support, and the ability to digest industrial credit risks gradually. The upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan could bring more clarity on tax, social welfare, and local government incentives.So, what should investors be paying attention to? China’s anti-involution campaign is more than a policy tweak—it’s a recalibration of how the country balances growth,...]]>295alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1485fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-u-s-inflation-slow-in-2026--75648616insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Mike Gapen, Chetan Ahya and Jens Eisenschmidt, who cover the U.S., Asia, and Europe respectively. We talked about... Well, we didn't get to the U.S. We talked about Asia. We talked about Europe. Today, we are going to focus on the U.S. and maybe one or two more economies around the world. It's Wednesday, October 1st at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10 pm in Hong Kong. All right, gentlemen. So yesterday we talked a lot about China, the anti-involution policy, and what's going on with deflation there. Talked a little bit about Japan and what the Bank of Japan is doing. We shifted over to Europe and what the ECB is doing there – there were lots of questions about deflation, disinflation, whether or not inflation might actually pick up in Japan. So, [that] was all about soft inflation. Mike, let me put you on the spot here, because things are, well, things are a little bit different in the U.S. when it comes to inflation. A lot of attention on tariffs and whether or not tariffs are going to drive up inflation. Of course, inflation, the United States never got back to the Fed's target after the COVID surge of inflation. So, where do you see inflation going? Is the effect of tariffs – has that fully run its course, or is there still more entrained? How do you see the outlook for inflation in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, certainly a key question for the outlook here. So, core PCE inflation is running around 2.9 percent. We think it can get towards 3, maybe a little above 3 by year end. We do not think that the economy has fully absorbed tariffs yet; we think more pass through is coming. The President just announced additional tariffs the other day. We had them factored into our baseline. I think it's fair to say companies are still figuring out exactly how much they can pass through to consumers and when. So, I think the year-on-year rate of inflation will continue to move higher into year end. Hit 3 percent, maybe a little bit above. The key question then is what happens in 2026. Is inflation driven by tariffs transitory – the famous T word; and the year-on-year rate of inflation will come back down? That's what the Fed's forecast thinks; we do as well. But as everyone knows, the Fed has started to ease policy to support the labor market. The economy has performed pretty well, so there's a risk maybe that inflation doesn't come down as much next year. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so tariffs are clearly a key policy variable that can affect inflation. There's also been immigration restriction, to say the least, and what we saw coming out of COVID – when people were reluctant to go back to work, and businesses were reporting lots of shortages of workers – is that in certain services industries, we saw some pressure on prices. So, tariffs mostly affect consumer goods prices. Is there a contribution from immigration restriction onto overall inflation through services? Michael Gapen: I think the answer is yes; and I hesitate there because it's hard to see it in real time. But it is fair to say the average immigrant in the U.S. is younger. They have higher rates of labor force participation. They tend to reside in lower income households. So, they're labor supply heavy in terms of their effect on the economy. And yes, they tend to have larger relative presence in construction and manufacturing. But in terms of numbers, a lot of immigrants work in the service sector, as you note. And services inflation has been to the upside lately, right? So, the surprise has been that goods inflation maybe hasn't been as strong. The pass through from tariffs has been weaker. But in terms of upside surprises in inflation, it's common services and in many cases, non-housing related services. So, I'd say there's maybe some nascent signs that immigration controls may be keeping services prices firmer than thought. But may be hard to tie that directly at the moment. So, it's easier to say I think immigration controls may prevent inflation from coming down as much next year. It's not altogether clear how much they're pushing services inflation up. I think there's some evidence to support that, and we'll have to see whether that continues. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so we're seeing higher costs and higher prices from tariffs. We're seeing less labor supply when it comes to immigration. Those seem like a recipe for a big slowdown in growth, and I think that's been your forecast for quite some time – is that the U.S. was going to slow down a lot. Are we seeing that in the data? Is the U.S. economy slowing down or is everything just fine?  How are you thinking about it? And what's the evidence that there's a slowdown and what are maybe the counterarguments that there's not that much of a slowdown? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the data doesn't support much of a slowdown. So yes, the economy did moderate in the first half of the year. I think the smart thing to do is average through Q1 and Q2 outcomes [be]cause there was a lot of volatility in trade and inventories. If you do that, the economy grew at about a 1.8 percent annualized rate in the first half of the year, down from about 2.5 percent last year. So, some moderation there, but not a lot. We would argue that that probably isn't a tariff story. We would've expected tariffs and immigration policies to have greater downward pressure on growth in the second half of the year. But to your question, incoming data in the third quarter has been really strong, and we're tracking growth somewhere around 3 percent right now.So, there's not a lot of evidence in hand at present that tariffs are putting significant downward pressure on growth. Seth Carpenter: So those growth numbers that you cite are on spending, which is normally the way we calculate things like GDP, consumption spending. But the labor market, I mean, non-farm payroll reports really have been quite weak. How do you reconcile that intellectual tension on the one hand spending holding up? On the other hand, that job creation [is] pretty, pretty weak. Michael Gapen: Yeah. I think the way that we would reconcile it is when we look at the data for the non-financial corporate sector, what appears to be clear is that non-labor costs have risen and tariffs would reside in that. And the data does show that what would be called unit non-labor costs. So, the cost per unit of output attributable to everything other than labor that rose a lot. What corporates apparently did was they reduced labor costs. And they absorbed some of it in lower profitability. What they didn't do was push price a lot. We'll see how long this tension can go on. It may be that corporates are in the early stages of passing through inflation, so we will see more inflation further out in a slowdown in spending. Or it may be that corporates are deciding that they will bear most of the burden of the tariffs, and cost control and efficiencies will be the order of the day. And maybe the Fed is right to be worried about downside risk to employment. So, I reconcile it that way. I think corporates have absorbed most of the tariff shock to date, and we're still in the early stages of seeing whether or not they will be able to pass it along to consumers. Seth Carpenter: All right, so then let's think about the Fed, the central bank. Yesterday, I talked to Chetan about the Bank of Japan. There reflation is real. Talked to Jens yesterday about the ECB where inflation has come down. So, those other developed market economies, the prescriptions for monetary policy are pretty straightforward. The Fed, on the other hand, they're in a bit of a bind in that regard. What do you think the Fed is trying to achieve here? How would you describe their strategy? Michael Gapen: I would describe their strategy as a recalibration, which is, I think, you know, technical monetary policy jargon for – where their policy stance is now; is not correct to balance risks to the economy. Earlier this year, the Fed thought that the primary risk was to persistent inflation. Boy, the effective tariff rate was rising quickly and that should pass due to inflation. We should be worried about upside risk to inflation. And then employment decelerated rapidly and has stayed low now for four consecutive months. Yes, labor supply has come down, but there's also a lot of evidence that labor demand has come down. So, I think what the Fed is saying is the balance of risks have become more balanced. They need to worry about inflation, but now they also need to worry about the labor market. So having a restrictive policy stance in their mind doesn't make sense. The Fed's not arguing – we need to get below neutral. We need to get easy. They're just saying we probably need to move in the direction of neutral. That will allow us to respond better if inflation stays firm or the labor market weakens. So, a recalibration meaning, you know, we think two more rate cuts into year end get a little bit closer to neutral, and that puts them in a better spot to respond to the evolving economic conditions. Seth Carpenter: All right. That makes a lot of sense. We can't end a conversation this year about the Fed, though, without touching on the fact that the White House has been putting a lot of pressure on the Federal Reserve trying to get Chair Powell and his committee to push interest rates substantially lower than where they are n]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9c7KJSfuXC7aIOJw-Gb-pC4LQQ38_R120CnnUOF8ucgWed, 01 Oct 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyIn the second of a two-part episode, Morgan Stanley’s chief economists talk about their near-term U.S. outlook based on tariffs, labor supply and the Fed’s response. They also discuss India’s path to strong economic growth.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Mike Gapen, Chetan Ahya and Jens Eisenschmidt, who cover the U.S., Asia, and Europe respectively. We talked about... Well, we didn't get to the U.S. We talked about Asia. We talked about Europe. Today, we are going to focus on the U.S. and maybe one or two more economies around the world. It's Wednesday, October 1st at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10 pm in Hong Kong. All right, gentlemen. So yesterday we talked a lot about China, the anti-involution policy, and what's going on with deflation there. Talked a little bit about Japan and what the Bank of Japan is doing. We shifted over to Europe and what the ECB is doing there – there were lots of questions about deflation, disinflation, whether or not inflation might actually pick up in Japan. So, [that] was all about soft inflation. Mike, let me put you on the spot here, because things are, well, things are a little bit different in the U.S. when it comes to inflation. A lot of attention on tariffs and whether or not tariffs are going to drive up inflation. Of course, inflation, the United States never got back to the Fed's target after the COVID surge of inflation. So, where do you see inflation going? Is the effect of tariffs – has that fully run its course, or is there still more entrained? How do you see the outlook for inflation in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, certainly a key question for the outlook here. So, core PCE inflation is running around 2.9 percent. We think it can get towards 3, maybe a little above 3 by year end. We do not think that the economy has fully absorbed tariffs yet; we think more pass through is coming. The President just announced additional tariffs the other day. We had them factored into our baseline. I think it's fair to say companies are still figuring out exactly how much they can pass through to consumers and when. So, I think the year-on-year rate of inflation will continue to move higher into year end. Hit 3 percent, maybe a little bit above. The key question then is what happens in 2026. Is inflation driven by tariffs transitory – the famous T word; and the year-on-year rate of inflation will come back down? That's what the Fed's forecast thinks; we do as well. But as everyone knows, the Fed has started to ease policy to support the labor market. The economy has performed pretty well, so there's a risk maybe that inflation doesn't come down as much next year. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so tariffs are clearly a key policy variable that can affect inflation. There's also been immigration restriction, to say the least, and what we saw coming out of COVID – when people were reluctant to go back to work, and businesses were reporting lots of shortages of workers – is that in certain services industries, we saw some pressure on prices. So, tariffs mostly affect consumer goods prices. Is there a contribution from immigration restriction onto overall inflation through services? Michael Gapen: I think the answer is yes; and I hesitate there because it's hard to see it in real time. But it is fair to say the average immigrant in the U.S. is younger. They have higher rates of labor force participation. They tend to reside in lower income households. So, they're labor supply heavy in terms of their effect on the economy. And yes, they tend to have larger relative presence in construction and manufacturing. But in terms of numbers, a lot of...]]>803alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1484fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tackling-economic-hurdles-in-europe-and-asia--75648626insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Well, a lot has changed since the second quarter and the last time we did one of these around the world economics roundtable. After an extended pause, the United States Federal Reserve started cutting rates again. Europe's recovery is showing, well, some mixed signals. And in Asia, there's once again increasing reliance on policy support to keep growth on track.Today for the first part of a two-part conversation, I'm going to engage with Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe economist, to really get into a conversation about what's going on in the economy around the world.It's Tuesday, September 30th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in HongSeth Carpenter: So, it's getting to be the end of the third quarter, and the narrative around the world is still quite murky from my perspective. The Fed has delivered on a rate cut. The ECB has decided that maybe disinflation is over. And in Asia, China's policymakers are trying to lean in and push policy to right the wrongs of deflation in that economy.I want to get into some of the real hard questions that investors around the world are asking in terms of what's going on in the economy, how it's working out, and what we should look for. So, Chetan, if I can actually start with you. One of the terms that we've heard a lot coming out of China is the anti-involution policy.Can you just lay out briefly for us, what do we mean when we say the anti-involution policy in China?Chetan Ahya: Well, the anti-evolution policy is a response to China's excess capacity and persistent deflation challenge. And in China's context, involution refers to the dynamic where producers compete excessively, resulting in aggressive price cuts and diminishing returns on capital employed. And look, at the heart of this deflation challenge is China's approach of maintaining high real GDP growth with more investment in manufacturing and infrastructure when aggregate demand slows. And in the past few years, policy makers push for investment in manufacturing and infrastructure to offset the sharp slow down in property sector.And as a result, a number of industry sectors now have large excess capacities, explaining this persistent deflationary environment. And after close to two and a half years of deflation, policy makers are recognizing that deflation is not good for the corporate sector, households and the government. And from the past experience, we know that when policymakers in China signal a clear intention, it will be followed up by an intensification of policy efforts to cut capacity in select sectors. However, we think moving economy out of deflation will be challenging. These supply reduction efforts may be helpful but will not be sufficient on their own. And this time for a sustainable solution to deflation problem, we think a pivot is needed – supporting consumption via systematic efforts to increase social welfare spending, particularly targeted towards migrant workers in urban China and rural poor. But we are not optimistic that this solution will be implemented in scale.Seth Carpenter: So that makes sense because in the past when we've been talking about the issue of deflation in China, it's essentially this mismatch between the amount of demand in the economy not being sufficient to match the supply. As you said, you and your team have been thinking that the best solution here would be to increase demand, and instead what the policymakers are doing is reducing supply.So, if you don't think this change in policy, this anti-evolution policy is sufficient to break this deflation cycle – what do you see as the most likely outcome for economic growth in China this year and next?Chetan Ahya: So, this year we expect GDP growth to be around 4.7 percent, which implies that in the back half of the year you'll see growth slowing down to around 4.5 percent because we already grew at 5.2 in the first half. And, going forward we think that, you know, you should be looking more at normal GDP growth set because as we just discussed deflation is a key challenge.So, while we have real GDP growth at 4.7 for 2025, normal GDP growth is going to be 4 percent. And next year, again, we think normal GDP growth will be in that range of 4 percent.Seth Carpenter: That whole spiral of deflation – it's sort of interesting, Japan as an economy has broken that sort of stagnation or disinflation spiral that it was in for 25 years. We've been writing for a long time about the reflation story going on in Japan. Let me ask you, our forecast has been that the reflationary dynamic is there. It's embedded, it's not going away anytime. But, on the other hand, we basically see the Bank of Japan as on hold, not just for the rest of this year, but for all of next year as well.Can you let us know a little bit about what's going on with Japan and why we don't think the Bank of Japan might raise interest rates anytime soon?Chetan Ahya: So, Seth, at the outset, we think BoJ needs still some more time to be sure that we are on that virtuous cycle of rising prices and wages. Yes, both prices and wages have gone up. But it is very clear from the data that a large part of this rise in prices can be attributed to currency depreciation and supply side factors, such as higher energy prices earlier, and food prices now. And similarly, currency depreciation has also played a role in lifting corporate profits, which then has allowed the corporate sector to increase wages.So, if you look at the drivers to rise in prices and wage growth as of now, we think that demand has not really played a big role. To just establish that point, if you look at Japan's GDP, it's just about 1 percent higher than pre-COVID on a real basis. And if you look at Japan's consumption, real consumption trend, it's still 1 percent below pre-COVID levels.So, we think BoJ still needs more time. And just to add one more point on this. BoJ is also conscious about what tariffs will do to Japan's exports, and economy; and therefore, they want to wait for some more time to see the evidence that demand also picks up before they take up a policy rate hike.Seth Carpenter: So, one economy in deflation and policy is probably not enough to prevent it. Another economy that's got reflation, but a very cautious central bank who wants to make sure it continues. Jens, let's pivot now to Europe because at the last policy meeting, President Lagarde of the ECB said pretty, pretty strongly that she thinks the disinflationary process in Europe has come to an end. And that the ECB is basically on hold at this point going forward.Do you agree with her assessment? Do you think she's got it right? You think she's got it wrong? How could she be wrong, if she’s wrong? And what's your outlook for the ECB?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, there a ton of questions here. I think I was also struck by the statement as you were. I think there is probably – that's at least my interpretation – a reference here to – Okay, we have come down a long way in terms of inflation in the Euro area. Rather being at 10 percent at some point in the past and now basically at target. And we think; I mean, we just got the data actually, for September in. It's more or less in line with what we had expected up again to 2.3. But that's really it. And then from here it's really down.Very good reasons to believe this will be the case. We have actually inflation below target next year, and the ECB agrees. So that's why I think she can't have made reference to what Liza had because the ECB itself is predicting that inflation from here will fall. So, I think it's really probably rather description of the way traveled. And then there may be some nuances here in the policy prescription forward.So, for now we think inflation will undershoot the target. And we think this undershoot has good chances to extend well into the medium term. So that's the famous 2027 forecast. The ECB in its last installment of the forecast in September doesn't disagree. Or it's actually, in theory at least, in agreement because it has a 1.9 here for 2027. So, it's also below target.But when asked about that at the press conference, the President said, yes, it's actually, very close to 2. So, it really cannot be really distinguished here. So, from that perspective, policy makers probably want to wait it out. In particular for the October meeting, which is not a forecast meeting, we don't expect any change.And then the focus of attention is really on the December meeting with the new forecast. What will 2028 show in their forecast for inflation? And will the 1.9 in [20]27 actually be rather 1.8? In which case I think the discussion on further cuts will heat up. We have a cut for December, and we have another one for March.Seth Carpenter: Of course, very often one of the things that drives inflation is overall economic growth and a key determinant of economic growth tends to be fiscal policy. And there we've got two big economies very much in the headlines right now. Germany, on the one hand, with plans to increase spending both on infrastructure and on defense spending. And then France, who's seen lots of instability, shall we say, with the government as they try to come up with a plan for fiscal consolidation.So, with those two economies in mind, can you walk us through what is the fiscal outlook for Germany, in particular? Is it going to be enough to stimulate overall growth in Europe? And then for]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mrKT-6QUjooMH14CDbauS_AerxGK2YN1ns64U8LUumQTue, 30 Sep 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s chief economists discuss how policymakers in China, Japan and the European Union are addressing slower growth, deflation or the return of inflationary pressures. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Well, a lot has changed since the second quarter and the last time we did one of these around the world economics roundtable. After an extended pause, the United States Federal Reserve started cutting rates again. Europe's recovery is showing, well, some mixed signals. And in Asia, there's once again increasing reliance on policy support to keep growth on track.Today for the first part of a two-part conversation, I'm going to engage with Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe economist, to really get into a conversation about what's going on in the economy around the world.It's Tuesday, September 30th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in HongSeth Carpenter: So, it's getting to be the end of the third quarter, and the narrative around the world is still quite murky from my perspective. The Fed has delivered on a rate cut. The ECB has decided that maybe disinflation is over. And in Asia, China's policymakers are trying to lean in and push policy to right the wrongs of deflation in that economy.I want to get into some of the real hard questions that investors around the world are asking in terms of what's going on in the economy, how it's working out, and what we should look for. So, Chetan, if I can actually start with you. One of the terms that we've heard a lot coming out of China is the anti-involution policy.Can you just lay out briefly for us, what do we mean when we say the anti-involution policy in China?Chetan Ahya: Well, the anti-evolution policy is a response to China's excess capacity and persistent deflation challenge. And in China's context, involution refers to the dynamic where producers compete excessively, resulting in aggressive price cuts and diminishing returns on capital employed. And look, at the heart of this deflation challenge is China's approach of maintaining high real GDP growth with more investment in manufacturing and infrastructure when aggregate demand slows. And in the past few years, policy makers push for investment in manufacturing and infrastructure to offset the sharp slow down in property sector.And as a result, a number of industry sectors now have large excess capacities, explaining this persistent deflationary environment. And after close to two and a half years of deflation, policy makers are recognizing that deflation is not good for the corporate sector, households and the government. And from the past experience, we know that when policymakers in China signal a clear intention, it will be followed up by an intensification of policy efforts to cut capacity in select sectors. However, we think moving economy out of deflation will be challenging. These supply reduction efforts may be helpful but will not be sufficient on their own. And this time for a sustainable solution to deflation problem, we think a pivot is needed – supporting consumption via systematic efforts to increase social welfare spending, particularly targeted towards migrant workers in urban China and rural poor. But we are not optimistic that this solution will be implemented in scale.Seth Carpenter: So that makes sense because in the past when we've been talking about the issue of deflation in China, it's essentially this mismatch between the amount of demand in the economy not being sufficient to match the supply. As you said, you and your team have been thinking that the best solution here would be to increase demand, and instead what the...]]>774alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1483fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-the-fed-end-the-party--75648338insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at the forces that could heat up corporate activity in 2026 – if the labor market can hold up.It's Monday, September 29th at 2pm in London.Bill Martin, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve in the 50’s and 60’s, famously joked that “it was the Fed's job to take away the punch bowl just when the party is getting good.” That quote seems relevant because a host of trends are pointing to a pretty lively scene over the next 12 months. First, the U.S. government is spending significantly more than it's taking in. This deficit running at about 6.5 percent of the size of the whole economy is providing stimulus. It's only been larger during the great financial crisis, COVID and World War II. It's punch. Next to the corporate sector. As you've heard us discuss on this podcast, we here at Morgan Stanley think that AI related spending could amount to one of the largest waves of investment ever recorded – dwarfing the shale boom of the 2010s and the telecommunication spending of the late 1990s. Importantly, we think this spending is ramping up right now. Morgan Stanley estimates that investments by large tech companies will increase by 70 percent this year, and between 2024 and 2027, we think this spending is going to go up by two and a half times. Note that this doesn't even account for the enormous amount of power and electricity infrastructure that's going to be need to be built to support all this. Hence more economic punch. Finally, there's a deregulatory push. My bank research colleagues believe that lower capital requirements for U.S. banks could boost their balance sheet capacity by an additional $1 trillion in risk weighted terms. And a more supportive regulatory environment for mergers should help activity there continue to grow. Again, more punch.Heavy government spending, heavy corporate spending, more bank lending and risk taking capacity. And what's next from the Federal Reserve? Well, they're not exactly taking the punch away. We think that the Fed is set to cut rates five more times to a midpoint of two and 7/8ths. The Fed's supportive efforts are based on a real fear that labor markets are already starting to slow, despite the other supportive factors mentioned previously. And a broad weakening of the economy would absolutely warrant such support from the Fed. But if growth doesn't slow – large deficits, booming capital expenditure, a looser regulatory environment, and now Fed rate cuts – would all support even more corporate risk taking possibly in a way that we haven't seen since the 1990s. For credit, that boom would be preferable to a sharp slowing of the economy, but it comes with its own risks.Expect talk of this scenario next year to grow if economic data does hold up.Thanks as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-1Ivcejb3aNu31WgBLoXjJcz2Vg_TB5nv54uWlhX-10Mon, 29 Sep 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyDespite large deficits, booming capital expenditures and a looser regulatory environment, the Fed appears poised to cut rates further to support the slowing labor market. This could set the stage for a level of corporate risk-taking not seen since the...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a look at the forces that could heat up corporate activity in 2026 – if the labor market can hold up.It's Monday, September 29th at 2pm in London.Bill Martin, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve in the 50’s and 60’s, famously joked that “it was the Fed's job to take away the punch bowl just when the party is getting good.” That quote seems relevant because a host of trends are pointing to a pretty lively scene over the next 12 months. First, the U.S. government is spending significantly more than it's taking in. This deficit running at about 6.5 percent of the size of the whole economy is providing stimulus. It's only been larger during the great financial crisis, COVID and World War II. It's punch. Next to the corporate sector. As you've heard us discuss on this podcast, we here at Morgan Stanley think that AI related spending could amount to one of the largest waves of investment ever recorded – dwarfing the shale boom of the 2010s and the telecommunication spending of the late 1990s. Importantly, we think this spending is ramping up right now. Morgan Stanley estimates that investments by large tech companies will increase by 70 percent this year, and between 2024 and 2027, we think this spending is going to go up by two and a half times. Note that this doesn't even account for the enormous amount of power and electricity infrastructure that's going to be need to be built to support all this. Hence more economic punch. Finally, there's a deregulatory push. My bank research colleagues believe that lower capital requirements for U.S. banks could boost their balance sheet capacity by an additional $1 trillion in risk weighted terms. And a more supportive regulatory environment for mergers should help activity there continue to grow. Again, more punch.Heavy government spending, heavy corporate spending, more bank lending and risk taking capacity. And what's next from the Federal Reserve? Well, they're not exactly taking the punch away. We think that the Fed is set to cut rates five more times to a midpoint of two and 7/8ths. The Fed's supportive efforts are based on a real fear that labor markets are already starting to slow, despite the other supportive factors mentioned previously. And a broad weakening of the economy would absolutely warrant such support from the Fed. But if growth doesn't slow – large deficits, booming capital expenditure, a looser regulatory environment, and now Fed rate cuts – would all support even more corporate risk taking possibly in a way that we haven't seen since the 1990s. For credit, that boom would be preferable to a sharp slowing of the economy, but it comes with its own risks.Expect talk of this scenario next year to grow if economic data does hold up.Thanks as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>222alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1482fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investors-monitor-washington-s-ticking-budget-clock--75648088insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: Today, our focus is once again on Washington – as the U.S. government fiscal year draws to a close and a potential government shutdown hangs in the balance.It's Friday, September 26th at noon in New York. Ariana we're just four days away from the end of the month. By October 1st, Congress needs to have a funding agreement in place, or we risk a potential shutdown. To that point, Democrats and Republicans seem far apart on the deal to avoid a shutdown. What's the state of play? Ariana Salvatore: Right now, Republicans are pushing for what's called a clean continuing resolution. That's a bill that would keep funding levels flat while putting more time on the clock for negotiators to hammer out full fiscal year appropriations. And the CR they're proposing lasts until November 21st. Democrats, conversely, are seeking to tie government funding to legislative compromise in other areas, including the enhanced Obamacare or ACA subsidies, and potential spending cuts to Medicaid from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Republicans signed earlier this year. Remember, even though Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, this has to be a bipartisan agreement because of exactly how thin those margins of control are. But Mike, it seems as we get closer, investors are asking more infrequently whether or not a shutdown is happening – and are more interested in how long it could potentially last. What are we thinking there? Michael Zezas: So, it's hard to know. Shutdowns typically last a few days, but sometimes there are short as a few hours, sometimes as long as a few weeks. Historically, shutdowns tend to end when the economic risk, and therefore the attached political risk gets real. So, consider the 35-day shutdown under President Trump in this first term. The compromise that ended it came quickly after there was an air traffic stoppage at New York's LaGuardia Airport – when 10 air traffic controllers who weren't being paid failed to show up for work. So, we think the more relevant question for investors is what it all means for economic activity. Our economists have historically argued that a government shutdown takes something like 0.1 percent off of GDP every single week it's happening. However, once employees go back to work, a lot of times that effect fades pretty quickly. Now it's important to understand that this time around there could be a wrinkle. The Trump administration is talking about laying employees off on a durable basis during the shutdown. And that's something that maybe would have more of a lasting economic impact. It's hard to know how credible that potential is. There would almost certainly be court challenges, but it's something we have to keep our eye on that could create a more meaningful economic consequence. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And there are also some really important indirect macroeconomic effects here. Like delayed data releases. Much of the federal workforce, to your point, will not be working through a shutdown – which could impede the collection and the release of some key data points that matter for markets like labor and inflation data, which come from BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, assuming we're in this scenario with a longer-term shutdown. Obviously, we're going to see an increase in uncertainty, especially as investors are looking toward each data print for guidance on what the Fed's next move might be. What do we expect the market reaction to all of this to be? Michael Zezas: Well, the obvious risk here is that markets might have to price in some weaker growth potential. So, you could see treasury yields fall. You could see equity markets wobble; be a bit more volatile. It could be that those effects are temporary, though. And that volatility could easily be amplified by having to price risk in the market without the data you were talking about, Ariana. So, investors could overreact to anecdotal signals about the economy or underweight some real risks that they're not seeing. So, that's why even a short shutdown can have outsized market effects. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get this podcast and tell your friends about it. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/SVasRCHPGVGsCg2-AUlmxT0WSOzEL9kiBTdlsv7-2-MFri, 26 Sep 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Thematic and Fixed Income Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore unpack the market and economic implications of a looming government shutdown.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: Today, our focus is once again on Washington – as the U.S. government fiscal year draws to a close and a potential government shutdown hangs in the balance.It's Friday, September 26th at noon in New York. Ariana we're just four days away from the end of the month. By October 1st, Congress needs to have a funding agreement in place, or we risk a potential shutdown. To that point, Democrats and Republicans seem far apart on the deal to avoid a shutdown. What's the state of play? Ariana Salvatore: Right now, Republicans are pushing for what's called a clean continuing resolution. That's a bill that would keep funding levels flat while putting more time on the clock for negotiators to hammer out full fiscal year appropriations. And the CR they're proposing lasts until November 21st. Democrats, conversely, are seeking to tie government funding to legislative compromise in other areas, including the enhanced Obamacare or ACA subsidies, and potential spending cuts to Medicaid from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Republicans signed earlier this year. Remember, even though Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, this has to be a bipartisan agreement because of exactly how thin those margins of control are. But Mike, it seems as we get closer, investors are asking more infrequently whether or not a shutdown is happening – and are more interested in how long it could potentially last. What are we thinking there? Michael Zezas: So, it's hard to know. Shutdowns typically last a few days, but sometimes there are short as a few hours, sometimes as long as a few weeks. Historically, shutdowns tend to end when the economic risk, and therefore the attached political risk gets real. So, consider the 35-day shutdown under President Trump in this first term. The compromise that ended it came quickly after there was an air traffic stoppage at New York's LaGuardia Airport – when 10 air traffic controllers who weren't being paid failed to show up for work. So, we think the more relevant question for investors is what it all means for economic activity. Our economists have historically argued that a government shutdown takes something like 0.1 percent off of GDP every single week it's happening. However, once employees go back to work, a lot of times that effect fades pretty quickly. Now it's important to understand that this time around there could be a wrinkle. The Trump administration is talking about laying employees off on a durable basis during the shutdown. And that's something that maybe would have more of a lasting economic impact. It's hard to know how credible that potential is. There would almost certainly be court challenges, but it's something we have to keep our eye on that could create a more meaningful economic consequence. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And there are also some really important indirect macroeconomic effects here. Like delayed data releases. Much of the federal workforce, to your point, will not be working through a shutdown – which could impede the collection and the release of some key data points that matter for markets like labor and inflation data, which come from BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, assuming we're in this scenario with a longer-term shutdown. Obviously, we're going to see an increase in uncertainty, especially as investors are looking toward each data...]]>284alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1481fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/when-will-the-u-s-housing-market-reactivate--75648362insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Research for Morgan Stanley. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Chief Economic Strategist and Global Head of Thematic and Macro Investing at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. James Egan: And today we dive into a topic that touches nearly every American household, quite literally. The future of the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, September 25th at 10am in New York. So, Ellen, this conversation couldn't be timelier. Last week, the Fed cut interest rates by 25 basis points, and our chief U.S. Economist, Mike Gapen expects three more consecutive 25 basis point cuts through January of next year. And that's going to be followed by two more 25 basis point cuts in April and July. But mortgage rates, they're not tied to fed funds. So even if we do get 6.25 bps cuts by the end of 2026, that in and of itself we don't think is going to be sufficient to bring down mortgage rates, though other factors could get us there.Taking all that into account, the U.S. housing market appears to be a little stuck. The big question on investors' minds is – what's next for housing and what does that mean for the broader economy? Ellen Zentner: Well, I don't like the word stuck. There's no churn in the housing market. We want to see things moving and shaking. We want to see sellers out there. We want to see buyers out there. And we've got a lot of buyers – or would be buyers, right? But not a lot of sellers.  And, you know, the economy does well when things are moving and shaking because there's a lot of home related spending that goes on when we're selling and buying homes. And so that helps boost consumer spending. Housing is also a really interest rate sensitive sector, so you know, I like to say as goes housing, so goes the business cycle. And so, you don't want to think that housing is sort of on the downhill slide or  heading toward a downturn [be]cause it would mean that the entire economy is headed toward a downturn. So, we want to see housing improve here. We want to see it thaw out. I don't like, again, the word stuck, you know. I want to see some more churn. James Egan: As do we, and one of the reasons that I wanted to talk to you today is that you are observing all of these pressures on the U.S. housing market from your perspective in wealth management. And that means your job is to advise retail clients who sometimes can have a longer investment time horizon. So, Ellen, when you look at the next decade, how do you estimate the need for new housing units in the United States and what happens if we fall short of these estimated targets? Ellen Zentner: Yeah, so we always like to say demographics makes the world go round and especially it makes the housing market go round. And we know that if you just look at demographic drivers in the U.S. Of those young millennials and Gen Z that are aging into their first time home buying years – whether they're able to immediately or at some point purchase a home – they will want to buy homes. And if they can't afford the homes, then they will want to maybe rent those single-family homes. But either way, if you're just looking at the sheer need for housing in any way, shape, or form that it comes, we're going to need about 18 million units to meet all of that demand through 2030. And so, when I'm talking with our clients on the wealth management side, it's – Okay, short term here or over the next couple of years, there is a housing cycle. And affordability is creating pressures there. But if we look out beyond that, there are opportunities because of the demographic drivers – single family rentals, multi-family. We think modular housing can be something big here, as well. All of those solutions that can help everyone get into a home that wants to be. James Egan: Now, you hit on something there that I think is really important, kind of the implications of affordability challenges. One of the things that we've been seeing is it's been driving a shift toward rentership over ownership. How does that specific trend affect economic multipliers and long-term wealth creation? Ellen Zentner: In terms of whether you're going to buy a single-family home or you're going to rent a single-family home, it tends to be more square footage and there's more spending that goes on with it. But, of course, then relatively speaking, if you're buying that single family home versus renting, you're also going to probably spend a lot more time and care on that home while you're there, which means more money into the economy. In terms of wealth creation, we'd love to get the single-family home ownership rate as high as possible. It's the key way that households build intergenerational wealth. And the average American, or the average household has four times the wealth in their home than they do in the stock market. And so that's why it's very important that we've always created wealth that way through housing; and we want people to own, and they want to own. And that's good news. James Egan: These affordability challenges. Another thing that you've been highlighting is that they've led to an internal migration trend. People moving from high cost to lower cost metro areas. How is this playing out and what are the economic consequences of this migration? Ellen Zentner: Well, I think, first of all, I think to the wonderful work that Mark Schmidt does on the Munis team at MS and Co. It matters a great deal, ownership rates in various regions because it can tell you something about the health of the metropolitan area where they are. Buying those homes and paying those property taxes. It can create imbalances across the U.S. where you've got excess supply maybe in some areas, but very tight housing supply in others. And eventually to balance that out, you might even have some people that, say, post-COVID or during COVID moved to some parts of the country that have now become very expensive. And so, they leave those places and then go back to either try another locale or back to the locale they had moved from. So, understanding those flows within the U.S. can help communities understand the needs of their community, the costs associated with filling those needs, and also associated revenues that might be coming in. So, Jim, I mentioned a couple of times here about single family renting, and so from your perch, given that growing number of single-family rentals, how is that going to influence housing strategy and pricing? James Egan: It is certainly another piece of the puzzle when we look at like single family home ownership, multi-unit rentership, multi-unit home ownership, and then single family rentership. Over the past 15 years, this has been the fastest growing way in which kind of U.S. households exist. And when we take a step back looking at the housing market more holistically – something you hit on earlier – supply has been low, and that's played a key role in keeping prices high and affordability under pressure. On top of that, credit availability has been constrained. It's one of the pillars that we use when evaluating home prices and housing activity that we do think gets overlooked. And so even if you can find a home to buy in these tight inventory environments, it's pretty difficult to qualify for a mortgage. Those lending standards have been tight, that's pushed the home ownership rate down to 65 percent. Now, it was a little bit lower than this, after the Great Financial Crisis, but prior to that point, this is the lowest that home ownership rates have been since 1995. And so, we do think that single family rentership, it becomes another outlet and will continue to be an important pillar for the U.S. housing market on a go forward basis. So, the economic implications of that, that you highlighted earlier, we think that's going to continue to be something that we're living with – pun only half intended – in the U.S. housing market. Ellen Zentner: Only half intended. But let me take you back to something that you said at the beginning of the podcast. And you talked about Gapen’s expectation for rate cuts and that that's going to bring fed funds rate down. Those are interest rates, though that don't impact mortgage rates. So how do mortgage rates price? And then, how do you see those persistently higher mortgage rates continuing to weigh on affordability. Or, I guess, really, what we all want to know is – when are mortgage rates going to get to a point where housing does become affordable again? James Egan: In our prior podcast, my Co-Head of Securitized Products Research, Jay Bacow and myself talked about how cutting fed funds wasn't necessarily sufficient to bring down mortgage rates. But the other piece of this is going to be how much lower do mortgage rates need to go? And one of the things we highlighted there, a data point that we do think is important. Mortgage rates have come down recently, right? Like we're at our lowest point of the year, but the effective rate on the outstanding market is still below 4.25 percent. Mortgage rates are still above 6.25 percent, so the market's 200 basis points out of the money. One of the things that we've been trying to do, looking at changes to affordability historically. What we think you really need to see a sustainable growth in housing activity is about a 10 percent improvement in affordability. How do we get there? It's about a 5.5 percent mortgage rate as opposed to the 6 1/8th to 6.25 where we were when we walked into thi]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Dvr4L-YsUcVOn_bOWhdf0HTaq6d9fI45TBGFlEPDYvsThu, 25 Sep 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Co-Head of Securitized Products Research James Egan joins our Chief Economic Strategist Ellen Zentner to discuss the recent challenges facing the U.S. housing market, and the path forward for home buyers and investors. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Research for Morgan Stanley. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Chief Economic Strategist and Global Head of Thematic and Macro Investing at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. James Egan: And today we dive into a topic that touches nearly every American household, quite literally. The future of the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, September 25th at 10am in New York. So, Ellen, this conversation couldn't be timelier. Last week, the Fed cut interest rates by 25 basis points, and our chief U.S. Economist, Mike Gapen expects three more consecutive 25 basis point cuts through January of next year. And that's going to be followed by two more 25 basis point cuts in April and July. But mortgage rates, they're not tied to fed funds. So even if we do get 6.25 bps cuts by the end of 2026, that in and of itself we don't think is going to be sufficient to bring down mortgage rates, though other factors could get us there.Taking all that into account, the U.S. housing market appears to be a little stuck. The big question on investors' minds is – what's next for housing and what does that mean for the broader economy? Ellen Zentner: Well, I don't like the word stuck. There's no churn in the housing market. We want to see things moving and shaking. We want to see sellers out there. We want to see buyers out there. And we've got a lot of buyers – or would be buyers, right? But not a lot of sellers.  And, you know, the economy does well when things are moving and shaking because there's a lot of home related spending that goes on when we're selling and buying homes. And so that helps boost consumer spending. Housing is also a really interest rate sensitive sector, so you know, I like to say as goes housing, so goes the business cycle. And so, you don't want to think that housing is sort of on the downhill slide or  heading toward a downturn [be]cause it would mean that the entire economy is headed toward a downturn. So, we want to see housing improve here. We want to see it thaw out. I don't like, again, the word stuck, you know. I want to see some more churn. James Egan: As do we, and one of the reasons that I wanted to talk to you today is that you are observing all of these pressures on the U.S. housing market from your perspective in wealth management. And that means your job is to advise retail clients who sometimes can have a longer investment time horizon. So, Ellen, when you look at the next decade, how do you estimate the need for new housing units in the United States and what happens if we fall short of these estimated targets? Ellen Zentner: Yeah, so we always like to say demographics makes the world go round and especially it makes the housing market go round. And we know that if you just look at demographic drivers in the U.S. Of those young millennials and Gen Z that are aging into their first time home buying years – whether they're able to immediately or at some point purchase a home – they will want to buy homes. And if they can't afford the homes, then they will want to maybe rent those single-family homes. But either way, if you're just looking at the sheer need for housing in any way, shape, or form that it comes, we're going to need about 18 million units to meet all of that demand through 2030. And so, when I'm talking with our clients on the wealth management side, it's – Okay, short term here or over the next couple of years, there is a housing cycle. And affordability is...]]>902alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1479fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/capital-markets-pick-up-as-u-s-policy-settles--75648615insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, let’s talk about how changes in U.S. policy are shaping the markets in 2025—and why we’re seeing a pickup in capital markets activity. It’s Wednesday, September 24th at 10:30am in New York. At the start of this year, one thing investors agreed on was that with President Trump back in office, U.S. policy would shift in big ways. But there was less agreement about what those changes would mean for the economy and markets. Our team built a framework to help investors track changes in trade, fiscal, immigration, and regulatory policy – focusing on the sequencing and severity of these choices. That lens remains useful. But now, 250 days into the administration, we think it’s more valuable to look at the impacts of those shifts, the durable policy signals, and how markets are pricing it all. Let’s start with policy uncertainty. It is still high, but it’s come down from the peaks we saw earlier this year. For example, the White House has made deals with key trading partners, which means tariff escalation is on pause for now. Of course, things could change if those partners don’t meet their commitments, but any fallout may take a while to show up. Even if courts challenge new tariffs, the administration has ways to bring them back. And with Congress divided, most big policy moves are coming from the executive branch, not lawmakers. With policy changes slowing down, it’s worth reflecting on a new durable consensus in Washington. For years, both parties mostly agreed on lowering trade barriers and keeping the government out of private business. But it seems that’s changed. Industrial policy—where the government takes a more active role in shaping industries—is now a key part of U.S. strategy. Tariffs that started under Trump stayed under Biden, and even current critics focus more on how tariffs are applied than whether they should exist at all. You see this shift in areas like healthcare, energy, and especially technology. Take semiconductors. The CHIPS act under Biden aimed to build a secure domestic supply chain while Trump's approach includes licensing fees on exports to China and considering more government stakes in companies.So, why is capital markets activity picking up then? There are several drivers. First, less uncertainty about policy means companies feel more confident making big decisions. Earlier this year, activity like IPOs and mergers was unusually low compared to the size of the economy. But corporate balance sheets are strong—companies have plenty of cash, and private investors are looking to put money to work. Add in new needs for investment driven by artificial intelligence and technology upgrades, and you get a recipe for more deals. Our corporate clients have told us that having a smaller range of possible policy outcomes helped them move forward with strategic plans. Now, we’re seeing the results: IPOs are up 68 percent year-on-year, and M&A is up 35 percent. Those numbers are coming off low levels, so the pace may slow, but we expect growth to continue for a while. This all syncs up with other trends in the market. For example, we continue to see steeper yield curves and a weaker dollar. Why? Well, trade policy is likely to stay restrictive. The fiscal policy trajectory appears locked in as the President and Congress have already made the fiscal choices that they prefer. And the Federal Reserve appears willing to tolerate more inflation risk in order to support growth. That means the dollar could keep falling and longer maturity bond yields could be sticky, even as shorter maturity yields decline to reflect the more dovish Fed. As always, it's important to watch how these trends interact with the broader economy, and that will be important to how we start deliberating on our outlook for 2026. We'll keep analyzing and share more with you as we go. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/GMmfyI1j1GhPfEEAkr-v5OqoLQbYTYWXHODjIYquuXMWed, 24 Sep 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, Michael Zezas, examines growth in IPOs and M&A amid greater certainty around trade, immigration and regulation.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, let’s talk about how changes in U.S. policy are shaping the markets in 2025—and why we’re seeing a pickup in capital markets activity. It’s Wednesday, September 24th at 10:30am in New York. At the start of this year, one thing investors agreed on was that with President Trump back in office, U.S. policy would shift in big ways. But there was less agreement about what those changes would mean for the economy and markets. Our team built a framework to help investors track changes in trade, fiscal, immigration, and regulatory policy – focusing on the sequencing and severity of these choices. That lens remains useful. But now, 250 days into the administration, we think it’s more valuable to look at the impacts of those shifts, the durable policy signals, and how markets are pricing it all. Let’s start with policy uncertainty. It is still high, but it’s come down from the peaks we saw earlier this year. For example, the White House has made deals with key trading partners, which means tariff escalation is on pause for now. Of course, things could change if those partners don’t meet their commitments, but any fallout may take a while to show up. Even if courts challenge new tariffs, the administration has ways to bring them back. And with Congress divided, most big policy moves are coming from the executive branch, not lawmakers. With policy changes slowing down, it’s worth reflecting on a new durable consensus in Washington. For years, both parties mostly agreed on lowering trade barriers and keeping the government out of private business. But it seems that’s changed. Industrial policy—where the government takes a more active role in shaping industries—is now a key part of U.S. strategy. Tariffs that started under Trump stayed under Biden, and even current critics focus more on how tariffs are applied than whether they should exist at all. You see this shift in areas like healthcare, energy, and especially technology. Take semiconductors. The CHIPS act under Biden aimed to build a secure domestic supply chain while Trump's approach includes licensing fees on exports to China and considering more government stakes in companies.So, why is capital markets activity picking up then? There are several drivers. First, less uncertainty about policy means companies feel more confident making big decisions. Earlier this year, activity like IPOs and mergers was unusually low compared to the size of the economy. But corporate balance sheets are strong—companies have plenty of cash, and private investors are looking to put money to work. Add in new needs for investment driven by artificial intelligence and technology upgrades, and you get a recipe for more deals. Our corporate clients have told us that having a smaller range of possible policy outcomes helped them move forward with strategic plans. Now, we’re seeing the results: IPOs are up 68 percent year-on-year, and M&A is up 35 percent. Those numbers are coming off low levels, so the pace may slow, but we expect growth to continue for a while. This all syncs up with other trends in the market. For example, we continue to see steeper yield curves and a weaker dollar. Why? Well, trade policy is likely to stay restrictive. The fiscal policy trajectory appears locked in as the President and Congress have already made the fiscal choices that they prefer. And the Federal Reserve appears willing to tolerate more inflation risk in order to support growth. That means the dollar could keep...]]>264false1478fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-good-perfect-storm-for-india--75648683insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Ridham Desai: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Equity Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today, the once in a generation investment opportunities Morgan Stanley sees in India. Joining me in the studio, Arjun Saigal, Co-Head of Morgan Stanley Investment Management at India Private Equity, and Jitania Khandari, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Head of Macros and Thematic Research for EM Public Equity. It’s Tuesday, September 23rd at 4pm in Mumbai. Jitania Kandhari: And 6:30am in New York. Ridham Desai: Right now, India is already the world's fourth largest economy, and we believe it's on track to becoming the third largest by the end of this decade. If you've been following our coverage, you know, Morgan Stanley has been optimistic about India's future for quite some time. It's really a perfect storm – in a good way. India has got a growing young workforce, steady inflation, and is benefiting from some big shifts in the global landscape. When you put all of that together, you get a country that's set up for long-term growth. Of course, India is also facing pressure from escalating tariffs with the U.S., which makes this conversation even more timely. Jitania, Arjun, what are the biggest public and private investment opportunities in India that you'd highlight. Jitania Kandhari: I'd say in public equities there are five broad thematic opportunities in India. Financialization of savings and structurally lower credit costs; consumption with an aspirational consumer and a growing middle-class; localization and supply chain benefits as a China +1 destination; digitization with the India stack that is helping to revolutionize digital services across industries; and CapEx revivals in real estate and industrials, especially defense and electrification. Arjun Saigal: I will just break down the private markets into three segments. The first being the venture capital segment. Here, it's generally been a bit of hit or miss; some great success stories, but there've also been a lot of challenges with scale and liquidity. Coming to the large cap segment, this is the hundred million dollars plus ticket size, which attracts the large U.S. buyout funds and sovereign wealth funds. Here target companies tend to be market leaders with scale, deep management strength, and can be pretty easily IPO-ed. And we have seen a host of successful PE-backed IPOs in the space. However, it has become extremely crowded given the number of new entrants into the space and the fact that regional Asia funds are allocating more of their dollars towards India as they shift away from China. The third space, which is the mid-market segment, the $50- to $100 million ticket size is where we believe lies the best risk reward. Here you're able to find mid-size assets that are profitable and have achieved market leadership in a region or product. These companies have obvious growth drivers, so it's pretty clear that your capital's able to help accelerate a company's growth path. In addition, the sourcing for these deals tends to be less process driven, creating the ability to have extended engagement periods, and not having to compete only on price. In general, it's not overly competitive, especially when it comes to control transactions. Overall, valuations are more reasonable versus the public markets and the large cap segment. There are multiple exit routes available through IPO or sale to large cap funds. We're obviously a bit biased given our mid-market strategy, but this is where we feel you find the best risk reward. Ridham Desai: Jitania, how do these India specific opportunities compare to other Emerging Markets and the developed world? Jitania Kandhari: I will answer this question from two perspectives. The macro and the markets. From a macro perspective, India, as you said, has better demographics, low GDP per capita with catchup potential, low external vulnerability, and relatively better fiscal dynamics than many other parts of the world.It is a domestic driven story with a domestic liquidity cycle to support that growth story. India has less export dependency compared to many other parts of the emerging and developed world, and is a net oil importer, which has been under pressure actually positively impacting commodity importers. Reforms beginning in 2017 from demonetization, GST, RERA and other measures to formalize the economy is another big difference. From a market standpoint, it is a sectorally diversified market. The top three sectors constitute 50 percent in India versus around 90 percent in Taiwan, 66 percent in Brazil, and 57 percent overall in EM. Aided by a long tail of sectors, India screens as a less concentrated market when compared to many emerging and developed markets. Ridham Desai: And how do tariffs play into all this? Jitania Kandhari: About 50 percent of exports to the U.S. are under the 50 percent tariff rate. Net-net, this could impact 30 to 80 basis points of GDP growth.Most impacted are labor intensive sectors like apparel, leather, gems and jewelry. And through tax cuts like GST and monetary policy, government is going to be able to counter the first order impacts. But having said that, India and U.S. are natural partners, and hence this could drag on and have second order impacts. So can't see how this really eases in the short term because neither party is too impacted by the first order impacts. U.S. can easily replace Indian imports, and India can take that 30 basis point to 50 basis points GDP impact. So, this is very unlike other trade deals where one party would have been severely impacted and thus parts were created for reversals. Ridham Desai: What other global themes are resonating strongly for India? And conversely, are there themes that are not relevant for investing in India? Jitania Kandhari: I think broadly three themes globally are resonating in India. One is demographics with the growing cohort of millennials and Gen Z, leading to their aspirations and consumption patterns. India is a large, young urbanizing population with a large share in these demographic cohorts. Supply chain diversification, friend-shoring, especially in areas like electronics, technology, defense, India is an integral part of that ecosystem. And industrials globally are seeing a revival, especially in areas like electrification with the increased usage of renewables. And India is also part of that story given its own energy demands. What are the themes not relevant for investing in India is the aging population, which is one of the key themes in markets like North Asia and Eastern Europe, where a lot of the aging population drivers are leading to investment and consumption patterns. And with the AI tech revolution, India has not really been part of the AI picks and shovels theme like other markets in North Asia, like Korea, Taiwan, and even the Chinese hardware and internet names. Globally, in selected markets, utilities are doing well, especially those that are linked to the AI data center energy demand; whereas in India, this sector is overregulated and under-indexed to growth. Ridham Desai: Arjun, how does India's macro backdrop impact the private equity market in particular? Arjun Saigal: So, today India has scale, growth, attractive return on capital and robust capital markets. And frankly, all of these are required for a conducive investment environment. I also note that from a risk lens, given India being a large, stable democracy with a reform-oriented government, this provides extra comfort of the country being an attractive place to invest. You know, we have about $3 billion of domestic money coming into the stock market each month through systematic investment plans. This tends to be very stable money, versus previously where we relied on foreign flows, which were a lot more volatile in nature. This, in turn, makes for some very attractive PE exits into the public markets. Ridham Desai: Are there some significant intersections between the public and private equity markets? Arjun Saigal: You know, it tends to be quite limited, but we do see two areas. The first being pre-IPO rounds, which have been taking place recently in India, where we do see listed public funds coming into these pre-IPO rounds in order to ensure a certain minimum allocation in a company. And secondly, we do see that in certain cases, PE investors have been selectively making pipe investments in sectors like financial services, which have multiple decade tailwinds and require regular capital for growth. Unlike developed markets, we've not seen too many take private deals being executed in India due to the complex regulatory framework. This is perhaps an area which can open up more in the future if the process is simplified. Ridham Desai: Finally, as a wrap up, what do you both think are the key developments and catalysts in India that investors should watch closely? Arjun Saigal: We believe there are a couple of factors, one being repeat depreciation. Historically this has been at 2.5 to 3 percent, and unfortunately, it's been quite expensive to hedge the repeat. So, the way to address this is to sort of price it in. The second is full valuations. India has never been a cheap market, but in certain pockets, valuations of listed players are becoming quite concerning and those valuations in turn immediately push up prices in the large ticket private market space. And lastly, I would just mention tariffs, which is an evolving situation.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/V01DpveDdJ6hHgLaDuc4wm3xiblb2AT-MmkBKDRS74ETue, 23 Sep 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of India Research Ridham Desai and leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management Arjun Saigal and Jitania Kandhari discuss how India’s promising macroeconomic trajectory and robust capital markets are attracting more interest from global...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Ridham Desai: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Equity Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today, the once in a generation investment opportunities Morgan Stanley sees in India. Joining me in the studio, Arjun Saigal, Co-Head of Morgan Stanley Investment Management at India Private Equity, and Jitania Khandari, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Head of Macros and Thematic Research for EM Public Equity. It’s Tuesday, September 23rd at 4pm in Mumbai. Jitania Kandhari: And 6:30am in New York. Ridham Desai: Right now, India is already the world's fourth largest economy, and we believe it's on track to becoming the third largest by the end of this decade. If you've been following our coverage, you know, Morgan Stanley has been optimistic about India's future for quite some time. It's really a perfect storm – in a good way. India has got a growing young workforce, steady inflation, and is benefiting from some big shifts in the global landscape. When you put all of that together, you get a country that's set up for long-term growth. Of course, India is also facing pressure from escalating tariffs with the U.S., which makes this conversation even more timely. Jitania, Arjun, what are the biggest public and private investment opportunities in India that you'd highlight. Jitania Kandhari: I'd say in public equities there are five broad thematic opportunities in India. Financialization of savings and structurally lower credit costs; consumption with an aspirational consumer and a growing middle-class; localization and supply chain benefits as a China +1 destination; digitization with the India stack that is helping to revolutionize digital services across industries; and CapEx revivals in real estate and industrials, especially defense and electrification. Arjun Saigal: I will just break down the private markets into three segments. The first being the venture capital segment. Here, it's generally been a bit of hit or miss; some great success stories, but there've also been a lot of challenges with scale and liquidity. Coming to the large cap segment, this is the hundred million dollars plus ticket size, which attracts the large U.S. buyout funds and sovereign wealth funds. Here target companies tend to be market leaders with scale, deep management strength, and can be pretty easily IPO-ed. And we have seen a host of successful PE-backed IPOs in the space. However, it has become extremely crowded given the number of new entrants into the space and the fact that regional Asia funds are allocating more of their dollars towards India as they shift away from China. The third space, which is the mid-market segment, the $50- to $100 million ticket size is where we believe lies the best risk reward. Here you're able to find mid-size assets that are profitable and have achieved market leadership in a region or product. These companies have obvious growth drivers, so it's pretty clear that your capital's able to help accelerate a company's growth path. In addition, the sourcing for these deals tends to be less process driven, creating the ability to have extended engagement periods, and not having to compete only on price. In general, it's not overly competitive, especially when it comes to control transactions. Overall, valuations are more reasonable versus the public markets and the large cap segment. There are multiple exit routes available through IPO or sale to large cap funds. We're obviously a bit biased given our...]]>717alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1476fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-rolling-recovery-has-already-begun--75648627Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson. Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today we're going to try something a little different. I have my colleague, Andrew Pauker from the U.S. Equity Strategy Team here to discuss some of the client questions and feedback to our views. It's Monday, September 22nd at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Andrew, we constantly deal with client questions on our views. More recently, the questions have been focused on our view that we've transitioned from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery in a new bull market. Secondarily, it's about the tension between the equity market's need for speed and how fast the Fed will actually cut rates. Finally, why is accelerating inflation potentially good for equities? Where do you want to start? Andrew Pauker: Mike, in my conversations with clients, the main debate seems to be around whether the labor cycle and earnings recession are behind us or in front of us. Walk us through our take here and why we think the rolling recession ended with Liberation Day and that we're now transitioning to an early cycle backdrop. Mike Wilson:  So, just to kind of level set, you know, we've had this view that – and starting in 2022 with the payback and the COVID demand. And from the pull forward – that began, what we call, a rolling recession. It started with the technology sector and consumer goods, where the demand was most extreme during the lockdowns. And then of course we've had recessions in housing, manufacturing, and other areas in commodities. Transportation. It's been very anemic growth, if any growth at all, as the economy has been sort of languishing. And what's been strong has been AI CapEx, consumer services, and government. And what we noticed in the first quarter, and we actually called for this almost a year ago. We said now what we need is a government recession as part of the finishing move. And in fact, Doge was the catalyst for that. We highlighted that back in January, but we didn't know exactly how many jobs were lost from Doge's efforts in the first quarter. But we got that data recently. And we  saw  an extreme spike, and it actually sort of finished the rolling recession.  Even AI CapEx had a deceleration starting in the summer of 2024. Something else that we've been highlighting and now we're seeing pockets of weakness even in consumer services. So, we feel like the rolling recession has rolled through effectively the entire economy. In addition to the labor data that now is confirming – that we've had a pretty extreme reduction in jobs, and of course the revisions are furthering that. But what we saw in the private sector is also confirming our suspicions that the rolling recession’s over. The number one being earnings revision breath, something we've written about extensively. And we've rarely seen this kind of a V-shaped recovery coming out of Liberation Day, which of course was the final blow to the earnings revisions lower because that made companies very negative and that fed through to earnings revisions. The other things that have happened, of course, is that Doge, you know, did not continue laying people off. And also, we saw the weaker dollar and the AI CapEx cycle bottom in April. And those have also affected kind of a more positive backdrop for earnings growth. And like I said before, this is a very rare occurrence to see this kind of a V-shape recovery and earnings revision breaths. The private economy, in fact, is finally coming out of its earnings recession, which has been in now for three years. Andrew Pauker: And I would just add a couple of other variables as well in terms of evidence that we're seeing the rolling recovery take hold, and that Liberation Day was kind of the punctuation or the culmination of the rolling recession, and we're now transitioning to an early cycle backdrop. So, number one, positive operating leverage is causing our earnings models to inflect sharply higher here. Median stock EPS growth, which had been negative for a lot of the 2022 to 2024 period is now actually turning positive. It's currently positive 6 percent now. The rolling correlation between equity returns and inflation break evens is also now significantly positive. That's classic early cycle. That's something we saw, you know, post COVID, post GFC And then lastly, just in terms of the market internals and kind of what, you know, under the surface, the equity market is telling us. So, the cyclical defensive ratio was down about 50 percent into the April lows. That's now up 50 percent from Liberation Day and is kind of breaking the downtrend that began in April of 2024. So, in addition to the earnings revisions V-shaped recovery that you mentioned, Mike. Those are a couple of other variables as well that are confirming that we're moving towards an early cycle backdrop and that the ruling recovery is commencing. Okay. So, we had the FOMC meeting.  As expected the Fed delivered a 25 basis point cut. Mike, what's your read on the meeting as it relates to equities and the reaction function? Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean this is really what we expected along with the consensus. We didn't have a different view that the Fed would give us 50. They gave us 25, and some people have characterized this as sort of a hawkish cut and very different than what we saw a year ago when the Fed kicked off that part of the rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points because they probably were worried a bit more about the labor market than they were about inflation. But you know, ultimately we think the labor data is going to get worse or the payroll data will prove to be worse because of the delay between the Doge layoffs and when those folks can file for unemployment insurance, which should be in October. And it's that delayed data that will then get the Fed cutting in earnest, which is what's necessary for the full rotation to kind of the lower quality parts of the market. So, while you're right that we've seen cyclicals perform, they haven't performed in the same way that we've seen prior cycles, like in 2020 or [20]08-[20]09, because the Fed hasn't cut. They're very far behind the curve. If you buy into our thesis that, you know, we had a rolling recession, we had an employment cycle, and they should be much more generous here. So that tension between the Fed's delay to get ahead of the curve and the market's need for speed to get there sooner and more deliberately – is where we think that, you know, we have to wait for that to occur to get the full rotation to the lower quality, kind of really cyclical parts of the market. Andrew Pauker: Okay, so let's talk about the back end of the yield curve a little bit and why that's important for stocks. In my dialogue with investors, there's a lot of focus here, just given what happened last fall when the Fed cut at the front end and the back end of the yield curve move higher. How should market participants think about this dynamic? Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think this is an unknown known, if you will, because we saw this last fall. Where the Fed cut 100 basis points and the back end of the 10-year and 30-year Treasury market sold off. That’s the first time we've ever seen that in history, where the Fed cuts that aggressively and the backend moves out. And this is a function of just all the fiscal imbalances and the debt issues that we face. And this is not a new issue. So, I think it remains to be seen if the bond market is going to be comfortable with the Fed not ignoring the 2 percent target – but you know, letting it run hot. As we've said, we think ultimately, they will have to let it run hot and they will, because that's what we need to have a chance at getting out of the debt problem. And so that sort of risk is still out in the future. I have less concern about that more recently because of the way the backend of the bond market has traded. But it's something that we need to keep in the back of our mind. If yields were to go back to 4.50, which is our key level, then that would be a problem as long as we're below, you know, sort of 4.50 and we're well below that now we're close to 4, I don't think this is a problem at all. Andrew Pauker: Yeah. One of the points that our colleague in rate strategy Matt Hornbach has highlighted is that the difference between now and the fourth quarter of last year when we saw that dynamic play out was that, you know, the bond market was very focused on the uncertainty around the fiscal situation. You know, we were going into an election, there was a fair amount of uncertainty around what Trump would do from a fiscal standpoint.And now, that is a known known, you know. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law. We know what the deficit impact is, so there is more clarity for the bond market on that front. So that is one key difference now versus last fall and why we may not see the same kind of reaction in the rates market. Mike, you brought up, kind of, run it hot, which was the title of our note from a couple of weeks ago. I just wanted to get your take on why some inflation coming back is actually a positive for equities and why actually the deceleration that we've seen in inflation over the last couple years is one reason why earnings for small cap indices, for instance, have deteriorated so much. And so, for in this environment where the Fed is perhaps a bit more tolerant of inflation in 2026, why that's actually a positive for equities. Mike Wilson: This is just an underappreciated sort of factoid]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Kvr39F1zpjSHZotIolUCbKtmCOBKR8oCZ1pE9jMhnx0Mon, 22 Sep 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO Mike Wilson joins U.S. Equity strategist Andrew Pauker to answer frequently asked questions about their latest economic outlook, including how U.S. equities are transitioning to a new bull market.  Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson. Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today we're going to try something a little different. I have my colleague, Andrew Pauker from the U.S. Equity Strategy Team here to discuss some of the client questions and feedback to our views. It's Monday, September 22nd at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Andrew, we constantly deal with client questions on our views. More recently, the questions have been focused on our view that we've transitioned from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery in a new bull market. Secondarily, it's about the tension between the equity market's need for speed and how fast the Fed will actually cut rates. Finally, why is accelerating inflation potentially good for equities? Where do you want to start? Andrew Pauker: Mike, in my conversations with clients, the main debate seems to be around whether the labor cycle and earnings recession are behind us or in front of us. Walk us through our take here and why we think the rolling recession ended with Liberation Day and that we're now transitioning to an early cycle backdrop. Mike Wilson:  So, just to kind of level set, you know, we've had this view that – and starting in 2022 with the payback and the COVID demand. And from the pull forward – that began, what we call, a rolling recession. It started with the technology sector and consumer goods, where the demand was most extreme during the lockdowns. And then of course we've had recessions in housing, manufacturing, and other areas in commodities. Transportation. It's been very anemic growth, if any growth at all, as the economy has been sort of languishing. And what's been strong has been AI CapEx, consumer services, and government. And what we noticed in the first quarter, and we actually called for this almost a year ago. We said now what we need is a government recession as part of the finishing move. And in fact, Doge was the catalyst for that. We highlighted that back in January, but we didn't know exactly how many jobs were lost from Doge's efforts in the first quarter. But we got that data recently. And we  saw  an extreme spike, and it actually sort of finished the rolling recession.  Even AI CapEx had a deceleration starting in the summer of 2024. Something else that we've been highlighting and now we're seeing pockets of weakness even in consumer services. So, we feel like the rolling recession has rolled through effectively the entire economy. In addition to the labor data that now is confirming – that we've had a pretty extreme reduction in jobs, and of course the revisions are furthering that. But what we saw in the private sector is also confirming our suspicions that the rolling recession’s over. The number one being earnings revision breath, something we've written about extensively. And we've rarely seen this kind of a V-shaped recovery coming out of Liberation Day, which of course was the final blow to the earnings revisions lower because that made companies very negative and that fed through to earnings revisions. The other things that have happened, of course, is that Doge, you know, did not continue laying people off. And also, we saw the weaker dollar and the AI CapEx cycle bottom in April. And those have also affected kind of a more positive backdrop for earnings growth. And like I said before, this is a very rare occurrence to see this kind of a V-shape recovery and earnings revision breaths. The private economy, in fact, is finally coming out of its earnings recession, which has...]]>751alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1475fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-the-fed-s-move-boost-global-credit--75648586insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – a Fed that looks willing to let the economy run hot, and why this could help the case for credit overseas. It's Friday, September 19th at 2pm in London. Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve lowered its target rate by a quarter of a percent, and signaled more cuts are on the way. Yet as my colleagues Michael Gapen and Matt Hornbach discussed on this program yesterday, this story is far from straightforward. The Fed is lowering interest rates to support the economy despite currently low unemployment and elevated inflation. The justification for this in the Fed's view is a risk that the job market may be set to weaken going forward. And so, it's better to err on the side of providing more support now; even if that support raises the chances that inflation could stay somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Indeed, the Fed's own economic projections bear out this willingness to err on the side of letting the economy run a bit hot. Relative to where they were previously, the Fed's latest assessment sees future economic growth higher, inflation higher, and unemployment lower. And yet, in spite of all this, they also see themselves lowering interest rates faster. If the labor market is really set to weaken – and soon – the Fed's shift to provide more near-term support is going to be more than justified. But if growth holds up, well, just think of the backdrop. At present, we have bank loan growth accelerating, inflation that's elevated, government borrowing that's large, stock valuations near 30-year highs, and credit spreads near 30-year lows. And now the Fed's going to lower interest rates in quick succession? That seems like a recipe for things to heat up pretty quickly. It's also notable that the Fed's strategy is not necessarily shared by its cross-Atlantic peers. Both the United Kingdom and the Euro area also face slowing labor markets and above target inflation. But their central banks are proceeding a lot more cautiously and are keeping rates on hold, at least for the time being. A Fed that's more tolerant of inflation is bad for the U.S. dollar in our view, and my colleagues expect it to weaken substantially against the euro, the pound, and the yen over the next 12 months. And for credit, an asset that likes moderation, a U.S. economy increasingly poised between scenarios that look either too hot or too cold is problematic. So, just maybe we can put the two together. What if a U.S. investor simply buys a European bond? The European market would seem less inclined to these greater risks of conditions being too hot or too cold. It gives exposure to currencies backed by central banks that are proceeding more cautiously when faced with inflation. With roughly 3 percent yields on European investment grade bonds, and Morgan Stanley's forecast that the euro will rise about 7 percent versus the dollar over the next year, this seemingly sleeping market has a chance to produce dollar equivalent returns of close to 10 percent. For U.S. investors, just make sure to keep the currency exposure unhedged. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nLB5viRHfg-kh_K6R5r44OItGK3gl0R5JPcXb6CIomEFri, 19 Sep 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyWith this week’s announcement of a rate cut and further cuts in the offing, the Fed seems willing to let the U.S. economy run a little hot. Our Head of Corporate Credit Andrew Sheets explains why this could give an unexpected boost to the European...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – a Fed that looks willing to let the economy run hot, and why this could help the case for credit overseas. It's Friday, September 19th at 2pm in London. Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve lowered its target rate by a quarter of a percent, and signaled more cuts are on the way. Yet as my colleagues Michael Gapen and Matt Hornbach discussed on this program yesterday, this story is far from straightforward. The Fed is lowering interest rates to support the economy despite currently low unemployment and elevated inflation. The justification for this in the Fed's view is a risk that the job market may be set to weaken going forward. And so, it's better to err on the side of providing more support now; even if that support raises the chances that inflation could stay somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Indeed, the Fed's own economic projections bear out this willingness to err on the side of letting the economy run a bit hot. Relative to where they were previously, the Fed's latest assessment sees future economic growth higher, inflation higher, and unemployment lower. And yet, in spite of all this, they also see themselves lowering interest rates faster. If the labor market is really set to weaken – and soon – the Fed's shift to provide more near-term support is going to be more than justified. But if growth holds up, well, just think of the backdrop. At present, we have bank loan growth accelerating, inflation that's elevated, government borrowing that's large, stock valuations near 30-year highs, and credit spreads near 30-year lows. And now the Fed's going to lower interest rates in quick succession? That seems like a recipe for things to heat up pretty quickly. It's also notable that the Fed's strategy is not necessarily shared by its cross-Atlantic peers. Both the United Kingdom and the Euro area also face slowing labor markets and above target inflation. But their central banks are proceeding a lot more cautiously and are keeping rates on hold, at least for the time being. A Fed that's more tolerant of inflation is bad for the U.S. dollar in our view, and my colleagues expect it to weaken substantially against the euro, the pound, and the yen over the next 12 months. And for credit, an asset that likes moderation, a U.S. economy increasingly poised between scenarios that look either too hot or too cold is problematic. So, just maybe we can put the two together. What if a U.S. investor simply buys a European bond? The European market would seem less inclined to these greater risks of conditions being too hot or too cold. It gives exposure to currencies backed by central banks that are proceeding more cautiously when faced with inflation. With roughly 3 percent yields on European investment grade bonds, and Morgan Stanley's forecast that the euro will rise about 7 percent versus the dollar over the next year, this seemingly sleeping market has a chance to produce dollar equivalent returns of close to 10 percent. For U.S. investors, just make sure to keep the currency exposure unhedged. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>228alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1474fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/weighing-fed-cut-against-jobs-and-inflation-risks--75648702insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Our topic today is the Fed's first quarter percent rate cut in 2025. We're here to discuss the implications and the path forward. It's Thursday, September 18th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, the Fed concluded its meeting on Wednesday. What was the high-level takeaway from your perspective?Michael Gapen: So, I think there's two main points here. There's certainly more that we can discuss, but two main takeaways for me are obviously the Fed is moving because it sees downside risk in the labor market.So, the August employment data revealed that the hiring rate took a large step down and stayed down, right. And the Fed is saying – it's a curious balance in the labor market. We're not quite sure how to assess it, but when employment growth slows this much, we think we need to take notice.So, they're adjusting their view. We'll call it risk management 'cause that's what Powell said. And saying there's more risk of worse outcomes in the labor market, keeping a restricted policy stance is inappropriate, we should cut. So that's part one. I think he previewed all of that in Jackson Hole. So, it was largely the same, but it's important to know why the Fed's cutting. The second thing that was interesting to me is as much as he, Powell in this case, tried to avoid the idea that we're on a preset path. That, you know, policy is always data dependent and it's always the meeting-to-meeting decision – we know that. But it does feel like if you're recalibrating your policy stance because you see more downside risk to the labor market, they're not prepared to just do once and go, ‘Well, maybe; maybe we'll go again; maybe we won't.’ The dot plots clearly indicate a series of moves here. And when pressed on, well, what's a 25 basis point rate cut going to do to help the labor market, Powell responded by, well, nothing. 25 basis points won't really affect the macro outcome, but it's the path that that matters. So, I do think; and I use the word recalibration; Powell didn't want to use that. I do think we're in for a series of cuts here. The median dot would say three, but maybe two; two to three, 75 basis points by year end. And then we'll see how the world evolves. Matthew Hornbach: So, speaking of the summary of economic projections, what struck you as being interesting about the set of projections that we got on Wednesday? And how does the Fed's idea of the path into 2026 differ from yours?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, it was a lot about downside risk to the labor market. But what did they do? They revised up growth. They have the unemployment rate path lower in the outer years of their forecast than they did before, so they didn't revise down this year. But they revised down subsequent years, and they revised inflation higher in 2026. That may seem at odds with what they're doing with the policy rate currently.But my interpretation of that is, you know, the main point to your question is – they're more tolerant of inflation as the cost or the byproduct of needing to lower rates to support the labor market. So, if this all works, the outlook is a little stronger from the Fed's perspective. And so, what's key to me is that they are… You know, the median of the forecast, to the extent that they align in a coherent message, are saying, we're going to have to pay a price for this in the form of stronger inflation next year to support the labor market this year. So that means in their forecast – cuts this year, but fewer cuts in 2026 and [20]27. And how that differs from our forecast is we're not quite as optimistic on the Fed, as the Fed is on the economy. We do think the labor market weakens a little bit further into 2026. So, you get four consecutive rate cuts upfront, again, inclusive of the one we got on Wednesday. And then you get two additional cuts by the middle of 2026. So, we're not quite as optimistic. We think the labor market's a little softer. And we think the Fed will have to get closer to neutral, right? Powell said we're moving “in the direction of neutral.” So, he's not committing to go all the way to neutral. And we're just saying we think the Fed ultimately will have to do that, although they're not prepared to communicate that now.Matthew Hornbach: One of the things that struck me as interesting about the summary of economic projections was the unemployment rate projection for the end of this year. So, the way that the Fed delivers these projections is they give you a number on the unemployment rate that represents the average unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the specified year. And in this case, the median FOMC participant is projecting that the unemployment rate will average 4.5 percent. And that's what we're forecasting as well, I believe. And so, what struck me as interesting is that with an average unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in the fourth quarter of the year, which is up about 0.2 percent from today's unemployment rate of 4.3 – the Fed is only projecting one additional rate cut in 2026. And I'm curious, do you think that if we in fact get to the end of this year, and it looks like the unemployment rate has averaged about 4.5 percent – do you expect the Fed to continue to forecast only one rate cut in 2026?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's… Um. The short answer is no. I think that's a challenging position to be in. And by that, I mean, in addition to that unemployment rate forecast where it's 4.5 percent for the average of the fourth quarter, which could mean December's as high as 4.6; we don't know what their monthly forecast is.But that would mean the unemployment rate's risen about a half a percentage point from its lows a few months ago. And they have inflation rising to 3 percent. Core PCE is already 2.9. So, inflation is about where it is today; [it’s] a touch firmer. But the unemployment rate has moved higher. And so, what I would say is they haven't seen a lot of evidence by December that inflation's coming back down, and the labor market has stabilized.So, this is why we think they will be more likely to get to a neutral-ish or something closer to neutral in 2026 than they're prepared to communicate now. So, I think that's a good point. So, Matt, if I could turn it back to you, I would just like first to ask you about the general market reaction. The 25 basis point cut was universally expected. So really all the potentially new news was then about the forward path from here. So how did markets reply to this? Yields did initially sell off a bit, but they generally came back. What’s your assessment of how the market took the decision?Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the initial five, 10 minutes after the statement and summary of economic projections is released, everybody's digesting all of the new information. And generally speaking, investors tend to see what they want to see initially in all of the materials. So initially we had yields coming down a bit, the yield curve steepened a bit. But then about half an hour later, it became clear – just right before the press conference had started; it became clear to people that actually this delivery in the documentation was a bit more moderate in terms of the forward look. That it was a fairly balanced assessment of where things are and where things may be heading.And that in the end, the Fed, while it does want to bring interest rates lower, at least in the modal case, that it is still not particularly concerned about downside risks to activity, I should say, than it is concerned about upside risks to inflation. It very much seems a balanced assessment of the risks. And I think as a result, the market balanced out its initial euphoria about lower rates with a moderation of that view. So, interest rates ended up moving slightly higher towards the end of the day. But then, the next day they came back a bit. So, I think, it was a bit more of a steady as they go assessment from markets in the end.Michael Gapen: And do you see markets as maybe changing their views on whether you know, it is a recalibration in the stance, therefore we should expect consecutive cuts? Or is the market now thinking, ‘Hey, maybe it is meeting by meeting.’ And what about the Fed’s forecast of its terminal rate versus the market's forecast of the terminal rate. So, what happened there?Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. Yeah. So, in terms of how market prices are incorporating the idea that the Fed may cut at consecutive meetings through the end of the year, I think markets are generally priced for an outcome about in line with that idea. But of course, markets, and investors who trade markets, have to take into consideration the upcoming dataset and with the Fed so data dependent; so, meeting by meeting in terms of their decisions – it could certainly be the case that the next employment report and/or the next inflation report could dissuade the committee from lowering rates again, at the end of October when the Fed next meets. So, I think the markets are, as you can expect, not going to fully price in everything that the Fed is suggesting. Both because the Fed may not end up delivering what it is suggesting; it might, or it may deliver more. So, the markets are clearly going to be data dependent as well.  In terms of how the market is pricing the trough policy rate for the Fed – it does expect that the Fed will take its policy rate below where the]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YM5Av66BZ-pcvzz-Q8xRFPbZmaoKOjITD_-3zGZnBcIThu, 18 Sep 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOn Wednesday, the Fed announced its first rate cut in nine months. While the reduction was widely expected, our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen explain the data that markets and the Fed are...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Our topic today is the Fed's first quarter percent rate cut in 2025. We're here to discuss the implications and the path forward. It's Thursday, September 18th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, the Fed concluded its meeting on Wednesday. What was the high-level takeaway from your perspective?Michael Gapen: So, I think there's two main points here. There's certainly more that we can discuss, but two main takeaways for me are obviously the Fed is moving because it sees downside risk in the labor market.So, the August employment data revealed that the hiring rate took a large step down and stayed down, right. And the Fed is saying – it's a curious balance in the labor market. We're not quite sure how to assess it, but when employment growth slows this much, we think we need to take notice.So, they're adjusting their view. We'll call it risk management 'cause that's what Powell said. And saying there's more risk of worse outcomes in the labor market, keeping a restricted policy stance is inappropriate, we should cut. So that's part one. I think he previewed all of that in Jackson Hole. So, it was largely the same, but it's important to know why the Fed's cutting. The second thing that was interesting to me is as much as he, Powell in this case, tried to avoid the idea that we're on a preset path. That, you know, policy is always data dependent and it's always the meeting-to-meeting decision – we know that. But it does feel like if you're recalibrating your policy stance because you see more downside risk to the labor market, they're not prepared to just do once and go, ‘Well, maybe; maybe we'll go again; maybe we won't.’ The dot plots clearly indicate a series of moves here. And when pressed on, well, what's a 25 basis point rate cut going to do to help the labor market, Powell responded by, well, nothing. 25 basis points won't really affect the macro outcome, but it's the path that that matters. So, I do think; and I use the word recalibration; Powell didn't want to use that. I do think we're in for a series of cuts here. The median dot would say three, but maybe two; two to three, 75 basis points by year end. And then we'll see how the world evolves. Matthew Hornbach: So, speaking of the summary of economic projections, what struck you as being interesting about the set of projections that we got on Wednesday? And how does the Fed's idea of the path into 2026 differ from yours?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, it was a lot about downside risk to the labor market. But what did they do? They revised up growth. They have the unemployment rate path lower in the outer years of their forecast than they did before, so they didn't revise down this year. But they revised down subsequent years, and they revised inflation higher in 2026. That may seem at odds with what they're doing with the policy rate currently.But my interpretation of that is, you know, the main point to your question is – they're more tolerant of inflation as the cost or the byproduct of needing to lower rates to support the labor market. So, if this all works, the outlook is a little stronger from the Fed's perspective. And so, what's key to me is that they are… You know, the median of the forecast, to the extent that they align in a coherent message, are saying, we're going to have to pay a price for this in the form of stronger inflation...]]>677alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1473fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-ai-takes-the-wheel--75648079insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country’s EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a Level 4 robotaxi will eventually reshape the urban mobility by meaningfully reducing transportation costs, alleviating traffic congestion through optimized routing and potentially reducing accidents. So, Adam, that's the outlook for China. But looking at the global trends beyond China, what are the biggest global revenue opportunities in your view? Is that going to be hardware, software, or something else? Adam Jonas: We are entering a new scientific era where the AI world, the software world is coming into far greater mental contact, and physical contact, with the hardware world and the physical world of manufacturing. And it's being driven by corporate rivalry amongst not just the terra cap, you know, super large cap companies, but also between public and private companies and competition. And then it's being also fueled by geopolitical rivalry and social issues as well, on a global scale. So, we're actually creating an entirely new species. This robotic species that yes, is expressed in many ways on our roads in China and globally – but it's just the beginning. In terms of whether it's hardware, software, or something else – it’s all the above. What we've done with a across 40 sectors at Morgan Stanley is to divide the robot, whether it flies, drives, walks, crawls, whatever – we divide it into the brain and the body. And the brain can be divided into sensors and memory and compute and foundational models and simulation. The body can be broken up into actuators, the kind of motor neuron capability, the connective tissue, the batteries. And then there's integrators, that kind of do it all – the hardware, the software, the integration, the training, the data, the compute, the energy, the infrastructure. And so, what's so exciting about this opportunity for our clients is there's no one way to do it. There's no one region to do it. So, stick with us folks. There's a lot of – not just revenue opportunities – but alpha-generating opportunities as well. Tim Hsiao: We are seeing OEMs pivot from cars to humanoids and the electric vertical takeoff in the landing vehicles or EVOTL. Our listeners may have seen videos of these vehicles, which are like helicopters and are designed for urban air mobility. How realistic is this transition and what's the timeline for commercialization in your view? Adam Jonas: Anything that can be electrified will be electrified. Anything that can be automated will be automated. And the advancement of the state of the art in robotaxis and Level 2, Level 3, Level 4+ autonomy is directly transferrable to aviation.  There's obviously different regulatory and safety aspects of aviation, the air traffic control and the FAA and the equivalent regulatory bodies in Europe and in China that we will have to navigate, pun intended. But we will get there. We will get there ultimately because taking these technologies of automation and electronic and software defined technology into the low altitude economy will be a superior experience and a vastly cheaper experience. Point to point, on a per person, per passenger, per ton, per mile basis. So the Wright brothers can finally get excited that their invention from 1903, quite a long time ago, could finally, really change how humans live and move around the surface of the earth; even beyond, few tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft that exist today. Tim Hsiao: The other key questions or key focus for investors is about the business model. So, until now, the auto industry has centered on the car ownership model. But with this new technology, we've been hearing a new model, as you just mentioned, the shared mobility and the autonomous driving fleet. Experts say it could be major disruptor in this sector. So, what's your take on how this will evolve in developed and emerging markets? Adam Jonas: Well, we think when you take autonomous and shared and electric mobility all the way – that transportation starts to resemble a utility like electricity or water or telecom; where the incremental mile traveled is maybe not quite free, but very, very, very low cost. Maybe only; the marginal cost of the mile traveled may only just be the energy required to deliver that mile, whether it's a renewable or non-renewable energy source. And the relationship with a car will change a lot. Individual vehicle ownership may go the way of horse ownership. There will be some, but it'll be seen as a nostalgic privilege, if you will, to own our own car. Others would say, I don't want to own my own car. This is crazy. Why would anyone want to do that? So, it's going to really transform the business model. It will, I think, change the structure of the industry in terms of the number of participants and what they do. Not everybody will win. Some of the existing players can win. But they might have to make some uncomfortable trade-offs for survival. And for others, the car – let’s say terrestrial vehicle modality may just be a small part of a broader robotics and then physical embodiment of AI that they're propagating; where auto will just be a really, really just one tendril of many, many dozens of different tendrils. So again, it's beginning now. This process will take decades to play out. But investors with even, you know, two-to-three or three-to-five-year view can take steps today to adjust their portfolios and position themselves. Tim Hsiao: The other key focus of the investor over the market would definitely be the geopolitical dynamics. So, Morgan Stanley expects to see a lot of what you call coopetition between global OEMs and the Chinese suppliers. What do you mean by coopetition and how do you see this dynamic playing out, especially in terms of the tech deflation? Adam Jonas: In order to reduce the United States dependency on China, we need to work with China. So, there's the irony here. Look, in my former life of being an auto analyst, every auto CEO I speak to does not believe that tariffs will limit Chinese in]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/j4YNhQQjLk6FWZc9zzYh5-finTKCYJBHx7Hx0ax85pYWed, 17 Sep 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: August 21, 2025From China’s rapid electric vehicle adoption to the rise of robotaxis, humanoids, and flying vehicles, our analysts Adam Jonas and Tim Hsiao discuss how AI is revolutionizing the global auto industry.Read more...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country’s EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We...]]>746alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1472fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-u-s-industry-is-reinventing-itself--75648709insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Christopher Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst.Adam Jonas: And I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI Strategist.Michelle Weaver: We recently concluded Morgan Stanley's annual industrials conference in Laguna Beach, California, and wanted to share some of the biggest takeaways.It's Tuesday, September 16th at 10am in New York.I want to set the stage for our conversation. The overall tone at the conference was fairly similar to last year with many companies waiting for a broader pickup. And I'd flag three different themes that really emerged from the conference.So first, AI. AI is incredibly important. It appeared in the vast majority of fireside conversations. And companies were talking about AI from both the adopter and the enabler angle.Second theme on the macro, overall companies remain in search of a reacceleration. They pointed to consistently expansionary PMIs or a PMI above 50, a more favorable interest rate environment and greater clarity on tariffs as the key macro conditions for renewed momentum.And then the last thing that came up repeatedly was how are companies going to react to tariffs? And I would say companies overall were fairly constructive on their ability to mitigate the margin impact of tariffs with many talking about both leveraging pricing power and supply chain shifts to offset those impacts. So, Chris, considering all this, the wait for an inflection came up across a number of companies. What were some of your key takeaways on multis, on the macro front?Christopher Snyder: The commentary was stable to modestly improving, and that was really consistent across all of these companies. There are, you know, specific verticals where things are getting better. I would call out data center as one. Non-res construction, as another one, implant manufacturing as one. And there were certain categories where we are seeing deterioration – residential HVAC, energy markets, and agriculture.But we came away more constructive on the cycle because things are stable, if not modestly improving into a rate cut cycle. The concern going in was that we would hear about deteriorating trends and a rate cut would be needed just to stabilize the market. So, we do think that this backdrop is supportive for better industrial growth into 2026.We have been positive on the project or CapEx side of the house. It feels like strength there is improving. We've been more cautious on the short cycle production side of the house. But we are starting to see signs of rate of change. So, when we look into [20]26 and [20]27, we think U.S. industrials are poised for decade high growth.Michelle Weaver: You've had a thesis for a while now that U.S. reshoring is going to be incredibly important and that it's a $10 trillion opportunity. Can you unpack that number? What are some recent data points supporting that and what did you learn at the conference? Christopher Snyder: Some of the recent data points that support this view is U.S. manufacturing construction starts are up 3x post Liberation Day. So, we're seeing companies invest. This is also coming through in commercial industrial lending data, which continues to push higher almost every week and is currently at now record high levels. So, there's a lot of reasons for companies not to invest right now. There's a lot of uncertainty around policy. But seeing that willingness to invest through all of the uncertainty is a big positive because as that uncertainty lifts, we think more projects will come off the sidelines and be unlocked. So, we see positive rate of change on that. What I think is often lost in the reassuring conversation is that this has been happening for the last five years. The U.S. lost share of global CapEx from 2000 when China entered the World Trade Organization almost every year till 2019 when Trump implemented his first wave of tariffs. Since then, the U.S. has taken about 300 basis points of global CapEx share over the last five years, and that's a lot on a $30 trillion CapEx base. So, I think the debate here should be: Can this continue? And when I look at Trump policy, both the tariffs making imports more expensive, but also the incentives lowering the cost of domestic production – we do think these trends are stable.And I always want to stress that this is a game of increments. It's not that the U.S. is going to get every factory. But we simply believe the U.S. is better positioned to get the incremental factory over the next 20 years relative to the prior 20. And the best point is that the baseline growth here is effectively zero.Michelle Weaver: And how does power play into the reshoring story? AI and data centers are generating huge demand for power that well outstrip supply. Is there a risk that companies that want to reshore are not able to do so because of the power constraints?Christopher Snyder: It's a great question. I think it's part of the reason that this is moving more slowly. The companies that sell this power equipment tend to prioritize the data center customers given their scale in magnitude of buying. But ultimately, we think this is coming and it's a big opportunity for U.S. power to extend the upcycle.Manufacturing accounts for 26 percent of the electricity in the country. Data center accounts for about 5 percent. So, if the industrial economy returns to growth, there will be a huge pull on the grid; and I view it as a competitive advantage. If you think about the future of U.S. manufacturing, we're simply taking labor out and replacing it with electricity. That is a phenomenal trade off for the U.S. And a not as positive trade off for a lot of low-cost regions who essentially export labor to the world.I'm sure Adam will have more to say about that.Michelle Weaver: And Adam, I want to bring robotics and humanoid specifically into this conversation as the U.S.' technological edge is a big part of the reshoring story. So how do humanoids fit into reshoring? How much would they cost to use and how could they make American manufacturing more attractive?Adam Jonas: Humanoid robots – we're talking age agentic robots that make decisions from themselves autonomously due to the dual purpose in the military. You know, dual purpose aspect of it makes it absolutely necessary to onshore the technologies.At the same time, humanoid robots actually make it possible to onshore those technologies. Meaning you need; we're not going to be able to replicate manufacturing and onshore manufacturing the way it's currently done in China with their environmental practices and their labor – availability of affordable cheap human labor.Autonomous robots are both the cause of onshoring. And the effect of onshoring at the same time, and it's going to transform every industry. The question isn't so much as which industry will autonomous robots, including humanoids impact? It's what will it not.And we have not yet been able to find anything that it would. When you think about cost to use – we think by 2040 we get to a point where to Chris's point, the marginal cost of work will be some factor of electricity, energy, and some depreciation of that physical plant, or the physical robot itself.And we come up with a, a range of scenarios where centered on around $5 per hour. If that can replace two human workers at $25 an hour, that can NPV to around $200,000 of NPV per humanoid. That's discounting back 15 years from 2040.Michelle, there's 160 million people in the U.S. labor market, so if you just substituted 1 percent of that or 1.6 million people out of the U.S. Labor pool. 1.6 million times $200,000 NPV; that's $320 billion of value, which is worth, well, quite a lot. Quite a lot of money to a lot of companies that are working on this.So, when we get asked, what are we watching, well, in terms of the bleeding edge of the robot revolution, we're watching the Sino-U.S. competition. And I prefer to call it competition. And we're also watching the terra cap companies, the Mag 7 type companies that are quite suddenly and recently and very, very significantly going after physical AI and robotics talent. And increasingly even manufacturing talent.So again, to circle back to Chris's point, if you want evidence of reshoring and manufacturing and advanced manufacturing in this country, look at some of these TMT and tech and AI companies in California. And look at, go on their hiring website and watch all the manufacturing and robotics people that they're trying to hire; and pay a lot of money to do so. And that might be an interesting indicator of where we're going.Michelle Weaver: I want to dig in a little bit more there. We're seeing a lot of the cutting-edge tech coming out of China. Is the U.S. going to be able to catch up?Adam Jonas: Uh, I don't know. I don't know. But I would say what's our alternative. We either catch up enough to compete or we're up for grabs. OK?I would say from our reading and working closely with our team in China, that in many aspects of supply chain, manufacturing, physical AI, China is ahead. And with the passage of time, they are increasingly ahead. We estimate, and we can't be precise here, that China's lead on the U.S. would not only last three to five years, but might even widen three to five years from now. May even widen at an accelerating rate three to five years from now.And so, it brings into play is what kind of environment and what kind of regulatory, and policy decisions we made to help kind of level]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0cgY-yF7pkd3o92mZl7I4bK5J3a84kFjB75laJiXll8Tue, 16 Sep 2025 22:30:00 +0000gtyOur strategists Michelle Weaver and Adam Jonas join analyst Christopher Snyder to discuss the most important themes that emerged from the Morgan Stanley Annual Industrials Conference in Laguna Beach.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Christopher Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst.Adam Jonas: And I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI Strategist.Michelle Weaver: We recently concluded Morgan Stanley's annual industrials conference in Laguna Beach, California, and wanted to share some of the biggest takeaways.It's Tuesday, September 16th at 10am in New York.I want to set the stage for our conversation. The overall tone at the conference was fairly similar to last year with many companies waiting for a broader pickup. And I'd flag three different themes that really emerged from the conference.So first, AI. AI is incredibly important. It appeared in the vast majority of fireside conversations. And companies were talking about AI from both the adopter and the enabler angle.Second theme on the macro, overall companies remain in search of a reacceleration. They pointed to consistently expansionary PMIs or a PMI above 50, a more favorable interest rate environment and greater clarity on tariffs as the key macro conditions for renewed momentum.And then the last thing that came up repeatedly was how are companies going to react to tariffs? And I would say companies overall were fairly constructive on their ability to mitigate the margin impact of tariffs with many talking about both leveraging pricing power and supply chain shifts to offset those impacts. So, Chris, considering all this, the wait for an inflection came up across a number of companies. What were some of your key takeaways on multis, on the macro front?Christopher Snyder: The commentary was stable to modestly improving, and that was really consistent across all of these companies. There are, you know, specific verticals where things are getting better. I would call out data center as one. Non-res construction, as another one, implant manufacturing as one. And there were certain categories where we are seeing deterioration – residential HVAC, energy markets, and agriculture.But we came away more constructive on the cycle because things are stable, if not modestly improving into a rate cut cycle. The concern going in was that we would hear about deteriorating trends and a rate cut would be needed just to stabilize the market. So, we do think that this backdrop is supportive for better industrial growth into 2026.We have been positive on the project or CapEx side of the house. It feels like strength there is improving. We've been more cautious on the short cycle production side of the house. But we are starting to see signs of rate of change. So, when we look into [20]26 and [20]27, we think U.S. industrials are poised for decade high growth.Michelle Weaver: You've had a thesis for a while now that U.S. reshoring is going to be incredibly important and that it's a $10 trillion opportunity. Can you unpack that number? What are some recent data points supporting that and what did you learn at the conference? Christopher Snyder: Some of the recent data points that support this view is U.S. manufacturing construction starts are up 3x post Liberation Day. So, we're seeing companies invest. This is also coming through in commercial industrial lending data, which continues to push higher almost every week and is currently at now record high levels. So, there's a lot of reasons for companies not to invest right now. There's a lot of uncertainty around policy. But seeing that willingness to invest through all of the uncertainty is a big positive because as that uncertainty...]]>867alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1470fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-fed-cuts-bring-mortgage-rates-down--75648715insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Today we're talking about the Fed, mortgage rates and the implications to the housing market.It's Monday, September 15th at 11:30am in New York.Now Jim, the Fed is meeting on Wednesday, and both our economists and the market are expecting them to cut rates in this meeting – and continue to cut rates at least probably two more times in 2025, and multiple times in 2026. We've talked a lot about the challenges and the affordability in the U.S. homeowners’ market, in the U.S. mortgage market.Before we get into what this could help [with] the affordability challenges, how bad is that affordability right now?James Egan: Sure. And as we've discussed on this podcast in the past, one of the biggest issues with the affordability challenges in the U.S. housing market specifically is how it's fed through to supply issues as the lock-in effect has kept homeowners with low 30-year mortgage rates from listing their homes.But just how locked in does the market remain today? The effective rate on the outstanding mortgage market, kind of the average of the mortgages outstanding, is below 4.25 percent. The prevailing rate for 30-year mortgages today is still over 6.25 percent, so we're talking about two full percentage points, 200 basis points outta the money.Jay Bacow: And that seems like a lot. Has it been that way in the past?James Egan: If we look at roughly 40 years of data ending in 2022, the market was only 100 basis points outta the money for eight individual quarters. The most it was ever out of the money was 135 basis points. We have now been more than 200 basis points out of the the money for three entire years, 12 consecutive quarters. So, this is very unprecedented in the past several decades.But Jay, our economists are calling for Fed cuts, the market's pricing in Fed cuts. How much lower is the mortgage rate going for these affordability equations?Jay Bacow: We actually don't think that the Fed cutting rates necessarily is going to cause the mortgage rate to come down at all. And one way we can think about this is if we look at it, the Fed has already cut rates 100 basis points over the past year, and since the Fed has cut rates 100 basis points in the past year, the mortgage rate is 25 basis points higher.James Egan: Okay, so if I'm not going to be looking at Fed funds for the path of mortgage rates going forward, I have two questions for you.One, what part of the Treasury term structure should I be looking at? And two, you talked about the market pricing in Fed cuts from here. What is the market saying about where those rates will be in the future?Jay Bacow: So, mortgage rates are much more sensitive to the belly of the Treasury curve. Call it the 5- and 10-year portions than Fed funds. They have a little bit of sensitivity to the third year note as well. And when we think about what the market is expecting those portions of the Treasury curve to do, I apologize, I'm going to have to nerd out. Fortunately, being a nerd comes very naturally to me.If you look at the spread between the 5- and the 10-year portion of the treasury curve, 10 years yield about 50 basis points more than the 5-year note. So, you think about it, an investor could buy a 10-year note now. Or they could buy a 5-year note now and then another 5-year note in five years, and they should expect to get the same return if they do either one.So, if they buy the 10-year note right now at 50 basis points above where the 5-year note is. Or they buy the 5-year note, right now, the 5-year note in five years would have to yield 100 basis points above to get the average to be the same. Well, if the 5-year note in five years is 100 basis points above where the 5-year note is right now, mortgage rates are also probably going to be higher in five years.James Egan: Okay, so that's not helping the affordability issues. What can be done to lower mortgage rates from here?Jay Bacow: Well, going back to my inner nerd, if you brought the 5- and 10-year Treasury yields down, that would certainly be helpful. But mortgage rates aren't just predicated on where the Treasury yields are.There's also a risk premium on top of that. And so, if the mortgage originators can sell those loans to other investors at a tighter spread, that would also help bring the rate down. And there are things that can be done on that front. So, for instance, if the capital requirements for investors to own those mortgages go down, that would certainly be helpful.You could try to incentivize investors in a number of different ways, that's one front. But in reality, a lot of these fees are already sort of stuck in place. So, there's only so much that can be done.Now, Jim, let's suppose. I am wrong. I've been wrong in the past. A lot of times with you. I thought the Patriots were gonna beat the Giants in both Super Bowls. Somehow Eli Manning proved me wrong.However, if the mortgage rate does come down, how much does it have to come down for housing activity to start picking up?James Egan: So, this is a question we get asked roughly six to seven times a day…Jay Bacow: How did Eli Manning beat the Patriots?James Egan: How far mortgage rates have to come down in order to really get housing sales started again. And because of the backdrop of today's housing and mortgage markets that we laid out at the top of this podcast, it's really difficult to empirically point to a mortgage rate and calculate this is where rates have to fall to.So, what we have been doing instead is looking at historic periods of affordability improvement, and seeing how much do we need to get that affordability ratio down to get a sustainable growth in sales volumes from here.Jay Bacow: All right. And how much do we have to get that affordability ratio down?James Egan: So, a sustainable increase; historically, we've needed about a 10 percent improvement in the affordability ratio…Jay Bacow: Alright, help me out here. I think about mortgage payments as more of a function of the rate level. So, if we're in the context of like 6.25, 6.5 right now, how far does the mortgage rate need to drop to get a 10 percent improvement? Assuming that there's no change in borrower's income or home prices.James Egan: In that world, we think you need about 100 basis point move. It would take the 30-year mortgage rate to call it, 5.5 percent.Jay Bacow: All right, so if mortgage rates go to 5.5 percent, then we're going to immediately see housing activity pickup.James Egan: That is not exactly what we're saying. What we've seen is the 10 percent improvement is enough to get sustainable growth in sales volumes. A year after you start to see that real improvement, the contemporaneous moves can be up, they can be down. Given what our economists are saying for the labor market going forward, what they're saying for growth in the United States, we do think you can see a little bit of contemporaneous growth.If you start to see that 100 basis point move in mortgage rates now, we think you'll get about a 5 percent increase in purchase volumes as we move through 2026 with the potential for upward inflection in 2027 from that 5 percent growth number – again, if we get that move in mortgage rates.Jay Bacow: Alright, so we expect the Fed to cut rates about 150 basis points over the next year and a half. It doesn't necessarily have to bring the mortgage rate down. But if the mortgage rate does go down to in the context of 5.5 percent, we should start to get a pickup in housing activity maybe the year after that.Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you regularly hearing us out, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market.Jay Bacow: Please leave us a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.James Egan: Go smash that subscribe button.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/m-Zoe4OqCGwkobONpWWBhU7je-ItmyPg74wgpacYviAMon, 15 Sep 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyFor investors looking to make sense of housing-related assets amidst changes in Fed policy stance, our co-heads of Securitized Product Research Jay Bacow and James Egan offer their perspective on mortgage rates and the market.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----  James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Today we're talking about the Fed, mortgage rates and the implications to the housing market.It's Monday, September 15th at 11:30am in New York.Now Jim, the Fed is meeting on Wednesday, and both our economists and the market are expecting them to cut rates in this meeting – and continue to cut rates at least probably two more times in 2025, and multiple times in 2026. We've talked a lot about the challenges and the affordability in the U.S. homeowners’ market, in the U.S. mortgage market.Before we get into what this could help [with] the affordability challenges, how bad is that affordability right now?James Egan: Sure. And as we've discussed on this podcast in the past, one of the biggest issues with the affordability challenges in the U.S. housing market specifically is how it's fed through to supply issues as the lock-in effect has kept homeowners with low 30-year mortgage rates from listing their homes.But just how locked in does the market remain today? The effective rate on the outstanding mortgage market, kind of the average of the mortgages outstanding, is below 4.25 percent. The prevailing rate for 30-year mortgages today is still over 6.25 percent, so we're talking about two full percentage points, 200 basis points outta the money.Jay Bacow: And that seems like a lot. Has it been that way in the past?James Egan: If we look at roughly 40 years of data ending in 2022, the market was only 100 basis points outta the money for eight individual quarters. The most it was ever out of the money was 135 basis points. We have now been more than 200 basis points out of the the money for three entire years, 12 consecutive quarters. So, this is very unprecedented in the past several decades.But Jay, our economists are calling for Fed cuts, the market's pricing in Fed cuts. How much lower is the mortgage rate going for these affordability equations?Jay Bacow: We actually don't think that the Fed cutting rates necessarily is going to cause the mortgage rate to come down at all. And one way we can think about this is if we look at it, the Fed has already cut rates 100 basis points over the past year, and since the Fed has cut rates 100 basis points in the past year, the mortgage rate is 25 basis points higher.James Egan: Okay, so if I'm not going to be looking at Fed funds for the path of mortgage rates going forward, I have two questions for you.One, what part of the Treasury term structure should I be looking at? And two, you talked about the market pricing in Fed cuts from here. What is the market saying about where those rates will be in the future?Jay Bacow: So, mortgage rates are much more sensitive to the belly of the Treasury curve. Call it the 5- and 10-year portions than Fed funds. They have a little bit of sensitivity to the third year note as well. And when we think about what the market is expecting those portions of the Treasury curve to do, I apologize, I'm going to have to nerd out. Fortunately, being a nerd comes very naturally to me.If you look at the spread between the 5- and the 10-year portion of the treasury curve, 10 years yield about 50 basis points more than the 5-year note. So, you think about it, an investor could buy a 10-year note now. Or they could buy a 5-year note now and then another 5-year note in five years, and they should expect to get the same return if they do either...]]>449alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1469fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-cybersecurity-is-reshaping-portfolios--75648555insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Meta Marshall, Morgan Stanley’s Cybersecurity and Network and Equipment Analyst. Today – the future of digital defense against cybercrime. It’s Friday, September 12th, at 10am in New York.Imagine waking up to find your bank account drained, your business operations frozen, or your personal data exposed – all because of a cyberattack. Today, cybersecurity isn't an esoteric tech issue. It impacts all of us, both as consumers and investors. As the digital landscape grows increasingly complex, the scale and severity of cybercrime expand in tandem. This means that even as companies spend more, the risks are multiplying even faster. For investors, this is both a warning and an opportunity.Cybersecurity is now a $270 billion market. And we expect it to grow at 12 percent per year through 2028. That's one of the fastest growth rates across software. And here's another number worth noting: Chief Information Officers we surveyed expect cybersecurity spending to grow 50 percent faster than software spending as a whole. This makes cybersecurity the most defensive area of IT budgets—meaning it’s least likely to be cut, even in tough times.This hasn’t been lost on investors. Security software has outperformed the broader market, and over the past three years, security stocks have delivered a 58 percent return, compared to just 22 percent for software overall and 79 percent for the NASDAQ. We expect this outperformance against software to continue as AI expands the number of ways hackers can get in and the ways those threats are evolving.Looking ahead, we see a handful of interconnected mega themes driving investment opportunities in cybersecurity. One of the biggest is platformization – consolidating security tools into a unified platform. Today, major companies juggle on average 130 different cyber security tools. This approach often creates complexity, not clarity, and can leave dangerous gaps in protection particularly as the rise of connected devices like robots and drones is making unified security platforms more important than ever.And something else to keep in mind: right now, security investments make up only 1 percent of overall AI spending, compared to 6 percent of total IT budgets—so there’s a lot of room to grow as AI becomes ever more central to business operations.  In today’s cybersecurity race, it’s not enough to simply pile on more tools or chase the latest buzzwords. We think some of the biggest potential winners are cybersecurity providers who can turn chaos into clarity. In addition to growing revenue and free cash flow, these businesses are weaving together fragmented defenses into unified, easy-to-manage platforms. They want to get smarter, faster, and more resilient – not just bigger. They understand that it’s key to cut through the noise, make systems work seamlessly together, and adapt on a dime as new threats emerge. In cybersecurity, complexity is the enemy—and simplicity is the new superpower. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/brvSjiZGeDNn9avBWCCNBidFBqMgjZIqhouq_sOR8EQFri, 12 Sep 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOnline crime is accelerating, making cybersecurity a fast-growing and resilient investment opportunity. Our Cybersecurity and Network and Equipment analyst Meta Marshall discusses the key trends driving this market shift.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Meta Marshall, Morgan Stanley’s Cybersecurity and Network and Equipment Analyst. Today – the future of digital defense against cybercrime. It’s Friday, September 12th, at 10am in New York.Imagine waking up to find your bank account drained, your business operations frozen, or your personal data exposed – all because of a cyberattack. Today, cybersecurity isn't an esoteric tech issue. It impacts all of us, both as consumers and investors. As the digital landscape grows increasingly complex, the scale and severity of cybercrime expand in tandem. This means that even as companies spend more, the risks are multiplying even faster. For investors, this is both a warning and an opportunity.Cybersecurity is now a $270 billion market. And we expect it to grow at 12 percent per year through 2028. That's one of the fastest growth rates across software. And here's another number worth noting: Chief Information Officers we surveyed expect cybersecurity spending to grow 50 percent faster than software spending as a whole. This makes cybersecurity the most defensive area of IT budgets—meaning it’s least likely to be cut, even in tough times.This hasn’t been lost on investors. Security software has outperformed the broader market, and over the past three years, security stocks have delivered a 58 percent return, compared to just 22 percent for software overall and 79 percent for the NASDAQ. We expect this outperformance against software to continue as AI expands the number of ways hackers can get in and the ways those threats are evolving.Looking ahead, we see a handful of interconnected mega themes driving investment opportunities in cybersecurity. One of the biggest is platformization – consolidating security tools into a unified platform. Today, major companies juggle on average 130 different cyber security tools. This approach often creates complexity, not clarity, and can leave dangerous gaps in protection particularly as the rise of connected devices like robots and drones is making unified security platforms more important than ever.And something else to keep in mind: right now, security investments make up only 1 percent of overall AI spending, compared to 6 percent of total IT budgets—so there’s a lot of room to grow as AI becomes ever more central to business operations.  In today’s cybersecurity race, it’s not enough to simply pile on more tools or chase the latest buzzwords. We think some of the biggest potential winners are cybersecurity providers who can turn chaos into clarity. In addition to growing revenue and free cash flow, these businesses are weaving together fragmented defenses into unified, easy-to-manage platforms. They want to get smarter, faster, and more resilient – not just bigger. They understand that it’s key to cut through the noise, make systems work seamlessly together, and adapt on a dime as new threats emerge. In cybersecurity, complexity is the enemy—and simplicity is the new superpower. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>221alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1467fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-next-for-the-india-china-trade--75648502insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today – one of the most important economic relationships of our time: India and China. And what the future may hold. It’s Thursday, September 11th at 2 pm in Hong Kong.Trade dynamics between India and China are evolving rapidly. They are not just shaping their own futures. They are influencing global supply chains and investment flows. India’s trade with China has nearly doubled in the last decade. India’s bilateral trade deficit with China is its largest—currently at U.S. $120 billion. On the flip side, China’s trade surplus with India is the biggest among all Asian economies.  We expect this trade relationship to deepen given economic imperatives. India needs support on tech know-how, capital goods and critical inputs; and China needs to capitalize on growth opportunities in the second largest and fastest growing EM. Let’s explore these issues in turn. India needs to integrate itself into the global value chain. And to do that, India needs Foreign Direct Investment from China, much like how China’s rise was fueled by Foreign Direct Investment from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Korea, which brought the technology and expertise. For India, easing restrictions on Chinese FDI could be a game-changer, enabling the transfer of tech know-how and boosting manufacturing competitiveness. Now, China is the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. It accounts for more than 40 percent of the global value chain—far ahead of the U.S. at 13 percent and India at just 4 percent. The global goods trade is increasingly focused on products higher up the value chain—think semiconductors, EVs, EV batteries, and solar panels. And China is the top global exporter in six of eight key manufacturing sectors. To put it quite simply, any economy that is looking to increase its participation in global value chains will have to increase its trade with China. For India, this means that it must rely on Chinese imports to meet its increasing demand for capital goods as well as critical inputs that are necessary for its industrialization. In fact, this is already happening. More than half of India’s imports from China and Hong Kong are capital goods—i.e. machinery and equipment needed for manufacturing and infrastructure investment. Industrial supplies make [up] another third of the imports, highlighting India’s dependence on China for critical inputs. From China’s perspective, India is the second largest and fastest-growing emerging market. And with U.S.-China trade tensions persisting, China is diversifying its exports markets, and India represents a significant opportunity. One way Chinese companies can capture this growth opportunity is to invest in and serve the domestic market. Chinese mobile phone companies have already been doing this and whether this can broaden to other sectors will depend on the opening up of India’s markets. To sum up, India can leverage on China’s strengths in manufacturing and technology while China can utilize India’s vast market for exports and investment.However, there’s a caveat: geopolitics. While economic imperatives point to deeper trade and investment ties, political developments could slow progress. Investors should watch this space closely and we will keep you updated on key developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3b6_K6LI0j1hC9o8yEfPJoilnaXwXKvx3C5g0lJIR7EThu, 11 Sep 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses how the evolving trade relationship between India and China could redefine global supply chains and unlock new investment opportunities.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- 
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today – one of the most important economic relationships of our time: India and China. And what the future may hold. It’s Thursday, September 11th at 2 pm in Hong Kong.Trade dynamics between India and China are evolving rapidly. They are not just shaping their own futures. They are influencing global supply chains and investment flows. India’s trade with China has nearly doubled in the last decade. India’s bilateral trade deficit with China is its largest—currently at U.S. $120 billion. On the flip side, China’s trade surplus with India is the biggest among all Asian economies.  We expect this trade relationship to deepen given economic imperatives. India needs support on tech know-how, capital goods and critical inputs; and China needs to capitalize on growth opportunities in the second largest and fastest growing EM. Let’s explore these issues in turn. India needs to integrate itself into the global value chain. And to do that, India needs Foreign Direct Investment from China, much like how China’s rise was fueled by Foreign Direct Investment from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Korea, which brought the technology and expertise. For India, easing restrictions on Chinese FDI could be a game-changer, enabling the transfer of tech know-how and boosting manufacturing competitiveness. Now, China is the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. It accounts for more than 40 percent of the global value chain—far ahead of the U.S. at 13 percent and India at just 4 percent. The global goods trade is increasingly focused on products higher up the value chain—think semiconductors, EVs, EV batteries, and solar panels. And China is the top global exporter in six of eight key manufacturing sectors. To put it quite simply, any economy that is looking to increase its participation in global value chains will have to increase its trade with China. For India, this means that it must rely on Chinese imports to meet its increasing demand for capital goods as well as critical inputs that are necessary for its industrialization. In fact, this is already happening. More than half of India’s imports from China and Hong Kong are capital goods—i.e. machinery and equipment needed for manufacturing and infrastructure investment. Industrial supplies make [up] another third of the imports, highlighting India’s dependence on China for critical inputs. From China’s perspective, India is the second largest and fastest-growing emerging market. And with U.S.-China trade tensions persisting, China is diversifying its exports markets, and India represents a significant opportunity. One way Chinese companies can capture this growth opportunity is to invest in and serve the domestic market. Chinese mobile phone companies have already been doing this and whether this can broaden to other sectors will depend on the opening up of India’s markets. To sum up, India can leverage on China’s strengths in manufacturing and technology while China can utilize India’s vast market for exports and investment.However, there’s a caveat: geopolitics. While economic imperatives point to deeper trade and investment ties, political developments could slow progress. Investors should watch this space closely and we will keep you updated on key developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>266alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1466fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-gold-still-holds-glitter-in-markets--75648602insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Amy Gower, Morgan Stanley’s Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist. Today, we’re talking about gold, a metal that’s more than just a safe haven for investors, and what it tells us about the global economy and markets right now.It’s Wednesday, September 10th, at 3pm in London. Gold has always been the go-to asset in times of uncertainty. But in 2025, its role is evolving. Investors are watching gold not just as a hedge against inflation, but as a barometer for everything from central bank policy to geopolitical risk. When gold prices move, it’s often a sign that something big is happening beneath the surface.Gold and silver have both already clocked up hefty year-to-date gains of 39 and 42 percent respectively. So, what’s been driving this rally? Well, several factors stand out. For one, central banks are on track for another year of strong buying, with gold now representing a bigger share of central bank reserves than treasuries for the first time since 1996. This is a strong vote of confidence in gold’s long-term value. Also, gold-backed Exchange-Traded Funds, or ETFs, saw inflows of $5 billion in August alone, with the year-to-date inflows the highest on record outside of 2020, signaling renewed interest from institutional investors too. With inflation still above target in many major economies, gold’s appeal has been surprisingly resilient despite being a non-yielding asset. And investors are betting that central banks may soon have to cut rates, which could further boost gold prices.   In fact, from here we see around 5 percent further upside to gold by year end to $3800/oz which would be a new all-time high. But there is one important wrinkle to consider. Keep in mind that while precious metals, especially gold, are primarily seen as a hedge and safe haven in times of macro uncertainty, jewelry is a big chunk of the overall precious metals market. It accounts for 40 percent of gold demand and 34 percent of silver demand. And right now how jewelry demand will evolve remains an unknown. In fact, jewelry demand is already showing signs of weakness. Second-quarter gold jewelry demand was the worst since the third quarter of 2020 as consumers reacted to high prices. Nonetheless, gold was able to hold onto its January-April gains, and silver continued to grind higher, supported by strong demand from the solar industry as well. However, until recently, the two metals were lacking catalysts for further gains. Now though this is changing, with both gold and silver poised to benefit from expected Fed rate cuts. Our economists expect the Fed to cut rates at the September meeting, for the first time since December 2024. And if we look back to the 1990s, on average gold and silver prices have risen 6 and 4 percent respectively in the 60 days following the start of a Fed rate-cutting cycle as lower yields make it easier for non-yielding assets to compete. Our FX strategists also expect further dollar weakness, which should ease some of the price pressures for holders of non-USD currencies, while India’s imports of gold and silver already showed signs of improvement in July. The country is looking also to reform its Goods and Services tax, which could free up purchasing power for gold and silver ahead of festival and wedding season. Gold does tend to outperform after Fed rate cuts, and we would keep the preference for gold over silver, but our outlook for both metals remains positive. Of course, precious metals are not risk-free. Prices can be volatile, and if central banks surprise the market with higher interest rates, gold in particular could lose some of its luster. But for now, both gold and silver should continue to shine. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RZ9mP22hod9alCxA3tHwwpyOmaOWo11GzrMOn-bg5NQWed, 10 Sep 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist Amy Gower discusses her bullish outlook for gold and what the metal’s rally in 2025 says about inflation, central banks, and global risk.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Amy Gower, Morgan Stanley’s Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist. Today, we’re talking about gold, a metal that’s more than just a safe haven for investors, and what it tells us about the global economy and markets right now.It’s Wednesday, September 10th, at 3pm in London. Gold has always been the go-to asset in times of uncertainty. But in 2025, its role is evolving. Investors are watching gold not just as a hedge against inflation, but as a barometer for everything from central bank policy to geopolitical risk. When gold prices move, it’s often a sign that something big is happening beneath the surface.Gold and silver have both already clocked up hefty year-to-date gains of 39 and 42 percent respectively. So, what’s been driving this rally? Well, several factors stand out. For one, central banks are on track for another year of strong buying, with gold now representing a bigger share of central bank reserves than treasuries for the first time since 1996. This is a strong vote of confidence in gold’s long-term value. Also, gold-backed Exchange-Traded Funds, or ETFs, saw inflows of $5 billion in August alone, with the year-to-date inflows the highest on record outside of 2020, signaling renewed interest from institutional investors too. With inflation still above target in many major economies, gold’s appeal has been surprisingly resilient despite being a non-yielding asset. And investors are betting that central banks may soon have to cut rates, which could further boost gold prices.   In fact, from here we see around 5 percent further upside to gold by year end to $3800/oz which would be a new all-time high. But there is one important wrinkle to consider. Keep in mind that while precious metals, especially gold, are primarily seen as a hedge and safe haven in times of macro uncertainty, jewelry is a big chunk of the overall precious metals market. It accounts for 40 percent of gold demand and 34 percent of silver demand. And right now how jewelry demand will evolve remains an unknown. In fact, jewelry demand is already showing signs of weakness. Second-quarter gold jewelry demand was the worst since the third quarter of 2020 as consumers reacted to high prices. Nonetheless, gold was able to hold onto its January-April gains, and silver continued to grind higher, supported by strong demand from the solar industry as well. However, until recently, the two metals were lacking catalysts for further gains. Now though this is changing, with both gold and silver poised to benefit from expected Fed rate cuts. Our economists expect the Fed to cut rates at the September meeting, for the first time since December 2024. And if we look back to the 1990s, on average gold and silver prices have risen 6 and 4 percent respectively in the 60 days following the start of a Fed rate-cutting cycle as lower yields make it easier for non-yielding assets to compete. Our FX strategists also expect further dollar weakness, which should ease some of the price pressures for holders of non-USD currencies, while India’s imports of gold and silver already showed signs of improvement in July. The country is looking also to reform its Goods and Services tax, which could free up purchasing power for gold and silver ahead of festival and wedding season. Gold does tend to outperform after Fed rate cuts, and we would keep the preference for gold over silver, but our outlook for both metals remains positive. Of course, precious metals are not risk-free. Prices can be volatile, and if central banks surprise the market with higher interest rates,...]]>269alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1465fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-ai-make-healthcare-less-expensive--75648584insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Biopharma Analyst.Erin Wright: And I'm Erin Wright, U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst.Terence Flynn: Thanks for joining us. We're actually in the midst of the second day of Morgan Stanley's annual Global Healthcare Conference, where we hosted over 400 companies. And there are a number of important themes that we discussed, including healthcare policy and capital allocation.Now, today on the show, we're going to discuss one of these themes, healthcare spending, which is one of the most pressing challenges facing the U.S. economy today.It is Tuesday, September 9th at 8am in New York.Imagine getting a bill for a routine doctor's visit and seeing a number that makes you do a double take. Maybe it's $300 for a quick checkup or thousands of dollars for a simple procedure.For many Americans, those moments of sticker shock aren't rare. They are the reality.Now with healthcare costs in the U.S. higher than many other peer countries on a percentage of GDP basis, it's no wonder that everyone – not just investors – is asking; not just, ‘Why is this happening?’ But ‘How can we fix it?’ And that's why we're talking about AI today. Could it be the breakthrough needed to help rein in those costs and reshape how care is delivered?Now I'm going to go over to you, Erin. Why is U.S. healthcare spending growing so rapidly compared to peer countries?Erin Wright: Clearly, the aging population in the U.S. and rising chronic disease burden here are clearly driving up demand for healthcare. We're seeing escalating demand across the senior population, for instance. It's coinciding with greater utilization of more sophisticated therapeutics and services. Overall, it's straining the healthcare system.We are seeing burnout in labor constraints at hospitals and broader health systems overall. Net-net, the U.S. spent 18 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2023, and that's compared to only 11 percent for peer countries. And it's projected to reach 25 to 30 percent of GDP by 2050. So, the costs are clearly escalating here.Terence Flynn: Thanks, Erin. That's a great way to frame the problem. Now, as we think about AI, where does that come in to help potentially bend the cost curve?Erin Wright: We think AI can drive meaningful efficiencies across healthcare delivery, with estimated savings of about [$]300 to [$]900 billion by 2050.So, the focus areas include here: staffing, supply chain, scheduling, adherence. These are where AI tools can really address some of these inefficiencies in care and ultimately drive health outcomes. There are implementation costs and risks for hospitals, but we do think the savings here can be substantial.Terence Flynn: Great. Well, let's unpack that a little bit more now. So, if you think about the biggest cost buckets in hospitals, where can AI help out?Erin Wright: The biggest cost bucket for a hospital today clearly is labor. It represents about half of spend for a hospital. AI can optimize staffing, reduce burnout with a new scribe and some of these scribe technologies that are out there, and more efficient healthcare record keeping. I mean, this can really help to drive meaningful cost savings.Just to add another discouraging data point for you, there's estimated to be a shortage of about 10,000 critical healthcare workers in 2028. So, AI can help to address that. AI tools can be used across administrative functions as well. That accounts for about 15 to 20 percent of spend for a hospital. So, we see substantial savings as well across drugs, supplies, lab testing, where AI can reduce waste and improve adherence overall.Terence Flynn: Great. Maybe we'll pivot over to the managed care and value-based care side now. How is AI being used in these verticals, Erin?Erin Wright: For a healthcare insurer – and they're facing many challenges right now as well – AI can help personalize care plans. And they can support better predictive analytics and ultimately help to optimize utilization trends. And it can also help to facilitate value-based care arrangements, which can ultimately drive better health outcomes and bend the cost curve. And ultimately that's the key theme that we're trying to focus on here.So, I'll turn it over to you, Terence, now. While hospitals and payers could see notable benefits from AI, the biopharma side of the equation is just as critical here. Especially when it comes to long-term cost containment. You've been closely tracking how AI is transforming drug development. What exactly are you seeing?Terence Flynn: Yeah, a number of key constituents are leaning in here on AI in a number of different ways. I'd say the most meaningful way that could help bend the cost curve is on R&D productivity. As many people probably know, it can take a very long time for a drug to reach the market anywhere from eight to 10 years. And if AI can be used to improve that cycle time or boost the probability of success, the probability of a drug reaching the market – that could have a meaningful benefit on costs. And so, we think AI has the potential to increase drug approvals by 10 to 40 percent. And if that happens, you can ultimately drive cost savings of anywhere from [$]100 billion to [$]600 billion by 2050.Erin Wright: Yeah, that sounds meaningful. How do you think additional drug approvals lead to meaningful cost savings in the healthcare system?Terence Flynn: Look, I mean, high level medicines at their best cure disease or prevent people from being admitted to a hospital or seeking care to doctor's office. Equally important medicines can get people out of the hospital quicker and back to contributing or participating in society. And there's data out there in the literature showing that new drugs can reduce hospital stays by anywhere from 11 to 16 percent.And so, if you think about keeping people out of hospitals or physician offices or reducing hospital stays, that really can result in meaningful savings. And that would be the result of more or better drugs reaching the market over the next decades.Erin Wright: And how is the FDA now supporting or even helping to endorse AI driven drug development?Terence Flynn: If companies are applying for more drug approvals here as a result of AI discovery capabilities without modernization, the FDA could actually become the bottleneck and limit the number of drugs approved each year.And so, in June, the agency rolled out an AI tool called Elsa that's looking to improve the drug review timelines. Now, Elsa has the potential to accelerate these timelines for new therapies. It can take anywhere from six to 10 months for the FDA to actually approve a drug. And so, these AI tools could potentially help decrease those timelines.Erin Wright: And are you actually seeing some of these biopharma companies actually investing in AI talent?Terence Flynn: Yes, definitely. I mean, AI related job postings in our sector have doubled since 2021. Companies are increasingly hiring across the board for a number of different, parts of their workflow, including discovery, which we just talked about. But also, clinical trials, marketing, regulatory – a whole host of different job descriptions.Erin Wright: So, whether it's optimizing hospital operations or accelerating drug discovery, AI is emerging as a powerful lever here – to bend the healthcare cost curve.Terence Flynn: Exactly. The challenge is adoption, but the potential is transformative. Erin, thanks so much for taking the time to talk with us.Erin Wright: Great speaking with you, Terence.Terence Flynn: And thanks everyone for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0NMFA8U6TZcYIDT7narq4zqoFwHM_othcrKvUnl8tSoTue, 09 Sep 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyMany Americans struggle with the rising cost of healthcare. Analysts Terence Flynn and Erin Wright explain how AI might bend the cost curve, from Morgan Stanley’s 23rd annual Global Healthcare Conference in New York.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Biopharma Analyst.Erin Wright: And I'm Erin Wright, U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst.Terence Flynn: Thanks for joining us. We're actually in the midst of the second day of Morgan Stanley's annual Global Healthcare Conference, where we hosted over 400 companies. And there are a number of important themes that we discussed, including healthcare policy and capital allocation.Now, today on the show, we're going to discuss one of these themes, healthcare spending, which is one of the most pressing challenges facing the U.S. economy today.It is Tuesday, September 9th at 8am in New York.Imagine getting a bill for a routine doctor's visit and seeing a number that makes you do a double take. Maybe it's $300 for a quick checkup or thousands of dollars for a simple procedure.For many Americans, those moments of sticker shock aren't rare. They are the reality.Now with healthcare costs in the U.S. higher than many other peer countries on a percentage of GDP basis, it's no wonder that everyone – not just investors – is asking; not just, ‘Why is this happening?’ But ‘How can we fix it?’ And that's why we're talking about AI today. Could it be the breakthrough needed to help rein in those costs and reshape how care is delivered?Now I'm going to go over to you, Erin. Why is U.S. healthcare spending growing so rapidly compared to peer countries?Erin Wright: Clearly, the aging population in the U.S. and rising chronic disease burden here are clearly driving up demand for healthcare. We're seeing escalating demand across the senior population, for instance. It's coinciding with greater utilization of more sophisticated therapeutics and services. Overall, it's straining the healthcare system.We are seeing burnout in labor constraints at hospitals and broader health systems overall. Net-net, the U.S. spent 18 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2023, and that's compared to only 11 percent for peer countries. And it's projected to reach 25 to 30 percent of GDP by 2050. So, the costs are clearly escalating here.Terence Flynn: Thanks, Erin. That's a great way to frame the problem. Now, as we think about AI, where does that come in to help potentially bend the cost curve?Erin Wright: We think AI can drive meaningful efficiencies across healthcare delivery, with estimated savings of about [$]300 to [$]900 billion by 2050.So, the focus areas include here: staffing, supply chain, scheduling, adherence. These are where AI tools can really address some of these inefficiencies in care and ultimately drive health outcomes. There are implementation costs and risks for hospitals, but we do think the savings here can be substantial.Terence Flynn: Great. Well, let's unpack that a little bit more now. So, if you think about the biggest cost buckets in hospitals, where can AI help out?Erin Wright: The biggest cost bucket for a hospital today clearly is labor. It represents about half of spend for a hospital. AI can optimize staffing, reduce burnout with a new scribe and some of these scribe technologies that are out there, and more efficient healthcare record keeping. I mean, this can really help to drive meaningful cost savings.Just to add another discouraging data point for you, there's estimated to be a shortage of about 10,000 critical healthcare workers in 2028. So, AI can help to address that. AI tools can be used across administrative functions as well. That accounts for about 15 to 20 percent of spend for a hospital. So, we see substantial savings as well across...]]>468alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1464fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-new-bull-market-begins--75648357insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing Friday’s Payroll report and what it means for equities. It's Monday, Sept 8th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. The heavily anticipated nonfarm payroll report on Friday supports our view that the labor market is weak. However, this is old news to the equity market as we have been discussing for months. First, the labor market data is perhaps the most backward-looking of all the economic series. Second, it’s particularly prone to major revisions that tend to make the current data unreliable in real time, which is why the National Bureau of Economic Research typically declares a recession started at a time when most were unaware we were in one. Furthermore, history suggests these revisions are pro-cyclical, meaning they get more negative going into a recession and then more positive once the recovery’s begun. It appears this time is no different. Indeed, Friday’s revisions were better than last month’s by a wide margin suggesting the labor market bottomed in the second quarter. This insight adds support to our primary thesis on the economy and markets that I have been maintaining for the past several years. More specifically, I believe a rolling recession began in 2022 and finally bottomed in April with the tariff announcements made on “Liberation Day.” After the initial phase of this rolling recession, that was led by a payback in Covid pull-forward demand in tech and consumer goods, other sectors of the economy went through their own individual recessions at different times. This is a key reason why we never saw the typical spike in the metrics used to define a traditional recession, although the revisions data is now revealing it more clearly. The historically significant rise in immigration post-covid and subsequent enforcement this year have also led to further distortions in many of these labor market measures. While we have written about these topics extensively over the past several years, Friday’s weak labor report provides further evidence of our thesis that we are now transitioning from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery. In short, we're entering a new cycle environment and the Fed cutting interest rates will be key to the next leg of the new bull market that began in April. Central to our view is the notion that the economy has been much weaker for many companies and consumers over the past 3 years than what the headline economic statistics like nominal GDP or employment suggest. We think a better way to measure the health of the economy is earnings growth, and breadth; as well as consumer and corporate confidence surveys. Perhaps the simplest way to determine if an economy is doing well or not is to ask: is it delivering prosperity broadly? On that score, we think the answer is “no” given the fact that earnings growth has been negative for most companies over the past 3 years. The good news is that growth has finally entered positive territory the past 2 quarters. This coincides with the v-shaped recovery in earnings revisions breadth we have been highlighting for months. We think this supports the notion that the worst of the rolling recession is behind us and likely troughed in April. As usual, equity markets got this right and bottomed then, too. Now, we think a proper rate cutting cycle is likely and necessary for the next leg of this new bull market. Given the risk that the Fed may still be focused on inflation more than the weakness in the lagging labor market data, rate cuts may materialize more slowly than what equity investors want. Combined with some signs that liquidity may be drying up a bit as both corporate and Treasury issuance increases, it would not surprise me if equity markets go through some consolidation or even a correction during the seasonally weak time of the year. Should that happen, we would be buyers of that dip and likely even consider moving down the quality curve in anticipation of a more dovish Fed and coordinated action with the Treasury. Bottom line, a new bull market for equities began with the trough in the rolling recession that began in 2022. It’s still early days for this new bull which means dips should be bought.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/U0gCP4NLiNDCmDoE4otCecas4_B3CplRKBcgCQPYWIsMon, 08 Sep 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses the outlook for U.S. stocks after Friday's nonfarm payroll data reinforced the thesis of a transition from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing Friday’s Payroll report and what it means for equities. It's Monday, Sept 8th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. The heavily anticipated nonfarm payroll report on Friday supports our view that the labor market is weak. However, this is old news to the equity market as we have been discussing for months. First, the labor market data is perhaps the most backward-looking of all the economic series. Second, it’s particularly prone to major revisions that tend to make the current data unreliable in real time, which is why the National Bureau of Economic Research typically declares a recession started at a time when most were unaware we were in one. Furthermore, history suggests these revisions are pro-cyclical, meaning they get more negative going into a recession and then more positive once the recovery’s begun. It appears this time is no different. Indeed, Friday’s revisions were better than last month’s by a wide margin suggesting the labor market bottomed in the second quarter. This insight adds support to our primary thesis on the economy and markets that I have been maintaining for the past several years. More specifically, I believe a rolling recession began in 2022 and finally bottomed in April with the tariff announcements made on “Liberation Day.” After the initial phase of this rolling recession, that was led by a payback in Covid pull-forward demand in tech and consumer goods, other sectors of the economy went through their own individual recessions at different times. This is a key reason why we never saw the typical spike in the metrics used to define a traditional recession, although the revisions data is now revealing it more clearly. The historically significant rise in immigration post-covid and subsequent enforcement this year have also led to further distortions in many of these labor market measures. While we have written about these topics extensively over the past several years, Friday’s weak labor report provides further evidence of our thesis that we are now transitioning from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery. In short, we're entering a new cycle environment and the Fed cutting interest rates will be key to the next leg of the new bull market that began in April. Central to our view is the notion that the economy has been much weaker for many companies and consumers over the past 3 years than what the headline economic statistics like nominal GDP or employment suggest. We think a better way to measure the health of the economy is earnings growth, and breadth; as well as consumer and corporate confidence surveys. Perhaps the simplest way to determine if an economy is doing well or not is to ask: is it delivering prosperity broadly? On that score, we think the answer is “no” given the fact that earnings growth has been negative for most companies over the past 3 years. The good news is that growth has finally entered positive territory the past 2 quarters. This coincides with the v-shaped recovery in earnings revisions breadth we have been highlighting for months. We think this supports the notion that the worst of the rolling recession is behind us and likely troughed in April. As usual, equity markets got this right and bottomed then, too. Now, we think a proper rate cutting cycle is likely and necessary for the next leg of this new bull market. Given the risk that the Fed may still be focused on inflation more than the...]]>278alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1463fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-u-s-dollar-still-smiles--75648697insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Watrous, G10 FX Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Today – a look at how the US dollar behaves under different global growth circumstances. And why – contrary to the views of some observers – we think the dollar still smiles.It’s Friday, September 5, at 10 AM in New York.We've been talking a good amount on this show about the US dollar – not just as a currency, but as the cornerstone of the global financial system. As the world’s reserve currency, its movements ripple across markets everywhere. The trajectory of the dollar affects everything from your portfolio’s performance to the cost of your next international vacation.Let’s start with the “dollar smile,” which is a framework Morgan Stanley FX strategists developed back in 2001, to explain how the dollar behaves under different global growth scenarios.Picture a smile-shaped curve: On the lefthand side, the dollar rises, goes up, when global growth is concerningly weak as nervous investors flock to US assets as a safe haven. On the right side of the smile, when US growth outperforms growth in the rest of the world, capital flows into the US, boosting the dollar. In the middle of the curve – which is the bottom of the smile – the dollar weakens, goes down, when growth is robust around the world and synchronized globally. In that environment - middle of the smile - investors seek riskier assets which weighs on the dollar - in part because they could borrow in dollars and invest outside the US.It’s kind of a simple framework, right? But here’s the twist: some investors argue that the left side of the smile might be broken. In other words, they say that the dollar no longer rises if people are really worried about global growth.They say that if the US itself is the source of the growth shock -- whether it’s political uncertainty or trade wars -- the dollar shouldn’t benefit. Or that the rise in US interest rates, which makes it more expensive to borrow in the US and invest abroad, or changes in the structure of global asset holdings, might mean that growth scares won’t lead to an inflow to the US and a dollar bid.We disagree with those challenges to the dollar smile framework.To quantify the dollar smile, in order to test whether it still works, we started by using Economic Surprise Indices. These indices measure how actual economic data compares to forecasts.We found that when growth in the US and outside the US are both surprisingly weak - in other words they’re much weaker than forecasted - the dollar rises on average about 0.8% per month over the past 20 years. Then on the right side of the dollar smile, when US growth really outperforms expectations, but growth outside the US underperforms expectations, the dollar goes up even more—about 1.1% on average per month. And in the middle of the dollar smile, during synchronized global growth, the dollar tends to decline on average a little bit, about 0.1% on average per month.The question is, does that framework, does that pattern still hold up today?We think it does for a few different reasons. In 2018 and 2019, despite trade tensions and US policy uncertainty playing a big role in driving global growth concerns, the dollar strengthened during periods of poor global growth. In other words, the lefthand side of the dollar smile worked back then, even though the concerns were driven by US factors.And in June 2025, when geopolitical tensions spiked between Israel and Iran, and growth concerns became elevated - the dollar surged. Investors fled to safety, and the dollar delivered.It’s true that in April 2025, the dollar dipped initially after the first tariff announcements. But then it fell even more after those tariff hikes were paused, despite a rebound in stocks. Growth concerns were mitigated and the dollar went down. So this episode I think wasn’t really a breakdown of the smile. What weighed on the dollar this spring was policy unpredictability in the US, which led investors to reduce their exposure to US assets, rather than concerns about global growth.So these episodes, I think, show that the dollar can still act as a safe haven, despite changing patterns of global asset ownership, the rise in US interest rates, and even when the US itself is the source of global concerns.Now, setting aside the framework, it’s important to note that the US dollar dropped about 11% against other currencies in the first half of this year. This was the biggest decline in more than 50 years and it ended a 15-year bull cycle for the US dollar. Moreover, we think that the dollar will continue to weaken through 2026 as the Fed cuts interest rates and policy uncertainty remains elevated.Still, even with all that, we think our framework holds. When markets wobble, remember this: the dollar will probably greet volatility with a smile.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/61axkF6jOcdKpx9HFdI_JZpr-K1NltTTUCmGFZypC1MFri, 05 Sep 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur G10 FX Market Strategist Andrew Watrous challenges the prevailing market view on the U.S. dollar, reaffirming the relevance of Morgan Stanley’s "dollar smile" framework. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Watrous, G10 FX Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Today – a look at how the US dollar behaves under different global growth circumstances. And why – contrary to the views of some observers – we think the dollar still smiles.It’s Friday, September 5, at 10 AM in New York.We've been talking a good amount on this show about the US dollar – not just as a currency, but as the cornerstone of the global financial system. As the world’s reserve currency, its movements ripple across markets everywhere. The trajectory of the dollar affects everything from your portfolio’s performance to the cost of your next international vacation.Let’s start with the “dollar smile,” which is a framework Morgan Stanley FX strategists developed back in 2001, to explain how the dollar behaves under different global growth scenarios.Picture a smile-shaped curve: On the lefthand side, the dollar rises, goes up, when global growth is concerningly weak as nervous investors flock to US assets as a safe haven. On the right side of the smile, when US growth outperforms growth in the rest of the world, capital flows into the US, boosting the dollar. In the middle of the curve – which is the bottom of the smile – the dollar weakens, goes down, when growth is robust around the world and synchronized globally. In that environment - middle of the smile - investors seek riskier assets which weighs on the dollar - in part because they could borrow in dollars and invest outside the US.It’s kind of a simple framework, right? But here’s the twist: some investors argue that the left side of the smile might be broken. In other words, they say that the dollar no longer rises if people are really worried about global growth.They say that if the US itself is the source of the growth shock -- whether it’s political uncertainty or trade wars -- the dollar shouldn’t benefit. Or that the rise in US interest rates, which makes it more expensive to borrow in the US and invest abroad, or changes in the structure of global asset holdings, might mean that growth scares won’t lead to an inflow to the US and a dollar bid.We disagree with those challenges to the dollar smile framework.To quantify the dollar smile, in order to test whether it still works, we started by using Economic Surprise Indices. These indices measure how actual economic data compares to forecasts.We found that when growth in the US and outside the US are both surprisingly weak - in other words they’re much weaker than forecasted - the dollar rises on average about 0.8% per month over the past 20 years. Then on the right side of the dollar smile, when US growth really outperforms expectations, but growth outside the US underperforms expectations, the dollar goes up even more—about 1.1% on average per month. And in the middle of the dollar smile, during synchronized global growth, the dollar tends to decline on average a little bit, about 0.1% on average per month.The question is, does that framework, does that pattern still hold up today?We think it does for a few different reasons. In 2018 and 2019, despite trade tensions and US policy uncertainty playing a big role in driving global growth concerns, the dollar strengthened during periods of poor global growth. In other words, the lefthand side of the dollar smile worked back then, even though the concerns were driven by US factors.And in June 2025, when geopolitical tensions spiked between Israel and Iran, and growth concerns became elevated - the dollar surged. Investors fled to safety, and the dollar delivered.It’s true that in April 2025, the dollar dipped...]]>338alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1462fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/walking-a-narrow-economic-path--75648524insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, the narrow economic path the markets face as we come back from summer.It's Thursday, September 4th at 2:00 PM in London.September is a month of change and one of my favorite times of the year. The weather gets just a little crisper. Kids go back to school. Football, both kinds, are back on tv. And financial markets return from the summer in earnest, quickly ramping back up to full speed. This year, September brings a number of robust debates that we'll be covering on this podcast, but chief among these might be exactly how strong or not investors actually want the economy to be.You see, at the moment, the Federal Reserve is set to lower interest rates, and they're set to do that even though inflation in the US is still well above target and it's moving higher. That's unusual and it's made even more unusual in the context of financial conditions being very easy and the US government borrowing a historically large amount of money.The Fed's reason to lower interest rates despite strong markets, elevated inflation and high budget deficits, is the concern that the US labor market is weakening. And this fear is not unfounded. US job growth has recently slowed sharply. In 2023 and 2024, the US was adding on average about 200,000 jobs every month. But this year job growth has been less than half that amount, just 85,000 per month. And the most recent data's even worse. Tomorrow brings another important update. But here's the rub: the Fed, in theory, is lowering rates because the labor market is weaker. Markets would like those lower rates, but investors would not like a significantly weaker economy.And this logic is born out pretty starkly in history. When the Fed is lowering interest rates as growth holds up, that represents some of the best ever market environments, including the mid 1990s. But when the Fed lowers rates as the economy weakens, well, that represents some of the worst. So as the leaves start to turn and the air gets a little chilly, this is the fine line that markets face coming back into September. Weaker data for the labor market would make it easier to justify Fed cuts, but would make the broader backdrop more historically challenging. Stronger data could make the Fed look offsides, committing to lower interest rates despite high and rising inflation, easy financial conditions, and what would be a still resilient economy. And that could unleash even more aggressiveness and animal spirits.Stock markets might like that aggressiveness, but neither outcome is great for credit. And so by process of elimination, our market is hoping for something moderate, belt high, and over the middle of the plate. Our economists forecast for this Friday's jobs report for about 70,000 jobs, and a stable unemployment rate would fit that moderate bill. But for this month and now for the rest of the year, we'll be walking a narrow economic path.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IdjNxjLlHJL9w6qYsdt4Mf4P0Bb6FJIRcSkO-Ts1D-QThu, 04 Sep 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses the scenarios markets may face in September and for the rest of the year, as the Federal Reserve weighs interest rate cuts amidst slowing job growth and persistent inflation. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, the narrow economic path the markets face as we come back from summer.It's Thursday, September 4th at 2:00 PM in London.September is a month of change and one of my favorite times of the year. The weather gets just a little crisper. Kids go back to school. Football, both kinds, are back on tv. And financial markets return from the summer in earnest, quickly ramping back up to full speed. This year, September brings a number of robust debates that we'll be covering on this podcast, but chief among these might be exactly how strong or not investors actually want the economy to be.You see, at the moment, the Federal Reserve is set to lower interest rates, and they're set to do that even though inflation in the US is still well above target and it's moving higher. That's unusual and it's made even more unusual in the context of financial conditions being very easy and the US government borrowing a historically large amount of money.The Fed's reason to lower interest rates despite strong markets, elevated inflation and high budget deficits, is the concern that the US labor market is weakening. And this fear is not unfounded. US job growth has recently slowed sharply. In 2023 and 2024, the US was adding on average about 200,000 jobs every month. But this year job growth has been less than half that amount, just 85,000 per month. And the most recent data's even worse. Tomorrow brings another important update. But here's the rub: the Fed, in theory, is lowering rates because the labor market is weaker. Markets would like those lower rates, but investors would not like a significantly weaker economy.And this logic is born out pretty starkly in history. When the Fed is lowering interest rates as growth holds up, that represents some of the best ever market environments, including the mid 1990s. But when the Fed lowers rates as the economy weakens, well, that represents some of the worst. So as the leaves start to turn and the air gets a little chilly, this is the fine line that markets face coming back into September. Weaker data for the labor market would make it easier to justify Fed cuts, but would make the broader backdrop more historically challenging. Stronger data could make the Fed look offsides, committing to lower interest rates despite high and rising inflation, easy financial conditions, and what would be a still resilient economy. And that could unleash even more aggressiveness and animal spirits.Stock markets might like that aggressiveness, but neither outcome is great for credit. And so by process of elimination, our market is hoping for something moderate, belt high, and over the middle of the plate. Our economists forecast for this Friday's jobs report for about 70,000 jobs, and a stable unemployment rate would fit that moderate bill. But for this month and now for the rest of the year, we'll be walking a narrow economic path.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>220alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1461fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-a-fed-pivot-could-trigger-volatility--75648368insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today: What a subtle shift in the Fed’s reaction function could mean for markets into year-end.It’s Wednesday, September 3rd at 11am in New York.Last week, our U.S. economics team flagged a subtle but important shift in U.S. monetary policy. Chair Jay Powell’s speech at Jackson Hole underscored that the Fed looks more focused on managing downside growth risks and, consequently, a bit more tolerant on inflation.As you heard Michael Gapen and Matthew Hornbach discuss last week – our colleagues expect this brings forward another Fed cut into September, kicking off a quarterly pace of 25 basis-point moves. But while this is a meaningful change in the timing of Fed rate cuts, this path would only result in slightly lower policy rates than those implied by the futures market, a proxy for the consensus of investors.So what does it mean for our views across asset classes? In short, our central case is for mostly positive returns across fixed income and equities into year-end. But the Fed’s increased tolerance for inflation is a new wrinkle that means investors are likely to experience more volatility along the way.Consider U.S. government bonds. A slower economy and falling policy rates argue for lower Treasury yields. But if investors grow more convinced that the Fed will tolerate firmer inflation, the curve could steepen further, with the risk of longer maturity yields falling less, or potentially even rising.Or consider corporate bonds. Our economic growth view is “slower but still expanding,” which generally bodes well for corporate balance sheets and, thus, the pricing of credit risk. That combined with lower front-end rates suggests a solid total return outlook for corporate credit, keeping us constructive on the asset class. But of course, if long end yields are moving higher, it would certainly cut against overall returns potential.Finally, consider the stock market. The base case is still constructive into year-end as U.S. earnings hold firm, and recent tax cuts should further help corporate cash flows. However, if long bonds sell off, this could put the rally at risk – at least temporarily, as my colleague Mike Wilson has highlighted; given that higher long-end yields are a challenge to the valuation of growth stocks.The risk? A repeat of the early-April dynamic where a long-end sell-off pressures valuations.Could we count on a shift in monetary policy to curb these risks? Or another public policy shift such as easing tariffs or Treasury adjusting its bond issuance plans? Possibly. But investors should understand this would be a reaction to market conditions, not a proactive or preventative shift. So bottom line, we still see many core markets set up to perform well, but the sailing should be less smooth than it has been in recent months.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/i9rxeD5pZoOOtBZVMfwKXwWT4DA-GICL9g8ZGJIagYAWed, 03 Sep 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyFed Chair Jay Powell’s speech at Jackson Hole underscored the central bank’s new focus on managing downside growth risks. Michael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, talks about how that shift could impact...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today: What a subtle shift in the Fed’s reaction function could mean for markets into year-end.It’s Wednesday, September 3rd at 11am in New York.Last week, our U.S. economics team flagged a subtle but important shift in U.S. monetary policy. Chair Jay Powell’s speech at Jackson Hole underscored that the Fed looks more focused on managing downside growth risks and, consequently, a bit more tolerant on inflation.As you heard Michael Gapen and Matthew Hornbach discuss last week – our colleagues expect this brings forward another Fed cut into September, kicking off a quarterly pace of 25 basis-point moves. But while this is a meaningful change in the timing of Fed rate cuts, this path would only result in slightly lower policy rates than those implied by the futures market, a proxy for the consensus of investors.So what does it mean for our views across asset classes? In short, our central case is for mostly positive returns across fixed income and equities into year-end. But the Fed’s increased tolerance for inflation is a new wrinkle that means investors are likely to experience more volatility along the way.Consider U.S. government bonds. A slower economy and falling policy rates argue for lower Treasury yields. But if investors grow more convinced that the Fed will tolerate firmer inflation, the curve could steepen further, with the risk of longer maturity yields falling less, or potentially even rising.Or consider corporate bonds. Our economic growth view is “slower but still expanding,” which generally bodes well for corporate balance sheets and, thus, the pricing of credit risk. That combined with lower front-end rates suggests a solid total return outlook for corporate credit, keeping us constructive on the asset class. But of course, if long end yields are moving higher, it would certainly cut against overall returns potential.Finally, consider the stock market. The base case is still constructive into year-end as U.S. earnings hold firm, and recent tax cuts should further help corporate cash flows. However, if long bonds sell off, this could put the rally at risk – at least temporarily, as my colleague Mike Wilson has highlighted; given that higher long-end yields are a challenge to the valuation of growth stocks.The risk? A repeat of the early-April dynamic where a long-end sell-off pressures valuations.Could we count on a shift in monetary policy to curb these risks? Or another public policy shift such as easing tariffs or Treasury adjusting its bond issuance plans? Possibly. But investors should understand this would be a reaction to market conditions, not a proactive or preventative shift. So bottom line, we still see many core markets set up to perform well, but the sailing should be less smooth than it has been in recent months.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>199alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1460fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-agency-mortgage-backed-securities-making-a-comeback--75648086insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today we're here to talk about why mortgages offer value after Jackson Hole. It's Tuesday, September 2nd at 2pm in New York. James Egan: So, Jay, let's start with the big picture after Jackson Hole, the Fed seems like it's leaning towards cutting rates in a steady, almost programmatic fashion. And in prior episodes of Thoughts on the Market, you've heard different strategists at Morgan Stanley talk about the potential implications there.But for mortgages, what does this mean? Jay Bacow: Well, it takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the market, and that's a big deal. One of the worst-case scenario[s] for agency mortgages – that the investors are buying not mortgages that homeowners have – would've been the Fed staying on hold for much longer than expected. With that risk receding, the backdrop for investors owning agency mortgages feels a lot more supportive. And when we look at high quality assets, we think mortgages look like the cheapest option. Jim, you mentioned some of the previous strategists that come on Thoughts on the Market. Our Global Head of Corporate Credit Strategy, Andrew Sheets had highlighted recently how credit spreads are trading at basically the tights of the past 20 years. Mortgages are basically at the average level of the past 20 years. It seems attractive to us. James Egan: And that relative value really does matter. Investors are looking for places to earn yield without taking on too much credit risk. Mortgages, particularly agency mortgages with government guarantee there, they offer that balance. Jay Bacow: Right. And it's not just that balance, but when we think about what goes into the asset pricing, the supply and demand picture makes a big difference. And that we think is changing. One of the reasons that mortgages have underperformed corporate credit is that when you look at the composition of the buyers, the two largest holders of mortgages are the Fed and domestic banks. The Fed's obviously going to continue to run their portfolio down, but domestic banks have also been on the sidelines. And that's meant that money managers, and to a lesser extent overseas, have had to be the largest buyers. But we think that could change. James Egan: Right, with more clarity on Fed policy, banks in particular may get more comfortable adding mortgages to their balance sheets, though the exact timing depends on regulatory developments. REITs might also find this more compelling? Jay Bacow: Right. If the Fed's cutting rates, the front end is going to be lower, and that's going to mean that the incentive to move out of cash should be higher, and that's going to help both banks and likely REITs. But then there's also the supply side.Net issuance of conventional mortgage has been negative this year. That's obviously good. And some of the other technicals are improving as well. Vols are trading better, and all of this just contributes to a healthier landscape. James Egan: Right. And another thing that we've talked about when discussing mortgage valuations is the importance of volatility. If you're buying mortgages, you're inherently short rate volatility – and volatility has come down meaningfully since last year, even if it's still above pre-COVID norms. Lower volatility supported for mortgage valuations, especially when paired with a Fed that's cutting rates steadily. Though Jay, some of that already in the price? Jay Bacow: Yeah, look. We didn't say mortgages were cheap. We just said mortgages are trading at the long-term averages. But in an environment where stocks are near the all time high and credits near the tights of the past 20 years, we do see that value. And the Fed cutting rates, as we said, should incentivize investors to move out of cash and into securities. Now, there are risks when valuations and other asset classes are as tight or as high as they are. You could see risk assets broadly underperform and mortgages are a risk asset. So, if credit widens, mortgages would not be immune. James Egan: And timing is important here too, right? Especially we think about banks coming back if they wait for full clarity on Basel III proposals – that could be delayed. On top of that, there's prepayment risk… Jay Bacow: Yeah, if rates rally, then speeds could pick up and investors are going to demand more compensation. But summing it up. Mortgages look wide to alternative asset classes. The demand picture we think is going to improve, and more clarity around the Fed's path is going to be supportive as well. All of that we think makes us feel confident this is an environment that mortgages should do well. It's not about a snap tighter and spread, it's more about getting paid carry in an environment where spreads can grind in over time. But Jim, we like mortgages. It's been a pleasure talking to you. James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay, and to all of you regularly hearing us out. Thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market. Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5lCZXovpgeZgB_kXxAzqRLAqJw8Atf6cwL7a-3EKLfMTue, 02 Sep 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why the macro backdrop could be changing in favor of agency mortgages after the Fed’s annual meeting in Jackson Hole. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today we're here to talk about why mortgages offer value after Jackson Hole. It's Tuesday, September 2nd at 2pm in New York. James Egan: So, Jay, let's start with the big picture after Jackson Hole, the Fed seems like it's leaning towards cutting rates in a steady, almost programmatic fashion. And in prior episodes of Thoughts on the Market, you've heard different strategists at Morgan Stanley talk about the potential implications there.But for mortgages, what does this mean? Jay Bacow: Well, it takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the market, and that's a big deal. One of the worst-case scenario[s] for agency mortgages – that the investors are buying not mortgages that homeowners have – would've been the Fed staying on hold for much longer than expected. With that risk receding, the backdrop for investors owning agency mortgages feels a lot more supportive. And when we look at high quality assets, we think mortgages look like the cheapest option. Jim, you mentioned some of the previous strategists that come on Thoughts on the Market. Our Global Head of Corporate Credit Strategy, Andrew Sheets had highlighted recently how credit spreads are trading at basically the tights of the past 20 years. Mortgages are basically at the average level of the past 20 years. It seems attractive to us. James Egan: And that relative value really does matter. Investors are looking for places to earn yield without taking on too much credit risk. Mortgages, particularly agency mortgages with government guarantee there, they offer that balance. Jay Bacow: Right. And it's not just that balance, but when we think about what goes into the asset pricing, the supply and demand picture makes a big difference. And that we think is changing. One of the reasons that mortgages have underperformed corporate credit is that when you look at the composition of the buyers, the two largest holders of mortgages are the Fed and domestic banks. The Fed's obviously going to continue to run their portfolio down, but domestic banks have also been on the sidelines. And that's meant that money managers, and to a lesser extent overseas, have had to be the largest buyers. But we think that could change. James Egan: Right, with more clarity on Fed policy, banks in particular may get more comfortable adding mortgages to their balance sheets, though the exact timing depends on regulatory developments. REITs might also find this more compelling? Jay Bacow: Right. If the Fed's cutting rates, the front end is going to be lower, and that's going to mean that the incentive to move out of cash should be higher, and that's going to help both banks and likely REITs. But then there's also the supply side.Net issuance of conventional mortgage has been negative this year. That's obviously good. And some of the other technicals are improving as well. Vols are trading better, and all of this just contributes to a healthier landscape. James Egan: Right. And another thing that we've talked about when discussing mortgage valuations is the importance of volatility. If you're buying mortgages, you're inherently short rate volatility – and volatility has come down meaningfully since last year, even if it's still above pre-COVID norms. Lower volatility supported for mortgage valuations, especially when paired with a Fed that's cutting rates steadily. Though Jay, some of that...]]>305alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1459fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/market-outcomes-of-fed-s-new-course--75648384Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Yesterday we talked about Michael's reaction to the Jackson Hole meeting last week, and our assessment of the Fed's potential policy pivot. Today my reaction to the price action that followed Chair Powell's speech and what it means for our outlook for the interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar. It's Friday, August 29th at 10am in New York, Michael Gapen: Okay, Matt. Yesterday you were in the driver's seat asking me questions about how Chair Powell's comments at Jackson Hole influenced our views around the outlook for monetary policy. I'd like to turn it back to you, if I may. What did you make of the price action that followed the meeting? Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think it's safe to say that a lot of investors were surprised just as you were by what Chair Powell delivered in his opening remarks. We saw a fairly dramatic decline in short-term interest rates, taking the two-year Treasury yield down quite a bit. And at the same time, we also saw the yield curve steepen, which means that the two-year yield fell much more than the 10-year yield and the 30-year bond yield fell. And I think what investors were thinking with this surprise in mind is just what you mentioned earlier – that perhaps this is a Fed that does have slightly more tolerance for above target inflation. And so, you can imagine a world in which, if the Fed does in fact cut rates, as you're forecasting, or more aggressively than you're forecasting, amidst an environment where inflation continues to run above target. Then you could see that investors would gravitate towards shorter maturity treasuries because the Fed is cutting interest rates and typically shorter-term Treasury yields follow the Fed funds rate up or down. But at the same time reconsider their love of duration and taking duration risk. Because when you move out the yield curve in your investments and you're buying a 10-year bond or a 30-year bond, you are inherently taking the view that the Fed does care about inflation and keeping it low and moving it back to target. And if this Fed still cares about that, but perhaps on the margin slightly less than it did before, then perhaps investors might demand more compensation for owning that duration risk in the long end of the yield curve. Which would then make it more difficult for those long-term yields to fall. And so, I think what we saw on Friday was a pretty classic response to a Federal Reserve speech in this case from the Chair that was much more dovish than investors had anticipated going in. The final thing I'd say in this regard is the following Monday, when we looked at the market price action, there wasn't very much follow through. In other words, the Treasury market didn't continue to rally, yields didn't continue to fall. And I think what that is telling you is that investors are still relatively optimistic about the economy at this point. Investors aren't worried that the Fed knows something that they don't. And so, as a result, we didn't really see much follow through in the U.S. Treasury market on the following Monday. So, I do think that investors are going to be watching the data much like yourself, and the Fed. And if we do end up getting worse data, the Treasury market will likely continue to perform very well. If the data rebounds, as you suggested in one of your alternative scenarios, then perhaps the Treasury rally that we've seen year-to-date will take a pause. Michael Gapen: And if I can follow up and ask you about your views on the trough of any cutting cycle. We have generally been projecting an end to the easing cycle that's below where markets are pricing. So, in general, a deeper cutting cycle. Could some of that – the market viewpoint of greater tolerance for inflation be driving market prices vis-a-vis what we're thinking? Or how do you assess where the market prices, the trough of any cutting cycle, versus what we're thinking at any point in time? Matthew Hornbach: So, once you move beyond the forecastable horizon, which you tell me… Michael Gapen: About three days … Matthew Hornbach: Probably about three days. But, you know, within the next couple of months, let's say. The way that the market would price a central bank's likely policy path, or average policy path, is going to depend on how investors are thinking about the reaction function of the central bank. And so, to the extent that it becomes clear that the central bank, the Fed, is increasingly tolerant of above target inflation in order to ensure that the balance of risks don't become unbalanced, let's say. Then I think you would expect to see that show up in a lower market price for the policy rate at which the Fed eventually stops the easing cycle, which would presumably be lower than what investors might have been thinking earlier. As we kind of make our way from here, closer to that trough policy rate, of course, the data will be in the driver's seat. So, if we saw a scenario in which the economic activity data rebounded, then I would say that the way that the market is pricing the trough policy rate should also rebound. Alternatively, if we are trending towards a much weaker labor market, then of course the market would continue to price lower and lower trough policy rates. Michael Gapen: So, Matt, with our new baseline path for Fed policy with quarterly rate cuts starting in September through the end of 2026, how has your view changed on the likely direction and path for Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar? Matthew Hornbach: So, when we put together our quarterly projections for Treasury yields, of course we link them very closely with your forecast for Fed policy, activity in the U.S. economy, as well as inflation. So, we will likely have to modify slightly the exact way in which we get down to a 4 percent 10-year yield by the end of this year, which is our current forecast, and very likely to remain our forecast going forward. I don't see a need at this point to adjust our year-end forecast for 10-year Treasury yields. When we move into 2026, again here we would also likely make some tweaks to our quarterly path for 10-year Treasury yields. But at this point, I'm not inclined to change the year end target for 2026. Of course, the end of 2026 is a lifetime away it seems from the current moment, given that we're going to have so much to do and deal with in 2026. For example, we're going to have a midterm election towards the end of the year, we will have a new chair of the Federal Reserve, and there's going to be a lot for us to deal with. So, in thinking about where are 10-year yield is going to end 2026, it's not just about the path of the Fed funds rate between now and then. It's also the events that occur, that are much more difficult to forecast than let's say the 10-year Treasury yield itself is – which is also very difficult to forecast. But it's also about by the time we get to the end of 2026, what are investors going to be thinking about 2027? You know, that is really the trick to forecasting. So, at this point, we're not inclined to change the levels to which we think Treasury yields will get to. But we are inclined to tweak the exact quarterly path. Michael Gapen: And the U.S. dollar? Matthew Hornbach: , We have been U.S. Dollar bears since the beginning of the year, and the U.S. dollar has in fact lost about 10 percent of its value relative to its broad set of trading partners. We do think that the dollar will continue to lose value over the course of the next 12 to 18 months. The exact quarterly path, we may have to tweak somewhat because also the dollar is not just about the Fed path. It's also about the path for the ECB, and the path for the Bank of England, and the path for the Bank of Japan, etcetera. But in terms of the big picture? The big picture is that the dollar should de continue to depreciate in our view. And that's what we'll be telling our investors.So, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. We look forward to bringing you another episode around the time of the September FOMC meeting where we will update our views once again. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/n2fT9bRzGOvVSeryvK6T5WYDuwtXr0iG2drZOu4waLsFri, 29 Aug 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyIn the second of a two-part episode, our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach talk about how Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar could react to the possible Fed rate path. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Yesterday we talked about Michael's reaction to the Jackson Hole meeting last week, and our assessment of the Fed's potential policy pivot. Today my reaction to the price action that followed Chair Powell's speech and what it means for our outlook for the interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar. It's Friday, August 29th at 10am in New York, Michael Gapen: Okay, Matt. Yesterday you were in the driver's seat asking me questions about how Chair Powell's comments at Jackson Hole influenced our views around the outlook for monetary policy. I'd like to turn it back to you, if I may. What did you make of the price action that followed the meeting? Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think it's safe to say that a lot of investors were surprised just as you were by what Chair Powell delivered in his opening remarks. We saw a fairly dramatic decline in short-term interest rates, taking the two-year Treasury yield down quite a bit. And at the same time, we also saw the yield curve steepen, which means that the two-year yield fell much more than the 10-year yield and the 30-year bond yield fell. And I think what investors were thinking with this surprise in mind is just what you mentioned earlier – that perhaps this is a Fed that does have slightly more tolerance for above target inflation. And so, you can imagine a world in which, if the Fed does in fact cut rates, as you're forecasting, or more aggressively than you're forecasting, amidst an environment where inflation continues to run above target. Then you could see that investors would gravitate towards shorter maturity treasuries because the Fed is cutting interest rates and typically shorter-term Treasury yields follow the Fed funds rate up or down. But at the same time reconsider their love of duration and taking duration risk. Because when you move out the yield curve in your investments and you're buying a 10-year bond or a 30-year bond, you are inherently taking the view that the Fed does care about inflation and keeping it low and moving it back to target. And if this Fed still cares about that, but perhaps on the margin slightly less than it did before, then perhaps investors might demand more compensation for owning that duration risk in the long end of the yield curve. Which would then make it more difficult for those long-term yields to fall. And so, I think what we saw on Friday was a pretty classic response to a Federal Reserve speech in this case from the Chair that was much more dovish than investors had anticipated going in. The final thing I'd say in this regard is the following Monday, when we looked at the market price action, there wasn't very much follow through. In other words, the Treasury market didn't continue to rally, yields didn't continue to fall. And I think what that is telling you is that investors are still relatively optimistic about the economy at this point. Investors aren't worried that the Fed knows something that they don't. And so, as a result, we didn't really see much follow through in the U.S. Treasury market on the following Monday. So, I do think that investors are going to be watching the data much like yourself, and the Fed. And if we do end up getting worse data, the Treasury market will likely continue to perform very well. If the data rebounds, as you suggested in one of your alternative scenarios, then perhaps the Treasury rally that we've seen...]]>575alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1458fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/breaking-down-the-fed-s-new-course--75648596Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Last Friday, the Jackson Hole meeting delivered a big surprise to markets. Both stocks and bonds reacted decisively.Today, the first of a two-part episode. We'll discuss Michael's reaction to Chair Powell's Jackson Hole comments and what they mean for his view on the outlook for monetary policy. Tomorrow, the outlook for interest rate markets and the US dollar. It's Thursday, August 28th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, here we are after Jackson Hole. The mood this year felt a lot more hawkish, or at least patient than what we saw last week. And Chair Powell really caught my attention when he said, “with policy and restrictive territory, the baseline outlook for the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” That line has been on my mind ever since. So, let's dig into it. What's your gut reaction?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me, and I think I would highlight three aspects of his Jackson Hole comments that were important to me. So, I think what happened here, of course, is the Fed became much more worried about downside risk to the labor market after the July employment report, right? So, at the July FOMC meeting, which came before that report, Powell had said, ‘Well, you know, slow payroll growth is fine as long as the unemployment rate stays low.’ And that's very much in line with our view. But sometimes these things are easier said than done. And I think the July employment report told them perhaps there's more weakness in the labor market now than they thought.So, I think the messaging here is about a shift towards risk management mode. Maybe we need to put in a couple policy rate cuts to shore up the labor market. And I think that was the big change and I think that's what drove the overall message in the statement. But there were two other parts of it that I think were interesting, you know. From the economist’s point of view, when the chair explicitly writes in a speech that ‘the economy now may warrant adjustments in our policy stance,’ right? I mean, that's a big deal. It suggests that the decision has been largely made, and I think anytime the Fed is taking a change of direction, either easing or tightening, they're not just going to do one move. So, they're signaling that they're likely prepared to do a series of moves, and we can debate about what that means. And the third thing that struck me is right before the line that you mentioned he did qualify the need to adjust rates by saying, well, whatever we do, we should, “Proceed cautiously.” So, a year ago, as you recall, the Fed opened up with a big 50 basis point rate cut, which was a surprise. And cut at three successive meetings. So, a hundred basis points of cuts over three meetings, starting with a 50 basis point cut. I think the phraseology ‘proceeds carefully’ is a signal to markets that, ‘Hey, don't expect that this time around.’ The world's different. This is a risk management discussion. And so, we think, two rate cuts before year end would be most likely. Maybe you get three. But I don't think we should expect a large 50 basis point cut at the September meeting. So those would be my thoughts. Downside risk to the labor market – putting this into words says something important to me. And the ‘proceed cautiously’ language I think is something markets also need to take into account.Matthew Hornbach: So how do you translate that into a forecasted path for the Fed? I mean, in terms of your baseline outlook, how many rate cuts are you forecasting this year? And what about in 2026?Michael Gapen: Right. So, we previously; we thought what the Fed was doing was leaning against risks that inflation would be persistent. They moved into that camp because of how fast tariffs were going up and the overall level of the effective tariff rate. So, we thought they would stay on hold for longer and when they move, move more rapidly. What they're saying now in a risk management sense, right; they still think risk to inflation is to the upside, but the unemployment rate is also to the upside. And they're looking at both of those as about equally weighted. So, in a baseline outlook where the Fed's not assuming a recession and neither are we, you get a maybe a dip in growth and a rise in inflation. But growth recovers and inflation comes down next year. In that world, and with the idea that you're proceeding cautiously, they're kind of moving and evaluating, moving and evaluating.So, I think the translation here is: a path of quarterly rate cuts between now and the end of 2026. So, six rate cuts, but moving quarterly, like September and December this year; March, June, September, and December next year; which would take us to a terminal target range of 2.75 to 3. So rather than moving later and more rapidly, you move earlier, but more gradually. That's how we're thinking about it now.Matthew Hornbach: And that's about a 25 basis point upward adjustment to the trough policy rate that you were forecasting previously…Michael Gapen: That's right. So, the prior thought was a Fed that moves later may have to cut more, right? Because you're – by holding policy tighter for longer – you're putting more downward weight on the economy from a cyclical perspective. So, you may end up cutting more to essentially reverse that in 2026. So, by moving earlier, maybe a Fed that moves a little earlier, cuts a little less.Matthew Hornbach: In terms of the alternative outcomes. Obviously, in any given forecast, things can go not as expected. And so, if the path turns out to be something other than what you're forecasting today, what would be some of the more likely outcomes in your mind?Michael Gapen: Yeah, as we like to say in economics, we forecast so we know where we're wrong. So, you're right, the world can evolve very differently. So just a couple thoughts. You know, one, now that we're thinking the Fed does cut in September, what gets them not to cut? You'd need a – I think, a really strong August employment report; something around 225,000 jobs, which would bring the three-month moving average back to around 150, right. That would be a signal that the May-June downdraft was just a post Liberation Day pothole and not trend deterioration in the labor market. So that, you know, would be one potential alternative. Another is – although we've projected quarterly paths in this kind of nice gradual pace of cuts, we could get a repeat of last year where the Fed cuts 50 to 75 basis points by year end but realizes the labor market has not rolled over. And then we get some tariff pass through into inflation. And maybe residual seasonality and inflation in Q1. And then the Fed goes on hold again, then cuts could resume later in the year. And I also think in the backdrop here, when the Fed is saying we are easing in a risk management sense and we're easing maybe earlier than we otherwise would – that suggests the Fed has greater tolerance for inflation. So, understanding how much tolerance this Fed or the next one has for above target inflation, I think could influence how many rate cuts you eventually get in in 2026. So, we could even see a deeper trough through greater inflation tolerance. And finally, of course, we're not out of the woods with respect to recession risk. We could be wrong. Maybe the labor market is trend weakening and we're about to find that out. Growth is slowing. Growth was about 1.3 percent in the first half of the year. Final sales is softer. Of course, in a recession alternative scenario, the Fed's probably cutting much deeper, maybe down to 1 50 to 175 on the funds rate.So, I mean, Matt, you make a good point. There's still many different ways the economy can evolve and many different ways that the Fed's path for policy rates can evolve.Matthew Hornbach: Well, that's a good place to bring this Part 1 episode to an end. Tune in tomorrow, for my reaction to the market price action that followed Chair Powell's speech -- and what it means for our outlook for interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar.Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yrMejTSfaUzA6Uyt1Ny7bMLtkPHuaOGc9hbH_5aK0pYThu, 28 Aug 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyIn the first of a two- part episode, our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss the outcome of the Jackson Hole meeting and the outlook for the U.S. economy and the Fed rate path during the rest...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Last Friday, the Jackson Hole meeting delivered a big surprise to markets. Both stocks and bonds reacted decisively.Today, the first of a two-part episode. We'll discuss Michael's reaction to Chair Powell's Jackson Hole comments and what they mean for his view on the outlook for monetary policy. Tomorrow, the outlook for interest rate markets and the US dollar. It's Thursday, August 28th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, here we are after Jackson Hole. The mood this year felt a lot more hawkish, or at least patient than what we saw last week. And Chair Powell really caught my attention when he said, “with policy and restrictive territory, the baseline outlook for the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” That line has been on my mind ever since. So, let's dig into it. What's your gut reaction?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me, and I think I would highlight three aspects of his Jackson Hole comments that were important to me. So, I think what happened here, of course, is the Fed became much more worried about downside risk to the labor market after the July employment report, right? So, at the July FOMC meeting, which came before that report, Powell had said, ‘Well, you know, slow payroll growth is fine as long as the unemployment rate stays low.’ And that's very much in line with our view. But sometimes these things are easier said than done. And I think the July employment report told them perhaps there's more weakness in the labor market now than they thought.So, I think the messaging here is about a shift towards risk management mode. Maybe we need to put in a couple policy rate cuts to shore up the labor market. And I think that was the big change and I think that's what drove the overall message in the statement. But there were two other parts of it that I think were interesting, you know. From the economist’s point of view, when the chair explicitly writes in a speech that ‘the economy now may warrant adjustments in our policy stance,’ right? I mean, that's a big deal. It suggests that the decision has been largely made, and I think anytime the Fed is taking a change of direction, either easing or tightening, they're not just going to do one move. So, they're signaling that they're likely prepared to do a series of moves, and we can debate about what that means. And the third thing that struck me is right before the line that you mentioned he did qualify the need to adjust rates by saying, well, whatever we do, we should, “Proceed cautiously.” So, a year ago, as you recall, the Fed opened up with a big 50 basis point rate cut, which was a surprise. And cut at three successive meetings. So, a hundred basis points of cuts over three meetings, starting with a 50 basis point cut. I think the phraseology ‘proceeds carefully’ is a signal to markets that, ‘Hey, don't expect that this time around.’ The world's different. This is a risk management discussion. And so, we think, two rate cuts before year end would be most likely. Maybe you get three. But I don't think we should expect a large 50 basis point cut at the September meeting. So those would be my thoughts. Downside risk to the labor market – putting this into words says something important to me. And the ‘proceed cautiously’ language I think is something markets also need...]]>546alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1457fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/could-a-fed-rate-cut-affect-credit-quality--75648704insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – could interest rate cuts by the Fed unleash more corporate aggressiveness? It's Wednesday, August 27th at 2pm in London. Last week, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell hinted strongly that the Central Bank was set to cut interest rates at next month's meeting. While this outcome was the market's expectation, it was by no means a given.The Fed is tasked with keeping unemployment and inflation low. The US unemployment rate is low, but inflation is not only above the Fed's target, it's recently been trending in the wrong direction. And to bring inflation down the Fed would typically raise interest rates, not lower them. But that is not what the Fed appears likely to do; based importantly on a belief that these inflationary pressures are more temporary, while the job market may soon weaken. It is a tricky, unusual position for the Fed to be in, made even more unusual by what is going on around them. You see, the Fed tries to keep the economy in balance; neither too hot or too cold. And in this regard, its interest rate acts a bit like taps on a faucet. But there are other things besides this rate that also affect the temperature of the economic water. How easy is it to borrow money? Is the currency stronger or weaker? Are energy prices high or low? Is the equity market rising or falling? Collectively these measures are often referred to as financial conditions. And so, while it is unusual for the Federal Reserve to be lowering interest rates while inflation is above its target and moving higher, it's probably even more unusual for them to do so while these other governors of economic activity, these financial conditions are so accommodative. Equity valuations are high. Credit spreads are tight. Energy prices are low. The US dollar is weak. Bond yields have been going down, and the US government is running a large deficit. These are all dynamics that tend to heat the economy up. They are more hot water in our proverbial sink. Lowering interest rates could now raise that temperature further. For credit, this is mildly concerning, for two rather specific reasons. Credit is currently sitting with an outstanding year. And part of this good year has been because companies have generally been quite conservative, with merger activity modest and companies borrowing less than the governments against which they are commonly measured. All this moderation is a great thing for credit. But the backdrop I just described would appear to offer less moderation. If the Fed is going to add more accommodation into an already easy set of financial conditions, how long will companies really be able to resist the temptation to let the good times roll? Recently merger activity has started to pick up. And historically, this higher level of corporate aggressiveness can be good for shareholders. But it's often more challenging to lenders. But it's also possible that the Fed's caution is correct. That the US job market really is set to weaken further despite all of these other supportive tailwinds. And if this is the case, well, that also looks like less moderation. When the Fed has been cutting interest rates as the labor market weakens, these have often been some of the most challenging periods for credit, given the risk to the overall economy. So much now rests on the data. What the Fed does and how even new Fed leadership next year could tip the balance. But after significant outperformance and with signs pointing to less moderation ahead, credit may now be set to lag its fixed income peers. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8GtVPgbak1SJerxbAFRgHsPShWoPUBnsJuHi_iyE4mgWed, 27 Aug 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why a potential start of monetary easing by the Federal Reserve might be a cause for concern for credit markets.  Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – could interest rate cuts by the Fed unleash more corporate aggressiveness? It's Wednesday, August 27th at 2pm in London. Last week, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell hinted strongly that the Central Bank was set to cut interest rates at next month's meeting. While this outcome was the market's expectation, it was by no means a given.The Fed is tasked with keeping unemployment and inflation low. The US unemployment rate is low, but inflation is not only above the Fed's target, it's recently been trending in the wrong direction. And to bring inflation down the Fed would typically raise interest rates, not lower them. But that is not what the Fed appears likely to do; based importantly on a belief that these inflationary pressures are more temporary, while the job market may soon weaken. It is a tricky, unusual position for the Fed to be in, made even more unusual by what is going on around them. You see, the Fed tries to keep the economy in balance; neither too hot or too cold. And in this regard, its interest rate acts a bit like taps on a faucet. But there are other things besides this rate that also affect the temperature of the economic water. How easy is it to borrow money? Is the currency stronger or weaker? Are energy prices high or low? Is the equity market rising or falling? Collectively these measures are often referred to as financial conditions. And so, while it is unusual for the Federal Reserve to be lowering interest rates while inflation is above its target and moving higher, it's probably even more unusual for them to do so while these other governors of economic activity, these financial conditions are so accommodative. Equity valuations are high. Credit spreads are tight. Energy prices are low. The US dollar is weak. Bond yields have been going down, and the US government is running a large deficit. These are all dynamics that tend to heat the economy up. They are more hot water in our proverbial sink. Lowering interest rates could now raise that temperature further. For credit, this is mildly concerning, for two rather specific reasons. Credit is currently sitting with an outstanding year. And part of this good year has been because companies have generally been quite conservative, with merger activity modest and companies borrowing less than the governments against which they are commonly measured. All this moderation is a great thing for credit. But the backdrop I just described would appear to offer less moderation. If the Fed is going to add more accommodation into an already easy set of financial conditions, how long will companies really be able to resist the temptation to let the good times roll? Recently merger activity has started to pick up. And historically, this higher level of corporate aggressiveness can be good for shareholders. But it's often more challenging to lenders. But it's also possible that the Fed's caution is correct. That the US job market really is set to weaken further despite all of these other supportive tailwinds. And if this is the case, well, that also looks like less moderation. When the Fed has been cutting interest rates as the labor market weakens, these have often been some of the most challenging periods for credit, given the risk to the overall economy. So much now rests on the data. What the Fed does and how even new Fed leadership next year could tip the balance. But after significant outperformance and with signs pointing to less moderation ahead, credit may now be set to lag...]]>258alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1456fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/gen-z-trends-that-could-disrupt-markets--75648563insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI and Humanoid Robotics Analyst. Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Softlines Retail and Brands Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today we're unpacking our annual summer intern survey, a snapshot of how emerging professionals view fashion retail, brands, and mobility – amid all the AI advances.It is Tuesday, August 26th at 9am in New York.They may not manage billions of dollars yet, but Morgan Stanley's summer interns certainly shape sentiment on the street, including Wall Street. From sock heights to sneaker trends, Gen Z has thoughts. So, for the seventh year, we ran a survey of our summer interns in the U.S. and Europe. The survey involved more than 500 interns based in the U.S., and about 150 based in Europe. So, Alex, let’s start with what these interns think about fashion and athletic footwear. What was your biggest takeaway from the intern survey? Alex Straton: So, across the three categories we track in the survey – that's apparel, athletic footwear, and handbags – there was one clear theme, and that's market fragmentation. So, for each category specifically, we observed share of the top three to five brands falling over time. And what that means is these once dominant brands, as consumer mind share is falling – and it likely makes them lower growth margin and multiple businesses over time. At the same time, you have smaller brands being able to captivate consumer attention more effectively, and they have staying power in a way that they haven't necessarily historically. I think one other piece I would just add; the rise of e-commerce and social media against a low barrier to entry space like apparel and footwear means it's easier to build a brand than it has been in the past. And the intern survey shows us this likely continues as this generation is increasingly inclined to shop online. Their social media usage is heavy, and they heavily rely on AI to inform, you know, their purchases.So, the big takeaway for me here isn't that the big are getting bigger in my space. It's actually that the big are probably getting smaller as new players have easier avenues to exist. Adam Jonas: Net apparel spending intentions rose versus the last survey, despite some concern around deteriorating demand for this category into the back half. What do you make of that result? Alex Straton: I think there were a bit conflicting takes from the survey when I look at all the answers together. So yes, apparel spending intentions are higher year-over-year, but at the same time, clothing and footwear also ranked as the second most category that interns would pull back on should prices go up. So let me break this down. On the higher spending intentions, I think timing played a huge role and a huge factor in the results. So, we ran this in July when spending in our space clearly accelerated. That to me was a function of better weather, pent up demand from earlier in the quarter, a potential tariff pull forward as headlines were intensifying, and then also typical back to school spending. So, in short, I think intention data is always very heavily tethered to the moment that it's collected and think that these factors mean, you know, it would've been better no matter what we've seen it in our space. I think on the second piece, which is interns pulling back spend should prices go up. That to me speaks to the high elasticity in this category, some of the highest in all of consumer discretionary. And that's one of the few drivers informing our cautious demand view on this space as we head into the back half. So, in summary on that piece, we think prices going higher will become more apparent this month onwards, which in tandem with high inventory and a competitive setup means sales could falter in the group. So, we still maintain this cautious demand view as we head into the back half, though our interns were pretty rosy in the survey. Adam Jonas: Interesting. So, interns continue to invest in tech ecosystems with more than 90 percent owning multiple devices. What does this interconnectedness mean for companies in your space? Alex Straton: This somewhat connects to the fragmentation theme I mentioned where I think digital shopping has somewhat functioned as a great equalizer in the space and big picture. I interpret device reliance as a leading indicator that this market diversification likely continues as brands fight to capture mobile mind share. The second read I'd have on this development is that it means brands must evolve to have an omnichannel presence. So that's both in store and online, and preferably one that's experiential focus such that this generation can create content around it. That's really the holy grail. And then maybe lastly, the third takeaway on this is that it's going to come at a cost. You, you can't keep eyeballs without spend. And historical brick and mortar retailers spend maybe 5 to 10 percent of sales on marketing, with digital requiring more than physical. So now I think what's interesting is that brands in my space with momentum seem to have to spend more than 10 percent of sales on marketing just to maintain popularity. So that's a cost pressure. We're not sure where these businesses will necessarily recoup if all of them end up getting the joke and continuing to invest just to drive mind share.  Adam, turning to a topic that's been very hot this year in your area of expertise. That's humanoid robots. Interns were optimistic here with more than 60 percent believing they'll have many viable use cases and about the same number thinking they'll replace many human jobs. Yet fewer expect wide scale adoption within five years. What do you think explains this cautious enthusiasm? Adam Jonas: Well actually Alex, I think it's pretty smart. There is room to be optimistic. But there's definitely room to be cautious in terms of the scale of adoption, particularly over five years. And we're talking about humanoid robots. We're talking about a new species that's being created, right? This is bigger than just – will it replace our job? I mean, I don't think it's an exaggeration to ask what does this do to the concept of being human? You know, how does this affect our children and future generations? This is major generational planetary technology that I think is very much comparable to electricity, the internet. Some people say the wheel, fire, I don't know. We're going to see it happen and start to propagate over the next few years, where even if we don't have widespread adoption in terms of dealing with it on average hour of a day or an average day throughout the planet, you're going to see the technology go from zero to one as these machines learn by watching human behavior. Going from teleoperated instruction to then fully autonomous instruction, as the simulation stack and the compute gets more and more advanced. We're now seeing some industry leaders say that robots are able to learn by watching videos. And so, this is all happening right now, and it's happening at the pace of geopolitical rivalry, Sino-U.S. rivalry and terra cap, you know, big, big corporate competitive rivalry as well, for capital in the human brain. So, we are entering an unprecedented – maybe precedented in the last century – perhaps unprecedented era of technological and scientific discovery that I think you got to go back to the European and American Enlightenment or the Italian Renaissance to have any real comparisons to what we're about to see. Alex Straton: So, keeping with this same theme, interns showed strong interest in household robots with 61 percent expressing some interest and 24 percent saying they're very or extremely interested. I'm going to take you back to your prior coverage here, Adam. Could this translate into demand for AI driven mobility or smart infrastructure? Adam Jonas: Well, Alex, you were part of my prior coverage once upon a time. We were blessed with having you on our team for a year, and then you left me… Alex Straton: My golden era. Adam Jonas: But you came back, you came back. And you've done pretty well. So, so look, imagine it's 1903, the Wright Brothers just achieved first flight over the sands at Kitty Hawk. And then I were to tell you, ‘Oh yeah, in a few years we're going to have these planes used in World War I. And then in 1914, we'd have the first airline going between Tampa and St. Petersburg.’ You'd say, ‘You're crazy,’ right? The beauty of the intern survey is it gives the Morgan Stanley research department and our clients an opportunity to engage that surface area with that arising – not just the business leader – but that arising tech adopter. These are the people, these are the men and women that are going to kind of really adopt this much, much faster. And then, you know, our generation will get dragged into it eventually. So, I think it says; I think 61 percent expressing even some interest. And then 24 [percent], I guess, you know… The vast majority, three quarters saying, ‘Yeah, this is happening.’ That's a sign I think, to our clients and capital market providers and regulators to say, ‘This won't be stopped. And if we don't do it, someone else will.’ Alex Straton: So, another topic, Generative AI. It should come as no surprise really, that 95 percent of interns use that tool monthly, far ahead of the general population. How do you see this shaping future expectations for mobility and automation? Adam Jonas: So, this is what's interesting is people have asked kinda, ‘What's that Gen A]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zcEVVsRk6BwHodzRLUeIQG443DqC3foMnNX_bA3pjH0Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Adam Jonas and Alex Straton discuss how tech-savvy young professionals are influencing retail, brand loyalty, mobility trends, and the broader technology landscape through their evolving consumer choices. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI and Humanoid Robotics Analyst. Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Softlines Retail and Brands Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today we're unpacking our annual summer intern survey, a snapshot of how emerging professionals view fashion retail, brands, and mobility – amid all the AI advances.It is Tuesday, August 26th at 9am in New York.They may not manage billions of dollars yet, but Morgan Stanley's summer interns certainly shape sentiment on the street, including Wall Street. From sock heights to sneaker trends, Gen Z has thoughts. So, for the seventh year, we ran a survey of our summer interns in the U.S. and Europe. The survey involved more than 500 interns based in the U.S., and about 150 based in Europe. So, Alex, let’s start with what these interns think about fashion and athletic footwear. What was your biggest takeaway from the intern survey? Alex Straton: So, across the three categories we track in the survey – that's apparel, athletic footwear, and handbags – there was one clear theme, and that's market fragmentation. So, for each category specifically, we observed share of the top three to five brands falling over time. And what that means is these once dominant brands, as consumer mind share is falling – and it likely makes them lower growth margin and multiple businesses over time. At the same time, you have smaller brands being able to captivate consumer attention more effectively, and they have staying power in a way that they haven't necessarily historically. I think one other piece I would just add; the rise of e-commerce and social media against a low barrier to entry space like apparel and footwear means it's easier to build a brand than it has been in the past. And the intern survey shows us this likely continues as this generation is increasingly inclined to shop online. Their social media usage is heavy, and they heavily rely on AI to inform, you know, their purchases.So, the big takeaway for me here isn't that the big are getting bigger in my space. It's actually that the big are probably getting smaller as new players have easier avenues to exist. Adam Jonas: Net apparel spending intentions rose versus the last survey, despite some concern around deteriorating demand for this category into the back half. What do you make of that result? Alex Straton: I think there were a bit conflicting takes from the survey when I look at all the answers together. So yes, apparel spending intentions are higher year-over-year, but at the same time, clothing and footwear also ranked as the second most category that interns would pull back on should prices go up. So let me break this down. On the higher spending intentions, I think timing played a huge role and a huge factor in the results. So, we ran this in July when spending in our space clearly accelerated. That to me was a function of better weather, pent up demand from earlier in the quarter, a potential tariff pull forward as headlines were intensifying, and then also typical back to school spending. So, in short, I think intention data is always very heavily tethered to the moment that it's collected and think that these factors mean, you know, it would've been better no matter what we've seen it in our space. I think on the second piece, which is interns pulling back spend should prices go up. That to me speaks to the high elasticity in this category, some of the highest in all of consumer discretionary. And that's one of the few drivers informing our...]]>753alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1455fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-stocks-could-react-to-a-fed-pivot--75648077Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Fed’s new signaling on policy and what it means for stocks. It's Monday, August 25th at 11:30am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. Over the past few months, the markets started to anticipate a Fed pivot to a more dovish stance this fall. More specifically, the bond market started to price in a very high likelihood for the Fed to start cutting interest rates again in September. Equities have taken their cues from this signaling in the bond market by trading higher through most of the summer – despite lingering concerns about tariffs, international conflicts and valuation. I have remained bullish throughout this period given our focus on historically strong earnings revisions and the view that the Fed’s next move would be to cut rates even if the timing remained uncertain.  Last week, the Fed held its annual symposium in Jackson Hole where they typically discuss near term policy intentions as well as larger considerations for their strategic policy framework. We learned two key things.  First, the Fed seems closer to cutting rates in September than the last time Chair Powell spoke publicly. This change also comes after a week in which the markets were left wondering if he would remain more hawkish until inflation data confirmed what markets have already figured out. Clearly, Powell leaned more dovish. And with markets a bit nervous going into his speech on Friday morning, equities rallied sharply the rest of the day.  Second, the Fed also indicated that it will no longer target average inflation at 2 percent. Instead, it will make 2 percent the target at all times. This means the Fed will not tolerate inflation above or below target to manage the average like it did in 2021-22. It also suggests a more hawkish Fed should the economy recover more strongly than is currently expected or inflation reaccelerates.  From my standpoint, this is bullish for stocks over the next few weeks and markets can now fully anticipate Fed cuts in September. However, I see a few risks for September and October worth thinking about as the S&P 500 approaches our longstanding 6500 target. The first risk is the Fed decides to not cut after all because either growth is better or inflation is higher than expected. That would be worth a small correction in stocks given the high likelihood of a cut that is now priced in. The second risk is the Fed cuts but the bond market decides it’s being too carefree about inflation and longer term bonds sell off. A sharp rise in 10-year Treasury yields would likely elicit a bigger correction in stocks until the Treasury and Fed regain control.  Here’s the important message I want to leave you with. A major bear market ended in April, and a new bull market began. It’s rare for new bull markets to last only four months and more likely they last one-to-two years, at a minimum. What that means is that any dips we get this fall are likely to be buying opportunities for longer term investors. What gives us even more confidence in that statement is that earnings revisions continue to move sharply higher. The Fed uses economic data to make its decisions and that data is generally backward looking. Equity investors look at company data and guidance which is forward looking. This fact alone explains the wide divergence between equity prices and Fed decisions, which tend to be late and after equity markets have already figured out what’s going to happen rather than what’s in the past.  Bottom line, I remain bullish on the next 12 months given what companies and equity markets are telling us.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6HN8-8AaCtjd4LscXMW6zgqfvoAddCH6lSTtUQt0aEcMon, 25 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOpinions by market pundits have been flying since Fed Chair Powell’s remarks at Jackson Hole last week, leaving the door open for interest rate cuts as soon as in September. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains his continued...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the Fed’s new signaling on policy and what it means for stocks. It's Monday, August 25th at 11:30am in New York.   So, let’s get after it. Over the past few months, the markets started to anticipate a Fed pivot to a more dovish stance this fall. More specifically, the bond market started to price in a very high likelihood for the Fed to start cutting interest rates again in September. Equities have taken their cues from this signaling in the bond market by trading higher through most of the summer – despite lingering concerns about tariffs, international conflicts and valuation. I have remained bullish throughout this period given our focus on historically strong earnings revisions and the view that the Fed’s next move would be to cut rates even if the timing remained uncertain.  Last week, the Fed held its annual symposium in Jackson Hole where they typically discuss near term policy intentions as well as larger considerations for their strategic policy framework. We learned two key things.  First, the Fed seems closer to cutting rates in September than the last time Chair Powell spoke publicly. This change also comes after a week in which the markets were left wondering if he would remain more hawkish until inflation data confirmed what markets have already figured out. Clearly, Powell leaned more dovish. And with markets a bit nervous going into his speech on Friday morning, equities rallied sharply the rest of the day.  Second, the Fed also indicated that it will no longer target average inflation at 2 percent. Instead, it will make 2 percent the target at all times. This means the Fed will not tolerate inflation above or below target to manage the average like it did in 2021-22. It also suggests a more hawkish Fed should the economy recover more strongly than is currently expected or inflation reaccelerates.  From my standpoint, this is bullish for stocks over the next few weeks and markets can now fully anticipate Fed cuts in September. However, I see a few risks for September and October worth thinking about as the S&P 500 approaches our longstanding 6500 target. The first risk is the Fed decides to not cut after all because either growth is better or inflation is higher than expected. That would be worth a small correction in stocks given the high likelihood of a cut that is now priced in. The second risk is the Fed cuts but the bond market decides it’s being too carefree about inflation and longer term bonds sell off. A sharp rise in 10-year Treasury yields would likely elicit a bigger correction in stocks until the Treasury and Fed regain control.  Here’s the important message I want to leave you with. A major bear market ended in April, and a new bull market began. It’s rare for new bull markets to last only four months and more likely they last one-to-two years, at a minimum. What that means is that any dips we get this fall are likely to be buying opportunities for longer term investors. What gives us even more confidence in that statement is that earnings revisions continue to move sharply higher. The Fed uses economic data to make its decisions and that data is generally backward looking. Equity investors look at company data and guidance which is forward looking. This fact alone explains the wide divergence between equity prices and Fed decisions, which tend to be late and...]]>254alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1454fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-to-watch-when-credit-spreads-narrow--75648547Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – what to make of credit spreads as they hit some of their lowest levels in over 20 years? And what could change that? It's Friday, August 22nd at 2pm in London. The credit spread is the difference between the higher yield an investor gets for lending to a company relative to the government. This difference in yield is a reflection of perceived differences in risk. And bond investors spend a lot of time thinking, debating, and trading what they think it should be. It increases as the rating of a company falls and usually increases for bonds with longer maturities relative to shorter ones. The reason one invests in credit is to hopefully pick up some extra yield relative to buying a government bond and do so without taking too much additional risk. The challenge today is that these spreads are very low – or tight, in market parlance. In the U.S. corporate bonds with Investment Grade ratings only pay about three-quarters of a percent more than U.S. government bonds of the same maturity. It's a similar difference between the yield on companies in Europe and the yield on German debt, the safest benchmark in Europe. And so, in the U.S. these are the lowest spread levels since 1998, and in Europe, they're the lowest levels since 2007. The relevant question would seem to be, well, what changes this? One way of thinking about valuations in investing – and spreads are certainly a measure of valuation – is whether levels are so extreme that there's not really any precedent for them being sustained for an extended period of time.  But for credit, this is a tricky argument. Spreads have been lower than their current levels. They were that way in the mid 1990s in the U.S., and they were that way in the mid 2000s in Europe, and they stayed that way for several years. And if we go back even further in time to the 1950s? Well, it looks like U.S. spreads were lower still. Another way to think about risk premiums – and spreads are also certainly a measure of risk premium – is: does it compensate you for the extra risk? And again, even with spreads quite low, this is tricky. Only making an extra three-quarters of a percent to invest in corporate bonds feels like a pretty miserly amount to both the casual observer and yours truly, a seasoned credit professional. But when we run the numbers, the extra losses that you've actually experienced for investing in Investment Grade bonds over time relative to governments, it's actually been about half of that. And that holds up over a relatively long period of time. And so, while spreads are very low by historical standards, extreme valuations don't always correct quickly. They often need another force to impact them. With credit currently benefiting from strong investor demand, good overall yields, and a better borrowing trajectory than governments, we'd be watching two dynamics for this to change. First weaker growth than we have at the moment would argue strongly that the risk premium and corporate debt needs to be higher. While the levels have varied, credit spreads have always been significantly wider than current levels in a U.S. recession; and that's looking out over a century of data. And so, if the odds of a recession were to go up, credit, we think, would have to take notice. Second, the fiscal trajectory for governments is currently worse than corporates, which argues for a tighter than normal corporate spread. And the recent U.S. budget bill only further reinforced this by increasing long-term borrowing for the U.S. government, while extending corporate tax cuts to the private sector. But the risk would be that companies start to take these benefits and throw caution to the wind and start to borrow more again – to invest or buy other companies. We haven't seen this type of animal spirit yet. But history would suggest that if growth holds up, it's usually just a matter of time. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, please let us know by leaving a review wherever you found us. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5HXYcGatUjWiJfLDaRypzhEsQDINAatclaxcpg3VD78Fri, 22 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyCredit spreads are at the lowest levels in more than two decades, indicating health of the corporate sector. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets highlights two forces investors should monitor moving forward. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – what to make of credit spreads as they hit some of their lowest levels in over 20 years? And what could change that? It's Friday, August 22nd at 2pm in London. The credit spread is the difference between the higher yield an investor gets for lending to a company relative to the government. This difference in yield is a reflection of perceived differences in risk. And bond investors spend a lot of time thinking, debating, and trading what they think it should be. It increases as the rating of a company falls and usually increases for bonds with longer maturities relative to shorter ones. The reason one invests in credit is to hopefully pick up some extra yield relative to buying a government bond and do so without taking too much additional risk. The challenge today is that these spreads are very low – or tight, in market parlance. In the U.S. corporate bonds with Investment Grade ratings only pay about three-quarters of a percent more than U.S. government bonds of the same maturity. It's a similar difference between the yield on companies in Europe and the yield on German debt, the safest benchmark in Europe. And so, in the U.S. these are the lowest spread levels since 1998, and in Europe, they're the lowest levels since 2007. The relevant question would seem to be, well, what changes this? One way of thinking about valuations in investing – and spreads are certainly a measure of valuation – is whether levels are so extreme that there's not really any precedent for them being sustained for an extended period of time.  But for credit, this is a tricky argument. Spreads have been lower than their current levels. They were that way in the mid 1990s in the U.S., and they were that way in the mid 2000s in Europe, and they stayed that way for several years. And if we go back even further in time to the 1950s? Well, it looks like U.S. spreads were lower still. Another way to think about risk premiums – and spreads are also certainly a measure of risk premium – is: does it compensate you for the extra risk? And again, even with spreads quite low, this is tricky. Only making an extra three-quarters of a percent to invest in corporate bonds feels like a pretty miserly amount to both the casual observer and yours truly, a seasoned credit professional. But when we run the numbers, the extra losses that you've actually experienced for investing in Investment Grade bonds over time relative to governments, it's actually been about half of that. And that holds up over a relatively long period of time. And so, while spreads are very low by historical standards, extreme valuations don't always correct quickly. They often need another force to impact them. With credit currently benefiting from strong investor demand, good overall yields, and a better borrowing trajectory than governments, we'd be watching two dynamics for this to change. First weaker growth than we have at the moment would argue strongly that the risk premium and corporate debt needs to be higher. While the levels have varied, credit spreads have always been significantly wider than current levels in a U.S. recession; and that's looking out over a century of data. And so, if the odds of a recession were to go up, credit, we think, would have to take notice. Second, the fiscal trajectory for governments is currently worse than corporates, which argues for a tighter than normal corporate spread. And the recent U.S. budget...]]>271alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1453fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-takes-the-wheel--75648633Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country’s EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a Level 4 robotaxi will eventually reshape the urban mobility by meaningfully reducing transportation costs, alleviating traffic congestion through optimized routing and potentially reducing accidents. So, Adam, that's the outlook for China. But looking at the global trends beyond China, what are the biggest global revenue opportunities in your view? Is that going to be hardware, software, or something else? Adam Jonas: We are entering a new scientific era where the AI world, the software world is coming into far greater mental contact, and physical contact, with the hardware world and the physical world of manufacturing. And it's being driven by corporate rivalry amongst not just the terra cap, you know, super large cap companies, but also between public and private companies and competition. And then it's being also fueled by geopolitical rivalry and social issues as well, on a global scale. So, we're actually creating an entirely new species. This robotic species that yes, is expressed in many ways on our roads in China and globally – but it's just the beginning. In terms of whether it's hardware, software, or something else – it’s all the above. What we've done with a across 40 sectors at Morgan Stanley is to divide the robot, whether it flies, drives, walks, crawls, whatever – we divide it into the brain and the body. And the brain can be divided into sensors and memory and compute and foundational models and simulation. The body can be broken up into actuators, the kind of motor neuron capability, the connective tissue, the batteries. And then there's integrators, that kind of do it all – the hardware, the software, the integration, the training, the data, the compute, the energy, the infrastructure. And so, what's so exciting about this opportunity for our clients is there's no one way to do it. There's no one region to do it. So, stick with us folks. There's a lot of – not just revenue opportunities – but alpha-generating opportunities as well. Tim Hsiao: We are seeing OEMs pivot from cars to humanoids and the electric vertical takeoff in the landing vehicles or EVOTL. Our listeners may have seen videos of these vehicles, which are like helicopters and are designed for urban air mobility. How realistic is this transition and what's the timeline for commercialization in your view? Adam Jonas: Anything that can be electrified will be electrified. Anything that can be automated will be automated. And the advancement of the state of the art in robotaxis and Level 2, Level 3, Level 4+ autonomy is directly transferrable to aviation.  There's obviously different regulatory and safety aspects of aviation, the air traffic control and the FAA and the equivalent regulatory bodies in Europe and in China that we will have to navigate, pun intended. But we will get there. We will get there ultimately because taking these technologies of automation and electronic and software defined technology into the low altitude economy will be a superior experience and a vastly cheaper experience. Point to point, on a per person, per passenger, per ton, per mile basis. So the Wright brothers can finally get excited that their invention from 1903, quite a long time ago, could finally, really change how humans live and move around the surface of the earth; even beyond, few tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft that exist today. Tim Hsiao: The other key questions or key focus for investors is about the business model. So, until now, the auto industry has centered on the car ownership model. But with this new technology, we've been hearing a new model, as you just mentioned, the shared mobility and the autonomous driving fleet. Experts say it could be major disruptor in this sector. So, what's your take on how this will evolve in developed and emerging markets? Adam Jonas: Well, we think when you take autonomous and shared and electric mobility all the way – that transportation starts to resemble a utility like electricity or water or telecom; where the incremental mile traveled is maybe not quite free, but very, very, very low cost. Maybe only; the marginal cost of the mile traveled may only just be the energy required to deliver that mile, whether it's a renewable or non-renewable energy source. And the relationship with a car will change a lot. Individual vehicle ownership may go the way of horse ownership. There will be some, but it'll be seen as a nostalgic privilege, if you will, to own our own car. Others would say, I don't want to own my own car. This is crazy. Why would anyone want to do that? So, it's going to really transform the business model. It will, I think, change the structure of the industry in terms of the number of participants and what they do. Not everybody will win. Some of the existing players can win. But they might have to make some uncomfortable trade-offs for survival. And for others, the car – let’s say terrestrial vehicle modality may just be a small part of a broader robotics and then physical embodiment of AI that they're propagating; where auto will just be a really, really just one tendril of many, many dozens of different tendrils. So again, it's beginning now. This process will take decades to play out. But investors with even, you know, two-to-three or three-to-five-year view can take steps today to adjust their portfolios and position themselves. Tim Hsiao: The other key focus of the investor over the market would definitely be the geopolitical dynamics. So, Morgan Stanley expects to see a lot of what you call coopetition between global OEMs and the Chinese suppliers. What do you mean by coopetition and how do you see this dynamic playing out, especially in terms of the tech deflation? Adam Jonas: In order to reduce the United States dependency on China, we need to work with China. So, there's the irony here. Look, in my former life of being an auto analyst, every auto CEO I speak to does not believe that tariffs will limit Chinese involvement in the global auto i]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nYA7iazSjxfvWliiIrEe7lbyVFIC4hpZ-3iTJNP824kThu, 21 Aug 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyFrom China’s rapid electric vehicle adoption to the rise of robotaxis, humanoids, and flying vehicles, our analysts Adam Jonas and Tim Hsiao discuss how AI is revolutionizing the global auto industry. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country’s EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a...]]>738alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1452fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-fed-s-next-moves-after-mixed-data--75648691insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today – our evaluation of the Fed's policy path following the July CPI print, and the broader implications for other central banks. It's Wednesday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. Our baseline call has been that the Fed will remain on hold this year, and last week’s CPI print has not changed that view. As we have noted, average tariff rates are still ramping up given the implementation delays, and so their cumulative effect on prices could be more lagged. Within the CPI print, tariff exposed goods other than apparel and autos continued to be firm. The surprise came in services inflation, which showed a reversal led by the uptick in airfares and hotel prices, which had been running in deflationary territory for much of this year. Some of the pushback against our view on inflation stepping up over the summer due to tariffs was that services disinflation could compensate. But as this print showed, that is unlikely to be the case. While we expect services inflation to continue to moderate, we think that services disinflation in the first half of [20]25 was exaggerated by weakness and volatile competence; and both core CPI and core PCE inflation are still at their pace from last year. So further acceleration in goods inflation from tariff effects over the summer would still see inflation remaining well above the Fed's target. After the July U.S. employment and CPI reports, the bar for the Fed to stay on hold in September is clearly higher. So, what are the risks to our call? The road goes back to how the data and the Fed's reaction function will evolve over ahead of the September meeting. The August jobs report will be important. If it is a solid employment report, with a sequential acceleration in payrolls and the unemployment rate around 4.2 to 4.3 percent, then the Fed could likely look through the weakness in the May and June prints – attributing the slowdown to the uncertainty following Liberation Day and not representative of the underlying trend. If, however, there were to be a sharp drop off in the hiring pace, which is currently not being indicated by other job market indicators such as jolts or claims, then the Fed could take the view that the labor market is much weaker than anticipated and restart easing. There is also the possibility of a cut from a risk management perspective. Even with inflation running well above target, the Fed could take the July employment report as a clear signal of downside risk to the labor market and start the easing cycle. Messaging from Fed officials has so far been mixed, with some taking signal from the jobs data and others remaining less worried with the unemployment rate remaining low. Outside the U.S., central bank trajectories remain tightly linked to both the Fed's path and the evolving U.S. growth outlook. Recent labor market data have introduced downside risks to our ECB and BoJ calls. In Europe, if Euro strength persists and U.S. recession risks rise, our euro area economists see a reduced risk to their September easing baseline. In Japan, the Bank of Japan remains cautious. Stronger U.S. data could tilt the balance toward a rate hike later this year – though October remains a high hurdle, making December or beyond more plausible. That said, if the U.S. economy slows in line with our forecast, the likelihood of further BoJ tightening diminishes reinforcing our base case – the BoJ staying on hold through end of 2026. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-lkefzyeso4k5BFO8bW-EcDXr1tcx6ET3j7oueI_UaEWed, 20 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyMarkets have already priced in a Fed cut, given the mixed economic data in the July labor and CPI prints. Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha makes the case for why we’re standing by our baseline call for a higher bar for a rate cut. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today – our evaluation of the Fed's policy path following the July CPI print, and the broader implications for other central banks. It's Wednesday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. Our baseline call has been that the Fed will remain on hold this year, and last week’s CPI print has not changed that view. As we have noted, average tariff rates are still ramping up given the implementation delays, and so their cumulative effect on prices could be more lagged. Within the CPI print, tariff exposed goods other than apparel and autos continued to be firm. The surprise came in services inflation, which showed a reversal led by the uptick in airfares and hotel prices, which had been running in deflationary territory for much of this year. Some of the pushback against our view on inflation stepping up over the summer due to tariffs was that services disinflation could compensate. But as this print showed, that is unlikely to be the case. While we expect services inflation to continue to moderate, we think that services disinflation in the first half of [20]25 was exaggerated by weakness and volatile competence; and both core CPI and core PCE inflation are still at their pace from last year. So further acceleration in goods inflation from tariff effects over the summer would still see inflation remaining well above the Fed's target. After the July U.S. employment and CPI reports, the bar for the Fed to stay on hold in September is clearly higher. So, what are the risks to our call? The road goes back to how the data and the Fed's reaction function will evolve over ahead of the September meeting. The August jobs report will be important. If it is a solid employment report, with a sequential acceleration in payrolls and the unemployment rate around 4.2 to 4.3 percent, then the Fed could likely look through the weakness in the May and June prints – attributing the slowdown to the uncertainty following Liberation Day and not representative of the underlying trend. If, however, there were to be a sharp drop off in the hiring pace, which is currently not being indicated by other job market indicators such as jolts or claims, then the Fed could take the view that the labor market is much weaker than anticipated and restart easing. There is also the possibility of a cut from a risk management perspective. Even with inflation running well above target, the Fed could take the July employment report as a clear signal of downside risk to the labor market and start the easing cycle. Messaging from Fed officials has so far been mixed, with some taking signal from the jobs data and others remaining less worried with the unemployment rate remaining low. Outside the U.S., central bank trajectories remain tightly linked to both the Fed's path and the evolving U.S. growth outlook. Recent labor market data have introduced downside risks to our ECB and BoJ calls. In Europe, if Euro strength persists and U.S. recession risks rise, our euro area economists see a reduced risk to their September easing baseline. In Japan, the Bank of Japan remains cautious. Stronger U.S. data could tilt the balance toward a rate hike later this year – though October remains a high hurdle, making December or beyond more plausible. That said, if the U.S. economy slows in line with our forecast, the likelihood of further BoJ tightening diminishes reinforcing our base case – the BoJ staying on hold through end of 2026. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the...]]>284alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1451fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-credit-is-core-to-ai-expansion--75648097insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research. Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll talk about the feedback – and pushback – we've received on the data center financing note we wrote a few weeks ago. It's Tuesday, August 19th at 10am In New York. In the week since we published a report on bridging the data center financing gap, we were met with a wide range of investors to discuss the key takeaways from our report. We projected that meeting the data center demand requires something like $3 trillion of capital expenditure by 2028. And we projected that about half of this funding will come from hyperscaler cash flows, but the rest financed through different channels of the credit markets. So, Vishwas, some of the skeptics invoke comparisons to prior CapEx cycles, particularly the late 1990s telecom boom that did not quite end well. How would you respond to that skepticism? Vishwas Patkar: The 1990s telecom CapEx cycle certainly came up in a lot of our meetings. It was the last time we arguably saw CapEx cycle of this magnitude. I think the counter to this is that there are some very important differences versus what we saw then versus what we expect. Most importantly, the CapEx cycle back then was largely financed on corporate balance sheets, and we saw pretty significant uptake in debt issuance and leverage. Also, through the 1990s, the names, the companies that were spending were mid- to low-credit quality and not cash rich. That's very different from the hyperscalers that are in the center of the AI spending. And these companies are very cash rich, and their credit ratings range all the way from AAA to high A. So very much at the top end of the spectrum. In addition, we are quite optimistic about AI monetization, both the timeline and the magnitude. Some of this has also already been validated through second quarter earnings. We also think financing will be done through multiple channels going forward and it won't largely flow through to corporate debt. In fact, corporate debt issuance is actually a pretty small number of how we think this [$]3 trillion number will be met. And you know, the private credit piece, that we have talked about a lot in this report; we think it's likely to be skewed towards IG ratings, in many cases backed by contractual cash flows from credit worthy tenants. So, the risk, in some ways, could come from the sub investment grade non-hyperscaler type tenants. And that's an important theme to be watching. But by and large, this cycle is very different in our view from the late 1990s. Vishy Tirupattur: So, Carolyn, another pushback, is that the market will be overbuilt and won't be able to refinance in say, five years… Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, Vishy. This is a really big concern, particularly for securitized credit investors. We're starting to see some of the ABS and CMBS deals look to refinance even this year, and that will pick up as time goes on and these deals hit their five-year maturities. However, the biggest challenge to building new data centers in the U.S. today is access to power. Our equity research colleagues have identified a 45-gigawatt power bottleneck in the U.S., and we think this should keep the market structurally undersupplied of power and slow down the pace of construction, really limiting that overbuild risk. Thus, we expect that the churn and the vacancy rates will actually remain quite low in the medium term. And so, while it's a concern that in the long run that these data centers will decline in value; for now we don't see that to be a primary concern. Vishy Tirupattur: Carolyn, another concern we heard is that the investor demand will not keep pace with the supply, particularly in securitized credit. We also heard about the tenant quality, that tenant quality is a major concern in underwriting these deals. So how would you respond to those two points? Carolyn Campbell: Right. I mean, within ABS and CMBS, we don't think supply is really the limiting factor. We think it will come on the demand side for why we think that this market will grow to about [$]150 billion by 2028.However, our discussions with investors and the data that we've seen suggest that while there are a few big accounts that have been active in the ABS and CMBS space so far, many have yet to allocate meaningfully – preferring perhaps even other esoterics so far. And so, we think that as the supply grows, so too will the number of accounts and the size within which they're participating. That being said, the market is already starting to price in a higher risk of tenant weakness. We started to see deals with a lower proportion of IG or greater exposure to AI names price meaningfully wider than those deals that are almost entirely IG and are more for collocation and enterprise. Ultimately there will be winners and losers in this new AI industry. And so, the diversification across region and across tenant type, exposure to residual cloud and enterprise businesses, and the proportion of IG and non-AI tenants in these deals will be very important as we assess the risks of ABS and CMBS deals. Vishy Tirupattur: Vishwas, any way we cut it, the scale of investment here is pretty large. Would this scale of investment divert capital away from public credit? Vishwas Patkar: I certainly think that's a possibility, and maybe even a risk over time – but probably skewed towards the back half of our forecast horizon, which goes through 2028. I think with the public credit market, the next few quarters’ supply should be largely manageable, and demand has been and should stay quite strong. But if you look a few quarters out, insurance demand has been very critical to what's supporting credit markets right now. If interest rates go lower, some of these insurance inflows could slow down. And we've also talked about insurance allocations that are shifting towards private and securitized credit at the expense of corporate credit. So, slowly, you could say supply needs rise. You know, we have about [$]800 billion of financing that needs to be met by private credit while inflow slow down. So, I wouldn't view this as a fundamental risk for public credit, but certainly a reason why credit spreads may not stay as tight as they are, over a period of time. Vishy Tirupattur: So ultimately, our projections are based on the transformative potential for AI and the role of data center financing to enable that. This is a high conviction view. As we have said elsewhere, we are not too wedded to the specific size estimates in the broad constellation of financing channels. The point we want to drive home here is that credit markets will play a major role in enabling AI driven technology fusion. As always, they will be winners and losers, but data center financing as a theme for credit investors is here to stay.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1mDCVsObQ36769d0oxtqAbKI41aRtCiAaT4HhA10FpMTue, 19 Aug 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur brings in Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy, and Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research, to explain our high conviction on the role of credit markets in data center...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research. Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll talk about the feedback – and pushback – we've received on the data center financing note we wrote a few weeks ago. It's Tuesday, August 19th at 10am In New York. In the week since we published a report on bridging the data center financing gap, we were met with a wide range of investors to discuss the key takeaways from our report. We projected that meeting the data center demand requires something like $3 trillion of capital expenditure by 2028. And we projected that about half of this funding will come from hyperscaler cash flows, but the rest financed through different channels of the credit markets. So, Vishwas, some of the skeptics invoke comparisons to prior CapEx cycles, particularly the late 1990s telecom boom that did not quite end well. How would you respond to that skepticism? Vishwas Patkar: The 1990s telecom CapEx cycle certainly came up in a lot of our meetings. It was the last time we arguably saw CapEx cycle of this magnitude. I think the counter to this is that there are some very important differences versus what we saw then versus what we expect. Most importantly, the CapEx cycle back then was largely financed on corporate balance sheets, and we saw pretty significant uptake in debt issuance and leverage. Also, through the 1990s, the names, the companies that were spending were mid- to low-credit quality and not cash rich. That's very different from the hyperscalers that are in the center of the AI spending. And these companies are very cash rich, and their credit ratings range all the way from AAA to high A. So very much at the top end of the spectrum. In addition, we are quite optimistic about AI monetization, both the timeline and the magnitude. Some of this has also already been validated through second quarter earnings. We also think financing will be done through multiple channels going forward and it won't largely flow through to corporate debt. In fact, corporate debt issuance is actually a pretty small number of how we think this [$]3 trillion number will be met. And you know, the private credit piece, that we have talked about a lot in this report; we think it's likely to be skewed towards IG ratings, in many cases backed by contractual cash flows from credit worthy tenants. So, the risk, in some ways, could come from the sub investment grade non-hyperscaler type tenants. And that's an important theme to be watching. But by and large, this cycle is very different in our view from the late 1990s. Vishy Tirupattur: So, Carolyn, another pushback, is that the market will be overbuilt and won't be able to refinance in say, five years… Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, Vishy. This is a really big concern, particularly for securitized credit investors. We're starting to see some of the ABS and CMBS deals look to refinance even this year, and that will pick up as time goes on and these deals hit their five-year maturities. However, the biggest challenge to building new data centers in the U.S. today is access to power. Our equity research colleagues have identified a 45-gigawatt power bottleneck in the U.S., and we think this should keep the market structurally undersupplied of power and slow down the pace of construction, really limiting that overbuild risk....]]>411alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1450fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-fueling-the-future-of-energy-in-asia--75648373Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Tim Chan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Asia Sustainability Research.Mayank Maheshwari: And I am Mayank Maheshwari, the Energy Analyst for India and Southeast Asia.Tim Chan: Today – a major shift in global energy. We are talking about nuclear power, gas adoption, and what the future holds.It's Monday, August 18th at 8am in Hong Kong.Mayank Maheshwari: And it's 8am in Singapore.Tim Chan: Nuclear power is no longer niche; it’s a megatrend. It was once seen as controversial and capital intensive. But now nuclear power is stepping into the spotlight—not just for decarbonization, but for energy security. Global investment projections in this sector are now topping more than $2 trillion by 2050. This is fueled by a growing appetite from major tech companies for clean, reliable 24/7 energy. More specifically, Asia is emerging as the epicenter of capacity growth, and that’s where your coverage comes in, Mayank.With the rising consumption of electricity, how does nuclear energy adoption stack up in your universe?Mayank Maheshwari: Tim, it's a fascinating world on power right now that we are seeing. Now the tight global power markets perspective is key on why there is so much investor and policymaker attention to nuclear power.Nuclear fuels accounted for about a tenth of the power units produced globally. However, they are almost a fifth of the global clean power generation. Now, power consumption is at another tripping point, and this is after tripling since 1980s. To give you a perspective, Tim, 25 trillion units of power were consumed worldwide last year, and we see this growing rapidly at a 25 percent pace in the next five years or so. And if you look at consumption growth outside of China, it's even faster at 2.5x for the rest of the decade when compared to the last decade.Now policy makers need energy security and hence, nuclear is getting a lot more attention. In Asia, while China, Korea, and Japan have been using nuclear energy to power the economy, the rest of Asia, it has been more an ambition – with India being the only country making progress last decade. Southeast Asia still has a lot more coal, and nuclear remains an ambition as technology acceptance by public and regulatory framework remains a key handicap. We do, however, see policy makers in Singapore, Vietnam, and Malaysia looking at nuclear fuels more seriously now, with SMRs also being discussed.Tim Chan: That is a really interesting perspective, Mayank. So, you have been bullish on the Asia gas adoption story. So, how do you think gas and nuclear will intersect in this region?Mayank Maheshwari: I think nuclear and natural gas, like all of the fuel stem, will complement each other. However, the long gestation to put nuclear capacity makes gas a viable alternative for energy security. As I was telling you earlier, policy makers are definitely focusing on it. As you know, the last big increase in focus in nuclear fuels also happened in the 1970s oil shock, again when energy security came into play.Global natural gas consumption has more than doubled in the last three decades, and it's set to surprise again with AsiaPac’s consumption pretty much set to rise at twice the pace versus what right now expectations are by the street. In this age of electrification and AI adoption, natural gas is definitely emerging as a dependable and an affordable fuel of the future to power everything from automobiles to humanoids, biogenetics, to AI data centers, and even semiconductor production, which is getting so much focus nowadays.We expect global consumption to rise again after not growing this decade for natural gas. As Asia's natural gas adoption rises and grows at 5 percent CAGR 2024-2030; with consumption for gas surprising in China, India, and Japan. So, all the large economies are seeing this big increases, especially versus expectations.The region will consume 70 percent of the globally traded natural gas by 2030. So that's how important Asia will be for the world. And while global gas glut is well flagged, especially coming out of the U.S., Asia's ability to absorb this glut is not very well appreciated.Tim, having said that, nuclear energy is clearly getting more interest globally and is often debated in sustainability circles. How do you see its role evolving in sustainability frameworks as well as green taxonomies?Tim Chan: On sustainability, one thing to talk about is exclusion. That is really important for many sustainable sustainability investors. And when it comes to exclusion for nuclear power, only 2.3 percent of global AUM now exclude nuclear power. And then, that percentage is lower than alcohol, military contracting and gambling. And the exclusion rate is also different dependent on the region. Right now, European investors have the highest exclusion rate but have reduced the nuclear exclusion from 10.9 percent to 8.4 percent as of December last year. And North American and Asian exclusion rates are very, very low. Just 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent respectively.So, this exclusion in North America and Asia are minimal. The World Bank has also lifted, its decades long ban on financing nuclear project, which is important because World Bank can provide capital to fund the early stage of nuclear plant project or construction.And finally, on green finance. The EU, China and Japan have incorporated the nuclear power into their green taxonomies. So that means in some circumstances, nuclear project can be considered as green.Mayank Maheshwari: Now we have talked about AI and its need for power on this show. Nuclear power has a significant role to play in that equation, with hyperscalers paying premium for nuclear power. How does this support the investment case for nuclear utilities?Tim Chan: Yeah, so that depends on the region; and then different region we have different dilemmas. So, let's talk about U.S. first. In the U.S. we are seeing nuclear power is commanding a premium of approximately around $30-$50 per megawatt hour – above the market rate. So, when it comes to this price premium, we do think that will support the nuclear utilities in the U.S. And then in the report we highlighted a few names that we believe the current stock price haven't really priced in this premium in the market.And then for other regions, it depends on the region as well. So, Mayank, you have talked about Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia right now, given the lack of nuclear pipeline and then also the favorable economies of gas, we are not seeing that sort of premium yet in the Southeast Asia. We are also not seeing that premium in the Europe and in China as well, given that right now this sort of premium is mainly a U.S. exclusive situation. So dependent on the region, we are seeing different opportunities for nuclear utilities when it comes to the price premium.Mayank Maheshwari: Definitely Tim, I think the price premiums are dependent on how tight these power markets in each of the geographies are. But like, how does nuclear fit into broader energy mix alongside renewables and natural gas for you?Tim Chan: So, all these are really important. For nuclear power, investors really appreciate the clean and reliable, and for the 24x7 nature of the energy supply to support their operations and sustainability goals. And then nuclear is also important to bring the power additionality, which means nuclear is bringing truly new energy generation rather than simply utilizing a system or already planned capacity. We are seeing that sort of additionality in the new nuclear project and also the SMR in future as well.So, for natural gas, that is also important. As Mayank you have mentioned, natural gas money adds as a bridge field to provide flexibility to the grid. And then in the U.S., it is currently the primary near-term solution for powering AI and data center to increase the electricity supply due to its speed to the market and reliability. And natural gas is suspected to meet immediate demand, while longer term solutions like nuclear projects and also SMR are developed.And finally, renewable energy is also important. It represents the fastest growing and increasingly cost competitive energy source. They also dominate the new capacity additions as well. But for renewable energy, it also requires complimentary technology such as battery ESS to adjust intermittency issues.So, Mayank we have talked so much about nuclear, and back to you on natural gas. You are really bullish on natural gas. So how and where do you think are the best way to play it?Mayank Maheshwari: As you were kind of talking about the intersection and diffusion between nuclear, natural gas and the renewable markets, what you're seeing is that our bullishness on consumption of natural gas is basically all about how this diffusion plays out. Consumption on natural gas will rise much quicker than most fuels for the rest of the decade, if you think about numbers – making it more than just a transition fuel.Hence, Morgan Stanley research has a list of 75 equities globally to play the thematic of this diffusion, and it is happening in the power markets. These equities are part of the natural gas adoption and the powering AI thematic as well. So, these include the equipment producers on power, the gas pipeline players who are basically supporting the supply of natural gas to some of these pipelines. Hybrid power generation companies which have a good mix of renewables, natural gas, a bit of nuclear sometimes. And infrastructure providers for energy security.So, all these 75 stocks are eff]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fL0OLTOyvZemgG1mScFMtrV9gPPc1z2Tzg9xE4YQE3QMon, 18 Aug 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Tim Chan and Mayank Maheshwari discuss how nuclear power and natural gas are reshaping Asia’s evolving energy mix, and what these trends mean for sustainability and the future of energy.  Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Tim Chan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Asia Sustainability Research.Mayank Maheshwari: And I am Mayank Maheshwari, the Energy Analyst for India and Southeast Asia.Tim Chan: Today – a major shift in global energy. We are talking about nuclear power, gas adoption, and what the future holds.It's Monday, August 18th at 8am in Hong Kong.Mayank Maheshwari: And it's 8am in Singapore.Tim Chan: Nuclear power is no longer niche; it’s a megatrend. It was once seen as controversial and capital intensive. But now nuclear power is stepping into the spotlight—not just for decarbonization, but for energy security. Global investment projections in this sector are now topping more than $2 trillion by 2050. This is fueled by a growing appetite from major tech companies for clean, reliable 24/7 energy. More specifically, Asia is emerging as the epicenter of capacity growth, and that’s where your coverage comes in, Mayank.With the rising consumption of electricity, how does nuclear energy adoption stack up in your universe?Mayank Maheshwari: Tim, it's a fascinating world on power right now that we are seeing. Now the tight global power markets perspective is key on why there is so much investor and policymaker attention to nuclear power.Nuclear fuels accounted for about a tenth of the power units produced globally. However, they are almost a fifth of the global clean power generation. Now, power consumption is at another tripping point, and this is after tripling since 1980s. To give you a perspective, Tim, 25 trillion units of power were consumed worldwide last year, and we see this growing rapidly at a 25 percent pace in the next five years or so. And if you look at consumption growth outside of China, it's even faster at 2.5x for the rest of the decade when compared to the last decade.Now policy makers need energy security and hence, nuclear is getting a lot more attention. In Asia, while China, Korea, and Japan have been using nuclear energy to power the economy, the rest of Asia, it has been more an ambition – with India being the only country making progress last decade. Southeast Asia still has a lot more coal, and nuclear remains an ambition as technology acceptance by public and regulatory framework remains a key handicap. We do, however, see policy makers in Singapore, Vietnam, and Malaysia looking at nuclear fuels more seriously now, with SMRs also being discussed.Tim Chan: That is a really interesting perspective, Mayank. So, you have been bullish on the Asia gas adoption story. So, how do you think gas and nuclear will intersect in this region?Mayank Maheshwari: I think nuclear and natural gas, like all of the fuel stem, will complement each other. However, the long gestation to put nuclear capacity makes gas a viable alternative for energy security. As I was telling you earlier, policy makers are definitely focusing on it. As you know, the last big increase in focus in nuclear fuels also happened in the 1970s oil shock, again when energy security came into play.Global natural gas consumption has more than doubled in the last three decades, and it's set to surprise again with AsiaPac’s consumption pretty much set to rise at twice the pace versus what right now expectations are by the street. In this age of electrification and AI adoption, natural gas is definitely emerging as a dependable and an affordable fuel of the future to power everything from automobiles to humanoids, biogenetics, to AI data centers, and even semiconductor production, which is getting so much focus nowadays.We expect...]]>646alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1449fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-bracing-for-sticker-shock--75648601As U.S. retailers manage the impacts of increased tariffs, they have taken a number of approaches to avoid raising prices for customers. Our Head of Corporate Strategy Andrew Sheets and our Head of U.S. Consumer Retail and Credit Research Jenna Giannelli discuss whether they can continue to do so.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins?It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York.Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through.On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can.Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting.Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared worse than their respective indices. What's interesting, actually, is that credit though has significantly outperformed retail equities, which is a relationship we think should converge or correct as we move throughout the balance of the year.Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, retailers saw this coming. They've been pulling various levers to mitigate the impact. You mentioned kind of the last lever that they want to pull is prices, raising prices, which is the macro thing that we care about. The thing that would actually show up in inflation.How close are we though to kind of running out of other options for these guys? That is, the only thing left is they can start raising prices?Jenna Giannelli: So closer is what I would say. We're likely not going to see a huge impact in 2Q, more likely as we head into 3Q and more heavily into the all-important fourth quarter holiday season. This is really when those higher cost goods are going to be flowing through the PNL and retailers need to offset this as they've utilized a lot of their other mitigation strategies. They've moved what they could move. They've negotiated where they could, they've cut where they could cut. And again, as this last step, it will be to try and raise price.So, who's going to have the most and least success? In our universe, we think it's going to be more difficult to pass along price in some of the more historically deflationary categories like apparel and footwear. Outside of what is a really strong brand presence, which in our universe, historically hasn't been the case.Also, in some of the higher ticket or more durable goods categories like home goods, sporting goods, furniture, we think it'll be challenging as well here to pass along higher costs. Where it's going to be less of an issue is in our Staples universe, where what we'd put is less discretionary categories like Beauty, Personal Care, which is part of the reason why we've been cautious on retail, and neutral and consumer products when we think about sector allocation.Andrew Sheets: And when do you think this will show up? Is it a third quarter story? A fourth quarter story?Jenna Giannelli: I think this is going to really start to show up in the third quarter, and more heavily into the fourth quarter, the all-important holiday season.Andrew Sheets: Yeah, and I think that’s what’s really interesting about the impact of this backup to the macro. Again, returning to the big picture is I think one of the most important calls that Morgan Stanley economists have is that inflation, which has been coming down somewhat so far this year is going to pick back up in August and September and October. And because it's going to pick back up, the Federal Reserve is not going to cut interest rates anymore this year because of that inflation dynamic.So, this is a big debate in the market. Many investors disagree. But I think what you're talking about in terms of there are some very understandable reasons, maybe why prices haven't changed so far. But that those price hikes could be coming have real macroeconomic implications.So, you know, maybe though, something to just close on – is to bring this to the latest headlines. You know, we're now back it seems, in a market where every day we log onto our screens, and we see a new headline of some new tariff being announced or suggested towards countries. Where do you think those announcements, so far are relative to what retailers are expecting – kind of what you think is in guidance?Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So, look what we've seen of late; the recent tariff headlines are certainly higher or worse, I think, than what investors in management teams were expecting. For Vietnam, less so; I'd say it was more in line. But for most elsewhere, in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, the rates that are set to go in effect on August 1st, as we now understand them, are higher or worse than management teams were expecting.Recall that while guidance did show up in many flavors in the first quarter, so whether withdrawn guidance or lowered guidance. For those that did factor in tariffs to their guide, most were factoring in either pause rate tariffs or tariff rates that were at least lower than what was proposed on Liberation Day, right?So, what's the punchline here? I think despite some of the revisions we've already seen, there are more to come. To put some numbers around this, if we look at our group of retail consumer cohort, credits, consensus expectations for calling for EBITDA in our universe to be down around 5 percent year-over-year. If we apply tariff rates as we know them today for a half-year headwind starting August 1st, this number should be down around 15 percent year-over-year on a gross basis…Andrew Sheets: So, three times as much.Jenna Giannelli: Pretty significant. Exactly. And so, while there might be mitigation efforts, there might be some pricing passed along, this is still a pretty significant delta between where consensus is right now and what we know tariff rates to be today – could imply for earnings in the second half.Andrew Sheets: Jenna, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jenna Giannelli: My pleasure. Thank you.Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/E2WgNRbS8w03IxwbeZRT7pRG0aSuivb7MuW0lctePFMFri, 15 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date: July 11, 2025 As U.S. retailers manage the impacts of increased tariffs, they have taken a number of approaches to avoid raising prices for customers. Our Head of Corporate Strategy Andrew Sheets and our Head of U.S. Consumer...As U.S. retailers manage the impacts of increased tariffs, they have taken a number of approaches to avoid raising prices for customers. Our Head of Corporate Strategy Andrew Sheets and our Head of U.S. Consumer Retail and Credit Research Jenna Giannelli discuss whether they can continue to do so.
Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins?It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York.Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through.On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can.Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting.Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared...]]>526alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1448fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-divergence-of-thought-on-the-fed-s-path--75648364insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – the big difference between our view and the market on what the Fed will do next month; and how that impacts our credit view. It's Thursday, August 14th at 2pm in London. As of this recording, the market is pricing in a roughly 97 percent chance that the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates at its meeting next month. But our economists think it remains more likely that they will leave this rate unchanged. It's a big divergence on a very important market debate. But what may seem like a radical difference in view is actually, in my opinion, a pretty straightforward premise. The Federal Reserve has a so-called dual mandate tasked with keeping both inflation and unemployment low. The unemployment rate is low, but the inflation rate – importantly – is not. In order to ensure that that inflation rate goes lower, absent a major weakening of the economy, we think it would be reasonable for the Fed to keep interest rates somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Hence, we forecast that the Fed will end up staying put at its September meeting. Indeed, while the market rallied on this week's latest inflation numbers, they still leave the Fed with some pretty big questions. Core inflation in the US is above the Fed's target. It's been stuck near these levels now for more than a year. And based on this week's latest data, it started to actually tick up again, a trend that we think could continue over the next several readings as tariff impacts gradually come through.And so, for credit, this presents three scenarios. One good, and two that are more troubling. The good scenario is that our forecasts for inflation are simply too high. Inflation ends up falling faster than we expect even as the economy holds up. That would allow the Fed to lower interest rates sooner and faster than we're forecasting. And this would be a good scenario for credit, even at currently low rich spreads, and would likely drive good total returns. Scenario two sees inflation elevated in line with our near-term forecast, but the Fed lowers rates anyway. But wouldn't this be good? Wouldn't the credit market like lower rates? Well, lowering rates stimulates the economy and tends to push inflation higher, all else equal. And so, with inflation still above where the Fed wants it to be, it raises the odds of a hot economy with faster growth, but higher prices. That sort of mix might be welcomed by the equity market, which can do better in those booming times. But that same environment tends to be much tougher for credit. And if inflation doesn't end up falling as the Fed cuts rates, well, the Fed may be forced to do fewer rate cuts overall over the next one or two years. Or, even worse, may even have to reverse course and resume hikes – more volatile paths that we don't think the credit market would like. A third scenario is that a forecast at Morgan Stanley for growth, inflation, and the Fed are all correct. The central bank doesn't lower interest rates next month despite currently widespread expectation that they do so. That scenario could still be reasonable for the credit market over the medium term, but it would represent a very big surprise – not too far away, relative to market expectations. For now, markets may very well return to a late August slumber. But we're mindful that we're expecting something quite different than others when that summer ends. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/o1yn9H72gEFMa3hkmQe52zEPQ8mTPiaL9Na7ysePUFQThu, 14 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe market thinks the Fed is likely to cut rates come September. Morgan Stanley economists disagree. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains our viewpoint and presents three scenarios for corporate credit.  Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today – the big difference between our view and the market on what the Fed will do next month; and how that impacts our credit view. It's Thursday, August 14th at 2pm in London. As of this recording, the market is pricing in a roughly 97 percent chance that the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates at its meeting next month. But our economists think it remains more likely that they will leave this rate unchanged. It's a big divergence on a very important market debate. But what may seem like a radical difference in view is actually, in my opinion, a pretty straightforward premise. The Federal Reserve has a so-called dual mandate tasked with keeping both inflation and unemployment low. The unemployment rate is low, but the inflation rate – importantly – is not. In order to ensure that that inflation rate goes lower, absent a major weakening of the economy, we think it would be reasonable for the Fed to keep interest rates somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Hence, we forecast that the Fed will end up staying put at its September meeting. Indeed, while the market rallied on this week's latest inflation numbers, they still leave the Fed with some pretty big questions. Core inflation in the US is above the Fed's target. It's been stuck near these levels now for more than a year. And based on this week's latest data, it started to actually tick up again, a trend that we think could continue over the next several readings as tariff impacts gradually come through.And so, for credit, this presents three scenarios. One good, and two that are more troubling. The good scenario is that our forecasts for inflation are simply too high. Inflation ends up falling faster than we expect even as the economy holds up. That would allow the Fed to lower interest rates sooner and faster than we're forecasting. And this would be a good scenario for credit, even at currently low rich spreads, and would likely drive good total returns. Scenario two sees inflation elevated in line with our near-term forecast, but the Fed lowers rates anyway. But wouldn't this be good? Wouldn't the credit market like lower rates? Well, lowering rates stimulates the economy and tends to push inflation higher, all else equal. And so, with inflation still above where the Fed wants it to be, it raises the odds of a hot economy with faster growth, but higher prices. That sort of mix might be welcomed by the equity market, which can do better in those booming times. But that same environment tends to be much tougher for credit. And if inflation doesn't end up falling as the Fed cuts rates, well, the Fed may be forced to do fewer rate cuts overall over the next one or two years. Or, even worse, may even have to reverse course and resume hikes – more volatile paths that we don't think the credit market would like. A third scenario is that a forecast at Morgan Stanley for growth, inflation, and the Fed are all correct. The central bank doesn't lower interest rates next month despite currently widespread expectation that they do so. That scenario could still be reasonable for the credit market over the medium term, but it would represent a very big surprise – not too far away, relative to market expectations. For now, markets may very well return to a late August slumber. But we're mindful that we're expecting something quite different than others when that summer ends. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market...]]>239alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1447fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tariffs-impact-on-economy-and-bond-markets--75648576insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today, how are tariffs impacting the economy and what it means for bond markets? It's Wednesday, August 13th at 10:30am in New York. Michael, we've been talking about how the near-term uncertainty around tariff levels has come down. Tariff deals are, of course, still pending with some major U.S. trading partners like China; but agreements are starting to come together. And though there's lots of ways they could break over time, in the near-term, deals like the one with Europe signal that the U.S. might be happy for several months with what's been arranged. And so, the range of outcomes has shrunk. The U.S.' current effective tariff rate of 16 percent is about where we thought we'd be at year end. But that's substantially higher than the roughly 3 percent we started the year with. So, not as bad as it looked like it could have been after tariffs were announced on April 2nd, but still substantially higher. Now's the time when investors should stay away from chasing tariff headlines and guessing what the President might do next; and instead focus on assessing the impact of what's been done. With that as the backdrop, we got some relevant data yesterday, the Consumer Price Index for July. You were expecting that this would show some clear signs of tariffs pushing prices higher. Why was that? Michael Gapen: Well, we did analysis on the 2018-2019 tariff episode. So, in looking at the input-output tables, which give you an idea of how prices move through certain sectors of the economy, and applying that to the 2018 episode of tariffs – we got the result that you should see some tariff inflation in June, and then sequentially more as we move into the late summer and the early fall. So, the short answer, Mike, is a model based plus history-based exercise – that said yes, we should start seeing the effects of tariffs on those categories, where the direct effect is high. So that'd be most of your goods categories. Over time, as we move into later this year or early next year, it'll be more important to think about indirect effects, if any. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the July CPI data that came out yesterday, then did it corroborate this view? Michael Gapen: Yes and no. So, I'm an economist, so I have to do a two-handed view on this. So yes… Michael Zezas: Always fair. Michael Gapen: Always, yes. So, yes, core goods prices rose by two-tenths on the month, in June they also rose by two-tenths. Prior to this goods’ prices were largely flat with some of the big durables, items like autos being negative, right? So, we had all the give back following COVID. So, the prior trend was flat to negative. The last two months, they've shown two-tenths increases. And we've seen upward pressure on things like household furnishings, apparel. We saw a strong used car print this month, motor vehicle and repairs. So, all of that suggests that tariffs are starting to flow through. Now, we didn’t – on the other hand – is we didn't get as much as we thought. New car prices were flat and maybe those price increases will be delayed until models – the 2026 models start hitting the lot. That would be September or later. And we didn't actually; I said apparel. Apparel was up stronger last month. It really wasn't up all that much this month. So, the CPI data for July corroborated the view that the inflation pass through is happening. Where I think it didn't answer the question is how much of it are we going to get and should we expect a lot of it to be front loaded? Or is this going to be a longer process? Michael Zezas: Got it. And then, does that mean that tariffs aren't having the sort of aggregate impact on the economy that many thought they would? Or is maybe the composition of that impact different? So, maybe prices aren't going up so much, but companies are managing those costs in other ways. How would you break that down? Michael Gapen: We would say, and our view is that, yes, you know, we have written down a forecast. And we used our modeling in the 2018-20 19 episode to tell us what's a reasonable forecast for how quickly and to what degree these tariffs should show up in inflation. But obviously, this has been a substantial move in tariffs. They didn't start all at once. They've come in different phases and there's a lot of lags here. So, I just think there's a wide range of potential outcomes here. So, I wouldn't conclude that tariffs are not having the effect we thought they would. I think it's way too early and would be incorrect to conclude, just [be]cause we've had relatively modest tariff pressures in June and July, inflation that we can be sanguine and say it's not a big deal and we should just move on.Michael Zezas: And even so, is it fair to say that there's still plenty of evidence that this is weighing on growth in the way you anticipated? Michael Gapen: I think so. I mean, it's clear the economy has moderated. If we kind of strip out the volatility and trade and inventories, final sales to domestic purchasers 1.5 in the first quarter. It was 1.1 in the second quarter, and a lot of that slowdown was related to spending by the consumer. And a slowdown in business spending. So that that could be a little more, maybe about policy uncertainty and not knowing exactly what to do and how to plan. But it also we think is reflected in a slowdown, in the pace of hiring. So, I would say, you got the policy uncertainty shock first. That also came through the effect of the April 2nd Liberation Day tariffs, which probably caused a freeze in hiring and spending activity for a bit. And now I would say we're moving into the part of the world where the actual increase in tariffs are going to happen. So, we'll know whether or not firms can pass these prices along or not. If they can't, we'll probably get a weaker labor market. If they can, we'll continue to see it in inflation.But Mike, let me ask you a question now. You've had all the fun. Let me turn the table. Michael Zezas: Fair enough. Michael Gapen: How much does it matter for you or your team, whether or not these tariffs are pushing prices higher? And/or delaying cuts from the Fed. How do you think about that on your side? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so this question of composition and lags is really interesting. I think though that if the end state here is as you forecast – that we'll end up with weaker growth, and as a consequence, the Fed will embark on a substantial rate cutting program. Then the direction of travel for bond yields from here is still lower. So, if that's the case, then obviously this would be a favorable backdrop for owners of U.S. treasury bonds. It's probably also good news for owners of corporate credit, but the story's a bit trickier here. If yields move lower on weaker growth, but we ultimately avoid a recession, this might be the sweet spot for corporate credit. You've got fundamental strength holding that limits credit risk, and so you get performance from all in yields declining – both the yield expressed by the risk-free rate, as well as the credit spread. But if we tipped into recession, then naturally we'd expect there to be a repricing of all risk in the market. You'd expect there to be some expression of fundamental weakness and credit spreads would widen. So, government bonds would've been a better product to own in that environment.But, of course, Michael, we have to consider alternative outcomes where yields go higher, and this would turn into a bad environment for bond returns that would appear to be most likely in the scenario where U.S. growth actually ticks higher, resetting expectations for monetary policy in a more hawkish direction.So, what do you think investors should watch for that would lead to that outcome? Is it something like an AI productivity boom or maybe something else that's not on our radar? Michael Gapen: Yeah, so I think that is something investors do have to think about; and let me frame one way to think about that – where ex-post any easing by the Fed as early as September might be retroactively viewed as a policy mistake, right? So, we can say, yes, tariffs should slow down growth and maybe that happens in the second half of this year. The Fed maybe eases rates as a pre-emptive measure or risk management approach to avoid too much weakness in the labor market. So even though the Fed is seeing firming inflation now, which it is. It could ease in September, maybe again in December [be]cause it's worried about the labor market. So maybe that's what dominates 2025. And, and like you said, perhaps in the very near term, continues to pull bond prices lower. But what if we get into 2026 and the tariff effect or the tariff drag on growth fades, and the consumer begins to accelerate. So, we don't have a recession, we just get a bit of a divot in growth and then the economy recovers. Then fiscal policy kicks in, right? We don't think the One Big, Beautiful Bill act will provide a lot of stimulus, but we could be wrong. It could kickstart animal spirits and bring forward a lot of business spending. And then maybe AI, as you said; that could be a combining factor and financial conditions would be very easy in that world, in part – given that the Fed has eased, right? So that that could be a world where, you know, growth is modest, but it's firming. Inflation]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RTGiC_1mSN8vx5-Jb7orl8ArC8cGWrOPJK5E3O16Dl8Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyAlthough tariff negotiations continue, deals are being made, shifting investor focus on assessing the fallout. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen consider the ripple...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today, how are tariffs impacting the economy and what it means for bond markets? It's Wednesday, August 13th at 10:30am in New York. Michael, we've been talking about how the near-term uncertainty around tariff levels has come down. Tariff deals are, of course, still pending with some major U.S. trading partners like China; but agreements are starting to come together. And though there's lots of ways they could break over time, in the near-term, deals like the one with Europe signal that the U.S. might be happy for several months with what's been arranged. And so, the range of outcomes has shrunk. The U.S.' current effective tariff rate of 16 percent is about where we thought we'd be at year end. But that's substantially higher than the roughly 3 percent we started the year with. So, not as bad as it looked like it could have been after tariffs were announced on April 2nd, but still substantially higher. Now's the time when investors should stay away from chasing tariff headlines and guessing what the President might do next; and instead focus on assessing the impact of what's been done. With that as the backdrop, we got some relevant data yesterday, the Consumer Price Index for July. You were expecting that this would show some clear signs of tariffs pushing prices higher. Why was that? Michael Gapen: Well, we did analysis on the 2018-2019 tariff episode. So, in looking at the input-output tables, which give you an idea of how prices move through certain sectors of the economy, and applying that to the 2018 episode of tariffs – we got the result that you should see some tariff inflation in June, and then sequentially more as we move into the late summer and the early fall. So, the short answer, Mike, is a model based plus history-based exercise – that said yes, we should start seeing the effects of tariffs on those categories, where the direct effect is high. So that'd be most of your goods categories. Over time, as we move into later this year or early next year, it'll be more important to think about indirect effects, if any. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the July CPI data that came out yesterday, then did it corroborate this view? Michael Gapen: Yes and no. So, I'm an economist, so I have to do a two-handed view on this. So yes… Michael Zezas: Always fair. Michael Gapen: Always, yes. So, yes, core goods prices rose by two-tenths on the month, in June they also rose by two-tenths. Prior to this goods’ prices were largely flat with some of the big durables, items like autos being negative, right? So, we had all the give back following COVID. So, the prior trend was flat to negative. The last two months, they've shown two-tenths increases. And we've seen upward pressure on things like household furnishings, apparel. We saw a strong used car print this month, motor vehicle and repairs. So, all of that suggests that tariffs are starting to flow through. Now, we didn’t – on the other hand – is we didn't get as much as we thought. New car prices were flat and maybe those price increases will be delayed until models – the 2026 models start hitting the lot. That would be September or later. And we didn't actually; I said apparel. Apparel was up stronger last month. It really wasn't up all that much this month. So, the CPI data for July...]]>634alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1446fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-credibility-of-inflation-targets--75648568insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about how inflation targets of central banks matter for market participants and economic activity.It's Tuesday, August 12th at 10am in New York. Tariff driven inflation is at the center of financial market debates right now. The received wisdom is that a central bank should look through one-off increases in prices if – and it is an important if – inflation expectations are anchored low enough. Inflation targets, inflation expectations, and central bank credibility have been debated for decades. The Fed's much criticized view that COVID inflation would be transitory was based on the assumption that anchored inflation expectations would pull inflation down. The Fed is more cautious now after four years of above target inflation. Can a central bank simply announce an inflation target and get everyone to believe it? Far away from the U.S., the South Africa Reserve Bank, SARB, is providing a real time experiment. The SARB’s inflation target was originally a range of 3 to 6 per cent, with an intention to shift to 2 to 4 percent over time. At its last meeting, the SARB announced that it was going to target the bottom end of the range, de facto shifting to a 3 percent target. A decision by the Ministry of Finance in the coming months is likely necessary to formalise the outcome, but the SARB has succeeded in pulling inflation down. It has established credibility, but we suspect that more work is needed to anchor inflation expectations firmly at 3 percent. Key to the SARS challenge, as the Fed’s – the central bank cannot control all the drivers of inflation in the short run. For South Africa, fiscal targets and exchange rate movements are prime examples. The experience in Brazil offers insight for South Africa. The BCB adopted an inflation target in 1999 following the end of the currency peg that helps the transition away from hyperinflation. The target was initially set at 8 percent, lowered to 4.5 percent in 2005, and then lowered again to 3 percent in 2024.Fiscal outcomes, market expectations, and currency volatility have been hard to contain. The lessons apply to South Africa and also the Fed. Successful inflation targeting relies on a clear framework, but also on institutional strength and political consensus. For South Africa, as inflation falls ex-ante real interest rates will rise. That outcome will be necessary to restrain the economy enough to make sure that the path to 3 percent is achieved. For an open EM economy, there likely needs to be consistency by both monetary and fiscal authorities with regard to short-term pressures, both internal and external. While we ultimately expect the SARB to be able to anchor inflation expectations, the journey may not be a quick one; and that journey will likely depend on keeping real interest rates on the higher side to ensure the convergence.We take the experiences of South Africa and Brazil to be informative globally. Simply announcing an inflation target likely does not solve the problem. The Fed, for example, spent much of the 2010s hoping to get inflation up to target – while now ironically, inflation in the US has run above target for almost half a decade. Whether the lingering effects of the COVID inflation has affected the price setting mechanism is unclear, as is whether tariff driven inflation will exacerbate the situation. Our read of the evidence is that inflation expectations and central bank credibility come from hitting the target, not from announcing it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tet-0uTj3A2CYPDkZ6wCkcSCGeqEEp5rKYCpfl2zkcwTue, 12 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyCan a central bank simply announce an inflation target and get everyone to believe it? Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha looks at the cases of South Africa and Brazil to explain why it’s a subject of decades-long debate. Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about how inflation targets of central banks matter for market participants and economic activity.It's Tuesday, August 12th at 10am in New York. Tariff driven inflation is at the center of financial market debates right now. The received wisdom is that a central bank should look through one-off increases in prices if – and it is an important if – inflation expectations are anchored low enough. Inflation targets, inflation expectations, and central bank credibility have been debated for decades. The Fed's much criticized view that COVID inflation would be transitory was based on the assumption that anchored inflation expectations would pull inflation down. The Fed is more cautious now after four years of above target inflation. Can a central bank simply announce an inflation target and get everyone to believe it? Far away from the U.S., the South Africa Reserve Bank, SARB, is providing a real time experiment. The SARB’s inflation target was originally a range of 3 to 6 per cent, with an intention to shift to 2 to 4 percent over time. At its last meeting, the SARB announced that it was going to target the bottom end of the range, de facto shifting to a 3 percent target. A decision by the Ministry of Finance in the coming months is likely necessary to formalise the outcome, but the SARB has succeeded in pulling inflation down. It has established credibility, but we suspect that more work is needed to anchor inflation expectations firmly at 3 percent. Key to the SARS challenge, as the Fed’s – the central bank cannot control all the drivers of inflation in the short run. For South Africa, fiscal targets and exchange rate movements are prime examples. The experience in Brazil offers insight for South Africa. The BCB adopted an inflation target in 1999 following the end of the currency peg that helps the transition away from hyperinflation. The target was initially set at 8 percent, lowered to 4.5 percent in 2005, and then lowered again to 3 percent in 2024.Fiscal outcomes, market expectations, and currency volatility have been hard to contain. The lessons apply to South Africa and also the Fed. Successful inflation targeting relies on a clear framework, but also on institutional strength and political consensus. For South Africa, as inflation falls ex-ante real interest rates will rise. That outcome will be necessary to restrain the economy enough to make sure that the path to 3 percent is achieved. For an open EM economy, there likely needs to be consistency by both monetary and fiscal authorities with regard to short-term pressures, both internal and external. While we ultimately expect the SARB to be able to anchor inflation expectations, the journey may not be a quick one; and that journey will likely depend on keeping real interest rates on the higher side to ensure the convergence.We take the experiences of South Africa and Brazil to be informative globally. Simply announcing an inflation target likely does not solve the problem. The Fed, for example, spent much of the 2010s hoping to get inflation up to target – while now ironically, inflation in the US has run above target for almost half a decade. Whether the lingering effects of the COVID inflation has affected the price setting mechanism is unclear, as is whether tariff driven inflation will exacerbate the situation. Our read of the evidence is that inflation expectations and central bank credibility come from hitting the target,...]]>298alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1445fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-ai-is-driving-the-digital-revolution-in-sports--75648587insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Cesar Medina: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Cesar Medina, Morgan Stanley’s Latin America Technology, Media, and Telecom Analyst. Today – we discuss what’s driving the digital revolution in global sports. And what it means for fans as well as investors. It’s Monday, August 11th, at 10am in New York.These days, watching a sporting event at home usually means streaming the big game on a large 4K HDR screen. Maybe even 8K for premium events. You might access real time stats from a supporting app or social media on a secondary device. Maybe even have a group chat with friends. But imagine a game with real-time personalized stats. Immersive alternate camera angles. Or even experiencing the match from a player's perspective—all powered by AI. These innovations are already being tested and rolled out in select leagues. Global sports generates half a trillion dollars in annual revenues. Despite all that cash, until very recently the industry was slow to embrace digital technology, lagging behind movies and music. Now that’s changing – and fast.So, what’s driving this transformation? Three powerful forces are closing this digital gap. One – younger, tech-savvy audiences demanding more immersive and personalized experiences. Two – new distribution models, with digital platforms stepping into the arena. And three – institutional investment, bringing capital and a push for modernization. You might ask – what does this all mean for fans, investors, and the future of entertainment? Let’s start with fans. Today’s sports fans aren’t just watching—they’re interacting, betting, gaming, and sharing. And younger fans are leading the charge. They are spending more time online and expect hyper-personalized content. They're more interested in individual athletes than teams, and they engage through social media, fantasy sports, and interactive platforms. Surveys show that fans under 35 are significantly more likely to spend money on sports if the experience is digital-first. Some leagues have seen viewership jump by 40 percent after introducing interactive features. Others are using AI to personalize content, boosting engagement and revenue. Digital transformation isn’t just about watching games though—it’s about reimagining the entire ecosystem. When it comes to live events, smart venues are using AI to adjust ticket prices based on weather, opposing team, and demand. Some are even using facial recognition for faster entry and purchases. Streaming platforms are making broadcasts more interactive, while combating piracy with predictive tech. As for engagement, fantasy sports, esports, and betting are booming. AI-driven platforms are helping fans make smarter picks—and spend more. Altogether, these innovations could boost global sports revenues by over 25 percent, adding more than $130 billion in value. While North America leads in monetization, Emerging Markets are catching up fast. In India, Brazil, and the Middle East, for example, sports franchises are seeing double-digit growth in value—sometimes outpacing traditional media. And here’s the kicker: many of these regions have younger populations and faster-growing digital adoption. That’s a recipe for serious growth. Meanwhile, niche sports and women’s leagues are also gaining global traction, expanding the definition of mainstream entertainment. Of course, this transformation of the sports industry faces real hurdles—technical expertise, budget constraints, and cultural resistance among coaches and athletes. But the incentives are clear. And as more capital flows into sports—from private equity to sovereign wealth funds—digital transformation is becoming a strategic priority. So, what’s the biggest takeaway? Global sports is no longer just about what happens on the field. It’s about how fans experience it—on their phones, in their homes, and in the stadiums of the future. So whether you’re an investor, a fan, or just someone who loves a good underdog story, this is a game worth watching. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UAl34ZXEvjon1GseeCtIephM9vQ1xeI13IZNKC1O-VYMon, 11 Aug 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research looks at how changes in demographics, ownership, and distribution can boost tech adoption to revolutionize the global sports industry.  Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Cesar Medina: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Cesar Medina, Morgan Stanley’s Latin America Technology, Media, and Telecom Analyst. Today – we discuss what’s driving the digital revolution in global sports. And what it means for fans as well as investors. It’s Monday, August 11th, at 10am in New York.These days, watching a sporting event at home usually means streaming the big game on a large 4K HDR screen. Maybe even 8K for premium events. You might access real time stats from a supporting app or social media on a secondary device. Maybe even have a group chat with friends. But imagine a game with real-time personalized stats. Immersive alternate camera angles. Or even experiencing the match from a player's perspective—all powered by AI. These innovations are already being tested and rolled out in select leagues. Global sports generates half a trillion dollars in annual revenues. Despite all that cash, until very recently the industry was slow to embrace digital technology, lagging behind movies and music. Now that’s changing – and fast.So, what’s driving this transformation? Three powerful forces are closing this digital gap. One – younger, tech-savvy audiences demanding more immersive and personalized experiences. Two – new distribution models, with digital platforms stepping into the arena. And three – institutional investment, bringing capital and a push for modernization. You might ask – what does this all mean for fans, investors, and the future of entertainment? Let’s start with fans. Today’s sports fans aren’t just watching—they’re interacting, betting, gaming, and sharing. And younger fans are leading the charge. They are spending more time online and expect hyper-personalized content. They're more interested in individual athletes than teams, and they engage through social media, fantasy sports, and interactive platforms. Surveys show that fans under 35 are significantly more likely to spend money on sports if the experience is digital-first. Some leagues have seen viewership jump by 40 percent after introducing interactive features. Others are using AI to personalize content, boosting engagement and revenue. Digital transformation isn’t just about watching games though—it’s about reimagining the entire ecosystem. When it comes to live events, smart venues are using AI to adjust ticket prices based on weather, opposing team, and demand. Some are even using facial recognition for faster entry and purchases. Streaming platforms are making broadcasts more interactive, while combating piracy with predictive tech. As for engagement, fantasy sports, esports, and betting are booming. AI-driven platforms are helping fans make smarter picks—and spend more. Altogether, these innovations could boost global sports revenues by over 25 percent, adding more than $130 billion in value. While North America leads in monetization, Emerging Markets are catching up fast. In India, Brazil, and the Middle East, for example, sports franchises are seeing double-digit growth in value—sometimes outpacing traditional media. And here’s the kicker: many of these regions have younger populations and faster-growing digital adoption. That’s a recipe for serious growth. Meanwhile, niche sports and women’s leagues are also gaining global traction, expanding the definition of mainstream entertainment. Of course, this transformation of the sports industry faces real hurdles—technical expertise, budget constraints, and cultural resistance among coaches and athletes. But the incentives are clear. And as more capital flows into sports—from private equity to sovereign wealth funds—digital...]]>301alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1444fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/backpacks-laptops-and-sneakers--75648557Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today -- we're going back to school! A look at the second biggest shopping season in the U.S.. And what it can tell us about the broader market.It’s Friday, August 8th, at 10am in New York.It's that time of the year again. With parents, caregivers and students making shopping lists for back-to-school supplies. And it’s not just limited to school supplies and backpacks. It probably also includes laptops or tablets, smart phones and, of course, the latest clothes. For investors, understanding how consumers are feeling—and spending—right now is critical. Why? Because back-to-school spending tells us a lot about consumer sentiment. And this month’s data has been sending some mixed but meaningful signals.Let’s start with the mood on Main Street. According to our latest proprietary consumer survey, confidence in the economy is sliding. Just under one-third of consumers think the economy will improve over the next six months—which is down from 37 percent last month and 44 percent in January. And that’s a pretty big drop from the start of the year. Meanwhile, half of all consumers expect the economy to get worse.Household finances are also feeling the squeeze. While around 40 percent expect their financial situation to improve, closer to 30 percent expect it to worsen. The net score is still positive, but down from last month and even more so from January.The takeaway? Consumers are feeling the pinch—and inflation remains their number one concern.We did see a bit of a brighter picture though around tariff fears. And tariffs are definitely still a worry, but we’re past that point of peak fear. This month, over a third of consumers said they’re “very concerned” about tariffs—down from 43 percent in April, post Liberation Day. And fewer people are planning to cut back on spending because of them: that number is just 30 percent now, compared to over 40 percent a few months ago.In fact, almost 30 percent of consumers actually plan to spend more despite tariffs. That’s a sign of resilience—and perhaps necessity—as families prepare for the school year.And that brings us back to back-to-school shopping, which is a relative bright spot.Nearly half of U.S. consumers have already shopped or are planning to shop for the school year—right in line with what we saw in previous years. Among those shoppers, 47 percent are spending more than last year, while only 14 percent plan to spend less. That’s a significant net positive at 34 percent.What’s in the cart? More than 90 percent of shoppers are buying apparel, footwear, and school supplies. Apparel leads, followed by footwear, followed by supplies.If we look beyond the classroom at other things people are spending on, travel is still a priority. Around 60 percent of consumers plan to travel over the next six months, with visiting friends and family as the top reason. That’s consistent with where we were a year ago and shows that experiences still matter—even in uncertain times.The big takeaway from all this data: Consumer sentiment is cooling, but spending—especially spending for seasonal needs—is holding up. Back-to-school categories like apparel and footwear are outperforming, making them potential bright spots for retailers.As we head into fall, keep your eyes on U.S. consumers. They’re not just shopping for school—they’re also signaling where the market could be headed next.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/m1M1z46j0JBGGSqYEESc1g0Rw0v1RZuGjy3YJCrDTjQFri, 08 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses what back-to-school spending trends reveal about consumer sentiment and the U.S. economy. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today -- we're going back to school! A look at the second biggest shopping season in the U.S.. And what it can tell us about the broader market.It’s Friday, August 8th, at 10am in New York.It's that time of the year again. With parents, caregivers and students making shopping lists for back-to-school supplies. And it’s not just limited to school supplies and backpacks. It probably also includes laptops or tablets, smart phones and, of course, the latest clothes. For investors, understanding how consumers are feeling—and spending—right now is critical. Why? Because back-to-school spending tells us a lot about consumer sentiment. And this month’s data has been sending some mixed but meaningful signals.Let’s start with the mood on Main Street. According to our latest proprietary consumer survey, confidence in the economy is sliding. Just under one-third of consumers think the economy will improve over the next six months—which is down from 37 percent last month and 44 percent in January. And that’s a pretty big drop from the start of the year. Meanwhile, half of all consumers expect the economy to get worse.Household finances are also feeling the squeeze. While around 40 percent expect their financial situation to improve, closer to 30 percent expect it to worsen. The net score is still positive, but down from last month and even more so from January.The takeaway? Consumers are feeling the pinch—and inflation remains their number one concern.We did see a bit of a brighter picture though around tariff fears. And tariffs are definitely still a worry, but we’re past that point of peak fear. This month, over a third of consumers said they’re “very concerned” about tariffs—down from 43 percent in April, post Liberation Day. And fewer people are planning to cut back on spending because of them: that number is just 30 percent now, compared to over 40 percent a few months ago.In fact, almost 30 percent of consumers actually plan to spend more despite tariffs. That’s a sign of resilience—and perhaps necessity—as families prepare for the school year.And that brings us back to back-to-school shopping, which is a relative bright spot.Nearly half of U.S. consumers have already shopped or are planning to shop for the school year—right in line with what we saw in previous years. Among those shoppers, 47 percent are spending more than last year, while only 14 percent plan to spend less. That’s a significant net positive at 34 percent.What’s in the cart? More than 90 percent of shoppers are buying apparel, footwear, and school supplies. Apparel leads, followed by footwear, followed by supplies.If we look beyond the classroom at other things people are spending on, travel is still a priority. Around 60 percent of consumers plan to travel over the next six months, with visiting friends and family as the top reason. That’s consistent with where we were a year ago and shows that experiences still matter—even in uncertain times.The big takeaway from all this data: Consumer sentiment is cooling, but spending—especially spending for seasonal needs—is holding up. Back-to-school categories like apparel and footwear are outperforming, making them potential bright spots for retailers.As we head into fall, keep your eyes on U.S. consumers. They’re not just shopping for school—they’re also signaling where the market could be headed next.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market...]]>245alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1443fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-whiff-of-stagflation--75648572Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – how a tricky two months could feel a lot like stagflation, and a lot different from what we’ve had so far this year.It’s Thursday, August 7th, at 2pm in London. For all the sound and fury around tariffs in 2025, financial markets have been resilient. Stocks are higher, bond yields are lower, credit spreads are near 20-year tights, and market volatility last month plummeted.Indeed, we sense increasing comfort with the idea that markets were tested by tariffs – after all we’ve been talking about them since February – and weathered the storm. So far this year, growth has generally held up, inflation has generally come down, and corporate earnings have generally been fine.Yet we think this might be a bit like a wide receiver celebrating on the 5-yard line. The tricky impact of tariffs? Well, it might be starting to show up in the data right now, with more to come over the next several months.When thinking about the supposed risk from tariffs, it’s always been two fold: higher prices and then also less activity, given more uncertainty for businesses, and thus weaker growth.And what did we see last week? Well, so-called core-PCE inflation, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, showed that prices were once again rising and at a faster rate. A key report on the health of the U.S. jobs market showed weak jobs growth. And key surveys from the Institute of Supply Management, which are followed because the respondents are real people in the middle of real supply chains, cited lower levels of new orders, and higher prices being paid.In short, higher prices and slower growth. An unpleasant combo often summarized as stagflation.Now, maybe this was just one bad week. But it matters because it is coming right about the time that Morgan Stanley economists think we’ll see more data like it. On their forecasts, U.S. growth will look a lot slower in the second half of the year than the first. And specifically, it is in the next three months, which should show higher rates of month-over-month inflation, while also seeing slower activity.This would be a different pattern of data that we’ve seen so far this year. And so if these forecasts are correct, it’s not that markets have already passed the test. It's that the teacher is only now handing it out. For credit, we think this could make the next several months uncomfortable and drive some modest spread widening. Credit still has many things going for it, including attractive yields and generally good corporate performance. But this mix of slower growth and higher inflation, well, it’s new. It’s coming during an August/September period, which is often somewhat more challenging for credit. And all this leads us to think that a strong market will take a breather.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7mlMPe6DAGxZsGeJAADjcc5yivrGR5LEyumDSmPfoIkThu, 07 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtySo far, markets have shown resilience, despite the volatility. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets points out that economic data might tell a different story over the next few months, with a likely impact on yields. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – how a tricky two months could feel a lot like stagflation, and a lot different from what we’ve had so far this year.It’s Thursday, August 7th, at 2pm in London. For all the sound and fury around tariffs in 2025, financial markets have been resilient. Stocks are higher, bond yields are lower, credit spreads are near 20-year tights, and market volatility last month plummeted.Indeed, we sense increasing comfort with the idea that markets were tested by tariffs – after all we’ve been talking about them since February – and weathered the storm. So far this year, growth has generally held up, inflation has generally come down, and corporate earnings have generally been fine.Yet we think this might be a bit like a wide receiver celebrating on the 5-yard line. The tricky impact of tariffs? Well, it might be starting to show up in the data right now, with more to come over the next several months.When thinking about the supposed risk from tariffs, it’s always been two fold: higher prices and then also less activity, given more uncertainty for businesses, and thus weaker growth.And what did we see last week? Well, so-called core-PCE inflation, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, showed that prices were once again rising and at a faster rate. A key report on the health of the U.S. jobs market showed weak jobs growth. And key surveys from the Institute of Supply Management, which are followed because the respondents are real people in the middle of real supply chains, cited lower levels of new orders, and higher prices being paid.In short, higher prices and slower growth. An unpleasant combo often summarized as stagflation.Now, maybe this was just one bad week. But it matters because it is coming right about the time that Morgan Stanley economists think we’ll see more data like it. On their forecasts, U.S. growth will look a lot slower in the second half of the year than the first. And specifically, it is in the next three months, which should show higher rates of month-over-month inflation, while also seeing slower activity.This would be a different pattern of data that we’ve seen so far this year. And so if these forecasts are correct, it’s not that markets have already passed the test. It's that the teacher is only now handing it out. For credit, we think this could make the next several months uncomfortable and drive some modest spread widening. Credit still has many things going for it, including attractive yields and generally good corporate performance. But this mix of slower growth and higher inflation, well, it’s new. It’s coming during an August/September period, which is often somewhat more challenging for credit. And all this leads us to think that a strong market will take a breather.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>213alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1442fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-credit-markets-could-finance-ai-s-trillion-dollar-gap--75648199Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: Today we want to talk about the opportunities and challenges in the credit markets, in the context of AI and data center financing.It's Wednesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Vishwas spending on AI and data centers is really not new. It's been going on for a while. How has this CapEx been financed so far predominantly? What has changed now? And why do we need greater involvement of credit markets of different stripes?Vishwas Patkar: You're right, Vishy. So, CapEx on AI is certainly not new. So last year the hyperscalers alone spent more than $200 billion on AI related CapEx. What changes from here on, to your question, is the numbers just ramp up sharply. So, if you look at Morgan Stanley's estimates leveraging work done by our colleague Stephen Byrd over the next four years, there's about [$]2.9 trillion of CapEx that needs to be spent across hardware and data center bills.So what changes is, while CapEx so far has been largely self-funded by hyperscalers, we think that will not be the case going forward. So, when we leverage the work that has been done by our equity research colleagues around how much the hyperscalers can spend, we've identified a [$]1.5 trillion financing gap that has to be met by external capital. And we think credit would play a big role in that.Vishy Tirupattur: A financing gap of [$]1.5 trillion. Wow. That's a big number, by any measure. You talked about multiple credit channels that would need to be involved. Can you talk about rough sizing of these channels?Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we looked at four broad channels in the report that went out a few weeks ago. So, that [$]1.5 trillion gap breaks out into roughly [$]800 billion across private credit, which we think will be led by asset-based finance. Another [$]200 billion we think will come from Investment Grade rated bond issuance from the large tech names. Another [$]150 billion comes through securitized credit issuance via data center ABS and CMBS. And then finally there is a [$]350 billion plug that we've used. It's a catchall term for all other forms of financing that can cover sovereign spend, PE (private equity), VC among others,Vishy Tirupattur: The technology sector is fairly small within the context of corporate grade markets. You are estimating something like [$]200 billion of financing to come from this channel. Why not more?Vishwas Patkar: So, I think it comes down to really willingness versus ability. And, you know, you raise a good point. Tech names certainly have a lot of capacity to issue debt. And when I look at some of the work done by my colleague Lindsay Tyler in this report, the big four hyperscalers alone could issue over [$]600 billion of incremental debt without hurting their credit ratings.That said, our assumption is that early in the CapEx cycle, companies will be a little hesitant to do significantly debt funded investments as that might be seen as a suboptimal outcome for shareholder returns. And that's why we have reduced the magnitude of how much debt issuance could be vis-a-vis the actual capacity some of these companies have.So, Vishy, I talked about private credit meeting about half of the investment gap that we've identified and within that asset-based finance being a very important channel. So, what is ABF and why do you expect it to play such a big role in financing AI and data centers?Vishy Tirupattur: So, ABF is a very broad term for financing arrangements within the context of private credit. These are financing arrangements that are secured by loans and contractual cash flows such as leases – either with hard assets or without hard assets. So, the underlying concept itself is pretty widely used in securitizations.So, the difference between ABF structures and ABS structures is that the ABF structures are highly bespoke. They enable lots of customization to fit the specific needs of the investors and issuers in terms of risk tolerance, ratings, returns, duration, term, et cetera.So, ABS structures, on the other hand, are pretty standardized structures, you know, driven mainly by rating agencies – often requiring fairly stabilized cash flows with very strict requirements of lessee characteristics and sometimes residual value guarantees, in cases where hard assets are actually part of the collateral package.So, ABF opens up a wider range of possible structures and financing options to include assets that are on different stages of development. Remember, this is a very nascent industry. So, there are data centers that are fully stabilized cash flows, and there are data centers that are in very early stages of building with just land, or land and power access just being established.So, ABF structures can really do it in the form of a single asset or single facility financing or could include a portfolio of multiple assets and facilities that are in different stages of development.So, put all these things together, the nascent nature and the bespoke needs of data center financing call for a solution like ABF.Vishwas Patkar: And then taking a step back. So, as you said, the [$]1.5 trillion financing gap; I mean, that's a big number. That's larger than the size of the high yield market and the leveraged loan market.So, the question is, who are the investors in these structures, and where do you think the money ultimately comes from?Vishy Tirupattur: So, there is really a favorable alignment here of significant and substantial dry powder across different credit markets. And they're looking for attractive yields with appeal to a sticky investor base. This end investor base consists of investors such as insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, endowments, and high net worth retail individuals.Vishy Tirupattur: These are looking for scalable high quality asset exposures that can provide diversification benefits. And what we are talking about in terms of AI and data center financing precisely fall into that kind of investment. And we think this alignment of the need for capital and need for investments, that bridges this gap for [$]1.5 trillion that we're talking about here.So, my final question to you, Vishwas, is this. Where could we be wrong in our assessment of the financing through the various credit market channels?Vishwas Patkar: With the caveat that there are a lot of assumptions and moving parts in the framework that we build, I would flag really two risks. One macro, one micro.The macro one I would talk about in the context of credit market capacity. A lot of the favorable dynamics that you talked about come from where the level of rates are. So, if the economy slows and yields were to drop sharply, then I think the demand that credit markets are seeing could come into question, could see a slowdown over the coming years.The more micro risks, I think really come from how quickly or how slowly AI gets monetized by the big tech names. So, while we are quite optimistic about revenue generation a few years out, if in reality revenues are stronger than expected, then you could see more reliance on the public markets.So, for instance, the 200 billion of corporate bond issuance is likely going to be skewed higher in a more optimistic scenario. On the flip side, if there is mmuch ore uncertainty around the path to revenue generation, and if you see hyperscalers pulling back a bit on CapEx – then at the margin that could push more financing to the way of credit markets. In which case the overall [$]1.5 trillion number could also be biased higher.So those are the two big risks in my view.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Vishwas, any way you look at it, these numbers are big. And whether you are involved in AI or whether you're thinking about credit markets, these are numbers and developments that you cannot ignore.So, Vishwas, thanks so much for joining.Vishwas Patkar: Thank you for having me on Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DG5W6ZHsIAJ4f7p7koIpngCjbpi3A1EXdz39l2gBRwcWed, 06 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyUntil now, the AI buildout has largely been self-funded. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and our Head of U.S. Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar explain the role of credit markets to fund a potential financing gap of $1.5 trillion as...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: Today we want to talk about the opportunities and challenges in the credit markets, in the context of AI and data center financing.It's Wednesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Vishwas spending on AI and data centers is really not new. It's been going on for a while. How has this CapEx been financed so far predominantly? What has changed now? And why do we need greater involvement of credit markets of different stripes?Vishwas Patkar: You're right, Vishy. So, CapEx on AI is certainly not new. So last year the hyperscalers alone spent more than $200 billion on AI related CapEx. What changes from here on, to your question, is the numbers just ramp up sharply. So, if you look at Morgan Stanley's estimates leveraging work done by our colleague Stephen Byrd over the next four years, there's about [$]2.9 trillion of CapEx that needs to be spent across hardware and data center bills.So what changes is, while CapEx so far has been largely self-funded by hyperscalers, we think that will not be the case going forward. So, when we leverage the work that has been done by our equity research colleagues around how much the hyperscalers can spend, we've identified a [$]1.5 trillion financing gap that has to be met by external capital. And we think credit would play a big role in that.Vishy Tirupattur: A financing gap of [$]1.5 trillion. Wow. That's a big number, by any measure. You talked about multiple credit channels that would need to be involved. Can you talk about rough sizing of these channels?Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we looked at four broad channels in the report that went out a few weeks ago. So, that [$]1.5 trillion gap breaks out into roughly [$]800 billion across private credit, which we think will be led by asset-based finance. Another [$]200 billion we think will come from Investment Grade rated bond issuance from the large tech names. Another [$]150 billion comes through securitized credit issuance via data center ABS and CMBS. And then finally there is a [$]350 billion plug that we've used. It's a catchall term for all other forms of financing that can cover sovereign spend, PE (private equity), VC among others,Vishy Tirupattur: The technology sector is fairly small within the context of corporate grade markets. You are estimating something like [$]200 billion of financing to come from this channel. Why not more?Vishwas Patkar: So, I think it comes down to really willingness versus ability. And, you know, you raise a good point. Tech names certainly have a lot of capacity to issue debt. And when I look at some of the work done by my colleague Lindsay Tyler in this report, the big four hyperscalers alone could issue over [$]600 billion of incremental debt without hurting their credit ratings.That said, our assumption is that early in the CapEx cycle, companies will be a little hesitant to do significantly debt funded investments as that might be seen as a suboptimal outcome for shareholder returns. And that's why we have reduced the magnitude of how much debt issuance could be vis-a-vis the actual capacity some of these companies have.So, Vishy, I talked about private credit meeting about half of the investment gap that we've identified and within that asset-based finance being a very...]]>513alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1441fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/higher-bar-for-september-rate-cut--75648667Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today – a look back at last week’s meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC, and the path for rates from here.It's Tuesday, August 5th at 10am in New York.Mike, last week the Fed met for the fifth time this year. The committee didn't provide a summary of their economic projections, but they did update their official policy statement. And of course, Chair Powell spoke at the press conference. How would you characterize the tone of both?Michael Gapen: Yeah, at first the statement I thought took on a slightly dovish tone for two reasons. One, unexpected; the other expected. So, the committee did revise down their assessment of growth and economic activity. They had previously described the economy as growing at a quote, ‘solid pace,’ and now they said, you know, the incoming data suggests that growth and economic activity moderated.So that's true. That's actually our view as well. We think the data points to that. The second reason the statement looked a little dovish, and this was expected is the Fed received two dissents. So, Governors Bowman and Waller both dissented in favor of a 25 basis point rate cut at the July meeting.But then the press conference started. And I would characterize that as Powell having at least some renewed concerns around persistence of inflation. So, he did recognize or acknowledge that the June inflation data showed a tariff impulse. But I'd say the more hawkish overtones really came in his description of the labor market, which I know were going to get into.And we've been kind of wondering and, you know, asking implicitly – is the Fed ever going to take a stand on what constitutes a healthy and/or weak labor market? And Powell, I think put down a lot of markers in the direction; that said, it's not so much about employment growth, it's about a low unemployment rate. And he kept describing the labor market as solid, and in healthy condition, and at full employment. So, the combination of that suggests it's a higher bar, in our mind, for the Fed to cut in September.Matthew Hornbach: And on the labor market, if we could dig a little bit deeper on that point. It did seem to me certainly that Powell was channeling your views on the labor market.Michael Gapen: Well, I wish I had that power but thank you.Matthew Hornbach: Well. I'd like to now channel your views – and of course his views – to our listeners. Can you just go a little bit deeper into this dichotomy that you've been highlighting between the pace of job growth and the unemployment rate itself?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Our thesis and what we've laid out coming into the year, and we think the data supports, is the idea that immigration controls have really slowed growth in the labor force. And what that means is the break-even rate of employment has come down.So even as economic growth has slowed and demand for labor has slowed, and therefore employment growth has slowed – the unemployment rate has stayed low, and there's some paradox in that. Normally when employment growth weakens, we think the economy's rolling over; the Fed should be easing.But in an environment of a very slow growing labor force, the two can coincide. And there's tension in that, we recognize. But our view is – the more the administration pushes in the direction of restraining immigration, the more likely it is you'll see the combination of low employment growth, but a low unemployment rate. And our view is that still means the labor market is tight.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed, indeed. Just one last question from me. How are you thinking about the Fed's policy path from here? In particular, how are you looking at the remaining data that could get the Fed to cut rates in September?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that there's no magic sauce here, if you will; or secret sauce. Powell, you know, essentially is laying out a case where it's more likely than not inflation will be deviating from the 2 percent target as tariffs get passed through to consumer prices. And the flag that he planted on the labor market suggests maybe they're leaning in the direction of thinking the unemployment rates is likely to stay low.So, we just need more revelations on this front. And the gap between the July and the September FOMC meetings is the longest on the Fed's calendar. So, they will see two inflation reports and two labor market reports. And again, it just to provide context and color, right? What I think Powell was doing was positioning his view against the two dissents that he received. So where, for example, Governor Waller laid out a case where weaker employment growth could justify cuts, Powell was reflecting the view of the rest of the committee that said, ‘Well, it's not really employment growth, it's about that unemployment rate.’So, when these data arrive, we'll be kind of weighing both of those components. What does employment growth look like going forward? How weak is it? And what's happening to that unemployment rate?So, if the Fed's doing its job, this shouldn't be magic. If the labor market's obviously rolling over, you'll get cuts later this year. If not, we think our view will play out and the Fed will be on the sideline through, you know, early 2026 before it moves to rate cuts then.So Matt, what I'd like to do is kind of turn from the economics over to the rates views. How did the rates market respond to the meeting, to the statement, to the press conference? How are you thinking about the market pricing of the policy path into your end?Matthew Hornbach: So initially when the statement was released, as you noted, it had a dovish flavor to it. And so, we had a small repricing in the interest rate market, putting a little bit of a higher probability, on the idea that the Fed would lower rates in September. But then as Chair Powell began the press conference and started to articulate his views around both inflation and the labor market we saw the market take out some probability that the Fed would lower rates in September.And where it ended up at the end of that particular day was putting about a 50 percent probability on a rate cut and as a result of 50 percent probability of no rate cut; leaving the data to really dictate where the pricing of that meeting would go from there.That to me speaks to this data dependence of the Fed, as you've discussed. And I think that in the coming weeks we get more of this data that you talked about, both on the inflation side of the mandate and on the labor market side of the mandate. And ultimately, if they end up, going in September, I would've expected the market to have priced most of that in, ahead of the meeting. And if they end up not cutting rates in September, then naturally the market will have moved in that direction ahead of time.And again, I think what ends up happening in September will be critical for how the market ends up pricing the evolution of policy in November and December. But to me, what I think is more interesting is your view on 2026. And in that regard, the market is still some distance away from your view, that the Fed goes about 175 basis points in 2026.Michael Gapen: Yeah, I mean, we're still thinking the lagged effects of tariffs and immigration will slow the economy enough to get more Fed cuts than the market's thinking. But, you know, we'll see if that happens. And maybe that's a topic we can turn back to in upcoming Thoughts on the Market.But what I'd like to do is ask you this. I've been reading some of your recent work on term premiums. And in my view, had this really interesting analysis about how the market prices Fed policy and how U.S. Treasury yields then adjust and move.You highlighted that Treasury yields built in a term premium after April 2nd. What's happening with that term premium today?Matthew Hornbach: Yeah. The April 2nd Liberation Day event catalyzed an expansion of term premia in the Treasury market. And ultimately what that means is that Treasury yields went up relative to what people were thinking about the path of Fed policy, And of course, the risks that they were thinking about in the month of April were risks related to trade policy. Those risks have diminished somewhat, I would argue in the subsequent months as the administration has been announcing deals with some of our trading partners. And then the market's focus turned to supply and what was going to happen with U.S. Treasury supply. And then, of course, the reaction of investors to that coming supply.And I would say, given what the Treasury announced last week, which was – it had no intention of raising supply, in the next several quarters. In our view is that the U.S. Treasury will not have to raise supply until the early part of 2027. So way off in the distance. So, investors are becoming more comfortable taking on duration risk in their portfolios because some of that uncertainty that opened up after April 2nd has been put away.Michael Gapen: Yeah, I can see how the substantial tariff revenue we're bringing in could affect that story. So, for example, I think if you annualize the run rates on tariffs, you'll get something over $300 billion in a 12-month period. And that certainly will have an impact on Treasury supply.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. And so, as we make our way through the month of August, we'll get an update to those tariff revenues. And also, towards the end of August, we will have the econom]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/K1ChvGIh9cwq-DUKtdHeBjQlN4cYURH4MQZr4wac1YcTue, 05 Aug 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyThere’s a dichotomy between the pace of job growth and the unemployment rate. Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach analyze how the Fed might address this paradox. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today – a look back at last week’s meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC, and the path for rates from here.It's Tuesday, August 5th at 10am in New York.Mike, last week the Fed met for the fifth time this year. The committee didn't provide a summary of their economic projections, but they did update their official policy statement. And of course, Chair Powell spoke at the press conference. How would you characterize the tone of both?Michael Gapen: Yeah, at first the statement I thought took on a slightly dovish tone for two reasons. One, unexpected; the other expected. So, the committee did revise down their assessment of growth and economic activity. They had previously described the economy as growing at a quote, ‘solid pace,’ and now they said, you know, the incoming data suggests that growth and economic activity moderated.So that's true. That's actually our view as well. We think the data points to that. The second reason the statement looked a little dovish, and this was expected is the Fed received two dissents. So, Governors Bowman and Waller both dissented in favor of a 25 basis point rate cut at the July meeting.But then the press conference started. And I would characterize that as Powell having at least some renewed concerns around persistence of inflation. So, he did recognize or acknowledge that the June inflation data showed a tariff impulse. But I'd say the more hawkish overtones really came in his description of the labor market, which I know were going to get into.And we've been kind of wondering and, you know, asking implicitly – is the Fed ever going to take a stand on what constitutes a healthy and/or weak labor market? And Powell, I think put down a lot of markers in the direction; that said, it's not so much about employment growth, it's about a low unemployment rate. And he kept describing the labor market as solid, and in healthy condition, and at full employment. So, the combination of that suggests it's a higher bar, in our mind, for the Fed to cut in September.Matthew Hornbach: And on the labor market, if we could dig a little bit deeper on that point. It did seem to me certainly that Powell was channeling your views on the labor market.Michael Gapen: Well, I wish I had that power but thank you.Matthew Hornbach: Well. I'd like to now channel your views – and of course his views – to our listeners. Can you just go a little bit deeper into this dichotomy that you've been highlighting between the pace of job growth and the unemployment rate itself?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Our thesis and what we've laid out coming into the year, and we think the data supports, is the idea that immigration controls have really slowed growth in the labor force. And what that means is the break-even rate of employment has come down.So even as economic growth has slowed and demand for labor has slowed, and therefore employment growth has slowed – the unemployment rate has stayed low, and there's some paradox in that. Normally when employment growth weakens, we think the economy's rolling over; the Fed should be easing.But in an environment of a very slow growing labor force, the two can coincide. And there's tension in that, we recognize. But our view is – the more the administration pushes in the direction of restraining immigration, the more likely it is you'll see the combination of low employment...]]>653alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1440fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-stocks-get-ahead-of-the-fed--75648695Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why economic data can be counterintuitive for how stocks trade.  It's Monday, August 4th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Since the lows in April, the rally in stocks has been relentless with no tradable pullbacks. I have been steadfastly bullish since early May primarily due to the V-shaped recovery in earnings revisions breadth that began in mid-April. The rebound in earnings revisions has been a function of the positive reflexivity from max bearishness on tariffs, the AI capex cycle bottoming, and the weaker U.S. dollar. Now, cash tax savings from the One Big Beautiful Bill are an additional benefit to cash flow which should drive higher capital spending and M&A. As usual, stocks have traded ahead of the positive sentiment and the lagging economic data – which leads me to the main point for today. Weak labor data last week may worry some investors in the short term. But ultimately we see that as just another positive catalyst for stocks. Further deterioration would simply get the Fed to start cutting rates sooner and more aggressively.The bond market seems to agree and is now pricing a 90 percent chance of a Fed cut in September, and the 2-year Treasury yield is 80 basis points below the fed[eral] funds rate. This spread is not nearly as severe as last summer when it reached 200 basis points. However, it will widen further if next month's labor data is disappointing again. While weaker economic data could lead to further weakness in equities, the labor data is arguably the most backward-looking data series we follow. It’s also why the Fed tends to be late with rate cuts. Meanwhile, inflation metrics are arguably the second most backward looking data, which explains why the Fed also tends to be late in terms of hiking rates. In my view, it's a feature of monetary policy, not a bug. Finally, in my opinion, the bond market’s influence is more important than President Trump's public calls for Powell to cut rates. The equity market understands this dynamic, too—which is why it also gets ahead of the Fed at various stages of the cycle. We noted in our Mid-Year Outlook that April was a very durable low for equities that effectively priced a mild recession. To fully appreciate this view, one must acknowledge that equities were correcting for the 12 months leading up to April with the average stock down close to 30 percent at the lows. More importantly, it also coincided with a major trough in earnings revisions breadth. In short, Liberation Day marked the end of a significant bear market that began a year earlier. Remember, equity markets bottom on bad news and Liberation Day was the last piece of a long string of bad news that formed the bottom for earnings revisions breadth that we have been laser focused on. To bring it home, economic data is backward looking, earnings revisions and equity markets are forward looking. April was a major low for stocks that discounted the weak economic data we are seeing now. It was also the trough of the rolling recession that we have been in for the past three years and marked the beginning of a rolling recovery and a new bull market. For those who remain skeptical, it’s important to recognize that the unemployment typically rises for 12 months after the equity market bottoms in a recession. Once the growth risk is priced, it’s ultimately a tailwind for margins and stocks, as positive operating leverage arrives and the Fed cuts significantly. Based on this morning’s rebound in stocks, it looks like the equity markets agree.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2XZXbUN7WUbz3v4cOX8MJpENraJxMZ8G9JC1flk7Cn8Mon, 04 Aug 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyEconomic data looks backward while equity markets are looking ahead. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why this delays the Federal Reserve in both cutting and hiking rates – and why this is a feature of monetary policy, not...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why economic data can be counterintuitive for how stocks trade.  It's Monday, August 4th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Since the lows in April, the rally in stocks has been relentless with no tradable pullbacks. I have been steadfastly bullish since early May primarily due to the V-shaped recovery in earnings revisions breadth that began in mid-April. The rebound in earnings revisions has been a function of the positive reflexivity from max bearishness on tariffs, the AI capex cycle bottoming, and the weaker U.S. dollar. Now, cash tax savings from the One Big Beautiful Bill are an additional benefit to cash flow which should drive higher capital spending and M&A. As usual, stocks have traded ahead of the positive sentiment and the lagging economic data – which leads me to the main point for today. Weak labor data last week may worry some investors in the short term. But ultimately we see that as just another positive catalyst for stocks. Further deterioration would simply get the Fed to start cutting rates sooner and more aggressively.The bond market seems to agree and is now pricing a 90 percent chance of a Fed cut in September, and the 2-year Treasury yield is 80 basis points below the fed[eral] funds rate. This spread is not nearly as severe as last summer when it reached 200 basis points. However, it will widen further if next month's labor data is disappointing again. While weaker economic data could lead to further weakness in equities, the labor data is arguably the most backward-looking data series we follow. It’s also why the Fed tends to be late with rate cuts. Meanwhile, inflation metrics are arguably the second most backward looking data, which explains why the Fed also tends to be late in terms of hiking rates. In my view, it's a feature of monetary policy, not a bug. Finally, in my opinion, the bond market’s influence is more important than President Trump's public calls for Powell to cut rates. The equity market understands this dynamic, too—which is why it also gets ahead of the Fed at various stages of the cycle. We noted in our Mid-Year Outlook that April was a very durable low for equities that effectively priced a mild recession. To fully appreciate this view, one must acknowledge that equities were correcting for the 12 months leading up to April with the average stock down close to 30 percent at the lows. More importantly, it also coincided with a major trough in earnings revisions breadth. In short, Liberation Day marked the end of a significant bear market that began a year earlier. Remember, equity markets bottom on bad news and Liberation Day was the last piece of a long string of bad news that formed the bottom for earnings revisions breadth that we have been laser focused on. To bring it home, economic data is backward looking, earnings revisions and equity markets are forward looking. April was a major low for stocks that discounted the weak economic data we are seeing now. It was also the trough of the rolling recession that we have been in for the past three years and marked the beginning of a rolling recovery and a new bull market. For those who remain skeptical, it’s important to recognize that the unemployment typically rises for 12 months after the equity market bottoms in a recession. Once the growth risk is priced, it’s ultimately a tailwind for margins and stocks, as...]]>251alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1439fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-markets-remain-murky-on-tariff-fallout--75648379Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today ongoing effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy. It is Friday, August 1st at 8am in New York. So, Michael, lots of news over the past couple of weeks about the U.S. making trade agreements with other countries. It's certainly dominated client conversations we've had, as I'm assuming it's probably dominated conversations for you as well. Michael Gapen: Yeah certainly a topic that never goes away. It keeps on giving at this point in time. And I guess, Michael, what I would ask you is, what do you make of the recent deals? Does it reduce uncertainty in your mind? Does it leave uncertainty elevated? What’s your short-term outlook for trade policy? Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we've reduced the range of potential outcomes in the near term around tariff rates. But we haven't done anything to reduce longer term uncertainties in U.S. trade policy. So, consider, for example, over the last couple of weeks, we have an agreement with Japan and an agreement with Europe – two pretty substantial trading partners – where it appears, the tariff rate that's going to be applied is something like 15 percent. And when you stack up these deals on one another, it looks like we're going to end up in an average effective tariff rate from the U.S. range of kind of 15 to 20 percent. And if you think back a couple of months, that range was much wider and we were potentially talking about levels in the 25 to 30 percent range. So, in that sense, investors might have a bit of a respite from the idea of kind of massive uncertainty around trade policy outcomes. However, longer term, these agreements really just are kind of principles that are set out for behavior, and there's lots of trip wires that could create future potential escalations. So, for example, with the Europe deal, part of the deal is that Europe will commit to purchase a substantial amount of U.S. energy. There's obvious questions as to whether or not the U.S. can actually supply that amidst its own energy needs that are rising substantially over the course of the next year. So, could we end up in a situation where six months to a year from now if those purchases haven't been made – the U.S. sort of presses forward and the administration threatens to re-escalate tariffs again. Really hard to know, but the point is these arrangements have lots of contingencies and other factors that could lead to re-escalation.  But it's fair to say, at least in the near term, that we're in a landing place that appears to be somewhat smaller in terms of the range of potential outcomes. Now, I think a question for investors is going to be – how do we assess what the effects of that have been, right? Because is it fair to say that the economic data that we've received so far maybe isn't fully telling the story of the effects that are being felt quite yet. Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's completely right. We've always had the view that it would take several months or more just for tariffs to show up in inflation. And if tariffs primarily act as a tax on the consumer, you have to apply that tax first before economic activity would moderate. So, we've long been forecasting that inflation would begin to pick up in June. We saw a little of that. But it would accelerate through the third quarter, kind of peaking around the August-September period. So, I'd say we've seen the first signs of that, Michael, but we need obviously follow through evidence that it's happening. So, we do expect that in the July, August and September inflation reports, you'll see a lot more evidence of tariffs pushing goods prices higher. So, we'll be dissecting all the details of the CPI looking for evidence of direct effects of tariffs, primarily on goods prices, but also some services prices. So, I'd put that down as the first marker, and we've seen some, early evidence on that. The second then, obviously, is the economy's 70 percent consumption. Tariffs act as a regressive tax on low- and middle-income consumers because non-discretionary purchases are a larger portion of their consumption bundle and a lot of goods prices are as well. Upper income households tend to spend relatively more money on leisure and recreation services. So, we would then expect growth in private consumption, primarily led by lower and middle-income spending softening. We think the consumer would slow down. But into the end of the year. Those are the two main markers that I would point to. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, I think this is really important because there's certainly this narrative amongst clients that we talk to that markets may have already moved on from this. Or investors may have already priced in the effects – or lack thereof – of some of this tariff escalation. Now we're about to get some real evidence from economic data as to whether or not that view and those assumptions are credible. Michael Gapen: That's right. Where we were initially on April 2nd after Liberation Day was largely embargo level tariffs. And if those stayed in place, trade volumes and activity and financial market asset values would've collapsed precipitously. And they were for a few weeks, as you know, but then we dialed it back and got out of that. So, yeah, we would say it's wrong to conclude that the economy , has absorbed these tariffs already and that they won't have,, a negative effect on economic activity. We think they will just in the base case where tariffs are high, but not too high, it just takes a while for that to happen. Michael Zezas: And of course, all of that's kind of core to our multi-asset outlook right now where a slowing economy, even with higher recession probabilities can still support risk assets. But of course, that piece of it is going to be very complicated if the economic data ends up being worse than you suspect. Now, any evidence you've seen so far? For example, we had a GDP report earlier this week. Any evidence from that data as to where things might go over the next few months?Michael Gapen: Yeah, well, another data point on trade policy and trade policy uncertainty really causing a lot of volatility in trade flows. So, if you recall, there's big front running of tariffs in the first quarter. Imports were up about 37 percent on the quarter; that ended in the second quarter, imports were down 30 percent. So net trade was a big drag on growth in the first quarter. It was a big boost to growth in the second. But we think that's largely noise. So, what I would say is we've probably level set import and export volumes now. So, do trade volumes from here begin to slow? That's an unresolved question. But certainly, the large volatility in the trade and inventory data in Q1 and Q2 GDP numbers are reflective of everything that you're saying about the risks around trade policy and elevated trade policy uncertainty. Second, though, I would say, because we started out the quarter with Liberation Day tariffs, the business sector, clearly – in our mind anyway – clearly responded by delaying activity. Equipment spending was only up 4 to 5 percent on the quarter. IP was up about 6 percent. Structures was down 10 percent. So, for all the narrative around AI-related spending, there wasn't a whole lot of spending on data centers and power generation in the second quarter.So, what you speak to about the need to reduce some trade policy uncertainty, but also your long run trade policy uncertainty remains elevated? I would say we saw evidence in the second quarter that all of that slowed down capital spending activity. Let's see if the One Big Beautiful Bill act can be a catalyst on that front, whether animal spirits can come back. But that's the other thing I would point to is that, business spending was weak and even though the headline GDP number was 3 percent, that's mainly a trade volatility number. Final sales to domestic purchasers, which includes consumption and business spending, was only up 1.1 percent in the quarter. So, the economy's moderating; things are cooling. I think trade policy and trade policy uncertainty is a big part of that story.Michael Zezas: Got it. So maybe this is something of a handoff here where my team had been really, really focused and investors have been really, really focused on the decision-making process of the U.S. administration around tariffs. And now your team's going to lead us through understanding the actual impacts. And the headline numbers around economic data are important, but probably even more important is the underlying. Is that fair? Michael Gapen: I think that's fair. I think as we move into the third quarter, like between now and when the Fed meets in, September, again, they'll have a few more inflation reports, a few more employment reports. We're going to learn a lot more than about what the Fed might do. So, I think the activity data and the Fed will now become much more important over the next several months than where we've been the past several months, which is about, has been about announcements around trade. Michael Zezas: All right. Well then, we look forward to hearing more from you and your team in the coming months. Well Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If yo]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ULnr7ayj9Lo05sfLhOQ3Fi0gWzekpoNUTXHEbpp-qWUFri, 01 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyWhile investors may now better understand President Trump’s trade strategy, the economic consequences of tariffs remain unclear. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Michael Zezas and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen offer...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today ongoing effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy. It is Friday, August 1st at 8am in New York. So, Michael, lots of news over the past couple of weeks about the U.S. making trade agreements with other countries. It's certainly dominated client conversations we've had, as I'm assuming it's probably dominated conversations for you as well. Michael Gapen: Yeah certainly a topic that never goes away. It keeps on giving at this point in time. And I guess, Michael, what I would ask you is, what do you make of the recent deals? Does it reduce uncertainty in your mind? Does it leave uncertainty elevated? What’s your short-term outlook for trade policy? Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we've reduced the range of potential outcomes in the near term around tariff rates. But we haven't done anything to reduce longer term uncertainties in U.S. trade policy. So, consider, for example, over the last couple of weeks, we have an agreement with Japan and an agreement with Europe – two pretty substantial trading partners – where it appears, the tariff rate that's going to be applied is something like 15 percent. And when you stack up these deals on one another, it looks like we're going to end up in an average effective tariff rate from the U.S. range of kind of 15 to 20 percent. And if you think back a couple of months, that range was much wider and we were potentially talking about levels in the 25 to 30 percent range. So, in that sense, investors might have a bit of a respite from the idea of kind of massive uncertainty around trade policy outcomes. However, longer term, these agreements really just are kind of principles that are set out for behavior, and there's lots of trip wires that could create future potential escalations. So, for example, with the Europe deal, part of the deal is that Europe will commit to purchase a substantial amount of U.S. energy. There's obvious questions as to whether or not the U.S. can actually supply that amidst its own energy needs that are rising substantially over the course of the next year. So, could we end up in a situation where six months to a year from now if those purchases haven't been made – the U.S. sort of presses forward and the administration threatens to re-escalate tariffs again. Really hard to know, but the point is these arrangements have lots of contingencies and other factors that could lead to re-escalation.  But it's fair to say, at least in the near term, that we're in a landing place that appears to be somewhat smaller in terms of the range of potential outcomes. Now, I think a question for investors is going to be – how do we assess what the effects of that have been, right? Because is it fair to say that the economic data that we've received so far maybe isn't fully telling the story of the effects that are being felt quite yet. Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's completely right. We've always had the view that it would take several months or more just for tariffs to show up in inflation. And if tariffs primarily act as a tax on the consumer, you have to apply that tax first before economic activity would moderate. So, we've long been forecasting that inflation would begin to pick up in June. We saw a little of that. But it would accelerate through the third quarter,...]]>618alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1438fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-waning-american-dominance-could-move-yields--75648209Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today – a today a concluding look at the theme of American exceptionalism and how it factors into fixed income. It's Thursday, July 31st at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett:  And it's 11am here in New York. So, Andrew, it's my turn to ask you some questions. And yesterday we talked a lot about equity markets, globalization, some of the broader macro shifts. But I wanted to zoom in on the credit markets today and one of our themes in the American Exceptionalism paper was the constraints of debts and deficits and how they play in. With U.S. debts level soaring and interest costs rising, how concerned should investors be? Andrew Sheets: So, you alluded to this a bit on our discussion yesterday that we are in a very interesting divide where you have inequality between very well-off companies and weaker companies that aren't doing as well. You have a lot of division within households between those who are, doing better and struggling more with the rate environment. But you know, I think we also see that the large deficits that the U.S. Federal government are running are in some ways largely mirrored by very, very good private sector financial positions. In aggregate U.S. households have record levels of assets relative to debt at the end of 2024; in aggregate the financial position of the U.S. equity market has never been better. And so, this is a dynamic where lending to the private sector, whether that is to parts of the residential mortgage market or to the corporate credit market, does have some advantages; where not just are you dealing with arguably a better trend of financial position, but you're just getting less issuance. I think there are a number of factors that could cause the market to cause the difference of yield between the government debt and that private sector debt – that so-called spread – to be narrower than it otherwise would be.Lisa Shalett: Well, that's a pretty interesting and provocative idea because, one of the hypotheses that we laid out in our paper is that perhaps one of the consequences of this extraordinary period of monetary stimulus of financial repression and ultra low rates, of massive regulation of the systemically important banking system, has been the explosion of shadow banks, and the private credit markets. Our thesis is they're a misallocation of capital. Has there been excess risk taking – in that area? And how should we think about that asset class, number one? And, number two, are they increasingly, a source of liquidity and issuance, or are they a drain on the system? Andrew Sheets: This is, kind of, where your discussion of normalization is is so interesting because in aggregate household balance sheets are in very good shape; in aggregate corporate balance sheets are in very good shape. But I do think there's a distinct tail of the market. Lets call it 5 percent of the high yield market, where you really are looking at a corporate capital structure that was designed for for a much lower level of rates. It was designed for maybe a immediately post COVID environment where rates were on the floor and expected to stay there for a long period of time. And so, if we are moving to an environment where Fed funds is at 3 or 4. Or as you mentioned – hey, maybe you could justify a rate even a little bit higher and not be wildly off. Well then, you just have the wrong capital structure. You have the wrong level of leverage; and it's actually hard to do much about that other than to restructure that debt, or look to change it in a larger way. So, I think we'll see a dynamic similar to the equity market – where there is less dispersion between the haves and have nots. Lisa Shalett: As we kind of think about where there could be pockets of opportunity in credit and in private credit, both public and private credit, and where there could be risks. Can you just help me with that and explore that a little bit more? Andrew Sheets: I think where credit looks most interesting is in some ways where it looks most boring. I think where the case for credit is strongest is – the investment grade market in the U.S. pays 5.25 percent. A 6 percent long run return might be competitive with certain investors’ long-term equity market forecasts, or at least not a million miles off. I think though the other area where this is going to be interesting is – do we see significantly more capital intensity out of the tech sector? And a real divide between fixed income and equities is that tech has so far really been an equity story.Lisa Shalett: Correct. Andrew Sheets: But this data center build out is just enormous. I mean, through 2028, our analysts at Morgan Stanley think it's close to $3 trillion with a 't'. And so there's a lot of interest in how can credit markets, how can private credit markets fund some of this build out; and there are opportunities and risks around that. And you know, something that I think credit's going to play an interesting part of. Lisa Shalett: And in that vision do you see the blurring of lines or a more competitive market between public and private? Andrew Sheets: I do think there's always a little bit of a funny nature about credit where it's not always clear why a particular corporate loan would need to be traded every day, would need to be marked every day. I think it is a little bit different from the equity market in that way. And I think you're also seeing a level of sophistication from investors who now have the ability to traffic across these markets and move capital between these markets, depending on where they think they're being better compensated or where there's better opportunities. So, I think we're kind of absolutely seeing the blur of these lines. And again, I think private credit has until recently been somewhat synonymous with high-yield lending, riskier lending, lower rated lending. Lisa Shalett: Correct. Yeah. Andrew Sheets: And, yet, the lending that we're seeing to some of this tech infrastructure is, you could argue, maybe more similar to Investment Grade lending – both in terms of risk, but also it pays a lot less. And so again, this is kind of an interesting transition where you're seeing a broader scope and absolutely, I think, more blurring of the line between these markets. Lisa Shalett: So, let's just switch gears a little bit and pull out from credit to the broader diversified cross-asset portfolio. And some of those cross-asset correlations are starting to break down; and we go through these periods where stocks and bonds are more often than not positively correlated in moving together. How are you beginning to think about duration risk in this environment? And have you made any adjustments to how you think about portfolio construction in light of these potentially shifting changes in correlations across assets?Andrew Sheets:  I think there are kind of maybe two large takeaways I would take from this. First is I do think the big asset where we've seen the biggest change is in the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar, I think, for a lot of the period we've been discussing on these two episodes, was kind of the best of both worlds. And recently that's just really broken down. And so, I think, when we think about the reallocation to the rest of the world, the focus on diversification, I think this is absolutely something that is top of mind among non-U.S. investors that we're talking to, which is almost the U.S. equity piece is kind of a separate conversation.The other piece though, is some of this debate around yields and equities – and do equities fear higher rates or lower rates? Which one of those is the biggest problem? And there's a question of magnitude that's a little interesting here. Rates going higher might be a little bit more of a problem for the S&P 500 than rates going lower. That rates going higher might be more consistent with the scenario of temporary higher inflation. Maybe rates go lower [be]cause the market gets more excited about Federal Reserve cuts.But I think in terms of scenarios where – like where is the equity market really going to have a problem? Well, it's really going to have a problem if there's a recession. So, even though I think bonds have been less effective diversifiers, I really do think they're still going to serve a very healthy, helpful purpose around some of those potentially kind of bigger dynamics.  Lisa Shalett: Yeah that very much jives with the way we've been thinking about it, particularly within the context of managing private wealth, where very often we're confronted with the, the question: What about 60-40? Is 60-40 dead? Is 60-40 back? Like, you talk about not wanting to hedge, I don't want to hedge either. But the answer to the question we agree is somewhat nuanced. Right?We do agree that this perfect world of negative correlations between stocks and bonds that we enjoyed for a good portion of the last 15 years probably is over. But that doesn't mean that bonds, and most specifically that 5 - 10 year part of the curve, doesn't have a really important role to play in portfolios. And the reason I say that is that one of the other elements of this conversation that we haven't really touched on is valuation and expected returns.I know that when I speak of the valuation-oriented topics and the CAPE ratio when expected 10-year returns, everyone's eyes glaze over an]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6gjPwnCbKAj1a7LI11xYIt824M2-BgQvuAkoTFcmAFMThu, 31 Jul 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyLisa Shalett, our Wealth Management CIO, and Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, conclude their discussion of American Exceptionalism, factoring in fixed income, in the second of a two-part episode. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today – a today a concluding look at the theme of American exceptionalism and how it factors into fixed income. It's Thursday, July 31st at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett:  And it's 11am here in New York. So, Andrew, it's my turn to ask you some questions. And yesterday we talked a lot about equity markets, globalization, some of the broader macro shifts. But I wanted to zoom in on the credit markets today and one of our themes in the American Exceptionalism paper was the constraints of debts and deficits and how they play in. With U.S. debts level soaring and interest costs rising, how concerned should investors be? Andrew Sheets: So, you alluded to this a bit on our discussion yesterday that we are in a very interesting divide where you have inequality between very well-off companies and weaker companies that aren't doing as well. You have a lot of division within households between those who are, doing better and struggling more with the rate environment. But you know, I think we also see that the large deficits that the U.S. Federal government are running are in some ways largely mirrored by very, very good private sector financial positions. In aggregate U.S. households have record levels of assets relative to debt at the end of 2024; in aggregate the financial position of the U.S. equity market has never been better. And so, this is a dynamic where lending to the private sector, whether that is to parts of the residential mortgage market or to the corporate credit market, does have some advantages; where not just are you dealing with arguably a better trend of financial position, but you're just getting less issuance. I think there are a number of factors that could cause the market to cause the difference of yield between the government debt and that private sector debt – that so-called spread – to be narrower than it otherwise would be.Lisa Shalett: Well, that's a pretty interesting and provocative idea because, one of the hypotheses that we laid out in our paper is that perhaps one of the consequences of this extraordinary period of monetary stimulus of financial repression and ultra low rates, of massive regulation of the systemically important banking system, has been the explosion of shadow banks, and the private credit markets. Our thesis is they're a misallocation of capital. Has there been excess risk taking – in that area? And how should we think about that asset class, number one? And, number two, are they increasingly, a source of liquidity and issuance, or are they a drain on the system? Andrew Sheets: This is, kind of, where your discussion of normalization is is so interesting because in aggregate household balance sheets are in very good shape; in aggregate corporate balance sheets are in very good shape. But I do think there's a distinct tail of the market. Lets call it 5 percent of the high yield market, where you really are looking at a corporate capital structure that was designed for for a much lower level of rates. It was designed for maybe a immediately post COVID environment where rates were on the floor and expected to stay there for a long period of time. And so, if we are moving to an environment where Fed funds is at 3 or 4. Or as you mentioned – hey, maybe you could justify a rate even a little bit higher and not be wildly off. Well then, you just...]]>735alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1437fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-american-market-dominance-over--75648509insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today, the first of two episodes tackling a fascinating and complex question. Is American market dominance ending? And what would that mean for investors?It's Wednesday, July 30th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's so great to talk to you again, and especially what we're going to talk about over these two episodes. , a theme that's been coming up regularly on this podcast is this idea of American exceptionalism. This multi-year, almost multi-decade outperformance of the U.S. economy, of the U.S. currency, of the U.S. stock market. And so, it's great to have you on the show, given that you've recently published on this topic in a special report, very topically titled American Exceptionalism: Navigating the Great Rebalancing.So, what are the key pillars behind this idea and why do you think it's so important? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. So, I think that that when you think about the thesis of American exceptionalism and the duration of time that the thesis has endured. I think a lot of investors have come to the conclusion that many of the underpinnings of America's performance are just absolutely inherent and foundational, right? They'll point to America as a, economy of innovation. A market with regulation and capital markets breadth and depth and liquidity a market guided by, , laws and regulation, and a market where, heretofore, we've had relatively decent population growth. All things that tend to lead to growth. But our analysis of the past 15 years, while acknowledging all of those foundational pillars say, ‘Wait a minute, let's separate the wheat from the chaff.’ Because this past 15 years has been, extraordinary and different. And it's been extraordinary and different on at least three dimensions. One, the degree to which we've had monetary accommodation and an extraordinary responsiveness of the Fed to any crisis. Secondly, extraordinary fiscal policy and fiscal stimulus. And third, the peak of globalization a trend that in our humble opinion, American companies were among the biggest beneficiaries of exploiting, despite all of the political rhetoric that considers the costs of that globalization. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, let me go back then to the title of your report, which is the Great Rebalancing or navigating the Great Rebalancing. So, what is that rebalancing? What do you think kind of might be in store going forward? Lisa Shalett: The profound out performance, as you noted, Andrew, of both the U.S. dollar and American stock markets have left the world, , at an extraordinarily overweight position to the dollar and to American assets.And that's against a backdrop where we're a fraction of the population. We're 25 percent of global GDP, and even with all of our great companies, we're still only 33 percent of the profit pool. So, we were at a place where not only was everyone overweight, but the relative valuation premia of American equity assets versus equities outside or rest of world was literally a 50 percent premium. And that really had us asking the question, is that really sustainable? Those kind of valuation premiums – at a point when all of these pillars, fiscal stimulus, monetary stimulus, globalization, are at these profound inflection points. Andrew Sheets: You mentioned monetary and fiscal policy a bit as being key to supercharging U.S. markets. Where do you think these factors are going to move in the future, and how do you think that affects this rebalancing idea? Lisa Shalett: Look, I mean, I think we went through a period of time where on a relative basis, relative growth, relative rate spreads, right? The, the dispersion between what you could earn in U.S. assets and what you could earn in other places, and the hedging ratio in those currency markets made owning U.S. assets, just incredibly attractive on a relative basis. As the U.S. now kind of hits this point of inflection when the rest of the world is starting to say, okay, in an America first and an America only policy world, what am I going to do? And I think the responses are that for many other countries, they are going to invest aggressively in defense, in infrastructure, in technology, to respond to de-globalization, if you will. And I think for many of those economies, it's going to help equalize not only growth rates between the U.S. and the rest of the world, but it's going to help equalize rate differentials. Particularly on the longer end of the curves, where everyone is going to spending money. Andrew Sheets: That's actually a great segue into this idea of globalization, which again was a major tailwind for U.S. corporations and a pillar of this American outperformance over a number of years.It does seem like that landscape has really changed over the last couple of decades, and yet going forward, it looks like it's going to change again. So, with rising deglobalization with higher tariffs, what do you think that's going to mean to U.S. corporate margins and global supply chains? Lisa Shalett: Maybe I am a product of my training and economics, but I have always been a believer in comparative advantage and what globalization allowed. True free trade and globalization of supply chains allowed was for countries to exploit what they were best at – whether it was the lowest cost labor, the lowest cost of natural resources, the lowest cost inputs. And America was aggressive at pursuing those things, at outsourcing what they could to grow profit margins. And that had lots of implications. And we weren't holding manufacturing assets or logistical assets or transportation assets necessarily on our balance sheets. And that dimension of this asset light and optimized supply chains is something in a world of tariffs, in a world of deglobalization, in a world of create manufacturing jobs onshore, where that gets reversed a bit. And there's going to be a financial cost to that. Andrew Sheets: It's probably fair to say that the way that a lot of people experience American exceptionalism is in their retirement account. In your view, is this outperformance sustainable or do you think, as you mentioned, changing fiscal dynamics, changing trade dynamics, that we're also going to see a leadership rotation here? Lisa Shalett: Our thesis has been, this isn't the end of American exceptionalism, point blank, black and white. What we've said, however, is that we think that the order of magnitude of that outperformance is what's going to close, , when you start burdening, , your growth rate with headwinds, right? And so, again, not to say that that American assets can't continue to, to be major contributors in portfolios and may even, , outperform by a bit. But I don't think that they're going to be outperforming by the magnitude, kind of the 450 - 550 basis points per year compound for 15 years that we've seen. Andrew Sheets: The American exceptionalism that we've seen really since 2009, it's also been accompanied by really unprecedented market imbalances. But another dimension of these imbalances is social and economic inequality, which is creating structural, and policy, and political challenges. Do these imbalances matter for markets? And do you think these imbalances affect economic stability and overall market performance? Lisa Shalett: People need to understand what has happened over this period. When we applied this degree of monetary and fiscal, stimulus, what we essentially did was massively deleverage the private sector of America, right? And as a result, when you do that, you enable and create the backdrop for the portions of your economy who are less interest rate sensitive to continue to, kind of, invest free money. And so what we have seen is that this gap between the haves and the have nots, those who are most interest rate sensitive and those who are least interest rate sensitive – that chasm is really blown out.But also I would suggest an economic policy conundrum. We can all have points of view about the central bank, and we can all have points of view about the current chair. But the reality is if you look at these dispersions in the United States, you have to ask yourself the question, is there one central bank policy that's right for the U.S. economy? I could make the argument that the U.S. GDP, right, is growing at 5.5 percent nominal right now. And the policy rate's 4.3 percent. Is that tight?Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Lisa Shalett: I don't know, right? The economists will tell me it's really tight, Lisa – [be]cause neutral is 3. But I don't know. I don't see the constraints. If I drill down and do I say, can I see constraints among small businesses? Yeah. I think they're suffering. Do I see constraints in some of the portfolio companies of private equity? Are they suffering? Yeah. Do they need lower rates? Yeah. Do the lower two-thirds of American consumers need lower rates to access the housing market. Yeah. But is it hurting the aggregate U.S. economy? Mm, I don't know; hard to convince me. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, that seems like a great place to actually end it for now and Thanks as always, for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: My pleasure, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And that brings us to the end of part one of this two-part look at American exceptionalism and the impact on equity and fix]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HELQmpQyZy4m5POiZ0Jzr9lUkZ3EJa3D6AToLZTI0wwWed, 30 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyIn the first of a two-part episode, Lisa Shalett, our Wealth Management CIO, and Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, discuss whether the era of “American Exceptionalism” is ending and how investors should prepare for a global market...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today, the first of two episodes tackling a fascinating and complex question. Is American market dominance ending? And what would that mean for investors?It's Wednesday, July 30th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's so great to talk to you again, and especially what we're going to talk about over these two episodes. , a theme that's been coming up regularly on this podcast is this idea of American exceptionalism. This multi-year, almost multi-decade outperformance of the U.S. economy, of the U.S. currency, of the U.S. stock market. And so, it's great to have you on the show, given that you've recently published on this topic in a special report, very topically titled American Exceptionalism: Navigating the Great Rebalancing.So, what are the key pillars behind this idea and why do you think it's so important? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. So, I think that that when you think about the thesis of American exceptionalism and the duration of time that the thesis has endured. I think a lot of investors have come to the conclusion that many of the underpinnings of America's performance are just absolutely inherent and foundational, right? They'll point to America as a, economy of innovation. A market with regulation and capital markets breadth and depth and liquidity a market guided by, , laws and regulation, and a market where, heretofore, we've had relatively decent population growth. All things that tend to lead to growth. But our analysis of the past 15 years, while acknowledging all of those foundational pillars say, ‘Wait a minute, let's separate the wheat from the chaff.’ Because this past 15 years has been, extraordinary and different. And it's been extraordinary and different on at least three dimensions. One, the degree to which we've had monetary accommodation and an extraordinary responsiveness of the Fed to any crisis. Secondly, extraordinary fiscal policy and fiscal stimulus. And third, the peak of globalization a trend that in our humble opinion, American companies were among the biggest beneficiaries of exploiting, despite all of the political rhetoric that considers the costs of that globalization. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, let me go back then to the title of your report, which is the Great Rebalancing or navigating the Great Rebalancing. So, what is that rebalancing? What do you think kind of might be in store going forward? Lisa Shalett: The profound out performance, as you noted, Andrew, of both the U.S. dollar and American stock markets have left the world, , at an extraordinarily overweight position to the dollar and to American assets.And that's against a backdrop where we're a fraction of the population. We're 25 percent of global GDP, and even with all of our great companies, we're still only 33 percent of the profit pool. So, we were at a place where not only was everyone overweight, but the relative valuation premia of American equity assets versus equities outside or rest of world was literally a 50 percent premium. And that really had us asking the question, is that really sustainable? Those kind of valuation premiums – at a point when all of these pillars, fiscal stimulus, monetary stimulus, globalization, are at these profound inflection points. Andrew Sheets: You mentioned...]]>694alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1436fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-good-time-to-buy-the-dip--75648541Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I will discuss what's driving my optimism on stocks. It's Tuesday, July 29th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Over the past few weeks, I have been leaning more toward our bull case of 7200 for the S&P 500 by the middle of next year. This view is largely based on a more resilient earnings and cash flow backdrop than anticipated. The drivers are numerous and include positive operating leverage, AI adoption, dollar weakness, cash tax savings from the Big Beautiful Bill, and easy growth comparisons and pent-up demand for many sectors in the market. While many are still focused on tariffs as a headwind to growth, our analysis shows that tariff cost exposures for S&P 500 industry groups is fairly contained given the countries in scope and the exemptions that are still in place from the USMCA. Meanwhile, deals are being signed with our largest trading partners like Japan and Europe that appear favorable to the U.S. Due to the lack of pricing power, the main area of risk in the stock market from tariffs is consumer goods; and that’s why we remain underweight that sector. However, the main tariff takeaway for investors is that the rate of change on policy uncertainty peaked in early April. This is the primary reason why earnings guidance bottomed in April as evidenced by the significant inflection higher in earnings revisions breadth—the key fundamental factor that we have been focused on. Of course, the near-term set up is not without risks. These include still high long-term interest rates, tariff-related inflation and potential margin pressure. As a result, a correction is possible during the seasonally weak third quarter, but pull-backs should be shallow and bought. In addition to the growth tailwinds already cited, it’s worth pointing out that many companies also face very easy growth comparisons. I’ve had a long standing out of consensus view that the U.S. has been experiencing a rolling recession for the last three years. This fits with the fact that much of the soft economic data that has been hovering in recession territory for much of that period as well—things like purchasing manager indices, consumer confidence, and the private labor market. It also aligns with my long-standing view that government spending has helped to keep the headline economic growth statistics strong, while much of the private sector and many consumers have been crowded out by that heavy spending which has also kept the Fed too tight. Meanwhile, private sector wage growth has been in a steady decline over the last several years, and payroll growth across Tech, Financials and Business Services has been negative – until recently. Conversely, Government and Education/Health Services payroll growth has been much stronger over this time horizon. This type of wage growth and sluggish payroll growth in the private sector is typical of an early cycle backdrop. It's a key reason why operating leverage inflects in early cycle environments, and margins expand. Our earnings model is picking up on this underappreciated dynamic, and AI adoption is likely to accelerate this phenomenon. In short, this is looking more and more like an early cycle set up where leaner cost structures drive positive operating leverage after an extended period of wage growth consolidation. Bottom line, the capitulatory price action and earnings estimate cuts we saw in April of this year around Liberation Day represented the end of a rolling recession that began in 2022. Markets bottom on bad news and we are transitioning from that rolling earnings recession backdrop to a rolling recovery environment. The combination of positive earnings and cash flow drivers with the easy growth comparisons fostered by the rolling EPS recession and the high probability of the Fed re-starting the cutting cycle by the first quarter of next year should facilitate this transition. The upward inflection we're seeing in earnings revisions breadth confirms this process is well underway and suggests returns for the average stock are likely to be strong over the next 12-months. In short, buy any dips that may occur in the seasonally weak quarter of the year. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_za16aLfn1fkA68uwGtc_PeiFv4y6KSav7y4bqKL6W0Tue, 29 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyAI adoption, dollar weakness and tax savings from the Big Beautiful Bill are some of the factors boosting our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson’s confidence in U.S. stocks. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I will discuss what's driving my optimism on stocks. It's Tuesday, July 29th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Over the past few weeks, I have been leaning more toward our bull case of 7200 for the S&P 500 by the middle of next year. This view is largely based on a more resilient earnings and cash flow backdrop than anticipated. The drivers are numerous and include positive operating leverage, AI adoption, dollar weakness, cash tax savings from the Big Beautiful Bill, and easy growth comparisons and pent-up demand for many sectors in the market. While many are still focused on tariffs as a headwind to growth, our analysis shows that tariff cost exposures for S&P 500 industry groups is fairly contained given the countries in scope and the exemptions that are still in place from the USMCA. Meanwhile, deals are being signed with our largest trading partners like Japan and Europe that appear favorable to the U.S. Due to the lack of pricing power, the main area of risk in the stock market from tariffs is consumer goods; and that’s why we remain underweight that sector. However, the main tariff takeaway for investors is that the rate of change on policy uncertainty peaked in early April. This is the primary reason why earnings guidance bottomed in April as evidenced by the significant inflection higher in earnings revisions breadth—the key fundamental factor that we have been focused on. Of course, the near-term set up is not without risks. These include still high long-term interest rates, tariff-related inflation and potential margin pressure. As a result, a correction is possible during the seasonally weak third quarter, but pull-backs should be shallow and bought. In addition to the growth tailwinds already cited, it’s worth pointing out that many companies also face very easy growth comparisons. I’ve had a long standing out of consensus view that the U.S. has been experiencing a rolling recession for the last three years. This fits with the fact that much of the soft economic data that has been hovering in recession territory for much of that period as well—things like purchasing manager indices, consumer confidence, and the private labor market. It also aligns with my long-standing view that government spending has helped to keep the headline economic growth statistics strong, while much of the private sector and many consumers have been crowded out by that heavy spending which has also kept the Fed too tight. Meanwhile, private sector wage growth has been in a steady decline over the last several years, and payroll growth across Tech, Financials and Business Services has been negative – until recently. Conversely, Government and Education/Health Services payroll growth has been much stronger over this time horizon. This type of wage growth and sluggish payroll growth in the private sector is typical of an early cycle backdrop. It's a key reason why operating leverage inflects in early cycle environments, and margins expand. Our earnings model is picking up on this underappreciated dynamic, and AI adoption is likely to accelerate this phenomenon. In short, this is looking more and more like an early cycle set up where leaner cost structures drive positive operating leverage after an extended period of wage growth consolidation. Bottom line, the capitulatory price action and earnings estimate cuts we saw in April of this year around Liberation Day represented the end of a rolling recession that...]]>292alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1435fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/singapore-s-4-trillion-transformation--75648530Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nick Lord, Morgan Stanley’s Head of ASEAN Research.Today – Singapore is about to celebrate its 60th year of independence. And it’s about to enter its most transformative decade yet.It’s Monday, the 28th of July, at 2 PM in Singapore.Singapore isn’t just marking a significant birthday on August 9th. It’s entering a new era of wealth creation that could nearly double household assets in just five years. That’s right—we’re projecting household net assets in the city state will grow from $2.3 trillion today to $4 trillion by 2030.So, what’s driving this next chapter?Well, Singapore is evolving from a safe harbor for global capital into a strategic engine of innovation and influence driven by three major forces. First, the country’s growing role as a global hub. Second, its early and aggressive adoption of new technologies. And last but not least, a bold set of reforms aimed at revitalizing its equity markets.Together, these pillars are setting the stage for broad-based wealth creation—and investors are taking notice.Singapore is home to just 6 million people, but it’s already the fourth-richest country in the world on a per capita basis. And it's not stopping there.By 2030, we expect the average household net worth to rise from $1.6 million to an impressive $2.5 million. Assets under management should jump from $4 trillion to $7 trillion. And the MSCI Singapore Index could gain 10 percent annually, potentially doubling in value over the next five years. Return on equity for Singaporean companies is also set to rise—from 12 percent to 14 percent—thanks to productivity gains, market reforms, and stronger shareholder returns.But let me come back to this first pillar of Singapore’s growth story. Its ambition to become a hub of hubs. It’s already a major player in finance, trade, and transportation, Singapore is now doubling down on its strengths.In commodities, it handles 20 percent of the world’s energy and metals trading—and it could become a future hub for LNG and carbon trading. Elsewhere, in financial services, Singapore’s also the third largest cross-border wealth booking centre, and the third-largest FX trading hub globally. Tourism is also a key piece of the puzzle, contributing about 4 percent to GDP. The country continues to invest in world-class infrastructure, events, and attractions keeping the visitors—and their dollars—coming.As for technology – the second key pillar of growth – Singapore is going all in. It’s becoming a regional hub for data and AI, with Malaysia and Japan also in the mix. Together, these countries are expected to attract the lion’s share of the $100 billion in Asia’s data center and GenAI investments this decade.Worth noting – Singapore is already a top-10 AI market globally, with over 1,000 startups, 80 research facilities, and 150 R&D teams. It’s also a regional leader in autonomous vehicles, with 13 AVs currently approved for public road trials. And robots are already working at Singapore’s Changi Airport.Finally, despite its economic strength, Singapore’s stock market had long been seen as sleepy — dominated by a few big banks and real estate firms. But that’s changing fast and becoming the third pillar of Singapore’s remarkable growth story.This year, the government rolled out a sweeping set of reforms to breathe new life into the market. That includes tax incentives, regulatory streamlining, and a $4 billion capital injection from the Monetary Authority of Singapore to boost liquidity—especially for small- and mid-cap stocks.We also expect that there will be a push to get listed companies more engaged with shareholders, encouraging them to communicate their business plans and value propositions more clearly. The goal here is to raise Singapore’s price-to-book ratio from 1.7x to 2.3x—putting it on a par with higher-rated markets like Taiwan and Australia.So, what does all this mean for investors?Well, Singapore is not just celebrating its past—it’s building its future. With smart policy, bold innovation, and a clear vision, it’s positioning itself as one of the most dynamic and investable markets in the world.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AbSywbjo8Dyx7a5XPAScorq7o-8CnlPtjz2d0tSc9u8Mon, 28 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of ASEAN Research Nick Lord discusses how Singapore’s technological innovation and market influence are putting it on track to continue rising among the world’s richest countries. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nick Lord, Morgan Stanley’s Head of ASEAN Research.Today – Singapore is about to celebrate its 60th year of independence. And it’s about to enter its most transformative decade yet.It’s Monday, the 28th of July, at 2 PM in Singapore.Singapore isn’t just marking a significant birthday on August 9th. It’s entering a new era of wealth creation that could nearly double household assets in just five years. That’s right—we’re projecting household net assets in the city state will grow from $2.3 trillion today to $4 trillion by 2030.So, what’s driving this next chapter?Well, Singapore is evolving from a safe harbor for global capital into a strategic engine of innovation and influence driven by three major forces. First, the country’s growing role as a global hub. Second, its early and aggressive adoption of new technologies. And last but not least, a bold set of reforms aimed at revitalizing its equity markets.Together, these pillars are setting the stage for broad-based wealth creation—and investors are taking notice.Singapore is home to just 6 million people, but it’s already the fourth-richest country in the world on a per capita basis. And it's not stopping there.By 2030, we expect the average household net worth to rise from $1.6 million to an impressive $2.5 million. Assets under management should jump from $4 trillion to $7 trillion. And the MSCI Singapore Index could gain 10 percent annually, potentially doubling in value over the next five years. Return on equity for Singaporean companies is also set to rise—from 12 percent to 14 percent—thanks to productivity gains, market reforms, and stronger shareholder returns.But let me come back to this first pillar of Singapore’s growth story. Its ambition to become a hub of hubs. It’s already a major player in finance, trade, and transportation, Singapore is now doubling down on its strengths.In commodities, it handles 20 percent of the world’s energy and metals trading—and it could become a future hub for LNG and carbon trading. Elsewhere, in financial services, Singapore’s also the third largest cross-border wealth booking centre, and the third-largest FX trading hub globally. Tourism is also a key piece of the puzzle, contributing about 4 percent to GDP. The country continues to invest in world-class infrastructure, events, and attractions keeping the visitors—and their dollars—coming.As for technology – the second key pillar of growth – Singapore is going all in. It’s becoming a regional hub for data and AI, with Malaysia and Japan also in the mix. Together, these countries are expected to attract the lion’s share of the $100 billion in Asia’s data center and GenAI investments this decade.Worth noting – Singapore is already a top-10 AI market globally, with over 1,000 startups, 80 research facilities, and 150 R&D teams. It’s also a regional leader in autonomous vehicles, with 13 AVs currently approved for public road trials. And robots are already working at Singapore’s Changi Airport.Finally, despite its economic strength, Singapore’s stock market had long been seen as sleepy — dominated by a few big banks and real estate firms. But that’s changing fast and becoming the third pillar of Singapore’s remarkable growth story.This year, the government rolled out a sweeping set of reforms to breathe new life into the market. That includes tax incentives, regulatory streamlining, and a $4 billion capital injection from the Monetary Authority of Singapore to boost liquidity—especially for small- and mid-cap stocks.We also expect that there will be a push to...]]>290alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1434fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-will-fund-ai-s-3-trillion-ask--75648594Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – how the world may fund $3 trillion of expected spending on AI. It's Friday July 25th at 2pm in London.Whether you factor it in or not, AI is rapidly becoming a regular part of our daily lives. Checking the weather before you step out of the house. Using your smartphone to navigate to your next destination, with real time traffic updates. Writing that last minute wedding speech. An app that reminds you to take your medication or maybe reminds you to power off your device.All of these capabilities require enormous physical infrastructure, from chips to data centers, to the electricity to power it all. And however large AI is seen so far, we really haven't seen anything yet. Over the next five years, we think that global data center capacity increases by a factor of six times. The cost of this spending is set to be extraordinary. $3 trillion by the end of 2028 on just the data centers and their hardware alone. Where will all this money come from? In a recent deep dive report published last week, a number of teams within Morgan Stanley Research attempted to answer just that. First, large cap technology companies, which are also commonly called the hyperscalers. Well, they are large and profitable. We think they may fund half of the spending out of their own cash flows. But that leaves the other half to come from outside sources. And we think that credit markets – corporate bonds, securitized credit, asset-backed finance markets – they're gonna have a large role to play, given the enormous sums involved.For corporate bonds, the asset class closest to my heart, we estimate an additional $200 billion of issuance to fund these endeavors. Technology companies do currently borrow less than other sectors relative to their cash flow, and so we're starting from a relatively good place if you want to be borrowing more – given that they're a small part of the current bond market. While technology is over 30 percent of the S&P 500 Equity Index, it's just 10 percent of the Investment Grade Bond Index.Indeed, a relevant question might be why these companies don't end up borrowing more through corporate bonds, given this relatively good starting position. Well, some of this we think is capacity. The largest non-financial issuers of bonds today have at most $80 to $90 billion of bonds outstanding. And so as good as these big tech businesses are, asking investors to make them the largest part of the bond market effectively overnight is going to be difficult. Some of our thinking is also driven by corporate finance. We are still in the early stages of this AI build out where the risks are the highest. And so, rather than take these risks on their own balance sheet, we think many tech companies may prefer partnerships that cost a bit more but provide a lot more flexibility. One such partnership that you'll likely to hear a lot more about is Asset Backed Finance or ABF. We see major growth in this area, and we think it may ultimately provide roughly $800 billion of the required funding.The stakes of this AI build out are high. It's not hyperbole to say that many large tech companies see this race to develop AI technology as non-negotiable. The cost of simply competing in this race, let alone winning it – could be enormous. The positive side of this whole story is that we're in the early innings of one of the next great runs of productive capital investment, something that credit markets have helped fund for hundreds of years. The risks, as can often be the case with large spending, is that more is built than needed; that technology does change, or that more mundane issues like there not being enough electricity change the economics of the endeavor.AI will be a theme set to dominate the investment debate for years to come. Credit may not be the main vector of the story. But it's certainly a critical part of it. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4vxnxxKpPs3EOItVOgg-Wef5TUU36kopFJJbQg-nWCoFri, 25 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyJoining the AI race also requires building out massive physical infrastructure. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why credit markets may play a critical role in the endeavor. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – how the world may fund $3 trillion of expected spending on AI. It's Friday July 25th at 2pm in London.Whether you factor it in or not, AI is rapidly becoming a regular part of our daily lives. Checking the weather before you step out of the house. Using your smartphone to navigate to your next destination, with real time traffic updates. Writing that last minute wedding speech. An app that reminds you to take your medication or maybe reminds you to power off your device.All of these capabilities require enormous physical infrastructure, from chips to data centers, to the electricity to power it all. And however large AI is seen so far, we really haven't seen anything yet. Over the next five years, we think that global data center capacity increases by a factor of six times. The cost of this spending is set to be extraordinary. $3 trillion by the end of 2028 on just the data centers and their hardware alone. Where will all this money come from? In a recent deep dive report published last week, a number of teams within Morgan Stanley Research attempted to answer just that. First, large cap technology companies, which are also commonly called the hyperscalers. Well, they are large and profitable. We think they may fund half of the spending out of their own cash flows. But that leaves the other half to come from outside sources. And we think that credit markets – corporate bonds, securitized credit, asset-backed finance markets – they're gonna have a large role to play, given the enormous sums involved.For corporate bonds, the asset class closest to my heart, we estimate an additional $200 billion of issuance to fund these endeavors. Technology companies do currently borrow less than other sectors relative to their cash flow, and so we're starting from a relatively good place if you want to be borrowing more – given that they're a small part of the current bond market. While technology is over 30 percent of the S&P 500 Equity Index, it's just 10 percent of the Investment Grade Bond Index.Indeed, a relevant question might be why these companies don't end up borrowing more through corporate bonds, given this relatively good starting position. Well, some of this we think is capacity. The largest non-financial issuers of bonds today have at most $80 to $90 billion of bonds outstanding. And so as good as these big tech businesses are, asking investors to make them the largest part of the bond market effectively overnight is going to be difficult. Some of our thinking is also driven by corporate finance. We are still in the early stages of this AI build out where the risks are the highest. And so, rather than take these risks on their own balance sheet, we think many tech companies may prefer partnerships that cost a bit more but provide a lot more flexibility. One such partnership that you'll likely to hear a lot more about is Asset Backed Finance or ABF. We see major growth in this area, and we think it may ultimately provide roughly $800 billion of the required funding.The stakes of this AI build out are high. It's not hyperbole to say that many large tech companies see this race to develop AI technology as non-negotiable. The cost of simply competing in this race, let alone winning it – could be enormous. The positive side of this whole story is that we're in the early innings of one of the next great runs of productive capital investment, something that credit markets have helped fund for hundreds of...]]>295alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1433fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-s-ai-action-plan--75648531Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we're diving into the administration's newly released AI action plan. What's in It, what it means for markets, and where the challenges to implementation might lie.It's Thursday, July 24th at 10am in New York.Things are not all quiet on the policy front, but with the fiscal bill having passed Congress and trade tensions simmering ahead of the new August 1st deadline, clients are asking what the administration might focus on that investors might need to know more about.Well, this week it seems to be AI.The White House just unveiled its sweeping AI Action Plan, the first big policy-signaling document since the administration canceled the implementation of former President Biden's AI Diffusion Rule. So, Ariana, what do we need to focus on here?Ariana Salvatore: This document is basically the administration signaling how it intends to cement America's role in the global development of AI – through a mix of both domestic and global policy initiatives. There are over 90 policy actions outlined in the document across three main pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and global leadership.Michael Zezas: That's right. And even though there's still some important details to flesh out here in terms of what these initiatives might practically mean, it's worth delving into what the different areas are outlining and what it might mean for investors here.Ariana Salvatore: So first on the innovation front. The plan calls for removing regulatory barriers to AI development, encouraging open-source models, and investing in interpretability and robustness. There's also a push throughout the document to build world class data sets and accelerate AI adoption across the federal agencies.Michael Zezas: Infrastructure is another main pillar here, and keeping with the theme of loosening regulation, the plan includes fast tracking permits for data centers, expanding access to federal land, and improving grid interconnection for power generation. There's also a call to stabilize the existing grid and prioritize dispatchable energy sources like nuclear and geothermal.But that's where we may see some of these frictions emerge. As our colleague Stephen Byrd has talked about quite a bit, the grid remains a major constraint for power generation; and even with some of these executive orders, the President's ability to control scaling power capacity is somewhat limited.Many of these policy tools to increase energy production to facilitate more data centers will likely have to be addressed by Congress, especially if any of these policy changes are to be more durable.Ariana Salvatore: One area where the executive actually does have pretty broad discretion to control is trade policy, and this document focused a lot on the U.S.’ role in the world as we see increasing AI competition on a global scale.So, to that point, the third pillar is around global leadership. Specifically, the plan calls for the U.S. to export its full AI stack – hardware, models, standards – to allies, while simultaneously tightening export controls on rivals. China's clearly a focal point here, and that's one that is explicitly called out in the document.Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it all seems part of a proposal to form in International AI Alliance built on shared values and open trade; and the plan explicitly frames AI leadership as a strategic priority in the multipolar world.It calls for embedding U.S. AI standards and global governance bodies while using export controls and diplomatic tools to limit adversarial influence. But you know, importantly, something we'll have to track here is what exactly are these standards going to be and how that will shape how industry in the U.S. around AI has to behave. Those details are not yet forthcoming.So, there's a couple of threads here across all of this; deregulation, pushing for more energy generation, trade policy aspects. Ariana, what do you think it all means for investors? Are there key sectors here that face more constraints or face more tailwinds that investors need to know about?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so really two key takeaways from this document. First of all, AI policy is a priority for the administration, and we're seeing them pursue efforts to reduce regulatory barriers to data center construction. Although those could run into some legal and administrative hurdles. All else equal reduction in data center, build time and cost benefits owners of natural gas fired and nuclear power plants. So, you should see a tailwind to the power and utility sector.Secondly, this document and the messaging from the President makes AI a national security issue. That's why we see differentiated treatment for China versus the rest of the world, which is also reflected in the administration's approach to the broader trade relationship and dovetails well with our expectation for higher tariffs on China at the end of this year versus the global baseline.Michael Zezas: Right. So, if AI becomes a national and economic security issue, which is what this document is signaling, it's one of the reasons you should expect that these tariff increases globally – but with a skew towards China – are probably durable. And it's something that we think is reflected in the sector preferences or equity strategy team, for example, with some caution around the consumer sector.Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, plan to watch as this unfolds.Michael Zezas: That's it for today's episode of Thoughts on the Market. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ihI_8pRIrRQ_IH619qEGw8LBbqFGv0V3DuviI0mYU-4Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe Trump administration unveiled a 28-page AI Action Plan, outlining more than 90 policy actions, with an ambition for the U.S. to win the AI race. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas, and U.S. Public...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we're diving into the administration's newly released AI action plan. What's in It, what it means for markets, and where the challenges to implementation might lie.It's Thursday, July 24th at 10am in New York.Things are not all quiet on the policy front, but with the fiscal bill having passed Congress and trade tensions simmering ahead of the new August 1st deadline, clients are asking what the administration might focus on that investors might need to know more about.Well, this week it seems to be AI.The White House just unveiled its sweeping AI Action Plan, the first big policy-signaling document since the administration canceled the implementation of former President Biden's AI Diffusion Rule. So, Ariana, what do we need to focus on here?Ariana Salvatore: This document is basically the administration signaling how it intends to cement America's role in the global development of AI – through a mix of both domestic and global policy initiatives. There are over 90 policy actions outlined in the document across three main pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and global leadership.Michael Zezas: That's right. And even though there's still some important details to flesh out here in terms of what these initiatives might practically mean, it's worth delving into what the different areas are outlining and what it might mean for investors here.Ariana Salvatore: So first on the innovation front. The plan calls for removing regulatory barriers to AI development, encouraging open-source models, and investing in interpretability and robustness. There's also a push throughout the document to build world class data sets and accelerate AI adoption across the federal agencies.Michael Zezas: Infrastructure is another main pillar here, and keeping with the theme of loosening regulation, the plan includes fast tracking permits for data centers, expanding access to federal land, and improving grid interconnection for power generation. There's also a call to stabilize the existing grid and prioritize dispatchable energy sources like nuclear and geothermal.But that's where we may see some of these frictions emerge. As our colleague Stephen Byrd has talked about quite a bit, the grid remains a major constraint for power generation; and even with some of these executive orders, the President's ability to control scaling power capacity is somewhat limited.Many of these policy tools to increase energy production to facilitate more data centers will likely have to be addressed by Congress, especially if any of these policy changes are to be more durable.Ariana Salvatore: One area where the executive actually does have pretty broad discretion to control is trade policy, and this document focused a lot on the U.S.’ role in the world as we see increasing AI competition on a global scale.So, to that point, the third pillar is around global leadership. Specifically, the plan calls for the U.S. to export its full AI stack – hardware, models, standards – to allies, while simultaneously tightening export controls on rivals. China's clearly a focal point here, and that's one that is explicitly called out in the document.Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it all seems part of a proposal to form in...]]>345alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1432fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-the-entertainment-business-stay-human--75648591insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ben Swinburne, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Media and Entertainment Analyst. Today – GenAI is poised to shake up the entertainment business. It’s Wednesday, July 23, at 10am in New York.It's never been easier to create art for anyone – with a little help from GenerativeAI. You can transform photos of yourself or loved ones in the style of a popular Japanese movie studio or any era of visual art to your liking. You can create a short movie by simply typing in a few prompts. Even I can speak to youin several different languages. I can ask about the weather:Hvordan er været i dag?Wie ist das wetter heute?आज मौसम कैसा है? In the media and entertainment industry, GenAI is expected to bring about a seismic shift in how content is made and consumed. A recent production used AI to de-age actors and recreate the likeness of a deceased performer—cutting what used to take hundreds of VFX artists a year to just a few months with a small team. There are many other examples of how GenAI is revolutionizing how stories are told, from scriptwriting and editing to visual effects and dubbing. In music, GenAI is helping music labels identify emerging talent and generate new compositions. GenAI can even create songs using the voices of long-gone artists – potentially extending revenue far beyond an artist’s lifetime. GenAI-driven tools have the potential to reduce TV and film production costs by 10–30 percent, with animation and post-production among the biggest savings opportunities. GenAI could also transform how content reaches audiences. Recommendation engines can become even more predictive, using behavioral data to serve up exactly what listeners want—sometimes before we know what we want. And there’s more studios can achieve in post production. GenAI can already dub content in multiple languages, even syncing mouth movements to match the new dialogue. This makes global distribution faster, cheaper, and more culturally relevant. With better engagement comes better monetization. Platforms will use GenAI to introduce new pricing tiers, targeted advertising, and personalized superfan content that taps into niche audiences willing to pay more. But all this innovation brings up profound ethical concerns. First, there’s the issue of consent and copyright. Can GenAI tools legally use an actor’s name, likeness or voice? Then there’s the question of authorship. If an AI writes a script or composes a song, who owns the rights? The creator or the GenAI model? Labor unions are understandably worried. In 2023, AI was a major sticking point in negotiations between Hollywood studios and writers’ and actors’ guilds. The fear? That AI could replace human jobs or devalue creative work. There are also legal battles. Multiple lawsuits are underway over whether AI models trained on copyrighted material without permission violate intellectual property laws. The outcomes of these cases could reshape the entire industry. But here’s a big question no one can ignore: Will audiences care if content is AI-generated? Some consumers are fascinated by AI-created music or visuals, while others crave the emotional depth and authenticity that comes from human storytelling. Made-by-humans could become a premium label in itself. Now, despite GenAI’s rapid rise, not every corner of entertainment is vulnerable. Live sports, concerts, and theater remain largely insulated from AI disruption. These experiences thrive on real-time emotion, unpredictability, and human connection—things AI can’t replicate. In an AI-saturated world, the value of live events and sports rights will rise, favoring owners of sports rights and live platforms. So where do we go from here? By and large, we’re entering an era where storytelling is no longer limited by budget or geography. GenAI is lowering the barriers to entry, expanding the creative class, and reshaping the economics of media. The winners in this new landscape will likely be companies that can scale—platforms with massive user bases, deep data pools, and the engineering talent to integrate GenAI seamlessly. But there’s also room for agile newcomers who can innovate faster than the incumbents and disrupt the disrupters. No doubt, as the tools get better, the questions get harder. And that’s where the real story begins. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3z6et6QkotbW4jtGfAOMvRTVfNMI3cVYCPoH3ESHLuQWed, 23 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. Media & Entertainment Analyst Benjamin Swinburne discusses how GenAI is transforming content creation, distribution and also raising some serious ethical questions.  Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ben Swinburne, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Media and Entertainment Analyst. Today – GenAI is poised to shake up the entertainment business. It’s Wednesday, July 23, at 10am in New York.It's never been easier to create art for anyone – with a little help from GenerativeAI. You can transform photos of yourself or loved ones in the style of a popular Japanese movie studio or any era of visual art to your liking. You can create a short movie by simply typing in a few prompts. Even I can speak to youin several different languages. I can ask about the weather:Hvordan er været i dag?Wie ist das wetter heute?आज मौसम कैसा है? In the media and entertainment industry, GenAI is expected to bring about a seismic shift in how content is made and consumed. A recent production used AI to de-age actors and recreate the likeness of a deceased performer—cutting what used to take hundreds of VFX artists a year to just a few months with a small team. There are many other examples of how GenAI is revolutionizing how stories are told, from scriptwriting and editing to visual effects and dubbing. In music, GenAI is helping music labels identify emerging talent and generate new compositions. GenAI can even create songs using the voices of long-gone artists – potentially extending revenue far beyond an artist’s lifetime. GenAI-driven tools have the potential to reduce TV and film production costs by 10–30 percent, with animation and post-production among the biggest savings opportunities. GenAI could also transform how content reaches audiences. Recommendation engines can become even more predictive, using behavioral data to serve up exactly what listeners want—sometimes before we know what we want. And there’s more studios can achieve in post production. GenAI can already dub content in multiple languages, even syncing mouth movements to match the new dialogue. This makes global distribution faster, cheaper, and more culturally relevant. With better engagement comes better monetization. Platforms will use GenAI to introduce new pricing tiers, targeted advertising, and personalized superfan content that taps into niche audiences willing to pay more. But all this innovation brings up profound ethical concerns. First, there’s the issue of consent and copyright. Can GenAI tools legally use an actor’s name, likeness or voice? Then there’s the question of authorship. If an AI writes a script or composes a song, who owns the rights? The creator or the GenAI model? Labor unions are understandably worried. In 2023, AI was a major sticking point in negotiations between Hollywood studios and writers’ and actors’ guilds. The fear? That AI could replace human jobs or devalue creative work. There are also legal battles. Multiple lawsuits are underway over whether AI models trained on copyrighted material without permission violate intellectual property laws. The outcomes of these cases could reshape the entire industry. But here’s a big question no one can ignore: Will audiences care if content is AI-generated? Some consumers are fascinated by AI-created music or visuals, while others crave the emotional depth and authenticity that comes from human storytelling. Made-by-humans could become a premium label in itself. Now, despite GenAI’s rapid rise, not every corner of entertainment is vulnerable. Live sports, concerts, and theater remain largely insulated from AI disruption. These experiences thrive on real-time emotion, unpredictability, and human connection—things AI can’t replicate. In an AI-saturated world, the value of live events and sports rights will...]]>316alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1431fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-s-46-trillion-question--75648391insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist.Today – an issue that’s gaining traction in boardrooms and trading floors: the three big decisions Asia investors are facing right now.It’s Tuesday, July 22nd, at 2 PM in Hong Kong.So, let’s start with the big picture.Over the past 13 years, Asia’s international investment position has doubled to $46 trillion. A sizable proportion of that is invested in U.S. assets.But the recent weakness in the U.S. dollar gives rise to three important questions for investors across Asia: Should they diversify away from U.S. assets? How much of Asia’s incremental savings should be allocated to the U.S.? Or should they hedge their U.S. exposure more aggressively?First on the diversification debate. Investors are voicing concern over the U.S. macro outlook, given the twin deficits. At the same time, our U.S. economics team continues to see growth slowing, as better than expected fiscal impulse in the near term will not fully offset the drag from tariffs and tighter immigration policies. This convergence in U.S. growth and interest rates with global peers—and continued debate about the U.S. dollar’s safe haven status has already led to U.S. dollar depreciation. And our macro strategists expect further depreciation of the U.S.D by another 8-9 percent by [the] second quarter of next year.  So what is the data indicating? Are investors already diversifying? Let’s look at Asia’s security portfolio as that data is more transparently available. Out of the total international investment of $46 trillion dollars, Asia’s securities portfolio alone is worth $21 trillion. And of that, $8.6 trillion is in U.S. assets as of [the] first quarter of 2025. Now here’s an interesting point: China’s holding had already peaked in 2013, but Asia ex-China’s holdings of U.S. assets has been increasing. Asia ex-China’s U.S. holdings hit a record $7.2 trillion in the first quarter, largely driven by equities. In other words, in aggregate, Asia investors are not diversifying at the moment. But they are allocating less from their incremental savings. Asia’s current account surplus remains high—at $1.1 trillion in the first quarter. And even if it narrows a bit from here, the structural surplus means Asia’s total international investment position will keep growing. However, incremental allocations to the U.S. are beginning to decline. The share of U.S. assets in Asia’s securities portfolio peaked at 41.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 and started to dip in the first quarter of this year. In fact, our global cross asset strategist Serena Tang notes that Asian investors have reduced net buying of U.S. equities in the second quarter. Finally, let’s talk about hedging. Asian investors have started to increase hedging of their U.S. investment position and we see increased hedging demand as one reason why Asian currencies have strengthened recently. Take Taiwan life insurance—often seen as [a] proxy for broader trends. While their hedge ratios were still falling in the first quarter, they started increasing again in the second. That lines up with the sharp appreciation of [the] Taiwanese dollar in the second quarter. Meanwhile, the currencies of other economies with large U.S. asset holdings have also appreciated since the dollar’s peak. These are clear signals to us that increasing hedging demand is influencing foreign exchange markets.All in all, Asia’s $46 trillion investment position gives it an enormous influence. Whether investors decide to diversify, allocate less or stay the course, and how much to hedge will affect currency trends going forward.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DNu1ziEqNkpMs4mOfYON7WqA_iZi4NVFVqh9dctu9loTue, 22 Jul 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses three key decisions that will determine Asia’s international investment position and affect currency trends. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist.Today – an issue that’s gaining traction in boardrooms and trading floors: the three big decisions Asia investors are facing right now.It’s Tuesday, July 22nd, at 2 PM in Hong Kong.So, let’s start with the big picture.Over the past 13 years, Asia’s international investment position has doubled to $46 trillion. A sizable proportion of that is invested in U.S. assets.But the recent weakness in the U.S. dollar gives rise to three important questions for investors across Asia: Should they diversify away from U.S. assets? How much of Asia’s incremental savings should be allocated to the U.S.? Or should they hedge their U.S. exposure more aggressively?First on the diversification debate. Investors are voicing concern over the U.S. macro outlook, given the twin deficits. At the same time, our U.S. economics team continues to see growth slowing, as better than expected fiscal impulse in the near term will not fully offset the drag from tariffs and tighter immigration policies. This convergence in U.S. growth and interest rates with global peers—and continued debate about the U.S. dollar’s safe haven status has already led to U.S. dollar depreciation. And our macro strategists expect further depreciation of the U.S.D by another 8-9 percent by [the] second quarter of next year.  So what is the data indicating? Are investors already diversifying? Let’s look at Asia’s security portfolio as that data is more transparently available. Out of the total international investment of $46 trillion dollars, Asia’s securities portfolio alone is worth $21 trillion. And of that, $8.6 trillion is in U.S. assets as of [the] first quarter of 2025. Now here’s an interesting point: China’s holding had already peaked in 2013, but Asia ex-China’s holdings of U.S. assets has been increasing. Asia ex-China’s U.S. holdings hit a record $7.2 trillion in the first quarter, largely driven by equities. In other words, in aggregate, Asia investors are not diversifying at the moment. But they are allocating less from their incremental savings. Asia’s current account surplus remains high—at $1.1 trillion in the first quarter. And even if it narrows a bit from here, the structural surplus means Asia’s total international investment position will keep growing. However, incremental allocations to the U.S. are beginning to decline. The share of U.S. assets in Asia’s securities portfolio peaked at 41.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 and started to dip in the first quarter of this year. In fact, our global cross asset strategist Serena Tang notes that Asian investors have reduced net buying of U.S. equities in the second quarter. Finally, let’s talk about hedging. Asian investors have started to increase hedging of their U.S. investment position and we see increased hedging demand as one reason why Asian currencies have strengthened recently. Take Taiwan life insurance—often seen as [a] proxy for broader trends. While their hedge ratios were still falling in the first quarter, they started increasing again in the second. That lines up with the sharp appreciation of [the] Taiwanese dollar in the second quarter. Meanwhile, the currencies of other economies with large U.S. asset holdings have also appreciated since the dollar’s peak. These are clear signals to us that increasing hedging demand is influencing foreign exchange markets.All in all, Asia’s $46 trillion investment position gives it an enormous influence. Whether investors decide to diversify, allocate less or stay the course, and how much to hedge will affect currency...]]>282alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1430fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-a-shadow-chair-steer-the-fed--75648606Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist. And today – well, there’s a topic that’s stirring up a lot of speculation on Wall Street and in Washington. It’s this idea of a Shadow Fed Chair. It’s Monday, July 21, at 2 PM in New York. Let’s start with the basics. Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term expires in May of next year. And look at any newspaper that covers the economy or markets, and you will see that President Trump has been critical of monetary policy under Chair Powell. Those facts have led to a flurry of questions: Who might succeed Chair Powell? When will we know? And—maybe most importantly—how should investors think about these implications? President Trump has been clear in his messaging: he wants the Fed to cut rates more aggressively. But even though it seems clear that there will be a new Chair in June of next year, market pricing suggests a policy rate just above 3 percent by the end of next year. That level is lower than the current Fed rate of 4.25 [percent] to 4.50 [percent], but not aggressively so. In fact, Morgan Stanley’s base case is that the policy rate is going to be even a bit lower than market pricing suggests. So why this disconnect? First, although there are several names that have been floated by media sources, and the Secretary of the Treasury has said that a process to select the next Chair has begun, we really just don’t know who Powell’s successor would be. News reports suggest we will get a name by late summer though. Another key point, from my perspective, is even when Powell’s term as Chair ends, the Fed’s reaction function—which is to say how the Fed reacts to incoming economic data—well, it’s probably not going to change overnight. The Federal Open Market Committee, or the FOMC, makes policy and that policy making is a group effort.  And that group dynamic tends to restrain sudden shifts in policy. So, even after Powell steps down, this internal dynamic could keep policy on a fairly steady course for a while. But some changes are surely coming. First, there’s a vacancy on the Fed Board in January. And that seat could easily go to Powell’s successor—before the Chair position officially changes.  In other words, we might see what people are calling a Shadow Chair, sitting on the FOMC, influencing policy from the inside.Would that matter to markets?Possibly. Especially if the successor is particularly vocal and signals a markedly different stance in policy.  But again, the same committee dynamics that should keep policy steady so far might limit any other immediate shifts. Even with an insider talking. As importantly, history suggests that political appointees often shed their past affiliations once they take office, focusing instead on the Fed’s dual mandate: maximum sustainable employment and stable prices.But there are always quirky twists to most stories: Powell’s seat on the Board doesn’t actually expire when his term as Chair ends. Technically, he could stay on as a regular Board member—just like Michael Barr did after stepping down as the Vice Chair for Supervision. Now Powell hasn’t commented on all this, so for now, it’s just a thought experiment. But here’s another thought experiment: the FOMC is technically a separate agency from the Board of Governors. Now, by tradition, the chair of the board is picked by the FOMC to be chair of the FOMC, but that's not required by law. In one version of the world, in theory, the committee could choose someone else. Would that happen?  Well, I think that's unlikely. In my experience, the Fed is an institution that has valued orthodoxy and continuity. But it’s just a reminder that rules aren’t always quite as rigid as they seem. And regardless, the Chair of the Fed always matters. While the FOMC votes on policy, the Chair sets the tone, frames the debate, and often guides where consensus ends up. And over time, as new appointees join the Board, the new Chair’s influence will only grow. Even the selection of Reserve Bank Presidents is subject to a Board veto, and that would give the Chair indirect sway over the entire FOMC.Where does all of this leave us? For now, this Shadow Chair debate is more of a nuance than the primary narrative. We don’t expect the Fed’s reaction function to change between now and May. But beyond that, the range of outcomes starts to widen more and more and more.  Until then, I would say the bigger risk to our Fed forecast isn’t politics. It's our forecast for the economy—and on that front we remain, as always, very humble. Well, thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8uqkOx9Bsk67pNVnM1482YoFemafmy9UtTKilNj9gKQMon, 21 Jul 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyAs Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term ends next year, our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discusses the potential policy impact of a so-called “shadow Fed chair”. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist. And today – well, there’s a topic that’s stirring up a lot of speculation on Wall Street and in Washington. It’s this idea of a Shadow Fed Chair. It’s Monday, July 21, at 2 PM in New York. Let’s start with the basics. Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term expires in May of next year. And look at any newspaper that covers the economy or markets, and you will see that President Trump has been critical of monetary policy under Chair Powell. Those facts have led to a flurry of questions: Who might succeed Chair Powell? When will we know? And—maybe most importantly—how should investors think about these implications? President Trump has been clear in his messaging: he wants the Fed to cut rates more aggressively. But even though it seems clear that there will be a new Chair in June of next year, market pricing suggests a policy rate just above 3 percent by the end of next year. That level is lower than the current Fed rate of 4.25 [percent] to 4.50 [percent], but not aggressively so. In fact, Morgan Stanley’s base case is that the policy rate is going to be even a bit lower than market pricing suggests. So why this disconnect? First, although there are several names that have been floated by media sources, and the Secretary of the Treasury has said that a process to select the next Chair has begun, we really just don’t know who Powell’s successor would be. News reports suggest we will get a name by late summer though. Another key point, from my perspective, is even when Powell’s term as Chair ends, the Fed’s reaction function—which is to say how the Fed reacts to incoming economic data—well, it’s probably not going to change overnight. The Federal Open Market Committee, or the FOMC, makes policy and that policy making is a group effort.  And that group dynamic tends to restrain sudden shifts in policy. So, even after Powell steps down, this internal dynamic could keep policy on a fairly steady course for a while. But some changes are surely coming. First, there’s a vacancy on the Fed Board in January. And that seat could easily go to Powell’s successor—before the Chair position officially changes.  In other words, we might see what people are calling a Shadow Chair, sitting on the FOMC, influencing policy from the inside.Would that matter to markets?Possibly. Especially if the successor is particularly vocal and signals a markedly different stance in policy.  But again, the same committee dynamics that should keep policy steady so far might limit any other immediate shifts. Even with an insider talking. As importantly, history suggests that political appointees often shed their past affiliations once they take office, focusing instead on the Fed’s dual mandate: maximum sustainable employment and stable prices.But there are always quirky twists to most stories: Powell’s seat on the Board doesn’t actually expire when his term as Chair ends. Technically, he could stay on as a regular Board member—just like Michael Barr did after stepping down as the Vice Chair for Supervision. Now Powell hasn’t commented on all this, so for now, it’s just a thought experiment. But here’s another thought experiment: the FOMC is technically a separate agency from the Board of Governors. Now, by tradition, the chair of the board is picked by the FOMC to be chair of the FOMC, but that's not required by law. In one version of the world, in theory, the committee could choose someone else. Would that happen?  Well, I think that's unlikely. In my experience, the Fed is an institution that has valued orthodoxy...]]>295alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1429fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/no-summer-slowdown-for-markets-yet--75648277Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today: Why there's no summer slowdown yet for U.S. policy catalysts for the financial markets. It's Friday, July 18th at 8am in New York. The past week and a half has seen many major policy, events and headlines relevant to the outlook for financial markets. This includes more speculation by the U.S. administration over leadership at the Fed, more information about the deficit impact of the new fiscal bill, and – perhaps most tangibly – announcements of new tariffs that, if they take effect, will be a meaningful step up from already elevated levels. It would all suggest a weaker growth outlook and less overseas demand for U.S. assets. Yet major financial markets seem to have shrugged it all off. The S & P and the U.S. dollar are up about 1 percent over that time, and Treasury yields are modestly higher. So, what's going on? Two possibilities to consider, and it implies investors should pay more attention than they may be inclined to this summer. First, when it comes to the impact of tariffs on the economy, it's possible we're dealing with a delayed impact. The effective average U.S. tariff rate shot up from 3 to 4 percent earlier this year to 13 percent, and if recent announcements go through, that could exceed 20 percent. That's a major escalation in costs for U.S. companies and consumers and something our economists argue takes growth down to 1 percent and elevates the possibility of a recession. But our economists also point out that we may not be experiencing these cost increases quite yet. History suggests several months of lag between implementation and economic impact as companies leverage existing lower cost inventory before making tough decisions on pricing and managing their own costs. That means hard economic data likely does not yet tell us about the impact or lack thereof of tariffs, but that may change in the coming months. Second. It's also possible that the recent announcements of tariff increases don't tell us the whole story. As my colleagues in our equity strategy team point out, corporate America's cost base is most sensitive to the U.S.' largest trading partners – China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe. As we've discussed in prior episodes, we see tariff rate increases as likely on all these trading partners as tough negotiations continue. However, the details will matter greatly if rates are increased, but with a healthy dose of exceptions or quotas. Even if they diminish over time, then the real impact could be significantly blunted. In that case, markets would resume taking cues from other factors such as earnings revisions and forward-looking expectations around AI driven productivity. So bottom line, market movements suggest investors are assuming benign U.S. policy outcomes. But there's plenty of developments to track in the coming weeks and months to test if those assumptions will hold. Trade policy details and hard economic data are key among them. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review, and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-g4zk7Ocuqbx95qIpoqr4xlTvrmiQVCHcpvJOx0YOnwFri, 18 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyMarkets may seem calm following recent policy headlines, but for Michael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, investors may need to wait on more data to assess whether the macroenvironment will remain stable....Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today: Why there's no summer slowdown yet for U.S. policy catalysts for the financial markets. It's Friday, July 18th at 8am in New York. The past week and a half has seen many major policy, events and headlines relevant to the outlook for financial markets. This includes more speculation by the U.S. administration over leadership at the Fed, more information about the deficit impact of the new fiscal bill, and – perhaps most tangibly – announcements of new tariffs that, if they take effect, will be a meaningful step up from already elevated levels. It would all suggest a weaker growth outlook and less overseas demand for U.S. assets. Yet major financial markets seem to have shrugged it all off. The S & P and the U.S. dollar are up about 1 percent over that time, and Treasury yields are modestly higher. So, what's going on? Two possibilities to consider, and it implies investors should pay more attention than they may be inclined to this summer. First, when it comes to the impact of tariffs on the economy, it's possible we're dealing with a delayed impact. The effective average U.S. tariff rate shot up from 3 to 4 percent earlier this year to 13 percent, and if recent announcements go through, that could exceed 20 percent. That's a major escalation in costs for U.S. companies and consumers and something our economists argue takes growth down to 1 percent and elevates the possibility of a recession. But our economists also point out that we may not be experiencing these cost increases quite yet. History suggests several months of lag between implementation and economic impact as companies leverage existing lower cost inventory before making tough decisions on pricing and managing their own costs. That means hard economic data likely does not yet tell us about the impact or lack thereof of tariffs, but that may change in the coming months. Second. It's also possible that the recent announcements of tariff increases don't tell us the whole story. As my colleagues in our equity strategy team point out, corporate America's cost base is most sensitive to the U.S.' largest trading partners – China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe. As we've discussed in prior episodes, we see tariff rate increases as likely on all these trading partners as tough negotiations continue. However, the details will matter greatly if rates are increased, but with a healthy dose of exceptions or quotas. Even if they diminish over time, then the real impact could be significantly blunted. In that case, markets would resume taking cues from other factors such as earnings revisions and forward-looking expectations around AI driven productivity. So bottom line, market movements suggest investors are assuming benign U.S. policy outcomes. But there's plenty of developments to track in the coming weeks and months to test if those assumptions will hold. Trade policy details and hard economic data are key among them. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review, and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>220alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1428fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-a-weaker-dollar-could-boost-u-s-stocks--75648402Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley. David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, head of G10 FX Strategy here at Morgan Stanley. Michelle Weaver: Our colleagues were recently on the show to talk about the impact of the weak dollar on European equities. And today we wanted to continue that conversation by looking at what a weak U.S. dollar means for the U.S. equity market.It's Thursday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Morgan Stanley has a bearish view on the U.S. dollar. And this is something our chief global FX strategist James Lord spoke about recently on the show. But Dave, I want to go over the outlook again, since Morgan Stanley has a really differentiated view on this. Do you think the dollar will continue to depreciate during the remainder of the year? David Adams: We do, and we do. We have been dollar bears this whole year, and it has been very out of consensus. But we do think the weakness will continue and our forecasts remain one of the most bearish on the street for the dollar. The dollar has had its worst first half of the year since 1973, and the dollar index has fallen about 10 percent year to date, but we think we're at the intermission rather than the finale. The second act for the dollar weakening trend should come over the next 12 months as U.S. interest rates and U.S. growth rates converge to that of the rest of the world. And FX hedging of existing U.S. assets held by foreign investors adds further negative risk premium to the dollar. The result is that we're looking for yet another 10 percent drop in the dollar by the end of next year. Michelle Weaver: That's really interesting and a differentiated view for Morgan Stanley. When I think about one of the key themes that we've been following this year, it's the multipolar world or a shift away from globalization to more localized spheres of influence. This is an important element to the dollar story.How have tariffs impacted currency and your outlook? David Adams: Tariffs play a key role in this framework. Tariffs have a positive impact on inflation, but a negative impact on U.S. growth. But the inflation impact comes faster and the negative impact on growth and employment that comes a bit later. This puts the Fed in a really tough spot and it's why our economists are pretty out of consensus in calling for both no cuts this year, and a much faster and deeper pace of cuts in 2026. The results for me in FX land is that the market is underestimating just how low the Fed will go and just how low U.S. rates will go, in general. Tariffs play a big role in helping to generate this rate convergence, and rate differentials are a fundamental driver of currencies. The more that U.S. rates are going to fall, the more likely it is that the dollar keeps falling too. Michelle Weaver: Tariffs have certainly impacted heavily on our view for the U.S. equity market and it's something that no asset class is not impacted by really. Given the volatility and the magnitude of the move we've seen this year, are foreign investors hedging more? David Adams: We do think they've started hedging more, but the bulk of the move is really ahead of us. Foreign investors own a massive amount of U.S. assets. European investors alone own $8 trillion of U.S. bonds and stocks, and that's only about a quarter of total foreign ownership of U.S. assets. Now when foreign investors buy U.S. assets, they have to sell their currency and buy the dollar. But at some point, you're going to have to bring that money back, so you're going to have to sell the dollar and buy back your home currency again. If the dollar rises over this period, you've made a gain, congratulations. But if it falls, you've made a loss. Now a lot of foreign investors will hedge this currency risk, and they'll use instruments like forwards and options to do so. But in the case of the U.S., we found that a lot of foreign investors really choose not to hedge this exposure, particularly on the equity side. And this reflects both a view that the dollar would appreciate; so, they want to take that gain. But it also reflects the dollar's negative correlation to equities. So, what's changing now? Well, a lot of investors are starting to rethink this decision and add those FX hedges, which really means dollar selling. Now, there's a lot of factors motivating their decision to hedge. One, of course is price. If U.S. rates are going to converge meaningfully to the rest of the world – like we expect – that flattens out the forward curve and makes those forwards cheaper to buy to hedge. But the breakdown in correlations that we've seen more broadly, the uptick in policy volatility and uncertainty, and the sell off in the dollar that we've already seen year to date, have all increased the relative benefit of FX hedging. Now, Michelle, I often get asked the question, that's a nice story, but is hedging actually picking up? And the answer is yes. The initial data suggests that hedging has picked up in the second quarter, but because of the size of U.S. asset holdings and given how much it was initially unhedged, we could be talking about a significant long-term flow. We have a lot more to go from here. Michelle Weaver: Yeah. David Adams: We estimated that just over half of Europe's $8 trillion holdings are unhedged. And if hedge ratios pick up even a little bit, we could be talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in flow. And that's just from Europe. But Michelle, I wanted to ask you. What do you think a weaker dollar means for U.S. companies? Michelle Weaver: The weaker dollar is a substantial underappreciated tailwind for U.S. multinational earnings, and this is because these companies sell products overseas and then get paid in foreign currency. So, when the dollar's down, converting that foreign revenue back into dollars, gives them a nice boost, something that domestic only companies aren't going to benefit from. And this is called the translation effect. Recently we've seen earnings revisions breadth, essentially a measure of whether analysts are getting more optimistic or pessimistic start to turn up after hitting typical cycle lows. And based on our house view for the dollar, there's likely more upside ahead based on that relationship for revisions over the next year. David Adams: Interesting. Interesting. And is this something you're hearing about from companies on things like earnings calls? Michelle Weaver: No, this dynamic isn't being highlighted much on earnings calls. Typically, companies talk about foreign exchange effects when the dollar's strengthening and provides a headwind for corporate earnings. But when we're in the reverse scenario like we are now with the dollar weakening and getting a boost to earnings, we tend to not hear as much discussion, which is why I called this an underappreciated tailwind. And according to your team's forecast, we still have a substantial amount of weakening to go and thus a substantial amount of benefit for U.S. companies to go. David Adams: Yeah, that makes sense. And who do you think benefits most from this dynamic? Are there any sectors or investment styles that look particularly good here? Michelle Weaver: Mm hmm. So generally, it's the large cap companies that stand to gain the most from this dynamic, and that's because they do more business overseas. If we look at foreign revenue exposure for different indices, around 40 percent of the S & P 500’s revenue comes from outside the U.S., while that's just 22 percent for the Russell 2000 Small Cap Index. But the impact of a weaker dollar isn't the same across the board. Foreign revenue exposure and earnings revision sensitivity to the dollar vary quite a bit, when we look at the sector and the industry group level. From a foreign revenue exposure perspective, Tech Materials and Industrials have the highest foreign revenue exposure and thus can benefit a lot from that dynamic we've been talking about. When we look from an earnings revisions perspective, Capital Goods, Materials, Software and Tech Hardware have the most earnings revisions, sensitivity to a weaker dollar, so they could also benefit there. David Adams: So, I guess this brings us to the million-dollar question that all of our listeners are asking. What do we do with this information? What does this mean for investors? Michelle Weaver: So as the dollar, continues to weaken, investors should keep a close eye on the industries and companies poised to benefit the most – because in this multipolar world, currency dynamics are not just a macro backdrop, but an important driver of earnings and equity performance.Dave, thank you for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_G6C_V_PlYE15iBFkF89JW_DChE4s6OyQnekbgr1NMYThu, 17 Jul 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyThe dollar’s bearish run is likely to affect U.S. equity markets. Michelle Weaver, our U.S. Thematic & Equity Strategist, and David Adams, our Head of G10 FX Strategy, discuss what investors should consider. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley. David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, head of G10 FX Strategy here at Morgan Stanley. Michelle Weaver: Our colleagues were recently on the show to talk about the impact of the weak dollar on European equities. And today we wanted to continue that conversation by looking at what a weak U.S. dollar means for the U.S. equity market.It's Thursday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Morgan Stanley has a bearish view on the U.S. dollar. And this is something our chief global FX strategist James Lord spoke about recently on the show. But Dave, I want to go over the outlook again, since Morgan Stanley has a really differentiated view on this. Do you think the dollar will continue to depreciate during the remainder of the year? David Adams: We do, and we do. We have been dollar bears this whole year, and it has been very out of consensus. But we do think the weakness will continue and our forecasts remain one of the most bearish on the street for the dollar. The dollar has had its worst first half of the year since 1973, and the dollar index has fallen about 10 percent year to date, but we think we're at the intermission rather than the finale. The second act for the dollar weakening trend should come over the next 12 months as U.S. interest rates and U.S. growth rates converge to that of the rest of the world. And FX hedging of existing U.S. assets held by foreign investors adds further negative risk premium to the dollar. The result is that we're looking for yet another 10 percent drop in the dollar by the end of next year. Michelle Weaver: That's really interesting and a differentiated view for Morgan Stanley. When I think about one of the key themes that we've been following this year, it's the multipolar world or a shift away from globalization to more localized spheres of influence. This is an important element to the dollar story.How have tariffs impacted currency and your outlook? David Adams: Tariffs play a key role in this framework. Tariffs have a positive impact on inflation, but a negative impact on U.S. growth. But the inflation impact comes faster and the negative impact on growth and employment that comes a bit later. This puts the Fed in a really tough spot and it's why our economists are pretty out of consensus in calling for both no cuts this year, and a much faster and deeper pace of cuts in 2026. The results for me in FX land is that the market is underestimating just how low the Fed will go and just how low U.S. rates will go, in general. Tariffs play a big role in helping to generate this rate convergence, and rate differentials are a fundamental driver of currencies. The more that U.S. rates are going to fall, the more likely it is that the dollar keeps falling too. Michelle Weaver: Tariffs have certainly impacted heavily on our view for the U.S. equity market and it's something that no asset class is not impacted by really. Given the volatility and the magnitude of the move we've seen this year, are foreign investors hedging more? David Adams: We do think they've started hedging more, but the bulk of the move is really ahead of us. Foreign investors own a massive amount of U.S. assets. European investors alone own $8 trillion of U.S. bonds and stocks, and that's only about a quarter of total foreign ownership of U.S. assets. Now when foreign investors buy U.S. assets, they have to sell their currency and buy the dollar. But at some point, you're going to have to bring that money back, so...]]>479alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1427fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/coming-soon-the-tariff-hit-on-economic-data--75648614Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about why tariffs are showing up everywhere – but the data; and why we think this changes this quarter. It's Wednesday, July 16th at 2pm in London. Investors have faced tariff headlines since at least February. The fact that it's now mid-July and markets are still grinding higher is driving some understandable skepticism that they're going to have their promised impact. Indeed, we imagine that maybe more of one of you is groaning and saying, ‘What? Another tariff episode?’ But we do think this theme remains important for markets. And above all, it's a factor we think is going to hit very soon. We think it's kind of now – the third quarter – when the promised impact of tariffs on economic data and earnings really start to come through. My colleague Jenna Giannelli and I discussed some of the reasons why, on last week's episode focused on the retail sector. But what I want to do next is give a little bit of that a broader context. Where I want to start is that it's really about tariff impact picking up right about now. The inflation readings that we got earlier this week started to show US core inflation picking up again, driven by more tariff sensitive sectors. And while second quarter earnings that are being reported right about now, we think will generally be fine, and maybe even a bit better than expected; the third quarter earnings that are going to be generated over the next several months, we think those are more at risk from tariff related impact. And again, this could be especially pronounced in the consumer and retail sector. So why have tariffs not mattered so much so far, and why would that change very soon? The first factor is that tariff rates are increasing rapidly. They've moved up quickly to a historically high 9 percent as of today; even with all of the pauses and delays. And recently announced actions by the US administration over just the last couple of weeks could effectively double this rate again -- from 9 percent to somewhere between 15 to 20 percent.A second reason why this is picking up now is that tariff collections are picking up now. US Customs collected over $26 billion in tariffs in June, which annualizes out to about 1 percent of GDP, a very large number. These collections were not nearly as high just three months ago. Third, tariffs have seen pauses and delayed starts, which would delay the impact. And tariffs also exempted goods that were in transit, which can be significant from goods coming from Europe or Asia; again, a factor that would delay the impact. But these delays are starting to come to fruition as those higher tariff collections and higher tariff rates would suggest. And finally, companies did see tariffs coming and tried to mitigate them. They ordered a lot of inventory ahead of tariff rates coming into effect. But by the third quarter, we think they've sold a lot of that inventory, meaning they no longer get the benefit. Companies ordered a lot of socks before tariffs went into effect. But by the third quarter and those third quarter earnings, we think they will have sold them all. And the new socks they're ordering, well, they come with a higher cost of goods sold. In short, we think it's reasonable to expect that the bulk of the impact of tariffs and economic and earnings data still lies ahead, especially in this quarter – the third quarter of 2025. We continue to think that it's probably in August and September rather than June-July, where the market will care more about these challenges as core inflation data continues to pick up. For credit, this leaves us with an up in quality bias, especially as we move through that August to September period. And as Jenna and I discussed last week, we are especially cautious on the retail credit sector, which we think is more exposed to these various factors converging in the third quarter. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen; and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Y5dIejRDa1ghq6zlCWZbhRAv5rwSsMA3ZysrGuXFqjcWed, 16 Jul 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyU.S. tariffs have had limited impact so far on inflation and corporate earnings. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why – and when – that might change. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about why tariffs are showing up everywhere – but the data; and why we think this changes this quarter. It's Wednesday, July 16th at 2pm in London. Investors have faced tariff headlines since at least February. The fact that it's now mid-July and markets are still grinding higher is driving some understandable skepticism that they're going to have their promised impact. Indeed, we imagine that maybe more of one of you is groaning and saying, ‘What? Another tariff episode?’ But we do think this theme remains important for markets. And above all, it's a factor we think is going to hit very soon. We think it's kind of now – the third quarter – when the promised impact of tariffs on economic data and earnings really start to come through. My colleague Jenna Giannelli and I discussed some of the reasons why, on last week's episode focused on the retail sector. But what I want to do next is give a little bit of that a broader context. Where I want to start is that it's really about tariff impact picking up right about now. The inflation readings that we got earlier this week started to show US core inflation picking up again, driven by more tariff sensitive sectors. And while second quarter earnings that are being reported right about now, we think will generally be fine, and maybe even a bit better than expected; the third quarter earnings that are going to be generated over the next several months, we think those are more at risk from tariff related impact. And again, this could be especially pronounced in the consumer and retail sector. So why have tariffs not mattered so much so far, and why would that change very soon? The first factor is that tariff rates are increasing rapidly. They've moved up quickly to a historically high 9 percent as of today; even with all of the pauses and delays. And recently announced actions by the US administration over just the last couple of weeks could effectively double this rate again -- from 9 percent to somewhere between 15 to 20 percent.A second reason why this is picking up now is that tariff collections are picking up now. US Customs collected over $26 billion in tariffs in June, which annualizes out to about 1 percent of GDP, a very large number. These collections were not nearly as high just three months ago. Third, tariffs have seen pauses and delayed starts, which would delay the impact. And tariffs also exempted goods that were in transit, which can be significant from goods coming from Europe or Asia; again, a factor that would delay the impact. But these delays are starting to come to fruition as those higher tariff collections and higher tariff rates would suggest. And finally, companies did see tariffs coming and tried to mitigate them. They ordered a lot of inventory ahead of tariff rates coming into effect. But by the third quarter, we think they've sold a lot of that inventory, meaning they no longer get the benefit. Companies ordered a lot of socks before tariffs went into effect. But by the third quarter and those third quarter earnings, we think they will have sold them all. And the new socks they're ordering, well, they come with a higher cost of goods sold. In short, we think it's reasonable to expect that the bulk of the impact of tariffs and economic and earnings data still lies ahead, especially in this quarter – the third quarter of 2025. We continue to think that it's probably in August and September rather than June-July, where the market will care...]]>266alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1426fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-end-of-the-u-s-dollar-s-bull-run--75648411Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Markets. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of European Product. And today we're discussing the weakness we've seen year-to-date in the U.S. dollar and what this means for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, July the 15th at 3:00 PM in London.I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist, and James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global FX Strategist.James, I'm going to start with you because I think we've got a really differentiated view here on the U.S. dollar. And I think when we started the year, the bearish view that we had as a house on the U.S. dollar, I don't think many would've agreed with, frankly. And yet here we are today, and we've seen the U.S. dollar weakness proliferating so far this year –  but actually it's more than that.When I listen to your view and the team's view, it sounds like we've got a much more structurally bearish outlook on the U.S. dollar from here, which has got some tenure. So, I don't want to steal your thunder, but why don't you tell us, kind of frame the debate, for us around the U.S. dollar and what you're thinking.James Lord: So, at the beginning of the year, you're right. The consensus was that, you know, the election of Donald Trump was going to deliver another period of what people have called U.S. exceptionalism.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: And with that it would've been outperformance of U.S. equities, outperformance of U.S. growth, continued capital inflows into the United States and outperformance of the U.S. dollar.At the time we had a slightly different view. I mean, with the help of the economics team, we took the other side of that debate largely on the assumption that actually U.S. growth was quite likely to slow through 2025, and probably into 2026 as well – on the back of restrictions on immigration, lack of fiscal stimulus. And, increasingly as trade tariffs were going to be implemented…Paul Walsh: Yeah. Tariffs, of course…James Lord: That was going to be something that weighed on growth.So that was how we set out the beginning of the year. And as the year has progressed, the story has evolved. Like some of the other things that have happened, around just the extent to which tariff uncertainty has escalated. The section 899 debate.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: Some of the softness in the data and just the huge amounts of uncertainty that surrounds U.S. policymaking in general has accelerated the decline in the U.S. dollar. So, we do think that this has got further to go. I mean, the targets that we set at the beginning of the year, we kind of already met them. But when we published our midyear outlook, we extended the target.So, we may even have to go towards the bull case target of euro-dollar of 130.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.James Lord: But as the U.S. data slows and the Fed debate really kicks off where at Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics research is expecting the Fed to ultimately cut to 2.5 percent...Paul Walsh: Yeah.Lord: That’s really going to really weigh on the dollar as well. And this comes on the back of a 15-year bull market for the dollar.Paul Walsh: That's right.James Lord:  From 2010 all the way through to the end of last year, the dollar has been on a tear.Paul Walsh: On a structural bull run.James Lord: Absolutely. And was at the upper end of that long-term historical range. And the U.S. has got 4 percent GDP current account deficit in a slowing growth environment. It's going to be tough for the dollar to keep going up. And so, we think we're sort of not in the early stages, maybe sort of halfway through this dollar decline. But it's a huge change compared to what we've been used to. So, it's going to have big implications for macro, for companies, for all sorts of people.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And I think that last point you make is absolutely critical in terms of the implications for corporates in particular, Marina, because that's what we spend every hour of every working day thinking about. And yes, currency's been on the radar, I get that. But I think this structural dynamic that James alludes to perhaps is not really conventional wisdom still, when I think about the sector analysts and how clients are thinking about the outlook for the U.S. dollar.But the good news is that you've obviously done detailed work in collaboration with the floor to understand the complexities of how this bearish dollar view is percolating across the different stocks and sectors. So, I wondered if you could walk us through what your observations are and what your conclusions are having done the work.Marina Zavolock: First of all, I just want to acknowledge that what you just said there. My background is emerging markets and coming into covering Europe about a year and a half ago, I've been surprised, especially amid the really big, you know, shift that we're seeing that James was highlighting – how FX has been kind of this secondary consideration. In the process of doing this work, I realized that analysts all look at FX in different way. Investors all look at FX in different way. And in …Paul Walsh: So do corporates.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, corporates all look at FX in different way. We've looked a lot at that. Having that EM background where we used to think about FX as much as we thought about equities, it was as fundamental to the story...Paul Walsh: And to be clear, that's because of the volatility…Marina Zavolock: Exactly, which we're now seeing now coming into, you know, global markets effectively with the dollar moves that we've had. What we've done is created or attempted to create a framework for assessing FX exposure by stock, the level of FX mismatches, the types of FX mismatches and the various types of hedging policies that you have for those – particularly you have hedging for transactional FX mismatches.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: And we've looked at this from stock level, sector level, aggregating the stock level data and country level. And basically, overall, some of the key conclusions are that the list of stocks that benefit from Euro strength that we've identified, which is actually a small pocket of the European index. That group of stocks that actually benefits from euro strength has been strongly outperforming the European index, especially year-to-date.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: And just every day it's kind of keeps breaking on a relative basis to new highs. Given the backdrop of James' view there, we expect that to continue. On the other hand, you have even more exposure within the European index of companies that are being hit basically with earnings, downgrades in local currency terms. That into this earning season in particular, we expect that to continue to be a risk for local currency earnings.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: The stocks that are most negatively impacted, they tend to have a lot of dollar exposure or EM exposure where you have pockets of currency weakness as well. So overall what we found through our analysis is that more than half of the European index is negatively exposed to this euro and other local currency strength. The sectors that are positively exposed is a minority of the index. So about 30 percent is either materially or positively exposed to the euro and other local currency strength. And sectors within that in particular that stand out positively exposed utilities, real estate banks. And the companies in this bucket, which we spend a lot of time identifying, they are strongly outperforming the index.They're breaking to new highs almost on a daily basis relative to the index. And I think that's going to continue into earning season because that's going to be one of the standouts positively, amid probably a lot of downgrades for companies who have translational exposure to the U.S. or EM.Paul Walsh: And so, let's take that one step further, Marina, because obviously hedging is an important part of the process for companies. And as we've heard from James, of a 15-year bull run for dollar strength. And so most companies would've been hedging, you know, dollar strength to be fair where they've got mismatches. But what are your observations having looked at the hedging side of the equation?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, so let me start with FX mismatches. So, we find that about half of the European index is exposed to some level of FX mismatches.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: So, you have intra-European currency mismatches. You have companies sourcing goods in Asia or China and shipping them to Europe. So, it's actually a favorable FX mismatch. And then as far as hedging, the type of hedging that tends to happen for companies is related to transactional mismatches. So, these are cost revenue, balance sheet mismatches; cashflow distribution type mismatches. So, they're more the types of mismatches that could create risk rather than translational mismatches, which are – they're just going to happen.Paul Walsh: Yeah.Marina Zavolock: And one of the most interesting aspects of our report is that we found that companies that have advanced hedging, FX hedging programs, they first of all, they tend to outperform, when you compare them to companies with limited or no hedging, despite having transactional mismatches. And secondly, they tend to have lower share price volatility as well, particularly versus the companies with no hedging, which have the most share price volatility.So, the analysis, generally, in Europe of this most, the most probably diversified region globally, is that FX hedging actually does generate alpha and contributes to relative performan]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FfGgcBlhbLMzBlwxi-k9LQBkO5RbOxpVfwwxtf4kdssWed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Paul Walsh, James Lord and Marina Zavolock discuss the dollar’s decline, the strength of the euro, and the mixed impact on European equities. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Markets. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of European Product. And today we're discussing the weakness we've seen year-to-date in the U.S. dollar and what this means for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, July the 15th at 3:00 PM in London.I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist, and James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global FX Strategist.James, I'm going to start with you because I think we've got a really differentiated view here on the U.S. dollar. And I think when we started the year, the bearish view that we had as a house on the U.S. dollar, I don't think many would've agreed with, frankly. And yet here we are today, and we've seen the U.S. dollar weakness proliferating so far this year –  but actually it's more than that.When I listen to your view and the team's view, it sounds like we've got a much more structurally bearish outlook on the U.S. dollar from here, which has got some tenure. So, I don't want to steal your thunder, but why don't you tell us, kind of frame the debate, for us around the U.S. dollar and what you're thinking.James Lord: So, at the beginning of the year, you're right. The consensus was that, you know, the election of Donald Trump was going to deliver another period of what people have called U.S. exceptionalism.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: And with that it would've been outperformance of U.S. equities, outperformance of U.S. growth, continued capital inflows into the United States and outperformance of the U.S. dollar.At the time we had a slightly different view. I mean, with the help of the economics team, we took the other side of that debate largely on the assumption that actually U.S. growth was quite likely to slow through 2025, and probably into 2026 as well – on the back of restrictions on immigration, lack of fiscal stimulus. And, increasingly as trade tariffs were going to be implemented…Paul Walsh: Yeah. Tariffs, of course…James Lord: That was going to be something that weighed on growth.So that was how we set out the beginning of the year. And as the year has progressed, the story has evolved. Like some of the other things that have happened, around just the extent to which tariff uncertainty has escalated. The section 899 debate.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: Some of the softness in the data and just the huge amounts of uncertainty that surrounds U.S. policymaking in general has accelerated the decline in the U.S. dollar. So, we do think that this has got further to go. I mean, the targets that we set at the beginning of the year, we kind of already met them. But when we published our midyear outlook, we extended the target.So, we may even have to go towards the bull case target of euro-dollar of 130.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.James Lord: But as the U.S. data slows and the Fed debate really kicks off where at Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics research is expecting the Fed to ultimately cut to 2.5 percent...Paul Walsh: Yeah.Lord: That’s really going to really weigh on the dollar as well. And this comes on the back of a 15-year bull market for the dollar.Paul Walsh: That's right.James Lord:  From 2010 all the way through to the end of last year, the dollar has been on a tear.Paul Walsh: On a structural bull run.James Lord: Absolutely. And was at the upper end of that long-term historical range. And the U.S. has got 4 percent GDP current account deficit in a slowing growth environment. It's going to be tough for the dollar to keep going up. And so, we think we're sort of not in the early stages, maybe sort of halfway through this...]]>770alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1425fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-wall-street-is-weathering-the-tariff-storm--75648264Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why stocks remain so resilient. It's Monday, July 14th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Why has the equity market been resilient in the face of new tariff announcements? Well first, the import cost exposure for S&P 500 industries is more limited given the deferrals and exemptions still in place like the USMCA compliant imports from Mexico. Second, the higher tariff rates recently announced on several trading partners are generally not perceived to be the final rates as negotiations progress. I continue to believe these tariffs will ultimately end up looking like a 10 percent consumption tax on imports that generate significant revenue for the Treasury. And finally, many companies pre-stocked inventory before the tariffs were levied and so the higher priced goods have not yet flowed through the cost of goods sold. Furthermore, with the market’s tariffs concerns having peaked in early April, the market is looking forward and focused on the data it can measure. On that score, the dramatic v-shaped rebound in earnings revisions breadth for the S&P 500 has been a fundamental tailwind that justifies the equity rally since April in the face of continued trade and macro uncertainty. This gauge is one of our favorites for predicting equity prices and it troughed at -25 percent in mid-April. It’s now at +3 percent. The sectors with the most positive earnings revisions breadth relative to the S&P 500 are Financials, Industrials and Software — three sectors we continue to recommend due to this dynamic. The other more recent development helping to support equities is the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill. While this Bill does not provide incremental fiscal spending to support the economy or lower the statutory tax rate, it does lower the cash earnings tax rates for companies that spend heavily on both R&D and Capital Goods.Our Global Tax Team believes we could see cash tax rates fall from 20 percent today back toward the 13 percent level that existed before some of these benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expired in 2022. This benefit is also likely to jump start what has been an anemic capital spending cycle for corporate America, which could drive both higher GDP and revenue growth for the companies that provide the type of equipment that falls under this category of spending. Meanwhile, the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income is a tax incentive that benefits U.S. companies earning income from foreign markets. It was designed to encourage companies to keep their intellectual property in the U.S. rather than moving it to countries with lower tax rates. This deduction was scheduled to decrease in 2026, which would have raised the effective tax rate by approximately 3 percent. That risk has been eliminated in the Big Beautiful Bill. Finally, the Digital Service Tax imposed on online companies that operate overseas may be reduced. Late last month, Canada announced that it would rescind its Digital Service Tax on the U.S. in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the U.S. This would be a major windfall for online companies and some see the potential for more countries, particularly in Europe, to follow Canada’s lead as trade negotiations with the U.S. continue. Bottom line, while uncertainty around tariffs remains high, there are many other positive drivers for earnings growth over the next year that could more than offset any headwinds from these policies. This suggests the recent rally in stocks is justified and that investors may not be as complacent as some are fearing. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kHSLKPI_D3Eqzk_9Qkr_QEva_EbBTDw2BSBZXtrVSCUMon, 14 Jul 2025 04:00:00 +0000gtyStocks hold steady as tariff uncertainty continues. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains how policy deferrals, earnings resilience and forward guidance are driving the market. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why stocks remain so resilient. It's Monday, July 14th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Why has the equity market been resilient in the face of new tariff announcements? Well first, the import cost exposure for S&P 500 industries is more limited given the deferrals and exemptions still in place like the USMCA compliant imports from Mexico. Second, the higher tariff rates recently announced on several trading partners are generally not perceived to be the final rates as negotiations progress. I continue to believe these tariffs will ultimately end up looking like a 10 percent consumption tax on imports that generate significant revenue for the Treasury. And finally, many companies pre-stocked inventory before the tariffs were levied and so the higher priced goods have not yet flowed through the cost of goods sold. Furthermore, with the market’s tariffs concerns having peaked in early April, the market is looking forward and focused on the data it can measure. On that score, the dramatic v-shaped rebound in earnings revisions breadth for the S&P 500 has been a fundamental tailwind that justifies the equity rally since April in the face of continued trade and macro uncertainty. This gauge is one of our favorites for predicting equity prices and it troughed at -25 percent in mid-April. It’s now at +3 percent. The sectors with the most positive earnings revisions breadth relative to the S&P 500 are Financials, Industrials and Software — three sectors we continue to recommend due to this dynamic. The other more recent development helping to support equities is the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill. While this Bill does not provide incremental fiscal spending to support the economy or lower the statutory tax rate, it does lower the cash earnings tax rates for companies that spend heavily on both R&D and Capital Goods.Our Global Tax Team believes we could see cash tax rates fall from 20 percent today back toward the 13 percent level that existed before some of these benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expired in 2022. This benefit is also likely to jump start what has been an anemic capital spending cycle for corporate America, which could drive both higher GDP and revenue growth for the companies that provide the type of equipment that falls under this category of spending. Meanwhile, the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income is a tax incentive that benefits U.S. companies earning income from foreign markets. It was designed to encourage companies to keep their intellectual property in the U.S. rather than moving it to countries with lower tax rates. This deduction was scheduled to decrease in 2026, which would have raised the effective tax rate by approximately 3 percent. That risk has been eliminated in the Big Beautiful Bill. Finally, the Digital Service Tax imposed on online companies that operate overseas may be reduced. Late last month, Canada announced that it would rescind its Digital Service Tax on the U.S. in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the U.S. This would be a major windfall for online companies and some see the potential for more countries, particularly in Europe, to follow Canada’s lead as trade negotiations with the U.S. continue. Bottom line, while uncertainty around tariffs remains high, there are many other positive drivers for earnings growth over the next year that could more than offset...]]>246alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1423fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bracing-for-sticker-shock--75648736Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins? It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York. Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through. On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can. Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting. Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared worse than their respective indices. What's interesting, actually, is that credit though has significantly outperformed retail equities, which is a relationship we think should converge or correct as we move throughout the balance of the year.Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, retailers saw this coming. They've been pulling various levers to mitigate the impact. You mentioned kind of the last lever that they want to pull is prices, raising prices, which is the macro thing that we care about. The thing that would actually show up in inflation. How close are we though to kind of running out of other options for these guys? That is, the only thing left is they can start raising prices?Jenna Giannelli: So closer is what I would say. We're likely not going to see a huge impact in 2Q, more likely as we head into 3Q and more heavily into the all-important fourth quarter holiday season. This is really when those higher cost goods are going to be flowing through the PNL and retailers need to offset this as they've utilized a lot of their other mitigation strategies. They've moved what they could move. They've negotiated where they could, they've cut where they could cut. And again, as this last step, it will be to try and raise price.So, who's going to have the most and least success? In our universe, we think it's going to be more difficult to pass along price in some of the more historically deflationary categories like apparel and footwear. Outside of what is a really strong brand presence, which in our universe, historically hasn't been the case.Also, in some of the higher ticket or more durable goods categories like home goods, sporting goods, furniture, we think it'll be challenging as well here to pass along higher costs. Where it's going to be less of an issue is in our Staples universe, where what we'd put is less discretionary categories like Beauty, Personal Care, which is part of the reason why we've been cautious on retail, and neutral and consumer products when we think about sector allocation.Andrew Sheets: And when do you think this will show up? Is it a third quarter story? A fourth quarter story?Jenna Giannelli: I think this is going to really start to show up in the third quarter, and more heavily into the fourth quarter, the all-important holiday season.Andrew Sheets: Yeah, and I think that’s what’s really interesting about the impact of this backup to the macro. Again, returning to the big picture is I think one of the most important calls that Morgan Stanley economists have is that inflation, which has been coming down somewhat so far this year is going to pick back up in August and September and October. And because it's going to pick back up, the Federal Reserve is not going to cut interest rates anymore this year because of that inflation dynamic. So, this is a big debate in the market. Many investors disagree. But I think what you're talking about in terms of there are some very understandable reasons, maybe why prices haven't changed so far. But that those price hikes could be coming have real macroeconomic implications.So, you know, maybe though, something to just close on – is to bring this to the latest headlines. You know, we're now back it seems, in a market where every day we log onto our screens, and we see a new headline of some new tariff being announced or suggested towards countries. Where do you think those announcements, so far are relative to what retailers are expecting – kind of what you think is in guidance?Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So, look what we've seen of late; the recent tariff headlines are certainly higher or worse, I think, than what investors in management teams were expecting. For Vietnam, less so; I'd say it was more in line. But for most elsewhere, in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, the rates that are set to go in effect on August 1st, as we now understand them, are higher or worse than management teams were expecting. Recall that while guidance did show up in many flavors in the first quarter, so whether withdrawn guidance or lowered guidance. For those that did factor in tariffs to their guide, most were factoring in either pause rate tariffs or tariff rates that were at least lower than what was proposed on Liberation Day, right? So, what's the punchline here? I think despite some of the revisions we've already seen, there are more to come. To put some numbers around this, if we look at our group of retail consumer cohort, credits, consensus expectations for calling for EBITDA in our universe to be down around 5 percent year-over-year. If we apply tariff rates as we know them today for a half-year headwind starting August 1st, this number should be down around 15 percent year-over-year on a gross basis…Andrew Sheets: So, three times as much.Jenna Giannelli: Pretty significant. Exactly. And so, while there might be mitigation efforts, there might be some pricing passed along, this is still a pretty significant delta between where consensus is right now and what we know tariff rates to be today – could imply for earnings in the second half.Andrew Sheets: Jenna, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jenna Giannelli: My pleasure. Thank you.Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lfwevlSGaemCF379YL_2cWdhWJ7Y0fmHrKDxvA9em9MFri, 11 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs U.S. retailers manage the impacts of increased tariffs, they have taken a number of approaches to avoid raising prices for customers. Our Head of Corporate Strategy Andrew Sheets and our Head of U.S. Consumer Retail and Credit Research Jenna...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins? It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York. Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through. On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can. Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting. Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared worse than their respective indices....]]>518alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1422fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-future-reckoning-of-tariff-escalation--75648638Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today: The latest on U.S. tariffs and their market impact. It’s Thursday, July 10th at 12:30pm in New York. It's been a newsy week for U.S. trade policy, with tariff increases announced across many nations. Here’s what we think investors need to know. First, we think the U.S. is in a period of tactical escalation for tariff policy; where tariffs rise as the U.S. explores its negotiating space, but levels remain in a range below what many investors feared earlier this year. We started this week expecting a slight increase in U.S. tariffs—nothing too dramatic, maybe from 13 percent to around 15 percent driven by hikes in places like Vietnam and Japan. But what we got was a bit more substantial. The U.S. announced several tariff hikes, set to take effect later, allowing time for negotiations. If these new measures go through, tariffs could reach 15 to 20 percent, significantly higher than at the beginning of the year, though far below the 25 to 30 percent levels that appeared possible back in April. It’s a good reminder that U.S. trade policy remains a moving target because the U.S. administration is still focused on reducing goods trade deficits and may not yet perceive there to be substantial political and economic risk of tariff escalation. Per our economists’ recent work on the lagged effects of tariffs, this reckoning could be months away. Second, the implications of this tactical escalation are consistent with our current cross-asset views. The higher tariffs announced on a variety of geographies, and products like copper, put further pressure on the U.S. growth story, even if they don’t tip the U.S. into recession, per the work done by our economists. That growth pressure is consistent with our views that both government and corporate bond yields will move lower, driving solid returns. It's also insufficient pressure to get in the way of an equity market rally, in the view of our U.S. equity strategy team. The fiscal package that just passed Congress might not be a major boon to the economy overall, but it does help margins for large cap companies, who by the way are more exposed to tariffs through China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU – rather than the countries on whom tariff increases were announced this week. Finally, How could we be wrong? Well, pay attention to negotiations with those geographies we just mentioned: Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China. These are much bigger trading partners not just for U.S. companies, but the U.S. overall.  So meaningful escalation here can drive both top line and bottom line effects that could challenge equities and credit.  In our view, tariffs with these partners are likely to land near current levels, but the path to get there could be volatile.  For the U.S., Mexico and Canada, background reporting suggests there’s mutual interest in maintaining a low tariff bloc, including exceptions for the product-specific tariffs that the U.S. is imposing. But there are sticking points around harmonizing trade policy. The dynamic is similar with China. Tariffs are already steep—among the highest anywhere. While a recent narrow deal—around semiconductors for rare earths—led to a temporary reduction from triple-digit levels, the two sides remain far apart on fundamental issues.  So when it comes to negotiations with the U.S.’ biggest trading partners, there’s sticking points. And where there’s sticking points there’s potential for escalation that we’ll need to be vigilant in monitoring. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please leave us a review. And tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/GaP92VKi1t6JiKUwnDsOP4ba2E7j3roOloBRC4K5Z18Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe ultimate market outcomes of President Trump’s tactical tariff escalation may be months away. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas takes a look at implications for investors now. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today: The latest on U.S. tariffs and their market impact. It’s Thursday, July 10th at 12:30pm in New York. It's been a newsy week for U.S. trade policy, with tariff increases announced across many nations. Here’s what we think investors need to know. First, we think the U.S. is in a period of tactical escalation for tariff policy; where tariffs rise as the U.S. explores its negotiating space, but levels remain in a range below what many investors feared earlier this year. We started this week expecting a slight increase in U.S. tariffs—nothing too dramatic, maybe from 13 percent to around 15 percent driven by hikes in places like Vietnam and Japan. But what we got was a bit more substantial. The U.S. announced several tariff hikes, set to take effect later, allowing time for negotiations. If these new measures go through, tariffs could reach 15 to 20 percent, significantly higher than at the beginning of the year, though far below the 25 to 30 percent levels that appeared possible back in April. It’s a good reminder that U.S. trade policy remains a moving target because the U.S. administration is still focused on reducing goods trade deficits and may not yet perceive there to be substantial political and economic risk of tariff escalation. Per our economists’ recent work on the lagged effects of tariffs, this reckoning could be months away. Second, the implications of this tactical escalation are consistent with our current cross-asset views. The higher tariffs announced on a variety of geographies, and products like copper, put further pressure on the U.S. growth story, even if they don’t tip the U.S. into recession, per the work done by our economists. That growth pressure is consistent with our views that both government and corporate bond yields will move lower, driving solid returns. It's also insufficient pressure to get in the way of an equity market rally, in the view of our U.S. equity strategy team. The fiscal package that just passed Congress might not be a major boon to the economy overall, but it does help margins for large cap companies, who by the way are more exposed to tariffs through China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU – rather than the countries on whom tariff increases were announced this week. Finally, How could we be wrong? Well, pay attention to negotiations with those geographies we just mentioned: Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China. These are much bigger trading partners not just for U.S. companies, but the U.S. overall.  So meaningful escalation here can drive both top line and bottom line effects that could challenge equities and credit.  In our view, tariffs with these partners are likely to land near current levels, but the path to get there could be volatile.  For the U.S., Mexico and Canada, background reporting suggests there’s mutual interest in maintaining a low tariff bloc, including exceptions for the product-specific tariffs that the U.S. is imposing. But there are sticking points around harmonizing trade policy. The dynamic is similar with China. Tariffs are already steep—among the highest anywhere. While a recent narrow deal—around semiconductors for rare earths—led to a temporary reduction from triple-digit levels, the two sides remain far apart on fundamental issues.  So when it comes to negotiations with the U.S.’ biggest trading partners, there’s sticking points. And where there’s sticking points there’s potential for escalation that we’ll need to...]]>233alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1421fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-foreign-investors-fleeing-u-s-assets--75648517Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.Today – is the demand for U.S. assets declining? Let's look at the recent trends in global investment flows.It’s Wednesday, July 9th at 1pm in New York.The U.S. equity market has reached an all-time high, but at the same time lingering uncertainty about U.S. trade and tariff policies is forcing global investors to consider the riskiness of U.S. assets. And so the big question we need to ask is: are investors – particularly foreign investors – fleeing U.S. assets?This question comes from recent data around fund flows to global equities. And we have to acknowledge that demand for U.S. stocks overall has declined, going by high-frequency data. But at the same time, we think this idea is exaggerated. So why is that? As many listeners know, fund flows – which represent the net movement of money into and out of various investment vehicles like mutual funds and ETFs – are an important gauge of investor sentiment and market trends. So what are fund flows really telling us about investors’ sentiment towards U.S. equities? It would be nice to get an unequivocal answer, but of course, the devil is always in the details. And the problem is that different data sources and frequencies across different market segments don’t always lead to the same conclusions. Weekly data across global equity ETF and mutual funds from Lipper show that international investors were net buyers through most of April and May. But the pace of buying has slowed year-to-date versus 2024. Still, it remains much higher than during the same period in 2021 through 2023. Treasury TIC data point to something similar – a slowdown in foreign demand, but not significant net selling. So where are the flows going, if not to the U.S.? They are going to the rest of the world, but more particularly, Europe. Europe stocks, in fact, have been the biggest beneficiary of decreasing flows to the U.S. Nearly $37 billion U.S. has gone into Europe-focused equity funds year-to-date. This is significantly higher than the run-rates over the prior five years. What’s more notable here is that year-to-date, flows to European-focused ETFs and mutual funds dominated those targeting Japan and Emerging Markets. This suggests that Europe is now the premier destination for equity fund flows, with very little demand spillovers to other regions' equity markets.These shifts have yet to show up in the allocation data, which tracks how global asset managers invest in stocks regionally. Global equity funds' portfolio weights to Rest-of-the-World has gone up by roughly the same amount as allocation to the U.S. has come down. But allocation to the U.S. has actually gone down by roughly the same amount, as its share in global equity indices; which means that If allocation to the U.S. has changed, it's simply because the U.S. is now a smaller part of equity indices. Meanwhile, an estimated U.S.$9 billion from Rest-of-the World went into international equity funds, which excludes U.S. stocks altogether. Granted, it’s not a lot; but scaled for fund assets, it's the highest net flows international equities have seen. In other words, some investors are choosing to invest in equities excluding U.S. altogether. These trends are unlikely to reverse as long as lingering policy uncertainty dampens demand for U.S.-based assets. But as we've argued in our mid-year outlook, there are very few alternative markets to the U.S. dollar markets right now. U.S. stocks might start to see less marginal flows from foreign investors – to the benefit of Rest-of-the-World equities, especially Europe. But demand is unlikely to dry up completely over the next 12 months. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EUtG8dKsp_astIZhowutJWPP91MNmZdyIzEsCbXjLd8Wed, 09 Jul 2025 21:00:58 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses whether demand for U.S. stocks has fallen and where fund flows are surging.  Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.Today – is the demand for U.S. assets declining? Let's look at the recent trends in global investment flows.It’s Wednesday, July 9th at 1pm in New York.The U.S. equity market has reached an all-time high, but at the same time lingering uncertainty about U.S. trade and tariff policies is forcing global investors to consider the riskiness of U.S. assets. And so the big question we need to ask is: are investors – particularly foreign investors – fleeing U.S. assets?This question comes from recent data around fund flows to global equities. And we have to acknowledge that demand for U.S. stocks overall has declined, going by high-frequency data. But at the same time, we think this idea is exaggerated. So why is that? As many listeners know, fund flows – which represent the net movement of money into and out of various investment vehicles like mutual funds and ETFs – are an important gauge of investor sentiment and market trends. So what are fund flows really telling us about investors’ sentiment towards U.S. equities? It would be nice to get an unequivocal answer, but of course, the devil is always in the details. And the problem is that different data sources and frequencies across different market segments don’t always lead to the same conclusions. Weekly data across global equity ETF and mutual funds from Lipper show that international investors were net buyers through most of April and May. But the pace of buying has slowed year-to-date versus 2024. Still, it remains much higher than during the same period in 2021 through 2023. Treasury TIC data point to something similar – a slowdown in foreign demand, but not significant net selling. So where are the flows going, if not to the U.S.? They are going to the rest of the world, but more particularly, Europe. Europe stocks, in fact, have been the biggest beneficiary of decreasing flows to the U.S. Nearly $37 billion U.S. has gone into Europe-focused equity funds year-to-date. This is significantly higher than the run-rates over the prior five years. What’s more notable here is that year-to-date, flows to European-focused ETFs and mutual funds dominated those targeting Japan and Emerging Markets. This suggests that Europe is now the premier destination for equity fund flows, with very little demand spillovers to other regions' equity markets.These shifts have yet to show up in the allocation data, which tracks how global asset managers invest in stocks regionally. Global equity funds' portfolio weights to Rest-of-the-World has gone up by roughly the same amount as allocation to the U.S. has come down. But allocation to the U.S. has actually gone down by roughly the same amount, as its share in global equity indices; which means that If allocation to the U.S. has changed, it's simply because the U.S. is now a smaller part of equity indices. Meanwhile, an estimated U.S.$9 billion from Rest-of-the World went into international equity funds, which excludes U.S. stocks altogether. Granted, it’s not a lot; but scaled for fund assets, it's the highest net flows international equities have seen. In other words, some investors are choosing to invest in equities excluding U.S. altogether. These trends are unlikely to reverse as long as lingering policy uncertainty dampens demand for U.S.-based assets. But as we've argued in our mid-year outlook, there are very few alternative markets to the U.S. dollar markets right now. U.S. stocks might start to see less marginal flows from foreign investors – to the benefit of Rest-of-the-World equities, especially...]]>297alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1420fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-ai-is-disrupting-defense--75648130Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ross Law: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ross Law from Morgan Stanley's European Aerospace and Defense team.Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal from the European Sustainability Research Team.Ross Law: Today, a topic that's rapidly defining the boundaries of sustainable investing and technological leadership – the use of AI in defense.It's Tuesday, July 8th at 3pm in London. At the recent NATO summit, member countries decided to boost their core defense spending target from 2 percent to 3.5 percent of GDP. This big jump is sure to spark a wave of innovation in defense, particularly in AI and military technology. It's clear that Europe is focusing on rearmament with AI playing a major role. In fact, AI is revolutionizing everything from unmanned systems and cyber defense to simulation training and precision targeting. It’s changing the game for how nations prepare for – and engage in – conflict. And with all these changes come serious challenges. Investors, policy makers and technologists are facing some tough questions that sit at the intersection of two of Morgan Stanley's four key themes: The Multipolar World and Tech Diffusion.So, Arushi, to set the stage, how is the concept of sustainability evolving to include national security and defense, particularly in Europe?Arushi Agarwal: You know, Ross, it's fascinating to see how much this space has evolved over the past year. Geopolitical tensions have really pushed national security much higher on the sustainability agenda. We're seeing a structural shift in sentiment towards defense investments. While historically defense companies were largely excluded by sustainability funds, we're now seeing asset managers revisiting these exclusions, especially around conventional and nuclear weapons. Some are even launching thematic funds, specifically focused on security and resilience.However, in the absence of standard methodologies to assess weapon related exposures, evaluate sector-specific ESG risks and determine transparency, there is no clear consensus on what sustainability focused managers can hold. Greater policy focus has created the need to identify a long-term approach to investing in this sector, one that is cognizant of ethical issues. Investors are now increasingly asking whether rapid technological integration might allow for a more forward-looking, risk aware approach to investing in national security.Ross Law: So, it's no news that Europe has historically underspent on defense. Now, the spending goal is moving to 3.5 percent of GDP to try and catch up. Our estimates suggest this could mean an additional $200 billion per year in additional spend – with a focus on equipment over personnel, at least for the time being. With this new focus, how is AI shaping the European rearmament strategy?Arushi Agarwal: Well, AI appears to be at the core of EU’s 800 billion euro rearmament plan. The commission has been quite clear that escalating tensions have not only led to a new arms race but also provoked a global technological race. Now to think about it, AI, quantum, biotech, robotics, and hypersonic are key inputs not only for long-term economic growth, but also for military pre-eminence.In our base case, we estimate that total NATO military spend into AI applications will potentially more than double to $112 billion by 2030. This is at a 4 percent AI investment allocation rate. If this allocation rate increases to 10 percent as anticipated by European deep tech firms, then NATOs AI military spend could grow sixfold to $306 billion by 2030 in our bull case.So, Ross, you were at the Paris Air Show recently where companies demonstrated their latest product capabilities. Which AI applications are leading the way in defense right now? Ross Law: Yeah, it was really quite eye-opening. We've identified nine key AI applications, reshaping defense, and our Application Readiness Radar shows that Cybersecurity followed by Unmanned Systems exhibit the highest level of preparedness from a public and private investment perspective.Cybersecurity is a major priority due to increased proliferation of cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns, and this technology can be used for both defensive and offensive measures. Unmanned systems are also really taking off, no pun intended, mainly driven by the rise in drone warfare that's reshaping the battlefield in Ukraine.At the Paris Airshow, we saw demonstrations of “Wingman” crewed and uncrewed aircraft. There have also been several public and private partnerships in this area within our coverage. Another area gaining traction is simulation and war gaming. As defense spending increases and potentially leads to more military personnel, we see this theme in high demand in the coming years.Arushi Agarwal: And how are European Aerospace and Defense companies positioning themselves in terms of AI readiness?Ross Law: Well, they're really making significant advancements. We've assessed AI technology readiness for our A&D companies across six different verticals: the number of applications; dual-use capabilities; AI pricing power; responsible AI policy; and partnerships on both external and internal product categories.What's really interesting is that European A&D companies have higher pricing power relative to the U.S. counterparts, and a higher percentage are both enablers and adopters of AI. To accelerate AI integration, these companies are increasingly partnering with government research arms, leading software firms, as well as peers and private players.Arushi Agarwal: And some of these same technologies can also be used for civilian purposes. Could you share some examples with us?Ross Law: The dual use potential is really significant. Various companies in our coverage are using their AI capabilities for civilian applications across multiple domains. For example, geospatial capabilities can also be used for wildfire management and tracking deforestation. Machine learning can be used for maritime shipping and port surveillance. But switching gears slightly, if we talk about the regulatory developments that are emerging in Europe to address defense modernization, what does this mean, Arushi, for society, the industry and investors?Arushi Agarwal: There's quite a lot happening on the regulatory front. The European Commission is working on a defense omnibus simplification proposal aimed at speeding up defense investments in the EU. It's planning to publish a guidance notice on how defense investment will fit within the sustainable finance framework. It’s also making changes to its sustainability reporting directive. If warranted, the commission will make additional adjustments to reflect the needs of the defense industry in its sustainability reporting obligations. The Sustainable Fund Reform is another important development. While the sustainability fund regulation doesn't prohibit investment into the defense sector, the commission is seeking to provide clarification on how defense investment goals sit within a sustainability framework.Additionally at the European Security Summit in June, the European Defense Commissioner indicated that a roadmap focusing on the modernization of European defense will be published in autumn. This will have a special focus on AI and quantum technologies. For investors, whilst exclusions easing has started to take place, pickup in individual positioning has been slow. As investors ramp up on the sector, we believe these regulatory developments can serve as catalysts, providing clear demand and trend signals for the sector.Ross Law: So finally, in this context, how can companies and investors navigate these ethical considerations responsibly?Arushi Agarwal: So, in the note we highlight that AI risk management requires the ability to tackle two types of challenges. First, technical challenges, which can be mitigated by embedding boundaries and success criteria directly into the design of the AI model. For example, training AI systems to refuse harmful requests. Second challenges are more open-ended and ambiguous set of challenges that relate to coordinating non-proliferation among countries and preventing misuse by bad actors. This set of challenges requires continuous interstate dialogue and cooperation rather than purely technical fixes.From an investor perspective, closer corporate engagement will be key to navigating these debates. Ensuring firms have clear documentation of their algorithms and decision-making processes, human in the loop systems, transparency around data sets used to train the AI models are some of the engagement points we mention in our note.Ultimately, I think the key is balance. On the one hand, we have to recognize the legitimate security needs that defense technologies address. And on the other hand, there's the need to ensure appropriate safeguards and oversight.Ross Law: Arushi, thanks for taking the time to talk.Arushi Agarwal: It was great speaking with you, Ross,Ross Law: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8VuqfM6YBljgQN-DXrxi44iU7SujTafV2NPSJmEVeiATue, 08 Jul 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyArushi Agarwal from the European Sustainability Strategy team and Aerospace & Defense Analyst Ross Law unpack what a reshaped defense industry means for sustainability, ethics and long-term investment strategy. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Ross Law: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ross Law from Morgan Stanley's European Aerospace and Defense team.Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal from the European Sustainability Research Team.Ross Law: Today, a topic that's rapidly defining the boundaries of sustainable investing and technological leadership – the use of AI in defense.It's Tuesday, July 8th at 3pm in London. At the recent NATO summit, member countries decided to boost their core defense spending target from 2 percent to 3.5 percent of GDP. This big jump is sure to spark a wave of innovation in defense, particularly in AI and military technology. It's clear that Europe is focusing on rearmament with AI playing a major role. In fact, AI is revolutionizing everything from unmanned systems and cyber defense to simulation training and precision targeting. It’s changing the game for how nations prepare for – and engage in – conflict. And with all these changes come serious challenges. Investors, policy makers and technologists are facing some tough questions that sit at the intersection of two of Morgan Stanley's four key themes: The Multipolar World and Tech Diffusion.So, Arushi, to set the stage, how is the concept of sustainability evolving to include national security and defense, particularly in Europe?Arushi Agarwal: You know, Ross, it's fascinating to see how much this space has evolved over the past year. Geopolitical tensions have really pushed national security much higher on the sustainability agenda. We're seeing a structural shift in sentiment towards defense investments. While historically defense companies were largely excluded by sustainability funds, we're now seeing asset managers revisiting these exclusions, especially around conventional and nuclear weapons. Some are even launching thematic funds, specifically focused on security and resilience.However, in the absence of standard methodologies to assess weapon related exposures, evaluate sector-specific ESG risks and determine transparency, there is no clear consensus on what sustainability focused managers can hold. Greater policy focus has created the need to identify a long-term approach to investing in this sector, one that is cognizant of ethical issues. Investors are now increasingly asking whether rapid technological integration might allow for a more forward-looking, risk aware approach to investing in national security.Ross Law: So, it's no news that Europe has historically underspent on defense. Now, the spending goal is moving to 3.5 percent of GDP to try and catch up. Our estimates suggest this could mean an additional $200 billion per year in additional spend – with a focus on equipment over personnel, at least for the time being. With this new focus, how is AI shaping the European rearmament strategy?Arushi Agarwal: Well, AI appears to be at the core of EU’s 800 billion euro rearmament plan. The commission has been quite clear that escalating tensions have not only led to a new arms race but also provoked a global technological race. Now to think about it, AI, quantum, biotech, robotics, and hypersonic are key inputs not only for long-term economic growth, but also for military pre-eminence.In our base case, we estimate that total NATO military spend into AI applications will potentially more than double to $112 billion by 2030. This is at a 4 percent AI investment allocation rate. If this allocation rate increases to 10 percent as anticipated by European deep tech firms, then NATOs AI military spend could grow sixfold to $306 billion by 2030 in our bull...]]>574alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1419fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/have-u-s-consumers-shaken-off-tariff-concerns--75648595 Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, the U.S. consumer. What's changing about the ways Americans spend, save and feel about the future?It's Monday, July 7th at 10am in London.As markets digest mixed signals – whether that's easing inflation, changing politics, and persistent noise around tariffs – U.S. consumers are recalibrating. Under the surface of headline numbers, a more complex story is unfolding about the ways Americans are not just reacting but adapting to macro challenges.First, I want to start with a big picture. Data from our latest consumer survey shows that consumer sentiment has stabilized, even as uncertainty around tariffs persists, especially into these rolling July deadlines. Inflation remains the top concern for most. But the good news is that it's trending lower. This month more than half of respondents cited inflation as their primary concern, a slight decrease from last month and a year ago. Now, that's a subtle but a meaningful decline suggesting consumers may be adjusting their expectations rather than bracing for continued price shocks. At the same time though political concerns are on the rise. More than 40 percent of consumers now list the U.S. political environment as a major worry. That's slightly up from last month; and not surprisingly concern around geopolitical conflicts has also jumped from a month ago.Now, when we break this down by income levels, we see some interesting trends. Inflation is the top concern across all income groups, except for those earning more than $150,000. For them, politics takes the top spot. Lower income households, though, are more focused on paying rent and debts, while higher income groups are more concerned about their investments.As for tariffs, concern remains high but stable. About 40 percent of consumers are very worried about tariffs and another 25 percent are moderately so. But if we look under the surface, it's really showing us a political divide. 63 percent of liberals are very concerned, compared to just 23 percent of conservatives who say they're very concerned.Despite these worries, though, fewer people overall are planning to cut back on spending. Only about a third say they'll spend less due to tariffs, which is down quite a bit from earlier this year. Meanwhile, about a quarter plan to spend more, and roughly a third don't expect to change their plans at all.This resilience points to the notable behavioral trend I mentioned at the start. Consumers are not just reacting, they're adapting. Looking at the broader economy, consumer confidence is holding steady according to our survey, although it's slightly down from last month. But when it comes to household finances, the outlook is more positive with a significant number expecting their finances to improve and fewer expecting them to worsen – a net positive.Savings are also showing some resilience. The average consumer has several months of savings, slightly up from last year. Spending intentions are stable with nearly a third of consumers planning to spend more next month while fewer planned to spend less. And when it comes to big ticket items, more than half of U.S. consumers are planning a major purchase in the next three months, including vehicles, appliances, and vacations.Speaking of vacations, summer travel season is here and I'm looking forward to taking a trip soon. Around 60 percent of consumers are planning to travel in the next six months, with visiting friends and family being the top reason.So, what's the biggest takeaway for investors?Despite ongoing concerns about inflation, politics and tariffs, U.S. consumers are showing remarkable resilience. It's a nuanced picture, but one that overall suggests stability in the face of uncertainty.Thanks for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show, and if you did, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9YTNxP0CT_FW-Y7K4voRPJ3KvJ7FVomieJ1dJIHoo6cMon, 07 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe American consumer isn’t simply pulling back. They are changing the way they spend – and save. Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver digs into the data. Read... Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, the U.S. consumer. What's changing about the ways Americans spend, save and feel about the future?It's Monday, July 7th at 10am in London.As markets digest mixed signals – whether that's easing inflation, changing politics, and persistent noise around tariffs – U.S. consumers are recalibrating. Under the surface of headline numbers, a more complex story is unfolding about the ways Americans are not just reacting but adapting to macro challenges.First, I want to start with a big picture. Data from our latest consumer survey shows that consumer sentiment has stabilized, even as uncertainty around tariffs persists, especially into these rolling July deadlines. Inflation remains the top concern for most. But the good news is that it's trending lower. This month more than half of respondents cited inflation as their primary concern, a slight decrease from last month and a year ago. Now, that's a subtle but a meaningful decline suggesting consumers may be adjusting their expectations rather than bracing for continued price shocks. At the same time though political concerns are on the rise. More than 40 percent of consumers now list the U.S. political environment as a major worry. That's slightly up from last month; and not surprisingly concern around geopolitical conflicts has also jumped from a month ago.Now, when we break this down by income levels, we see some interesting trends. Inflation is the top concern across all income groups, except for those earning more than $150,000. For them, politics takes the top spot. Lower income households, though, are more focused on paying rent and debts, while higher income groups are more concerned about their investments.As for tariffs, concern remains high but stable. About 40 percent of consumers are very worried about tariffs and another 25 percent are moderately so. But if we look under the surface, it's really showing us a political divide. 63 percent of liberals are very concerned, compared to just 23 percent of conservatives who say they're very concerned.Despite these worries, though, fewer people overall are planning to cut back on spending. Only about a third say they'll spend less due to tariffs, which is down quite a bit from earlier this year. Meanwhile, about a quarter plan to spend more, and roughly a third don't expect to change their plans at all.This resilience points to the notable behavioral trend I mentioned at the start. Consumers are not just reacting, they're adapting. Looking at the broader economy, consumer confidence is holding steady according to our survey, although it's slightly down from last month. But when it comes to household finances, the outlook is more positive with a significant number expecting their finances to improve and fewer expecting them to worsen – a net positive.Savings are also showing some resilience. The average consumer has several months of savings, slightly up from last year. Spending intentions are stable with nearly a third of consumers planning to spend more next month while fewer planned to spend less. And when it comes to big ticket items, more than half of U.S. consumers are planning a major purchase in the next three months, including vehicles, appliances, and vacations.Speaking of vacations, summer travel season is here and I'm looking forward to taking a trip soon. Around 60 percent of consumers are planning to travel in the next six months, with visiting friends and family being the top reason.So, what's the biggest takeaway...]]>256alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1418fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/america-s-debt-story--75648605insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today on a special Independence Day episode of the podcast, we're going to talk a bit about the history of U.S. debt and the contrast between corporate and federal debt trajectories.It's Thursday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.The 4th of July, which represents the U.S. declaring independence from Great Britain, remains one of my favorite holidays. A time to gather with friends and family and celebrate what America is – and what it can still be.It is also, of course, a good excuse to talk about debt.Declaring independence is one thing, but fighting and beating the largest empire in the world at the time would take more than poetic words. The borrowing that made victory possible for the colonies also almost brought them down in the 1780s under a pile of unsustainable debt. It was a young treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, who successfully lobbied to bring these debts under a federal umbrella – binding the nation together and securing a lower borrowing cost. As we'd say, it's a real fixed income win-win.Almost 250 years later, the benefits of that foresight are still going strong, with the United States of America enjoying the world's largest economy, and the largest and most liquid equity and bond markets. Yet lately there's been more focus on whether those bond markets are, well, too large.The U.S. currently runs a budget deficit of about 7 percent of GDP, and the current budget proposals in the house and the Senate could drive an additional 4 trillion of borrowing over the next decade above that already hefty baseline. Forecast even further out, well, they look even more challenging.We are not worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. And to be clear, in the near term, we are forecasting at Morgan Stanley, U.S. government yields to go down as growth slows and the Federal Reserve cuts rates more than expected in 2026. But all of this borrowing and all the uncertainty around it – it should increase risk premiums for longer term bonds and drive a steeper yield curve.So, it's notable then – as we celebrate America's birthday and discuss its borrowing – that it's really companies that are currently unwrapping the presents. Corporate balance sheets, in contrast, are in very good shape, as corporate borrowing trends have diverged from those of the government.Many factors are behind this. Corporate profitability is strong. Companies use the post-COVID period to refinance debt at attractive rates. And the ongoing uncertainty – well, it's kept management more conservative than they would otherwise be. Out of deference to the 4th of July, I've focused so far on the United States. But we see the same trend in Europe, where more conservative balance sheet trends and less relative issuance to governments is showing up on a year-over-year basis. With companies borrowing relatively less and governments borrowing relatively more, the difference between what companies and the government pay, that so-called spread that we talk so much about – well, we think it can stay lower and more compressed than it otherwise would.We don't think this necessarily applies to the low ratings such as single B or lower borrowers, where these better balance sheet trends simply aren't as clear. But overall, a divergent trend between corporate and government balance sheets is giving corporate bond investors something additional to celebrate over the weekend.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/n-bWLkZyP_EvuoR0Zlznc7AjqNiU7F1Pp38m9-3yedkThu, 03 Jul 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyFor a special Independence Day episode, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers a popular topic of debate, on holidays or otherwise – national debt.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today on a special Independence Day episode of the podcast, we're going to talk a bit about the history of U.S. debt and the contrast between corporate and federal debt trajectories.It's Thursday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.The 4th of July, which represents the U.S. declaring independence from Great Britain, remains one of my favorite holidays. A time to gather with friends and family and celebrate what America is – and what it can still be.It is also, of course, a good excuse to talk about debt.Declaring independence is one thing, but fighting and beating the largest empire in the world at the time would take more than poetic words. The borrowing that made victory possible for the colonies also almost brought them down in the 1780s under a pile of unsustainable debt. It was a young treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, who successfully lobbied to bring these debts under a federal umbrella – binding the nation together and securing a lower borrowing cost. As we'd say, it's a real fixed income win-win.Almost 250 years later, the benefits of that foresight are still going strong, with the United States of America enjoying the world's largest economy, and the largest and most liquid equity and bond markets. Yet lately there's been more focus on whether those bond markets are, well, too large.The U.S. currently runs a budget deficit of about 7 percent of GDP, and the current budget proposals in the house and the Senate could drive an additional 4 trillion of borrowing over the next decade above that already hefty baseline. Forecast even further out, well, they look even more challenging.We are not worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. And to be clear, in the near term, we are forecasting at Morgan Stanley, U.S. government yields to go down as growth slows and the Federal Reserve cuts rates more than expected in 2026. But all of this borrowing and all the uncertainty around it – it should increase risk premiums for longer term bonds and drive a steeper yield curve.So, it's notable then – as we celebrate America's birthday and discuss its borrowing – that it's really companies that are currently unwrapping the presents. Corporate balance sheets, in contrast, are in very good shape, as corporate borrowing trends have diverged from those of the government.Many factors are behind this. Corporate profitability is strong. Companies use the post-COVID period to refinance debt at attractive rates. And the ongoing uncertainty – well, it's kept management more conservative than they would otherwise be. Out of deference to the 4th of July, I've focused so far on the United States. But we see the same trend in Europe, where more conservative balance sheet trends and less relative issuance to governments is showing up on a year-over-year basis. With companies borrowing relatively less and governments borrowing relatively more, the difference between what companies and the government pay, that so-called spread that we talk so much about – well, we think it can stay lower and more compressed than it otherwise would.We don't think this necessarily applies to the low ratings such as single B or lower borrowers, where these better balance sheet trends simply aren't as clear. But overall, a divergent trend between corporate and government balance sheets is giving corporate bond investors something additional to celebrate over the weekend.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you...]]>253alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1417fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/three-possibilities-for-what-s-next-on-tariffs--75648621insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, US Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the outlook for US trade policy. It's Wednesday, July 2nd at 10:00 AM in New York.We have a big week ahead as next Wednesday marks the expiration of the 90 day pause on reciprocal tariffs. Ariana, what's the setup?Ariana Salvatore: So this is a really key inflection point. That pause that you mentioned was initiated back on April 9th, and unless it's extended, we could see a reposition of tariffs on several of our major trading partners. Our base case is that the administration, broadly speaking, tries to kick the can down the road, meaning that it extends the pause for most countries, though the reality might be closer to a few countries seeing their rates go up while others announce bilateral framework deals between now and next week.But before we get into the key assumptions underlying our base case. Let's talk about the bigger picture. Michael, what do we think the administration is actually trying to accomplish here?Michael Zezas: So when it comes to defining their objectives, we think multiple things can be true at the same time. So the administration's talked about the virtue of tariffs as a negotiating tactic. They've also floated the idea of a tiered framework for global trading partners. Think of it as a ranking system based on trade deficits, non tariff barriers, VAT levels, and any other characteristics that they think are important for the bilateral trade relationship. A lot of this is similar to the rhetoric we saw ahead of the April 2nd "Liberation Day" tariffs.Ariana Salvatore: Right, and around that time we started hearing about the potential, at least for bilateral trade deals, but have we seen any real progress in that area?Michael Zezas: Not much, at least not publicly, aside from the UK framework agreement. And here's an important detail, three of our four largest trading partners aren't even scoped for higher rates next week. Mexico and Canada were never subject to the reciprocal tariffs. And China's on a separate track with this Geneva framework that doesn't expire until August 12th. So we're not expecting a sweeping overhaul by Wednesday.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So what are the scenarios that we're watching?Michael Zezas: So there's roughly three that we're looking at and let me break them down here.So our base case is that the administration extends the current pause, citing progress in bilateral talks, and maybe there's a few exceptions along the way in either direction, some higher and some lower. This broadly resets the countdown clock, but keeps the current tariff structure intact: 10% baseline for most trading partners, though some potentially higher if negotiations don't progress in the next week. That outcome would be most in line, we think, with the current messaging coming out of the administration.There's also a more aggressive path if there's no visible progress. For example, the administration could reimpose tariffs with staggered implementation dates. The EU might face a tougher stance due to the complexity of that relationship and Vietnam could see delayed threats as a negotiating tactic. A strong macro backdrop, resilient data for markets that could all give the administration cover to go this route.But there's also a more constructive outcome. The administration can announce regional or bilateral frameworks, not necessarily full trade deals, but enough to remove the near term threat of higher tariffs, reducing uncertainty, though maybe not to pre-2024 levels.Ariana Salvatore: So wide bands of uncertainty, and it sounds like the more constructive outcome is quite similar to our base case, which is what we have in place right now. But translating that more aggressive path into what that means for the economy, we think it would reinforce our house view that the risks here are skewed to the downside.Our economists estimate that tariffs begin to impact inflation about four months after implementation with the growth effects lagging by about eight months. That sets us up for weak but not quite recessionary growth. We're talking 1% GDP on an annual basis in 2025 and 2026, and the tariff passed through to prices and inflation data probably starting in August.Michael Zezas: So bottom line, watch carefully on Wednesday and be vigilant for changes to the status quo on tariff levels. There's a lot of optionality in how this plays out, as trade policy uncertainty in the aggregate is still high. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hB5Bx0arhog_9i9IujOAi1v1AaUAjB7lYX_UKrW7ucIWed, 02 Jul 2025 21:04:31 +0000gtyOur analysts Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss the upcoming expiration of reciprocal tariffs and the potential impacts for U.S. trade.Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, US Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the outlook for US trade policy. It's Wednesday, July 2nd at 10:00 AM in New York.We have a big week ahead as next Wednesday marks the expiration of the 90 day pause on reciprocal tariffs. Ariana, what's the setup?Ariana Salvatore: So this is a really key inflection point. That pause that you mentioned was initiated back on April 9th, and unless it's extended, we could see a reposition of tariffs on several of our major trading partners. Our base case is that the administration, broadly speaking, tries to kick the can down the road, meaning that it extends the pause for most countries, though the reality might be closer to a few countries seeing their rates go up while others announce bilateral framework deals between now and next week.But before we get into the key assumptions underlying our base case. Let's talk about the bigger picture. Michael, what do we think the administration is actually trying to accomplish here?Michael Zezas: So when it comes to defining their objectives, we think multiple things can be true at the same time. So the administration's talked about the virtue of tariffs as a negotiating tactic. They've also floated the idea of a tiered framework for global trading partners. Think of it as a ranking system based on trade deficits, non tariff barriers, VAT levels, and any other characteristics that they think are important for the bilateral trade relationship. A lot of this is similar to the rhetoric we saw ahead of the April 2nd "Liberation Day" tariffs.Ariana Salvatore: Right, and around that time we started hearing about the potential, at least for bilateral trade deals, but have we seen any real progress in that area?Michael Zezas: Not much, at least not publicly, aside from the UK framework agreement. And here's an important detail, three of our four largest trading partners aren't even scoped for higher rates next week. Mexico and Canada were never subject to the reciprocal tariffs. And China's on a separate track with this Geneva framework that doesn't expire until August 12th. So we're not expecting a sweeping overhaul by Wednesday.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So what are the scenarios that we're watching?Michael Zezas: So there's roughly three that we're looking at and let me break them down here.So our base case is that the administration extends the current pause, citing progress in bilateral talks, and maybe there's a few exceptions along the way in either direction, some higher and some lower. This broadly resets the countdown clock, but keeps the current tariff structure intact: 10% baseline for most trading partners, though some potentially higher if negotiations don't progress in the next week. That outcome would be most in line, we think, with the current messaging coming out of the administration.There's also a more aggressive path if there's no visible progress. For example, the administration could reimpose tariffs with staggered implementation dates. The EU might face a tougher stance due to the complexity of that relationship and Vietnam could see delayed threats as a negotiating tactic. A strong macro backdrop, resilient data for markets that could all give the administration cover to go this route.But there's also a more constructive outcome. The administration can announce regional or bilateral frameworks, not necessarily full trade deals, but enough to remove the near term threat of higher tariffs,...]]>285alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1416fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-ai-could-transform-the-real-estate-sector--75648158insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Commercial Real Estate research. Today I’ll talk about the ways GenAI is disrupting the real estate industry.It’s Tuesday, July 1st, at 10am in New York.What if the future of real estate isn’t about location, location, location – but automation, automation, automation?While it may be too soon to say exactly how AI will affect demand for real estate, what we can say is that it is transforming the business of real estate, namely by making operations more efficient. If you’re a customer dealing with a real estate company, you can now expect to interact with virtual leasing assistants. And when it comes to drafting your lease documents, AI can help you do this in minutes rather than hours – or even days.In fact, our recent work suggests that GenAI could automate nearly 40 percent of tasks across half a million occupations in the real estate investment trusts industry – or REITs. Indeed, across 162 public REITs and commercial real estate services companies or CRE with $92 billion of total labor costs, the financial impact may be $34 billion, or over 15 percent of operating cash flow. Our proprietary job posting database suggests the top four occupations with automation potential are management – so think about middle management – sales, office and administrative support, and installation maintenance and repairs.Certain sub-sectors within REITs and CRE services stand to gain more than others. For instance, lodging and resorts, along with brokers and services, and healthcare REITs could see more than 15 percent improvement in operating cash flow due to labor automation. On the other hand, sectors like gaming, triple net, self-storage, malls, even shopping centers might see less than a 5 percent benefit, which suggests a varied impact across the industry.Brokers and services, in particular, show the highest potential for automation gains, with nearly 34 percent increase in operating cash flow. These companies may be the furthest along in adopting GenAI tools at scale. In our view, they should benefit not only from the labor cost savings but also from enhanced revenue opportunities through productivity improvement and data center transactions facilitated by GenAI tools.Lodging and resorts have the second highest potential upside from automating occupations, with an estimated 23 percent boost in operating cash flow. The integration of AI in these businesses not only streamline operations but also opens new avenues for return on investments, and mergers and acquisitions.Some companies are already using AI in their operations. For example, some self-storage companies have integrated AI into their digital platforms, where 85 percent of customer interactions now occur through self-selected digital options. As a result, they have reduced on-property labor hours by about 30 percent through AI-powered staffing optimization. Similarly, some apartment companies have reduced their full-time staff by about 15 percent since 2021 through AI-driven customer interactions and operational efficiencies.Meanwhile, this increased application of AI is driving new revenue to AI-enablers. Businesses like data centers, specialty, CRE services could see significant upside from the infrastructure buildout from GenAI. Advanced revenue management systems, customer acquisition tools, predictive analytics are just a few areas where GenAI can add value, potentially enhancing the $290 billion of revenue stream in the REIT and CRE services space.However, the broader economic impact of GenAI on labor markets remains hotly debated. Job growth is the key driver of real estate demand and the impact of AI on the 164 million jobs in the U.S. economy remains to be determined. If significant job losses materialize and the labor force shrinks, then the real estate industry may face top-line pressure with potentially disproportionate impact on office and lodging. While AI-related job losses are legitimate concerns, our economists argue that the productivity effects of GenAI could ultimately lead to net positive job growth, albeit with a significant need for re-skilling.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/p5LqtP7YlQQo-rwWUR5yHflqb_CvZbMe-m2rxi15u7sTue, 01 Jul 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyRon Kamdem, our U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts & Commercial Real Estate Analyst, discusses how GenAI could save the real estate industry $34 billion and where the savings are most likely to be found.Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Commercial Real Estate research. Today I’ll talk about the ways GenAI is disrupting the real estate industry.It’s Tuesday, July 1st, at 10am in New York.What if the future of real estate isn’t about location, location, location – but automation, automation, automation?While it may be too soon to say exactly how AI will affect demand for real estate, what we can say is that it is transforming the business of real estate, namely by making operations more efficient. If you’re a customer dealing with a real estate company, you can now expect to interact with virtual leasing assistants. And when it comes to drafting your lease documents, AI can help you do this in minutes rather than hours – or even days.In fact, our recent work suggests that GenAI could automate nearly 40 percent of tasks across half a million occupations in the real estate investment trusts industry – or REITs. Indeed, across 162 public REITs and commercial real estate services companies or CRE with $92 billion of total labor costs, the financial impact may be $34 billion, or over 15 percent of operating cash flow. Our proprietary job posting database suggests the top four occupations with automation potential are management – so think about middle management – sales, office and administrative support, and installation maintenance and repairs.Certain sub-sectors within REITs and CRE services stand to gain more than others. For instance, lodging and resorts, along with brokers and services, and healthcare REITs could see more than 15 percent improvement in operating cash flow due to labor automation. On the other hand, sectors like gaming, triple net, self-storage, malls, even shopping centers might see less than a 5 percent benefit, which suggests a varied impact across the industry.Brokers and services, in particular, show the highest potential for automation gains, with nearly 34 percent increase in operating cash flow. These companies may be the furthest along in adopting GenAI tools at scale. In our view, they should benefit not only from the labor cost savings but also from enhanced revenue opportunities through productivity improvement and data center transactions facilitated by GenAI tools.Lodging and resorts have the second highest potential upside from automating occupations, with an estimated 23 percent boost in operating cash flow. The integration of AI in these businesses not only streamline operations but also opens new avenues for return on investments, and mergers and acquisitions.Some companies are already using AI in their operations. For example, some self-storage companies have integrated AI into their digital platforms, where 85 percent of customer interactions now occur through self-selected digital options. As a result, they have reduced on-property labor hours by about 30 percent through AI-powered staffing optimization. Similarly, some apartment companies have reduced their full-time staff by about 15 percent since 2021 through AI-driven customer interactions and operational efficiencies.Meanwhile, this increased application of AI is driving new revenue to AI-enablers. Businesses like data centers, specialty, CRE services could see significant upside from the infrastructure buildout from GenAI. Advanced revenue management systems, customer acquisition tools, predictive analytics are just a few areas where GenAI can add value, potentially enhancing the $290 billion of revenue stream in the REIT and CRE services space.However, the...]]>332alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1415fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-u-s-housing-market-slowdown--75648628Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And after getting through last week's blistering hot temperatures, today we're going to talk about what may be a cooling housing market. It's Monday, June 30th at 2:30pm in New York. Now, Jim, home prices. We just got another index. They set another record high, but the pace of growth – the acceleration as a physicist in me wants to say – appears to be slowing. What's going on here?James Egan: The pace of home price growth reported this month was 2.7 percent. That is the lowest that it's been since August of 2023. And in our view, the reason's pretty simple. Supply is increasing, while demand has stalled.Jay Bacow: But Jim, this was a report for the spring selling season. I know we got it in June, but this is supposed to be the busiest time of the year. People are happy to go around. They're looking at moving over the summer when the kids aren't in school. We should be expecting the supply to increase. Are you saying that it's happening more than it's anticipated?James Egan: That is what we're saying. Now, we should be expecting inventories today to be higher than they were in, call it January or February. That's exactly the seasonality that you're referring to. But it's the year-over-year growth we're paying attention to here. Homes listed for sale are up year-over-year, 18 months in a row. And that pace, it's been accelerating. Over the past 40 years, the pace of growth from this past month was only eclipsed one time, the Great Financial Crisis.Jay Bacow: [sighs] I always get a little worried when the housing analyst brings up the Great Financial Crisis. Are you saying that this time the demand isn't responding?James Egan: That is what we're saying. So, through the first five months of this year, existing home sales are only down about 2 percent versus the first five months of 2024. So they've basically kind of plateaued at these levels. But that also means that we're seeing the fewest number of transactions through May in a calendar year since 2009. And that combination of easing inventory and lackluster demand, it's pushed months of supply back to levels that we haven't seen since the beginning of this pandemic. Call it the fourth quarter of 2019, first quarter of 2020, right before inventory has really plummeted to historic lows.Jay Bacow: All right, so 2009, another financial crisis reference. But you're also – you're speaking around a national level, and as a housing analyst, I feel like you haven't really spoken about the three most important factors when we think about things which are: Location. Location. And location.James Egan: Absolutely. And the deceleration that we're seeing in home price growth – and I would point out it is still growth – has been pervasive across the country. Year-over-year, HPA is now decelerating in 100 percent of the top 100 MSAs, for which we have data. In fact, a full quarter of them, 25 percent of these cities are now actually seeing prices decline on a year-over-year basis. And that's up from just 5 percent with declining home prices one year ago.Jay Bacow: As a homeowner, I do like the home price growth. And is it the same story when you look more narrowly around supply and demand?James Egan: So, there might be some geographical nuances, but we do think that it largely boils down to that. Local inventory growth has been a very good indicator of weaker home price performance, particularly the level of for-sale inventory today versus that fourth quarter of 2019. If we look at it on a geographic basis, of 14 MSAs that have the highest level of inventory today compared to 2019, 11 of them are in either Florida or Texas. On the other end of the spectrum, the cities where inventory remains furthest away from where it was four and a half years ago, they're in the Northeast, they're in the Midwest.Jay Bacow: As somebody who lives in the Northeast, I'd like to hear that again. But you're also; you're quoting existing prices, which that's been the outperformer in the housing market. Right?James Egan: Exactly. New home prices have actually been decreasing year-over-year for the past year and a half at this point. It's actually brought the basis between new home prices, which tend to trade at a little bit of a premium to existing sales; it's brought that basis to its tightest level that we've seen in at least 30 years. And that's before we take into account the fact that home builders have been buying down some of these mortgage rates. But Jay, you've recently done some work trying to size this.Jay Bacow: Yeah. First it might help to explain what a buydown is.A home builder might have a new home listed at say, $450,000. And with mortgage rates in the context of about 6.5 percent right now, the home buyer might not be able to afford that, so they offer to pay less. The home builder – often many of them also have an origination arm as well. They'll say, you know what? We'll sell it to you at that $450,000, but we'll give you a lower mortgage rate; instead of 6.5 percent, we'll sell it to you for $450,000 with a 5 percent mortgage rate. Then maybe the home buyer can afford that.James Egan: And so, new home prices are actually coming down. And by that we're specifically referring to the median price of new home transactions. They're falling despite the fact that these buy downs might be influencing prices a little bit higher.Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at how often this is happening, it's a little actually hard to get it from the data because they don't have to report it. But when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in a given month – prior to 2022, there were effectively no purchase loans that were originated less than one point below the prevailing mortgage rate for a given month.However, more recently we're up to about 12 percent of Ginnie Mae purchases, and those are the more credit constrained borrowers that might have a harder time buying a home. And about 5 percent of conventional purchase loans are getting originated with a rate 1 percent below the outstanding marketJames Egan: And so, this might be another sign that we're seeing a little bit of softening in home prices. But what are the implications on the agency mortgage side?Jay Bacow: I would say there's probably two things that we're keeping an eye out on. Because these are homeowners that are getting below market rate, the investors are getting a below market coupon. And because they're getting sold at a discount, they don't want that, but they're going to stay around for a while. So, investors are getting these rates that they don't want for longer.And then the other thing you think about from the home buyer perspective is, you know, maybe they – it's good for them right now. But if they want to sell that home, because they're getting a below market mortgage rate, they bought the home for maybe more than other people would've. So, unless they can sell it with that mortgage attached, which is very difficult to do, they probably have to sell it for a lower price than when they bought it.Now Jim, what does all this mean for home prices going forward?James Egan: Now, when we think about home prices, we're talking about the home price indices, right? And so those are going to be repeat sales. It’s going to, by definition, look at existing prices and not necessarily the dynamics we're talking in the new home price market.Jay Bacow: Okay, so all this builder buy down stuff is interesting for what it means for new home prices – but doesn't impact all the HPA indices that you reference.James Egan: Exactly, and at the national level, despite what we've been talking about on this podcast, we do think that home prices remain more supported than what we are seeing locally. Inventory is increasing, but it also remains near historically low levels. Months of supply that I mentioned at the top of this podcast, it's picked up to the highest level it's been since the beginning of this pandemic. We're also talking about four to four and a half months of supply. Anything below six is a tight environment that has been historically associated with home prices continuing to climb.That's why our base case is for positive HPA this year. We're at +2 percent. That's slower than where we are now. We think you're going to continue to see deceleration. And because of what we're seeing from a supply and demand perspective, we are a little bit more skewed to the downside in our bear case. Instead of that +2, we're at -3 percent than we are towards the upside in our bull case. Instead of that plus two, we’re at plus 5 percent in the bull case. So slower HPA from here, but still positive.Jay Bacow: Well, Jim, it's always a pleasure talking to you, particularly when you're highlighting that the home price growth is going to be stronger in the place where I own a home.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you listening, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market. Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5jp8_V686bJmWYKDzbcCcOmQjgT8pP9l4__vSBvzokUMon, 30 Jun 2025 20:47:08 +0000gtyThe U.S. housing market appears to be stuck. Our co-heads of Securitized Product research, Jay Bacow and James Egan, explain how supply and demand, as well as mortgage rates, play a role in the cooling market. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And after getting through last week's blistering hot temperatures, today we're going to talk about what may be a cooling housing market. It's Monday, June 30th at 2:30pm in New York. Now, Jim, home prices. We just got another index. They set another record high, but the pace of growth – the acceleration as a physicist in me wants to say – appears to be slowing. What's going on here?James Egan: The pace of home price growth reported this month was 2.7 percent. That is the lowest that it's been since August of 2023. And in our view, the reason's pretty simple. Supply is increasing, while demand has stalled.Jay Bacow: But Jim, this was a report for the spring selling season. I know we got it in June, but this is supposed to be the busiest time of the year. People are happy to go around. They're looking at moving over the summer when the kids aren't in school. We should be expecting the supply to increase. Are you saying that it's happening more than it's anticipated?James Egan: That is what we're saying. Now, we should be expecting inventories today to be higher than they were in, call it January or February. That's exactly the seasonality that you're referring to. But it's the year-over-year growth we're paying attention to here. Homes listed for sale are up year-over-year, 18 months in a row. And that pace, it's been accelerating. Over the past 40 years, the pace of growth from this past month was only eclipsed one time, the Great Financial Crisis.Jay Bacow: [sighs] I always get a little worried when the housing analyst brings up the Great Financial Crisis. Are you saying that this time the demand isn't responding?James Egan: That is what we're saying. So, through the first five months of this year, existing home sales are only down about 2 percent versus the first five months of 2024. So they've basically kind of plateaued at these levels. But that also means that we're seeing the fewest number of transactions through May in a calendar year since 2009. And that combination of easing inventory and lackluster demand, it's pushed months of supply back to levels that we haven't seen since the beginning of this pandemic. Call it the fourth quarter of 2019, first quarter of 2020, right before inventory has really plummeted to historic lows.Jay Bacow: All right, so 2009, another financial crisis reference. But you're also – you're speaking around a national level, and as a housing analyst, I feel like you haven't really spoken about the three most important factors when we think about things which are: Location. Location. And location.James Egan: Absolutely. And the deceleration that we're seeing in home price growth – and I would point out it is still growth – has been pervasive across the country. Year-over-year, HPA is now decelerating in 100 percent of the top 100 MSAs, for which we have data. In fact, a full quarter of them, 25 percent of these cities are now actually seeing prices decline on a year-over-year basis. And that's up from just 5 percent with declining home prices one year ago.Jay Bacow: As a homeowner, I do like the home price growth. And is it the same story when you look more narrowly around supply and demand?James Egan: So, there might be some geographical nuances, but we do think that it largely boils down to that. Local inventory growth has been a very good indicator of weaker home price...]]>485alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1414fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/watching-the-canary-in-the-coalmine--75648149Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about how we're trying to simplify the complicated questions of recent geopolitical events.It's Friday, June 27th at 2pm in London.Recent U.S. airstrikes against Iran and the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel have dominated the headlines. The situation is complicated, uncertain, and ever changing. From the time that this episode is recorded to when you listen to it, conditions may very well have changed again.Geopolitical events such as this one often have a serious human, social and financial cost, but they do not consistently have an impact on markets. As analysis by my colleague, Michael Wilson and his team have shown, over a number of key geopolitical events over the last 30 years, the impact on the S&P 500 has often been either fleeting or somewhat non-existent. Other factors, in short, dominate markets.So how to deal with this conundrum? How to take current events seriously while respecting that historical precedent that they often can have more limited market impact? How to make a forecast when quite simply few investors feel like they have an edge in predicting where these events will go next?In our view, the best way to simplify the market's response is to watch oil prices. Oil remains an important input to the world economy, where changes in price are felt quickly by businesses and consumers.So when we look back at past geopolitical events that did move markets in a more sustained way, a large increase in oil prices often meaning a rise of more than 75 percent year-over-year was often part of the story. Such a rise in such an important economic input in such a short period of time increases the risk of recession; something that credit markets and many other markets need to care about. So how can we apply this today?Well, for all the seriousness and severity of the current conflict, oil prices are actually down about 20 percent relative to a year ago. This simply puts current conditions in a very different category than those other periods be they the 1970s or more recently, Russia's invasion of Ukraine that represented genuine oil price shocks. Why is oil down? Well, as my colleague Martin Rats referred to on an earlier episode of this program, oil markets do have very healthy levels of supply, which is helping to cushion these shocks.With oil prices actually lower than a year ago, we think the credit will focus on other things. To the positive, we see an alignment of a few short-term positive factors, specifically a pretty good balance of supply and demand in the credit market, low realized volatility, and a historically good window in the very near term for performance. Indeed, over the last 15 years, July has represented the best month of the year for returns in both investment grade and high yield credit in both the U.S. and in Europe.And what could disrupt this? Well, a significant spike in oil prices could be one culprit, but we think a more likely catalyst is a shift of those favorable conditions, which could happen from August and beyond. From here, Morgan Stanley economists’ forecasts see a worsening mix of growth in inflation in the U.S., while seasonal return patterns to flip from good to bad.In the meantime, however, we will keep watching oil.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today. 

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VH4fMqIH-OKUvjw1psMB_FyfBkXOUvMnqQ4MieNGiwIFri, 27 Jun 2025 21:45:20 +0000gtyStock tickers may not immediately price in uncertainty during times of geopolitical volatility. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets suggests a different indicator to watch. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about how we're trying to simplify the complicated questions of recent geopolitical events.It's Friday, June 27th at 2pm in London.Recent U.S. airstrikes against Iran and the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel have dominated the headlines. The situation is complicated, uncertain, and ever changing. From the time that this episode is recorded to when you listen to it, conditions may very well have changed again.Geopolitical events such as this one often have a serious human, social and financial cost, but they do not consistently have an impact on markets. As analysis by my colleague, Michael Wilson and his team have shown, over a number of key geopolitical events over the last 30 years, the impact on the S&P 500 has often been either fleeting or somewhat non-existent. Other factors, in short, dominate markets.So how to deal with this conundrum? How to take current events seriously while respecting that historical precedent that they often can have more limited market impact? How to make a forecast when quite simply few investors feel like they have an edge in predicting where these events will go next?In our view, the best way to simplify the market's response is to watch oil prices. Oil remains an important input to the world economy, where changes in price are felt quickly by businesses and consumers.So when we look back at past geopolitical events that did move markets in a more sustained way, a large increase in oil prices often meaning a rise of more than 75 percent year-over-year was often part of the story. Such a rise in such an important economic input in such a short period of time increases the risk of recession; something that credit markets and many other markets need to care about. So how can we apply this today?Well, for all the seriousness and severity of the current conflict, oil prices are actually down about 20 percent relative to a year ago. This simply puts current conditions in a very different category than those other periods be they the 1970s or more recently, Russia's invasion of Ukraine that represented genuine oil price shocks. Why is oil down? Well, as my colleague Martin Rats referred to on an earlier episode of this program, oil markets do have very healthy levels of supply, which is helping to cushion these shocks.With oil prices actually lower than a year ago, we think the credit will focus on other things. To the positive, we see an alignment of a few short-term positive factors, specifically a pretty good balance of supply and demand in the credit market, low realized volatility, and a historically good window in the very near term for performance. Indeed, over the last 15 years, July has represented the best month of the year for returns in both investment grade and high yield credit in both the U.S. and in Europe.And what could disrupt this? Well, a significant spike in oil prices could be one culprit, but we think a more likely catalyst is a shift of those favorable conditions, which could happen from August and beyond. From here, Morgan Stanley economists’ forecasts see a worsening mix of growth in inflation in the U.S., while seasonal return patterns to flip from good to bad.In the meantime, however, we will keep watching oil.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today. 

]]>241alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1413fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-fed-will-cut-late-but-cut-more--75648766Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today we're discussing the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our expectations for rates, inflation, and the U.S. dollar from here. It's Thursday, June 26th at 10am in New York. Matt Hornbach: Mike, the Federal Reserve decided to hold the federal funds rate steady, remaining within its target range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent. It still anticipates two rate cuts by the end of 2025; but participants adjusted their projections further out suggesting fewer cuts in 2026 and 2027. You, on the other hand, continue to think the Fed will stay on hold for the rest of this year, with a lot of cuts to follow in 2026. What specifically is behind your view, and are there any underappreciated dynamics here? Michael Gapen: So, we've been highlighting three reasons why we think the Fed will cut late but cut more. The first is tariffs introduce differential timing effects on the economy. They tend to push inflation higher in the near term and they weaken consumer spending with a lag. If tariffs act as a tax on consumption, that tax is applied by pushing prices higher – and then only subsequently do consumers spend less because they have less real income to spend. So, we think the Fed will be seeing more inflation first before it sees the weaker labor market later. The second part of our story is immigration. Immigration controls mean it's likely to be much harder to push the unemployment rate higher. That's because when we go from about 3 million immigrants per year down to about 300,000 – that means much lower growth in the labor force. So even if the economy does slow and labor demand moderates, the unemployment rate is likely to remain low. So again, that's similar to the tariff story where the Fed's likely to see more inflation now before it sees a weaker labor market later. And third, we don't really expect a big impulse from fiscal policy. The bill that's passed the house and is sitting in the Senate, we’ll see where that ultimately ends up. But the details that we have in hand today about those bills don't lead us to believe that we'll have a big impulse or a big boost to growth from fiscal policy next year. So, in total the Fed will see a lot of inflation in the near term and a weaker economy as we move into 2026. So, the Fed will be waiting to ensure that that inflation impulse is indeed transitory, but a Fed that cuts late will ultimately end up cutting more. So we don't have rate hikes this year, Matt, as you noted. But we do have 175 basis points in rate cuts next year. Matt Hornbach: So, Mike, looking through the transcript of the press conference, the word tariffs was used almost 30 times. What does the Fed's messaging say to you about its expectations around tariffs? Michael Gapen: Yeah, so it does look like in this meeting, participants did take a stand that tariffs were going to be higher, and they likely proceeded under the assumption of about a 14 percent effective tariff rate. So, I think you can see three imprints that tariffs have on their forecast.First, they're saying that inflation moves higher, and in the press conference Powell said explicitly that the Fed thinks inflation will be moving higher over the summer months. And they revised their headline and core PCE forecast higher to about 3 percent and 3.1 percent – significant upward revisions from where they had things earlier in the year in March before tariffs became clear. The second component here is the Fed thinks any inflation story will be transitory. Famous last words, of course. But the Fed forecast that inflation will fall back towards the 2 percent target in 2026 and 2027; so near-term impulse that fades over time. And third, the Fed sees tariffs as slowing economic growth. The Fed revised lower its outlook for growth in real GDP this year. So, in some [way], by incorporating tariffs and putting such a significant imprint on the forecast, the Fed's outlook has actually moved more in the direction of our own forecast. Matt Hornbach: I'd like to stay on the topic of geopolitics. In contrast to the word tariffs, the words Middle East only was mentioned three times during the press conference. With the weekend events there, investor concerns are growing about a spike in oil prices. How do you think the Fed will think about any supply-driven rise in energy, commodity prices here? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the Fed will view this as another element that suggests slower growth and stickier inflation. I think it will reinforce the Fed's view of what tariffs and immigration controls do to the outlook. Because historically when we look at shocks to oil prices in the U.S.; if you get about a 10 percent rise in oil prices from here, like another $10 increase in oil prices; history would suggest that will move headline inflation higher because it gets passed directly into retail gasoline prices. So maybe a 30 to 40 basis point increase in a year-on-year rate of inflation. But the evidence also suggests very limited second round effects, and almost no change in core inflation. So, you get a boost to headline inflation, but no persistence elements – very similar to what the Fed thinks tariffs will do. And of course, the higher cost of gasoline will eat into consumer purchasing power. So, on that, I think it's another force that suggests a slower growth, stickier inflation outlook is likely to prevail.Okay Matt, you've had me on the hot seat. Now it's your turn. How do you think about the market pricing of the Fed's policy path from here? It certainly seems to conflict with how I'm thinking about the most likely path. Matt Hornbach: So, when we look at market prices, we have to remember that they are representing an average path across all various paths that different investors might think are more likely than not.     So, the market price today, has about 100 basis points of cuts by the end of 2026. That contrasts both with your path in terms of magnitude. You are forecasting 175 basis points of rate cuts; the market is only pricing in 100. But also, the market pricing contrasts with your policy path in that the market does have some rate cuts in the price for this year, whereas your most likely path does not. So that's how I look at the market price. You know, the question then becomes, where does it go to from here? And that's something that we ultimately are incorporating into our forecasts for the level of Treasury yields. Michael Gapen: Right. So, turning to that, so moving a little further out the curve into those longer dated Treasury yields. What do you think about those? Your forecast suggests lower yields over the next year and a half. When do you think that process starts to play out? Matt Hornbach: So, in our projections, we have Treasury yields moving lower, really beginning in the fourth quarter of this year. And that is to align with the timing of when you see the Fed beginning to lower rates, which is in the first quarter of next year. So, market prices tend to get ahead of different policy actions, and we expect that to remain the case this year as well. As we approach the end of the year, we are expecting Treasury yields to begin falling more precipitously than they have over recent months. But what are the risks around that projection? In our view, the risks are that this process starts earlier rather than later. In other words, where we have most conviction in our projections is in the direction of travel for Treasury yields as opposed to the timing of exactly when they begin to fall. So, we are recommending that investors begin gearing up for lower Treasury yields even today. But in our projections, you'll see our numbers really begin to fall in the fourth quarter of the year, such that the 10-year Treasury yield ends this year around 4 percent, and it ends 2026 closer to 3 percent. Michael Gapen: And these days it's really impossible to talk about movements in Treasury yields without thinking about the U.S. dollar. So how are you thinking about the dollar amidst the conflict in the Middle East and your outlook for Treasury yields? Matt Hornbach: So, we are projecting the U.S. dollar will depreciate another 10 percent over the next 12 to 18 months. That's coming on the back of a pretty dramatic decline in the value of the dollar in the first six months of this year, where it also declined by about 10 percent in terms of its value against other currencies. So, we are expecting a continued depreciation, and the conflict in the Middle East and what it may end up doing to the energy complex is a key risk to our view that the dollar will continue to depreciate, if we end up seeing a dramatic rise in crude oil prices. That rise would end up benefiting countries, and the currencies of those countries who are net exporters of oil; and may end up hurting the countries and the currencies of the countries that are net importers of oil. The good news is that the United States doesn't really import a lot of oil these days, but neither is it a large net exporter either.So, the U.S. in some sense turns out to be a bit of a neutral party in this particular issue. But if we see a rise in energy prices that could benefit other currencies more than it benefits the U.S. dollar. And therefore, we could see a temporary reprieve in the dollar’s depreciation, which would then push our forecast perhaps a little bit further into the future. So, with that, Mike, tha]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/919ejrRxJ49kNAXdPMjYZ6G5xXXHc7rbTV7V20tzPiEThu, 26 Jun 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matt Hornbach and U.S. Economist Michael Gapen assess the Fed’s path forward in light of inflation and a weaker economy, and the likely market outcomes. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today we're discussing the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our expectations for rates, inflation, and the U.S. dollar from here. It's Thursday, June 26th at 10am in New York. Matt Hornbach: Mike, the Federal Reserve decided to hold the federal funds rate steady, remaining within its target range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent. It still anticipates two rate cuts by the end of 2025; but participants adjusted their projections further out suggesting fewer cuts in 2026 and 2027. You, on the other hand, continue to think the Fed will stay on hold for the rest of this year, with a lot of cuts to follow in 2026. What specifically is behind your view, and are there any underappreciated dynamics here? Michael Gapen: So, we've been highlighting three reasons why we think the Fed will cut late but cut more. The first is tariffs introduce differential timing effects on the economy. They tend to push inflation higher in the near term and they weaken consumer spending with a lag. If tariffs act as a tax on consumption, that tax is applied by pushing prices higher – and then only subsequently do consumers spend less because they have less real income to spend. So, we think the Fed will be seeing more inflation first before it sees the weaker labor market later. The second part of our story is immigration. Immigration controls mean it's likely to be much harder to push the unemployment rate higher. That's because when we go from about 3 million immigrants per year down to about 300,000 – that means much lower growth in the labor force. So even if the economy does slow and labor demand moderates, the unemployment rate is likely to remain low. So again, that's similar to the tariff story where the Fed's likely to see more inflation now before it sees a weaker labor market later. And third, we don't really expect a big impulse from fiscal policy. The bill that's passed the house and is sitting in the Senate, we’ll see where that ultimately ends up. But the details that we have in hand today about those bills don't lead us to believe that we'll have a big impulse or a big boost to growth from fiscal policy next year. So, in total the Fed will see a lot of inflation in the near term and a weaker economy as we move into 2026. So, the Fed will be waiting to ensure that that inflation impulse is indeed transitory, but a Fed that cuts late will ultimately end up cutting more. So we don't have rate hikes this year, Matt, as you noted. But we do have 175 basis points in rate cuts next year. Matt Hornbach: So, Mike, looking through the transcript of the press conference, the word tariffs was used almost 30 times. What does the Fed's messaging say to you about its expectations around tariffs? Michael Gapen: Yeah, so it does look like in this meeting, participants did take a stand that tariffs were going to be higher, and they likely proceeded under the assumption of about a 14 percent effective tariff rate. So, I think you can see three imprints that tariffs have on their forecast.First, they're saying that inflation moves higher, and in the press conference Powell said explicitly that the Fed thinks inflation will be moving higher over the summer months. And they revised their headline and core PCE forecast higher to about 3 percent and 3.1 percent – significant upward revisions from where they had things earlier in the year in March before tariffs became...]]>675alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1412fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/humanoids-insatiable-hunger-for-minerals--75648652Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Rahul Anand: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rahul Anand, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Australia Materials Research team.Today, I'll dig deeper into one of the vital necessities for the development of robotics – critical minerals – and why they're so vital to be front of mind for the Western world today. It's Wednesday, June 25th at 8am in Sydney, Australia. Humanoid robots will soon become an integral part of our daily lives. A few weeks ago, you heard my colleagues Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss how humanoids are going to transform the economy and markets. Morgan Stanley Research expects this market to reach more than a billion units by 2050 and generate almost [$] 5 trillion in annual revenue. When we think about that market, and we think about what it could do for critical minerals demand, that could skyrocket. And the key areas of critical minerals demand would basically be focused on rare earths, lithium and graphite. Each one of these complex machines is going to require about a kilo of rare earths, 2 kgs of lithium, 6.5 kgs kilos of copper, 1.5 kgs of nickel, 3 kgs of graphite, and about 200 grams of cobalt. Importantly, this market from a cumulative standpoint by the year 2050, could be to the tune of about $800 billion U.S., which is staggering.And beyond that market size of $800 billion U.S., I think it's important to drill a bit deeper – because if we now consider how these markets are dominated currently, comes the China angle. And China currently dominates 88 percent of rare earth supply, 93 percent of graphite supply and 75 percent of refined lithium supply. China recently placed controls on seven heavy rare earths and permanent magnet exports in response to tariff announcements that were made by the U.S., and a comprehensive deal there is still awaited. It's very important that we have to think about diversification today, not just because these critical minerals are so heavily dominated by China. But more importantly, if we think about how the supply chain comes about, it's now taking circa 18 years to get a new mine online, and that's the statistic for the past five years of mines that came online. That number is up nearly 50 percent from last decade, and that's been driven basically by very long approval processes now in the Western world, alongside very long exploration times that are required to get some of these mines up and running. On top of that, when we think about the supply demand balance, by 2040 we're expecting that the NdPr, or the rare earth, market would be in a 26 percent deficit. Lithium could be in a deficit close to 80 percent. So, it's not just about supply security. It's also about how long it will take to bring these mines on. And on top of that, how big the amount of supply that's required is really going to be. I know when you think about 2040, it sounds very long dated, but it's important to understand that we have to act now. And in this humanoid piece of research that we have done as the global materials team, which was led by the Australian materials team, we basically have provided 34 global stocks to play this thematic in the rare earths, lithium and rare earth magnet space. It's also very important to remember and keep front of mind that as part of the London negotiations that happened between U.S. and China, no agreement was reached on critical military use rare earth magnets and exports. Now that's an important point because that's going to play as a key point of leverage in any future trade deal that comes about between the two countries. This remains an evolving situation, and this is something that we are going to continue monitoring and will bring you the latest on as time progresses.Look, thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hRVOR-G_czDlufKtY4fz9rLjOLSRa8Dka9hsmkFjB7sWed, 25 Jun 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Australia Materials Analyst Rahul Anand discusses why critical minerals may be the Achilles’ heel of humanoids as demand significantly outpaces supply amid geopolitical uncertainties. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Rahul Anand: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rahul Anand, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Australia Materials Research team.Today, I'll dig deeper into one of the vital necessities for the development of robotics – critical minerals – and why they're so vital to be front of mind for the Western world today. It's Wednesday, June 25th at 8am in Sydney, Australia. Humanoid robots will soon become an integral part of our daily lives. A few weeks ago, you heard my colleagues Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss how humanoids are going to transform the economy and markets. Morgan Stanley Research expects this market to reach more than a billion units by 2050 and generate almost [$] 5 trillion in annual revenue. When we think about that market, and we think about what it could do for critical minerals demand, that could skyrocket. And the key areas of critical minerals demand would basically be focused on rare earths, lithium and graphite. Each one of these complex machines is going to require about a kilo of rare earths, 2 kgs of lithium, 6.5 kgs kilos of copper, 1.5 kgs of nickel, 3 kgs of graphite, and about 200 grams of cobalt. Importantly, this market from a cumulative standpoint by the year 2050, could be to the tune of about $800 billion U.S., which is staggering.And beyond that market size of $800 billion U.S., I think it's important to drill a bit deeper – because if we now consider how these markets are dominated currently, comes the China angle. And China currently dominates 88 percent of rare earth supply, 93 percent of graphite supply and 75 percent of refined lithium supply. China recently placed controls on seven heavy rare earths and permanent magnet exports in response to tariff announcements that were made by the U.S., and a comprehensive deal there is still awaited. It's very important that we have to think about diversification today, not just because these critical minerals are so heavily dominated by China. But more importantly, if we think about how the supply chain comes about, it's now taking circa 18 years to get a new mine online, and that's the statistic for the past five years of mines that came online. That number is up nearly 50 percent from last decade, and that's been driven basically by very long approval processes now in the Western world, alongside very long exploration times that are required to get some of these mines up and running. On top of that, when we think about the supply demand balance, by 2040 we're expecting that the NdPr, or the rare earth, market would be in a 26 percent deficit. Lithium could be in a deficit close to 80 percent. So, it's not just about supply security. It's also about how long it will take to bring these mines on. And on top of that, how big the amount of supply that's required is really going to be. I know when you think about 2040, it sounds very long dated, but it's important to understand that we have to act now. And in this humanoid piece of research that we have done as the global materials team, which was led by the Australian materials team, we basically have provided 34 global stocks to play this thematic in the rare earths, lithium and rare earth magnet space. It's also very important to remember and keep front of mind that as part of the London negotiations that happened between U.S. and China, no agreement was reached on critical military use rare earth magnets and exports. Now that's an important point because that's going to play as a key point of leverage in any future trade deal that comes about between the two countries. This remains an evolving situation, and this...]]>271alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1411fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/india-outperforms-with-high-growth-and-low-volatility--75648593Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss why we remain positive on India’s long-term equity story.It’s Tuesday, the 24th of June at 9am in Singapore.We’ve had a long-standing bullish outlook on the India economy and its stock market. In the last five years MSCI India has delivered a total return in U.S. dollars of 145 percent versus 94 percent for global equities and just 39 percent for emerging markets. Indian equities are our most preferred market within Asia for three key reasons. First, India’s superior economic and earnings growth. Second, lower exposure to trade tariffs. And third, a strong domestic investor base. And all of this adds up to structural outperformance not just in Asia but indeed globally, and with significantly lower volatility than peer group markets. So let’s dive deeper. To start with – the macroeconomic backdrop. We expect India to account for 20 percent of overall incremental global GDP growth in the coming decade. Manufacturing competitiveness is improving thanks to bolstered infrastructure in power, ports, roads, freight transport systems as well as investments in social infrastructure such as water, sewage and hospitals. Additionally, India's growing middle class offers market opportunities to companies across many product categories. There’s robust domestic consumption, a strong investment cycle led by public and private capital expenditure and continuing structural reforms, including in the legal sphere. GDP growth in the first quarter was more than 7 percent and our team expects over 6 percent in the medium term, which would be by far the highest of the major economies. Furthermore, we continue to expect robust corporate earnings growth. Since the end of COVID, MSCI India has delivered around 12 percent per annum [U.S.] dollar earnings per share growth versus low single digits for Emerging Markets overall. And we forecast 14 percent and 16 percent over the next two fiscal years. Growth drivers in the short term include an emerging private CapEx cycle, re-leveraging of corporate balance sheets, and a structural rise in discretionary consumption – signaling increased business and consumer confidence, after last year’s elections. Another key reason that we’re positive on India currently is its lower-than-average vulnerability to ongoing trade and tariff disputes between the U.S. and its trade partners. Exports of goods to the U.S. amount to only 2 percent of India’s GDP versus, for example, 10 percent in Thailand or 14 percent in Taiwan. And India’s total goods exports are only around 12 percent of GDP. Moreover, for the time being, India’s very large services sector’s exports are not exposed to tariff actions, and are actually early beneficiaries of AI adoption. Finally, India’s strong individual stock ownership means that there’s persistent retail buying, which underpins the equity market. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) flows driven by a young urbanizing population are making new highs, and in May amounted to over U.S.$3 billion. They provide consistent capital inflows. That means that this domestic bid on stocks is unlikely to fade anytime soon. This provides a strong foundation for the market and supports valuations which are slightly above emerging market averages. It also means that its market beta to global equities are low and falling, approximately 0.4 versus 1.1 ten years ago. And price volatility is well below other emerging markets. All told, making India an attractive play in volatile times. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RSmMsTlIl8dCrcoY8ZMmjNqxChNWQRAThF1OzjtUG94Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist Jonathan Garner explains why Indian equities are our most preferred market in Asia. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss why we remain positive on India’s long-term equity story.It’s Tuesday, the 24th of June at 9am in Singapore.We’ve had a long-standing bullish outlook on the India economy and its stock market. In the last five years MSCI India has delivered a total return in U.S. dollars of 145 percent versus 94 percent for global equities and just 39 percent for emerging markets. Indian equities are our most preferred market within Asia for three key reasons. First, India’s superior economic and earnings growth. Second, lower exposure to trade tariffs. And third, a strong domestic investor base. And all of this adds up to structural outperformance not just in Asia but indeed globally, and with significantly lower volatility than peer group markets. So let’s dive deeper. To start with – the macroeconomic backdrop. We expect India to account for 20 percent of overall incremental global GDP growth in the coming decade. Manufacturing competitiveness is improving thanks to bolstered infrastructure in power, ports, roads, freight transport systems as well as investments in social infrastructure such as water, sewage and hospitals. Additionally, India's growing middle class offers market opportunities to companies across many product categories. There’s robust domestic consumption, a strong investment cycle led by public and private capital expenditure and continuing structural reforms, including in the legal sphere. GDP growth in the first quarter was more than 7 percent and our team expects over 6 percent in the medium term, which would be by far the highest of the major economies. Furthermore, we continue to expect robust corporate earnings growth. Since the end of COVID, MSCI India has delivered around 12 percent per annum [U.S.] dollar earnings per share growth versus low single digits for Emerging Markets overall. And we forecast 14 percent and 16 percent over the next two fiscal years. Growth drivers in the short term include an emerging private CapEx cycle, re-leveraging of corporate balance sheets, and a structural rise in discretionary consumption – signaling increased business and consumer confidence, after last year’s elections. Another key reason that we’re positive on India currently is its lower-than-average vulnerability to ongoing trade and tariff disputes between the U.S. and its trade partners. Exports of goods to the U.S. amount to only 2 percent of India’s GDP versus, for example, 10 percent in Thailand or 14 percent in Taiwan. And India’s total goods exports are only around 12 percent of GDP. Moreover, for the time being, India’s very large services sector’s exports are not exposed to tariff actions, and are actually early beneficiaries of AI adoption. Finally, India’s strong individual stock ownership means that there’s persistent retail buying, which underpins the equity market. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) flows driven by a young urbanizing population are making new highs, and in May amounted to over U.S.$3 billion. They provide consistent capital inflows. That means that this domestic bid on stocks is unlikely to fade anytime soon. This provides a strong foundation for the market and supports valuations which are slightly above emerging market averages. It also means that its market beta to global equities are low and falling, approximately 0.4 versus 1.1 ten years ago. And price volatility is well below other emerging markets. All told, making India an attractive play in volatile times. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you...]]>253alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1410fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-stocks-can-be-resilient-despite-geopolitical-risk--75648624Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the tensions in the Middle East for U.S. equities.  It's Monday, June 23rd at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.  Over the weekend, the United States executed a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. While the extent of the damage has yet to be confirmed, President Trump has indicated Iran’s nuclear weapon development efforts have been diminished substantially, if not fully. If true, then this could be viewed as a peak rate of change for this risk. In many ways this fits our overall narrative for U.S. equities that we have likely passed the worst for many risks that were weighing on stocks in the first quarter of the year. Things like immigration enforcement, fiscal spending cuts, tariffs and AI CapEx deceleration all contributed to dragging down earnings forecasts.  Fast forward to today and all of these items have peaked in terms of their negative impact, and earnings forecasts have rebounded since Mid-April. In fact, the rebound in earnings revision breadth is one of the sharpest on record and provides a fundamental reason for why U.S. stocks have been so strong since bottoming the week of April 7th. Add in the events of this past weekend and it makes sense why equities are not selling off this morning as many might have expected.  For further context, we looked at 23 major geopolitical events since 1950 and the impact on stock prices. What we found may surprise listeners, but it is a well understood fact by seasoned investors. Geopolitical shocks are typically followed by higher, not lower equity prices, especially over 6 to12 months. Only five of the 23 outcomes were negative. And importantly, all the negative outcomes were accompanied by oil prices that were at least 75 percent higher on a year-over-year basis. As of this morning, oil prices are down 10 percent year-over-year and this is after the actions over the weekend. In other words, the conditions are not in place for lower equity prices on a 6 to12 month horizon.  Having said that, we continue to recommend large cap higher quality equities rather than small cap lower quality names. This is mostly a function of sticky long term interest rates and the fact that we remain in a late cycle environment in which the Fed is on hold. Should that change and the Fed begin to signal rate cuts, we would pivot to a more cyclical areas of the market.  Our favorite sectors remain Industrials which are geared to higher capital spending for power and infrastructure, Financials which will benefit from deregulation this fall and software stocks that remain immune from tariffs and levered to the next area of spending for AI diffusion across the economy. We also like Energy over consumer discretionary as a hedge against the risk of higher oil prices in the near term.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found today's episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/I8v_yoFlCwGTgLqTIpqMEqcZsExwtC-MtTvw4XPHsUoMon, 23 Jun 2025 23:20:50 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors have largely remained calm amid recent developments in the Middle East. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the tensions in the Middle East for U.S. equities.  It's Monday, June 23rd at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.  Over the weekend, the United States executed a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. While the extent of the damage has yet to be confirmed, President Trump has indicated Iran’s nuclear weapon development efforts have been diminished substantially, if not fully. If true, then this could be viewed as a peak rate of change for this risk. In many ways this fits our overall narrative for U.S. equities that we have likely passed the worst for many risks that were weighing on stocks in the first quarter of the year. Things like immigration enforcement, fiscal spending cuts, tariffs and AI CapEx deceleration all contributed to dragging down earnings forecasts.  Fast forward to today and all of these items have peaked in terms of their negative impact, and earnings forecasts have rebounded since Mid-April. In fact, the rebound in earnings revision breadth is one of the sharpest on record and provides a fundamental reason for why U.S. stocks have been so strong since bottoming the week of April 7th. Add in the events of this past weekend and it makes sense why equities are not selling off this morning as many might have expected.  For further context, we looked at 23 major geopolitical events since 1950 and the impact on stock prices. What we found may surprise listeners, but it is a well understood fact by seasoned investors. Geopolitical shocks are typically followed by higher, not lower equity prices, especially over 6 to12 months. Only five of the 23 outcomes were negative. And importantly, all the negative outcomes were accompanied by oil prices that were at least 75 percent higher on a year-over-year basis. As of this morning, oil prices are down 10 percent year-over-year and this is after the actions over the weekend. In other words, the conditions are not in place for lower equity prices on a 6 to12 month horizon.  Having said that, we continue to recommend large cap higher quality equities rather than small cap lower quality names. This is mostly a function of sticky long term interest rates and the fact that we remain in a late cycle environment in which the Fed is on hold. Should that change and the Fed begin to signal rate cuts, we would pivot to a more cyclical areas of the market.  Our favorite sectors remain Industrials which are geared to higher capital spending for power and infrastructure, Financials which will benefit from deregulation this fall and software stocks that remain immune from tariffs and levered to the next area of spending for AI diffusion across the economy. We also like Energy over consumer discretionary as a hedge against the risk of higher oil prices in the near term.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found today's episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>212alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1409fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-credit-outlook-an-odd-disconnect-in-asia--75648823Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Kelvin Pang: And I'm Kelvin Pang, Head of Asia Credit Strategy. Andrew Sheets: And today in the program we're going to finish our global tour of credit markets with a discussion of Asia. It's Friday, June 20th at 2pm in London. Kelvin Pang: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, thank you for joining us. Thank you especially for joining us so late in your day – to complete this credit World tour. And before we get into the Asia credit market, I think it would just be helpful to frame at a very high level – how you see the economic picture in the region. Kelvin Pang: We do think that the talks and potential deals will probably provide some reprieve towards the growth for the region, but not a big relief. We do think that tariff uncertainty will linger here, and it will keep growth low here; especially if we do think that CapEx of the region will be weaker due to tariff uncertainty. A weaker U.S. dollar, for example, plus monetary easing will help offset some of this growth drag. But overall, we do think that the Asia region could see 90 basis point down in real GDP growth from last year. Andrew Sheets: So, we've got weaker growth in Asia as a function of high tariffs and high tariff uncertainty that can't be offset by further policy easing. In the context of that weaker growth backdrop, higher uncertainty – are credit spreads in the region wide? Kelvin Pang: No, they're actually really low. They're probably at like the lowest since we start having a data in 2013. So definitely like a 12 to 13 year low of the range. Andrew Sheets: And so why is that? Why do you have this kind of seemingly odd disconnect between some real growth challenges? And as you just mentioned, really some of the tightest credit spreads, some of the lowest risk premiums that we've seen in quite some time? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we get this question a lot from clients, and the short answer is that, you know, the technicals, right? Because the last two years, two-three years, we've been seeing negative net supply for Asia credit. A lot of that is driven by China credit. And if you look at year-to-date, non supply remain still negative net supply. And demand side, for example, has not really picked up that strongly. But it still offsets any outflows that we see the last two-three years; is offset by this negative net supply. So, you put this two together, we have this very strong technicals that support very tight spread. And that's why spread has been tight at historical end in the last, I would say, one to two years. Andrew Sheets: Do you see this changes? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think it's changed. We have a framework that we call the normalization of Asia Credit technicals. And for that to change, essentially our framework is saying that Treasury yields use need to go down, and dollar funding need to go down. Cheaper dollar funding will bring back issuers. Net supply should pick up. Demand for credit tends to do well in a rate cut cycle. Demand tends to pick up in a rate cut cycle. So, if we have these two supports, we do think that Asia credit technicals will normalize. It's just that, you know, we have four stages of normalization. Unfortunately we are in stage two now, and we still have a bit of room to see some further normalization, especially if we don't get rate cuts. Andrew Sheets: Got it. So, you know, we do think that if Morgan Stanley's yield forecasts are correct, yields are going to fall. Issuers will look at those lower yields as more attractive. They'll issue more paper in Asia and that will kind of help rebalance the market some. But we're just not quite there yet. Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we feel like this road to rate cuts has been delayed a few times, in the last two-three years. And that has really been a big conundrum for a lot of Asia credit investors. So hopefully third time's a charm, right. So next year's a big year. Andrew Sheets: So, I guess while we're waiting for that, you also have this dynamic where for companies in Asia, or I guess for any company in the world, borrowing money locally in Asia is quite cheap. You have very low yields in China. You have very low local yields in Japan. How do those yields compare with the economics of borrowing in dollars? And what do you think that, kind of, means for your market? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, I think the short answer is that we are going to see more foreign issuers in local currency market. And, you know, we wrote a report in in March to just to pick on the dim sum corporate bond market. It benefits… Andrew Sheets: And Kelvin, just to stop you there, could you just describe to the listener what a dim sum bond is? And probably why you don't want to eat it? Kelvin Pang: Yes. So dim sum bond is basically a bond denominator in CNH. So, CNH is a[n] offshore Chinese renminbi, sort of, proxy. And it's called dim sum because it's like the most local cuisine in Hong Kong. Most – a lot of dim sum bonds are issued in Hong Kong. A lot of these CNH bonds are issued in Hong Kong, And that's why, [it has] this, you know, sort nickname called dim sum. Andrew Sheets: So, what is the outlook for that market and the economics for issuers who might be interested in it? Kelvin Pang: Yeah. We think it's a great place for global issuers who have natural demand for renminbi or CNH to issue; 10 years CGB is now is like 1.5-1.6 percent. That makes it a very attractive yield. And for a lot of these multinationals, they have natural renminbi needs. So, they don't need to worry about the hedging part of it. And what – and for a lot of investor base, the demands are picking up because we are seeing that renminbi internationalization are making some progress. You know, progress in that means better demand. So, overall, we do think that there is a good chance that the renminbi market or the dim sum market can be a bit more global player – or global, sort of, friendly market for investors. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, another sector I wanted to ask you about was the China property sector. This was a sector that generated significant headlines over the last several years. It's faced significant credit challenges. It's very large, even by global standards. What's the latest on how China Property Credit is doing and how does that influence your overall view? Kelvin Pang: it's been four plus years, since first default started. and we've been through like 44 China property defaults, close to about 127 billion of total dollar bonds that defaulted. So, we are close to the end of the default cycle. Unfortunately, the end or default cycle doesn't mean that we are in the recovery phase, or we are in the speedy recovery phase. We are seeing a lot of companies struggling to come out restructuring. There are companies that come out restructuring and re-enter defaults. So, we do think that it is a long way to go for a lot of these property developers to come out restructuring and to get back to a going concern, kind of, status – I think we are still a bit far. We need to see the recovery in the physical property markets. And for that to happen, we do need to see the China economy to pick up, which give confidence to the home buyers in that sense. Andrew Sheets: So, Kelvin, we started this conversation with this kind of odd disconnect that kind of defines your market. You have a region that has some of the most significant growth risks from tariffs, some of the highest tariff exposure, and yet also has some of the lowest credit risk premiums with these quite tight spreads. If you look more broadly, are there any other kind of disconnects in your market that you think investors around the world should be aware of? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think that investors need to take advantage of the disconnect because what we have now is a very compressed spread. And we like to be in high quality, right? Whether it is switching our Asia high yield into Asia investment grade, whether it is switching out of, you know, BBB credit into A credit. We think, you know, investors don't lose a lot of spread by doing that. But they manage to pick out higher quality credit. At the same time, we do think that one thing unique about Asia credit is that we have significant exposure to tariff risk. Asia countries are one of the few that are, you know; seven out the 10 countries that are having trade surplus with the U.S. And that's why we think that the iTraxx Asia Ex-Japan CDS index could be a good way to get exposure to tariffs. And the index did very well during the Liberation Day sell off. Now it's trading back to more like normal level of 70-75 basis point. We do think that, you know, for investors who want long tariff with risk, that could be a good way to add risk. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, it's been great talking to you. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Kelvin Pang: Thank you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thank you listeners as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Xa0KVTutF0gVBOs4bNROg2S4zuOPDB4yZCG91eA7pWUFri, 20 Jun 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Andrew Sheets and Kelvin Pang explain why international issuers may be interested in so-called ‘dim sum’ bonds, despite Asia’s growth drag. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Kelvin Pang: And I'm Kelvin Pang, Head of Asia Credit Strategy. Andrew Sheets: And today in the program we're going to finish our global tour of credit markets with a discussion of Asia. It's Friday, June 20th at 2pm in London. Kelvin Pang: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, thank you for joining us. Thank you especially for joining us so late in your day – to complete this credit World tour. And before we get into the Asia credit market, I think it would just be helpful to frame at a very high level – how you see the economic picture in the region. Kelvin Pang: We do think that the talks and potential deals will probably provide some reprieve towards the growth for the region, but not a big relief. We do think that tariff uncertainty will linger here, and it will keep growth low here; especially if we do think that CapEx of the region will be weaker due to tariff uncertainty. A weaker U.S. dollar, for example, plus monetary easing will help offset some of this growth drag. But overall, we do think that the Asia region could see 90 basis point down in real GDP growth from last year. Andrew Sheets: So, we've got weaker growth in Asia as a function of high tariffs and high tariff uncertainty that can't be offset by further policy easing. In the context of that weaker growth backdrop, higher uncertainty – are credit spreads in the region wide? Kelvin Pang: No, they're actually really low. They're probably at like the lowest since we start having a data in 2013. So definitely like a 12 to 13 year low of the range. Andrew Sheets: And so why is that? Why do you have this kind of seemingly odd disconnect between some real growth challenges? And as you just mentioned, really some of the tightest credit spreads, some of the lowest risk premiums that we've seen in quite some time? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we get this question a lot from clients, and the short answer is that, you know, the technicals, right? Because the last two years, two-three years, we've been seeing negative net supply for Asia credit. A lot of that is driven by China credit. And if you look at year-to-date, non supply remain still negative net supply. And demand side, for example, has not really picked up that strongly. But it still offsets any outflows that we see the last two-three years; is offset by this negative net supply. So, you put this two together, we have this very strong technicals that support very tight spread. And that's why spread has been tight at historical end in the last, I would say, one to two years. Andrew Sheets: Do you see this changes? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think it's changed. We have a framework that we call the normalization of Asia Credit technicals. And for that to change, essentially our framework is saying that Treasury yields use need to go down, and dollar funding need to go down. Cheaper dollar funding will bring back issuers. Net supply should pick up. Demand for credit tends to do well in a rate cut cycle. Demand tends to pick up in a rate cut cycle. So, if we have these two supports, we do think that Asia credit technicals will normalize. It's just that, you know, we have four stages of normalization. Unfortunately we are in stage two now, and we still have a bit of room to see some further normalization, especially if we don't get rate cuts. Andrew Sheets: Got it. So, you know, we do think that if Morgan Stanley's yield forecasts are correct, yields are going to fall. Issuers will look at those lower yields as more attractive. They'll issue more...]]>541alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1408fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-oil-could-price-amid-mideast-tensions--75648565insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Today I'll talk about oil price dynamics amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. It's Wednesday, June 18th at 3pm in London. Industry watchers with an eye on the Brent Forward Curve recently noticed a rare smile shape: downward sloping in the first couple of months, but then an upward sloping curve later this year, and into 2026. Now that changed last Friday. The oil market creates these various shapes in the Forward Curve, depending on how it sees the supply demand balance. When the forward curve is downward sloping, holding inventory really is quite unattractive; so typically, operators release barrels from storage under those conditions. The market creates that structure when the conditions are tight, and barrels indeed need to be released from storage.Now on the other end, when the market is oversupplied, oil needs to be put into inventory, and the market makes this possible by creating an upward sloping curve. So, the curve that existed until only recently told the story of some near-term tightness first, but then a substantial surplus later this year and into 2026. Now when the tensions in the Middle East escalated late last week, the oil complex responded strongly. But not only did the front-month Brent future, i.e. oil for delivery next month rise quite sharply by about 17 percent, the impact of the conflict was also felt across all future delivery dates. By now, the entire forward curve is downward sloping, which means that the oil market no longer is pricing in any surplus next year – a big change from only a few days ago. Now, no doubt, Friday's events have sharply widened the range of possible future oil price paths. However, looking ahead, we would argue that oil prices fall in three main scenarios. Together they provide a framework to navigate the oil market in the next couple of weeks and months. First, let's consider the most benign scenario. Military conflict does not always correlate with disruptions to oil supply, even in major oil producing regions. So far, there is no reduction in supply from the region. If oil and gas infrastructure remains out of the crosshairs, it is entirely possible that that continues. In that case, we might see brand prices retract to around about $60 per barrel, down from the current level of about $76 per barrel.Our second scenario recognizes that Iran's oil exports could be at risk either because of attacks on physical infrastructure or because of sanctions – mirroring the reductions that we saw during 2018’s Maximum Pressure Campaign by the United States. If Iran were to lose most of its export capacity, that would broadly offset the surplus that we are currently modeling for the oil market next year, which would then in turn leave a broadly balanced market. Now in a balanced oil market, oil prices are probably in a $75 to $80 per barrel range. The third and most severe scenario encompasses a broad regional disruption, possibly pushing prices as high as 2022 levels of around $120 a barrel. Now, that could unfold if Iran targets oil infrastructure across the wider Gulf region, including critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil transits. The situation remains very fluid, and we could see a wide spectrum of potential oil price outcomes. We believe the most likely scenario remains the first – our base case – with supply eventually remaining stable. However, the probabilities of the more severe disruptions whilst currently still lower, still justify a risk premium of about $10 per barrel for the foreseeable future. As we monitor these developments, investors should stay alert to signs such as further attacks on all infrastructure or escalations in sanctions, which could signal shifts towards our more severe scenarios. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0EX6aiDGTOjCwJrpz37_CE8KnasE2Zuo46ApZKWWegwWed, 18 Jun 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explores three possible scenarios for oil prices in light of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s)...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Today I'll talk about oil price dynamics amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. It's Wednesday, June 18th at 3pm in London. Industry watchers with an eye on the Brent Forward Curve recently noticed a rare smile shape: downward sloping in the first couple of months, but then an upward sloping curve later this year, and into 2026. Now that changed last Friday. The oil market creates these various shapes in the Forward Curve, depending on how it sees the supply demand balance. When the forward curve is downward sloping, holding inventory really is quite unattractive; so typically, operators release barrels from storage under those conditions. The market creates that structure when the conditions are tight, and barrels indeed need to be released from storage.Now on the other end, when the market is oversupplied, oil needs to be put into inventory, and the market makes this possible by creating an upward sloping curve. So, the curve that existed until only recently told the story of some near-term tightness first, but then a substantial surplus later this year and into 2026. Now when the tensions in the Middle East escalated late last week, the oil complex responded strongly. But not only did the front-month Brent future, i.e. oil for delivery next month rise quite sharply by about 17 percent, the impact of the conflict was also felt across all future delivery dates. By now, the entire forward curve is downward sloping, which means that the oil market no longer is pricing in any surplus next year – a big change from only a few days ago. Now, no doubt, Friday's events have sharply widened the range of possible future oil price paths. However, looking ahead, we would argue that oil prices fall in three main scenarios. Together they provide a framework to navigate the oil market in the next couple of weeks and months. First, let's consider the most benign scenario. Military conflict does not always correlate with disruptions to oil supply, even in major oil producing regions. So far, there is no reduction in supply from the region. If oil and gas infrastructure remains out of the crosshairs, it is entirely possible that that continues. In that case, we might see brand prices retract to around about $60 per barrel, down from the current level of about $76 per barrel.Our second scenario recognizes that Iran's oil exports could be at risk either because of attacks on physical infrastructure or because of sanctions – mirroring the reductions that we saw during 2018’s Maximum Pressure Campaign by the United States. If Iran were to lose most of its export capacity, that would...]]>268alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1407fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-markets-should-keep-an-eye-on-japan-s-ai-playbook--75648608Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Today I’d like to discuss Japan’s crucial contributions in global AI development.It’s Tuesday, June 17, at 2 PM in Tokyo.Japan has always been a world leader in advanced technology infrastructure and robotics. So it comes as no surprise that Japanese devices and materials play critical roles in the global AI supply chain. For investors, however, it's vital to understand Japan's unique systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers other countries. In Japan, AI has historically developed through this symbiotic interaction of four elements: Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics. Japanese technology advances not only evolve, but they co-evolve – meaning that advances in one element make advances in others more urgent. And when those latter advances occur, chokepoints arise in yet other elements. However, unlike co-evolution in nature, where chance mutations just happen to reinforce each other, co-evolution in AI is driven by human intent. That is, humans see a chokepoint and address it with innovation. These chokepoints – or bottlenecks in development – they’re crucial to the way we think about AI. Identifying the chokepoints allows firms and industries to innovate. And Investors should also pay particular attention to these chokepoints because that’s where the investment opportunities are. For example, at a recent event, we asked a medium-sized Japanese retail food manufacturing company president – who is an energetic AI advocate – which factor was the biggest chokepoint for his firm. And he replied unequivocally, immediately, “Data.” His firm has some data; so do his competitors. But there is no common protocol for recording the data, contributing information to a common database, and still maintaining anonymity. So clearly, the chokepoint around Data suggests that this company will need innovative data solutions so that it can then take advantage of the other three key elements: the Hardware, the Software, and the Ethics. Ethics is crucial because people won’t use AI unless there is an ethical basis. So in terms of this element – the ethics element – Japan's commitment to ethical AI development has been very flexible. On one hand, Japan has robust legal frameworks, like the Act for the Protection of Personal Information and subsequent amendments. These laws ensure that AI advances within a secure and ethical boundary. And the laws are not just on paper. They are actively enforced. A few years ago there was a landmark court ruling that upheld data privacy against unauthorized AI use. However, Japan also is flexible. The data rules are tweaked, to allow more practical approach to developing large language models. Another unique part of Japan’s approach to ethics is the proactive emphasis on AI literacy. From corporate giants to small businesses, there is a concerted effort to train personnel not just in the AI technology but also in the ethical application, and thus ensure this well-rounded acceptable advancement in AI capability. This approach to training workers is not just altruism; Japan faces a severe labor shortage, and AI is widely viewed as a critical part of the solution. So good ethics are bringing faster AI diffusion. Ultimately, on a global macroeconomic level, the winners from AI will be the corporations and the nations that do three things: First quickly introduce the technology; second, rapidly innovate new products and processes that use AI; and third, retrain labor and reallocate capital to produce these new and innovative products. With this macro backdrop, Japan’s intentional use of the symbiosis between Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics gives Japan some unique advantages in accelerating AI diffusion and spurring economic growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DSBZyuzNdhTPLsugPPByn_lnajV3dZ-sOqgZBO49PzoTue, 17 Jun 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur Senior Japan Economics Advisor discusses Japan’s systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers for other markets. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Today I’d like to discuss Japan’s crucial contributions in global AI development.It’s Tuesday, June 17, at 2 PM in Tokyo.Japan has always been a world leader in advanced technology infrastructure and robotics. So it comes as no surprise that Japanese devices and materials play critical roles in the global AI supply chain. For investors, however, it's vital to understand Japan's unique systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers other countries. In Japan, AI has historically developed through this symbiotic interaction of four elements: Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics. Japanese technology advances not only evolve, but they co-evolve – meaning that advances in one element make advances in others more urgent. And when those latter advances occur, chokepoints arise in yet other elements. However, unlike co-evolution in nature, where chance mutations just happen to reinforce each other, co-evolution in AI is driven by human intent. That is, humans see a chokepoint and address it with innovation. These chokepoints – or bottlenecks in development – they’re crucial to the way we think about AI. Identifying the chokepoints allows firms and industries to innovate. And Investors should also pay particular attention to these chokepoints because that’s where the investment opportunities are. For example, at a recent event, we asked a medium-sized Japanese retail food manufacturing company president – who is an energetic AI advocate – which factor was the biggest chokepoint for his firm. And he replied unequivocally, immediately, “Data.” His firm has some data; so do his competitors. But there is no common protocol for recording the data, contributing information to a common database, and still maintaining anonymity. So clearly, the chokepoint around Data suggests that this company will need innovative data solutions so that it can then take advantage of the other three key elements: the Hardware, the Software, and the Ethics. Ethics is crucial because people won’t use AI unless there is an ethical basis. So in terms of this element – the ethics element – Japan's commitment to ethical AI development has been very flexible. On one hand, Japan has robust legal frameworks, like the Act for the Protection of Personal Information and subsequent amendments. These laws ensure that AI advances within a secure and ethical boundary. And the laws are not just on paper. They are actively enforced. A few years ago there was a landmark court ruling that upheld data privacy against unauthorized AI use. However, Japan also is flexible. The data rules are tweaked, to allow more practical approach to developing large language models. Another unique part of Japan’s approach to ethics is the proactive emphasis on AI literacy. From corporate giants to small businesses, there is a concerted effort to train personnel not just in the AI technology but also in the ethical application, and thus ensure this well-rounded acceptable advancement in AI capability. This approach to training workers is not just altruism; Japan faces a severe labor shortage, and AI is widely viewed as a critical part of the solution. So good ethics are bringing faster AI diffusion. Ultimately, on a global macroeconomic level, the winners from AI will be the corporations and the nations that do three things: First quickly introduce the technology; second, rapidly innovate new products and processes that use AI; and third, retrain labor and reallocate capital to produce these new and innovative products. With this macro backdrop, Japan’s...]]>291alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1406fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-bullish-case-for-large-cap-u-s-equities--75648600Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing why we remain more constructive than the consensus on large cap U.S. equities – and which sectors in particular.   It's Monday, June 16th at 9:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.  We remain more constructive on U.S. equities than the consensus mainly because key gauges we follow are pointing to a stronger earnings backdrop than others expect over the next 12 months. First, our main earnings model is showing high-single-digit Earnings Per Share growth over the next year. Second, earnings revision breadth is inflecting sharply higher from -25 percent in mid-April to -9 percent today. Third, we have a secondary Earnings Leading model that takes into account the cost side of the equation; and that one is forecasting mid-teens Earnings Per Share growth by the first half of 2026. More specifically, it’s pointing to higher profitability due to cost efficiencies.  Interestingly, this was something we heard frequently last week at the Morgan Stanley Financials Conference with many companies highlighting the adoption of Artificial Intelligence to help streamline operations. Finally, the most underappreciated tailwind for S&P 500 earnings remains the weaker dollar which is down 11 percent from the January highs. As a reminder, our currency strategists expect another 7 percent downside over the next 12 months.  The combination of a stronger level of earnings revisions breadth and a robust rate of change on earnings revisions breadth since growth expectations troughed in mid-April is a powerful tailwind for many large cap stocks, with the strongest impact in the Capital Goods and Software industries.  These industries have compelling structural growth drivers. For Capital Goods, it’s tied to a renewed focus on global infrastructure spending. The rate of change on capacity utilization is in positive territory for the first time in two and a half years and aggregate commercial and industrial loans are growing again, reaching the highest level since 2020. The combination of structural tech diffusion and a global infrastructure focus in many countries is leading to a more capital intensive backdrop. Bonus depreciation in the U.S. should be another tailwind here – as it incentivizes a pickup in equipment investment, benefitting Capital Goods companies most directly. Meanwhile, Software is in a strong position to drive free cash flow via GenAI solutions from both a revenue and cost standpoint.  Another sector we favor is large cap financials which could start to see meaningful benefits of de-regulation in the second half of the year. The main risk to our more constructive view remains long term interest rates. While Wednesday's below consensus consumer price report was helpful in terms of keeping yields contained, we find it interesting that rates did not fall on Friday with the rise in geopolitical tensions. As a result, the 10-year yield remains in close distance of our key 4.5 percent level, above which rate sensitivity should increase for stocks. On the positive side, interest rate volatility is well off its highs in April and closer to multi-year lows.   Our long-standing Consumer Discretionary Goods underweight is based on tariff-related headwinds, weaker pricing power and a late cycle backdrop, which typically means underperformance of this sector. Staying underweight the group also provides a natural hedge should oil prices rise further amid rising tensions in the Middle East. We also continue to underweight small caps which are hurt the most from higher oil prices and sticky interest rates. These companies also suffer from a weaker dollar via higher costs and a limited currency translation benefit on the revenue side given their mostly domestic operations.   Finally, the concern that comes up most frequently in our client discussions is high valuations.  Our more sanguine view here is based on the fact that the rate of change on valuation is more important than the level. In our mid-year outlook, we showed that when Earnings Per Share growth is above the historical median of 7 percent, and the Fed Funds Rate is down on a year-over-year basis, the S&P 500's market multiple is up 90 percent of the time, regardless of the starting point. In fact, when these conditions are met, the S&P's forward P/E ratio has risen by 9 percent on average. Therefore, our forecast for the market multiple to stay near current levels of 21.5x could be viewed as conservative. Should history repeat and valuations rise 10 percent, our bull case for the S&P 500 over the next year becomes very achievable.   Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found this episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/m1_r3XOA3Uo0IYd3y7EIeZ7zrhRntSfZ5WSSwBuJHDsMon, 16 Jun 2025 10:00:00 +0000gtyWhile market sentiment on U.S. large caps turns cautious, our Chief CIO and U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why there's still room to stay constructive. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing why we remain more constructive than the consensus on large cap U.S. equities – and which sectors in particular.   It's Monday, June 16th at 9:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.  We remain more constructive on U.S. equities than the consensus mainly because key gauges we follow are pointing to a stronger earnings backdrop than others expect over the next 12 months. First, our main earnings model is showing high-single-digit Earnings Per Share growth over the next year. Second, earnings revision breadth is inflecting sharply higher from -25 percent in mid-April to -9 percent today. Third, we have a secondary Earnings Leading model that takes into account the cost side of the equation; and that one is forecasting mid-teens Earnings Per Share growth by the first half of 2026. More specifically, it’s pointing to higher profitability due to cost efficiencies.  Interestingly, this was something we heard frequently last week at the Morgan Stanley Financials Conference with many companies highlighting the adoption of Artificial Intelligence to help streamline operations. Finally, the most underappreciated tailwind for S&P 500 earnings remains the weaker dollar which is down 11 percent from the January highs. As a reminder, our currency strategists expect another 7 percent downside over the next 12 months.  The combination of a stronger level of earnings revisions breadth and a robust rate of change on earnings revisions breadth since growth expectations troughed in mid-April is a powerful tailwind for many large cap stocks, with the strongest impact in the Capital Goods and Software industries.  These industries have compelling structural growth drivers. For Capital Goods, it’s tied to a renewed focus on global infrastructure spending. The rate of change on capacity utilization is in positive territory for the first time in two and a half years and aggregate commercial and industrial loans are growing again, reaching the highest level since 2020. The combination of structural tech diffusion and a global infrastructure focus in many countries is leading to a more capital intensive backdrop. Bonus depreciation in the U.S. should be another tailwind here – as it incentivizes a pickup in equipment investment, benefitting Capital Goods companies most directly. Meanwhile, Software is in a strong position to drive free cash flow via GenAI solutions from both a revenue and cost standpoint.  Another sector we favor is large cap financials which could start to see meaningful benefits of de-regulation in the second half of the year. The main risk to our more constructive view remains long term interest rates. While Wednesday's below consensus consumer price report was helpful in terms of keeping yields contained, we find it interesting that rates did not fall on Friday with the rise in geopolitical tensions. As a result, the 10-year yield remains in close distance of our key 4.5 percent level, above which rate sensitivity should increase for stocks. On the positive side, interest rate volatility is well off its highs in April and closer to multi-year lows.   Our long-standing Consumer Discretionary Goods underweight is based on tariff-related headwinds, weaker pricing power and a late cycle backdrop, which typically means underperformance of this sector. Staying underweight the group also provides a natural hedge should oil prices rise further amid rising tensions in the Middle East. We also continue to underweight small caps...]]>318alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1405fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-economic-stakes-of-president-trump-s-immigration-policy--75648640Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Sam Coffin: And I'm Sam Coffin, Senior Economist on our U.S. Economics research team.Michael Gapen: Today we're going to have a discussion about the potential economic consequences of the administration’s shift in immigration policies. In particular, we’ll focus much of our attention on the influence that immigration reform is having on the U.S. labor market. And what it means for our outlook on Federal Reserve policy.It's Friday, June 13th at 9am in New York.So, Sam, news headlines have been dominated by developments in the President's immigration policies; what is being called by, at least some commentators, as a toughening in his stance.But I'd like to set the stage first with any new information that you think we've received on border encounters and interior removals. The administration has released new data on that recently that covered at least some of the activity earlier this year. What did it tell you? And did it differ markedly from your expectations?Sam Coffin: What we saw at first was border encounters falling sharply to 30,000 a month from 200,000 or 300,000 a month last year. It was perhaps a surprise that they fell that sharply. And on the flip side, interior removals turned out to be much more difficult than the administration had suggested. They'd been targeting maybe 500,000 per year in removals, 1500 a day. And we're hitting a third or a half of that pace.Michael Gapen: So maybe the recent escalation in ICE raids could be in response to this, right? The fact that interior removals have not been as large as some in the administration would desire.Sam Coffin: That's correct. And we think those efforts will continue. The House Budget Reconciliation Bill, for example, has about $155 billion more in the budget for ICE, a large increase over its current budget. This will likely mean greater efforts at interior removals. About half of it goes to stricter border enforcement. The other half goes to new agents and more operations. We'll see what the final bill looks like, but it would be about a five-fold increase in funding.Michael Gapen: Okay. So much fewer encounters, meaning fewer migrants entering the U.S., and stepped-up enforcement on interior removals. So, I guess, shifting gears on the back of that data. Two important visa programs have also been in the news. One is the so-called CHNV Parole Program that's allowed Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to enter the U.S. on parole. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the administration could proceed with removing their immigration status.We also have immigrants on TPS, or Temporary Protected Status, which is subject to periodic removal; if the administration determines that the circumstances that warranted their immigration into the U.S. are no longer present. So, these would be immigrants coming to the U.S. in response to war, conflict, environmental disasters, hurricanes, so forth.So, Sam, how do you think about the ramping up of immigration controls in these areas? Is the end of these temporary programs important? How many immigrants are on them? And what would the cancellation of these mean in terms of your outlook for immigration?Sam Coffin: Yeah, for CHNV Paroles, there are about 500,000 people paroled into the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration can cancel those paroles. We expect now that those 500,000 are probably removed from the country over the next six months or so. And the temporary protected status; similarly, there are about 800,000 people on temporary protected status. About 600,000 of them have their temporary status revoked at this point or at least revoked sometime soon. And it looks like we'll get a couple hundred thousand in deportations out from that program this year and the rest next year.The result is net immigration probably falling to 300,000 people this year. We'd expected about a million, when we came into this year, but the faster pace of deportation takes that down. So, 300,000 this year and 300,000 next year, between the reduction in border encounters and the increase in deportations.Michael Gapen: So that's a big shift from what we thought coming into the year. What does that mean for population growth and growth in the labor force? And how would this compare – just put it in context from where we were coming out of the pandemic when immigration inflows were quite large.Sam Coffin: Yeah. Population growth before the pandemic was running 0.5 to 0.75 percent per year. With the large increase in immigration, it accelerated 1-1.25 percent during the years of the fastest immigration. At this point, it falls by about a point to 0.3-0.4 percent population growth over the next couple of years.Michael Gapen: So almost flat growth in the labor force, right? So, translate that into what economists would call a break-even employment rate. How much employment do you need to push the unemployment rate down or push the unemployment rate up?Sam Coffin: Yeah, so last year – I mean, we have the experience of last year. And last year about 200,000 a month in payroll growth was consistent with a flat unemployment rate. So far this year, that's full on to 160,000-170,000 a month, consistent with a flat unemployment rate. With further reduction in labor force growth, it would probably decline to about 70,000 a month. So much slower payrolls to hold the unemployment rate flat.Michael Gapen: So, as you know, we've taken the view, Sam, that immigration controls and restrictions will mean a few important things for the economy, right? One is fewer consuming households and softening demand, but the foreign-born worker has a much higher participation rate than domestic workers; about 4 to 5 percentage points higher.So, a lot less labor force growth, as you mentioned. How have these developments changed your view on exactly how hard it's going to be to push the unemployment rate higher?Sam Coffin: So, so far this year, payrolls have averaged about 140,000 a month, and the unemployment rate's been going sideways at 4.2 percent. It's been going sideways since – for about nine months now, in fact. We do expect that payroll growth slows over the course of this year, along with the slowing in domestic demand. We have payroll growth falling around 50,000 a month by late in the year; but the unemployment rate going sideways, 4.3 percent this year because of that decline in breakeven payrolls.For next year, we also have weak payroll growth. We also expect weak payroll growth of about 50,000 a month. But the unemployment rate rising somewhat more to 4.8 percent by the end of the year.Michael Gapen: So, immigration controls really mean the unemployment rate will rise, but less than you might expect and later than you might expect, right? So that's I guess what we would classify as the cyclical effect of immigration.But we also think immigration controls and a much slower growth in the labor force means downward pressure on potential. Where are we right now in terms of potential growth and where's that vis-a-vis where we were? And if these immigration controls go into place, where do we think potential growth is going?Sam Coffin: Well, GDP potential is measured as the sum of productivity growth and growth in trend hours worked. The slower immigration means slower labor force growth and less capacity for hours. We estimated potential growth between 2.5 and 3 percent growth in 2022 to 2024. But we have it falling to 2.0 percent presently – or back to where it was before COVID. If we're right on immigration going forward and we see those faster deportations and the continued stoppage at the border, it could mean potential growth of only 1.5 percent next year.Michael Gapen: That’s a big change, of course, from where the economy was just, you know, 12 to 18 months ago. And I'd like to circle back to one point that you made in bringing up the recent employment numbers. In the May job report that was released last week, we also saw a decline in labor force participation. It went down two-tenths on the month.Now, on one hand that may have prevented a rise in the unemployment rate. It was 4.2 but could have been maybe 4.5 percent or so – had the participation rate held constant. So maybe the labor market weakened, and we just don't know it yet. But you have an idea that you've put forward in some of our reports that there might be another explanation behind the drop in the participation rate. What is that?Sam Coffin: It could be that the threat of increased deportations has created a chilling effect on the participation rate of undocumented workers.Michael Gapen: So, explain to listeners what we mean by a chilling effect in participation, right? We're not talking about restricting inflows or actual deportations. What are we referring to?Sam Coffin: Perhaps undocumented workers step out of the workforce temporarily to avoid detection, similar to how people stayed out of the workforce during the pandemic because of fear of infection or need to take care of children or parents. If this is the case, some of the foreign-born population may be stepping out of the labor force for a longer period of time.Michael Gapen: Right. Which would mean the unemployment rate at 4.2 percent is real and does not mask weakness in the labor market. So, whether it's less in migration, more interior removals, or a chilling effect on participation, then the labor market still stays tight.Sam Coffin: And this is why we think the Fed moves later but ultimately cuts more. It's a combinat]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jlVfpzbgnsUhh4sS-lx4ujv0puul17xJJRHLVvvoOocFri, 13 Jun 2025 20:10:01 +0000gtyOur economists Michael Gapen and Sam Coffin discuss how a drop in immigration is tightening labor markets, and what that means for the U.S. economic outlook and Fed policy.  Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Sam Coffin: And I'm Sam Coffin, Senior Economist on our U.S. Economics research team.Michael Gapen: Today we're going to have a discussion about the potential economic consequences of the administration’s shift in immigration policies. In particular, we’ll focus much of our attention on the influence that immigration reform is having on the U.S. labor market. And what it means for our outlook on Federal Reserve policy.It's Friday, June 13th at 9am in New York.So, Sam, news headlines have been dominated by developments in the President's immigration policies; what is being called by, at least some commentators, as a toughening in his stance.But I'd like to set the stage first with any new information that you think we've received on border encounters and interior removals. The administration has released new data on that recently that covered at least some of the activity earlier this year. What did it tell you? And did it differ markedly from your expectations?Sam Coffin: What we saw at first was border encounters falling sharply to 30,000 a month from 200,000 or 300,000 a month last year. It was perhaps a surprise that they fell that sharply. And on the flip side, interior removals turned out to be much more difficult than the administration had suggested. They'd been targeting maybe 500,000 per year in removals, 1500 a day. And we're hitting a third or a half of that pace.Michael Gapen: So maybe the recent escalation in ICE raids could be in response to this, right? The fact that interior removals have not been as large as some in the administration would desire.Sam Coffin: That's correct. And we think those efforts will continue. The House Budget Reconciliation Bill, for example, has about $155 billion more in the budget for ICE, a large increase over its current budget. This will likely mean greater efforts at interior removals. About half of it goes to stricter border enforcement. The other half goes to new agents and more operations. We'll see what the final bill looks like, but it would be about a five-fold increase in funding.Michael Gapen: Okay. So much fewer encounters, meaning fewer migrants entering the U.S., and stepped-up enforcement on interior removals. So, I guess, shifting gears on the back of that data. Two important visa programs have also been in the news. One is the so-called CHNV Parole Program that's allowed Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to enter the U.S. on parole. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the administration could proceed with removing their immigration status.We also have immigrants on TPS, or Temporary Protected Status, which is subject to periodic removal; if the administration determines that the circumstances that warranted their immigration into the U.S. are no longer present. So, these would be immigrants coming to the U.S. in response to war, conflict, environmental disasters, hurricanes, so forth.So, Sam, how do you think about the ramping up of immigration controls in these areas? Is the end of these temporary programs important? How many immigrants are on them? And what would the cancellation of these mean in terms of your outlook for immigration?Sam Coffin: Yeah, for CHNV Paroles, there are about 500,000 people paroled into the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration can cancel those paroles. We expect now that those 500,000 are probably removed from the country over the next six months or so. And the temporary protected status; similarly, there are about 800,000 people on...]]>649alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1404fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-credit-outlook-slowdown-in-europe--75648678Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Aron Becker: And I'm Aron Becker, Head of European Credit Strategy.Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're continuing a series of conversations covering the outlook for credit around the world. Morgan Stanley has recently updated its forecast for the next 12 months, and here we're going to bring you the latest views on what matters for European credit.It's Thursday, June 12th at 2pm in London.So, Aron, it's great to have this conversation with you. Today we're going to be talking about the European credit outlook. We talked with our colleague Vishwas in the other week about the U.S. credit outlook. But let's really dive into Europe and how that looks from the perspective of a credit investor.And maybe the place to start is, from your perspective, how do you see the economic backdrop in Europe, and what do you think that means for credit?Aron Becker: Right. So, on the European side, our growth expectations remain somewhat more challenging. Our economists are expecting growth after a fairly strong start to slow down in the back half of this year. The German fiscal package that was announced earlier this year will take time to lift growth further out in 2026. So, in the near term, we see a softening backdrop for the domestic economy.But I think what's important to emphasize here is that U.S. growth, as Vishwas and you have talked about last time around, is also set to decelerate on our economists forecast more meaningfully. And that matters for Europe.Two reasons why I think the U.S. growth outlook matters for European credit. One, nearly a quarter of European companies’ revenues are generated in the U.S. And two, U.S. companies themselves have been very actively tapping the European corporate bond markets. And in fact, if you look at the outstanding notion of bonds in the euro benchmarks, the largest country by far is U.S. issuers. And so, I do think that we need to think about the outlook on the macro side, more in a global perspective, when we think about the outlook for European credit. And if we look at history, what we can deduct from the simple correlation between growth and credit spreads is current credit valuations imply growth would be around 3 percent. And that's a stark contrast to our economists’ forecast where both Europe and U.S. is decelerating to below 1 percent over the next 12 months.Andrew Sheets: But Aron, you know, you talked about the slow growth, here in Europe. You talked about a slower growth picture in the U.S. You talked about, you know, pretty extensive exposure of European companies into the U.S. story. All of which sound like pretty challenging things. And yet, if one looks at your forecasts for credit spreads, we think they remain relatively tight, especially in investment grade.So, how does one square that? What's driving what might look like, kind of, a more optimistic forecast picture despite those macro challenges?Aron Becker: Right. That's a very important question. I think that it's not all about the growth, and there are a number of factors that I think can alleviate the pressures from the macro side. The first is that unlike in the U.S., in Europe we are expecting inflation to decelerate more meaningfully over the coming year. And we do think that the ECB and the Bank of England will continue to ease policy. That's good for the economy and the eventual rebound. And we also think that it's good for demand for credit products. For yield buyers where the cash alternative is getting less and less compelling, I think they will see yields on corporate credit much more attractive. And I do think that credit yields right now in Europe are actually quite attractive.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, you know, another question I had is, if you think about some of those dynamics. The fact that interest rates are above where they've been over the last 10 years. You think about a growth environment in Europe, which is; it's not a recession, but growth is, kind of, 1 percent or a little bit below.I mean, some ways this is very similar to the dynamic we had last year. So, what do you think is similar and what do you think is different, in terms of how investors should think about, say, the next 12 months – versus where we've been?Aron Becker: Right. So, what's really similar is, for example, the yield, like I just mentioned. I think the yield is attractive. That hasn't really changed over the past 12 months. If you just think about credit as a carry product, you're still getting around between 3-3.5 percent on an IG corporate bond today.What's really different is that over the same period, the ECB has already lowered front-end rates by 200 basis points. And at the same time, if you think about the fiscal developments in Germany or broader rates dynamics, we've seen a sharp steepening of yield curves; and curves are actually at the steepest levels in two years now. And what this leaves us with is not only high carry from the yield on corporate bonds, but also investors are now rolling down on a much steeper curve if they buy bonds today, especially further out the curve.So, by our estimate, if you aggregate the two figures in terms of your expected total return, credit offers actually total returns much higher than over the past 12 months, and closer to where we were in the LDI crisis in 2022.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, another development I wanted to ask you about is, if you look at our forecast for the year ahead, our global forecast. One theme is that on the government side there's projected to be a lot more borrowing. There's more borrowing in Germany, and then there's more borrowing in the U.S., especially under certain versions of the current budget proposals being debated. So, you know, it does seem like you have this contrast between more borrowing and kind of a worsening fiscal picture in governments, a better fiscal picture among corporates. We talk about the spread. The spread is the difference between that corporate and government borrowing.So, I guess looking forward first, do you think European companies are going to be borrowing more money? And certainly more money on a relative, incremental basis at these yield levels, which are higher than what they're used to in the past. And, secondly, how do you think about the relative valuation of European credit versus some of the sovereign issuers in Europe, which is often a debate that we'll have with investors?Aron Becker: Big picture? We have seen companies be very active in tapping the corporate bond markets this year. We had a record issuance in May in terms of supply. Now I would push back on the view that that's negative for investors, and expectations for spreads to widen as a result for a number of reasons. One is a lot of gross issuance tends to be good for investors who want to pick up some new issue premiums – as these new bonds do come a little bit cheap to what's out there in terms of available secondary bonds.And second, it creates a lot of liquidity for investors to actually deploy capital, when they do want to enter the bond market to invest. And what we really need to remember here is all this strong issuance activity is coming against very high maturing, volumes of bonds. Redemptions this year are rising by close to 20 percent versus last year. And so, even though we are projecting this year to be a record year for growth issuance from investment grade companies, we think net supply will be lower year-on-year as a result of those elevated, maturities.So overall, I think that's going to be a fairly positive technical backdrop. And as you alluded to it, that's a stark contrast to what the sovereign market is facing at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So, on that net basis, on the amount that they're issuing relative to what they're paying back, that actually is probably looking lower than last year, on your numbers.Aron Becker: Exactly.Andrew Sheets: And finally, Aron, you know, so we've talked a bit about the market dynamics, we've talked about the economic backdrop, we've talked about the issuance backdrop. Where does this leave your thoughts for investors? What do you think looks, kind of, most attractive for those who are looking at the European credit space?Aron Becker: Opportunities are abound, but I think you need to be quite selective of where to actually increase your risk exposure, in my view. One part which we are quite out of consensus on here at Morgan Stanley is our recommendation in European credit to extend duration further out the curve.This goes back to the point I made earlier, that curves are very steep and a lot of that carry and roll down that I think look particularly attractive; you do need to extend duration for that. But there are a number of reasons why I think that that type of trade can work in this backdrop.For one, like I said, valuations are attractive. Two, I also think that from an issuer perspective, it is expensive to tap very long dated bonds now because of that yield dynamic, and I don't necessarily see a lot of supply coming through further out the curve. Three, our rates team do expect curves to bull steepen on the rate side and historically that has tended to favor excess returns further out the curve.And fourth is, a word we love to throw around – convexity. Cash prices further out the curve are very low in investment grade credit. That tends to be actually quite attractive because then even if you get the name wrong, for example, and there are some credit challenges down the line for some of these issuers, your loss given default]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yJeRzMUQ4F_ifVM0PIhWzvcz7N_hduH0DU_Z8T57rgAThu, 12 Jun 2025 20:07:31 +0000gtyOur analysts Andrew Sheets and Aron Becker explain why European credit markets’ performance for the rest of 2025 could be tied to U.S. growth. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Aron Becker: And I'm Aron Becker, Head of European Credit Strategy.Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're continuing a series of conversations covering the outlook for credit around the world. Morgan Stanley has recently updated its forecast for the next 12 months, and here we're going to bring you the latest views on what matters for European credit.It's Thursday, June 12th at 2pm in London.So, Aron, it's great to have this conversation with you. Today we're going to be talking about the European credit outlook. We talked with our colleague Vishwas in the other week about the U.S. credit outlook. But let's really dive into Europe and how that looks from the perspective of a credit investor.And maybe the place to start is, from your perspective, how do you see the economic backdrop in Europe, and what do you think that means for credit?Aron Becker: Right. So, on the European side, our growth expectations remain somewhat more challenging. Our economists are expecting growth after a fairly strong start to slow down in the back half of this year. The German fiscal package that was announced earlier this year will take time to lift growth further out in 2026. So, in the near term, we see a softening backdrop for the domestic economy.But I think what's important to emphasize here is that U.S. growth, as Vishwas and you have talked about last time around, is also set to decelerate on our economists forecast more meaningfully. And that matters for Europe.Two reasons why I think the U.S. growth outlook matters for European credit. One, nearly a quarter of European companies’ revenues are generated in the U.S. And two, U.S. companies themselves have been very actively tapping the European corporate bond markets. And in fact, if you look at the outstanding notion of bonds in the euro benchmarks, the largest country by far is U.S. issuers. And so, I do think that we need to think about the outlook on the macro side, more in a global perspective, when we think about the outlook for European credit. And if we look at history, what we can deduct from the simple correlation between growth and credit spreads is current credit valuations imply growth would be around 3 percent. And that's a stark contrast to our economists’ forecast where both Europe and U.S. is decelerating to below 1 percent over the next 12 months.Andrew Sheets: But Aron, you know, you talked about the slow growth, here in Europe. You talked about a slower growth picture in the U.S. You talked about, you know, pretty extensive exposure of European companies into the U.S. story. All of which sound like pretty challenging things. And yet, if one looks at your forecasts for credit spreads, we think they remain relatively tight, especially in investment grade.So, how does one square that? What's driving what might look like, kind of, a more optimistic forecast picture despite those macro challenges?Aron Becker: Right. That's a very important question. I think that it's not all about the growth, and there are a number of factors that I think can alleviate the pressures from the macro side. The first is that unlike in the U.S., in Europe we are expecting inflation to decelerate more meaningfully over the coming year. And we do think that the ECB and the Bank of England will continue to ease policy. That's good for the economy and the eventual rebound. And we also think that it's good for demand for credit products. For yield buyers where the cash alternative is getting less and less compelling, I think they will...]]>600alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1403fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-the-new-tax-bill-means-for-cross-border-portfolios--75648433Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we're talking about a proposal tucked away in U.S. tax legislation that could impact investors in meaningful ways: Section 899.It’s Wednesday, June 11th, at 12 pm in New York. So, Section 899 is basically a new rule that's part of a bigger bill that passed the House. It would give the U.S. Treasury the power to hit back with taxes on foreign companies if they think other countries are unfairly taxing U.S. businesses. And this rule could override existing tax agreements between countries, even applying to government funds and pension plans.The immediate concern is whether foreign holdings of U.S. bonds would be taxed – something that’s not entirely clear in the draft language. Making the costs of ownership higher would affect holders of tens of trillions of U.S. securities. That includes about 25 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market. In short, the concern is that this would disincentivize ownership of U.S. bonds by overseas investors, creating extra costs or risk premium – meaning higher yields. The good news is that there's a decent chance the Senate will tweak or clarify Section 899. Consider the evidence that the motive of those who drafted this provision doesn’t seem to have been to tax fixed income securities. If it was, you’d expect the official estimates of how much tax revenue this provision would generate to be far higher than what was scored by Congress. Public comments by Senators seem to mirror this, signaling changes are coming. But while that might mitigate one acute risk associated with 899, other risks could linger. If the provision were enacted, it acts as an extra cost on foreign multinationals investing in building businesses in the U.S. That means weaker demand for U.S. dollars overall. So while this is not at the core of our FX strategy team’s thesis on why the dollar weakens further this year, it does reinforce the view. For European equities, our equity strategy team flags that Section 899 adds a whole new layer of worry on top of the tariff concerns everyone's been talking about. While people have been focused on European goods exports to the U.S., Section 899 could affect a much broader range of European companies doing business in America. The most vulnerable sectors include Business Services, Healthcare, Travel & Leisure, Media, and Software – basically, any European company with significant U.S. business.The bottom line, even if modified, if section 899 stays in the bill and is enacted, there’s key ramifications for the U.S. dollar and European stocks. But pay careful attention in the coming days. The provision could be jettisoned from the Senate bill. It's still possible that it's too big of a law change to comply with the Senate’s budget reconciliation procedure, and so would get thrown out for reasons of process, rather than politics. We’ll be tracking it and keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please leave us a review. And tell your friends. We want everyone to listen. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RepBUheAaWeHr50QaunrKhHrMWrlIEi1Ky6qD5Ks35YWed, 11 Jun 2025 20:12:28 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas reads the fine print of U.S. tax legislation to understand how it might affect foreign companies operating in the U.S. and foreign investors holding U.S. debt. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we're talking about a proposal tucked away in U.S. tax legislation that could impact investors in meaningful ways: Section 899.It’s Wednesday, June 11th, at 12 pm in New York. So, Section 899 is basically a new rule that's part of a bigger bill that passed the House. It would give the U.S. Treasury the power to hit back with taxes on foreign companies if they think other countries are unfairly taxing U.S. businesses. And this rule could override existing tax agreements between countries, even applying to government funds and pension plans.The immediate concern is whether foreign holdings of U.S. bonds would be taxed – something that’s not entirely clear in the draft language. Making the costs of ownership higher would affect holders of tens of trillions of U.S. securities. That includes about 25 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market. In short, the concern is that this would disincentivize ownership of U.S. bonds by overseas investors, creating extra costs or risk premium – meaning higher yields. The good news is that there's a decent chance the Senate will tweak or clarify Section 899. Consider the evidence that the motive of those who drafted this provision doesn’t seem to have been to tax fixed income securities. If it was, you’d expect the official estimates of how much tax revenue this provision would generate to be far higher than what was scored by Congress. Public comments by Senators seem to mirror this, signaling changes are coming. But while that might mitigate one acute risk associated with 899, other risks could linger. If the provision were enacted, it acts as an extra cost on foreign multinationals investing in building businesses in the U.S. That means weaker demand for U.S. dollars overall. So while this is not at the core of our FX strategy team’s thesis on why the dollar weakens further this year, it does reinforce the view. For European equities, our equity strategy team flags that Section 899 adds a whole new layer of worry on top of the tariff concerns everyone's been talking about. While people have been focused on European goods exports to the U.S., Section 899 could affect a much broader range of European companies doing business in America. The most vulnerable sectors include Business Services, Healthcare, Travel & Leisure, Media, and Software – basically, any European company with significant U.S. business.The bottom line, even if modified, if section 899 stays in the bill and is enacted, there’s key ramifications for the U.S. dollar and European stocks. But pay careful attention in the coming days. The provision could be jettisoned from the Senate bill. It's still possible that it's too big of a law change to comply with the Senate’s budget reconciliation procedure, and so would get thrown out for reasons of process, rather than politics. We’ll be tracking it and keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please leave us a review. And tell your friends. We want everyone to listen. ]]>204alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1402fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-china-is-rewriting-the-ai-code--75648794Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team. Today: a behind-the-scenes look at how China is reshaping the global AI landscape.     It’s Tuesday, June 10 at 2pm in Hong Kong. China has been quietly and methodically executing on its top-down strategy to establish its domestic AI capabilities ever since 2017. And while U.S. semiconductor restrictions have presented a near-term challenge, they have also forced China to achieve significant advancements in AI with less hardware. So rather than building the most powerful AI capabilities, China’s primary focus has been on bringing AI to market with maximum efficiency. And you can see this with the recent launch of DeepSeek R1, and there are literally hundreds of AI start-ups using open-source Large Language Models to carve out niches and moats in this AI landscape.  The key question is: What is the path forward? Can China sustain this momentum and translate its research prowess into global AI leadership? The answer hinges on four things: its energy, its data, talent, and computing. China’s centralized government – with more than a billion mobile internet users – possess enormous amounts of data. China also has access to abundant energy: it built 10 nuclear power plants just last year, and there are ten more coming this year. U.S. chips are far better for the moment, but China is also advancing quickly; and getting a lot done without the best chips. Finally, China has plenty of talent – according to the World Economic Forum, 47 percent of the world’s top AI researchers are now in China. Plus, there is already a comprehensive AI governance framework in place, with more than 250 regulatory standards ensuring that AI development remains secure, ethical, and strategically controlled. So, all in all, China is well on its way to realizing its ambitious goal of becoming a world leader in AI by 2030. And by that point, AI will be deeply embedded across all sectors of China’s economy, supported by a regulatory environment. We believe the AI revolution will boost China’s long-term potential GDP growth by addressing key structural headwinds to the economy, such as aging demographics and slowing productivity growth. We estimate that GenAI can create almost 7 trillion RMB in labor and productivity value. This equals almost 5 percent of China’s GDP growth last year. And the investment implications of China’s approach to AI cannot be overstated. It’s clear that China has already established a solid AI foundation. And now meaningful opportunities are emerging not just for the big players, but also for smaller, mass-market businesses as well. And with value shifting from AI hardware to the AI application layer, we see China continuing its success in bringing out AI applications to market and transforming industries in very practical terms. As history shows, whoever adopts and diffuses a new technology the fastest wins – and is difficult to displace. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eKZ_HsLY6iWWdDVncUCKQaraPrX9P0ybVjR1Ua4g08YTue, 10 Jun 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim discusses China's distinctly different approach to AI development and its investment implications. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team. Today: a behind-the-scenes look at how China is reshaping the global AI landscape.     It’s Tuesday, June 10 at 2pm in Hong Kong. China has been quietly and methodically executing on its top-down strategy to establish its domestic AI capabilities ever since 2017. And while U.S. semiconductor restrictions have presented a near-term challenge, they have also forced China to achieve significant advancements in AI with less hardware. So rather than building the most powerful AI capabilities, China’s primary focus has been on bringing AI to market with maximum efficiency. And you can see this with the recent launch of DeepSeek R1, and there are literally hundreds of AI start-ups using open-source Large Language Models to carve out niches and moats in this AI landscape.  The key question is: What is the path forward? Can China sustain this momentum and translate its research prowess into global AI leadership? The answer hinges on four things: its energy, its data, talent, and computing. China’s centralized government – with more than a billion mobile internet users – possess enormous amounts of data. China also has access to abundant energy: it built 10 nuclear power plants just last year, and there are ten more coming this year. U.S. chips are far better for the moment, but China is also advancing quickly; and getting a lot done without the best chips. Finally, China has plenty of talent – according to the World Economic Forum, 47 percent of the world’s top AI researchers are now in China. Plus, there is already a comprehensive AI governance framework in place, with more than 250 regulatory standards ensuring that AI development remains secure, ethical, and strategically controlled. So, all in all, China is well on its way to realizing its ambitious goal of becoming a world leader in AI by 2030. And by that point, AI will be deeply embedded across all sectors of China’s economy, supported by a regulatory environment. We believe the AI revolution will boost China’s long-term potential GDP growth by addressing key structural headwinds to the economy, such as aging demographics and slowing productivity growth. We estimate that GenAI can create almost 7 trillion RMB in labor and productivity value. This equals almost 5 percent of China’s GDP growth last year. And the investment implications of China’s approach to AI cannot be overstated. It’s clear that China has already established a solid AI foundation. And now meaningful opportunities are emerging not just for the big players, but also for smaller, mass-market businesses as well. And with value shifting from AI hardware to the AI application layer, we see China continuing its success in bringing out AI applications to market and transforming industries in very practical terms. As history shows, whoever adopts and diffuses a new technology the fastest wins – and is difficult to displace. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>219alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1401fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-financials-conference-three-key-themes-to-watch--75648677Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Large Cap Bank Analyst and Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research. Today we take a look at the key debates in the U.S. financials industry. It’s Monday, June 9th at 10:30am in New York.Tomorrow Morgan Stanley kicks off its annual U.S. Financials Conference right here in New York City. We wanted to give you a glimpse into some of the most significant themes that we expect will be addressed at the conference. And so, I'm here with two of my colleagues, Manan Gosalia, U.S. Midcap Banks Analyst, and Ryan Kenny, U.S. Midcaps Advisor Analyst.Investors are grappling with navigating economic uncertainty from new tariff policies, inflation concerns, and immigration challenges – all of which impacts financial growth and credit quality. On the positive side, they are also looking closely at regulatory shifts under the Trump administration, which could ease banking rules for the first time since the Great Financial Crisis.Let's hear what our experts are expecting. Manan, ahead of the conference, what key themes do you expect mid-cap banks will highlight?Manan Gosalia: So, there are three key themes that we've been focused on for the mid-cap banks: loan growth, net interest margins, and capital. So, first on loan growth. Loan growth for the regional banks has been fairly tepid at about 2 to 3 percent year-on-year, and the tone from bank management teams has been fairly mixed in the April earning season that followed the tariff announcements on April 2nd. Some banks were starting to see the uncertainty weigh on corporate decision making and borrowing activity, while others were only seeing a slow down in some parts of their portfolio, with a pickup in other parts. Now that we've had two months to digest the announcements and several more positive developments on tariff negotiations, we expect that the tone from bank management teams will be more positive. Now, we don't expect them to say growth is accelerating, but we do expect that they will say loan growth is holding up with strong pipelines. On the second topic, net interest margins, we expect to hear that there is still room for margin expansion as we go through this year. And that's coming in two places, particularly as bank term deposits continue to reprice lower. And then the back book of fixed rate loans and securities, essentially assets that were put on the books four to five years ago when rates were a lot lower, are now rolling over at today's higher rates. Betsy Graseck: So, is the long end of the curve going up a good thing?Manan Gosalia: Yes, for net interest margins. But on the flip side, the tenure going up is slightly negative for bank capital. So that brings me to my third theme. The regional banks are overall in a much better place on capital than they were two years ago. Balance sheets have improved. Capital levels remain solid across the sector. But the recent increase in the long end of the curve is marginally negative for capital, given that there will be a higher negative mark on securities that banks hold. But we believe that higher capital levels that regional banks have accumulated over the past couple of years will help cushion some of these negative marks, and we don't expect the recent shift in the tenure will have a meaningful impact on bank capital plans.Betsy Graseck: So, the increase in the 10-year pulls down capital a little bit, but not enough to trip any regulatory minimums?Manan Gosalia: Correct.Betsy Graseck: So, all in the 10-year yield going up is a good thing?Manan Gosalia: It's slightly negative, but I would expect it does not impact bank growth plans. Betsy Graseck: Okay. All in, what's the message from mid-cap banks?Manan Gosalia: All in, I would expect the tone to be a little more positive than the banks had at April earnings.Betsy Graseck: Excellent. Thanks so much, Manan. Ryan, what about you? What are you expecting mid-cap advisors will say?Ryan Kenny: So, I think we'll hear a lot about the trends in M&A. And when we last heard from investment bank management teams during April earnings, the messaging was more cautious. We heard about M&A deals being paused as companies processed the Liberation Day tariffs, and a small number of deals being pulled. Tomorrow at our conference, expect to hear a measured but slightly improved tone. Look, there's still a lot of uncertainty out there, but what's changed since April is the fact that the U.S. administration is flexing in response to markets. So that should help shore up more confidence needed to do deals, and there's tremendous pent-up demand for corporate activity. Over the last three years – so 2022 to 2024 – M&A volumes relative to nominal GDP have been running 30 to 40 percent below three-decade averages. Equity capital markets volumes 50 to 60 percent below average. There is tremendous need for private equity firms to exit their portfolio investments and deploy $4 trillion of dry powder that has accumulated and also structural themes for corporates – like the need for AI capabilities, energy and biotech consolidation and reshoring – that should fuel mergers as a cycle gets going.So, I think for this group, the message will likely be: April and May – more challenged from a deal flow perspective; but back up of the year, you should start to expect some improvement.Betsy Graseck: So slightly improved tone…Ryan Kenny: Slightly improved. And one of the other really interesting themes that the investment banks will talk about is the substantial growth of private capital advisory.So, this is advising private equity funds and owners on capital raising, liquidation, including secondary transactions and continuation funds. And what will be interesting is how the clients set here is growing. We've seen this quarter, major universities, some local governments that increasingly need liquidity and they're hiring investment banks to advise on selling private equity fund interests.It's really going to be a great discussion because private capital advisory is a major growth area for the boutique investment banks that I cover.Betsy Graseck: How big of a sleeve do you think this could become – as big as M&A outright?Ryan Kenny: Probably not as big as M&A outright, but significant. And it helps give the investment banks’ relationships with financial sponsors who are active on the M&A front. So, it can be a share gain story.So, Betsy, what about you? You cover the large cap banks. What do you expect to hear?Betsy Graseck: Well, before I answer that, I do want to just put a pin on it.So, you're saying that for your coverage Ryan, we have some green shoots coming through...Ryan Kenny: Yeah, green shoots and more positive than in April.Betsy Graseck: And Manan on your side? Same?Manan Gosalia: A little bit more of a positive than April earnings, but more of the same as we heard at the start of the year.Betsy Graseck: Okay. Going back to the future then, I suppose we could say. Excellent. Well on large cap banks, I do expect large cap banks will be reflecting some of the same themes that you both just discussed. In particular, you know, we'll talk about IPOs. IPOs are holding up. We look at IPOs where we had 26 IPOs in the past week alone.That's up from 22 on average year-to-date in 2025. And I do think that the large cap banks will highlight that capital market activity is building and can accelerate from here, as long as equity volatility remains contained. By which we mean VIX is at 20 or below. And with capital market activity should come increased lending activity. It's very exciting. What's going on here is that when you do an M&A, you have to finance it, and that financing comes from either the bond market or banks or private credit. M&A financing is a key driver of CNI loan growth. A lot of people don't know that. And CNI loan growth, we do think will be moving from current levels of about 2 percent year-on-year, as per the most recent Fed H.8 data to 5 percent as M&A comes through over the next year plus. And then the other major driver of CNI loans is loans to non-depository financial institutions, which is also known as NDFI Loans. NDFI loans have been getting a lot of press recently. We see this as much ado about reclassification. That said, investors are asking what is the risk of this book of business? Our view is that it's similar to overall CNI loan risk, and we will dig into that outlook with managements at the conference. It'll be exciting. Additionally, we will touch on regulation and how easing of regulation could change strategies for capital utilization and capital deployment. So, you want to have an ear out for that. Well, Manan, Ryan, it's been great speaking with you today.Manan Gosalia: Should be an exciting conference.Ryan Kenny: Thanks for having us on.Betsy Graseck: And thanks for listening everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/E2D6E6YerlWgDdlJgt6esLRtzihFEFfgYosNbzcfcM8Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:11:11 +0000gtyOur analysts Betsy Graseck, Manan Gosalia and Ryan Kenny discuss the major discussions they expect to highlight Morgan Stanley’s upcoming U.S. Financials conference. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Large Cap Bank Analyst and Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research. Today we take a look at the key debates in the U.S. financials industry. It’s Monday, June 9th at 10:30am in New York.Tomorrow Morgan Stanley kicks off its annual U.S. Financials Conference right here in New York City. We wanted to give you a glimpse into some of the most significant themes that we expect will be addressed at the conference. And so, I'm here with two of my colleagues, Manan Gosalia, U.S. Midcap Banks Analyst, and Ryan Kenny, U.S. Midcaps Advisor Analyst.Investors are grappling with navigating economic uncertainty from new tariff policies, inflation concerns, and immigration challenges – all of which impacts financial growth and credit quality. On the positive side, they are also looking closely at regulatory shifts under the Trump administration, which could ease banking rules for the first time since the Great Financial Crisis.Let's hear what our experts are expecting. Manan, ahead of the conference, what key themes do you expect mid-cap banks will highlight?Manan Gosalia: So, there are three key themes that we've been focused on for the mid-cap banks: loan growth, net interest margins, and capital. So, first on loan growth. Loan growth for the regional banks has been fairly tepid at about 2 to 3 percent year-on-year, and the tone from bank management teams has been fairly mixed in the April earning season that followed the tariff announcements on April 2nd. Some banks were starting to see the uncertainty weigh on corporate decision making and borrowing activity, while others were only seeing a slow down in some parts of their portfolio, with a pickup in other parts. Now that we've had two months to digest the announcements and several more positive developments on tariff negotiations, we expect that the tone from bank management teams will be more positive. Now, we don't expect them to say growth is accelerating, but we do expect that they will say loan growth is holding up with strong pipelines. On the second topic, net interest margins, we expect to hear that there is still room for margin expansion as we go through this year. And that's coming in two places, particularly as bank term deposits continue to reprice lower. And then the back book of fixed rate loans and securities, essentially assets that were put on the books four to five years ago when rates were a lot lower, are now rolling over at today's higher rates. Betsy Graseck: So, is the long end of the curve going up a good thing?Manan Gosalia: Yes, for net interest margins. But on the flip side, the tenure going up is slightly negative for bank capital. So that brings me to my third theme. The regional banks are overall in a much better place on capital than they were two years ago. Balance sheets have improved. Capital levels remain solid across the sector. But the recent increase in the long end of the curve is marginally negative for capital, given that there will be a higher negative mark on securities that banks hold. But we believe that higher capital levels that regional banks have accumulated over the past couple of years will help cushion some of these negative marks, and we don't expect the recent shift in the tenure will have a meaningful impact on bank capital plans.Betsy Graseck: So, the increase in the 10-year pulls down capital a little bit, but not enough to trip any regulatory minimums?Manan Gosalia: Correct.Betsy Graseck: So, all in the 10-year yield going up is a good thing?Manan...]]>610alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1400fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/standing-by-our-outlook--75648430insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset StrategistVishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Serena Tang: Today's topic, pushback to our outlook.It's Friday, June 6th at 10am in New York.Morgan Stanley Research published our mid-year outlook about two weeks ago, a collaborative effort across the department, bringing together our economist views with our strategist high conviction ideas. Right now, we're recommending investors to be overweight in U.S. equities, overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries, like U.S. IG corporate credit. But some of our views are out of consensus.So, I want to talk to you, Vishy, about pushback that you've been getting and how we pushback on the pushback.Vishy Tirupattur: Right. So, the biggest pushback I've gotten is a bit of a dissonance between our economics narrative and our markets narrative. Our economics narrative, as you know, calls for a significant weakening of economic growth. From about – for the U.S. – 2.5 percent growth in 2024 goes into 1 percent in 2025 and in 2026. And Fed doesn't cut rates in 2025, and cuts seven times in 2026.And if you look at a somewhat uninspiring outlook for the U.S. economy from our economists – reconciling an uninspiring economic outlook on the U.S. economy with the constructive view we have on U.S. assets, equities, credit, treasuries – that's been a source of contention. So how do we reconcile this? So, my pushback to the pushback is the following; that they are different plot lines across different asset classes. So, our economists have slowing of the economy – but not an outright recession. Our economists don't have rate cuts in 2025 but have seven rate cuts in 2026.So, if you look at the total number of rate cuts that are being priced in by the markets today, roughly about two rate cuts in [20]25, and about between two and three rate cuts in 2026, we expect greater policy easing than what's currently priced in the markets. So that makes sense for our constructive view on interest rates, and in government bonds and in duration that makes sense.From a credit point of view, we enter this point with a much better credit fundamentals in leverage and coverage terms. We have the emergence of a total yield-based buyer base, which we think will be largely intact at our expectations, and you layer on top of that – the idea that growth slows but doesn't fall into recession is also constructive for higher quality credit. So that explains our credit view.From an equities view, the drawdowns that we experienced in April, our equity strategists think marks the worst outcomes from a policy point of view that we could have had. That has already happened. So looking forward, they look for EPS growth over the course of the next 12 months. They look for benefits of deregulation to kick in. So, along with that seven rate cuts, get them to be comfortable in being constructive about their views on equities. So all of that ties together.Serena Tang: And I think what you mentioned around macro not being the markets is important here. Because when we did some analysis on historical periods where you had low growth and low inflation, actually in that kind of a scenario equities did fine. And corporate credit did fine. But also, in an environment where you have rather unencouraging growth, that tends to map onto a slightly risk-off scenario. And historically that's also a kind of backdrop where you see the dollar strengthen.This time out, we have a very out of consensus view; not that the dollar will weaken, that seems quite consensus. But the degree of magnitude of dollar weakening. Where have you been getting the most pushback on our expectations for the dollar to depreciate by around 9 percent from here?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the dollar weakness in itself is not out of consensus, largely driven by narrowing of free differentials; growth differentials. I think some of the difference between the extent of weakness that we are projecting comes from the assessment on the policy and certainty. So, the policy uncertainty adds a greater degree of risk premia for taking on U.S. assets.So, in our forecast, we take into account not only the differentials in rates and growth, but also in the policy uncertainty and the risk premia that the investors would demand in the face of that kind of policy uncertainty. And that really explains why we are probably more negative on the outcome for U.S. dollar than perhaps our competition.Serena Tang: The risk premium part, I think bring us to one of the biggest debates we've been having with investors over, not just the last few weeks, but over the last few months. And that is on U.S. exceptionalism. Now clearly, we have a view that U.S. assets can outperform over the next six to 12 months, but why aren't we factoring in higher risk premium for holding any kind of U.S. assets? Why should U.S. assets still do well?Vishy Tirupattur: So, as I said earlier, we are calling for the economy to slow without tipping into recession. We are also calling for greater amount of policy easing than what is currently priced in the markets. Both those factors are constructive.So, I think we also should keep in mind the sheer size of the U.S. markets. The U.S. government bond markets, for example, are 10 times the size of comparably rated European bond markets, government bond markets put together. The U.S. equity markets is four-five times the size of the European equity markets. Same thing for investment grade corporate credit bonds. The market is many, many times larger.So, the sheer size of the U.S. assets makes it very difficult for a globally diversified portfolio to substantially under-allocate to U.S. assets. So, what we are suggesting, therefore, is that allocate to U.S. assets, where there are all these opportunities we described. But if you are not a U.S. investor, hedge the currency risk. Not hedging currency risk had worked in the past, but we are now saying hedge your currency risk.Serena Tang: And the market size and liquidity point is interesting. I think after the outlook was published, we had a lot of questions on this. And I think it's underappreciated, how about, sort of, 60 percent of liquid, high quality fixed income paper is actually denominated in U.S. dollars. So, at the end of the day, or at least over the next six to 12 months, it does seem like there is no alternative.Now Vishy, we've talked a lot about where we are getting pushback. I think that one part of the outlook where – very little discussed because very highly consensus – is credit. And the consensus is credit is boring. So how do you see corporate credit, and maybe securitized credit, fit into the wider allocation views on fixed income?Vishy Tirupattur: Boring is good for a fixed income investor perspective, Serena. Our expectation of rate cuts, slowing growth but not going tipping into recession, and our idea that these spreads are really not going very far from where they are now, gets us to a total return of about over 10 percent for investment related corporate credit.And that actually is a pretty good outcome for credit investors. For fixed income investors in general that calls for continued allocations to high quality credit, in corporate credit as well as in securitized credit.Serena Tang: So just to sum up, Morgan Stanley Research has very differentiated view this time around on how many times the Fed can cut, which is a lot more than what markets are pricing in at the moment, how much yields can fall, and also how much weakening in the U.S. dollar that we can get. We are recommending investors to be overweight U.S. equities and overweight U.S. core fixed income like U.S. treasuries and like U.S. IG corporate credits. And as much as we're not arguing [that] U.S. exceptionalism can continue on forever, over the next six to 12 months, we are constructive on U.S. assets.That is not to say policy uncertainty won't still create bouts of volatility over the next 12 months. But it does mean that during those scenarios, you want to sell U.S. dollars rather than U.S. assets.Vishy, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.Vishy Tirupattur: Great speaking with you, Serena.Serena Tang: And for those tuned in, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_IohgfMOOUBm3walytA6MDtjmw9pjonjH8hH-sR5pZMFri, 06 Jun 2025 20:35:41 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s midyear outlook defied the conventional view in a number of ways. Our analysts Serena Tang and Vishy Tirupattur push back on the pushback to their conclusions, explaining the thought process behind their research.  Read...insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset StrategistVishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Serena Tang: Today's topic, pushback to our outlook.It's Friday, June 6th at 10am in New York.Morgan Stanley Research published our mid-year outlook about two weeks ago, a collaborative effort across the department, bringing together our economist views with our strategist high conviction ideas. Right now, we're recommending investors to be overweight in U.S. equities, overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries, like U.S. IG corporate credit. But some of our views are out of consensus.So, I want to talk to you, Vishy, about pushback that you've been getting and how we pushback on the pushback.Vishy Tirupattur: Right. So, the biggest pushback I've gotten is a bit of a dissonance between our economics narrative and our markets narrative. Our economics narrative, as you know, calls for a significant weakening of economic growth. From about – for the U.S. – 2.5 percent growth in 2024 goes into 1 percent in 2025 and in 2026. And Fed doesn't cut rates in 2025, and cuts seven times in 2026.And if you look at a somewhat uninspiring outlook for the U.S. economy from our economists – reconciling an uninspiring economic outlook on the U.S. economy with the constructive view we have on U.S. assets, equities, credit, treasuries – that's been a source of contention. So how do we reconcile this? So, my pushback to the pushback is the following; that they are different plot lines across different asset classes. So, our economists have slowing of the economy – but not an outright recession. Our economists don't have rate cuts in 2025 but have seven rate cuts in 2026.So, if you look at the total number of rate cuts that are being priced in by the markets today, roughly about two rate cuts in [20]25, and about between two and three rate cuts in 2026, we expect greater policy easing than what's currently priced in the markets. So that makes sense for our constructive view on interest rates, and in government bonds and in duration that makes sense.From a credit point of view, we enter this point with a much better credit fundamentals in leverage and coverage terms. We have the emergence of a total yield-based buyer base, which we think will be largely intact at our expectations, and you layer on top of that – the idea that growth slows but doesn't fall into recession is also constructive for higher quality credit. So that explains our credit view.From an equities view, the drawdowns that we experienced in April, our equity strategists think marks the worst outcomes from a policy point of view that we could have had. That has already happened. So looking forward, they look for EPS growth over the course of the next 12 months. They look for benefits of deregulation to kick in. So, along with that seven rate cuts, get them to be comfortable in being constructive about their views on equities. So all of that ties together.Serena Tang: And I think what you mentioned around macro not being the markets is important here. Because when we did some analysis on historical periods where you had low growth and low inflation, actually in that kind of a scenario equities did fine. And corporate credit did fine. But also, in an environment where you have rather unencouraging growth, that tends to map onto a slightly risk-off scenario. And historically that's also a kind of backdrop where you see the dollar strengthen.This time out,...]]>569alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1399fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/5-reasons-the-obesity-drug-market-remains-strong--75648773Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Terrence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terrence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. The market for obesity medicines is at an inflection point, and today I'll focus on what's driving the next stage of global growth.It's Thursday, June 5th at 2pm in New York.GLP-1 medicines have been viewed by many stakeholders as one of the most transformative medications in the market today. They've exploded in popularity over the last few years and become game changers for many people who take them. These drugs have large cap biopharma companies racing to innovate. They've had ripple effects on food, fitness, and fashion. They truly are a major market force. And now we're on the cusp of a significant broadening of use of these medicines.Currently the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world of GLP-1s. But new versions of these medicines suggest that this market will extend beyond the U.S. to significantly larger numbers of patients globally. On our estimate, the Total Addressable Market or TAM for obesity medications should reach $150 billion globally by 2035, with approximately [$]80 billion from the U.S. and [$]70 billion from international markets.Now this marks a meaningful increase from our 2024 forecast of [$]105 billion and reflects a greater appreciation of opportunities outside of the U.S. We think obesity drug adoption will likely accelerate as patients and providers become more familiar with the new products and as manufacturers address hurdles in production, distribution, and access.Current adoption rates of GLP-1 treatments within the eligible obesity population are about 2 to 3 percent. This is in the U.S., and roughly 1 percent in the rest of the world. Now, when we look out further, we anticipate these figures to surge to 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, really driven by five things.First, after a period of shortages, supply constraints have improved, and the drug makers are investing aggressively to increase production. Second new data show that obesity drugs have broader clinical applications. They can be used to treat coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, kidney disease, or even sleep apnea. They could also potentially fight Alzheimer's disease, neuropsychiatric conditions, and even cancer.Third, we think coverage will expand as obesity drugs are approved to treat diseases beyond obesity. Public healthcare coverage through Medicare should also broaden based on these expected approvals. Fourth, some drug makers are successfully developing obesity drugs, in pill form instead of injectables. Pills are of course easier to administer and can reach global scale quickly. And finally, drug makers are also developing next gen medications with even higher efficacy, new mechanisms of action, and more convenient, less frequent dosing.All in all, we think that over the next decade, broader GLP-1 adoption will extend well beyond biopharma. We expect significant impacts on medical technology, healthcare services, and consumer sectors like food, beverages, and fashion, where changes in patient diets could reshape market dynamics.Thanks so much for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YKUf6ChpulBvbv87Yvj_c60P-rcSt6XPEa_o4_STo2gThu, 05 Jun 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe global market for obesity drugs is expanding. Our U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst Terrence Flynn discusses what’s driving the next stage of global growth for GLP-1 medicines. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Terrence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terrence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. The market for obesity medicines is at an inflection point, and today I'll focus on what's driving the next stage of global growth.It's Thursday, June 5th at 2pm in New York.GLP-1 medicines have been viewed by many stakeholders as one of the most transformative medications in the market today. They've exploded in popularity over the last few years and become game changers for many people who take them. These drugs have large cap biopharma companies racing to innovate. They've had ripple effects on food, fitness, and fashion. They truly are a major market force. And now we're on the cusp of a significant broadening of use of these medicines.Currently the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world of GLP-1s. But new versions of these medicines suggest that this market will extend beyond the U.S. to significantly larger numbers of patients globally. On our estimate, the Total Addressable Market or TAM for obesity medications should reach $150 billion globally by 2035, with approximately [$]80 billion from the U.S. and [$]70 billion from international markets.Now this marks a meaningful increase from our 2024 forecast of [$]105 billion and reflects a greater appreciation of opportunities outside of the U.S. We think obesity drug adoption will likely accelerate as patients and providers become more familiar with the new products and as manufacturers address hurdles in production, distribution, and access.Current adoption rates of GLP-1 treatments within the eligible obesity population are about 2 to 3 percent. This is in the U.S., and roughly 1 percent in the rest of the world. Now, when we look out further, we anticipate these figures to surge to 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, really driven by five things.First, after a period of shortages, supply constraints have improved, and the drug makers are investing aggressively to increase production. Second new data show that obesity drugs have broader clinical applications. They can be used to treat coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, kidney disease, or even sleep apnea. They could also potentially fight Alzheimer's disease, neuropsychiatric conditions, and even cancer.Third, we think coverage will expand as obesity drugs are approved to treat diseases beyond obesity. Public healthcare coverage through Medicare should also broaden based on these expected approvals. Fourth, some drug makers are successfully developing obesity drugs, in pill form instead of injectables. Pills are of course easier to administer and can reach global scale quickly. And finally, drug makers are also developing next gen medications with even higher efficacy, new mechanisms of action, and more convenient, less frequent dosing.All in all, we think that over the next decade, broader GLP-1 adoption will extend well beyond biopharma. We expect significant impacts on medical technology, healthcare services, and consumer sectors like food, beverages, and fashion, where changes in patient diets could reshape market dynamics.Thanks so much for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>219alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1398fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-u-s-credit-outlook-why-investors-should-be-selective--75648830Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today on the program, we're going to have the first in a series of conversations covering our outlook for credit around the world.It's Wednesday, June 4th at 2pm in London.Vishwas Patkar: And 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, along with many of our colleagues at Morgan Stanley, we recently updated our 12-month outlook for credit markets around the world. Focusing on your specialty, the U.S., how do you read the economic backdrop and what do you think it means for credit at a high level?Vishwas Patkar: So, our central scenario of slowing growth, somewhat firm inflation and no rate cuts from the Fed until the first quarter of 2026 – when I put all of that together, I view that as somewhat mixed for credit. It's good for certain segments of the market, not as good for others.I think the positive on the one side is that with the recent de-escalation in trade tensions, recession risks have gone lower. And that's reflected in our economists' view as well. I think for an asset class like credit, avoiding that drill downside tail I think is important. The other positive in the market today is that the level of all in yields you can get across the credit spectrum is very compelling on many different measures.The negative is that we are still looking at a fair bit of slowing in economic activity, and that's a big downshift from what we've been used to in the past few years. So, I would say we're certainly not in the Goldilocks environment that we saw for credit through the second half of last year. And it's important here for investors to be selective around what they invest in within the credit market.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, you kind of alluded to this, but you know, 2025 has been a year that so far has been dominated by a lot of these large kind of macro questions around, you know, what's going to happen with tariffs. Big moves in interest rates, big moves in the U.S. dollar. But credit is an asset class that's, you know, ultimately about lending to companies. And so how do you see the credit worthiness of U.S. corporates? And how much of a risk is there that with interest rates staying higher for longer than we expected at the start of the year – that becomes a bigger problem?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, sure. I think it's a very important question Andrew because I think taking a call on markets based on the gyrations in headlines is very hard. But in some ways, I think this question of the credit worthiness of U.S. companies is more important and I think it really helps us filter the signal from the noise that we've seen in markets so far this year.I would say broadly, the health of corporate balance sheets is pretty good and, in some ways, I think it's maybe a more distinguishing feature of this cycle where corporate credit overall is on a firmer footing going into a period of slower growth – than what we may have seen in prior instances. And you can sort of look at this balance sheet health along a few different lines.In aggregate, we haven't really seen credit markets grow a lot in the last few years. M&A activity, which is usually a harbinger of corporate aggression, has also been fairly muted in absolute terms. Corporate balance sheet leverage has not grown. And I think we've been in this high-interest rate environment, which has kept some of these animal spirits at bay. Now what this means is, that the level of sensitivity of credit markets to a slow down in the economy is somewhat lower.It does not mean that credit markets can remain immune no matter what happens to the economy. I think it's clear if we get a recession, spread should be a fair bit wider. But I think in our central scenario, it makes us more confident than otherwise that credit overall can hold up okay.Now your question around the risk of rates staying higher. This I think goes back to my point about where in the credit market you're looking. I think up the quality spectrum, I think there are actually – there's a lot of demand tailwinds for credit given the pickup in sponsorship we've seen from insurance companies and pension funds in this cycle.At the other end of the quality spectrum, if you're looking at highly levered capital structures, that's where I think the risk of interest rates being high can lead to defaults being sort of around average levels and higher than they would otherwise be.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, kind of sticking with that central scenario, kind of briefly, what would be a segment of U.S. credit that you think offers some of the best risk adjusted return at the moment? And what do you think offers some of the worst?Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we framed our credit outlook as being good for quality, badfor beta. So, as that suggests, I think this is a fairly good environment for investment grade credit. In our base case, we are calling for double digit total returns. In IG we also expect investment grade credit to modestly outperform government bonds.And I would sort of extend that to the upper tiers within the high yield market as well, specifically BBs. And where I would say risk reward looks the weakest is the lowest tier. So, for CCCs and for many segments within Bs where leverage is fairly elevated, debt costs are still high. We think this is still a challenging environment where growth is set to slow and rate cuts are still a fair bit out the outer forecast rise.Andrew Sheets: So far we focused on that central scenario, but let's close out with how things could be different. In our view, what do you think are the realistically better and worse scenarios for U.S. credit this year, and how does that shape your overall view on the market?Vishwas Patkar: So, I think the better scenario for credit versus our base case potentially revolve around tariffs being rolled back even further. And it's essentially a repeat of the second half of 2024, where you had a combination of good growth and declining inflation and rate cuts moving up versus our expectations.I think in that scenario, it's likely that you see investment grade credit spreads go back to the tights that we saw in December. On the flip side, I think the worst scenario really is you know – what if we are being too optimistic about growth? And what if the economy is set to slow much further? And then what if we get a recession?So, I think in that environment, we see spreads retesting the wides that we saw through the volatility in April. Although even here, I would draw an important nuance that because of some of the fundamental and technical tailwinds I discussed earlier, we think spreads even in this downside scenario may not test the types of levels that we've seen through prior bear markets.Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, thanks for taking the time to talk.Vishwas Patkar: Thanks, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: And thanks for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/cNO3DMLTqRFTlzxD0ysmITqm2FFWYcXBFBaC9QlhapUWed, 04 Jun 2025 20:03:59 +0000gtyOur analysts Andrew Sheets and Vishwas Patkar take stock of the U.S. credit market, noting which segments are on firm footing going into a period of slower growth. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today on the program, we're going to have the first in a series of conversations covering our outlook for credit around the world.It's Wednesday, June 4th at 2pm in London.Vishwas Patkar: And 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, along with many of our colleagues at Morgan Stanley, we recently updated our 12-month outlook for credit markets around the world. Focusing on your specialty, the U.S., how do you read the economic backdrop and what do you think it means for credit at a high level?Vishwas Patkar: So, our central scenario of slowing growth, somewhat firm inflation and no rate cuts from the Fed until the first quarter of 2026 – when I put all of that together, I view that as somewhat mixed for credit. It's good for certain segments of the market, not as good for others.I think the positive on the one side is that with the recent de-escalation in trade tensions, recession risks have gone lower. And that's reflected in our economists' view as well. I think for an asset class like credit, avoiding that drill downside tail I think is important. The other positive in the market today is that the level of all in yields you can get across the credit spectrum is very compelling on many different measures.The negative is that we are still looking at a fair bit of slowing in economic activity, and that's a big downshift from what we've been used to in the past few years. So, I would say we're certainly not in the Goldilocks environment that we saw for credit through the second half of last year. And it's important here for investors to be selective around what they invest in within the credit market.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, you kind of alluded to this, but you know, 2025 has been a year that so far has been dominated by a lot of these large kind of macro questions around, you know, what's going to happen with tariffs. Big moves in interest rates, big moves in the U.S. dollar. But credit is an asset class that's, you know, ultimately about lending to companies. And so how do you see the credit worthiness of U.S. corporates? And how much of a risk is there that with interest rates staying higher for longer than we expected at the start of the year – that becomes a bigger problem?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, sure. I think it's a very important question Andrew because I think taking a call on markets based on the gyrations in headlines is very hard. But in some ways, I think this question of the credit worthiness of U.S. companies is more important and I think it really helps us filter the signal from the noise that we've seen in markets so far this year.I would say broadly, the health of corporate balance sheets is pretty good and, in some ways, I think it's maybe a more distinguishing feature of this cycle where corporate credit overall is on a firmer footing going into a period of slower growth – than what we may have seen in prior instances. And you can sort of look at this balance sheet health along a few different lines.In aggregate, we haven't really seen credit markets grow a lot in the last few years. M&A activity, which is usually a harbinger of corporate aggression, has also been fairly muted in absolute terms. Corporate balance sheet leverage has not grown. And I think we've been in this high-interest rate environment, which has kept some of these animal spirits at bay. Now what this means is, that the level of sensitivity of credit markets...]]>432alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1397fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-shoppers-take-stock--75648774Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist.Arunima Sinha: And I'm Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics Teams.Michelle Weaver: Today – an encouraging update on the U.S. consumer.It's Tuesday, June 3rd at 10am in New York.Arunima, the last couple of months have been challenging not only for global markets, but also for everyday people and for individual households; and we heard pretty mixed information on the consumer throughout earning season. Quite a few different companies highlighted consumers being more choiceful, being more value oriented. All this to say is we're getting a little bit of a mixed message.In your opinion, how healthy is the U.S. consumer right now?Arunima Sinha: So, Michelle, I'm glad we're starting with the sort of up upbeat part of the consumer. The macro data on the consumer has been holding up pretty well so far. In the first quarter of [20]25, consumer spending has actually been running at a similar pace as the first quarter of [20]24. Nominal consumption spending grew 5.5 percent on a year-on-year basis. Goods were up almost 4 percent. Services were up more than 6 percent.So, all of that was good. What our takeaway was that we had a lot of strength in good spending, and that did probably reflect some of the pull forward on the back of tariff news. But that pace of growth suggests that there is an aggregate consumer. They have healthy balance sheets, and they're willing to spend.And then what's driving that consumption growth from our point of view. We think that labor market compensation has been running at a pretty steady pace so far. So more than 5.5 percent quarterly analyzed. PCE inflation has been running at just over 3 percent. And so even though equity markets did see some greater volatility, they didn't seem to impact the consumer at least in the first quarter of data. And so, we've had that consumer in a pretty good shape.But with all of this in the background, we know, tariffs have been in the news, and tariff fears have weighed heavily on consumer sentiment. But then tariff headlines have also become more positive lately, and consumers might be feeling more optimistic. What's your data showing?Michelle Weaver: So that really depends on what data you're looking at. We saw a pretty big rebound in consumer sentiment if you look at the Conference Board survey. But then we saw flat sentiment, when you look at the University of Michigan survey. These two surveys have some different questions in them, different subcomponents.But my favorite way to track consumer sentiment is our own proprietary consumer survey, which did show a pretty big pickup in sentiment towards the economy last month. And we saw sentiment rebound significantly for both conservatives and liberals.So, this wasn't just a matter of one political party, you know, having a change of opinion. Both sides did see an improvement in sentiment. Although consumer sentiment for conservatives improved off a much higher base. The percent of people reporting being very concerned about tariffs also fell this month. We saw that move from 43 percent to 38 percent after the reduction in tariffs on China. So, people are, you know, concerned a little bit less there. And that's been a really big thing people are watching.Arunima Sinha: Feeling better about the news is great. Are they actually planning to spend more?Michelle Weaver: So encouragingly we did also see a big rebound in consumers short term spending outlooks in the survey. 33 percent of consumers expect to spend more next month and 17 percent expect to spend less.So that gives us a net of positive 16 percent. This is in line with the five-year average level we saw there, and up really substantially from last month's reading of 5 percent. So, 5 percent to 16 percent. That's a pretty big improvement.We also saw spending plans rise across all income groups. though we did see the biggest pickup for higher income consumers and that figure moved from 12 percent to 31 percent. Additionally, we saw longer term spending plans – so what people are planning to spend over the next six months – also improve across all the categories we look at.Arunima Sinha: And were there any specific changes about how the consumers were responding to the tariff headlines?Michelle Weaver: Yeah, so people reported pulling forward some purchases, due to fear of tariff driven price increases. So, people were planning for this, similarly to what we saw with companies. They were doing a little bit of stockpiling. Consumers were doing this as well. So, our survey showed that over half of people said they accelerated some purchases over the past month to try and get ahead of potential tariff related price increases.And this did skew higher among upper income consumers. The categories that people cited at the top of the list for pull forward are non-perishable groceries, household items. So, both of those things you need in your day-to-day life. And then clothing and apparel as well, which I thought was interesting. But that's been one thing that's been in the news a lot that's heavily manufactured overseas.So, people were thinking about that. And this does align overall with our March survey data, where we asked what categories people were most concerned about seeing price increases. So, their behavior did line up with what they were concerned about in March.Arunima, your turn on tariffs now. The reason tariffs have been on consumer's minds is because of what they might mean for price levels and inflation. Throughout earning season, we heard a lot of companies talking about raising prices to offset the cost of tariffs. What has this looked like from an economist’s perspective? Has this actually started to show up in the inflation data yet?Arunima Sinha: So not quite yet, and that's something that, as you might expect, we're tracking very, very closely. So, one of the things that our team did was to think about which types of goods or services were going to be impacted by inflation. And so, we think that that first order effects are going to be on goods. And we think that the effects could start to show up in the May data, but we really see that sequential pace of inflation starting to step up starting June. And then in our third quarter inflation estimate, we see that number peaking for the year. So, in the third quarter, we think that core PCE inflation number is going to be about 4.5 percent Q1-Q analyzed.Michelle Weaver: And then aside from tariffs and inflation, how are people going to be affected by a fiscal policy, specifically the tax bill that just passed the house?Arunima Sinha: So, the house version of the bill has government spending reductions that can be quite regressive for different cohorts of the consumer. So, we have, reductions around the Medicaid program, cuts to the SNAP program as well as possible elimination of the income driven loans repayment plans. So, all of these would have a pretty adverse impact on the lower income and the middle-income consumers.This could be – but will likely not be fully offset by the removal of taxes, on tips and overtime. And then on the other side, the higher income consumers could benefit from some of that increase in SALT caps. But overall, the jury is still out on how the aggregate consumer will be affected.Michelle Weaver: So, taking this all into account, the effects of fiscal policy, of tariff policy, of labor market income – what's your overall outlook on U.S. consumption for the rest of the year?Arunima Sinha: So, we recently published our mid-year outlook for U.S. economics and our forecast for consumption spending over 2025 and [20]26 does see the consumer slowing. And this is really due to three factors. The first is on the back of those greater tariffs and the uncertainty around them and the fact that we have slowing net immigration, we're going to be expecting a slowdown in the labor market. As the pace of hiring slows, you have a slower growth in labor market income. And that really is the main driver of aggregate consumption spending. And then as we talked about, we are expecting that pass through of higher tariffs into inflation, and that's going to impact real spending. And then finally the uncertainty around tariffs, the volatilities and equity markets could weigh on consumer spending; and may actually push the upper income cohorts, the big drivers of consumption spending in the economy, to have higher precautionary savings.And so, with all of that, we see our nominal consumption spending growth slowing down to about 3.9 percent by the end of this year.Michelle Weaver: Well a little unfortunate to wrap up on a more negative note, but we are seeing, you know, mixed messages – and some more positive data in the near term, at least. Arunima, thank you for taking the time to talk.Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me, Michelle.Michelle Weaver: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3AjzZf4mlm5NforcQ7sy-T6LXidBbvJKUPiDqj4cPywTue, 03 Jun 2025 20:12:13 +0000gtyOur Thematics and U.S. Economics analysts Michelle Weaver and Arunima Sinha discuss how American consumers are planning to spend as they consider tariffs, inflation and potential new tax policies.  Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist.Arunima Sinha: And I'm Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics Teams.Michelle Weaver: Today – an encouraging update on the U.S. consumer.It's Tuesday, June 3rd at 10am in New York.Arunima, the last couple of months have been challenging not only for global markets, but also for everyday people and for individual households; and we heard pretty mixed information on the consumer throughout earning season. Quite a few different companies highlighted consumers being more choiceful, being more value oriented. All this to say is we're getting a little bit of a mixed message.In your opinion, how healthy is the U.S. consumer right now?Arunima Sinha: So, Michelle, I'm glad we're starting with the sort of up upbeat part of the consumer. The macro data on the consumer has been holding up pretty well so far. In the first quarter of [20]25, consumer spending has actually been running at a similar pace as the first quarter of [20]24. Nominal consumption spending grew 5.5 percent on a year-on-year basis. Goods were up almost 4 percent. Services were up more than 6 percent.So, all of that was good. What our takeaway was that we had a lot of strength in good spending, and that did probably reflect some of the pull forward on the back of tariff news. But that pace of growth suggests that there is an aggregate consumer. They have healthy balance sheets, and they're willing to spend.And then what's driving that consumption growth from our point of view. We think that labor market compensation has been running at a pretty steady pace so far. So more than 5.5 percent quarterly analyzed. PCE inflation has been running at just over 3 percent. And so even though equity markets did see some greater volatility, they didn't seem to impact the consumer at least in the first quarter of data. And so, we've had that consumer in a pretty good shape.But with all of this in the background, we know, tariffs have been in the news, and tariff fears have weighed heavily on consumer sentiment. But then tariff headlines have also become more positive lately, and consumers might be feeling more optimistic. What's your data showing?Michelle Weaver: So that really depends on what data you're looking at. We saw a pretty big rebound in consumer sentiment if you look at the Conference Board survey. But then we saw flat sentiment, when you look at the University of Michigan survey. These two surveys have some different questions in them, different subcomponents.But my favorite way to track consumer sentiment is our own proprietary consumer survey, which did show a pretty big pickup in sentiment towards the economy last month. And we saw sentiment rebound significantly for both conservatives and liberals.So, this wasn't just a matter of one political party, you know, having a change of opinion. Both sides did see an improvement in sentiment. Although consumer sentiment for conservatives improved off a much higher base. The percent of people reporting being very concerned about tariffs also fell this month. We saw that move from 43 percent to 38 percent after the reduction in tariffs on China. So, people are, you know, concerned a little bit less there. And that's been a really big thing people are watching.Arunima Sinha: Feeling better about the news is great. Are they actually planning to spend more?Michelle Weaver: So encouragingly we did also see a big rebound in consumers short term spending outlooks in the survey. 33 percent of consumers expect to spend more...]]>561alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1396fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-equity-markets-may-be-stronger-than-you-think--75648468Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll discuss where there is the most push back to our Mid-year outlook and why I remain convicted in our generally constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months.It's Monday, June 2nd at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.To briefly summarize our outlook, we have maintained our 6500 12-month price target for the S&P 500 this year despite what has been a very volatile first five months – both in terms of news flow and price action. Part of the reason we didn’t change this view stems from the fact that we expected the first half to be challenging for U.S. stocks but to be followed by a more favorable second half. Much of this was related to our view that the new administration would pursue the growth negative part of their policy agenda first. This played out -- with their focus on immigration enforcement, spending cutbacks and tariffs. In addition to these policy adjustments, we also expected AI capex to decelerate in the first half after such fast growth last year. All of these factors conspired to weigh on both economic growth and earnings revisions.Second, the way in which tariffs were rolled out on Liberation Day was a shock to most market participants, including us, and served as the perfect catalyst for what can only be described as capitulation selling by many institutional investors. That capitulation has set the stage for the very reflexive snap back in equity prices that is also supported by a positive rate of change on policy, earnings revisions breadth, financial conditions and a weaker U.S. dollar.The main push back to our views centers on our constructive earnings outlook for high single digit growth both this year and next and our view that valuations can remain elevated at 21.5x forward Earnings. On the earnings front, our calendar year earnings estimates already incorporate a  mid-single-digit percent hit to bottoms-up consensus forecasts. Second, our Leading Earnings Indicator  which projects Earnings Per Share growth 12 months out is suggesting a sideways consolidation in growth in the high single-digit range over the next year.Third, a weaker dollar, elements of the tax bill and AI-driven productivity should be incremental tailwinds for earnings that are not in our model. Fourth, we have  experienced rolling recessions for many sectors of the private economy for the last 3 years, which makes  growth comparisons easier. Finally, and most importantly, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth has inflected higher from a very low level after a year-long downturn. On valuation, our work shows that if earnings growth is above the long-term median of 7 percent and if the fed funds rate is down on a year-over-year basis, it's very rare to see multiple compression. In fact, Price Earnings multiples have expanded 90 percent of the time under these conditions to the tune of 9 percent over a 12- month period. Therefore, in some ways we’re being conservative with our forecast for the S&P 500's  price earnings ratio to remain flat at current levels over the next year.With respect to our favorite  valuation metric, the equity risk premium, it’s interesting to note that in the week following Liberation Day, the Equity Risk Premium reached the same level we witnessed in the aftermath of the 9-11 shock in 2001 and even exceeded the risk premium reached during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998. Both episodes resulted in 20 percent corrections to the S&P 500 much like we experienced this year only to be followed by very strong equity markets over the next year.The bottom line is that I remain convicted in both our earnings forecast for high single digit earnings growth for this year and next; and my view that valuations can remain elevated in this classic late cycle expansion of slower economic growth that typically elicits interest rate cuts from the Fed.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/vShVEcSjUKSK4Qc-zbtiUL60ybc2aP2V-_pQykATgbMMon, 02 Jun 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains how his outlook on earnings and valuations give him a constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll discuss where there is the most push back to our Mid-year outlook and why I remain convicted in our generally constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months.It's Monday, June 2nd at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.To briefly summarize our outlook, we have maintained our 6500 12-month price target for the S&P 500 this year despite what has been a very volatile first five months – both in terms of news flow and price action. Part of the reason we didn’t change this view stems from the fact that we expected the first half to be challenging for U.S. stocks but to be followed by a more favorable second half. Much of this was related to our view that the new administration would pursue the growth negative part of their policy agenda first. This played out -- with their focus on immigration enforcement, spending cutbacks and tariffs. In addition to these policy adjustments, we also expected AI capex to decelerate in the first half after such fast growth last year. All of these factors conspired to weigh on both economic growth and earnings revisions.Second, the way in which tariffs were rolled out on Liberation Day was a shock to most market participants, including us, and served as the perfect catalyst for what can only be described as capitulation selling by many institutional investors. That capitulation has set the stage for the very reflexive snap back in equity prices that is also supported by a positive rate of change on policy, earnings revisions breadth, financial conditions and a weaker U.S. dollar.The main push back to our views centers on our constructive earnings outlook for high single digit growth both this year and next and our view that valuations can remain elevated at 21.5x forward Earnings. On the earnings front, our calendar year earnings estimates already incorporate a  mid-single-digit percent hit to bottoms-up consensus forecasts. Second, our Leading Earnings Indicator  which projects Earnings Per Share growth 12 months out is suggesting a sideways consolidation in growth in the high single-digit range over the next year.Third, a weaker dollar, elements of the tax bill and AI-driven productivity should be incremental tailwinds for earnings that are not in our model. Fourth, we have  experienced rolling recessions for many sectors of the private economy for the last 3 years, which makes  growth comparisons easier. Finally, and most importantly, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth has inflected higher from a very low level after a year-long downturn. On valuation, our work shows that if earnings growth is above the long-term median of 7 percent and if the fed funds rate is down on a year-over-year basis, it's very rare to see multiple compression. In fact, Price Earnings multiples have expanded 90 percent of the time under these conditions to the tune of 9 percent over a 12- month period. Therefore, in some ways we’re being conservative with our forecast for the S&P 500's  price earnings ratio to remain flat at current levels over the next year.With respect to our favorite  valuation metric, the equity risk premium, it’s interesting to note that in the week following Liberation Day, the Equity Risk Premium reached the same level we witnessed in the aftermath of the 9-11 shock in 2001 and even exceeded the risk premium reached during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998. Both episodes resulted in 20 percent corrections to the S&P 500 much...]]>280alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1395fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-interest-rates-matter-again--75648693Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to revisit a theme that was topical in January and has become so again. How much of a problem are higher interest rates?It's Friday, May 30th at 2pm in London.If it wasn't so serious, it might be a little funny. This year, markets fell quickly as the U.S. imposed tariffs. And then markets rose quickly as many of those same tariffs were paused or reversed. So, what's next?Many tariffs are technically just paused and so are scheduled to resume; and overall tariff rates, even after recent reductions towards China, are still historically high. The economic data that would really reflect the impact of recent events, well, it simply hasn't been reported yet. In short, there is still significant uncertainty around the near-term path for U.S. growth. But for all of our tariff weary listeners, let's pretend for a moment that tariffs are now on the back burner. And if that's the case, interest rates are coming back into focus.First, lower tariffs could mean stronger growth and thus higher interest rates, all else equal. But also importantly, current budget proposals in the U.S. Congress significantly increase government borrowing, which could also raise interest rates. If current proposals were to become permanent. for example, they could add an additional [$]15 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years, over and above what was expected to happen per analysis from Yale University.Recall that prior to tariffs dominating the market conversation, it was this issue of interest rates and government borrowing that had the market's attention in January. And then, as today, it's this 30-year perspective that is under the most scrutiny. U.S. 30-year government bond yields briefly touched 5 percent on January 14th and returned there quite recently.This represents some of the highest yields for long-term U.S. borrowing seen in the last two decades. Those higher yields represent higher costs that must ultimately be borne by the U.S. government, but they also represent a yardstick against which all other investments are measured. If you can earn 5 percent per year long term in a safe U.S. government bond, how does that impact the return you require to invest in something riskier over that long run – from equities to an office building.I think some numbers here are also quite useful. Investing $10,000 today at 5 percent would leave you with about $43,000 in 30 years. And so that is the hurdle rate against which all long-term investments or now being measured.Of course, many other factors can impact the performance of those other assets. U.S. stocks, in fairness, have returned well over 5 percent over a long period of time. But one winner in our view will be intermediate and longer-term investment grade bonds. With high yields on these instruments, we think there will be healthy demand. At the same time, those same high yields representing higher costs for companies to borrow over the long term may mean we see less supply.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eVRIqNztV_Hk0yQNv0auSjGR-PCz2pf9fyfK0XaOxZoFri, 30 May 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the legal confusion over U.S. tariffs plus the pending U.S. budget bill equals a revived focus on interest rates for investors. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to revisit a theme that was topical in January and has become so again. How much of a problem are higher interest rates?It's Friday, May 30th at 2pm in London.If it wasn't so serious, it might be a little funny. This year, markets fell quickly as the U.S. imposed tariffs. And then markets rose quickly as many of those same tariffs were paused or reversed. So, what's next?Many tariffs are technically just paused and so are scheduled to resume; and overall tariff rates, even after recent reductions towards China, are still historically high. The economic data that would really reflect the impact of recent events, well, it simply hasn't been reported yet. In short, there is still significant uncertainty around the near-term path for U.S. growth. But for all of our tariff weary listeners, let's pretend for a moment that tariffs are now on the back burner. And if that's the case, interest rates are coming back into focus.First, lower tariffs could mean stronger growth and thus higher interest rates, all else equal. But also importantly, current budget proposals in the U.S. Congress significantly increase government borrowing, which could also raise interest rates. If current proposals were to become permanent. for example, they could add an additional [$]15 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years, over and above what was expected to happen per analysis from Yale University.Recall that prior to tariffs dominating the market conversation, it was this issue of interest rates and government borrowing that had the market's attention in January. And then, as today, it's this 30-year perspective that is under the most scrutiny. U.S. 30-year government bond yields briefly touched 5 percent on January 14th and returned there quite recently.This represents some of the highest yields for long-term U.S. borrowing seen in the last two decades. Those higher yields represent higher costs that must ultimately be borne by the U.S. government, but they also represent a yardstick against which all other investments are measured. If you can earn 5 percent per year long term in a safe U.S. government bond, how does that impact the return you require to invest in something riskier over that long run – from equities to an office building.I think some numbers here are also quite useful. Investing $10,000 today at 5 percent would leave you with about $43,000 in 30 years. And so that is the hurdle rate against which all long-term investments or now being measured.Of course, many other factors can impact the performance of those other assets. U.S. stocks, in fairness, have returned well over 5 percent over a long period of time. But one winner in our view will be intermediate and longer-term investment grade bonds. With high yields on these instruments, we think there will be healthy demand. At the same time, those same high yields representing higher costs for companies to borrow over the long term may mean we see less supply.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>232alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1394fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-now-with-tariffs--75648842Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.Today, the latest on President Trump's tariffs.It's Thursday, May 29th at 5pm  in New York.So, Mike, on Wednesday night, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's reciprocal tariffs. This ruling certainly seems like a fresh roadblock for the administration.Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. But a quick word of caution. That doesn't mean we're supposed to conclude that the recent tariff hikes are a thing of the past. I think investors need to be aware that there's many plausible paths to keeping these tariffs exactly where they are right now.Michael Zezas: First, while the administration is appealing this decision, the tariffs can stay in place. But even if courts ultimately rule against the Trump administration, there are other types of legal authorities that they can bring to bear to make sure that the tariff levels that are currently applied endure. So, what the court said the administration had done improperly was levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).And there's been active debate all along amongst legal scholars about if this was the right law to justify those tariff levies. And so, there's always the possibility of court challenges. But what the administration could do, if the courts continue to uphold the lower court's ruling, is basically leverage other legal authorities to continue these tariffs.They could use Section 122 as a temporary authority to levy the 10 percent tariffs that were part of this kind of global tariff, following the reciprocal trade announcement. They also could use the existing Section 301 authority that was used to create tariffs on China in 2018 and 2019, and extend that across of all China imports; and therefore, fill in the gap that would be lost by not being able to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to tariff some of China's imports.So bottom line, there's lots of different legal paths to keep tariffs where they are across the set of goods that they're already applied to.Michael Gapen: So, I think that makes a lot of sense. And with all that said, where do you think we stand right now with tariffs?Michael Zezas: So, if the court ruling were to stand then the 10 percent tariffs on all imports that the U.S. is currently levying, that would have to go away. The 30 percent tariffs on roughly half of China imports, that would've to go away. And the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico around fentanyl, that would have to go away as well.What you'd be left with effectively is anything levied under section 232 or 301. So that's basically steel, aluminum, automobile tariffs. And tariffs on the roughly half of China imports that were started in 2018 and 2019. But as we said earlier, there's lots of different ways that the authority can be brought to bear to make sure that that 10 percent import tariff globally is continued as well as the incremental tariffs on China.But Michael, turning to you on the U.S. economy, what’s your reaction to the court's ruling? It seems like we're just going to have a continuation of existing tariff policy, but is there something else that investors need to consider here?Michael Gapen: Well, I'm not a trade lawyer. I'm not entirely surprised by the ruling. It did seem to exceed what I'll call the general parameters of the law, and it wasn't what we – as a research group and a research team – were thinking was the most likely path for tariffs coming into the year, as you mentioned. And as we, as a group wrote, we thought that they would rely mainly on section 301 and 232 authority, which would mean tariffs would ramp up much more slowly. And that's what we had put into our original outlook coming into the year.We didn't have the effective tariff rate reaching 8 to 9 percent until around the middle of 2026. So, it reflected the fact that it would take effort and time for the administration to put its plans on tariffs in into place. So, I think this decision kind of shifts our views back in that direction. And by that I mean, we originally thought most of 2025 would be about getting the tariff structure in place. And therefore, the effects of tariffs would be hitting the economy mainly in 2026.We obviously revise things where tariffs would weigh on activity in 2025 and postpone Fed cuts into 2026. So, I think what it does for the moment is maybe tilts risks back in the other direction. But as you say, it's just a matter of time that there appears to be enough legal authority here for the administration to implement their desires on trade policy and tariff policy. So, I'm not sure this changes a lot in terms of where we think the economy's going. So, I'm not entirely surprised by the decision, but I'm not sure that the decision means a lot for how we think about the U.S. economy.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the upshot there is – really no change from your perspective on the outlook for growth, for inflation or for Fed policy. Is that fair?Michael Gapen: That's right. So, it's still a slow growth, sticky inflation, patient Fed. It's just we're kind of moving around when that materializes. We pulled it into 2025 given the abrupt increase in in tariffs and the use of the IEEPA authority. And now it probably would come later if the lower court ruling stands.Michael Zezas: Right. So, sticking with the Fed. Several Fed speakers took to the airwaves last week, and it sounds like the Fed is still waiting for some of these public policy changes to have an effect on the real economy before they react. Is that a fair way to characterize it? And what are you watching at this point in terms of what determines your expectations for the Fed's policy path from here?Michael Gapen: Yeah, that's right. And I think, given that the appeals court has allowed the tariffs to stay in place as they review the lower court, the trade court's ruling, I think the Fed right now would say: Okay, status quo, nothing has changed.So, what does that mean? And what the Fed speakers said last week, and it also appeared in the minutes, is that the Fed expects that tariffs will do two things with respect to the Fed's mandate. It'll push inflation higher and puts risks around unemployment higher, right? So, the Fed is offsides, or likely to be offsides on both sides of its mandate.So, what Fed speakers have been saying is, well, when this happens, we will react to whichever side of the mandate we're furthest from our target. And their forecasts seem to say and are pretty consistent with ours, that the Fed expects inflation to rise first, but the labor market to soften later. So, what that means for our expectations for the Fed's policy path is they're likely to be on hold as they evaluate that inflation shock.And we'll keep the policy rate where it is to ensure that inflation expectations are stable. And then as the economy moderates and the labor market softens, then they can turn to cuts. But we don't think that happens until 2026. So, I don't think the ruling yesterday and the appeal process initiated today changes that.For now, the tariffs are still in place. The Fed's message is it's going to take us at least until probably September, if not later, to figure out which way we should move. Moving later and right is preferable for them than moving earlier and wrong.Michael Zezas: Got it. So bottom line, from our perspective, this court case was a big deal. However, because the administration has a lot of options to keep tariffs going in the direction that they want, not too much has really changed with our expectations for the outlook for either the tariff path and it's not going to fix to the economy.Michael Gapen: That’s right. That's, I think what we know today. And we'll have to see how things evolve.Michael Zezas: Yep. They seem to be evolving every day. Mike, thanks for speaking with me.Michael Gapen: Thank you, Mike. It's been a pleasure. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iui9Js_5dWBbDFT5yuDhRiCGyX54tfXJeg1le3Rd8WkFri, 30 May 2025 00:14:08 +0000gtyAfter the federal court’s ruling against Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, and an appeals court’s temporary stay of that ruling, our analysts Michael Zezas and Michael Gapen discuss how the administration could retain the tariffs and what this means for the...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.Today, the latest on President Trump's tariffs.It's Thursday, May 29th at 5pm  in New York.So, Mike, on Wednesday night, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's reciprocal tariffs. This ruling certainly seems like a fresh roadblock for the administration.Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. But a quick word of caution. That doesn't mean we're supposed to conclude that the recent tariff hikes are a thing of the past. I think investors need to be aware that there's many plausible paths to keeping these tariffs exactly where they are right now.Michael Zezas: First, while the administration is appealing this decision, the tariffs can stay in place. But even if courts ultimately rule against the Trump administration, there are other types of legal authorities that they can bring to bear to make sure that the tariff levels that are currently applied endure. So, what the court said the administration had done improperly was levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).And there's been active debate all along amongst legal scholars about if this was the right law to justify those tariff levies. And so, there's always the possibility of court challenges. But what the administration could do, if the courts continue to uphold the lower court's ruling, is basically leverage other legal authorities to continue these tariffs.They could use Section 122 as a temporary authority to levy the 10 percent tariffs that were part of this kind of global tariff, following the reciprocal trade announcement. They also could use the existing Section 301 authority that was used to create tariffs on China in 2018 and 2019, and extend that across of all China imports; and therefore, fill in the gap that would be lost by not being able to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to tariff some of China's imports.So bottom line, there's lots of different legal paths to keep tariffs where they are across the set of goods that they're already applied to.Michael Gapen: So, I think that makes a lot of sense. And with all that said, where do you think we stand right now with tariffs?Michael Zezas: So, if the court ruling were to stand then the 10 percent tariffs on all imports that the U.S. is currently levying, that would have to go away. The 30 percent tariffs on roughly half of China imports, that would've to go away. And the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico around fentanyl, that would have to go away as well.What you'd be left with effectively is anything levied under section 232 or 301. So that's basically steel, aluminum, automobile tariffs. And tariffs on the roughly half of China imports that were started in 2018 and 2019. But as we said earlier, there's lots of different ways that the authority can be brought to bear to make sure that that 10 percent import tariff globally is continued as well as the incremental tariffs on China.But Michael, turning to you on the U.S. economy, what’s your reaction to the court's ruling? It seems like we're just going to have a continuation of existing tariff policy, but is there something else that investors need to consider here?Michael Gapen: Well, I'm not a trade lawyer. I'm not entirely surprised by the ruling. It did seem to exceed what I'll call the general parameters of...]]>562alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1393fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-decode-tariff-signals--75648696Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy. Today, takeaways from our Japan Investor Summit. It’s Wednesday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York. Last week, I attended our Japan Investor Summit in Tokyo: Two full days of panels on key investment themes and one-on-one meetings with clients from all parts of the Morgan Stanley franchise. During the meeting, Morgan Stanley Research launched its mid year economics and market strategy outlooks. So needless to say there was a healthy dialogue on investment strategy over those 48 hours. And I want to share what were the most frequent questions I received and, of course, our answers to those questions.  As you could guess, U.S. tariff policy was a key focus. Could tariffs re-escalate? Or was the worst behind us; and if so, could investors set aside their concerns about the U.S. economy? It’s a complicated issue so accordingly our answer is nuanced. On the one hand, the current state of play is mostly aligned where we thought tariff policy would be by end of year. It’s just arrived much earlier. Higher overall U.S. tariffs with a skew toward higher tariffs on China relative to the rest of world, as the U.S. has less common ground with them and thus greater challenges in reaching a trade agreement with China in a timely manner. So that might imply we’ve arrived at the end point. But we think that’s too simple of a way for investors to think about it. First there’s plenty of potential for escalation from current levels as part of ongoing negotiations. And even if it’s only temporary it could affect markets. Second, and perhaps more importantly, even though the U.S. cutting tariffs on China from very high levels recently brought down the effective tariff rate, it’s still considerably higher than where we started the year. So one’s market outlook will still have to account for the pressures of tariffs, which our economists translate into slower growth and higher recession risk this year.  Another key concern – U.S. fiscal policy, and whether the U.S. would be embarking on a path to smaller deficits, in line with campaign promises. Or if the tax and spending bill making its way through Congress would keep that from happening. For investors we think it’s most important to focus on the next year, because what happens beyond that is highly speculative. And we do not expect deficits to come down in the next year. Extending expiring tax cuts, and extending some new ones, albeit with some spending offsets, should modestly expand the deficit next year in our estimates; and some further deficit expansion should come from other factors baked into the budget, like higher interest payments.  It's understandable these two questions came up, because we do think the answers are key to the outlook for markets. In particular, they inform some of the stronger views in our markets’ outlook. For example, slower relative U.S. growth and the related potential for foreign investors to increasingly prefer their portfolios reflect their local currency should keep the U.S. dollar weakening – a key call our team started this year with and now continues. Another example, the shape of the U.S. Treasury yield curve. Higher deficits and the uncertainty about inflation caused by tariffs should make for a steeper yield curve. So while we expect U.S. Treasury yields to fall, making for good returns for high grade bonds including corporate credit, the better returns might be in shorter maturities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And if you like what you hear, tell a friend or a colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XtBj4E9QWgzTCXNs27FpRNMKn3rXPgkIZaIcGCqB5OYWed, 28 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy, Michael Zezas, shares the answers to clients’ top U.S. policy questions from Morgan Stanley’s Japan Investor Summit. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy. Today, takeaways from our Japan Investor Summit. It’s Wednesday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York. Last week, I attended our Japan Investor Summit in Tokyo: Two full days of panels on key investment themes and one-on-one meetings with clients from all parts of the Morgan Stanley franchise. During the meeting, Morgan Stanley Research launched its mid year economics and market strategy outlooks. So needless to say there was a healthy dialogue on investment strategy over those 48 hours. And I want to share what were the most frequent questions I received and, of course, our answers to those questions.  As you could guess, U.S. tariff policy was a key focus. Could tariffs re-escalate? Or was the worst behind us; and if so, could investors set aside their concerns about the U.S. economy? It’s a complicated issue so accordingly our answer is nuanced. On the one hand, the current state of play is mostly aligned where we thought tariff policy would be by end of year. It’s just arrived much earlier. Higher overall U.S. tariffs with a skew toward higher tariffs on China relative to the rest of world, as the U.S. has less common ground with them and thus greater challenges in reaching a trade agreement with China in a timely manner. So that might imply we’ve arrived at the end point. But we think that’s too simple of a way for investors to think about it. First there’s plenty of potential for escalation from current levels as part of ongoing negotiations. And even if it’s only temporary it could affect markets. Second, and perhaps more importantly, even though the U.S. cutting tariffs on China from very high levels recently brought down the effective tariff rate, it’s still considerably higher than where we started the year. So one’s market outlook will still have to account for the pressures of tariffs, which our economists translate into slower growth and higher recession risk this year.  Another key concern – U.S. fiscal policy, and whether the U.S. would be embarking on a path to smaller deficits, in line with campaign promises. Or if the tax and spending bill making its way through Congress would keep that from happening. For investors we think it’s most important to focus on the next year, because what happens beyond that is highly speculative. And we do not expect deficits to come down in the next year. Extending expiring tax cuts, and extending some new ones, albeit with some spending offsets, should modestly expand the deficit next year in our estimates; and some further deficit expansion should come from other factors baked into the budget, like higher interest payments.  It's understandable these two questions came up, because we do think the answers are key to the outlook for markets. In particular, they inform some of the stronger views in our markets’ outlook. For example, slower relative U.S. growth and the related potential for foreign investors to increasingly prefer their portfolios reflect their local currency should keep the U.S. dollar weakening – a key call our team started this year with and now continues. Another example, the shape of the U.S. Treasury yield curve. Higher deficits and the uncertainty about inflation caused by tariffs should make for a steeper yield curve. So while we expect U.S. Treasury yields to fall, making for good returns for high grade bonds including corporate credit, the better returns might be in shorter maturities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy...]]>230alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1392fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/luxury-sector-tightens-its-belt--75648718Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams.Eduoard Aubin: And I'm Eduoard Aubin, Head of the Luxury Goods team.Arunima Sinha: This episode was recorded last week when we were at the annual Morgan Stanley Luxury Conference in Paris. In it, we bring you an overview of what we heard from companies and investors about the hottest trends in the luxury industry.It's Tuesday, May 27th at 8am in Paris.For several years now, the luxury industry has been riding a post pandemic boom. And the top luxury brands experience 80 percent or greater sales growth between 2019 and [20]24. So Ed, is this trend going to continue or has it started to moderate and why?Eduoard Aubin: No, it has already started to moderate clearly last year. So, the growth rates of some of the leading luxury good brands, you know, over the past, four or five years, was clearly double digit CAGR growth.What we've seen in 2024 – is the market, luxury goods market worldwide has already started to contract. It was very moderate, about 2-3 percent. But it's very unusual because over the past 30 years, the market has contracted only once or twice. So, it started last year already. But we think it's going to, you know, accelerate; the decline could be even a bit more significant this year to low to mid single digit.And there are a number as to – of reasons as to why the market has luxury goods market has moderated. First of all, there's been post-COVID; post pandemic. There's been a wallet shift away from ownership of goods to more spend on experiences such as travel, restaurants, dining out, et cetera.The other thing is that you had a lot of, you know, closets, which were full post the pandemic. People were at home, disposable income was high and there were certainly a lot of, you know, purchase, which was done during the pandemic. And then, and we'll talk about it in a second, there is also this view that maybe luxury good companies have increased prices maybe a bit touch excessively during the pandemic; and potentially pricing out the middle income consumer.Arunima Sinha: This is an incredible conference and we've been talking to a lot of corporates and we've been talking to a lot of investors. What are some of the key debates that you've been hearing about?Eduoard Aubin: So I mean, front and center, it's what's going on in terms of the – from a macro standpoint – in terms of the key, two key markets for the luxury good sector, which are China and the U.S., to put things in perspective, and we look at it on a nationality standpoint here rather than a geographic standpoint.The reason is that there is a lot of cross-border shopping, which is done when it comes to luxury. The Chinese nationals account for about a third of total demand, total spend on the luxury goods market, 32-33 percent. So, they are the number one nationality today, clearly. The number two is the Americans, which account for, who account for about 21-22 percent of the spend.So, combined that's more than 50 percent of the spend and certainly more than supposedly 50 percent of the growth over the next three to five years. So clearly a lot of focus on these two nationalities. What's going on in terms of the wealth effect in China and in the U.S.? What's going on in terms of the health of the middle-income consumer in China and in the U.S.?The other debate related to that is what's going on in terms of international travel? What we've heard from companies during the conference is that there are certainly less Americans now coming to Europe, in this quarter, in the second quarter, and this had been a key driver of the spend over the past few months partially related to the currency.There is also; there are also less Chinese going to Japan, which was also a key – a factor of growth for the industry. Chinese spend about 30 percent of their total spend outside of China, and Japan was the number one market in terms of spend for them in recent years ahead of Europe.And what we've seen and what we heard from the companies attending the conference is that these two nationalities are spending less abroad, which is why we think, the second quarter sales could be a bit under pressure more than in the first quarter.The other debate is about, you know, the middle-income consumers we talked about. Luxury brands have raised prices quite a bit. For some of them they doubled the sales price of the items during the pandemic. And again, there is a debate about the fact that they might have been pricing out the middle-income consumer. And obviously that has come at the time where the discretionary spend of the middle-income consumer, you know, the aspirational customer, has been under pressure.So, it's kind of a double whammy in terms of the propensity of this cohort to spend on luxury goods and for the sector to grow in the medium- to long-term, it cannot just rely on millionaires and billionaires. It has to increase; to recruit, from the middle class. That has been the one of the gross engines of this industry over the past 10, 20, 30 years.And so that's certainly one of the key debate is – when will the products become affordable again? The challenge for the luxury goods company is that you can; there is a cardinal rule in luxury. You can never lower your prices. So, what you can do is you can play a bit with the mix, or you can wait for the discretionary spend to increase and make your product more affordable.But obviously that takes some time. So, these are some of the key debates, you know, that have been discussed at the conference.So Arunima, let's shift our focus from macro to micro concerns. So, we've been talking a lot about the economic outlook, uncertainty around tariffs and currency markets on this podcast. Will these factors hurt luxury consumption?Arunima Sinha: So, this is great timing Ed, because we just published our economics outlooks the global, the U.S., and for other regions. And our basic view is that tariffs, both the levels, the uncertainty around them are going to weigh on growth around the world. They're going to weigh on U.S. consumers quite specifically because here now you have a couple of different ways that tariffs will matter.One, for the general consumer, it's going to be higher prices; so you drive up prices, you're going to drive down real spending. And so, we do have our real spending moderating across the forecast horizon. We go down almost a full two percentage points by the end of [20]25 relative to where we were in 2024. With respect to how we think about consumers spending on discretionary items, we think of labor income being an important factor. We think of wealth; supportive wealth effects and that you already mentioned. And then we also think about just how consumers are feeling uncertain about their prospects for the economy and so on.So, with respect to luxury consumption, we think that it is the last two factors, the supportive wealth effects and how uncertainty was playing out, that's going to matter. So, between 2020 and [20]24, the United States saw some of the largest increases in net worth for U.S. households. So, U.S. households saw $51 trillion in additional net worth being created over this period; that was more than what they saw over the prior decade.And from this 51 trillion pool, about 70 percent went to the top 20 percent of the income cohort, so that's $35 trillion. So, these guys were feeling very positively supported by wealth. And the other factor in this is that it was really tied to financial wealth because that's where we saw some of the largest increases as well.And so, how do we think it's going to weigh on luxury consumers? To the extent that we may not see these very large increases in wealth going forward, given where equity markets, the ride that they've seen over this past year, so far. If we don't have these very large increases in financial wealth, we may not have very large increases in planned consumption for this particular cohort.And so that's driving some of our forecast about the moderation and overall consumption, but it will also translate into just growth for luxury consumption. And the other aspect, of course is uncertainty. So, we do think that there's going to be some resolution of tariff uncertainty this year, but there are other factors in the U.S. that are weighing on policy uncertainty. So where is the fiscal bill going to go? How is immigration going to solve out? So, all of these factors are weighing on the consumer, and they may also be weighing very well on luxury consumption.Great talking with you Ed, we could all find little ways of incorporating luxury in our lives and this conference has really just been an incredible experience. So, thank you and thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.Eduoard Aubin: Great speaking with you, ArunimaArunima Sinha: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review when you'll listen and share with the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/h9p5rliB-Nxq8nHw4tqMi0fdWBkVr30n9xtKBu8MDy4Tue, 27 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyLive from the Morgan Stanley Luxury Conference in Paris, our analysts Arunima Sinha and Eduoard Aubin discuss the economic and consumer trends shaping demand for luxury goods. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams.Eduoard Aubin: And I'm Eduoard Aubin, Head of the Luxury Goods team.Arunima Sinha: This episode was recorded last week when we were at the annual Morgan Stanley Luxury Conference in Paris. In it, we bring you an overview of what we heard from companies and investors about the hottest trends in the luxury industry.It's Tuesday, May 27th at 8am in Paris.For several years now, the luxury industry has been riding a post pandemic boom. And the top luxury brands experience 80 percent or greater sales growth between 2019 and [20]24. So Ed, is this trend going to continue or has it started to moderate and why?Eduoard Aubin: No, it has already started to moderate clearly last year. So, the growth rates of some of the leading luxury good brands, you know, over the past, four or five years, was clearly double digit CAGR growth.What we've seen in 2024 – is the market, luxury goods market worldwide has already started to contract. It was very moderate, about 2-3 percent. But it's very unusual because over the past 30 years, the market has contracted only once or twice. So, it started last year already. But we think it's going to, you know, accelerate; the decline could be even a bit more significant this year to low to mid single digit.And there are a number as to – of reasons as to why the market has luxury goods market has moderated. First of all, there's been post-COVID; post pandemic. There's been a wallet shift away from ownership of goods to more spend on experiences such as travel, restaurants, dining out, et cetera.The other thing is that you had a lot of, you know, closets, which were full post the pandemic. People were at home, disposable income was high and there were certainly a lot of, you know, purchase, which was done during the pandemic. And then, and we'll talk about it in a second, there is also this view that maybe luxury good companies have increased prices maybe a bit touch excessively during the pandemic; and potentially pricing out the middle income consumer.Arunima Sinha: This is an incredible conference and we've been talking to a lot of corporates and we've been talking to a lot of investors. What are some of the key debates that you've been hearing about?Eduoard Aubin: So I mean, front and center, it's what's going on in terms of the – from a macro standpoint – in terms of the key, two key markets for the luxury good sector, which are China and the U.S., to put things in perspective, and we look at it on a nationality standpoint here rather than a geographic standpoint.The reason is that there is a lot of cross-border shopping, which is done when it comes to luxury. The Chinese nationals account for about a third of total demand, total spend on the luxury goods market, 32-33 percent. So, they are the number one nationality today, clearly. The number two is the Americans, which account for, who account for about 21-22 percent of the spend.So, combined that's more than 50 percent of the spend and certainly more than supposedly 50 percent of the growth over the next three to five years. So clearly a lot of focus on these two nationalities. What's going on in terms of the wealth effect in China and in the U.S.? What's going on in terms of the health of the middle-income consumer in China and in the U.S.?The other debate related to that is what's going on in terms of international travel? What we've heard from companies during the conference is that there are certainly less Americans now coming to Europe, in this quarter, in...]]>578alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1391fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-u-s-outlook-equity-markets-a-step-ahead--75648151Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I will discuss recent developments on tariffs and interest rates, and how it affects our 12 month view for U.S. Equities.It's Friday, May 23rd at 9am in New York.So, let’s get after it.The reduction in the headline tariff rate on China from 145 percent to 30 percent extended the rally in stocks last week and should help to support both corporate and consumer confidence. More importantly, the 90-day détente came at a critical juncture, in my view, as a few more weeks of what was essentially a trade embargo would have likely led to a recession.Equity market volatility also subsided considerably amid the decline in trade policy uncertainty. In fact, both measures peaked well before the deal with China came together and are now back below where they were pre-Liberation Day. To me, this means trade headwinds have likely peaked in rate of change terms and are unlikely to return to such levels again. This would fit with the capitulatory price action we saw in early April with the average stock in the S&P 500 experiencing a 30 percent drawdown. In short, while the lagging hard data is likely to come in softer over the next coming months, the equity market already priced it in April. In the event of a recession that still arrives, we think the April lows will still hold, assuming it's a mild one with manageable risk to credit and funding markets.As further support for stocks, earnings revisions breadth appears to have bottomed. This indicator has leading properties in terms of the direction of earnings forecasts and is an important gauge of corporate confidence, in our view. The combination of upside momentum in revision breadth and last week's deal with China has placed the S&P 500 firmly back in our original pre-Liberation Day first half range of 5500-6100. Having said that, we think continued upward progress in earnings revisions breadth into positive territory will be necessary to break through 6100 in the near term, given the stickiness of 10-year Treasury yields.Amidst these developments, we released our mid -year outlook earlier this week and updated our base, bear and bull case targets for the S&P 500. In short, we effectively pushed out the timing of our original 6500 price target for the end of this year to 12 months from today. This is mainly due to a less dovish Fed and therefore higher 10-year Treasury yields than our economists and rates strategists expected at the end of last year. We also trimmed our EPS forecasts modestly to adjust for higher than expected tariff rates, at least for now.Looking ahead, we are more bullish today than we were at the end of last year given the growth negative policy announcements are now behind us and the Fed’s next move is likely to be multiple cuts. In short, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth, interest rates and policy changes from the administration are all now pointing in a positive direction, the opposite of six months ago and why I was not bullish on the first half of this year.The near-term risk for U.S. equities remains very overbought conditions and interest rates. With the Fed on hold due to lingering inflation concerns and Moody’s downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt last Friday, 10-year Treasury yields are back above 4.5 percent; the level where the correlation between equities and rates tends to move back into negative territory. Ultimately, we think the Treasury and Fed have tools they can and will use to manage this risk. However, in the short term, this is a potential catalyst for the S&P 500 to take a break and even lead to a 5 percent correction. We would look to add equity risk into such a correction should it materialize given our bullish 6-12-month view.Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8jkjd2cfcKKUE4zrpAMZj8jn3kICw9tidWOVwxTFoykFri, 23 May 2025 16:00:00 +0000gtyGlobal trade tensions have eased after a steadying in U.S. policy shifts, leading our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson to make a more bullish case for the second half of 2025. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I will discuss recent developments on tariffs and interest rates, and how it affects our 12 month view for U.S. Equities.It's Friday, May 23rd at 9am in New York.So, let’s get after it.The reduction in the headline tariff rate on China from 145 percent to 30 percent extended the rally in stocks last week and should help to support both corporate and consumer confidence. More importantly, the 90-day détente came at a critical juncture, in my view, as a few more weeks of what was essentially a trade embargo would have likely led to a recession.Equity market volatility also subsided considerably amid the decline in trade policy uncertainty. In fact, both measures peaked well before the deal with China came together and are now back below where they were pre-Liberation Day. To me, this means trade headwinds have likely peaked in rate of change terms and are unlikely to return to such levels again. This would fit with the capitulatory price action we saw in early April with the average stock in the S&P 500 experiencing a 30 percent drawdown. In short, while the lagging hard data is likely to come in softer over the next coming months, the equity market already priced it in April. In the event of a recession that still arrives, we think the April lows will still hold, assuming it's a mild one with manageable risk to credit and funding markets.As further support for stocks, earnings revisions breadth appears to have bottomed. This indicator has leading properties in terms of the direction of earnings forecasts and is an important gauge of corporate confidence, in our view. The combination of upside momentum in revision breadth and last week's deal with China has placed the S&P 500 firmly back in our original pre-Liberation Day first half range of 5500-6100. Having said that, we think continued upward progress in earnings revisions breadth into positive territory will be necessary to break through 6100 in the near term, given the stickiness of 10-year Treasury yields.Amidst these developments, we released our mid -year outlook earlier this week and updated our base, bear and bull case targets for the S&P 500. In short, we effectively pushed out the timing of our original 6500 price target for the end of this year to 12 months from today. This is mainly due to a less dovish Fed and therefore higher 10-year Treasury yields than our economists and rates strategists expected at the end of last year. We also trimmed our EPS forecasts modestly to adjust for higher than expected tariff rates, at least for now.Looking ahead, we are more bullish today than we were at the end of last year given the growth negative policy announcements are now behind us and the Fed’s next move is likely to be multiple cuts. In short, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth, interest rates and policy changes from the administration are all now pointing in a positive direction, the opposite of six months ago and why I was not bullish on the first half of this year.The near-term risk for U.S. equities remains very overbought conditions and interest rates. With the Fed on hold due to lingering inflation concerns and Moody’s downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt last Friday, 10-year Treasury yields are back above 4.5 percent; the level where the correlation between equities and rates tends to move back into negative territory. Ultimately, we think the Treasury and Fed have tools they can and will use to manage this risk. However, in the...]]>262alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1390fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-global-outlook-pt-2-why-the-u-s-still-leads-global-markets--75648275Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth: Today, we're going to pick up the conversation where we left it off, talking about our mid-year outlook; but this time I get to ask Serena the questions.It's Thursday, May 22nd at 10am in New York.Serena, we're back for part two of this podcast. Let's jump in where we left off. We've seen a lot of policy surprise in the last six months. We've had a big sell off in the beginning of April, in part inspired by all of this uncertainty.What are you telling clients? What do you think investors should be doing? How should they be positioning their portfolios in the current circumstances?Serena: So, we are recommending going overweight in U.S. equities and going overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries and like investment grade corporate credit. And we have a very strong preference for U.S. over rest of the world assets, except the dollar. Now I think for us, the main message is that you have global growth slowing, which is what you talked about yesterday.But you know, risky assets can look past the low growth and do well, while treasuries can look forward to the many Fed cuts you guys are expecting in 2026 and rally. But if I look at valuations that does suggest equities and credit have completely, almost priced out, growth slowdown odds. Meaning that I think there is still some downside and we'd recommend quality across the board.Seth: In your judgment then, looking around the world at all the different asset classes, how well, or perhaps how poorly, are those asset classes priced for the sort of macro views that we were just discussing?Serena: So I think the market that’s probably least priced for the slowing economy that you and your team have been forecasting is really in the government bond space. I think the prospect of a lot more Fed cuts than what is currently priced into the market will lower government bond yields, particularly starting in 2026.As you know, our rates team has a target of 3.45 percent for U.S. Treasury 10-year yields, and 2.6 percent for U.S. Treasury two-year yields. Meaning that we also get a steeper curve by this time next year. And this translates to more than 10 percent of total returns for U.S. Treasuries – very attractive; in large part because the markets aren't priced for the Fed scenario that you and your team are forecasting.Seth: Let me, then push a little bit on one of the things that I've been talking to clients about, or at least been asked about, which is the dollar. The role of the dollar? U.S. exceptionalism? Is it real?Serena: Yeah that's a great question because I think this is where we are the most out of consensus. If you've noticed, all of our views right now really line up as us being pretty constructive on U.S. dollar assets. Like at a time when everyone's still really debating the end of U.S. exceptionalism. And we really push back against the idea that foreign investors would or should abandon U.S. assets significantly.There are very few alternatives to U.S. dollar assets right now. I mean, like if you look at investible stock market cap, U.S. is nearly five times the size of the next biggest market, which is Europe. And in the fixed income side of things, more than half of liquid high grade fixed income paper is in U.S. dollars.Now, even if there were significant outflows from U.S. dollar assets, there are very few places that money can find a haven, safe or otherwise. This is not to say there won't ever be any other alternatives to U.S. dollar assets in the future. But that shift in market size takes time, which means that TINA -- there is no alternative -- remains a theme for now.Seth: That view on the dollar weakening from here, it's baked into my team's economic forecast. It's baked into the strategy team's forecast across research. So then let me take it one step forward. What does all this mean about portfolio preferences, your recommendation for clients when when they're investing in assets that are not U.S. dollar denominated.Serena: You are right. I mean, if there's one U.S. asset that we just like, it's the U.S. dollar. So, you know, over the next 12 months we expect key factors, which drove the dollar strength. You know, positive growth, yield differentials relative to other G10 economies. Those factors will fade substantially. And we also think because of the political uncertainty in the U.S. currency hedging ratios on exposure to U.S. assets may increase, which could further pressure the U.S. dollar. So, our FX team sees euro/dollar at 1.25 and dollar/yen at 1.30 by the second quarter of 2026.Which means that we're really recommending non-U.S. dollar investors to buy U.S. stocks and fixed income on an FX hedge basis.Seth: If we look forward but focus just on the next, call it three to six months; what asset classes, or if you want, what regions around the world are best positioned, and what would you say to investors?Serena: So, you're right. I think there is a big difference between what we like over the next three to six months versus what we like over the next 12 months. Because if I look at U.S. equities and U.S. government bonds, both of which we're overweight on most of the gains, probably won't happen until the first half of next year because you have to have U.S. equities really feeling the tailwind of dollar weakness. And you need to have U.S. government bond investors to grow more confident that we will get all of those Fed cuts next year.What we do like over the next three to six months and feel pretty highly convicted on is really U.S. investment grade corporate credit, which we think can, you know, do well in the second half of this year and do well in the first half of next year.Seth: But then let's take a step back [be]cause I think investors around the world are wrestling with a lot of the same issues. They're talking to, you know, strategists like us at lots of different places. What would you say are our most out of consensus views right now?Serena: I think we're pretty out of consensus on our preference for U.S. and U.S. dollar assets. As I mentioned, there was still a huge debate on the end of U.S. exceptionalism. Now the other place where I think it's notable is we're much more bullish on U.S. treasuries than what's being priced into markets and where consensus is. And I think that's really been driven by your economics team being much more convicted on many Fed cuts in 2026.And the last thing I would point out here is, again, we're more bearish than consensus on the dollar. If I look at euro/dollar, if I look at dollar/yen, the kind of appreciation we're forecasting for at around through 10 percent, is higher than I think what most investors are expecting at the moment.Now back to Seth. Given all of the uncertainty around U.S. fiscal, trade, and industrial policy, what indicators are you watching to assess whether global growth is becoming more fragile or more resilient?Seth: Yeah, it's a great question. It's always difficult to monitor in real time how things are going, especially with these sorts of shocks. We are looking at a bunch of the shipping data to see how trade flows are going. There was clearly some front-running into the United States of imports to try to get ahead of tariffs. There's got to be some payback for that. I think the question becomes where do we settle in when it comes to trade?I'm going to be looking in the U.S. at the labor market to see signs of reduced demand for labor. But also try to pay attention to what's going on with the supply of labor from immigration restriction. And then there are all the normal indicators about spending, especially consumer spending. Consumer spending tends to drive a lot of the big developed market economies around the world and how well that holds up or doesn't. That's going to be key to the overall outlook.Serena: Thank you so much, Seth. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Seth: Serena, I could talk to you all day.Serena: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xQouW8P7TAprO4VHet2agiCuyvdrMrz-1W4Qf--VBAAThu, 22 May 2025 20:05:11 +0000gtyOur analysts Serena Tang and Seth Carpenter discuss Morgan Stanley’s out-of-consensus view on U.S. exceptionalism, and how investors should position their portfolios given the current market uncertainty. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Seth: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth: Today, we're going to pick up the conversation where we left it off, talking about our mid-year outlook; but this time I get to ask Serena the questions.It's Thursday, May 22nd at 10am in New York.Serena, we're back for part two of this podcast. Let's jump in where we left off. We've seen a lot of policy surprise in the last six months. We've had a big sell off in the beginning of April, in part inspired by all of this uncertainty.What are you telling clients? What do you think investors should be doing? How should they be positioning their portfolios in the current circumstances?Serena: So, we are recommending going overweight in U.S. equities and going overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries and like investment grade corporate credit. And we have a very strong preference for U.S. over rest of the world assets, except the dollar. Now I think for us, the main message is that you have global growth slowing, which is what you talked about yesterday.But you know, risky assets can look past the low growth and do well, while treasuries can look forward to the many Fed cuts you guys are expecting in 2026 and rally. But if I look at valuations that does suggest equities and credit have completely, almost priced out, growth slowdown odds. Meaning that I think there is still some downside and we'd recommend quality across the board.Seth: In your judgment then, looking around the world at all the different asset classes, how well, or perhaps how poorly, are those asset classes priced for the sort of macro views that we were just discussing?Serena: So I think the market that’s probably least priced for the slowing economy that you and your team have been forecasting is really in the government bond space. I think the prospect of a lot more Fed cuts than what is currently priced into the market will lower government bond yields, particularly starting in 2026.As you know, our rates team has a target of 3.45 percent for U.S. Treasury 10-year yields, and 2.6 percent for U.S. Treasury two-year yields. Meaning that we also get a steeper curve by this time next year. And this translates to more than 10 percent of total returns for U.S. Treasuries – very attractive; in large part because the markets aren't priced for the Fed scenario that you and your team are forecasting.Seth: Let me, then push a little bit on one of the things that I've been talking to clients about, or at least been asked about, which is the dollar. The role of the dollar? U.S. exceptionalism? Is it real?Serena: Yeah that's a great question because I think this is where we are the most out of consensus. If you've noticed, all of our views right now really line up as us being pretty constructive on U.S. dollar assets. Like at a time when everyone's still really debating the end of U.S. exceptionalism. And we really push back against the idea that foreign investors would or should abandon U.S. assets significantly.There are very few alternatives to U.S. dollar assets right now. I mean, like if you look at investible stock market cap, U.S. is nearly five times the size of the next biggest market, which is Europe. And in the fixed income side of things, more than half of liquid high grade fixed income paper is in U.S. dollars.Now, even if there were significant outflows from U.S. dollar assets, there are very few places that money can find a haven, safe or otherwise. This is not...]]>528alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1389fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-global-outlook-pt-1-skewing-to-the-downside--75648646Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena: Today we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's midyear outlook for the global economy and markets.It's Wednesday, May 21st at 10am in New York.Seth, you published a year ahead outlook last November. Since President Trump took office back in January, there's been pretty significant policy and economic uncertainty and quite a few surprises. With this in mind, what is your current outlook for the global economy for the second half of this year and into 2026.Seth: So, we titled the outlook Skewed to the Downside because we really do think the U.S. economy, the global economy, is set to slow meaningfully from where we were coming into this year. Let's start with the U.S.As you said, policy changes came in a lot this year since the new administration took over. I would say the two key ones from a macro perspective so far have been trade policy and immigration policy.Tariffs have gone up, tariffs have gone down, tariffs have been suspended. Right now, what we think is going to ultimately take place is that we will see persistent, notable tariffs on China, lower tariffs on the rest of the world, and then we'll have to see how things evolve. What does that mean? Well, it means for the U.S. higher inflation and lower growth. In addition, immigration reform means that growth is going to slow because the growth rate of the labor force is going to slow.Now around the rest of the world, the tariff shock matters as well. When the U.S. puts in tariffs on its imports from other countries, that's negative demand for those other countries. So, we're looking for pretty weak growth in the euro area. Now, I will note, lots of people were excited about possible expansionary fiscal policy in Germany, and we think that's still there. We just don't think it's enough to give the euro area robust growth.In Asia, China's a main driver of the economy. China is a big recipient of these tariffs. We think the deflation cycle that we expected in China keeps going on. This reduction in demand from the U.S. is not going to help, but there'll probably be a little bit at the margin offsetting fiscal policy.So, what does that mean put together? Lackluster growth in China. Call it 4 percent slow growth for yet another year. Overall, the global economy should step down. Will it be a recession? That's one of the key questions that we hear from clients, but we don't think so. Not quite. Just a meaningful step downSerena: Interesting. Any particular regions that seem to be bright spots or surprises -- or perhaps have seen the biggest shift in your outlook?Seth: I guess I'd flag two potential bright spots around the world. The first is India. India has been, for us, a favorite. It will have the highest growth rate of any economy that we have in our coverage area. And because it's such a big economy, that's part of why the global economy can't lose that much steam. India has lots going for it. There are cyclical factors boosting growth in the near term. But there are also longer-term structural policy driven reasons to think that Indian growth will stay solid for the foreseeable future.I guess I'd also throw in Japan. Now its growth rate isn't going to be anywhere near the kind of growth in number terms that we're going to see from India. But this has to be taken in the context of 25 years of essentially zero growth of nominal GDP. The reflationary cycle that we think started a couple years ago remains intact, even with the tariff shock. And so, we're pretty optimistic still that Japanese reflation will continue.Serena: And to what extent are U.S. tariffs contributing to global inflationary pressures? I mean, how do you expect the Fed and other central banks to respond?Seth: The tariffs are imposed by the United States on most of the imports coming into the country, whereas other countries, maybe they have some retaliatory tariffs just against the U.S., but definitely not as broad as the U.S. That means for the U.S. tariffs are going to drive up inflation domestically and drive down growth, whereas for the rest of the world, it's mostly just a negative demand shock. So, they will be disinflationary for the rest of the world and pushing down growth.What does that mean for central banks? Well, outside of the U.S., central banks are going to see this as slowing aggregate demand, and so it's pretty clear what it is that they want to do. If they were hiking, they can stop hiking. If they were going to hold steady, they can lower rates a little bit. And if they were already lowering interest rates like the European Central Bank, well they can probably keep going with that without having to worry. And that's why we think the ECB is going to lower its policy rate to probably 1.5 percent and maybe even lower, which is below where the market is expecting things.Now for the Fed, things are much more tricky. The Fed cares about inflation, the Fed cares about U.S. growth, and both of those variables are going in the opposite direction of what they want over the rest of this forecast. Right now, inflation's too high for the Fed, and history shows that inflation goes up first with tariffs before the growth rate hits. So, the Fed's probably going to wait until the hard data show a bigger slowdown in the economy, a worsening. And the labor market. That is a bigger concern for them than the already too high inflation that is set to rise further over the rest of the year.Serena: And in your view, how does trade policy uncertainty influence business investment, particularly in export-oriented industries or in economies tightly linked to U.S. demand?Seth: Yeah. I think it has to be negative and therein lies one of the biggest challenges is just how negative. And I can't say for sure. But what we do know is that an uncertainty tends to be very negative for business investment spending decisions. If you're trying to make a decision, should I build a new factory?This is something that's going to have a long life to it, and you're going to get benefits hopefully for several years. How big are those benefits relative to the cost? Well, right now it's not at all clear, and so there's an option value to waiting.And we think that uncertainty is depressing investment decisions right now. I think it has to affect export-oriented industries. There's a lot of questions about what sort of retaliatory tariffs, other countries might impose.But it also affects domestic driven businesses because, well, they're going to have to see what their demand is. And some of the ones that are just focused on the U.S. economy are selling imported goods. So, it affects businesses across the board. Serena: Right. And how do U.S. tariff hikes spill over into emerging markets, and how might these countries buffer against these shocks?Seth: Yeah, I think there's a range of outcomes and the range is as wide as there are different countries. If you stay close to home. Take Mexico. Mexico is a big trading partner with the U.S. and early on in this whole tariff discussion, they were actually the targets of lots of tariff threats. That could have hurt them directly because there'd be less demand for their exports to the United States.Now we've got some resolution. We have the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, and most of Mexico's exports to the U.S. are exempt under those conditions. However, the indirect effect is important as well. Mexico is very attached to the U.S. economy, and so as the U.S. economy slows because of these tariffs, the Mexican economy will slow as well.But there's also an indirect effect through currency markets, and I think this is a channel that's more broadly applicable across EM. If the Fed is going to be on hold, like we think holding interest rates higher for longer than the market might currently think, that means that EM central banks who might want to lower their policy rate to support their economy are going to be caught in a bit of a bind.They can't afford to take the risks that their currency will misbehave if they ease too much too far ahead of the Fed. And so, I think there is a little bit of a constraint for EM central banks, thinking about how much can I attend to domestic matters and how much do I have to pay attention to external matters?Serena: Now, I know forecasting economic growth is difficult in even the best of times, and this has been a period of exceptional volatility. How are you and your economic colleagues factoring all of this uncertainty?Seth: It's a great question and luminary minds like Neils Bohr, the Nobel Laureate in physics, and Yogi Berra, everyone's favorite prophet, have both said, ‘Forecasting is hard, especially about the future.’ And this time, as you note, is even more so. So, what can we do? We try to come up with as many different scenarios as we can. We ask ourselves not just what's the most likely outcome, because there's uncertainty. The policy changes could come fast and furious. We also try to ask ourselves, if tariffs were to go back up from where they are now, how would that outcome turn out. If tariffs were to go away entirely, how would that turn out?You have to start thinking more and more, I think, in terms of scenarios.Serena:  And does this, in your view, change how much or how little investors should focus on the macro economy?Seth: Well, I think it means that investors have to focus every bit as much on the macro economy as they have in the past. I think it's undeniable that if we're right – and the U.S. econom]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jt0_xzWXRx74DctooZEu-36otbpO1cPepJVVy94ayoEWed, 21 May 2025 21:02:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Seth Carpenter and Serena Tang discuss why they believe the global economy is set to slow meaningfully in the second half of 2025. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. -----...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena: Today we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's midyear outlook for the global economy and markets.It's Wednesday, May 21st at 10am in New York.Seth, you published a year ahead outlook last November. Since President Trump took office back in January, there's been pretty significant policy and economic uncertainty and quite a few surprises. With this in mind, what is your current outlook for the global economy for the second half of this year and into 2026.Seth: So, we titled the outlook Skewed to the Downside because we really do think the U.S. economy, the global economy, is set to slow meaningfully from where we were coming into this year. Let's start with the U.S.As you said, policy changes came in a lot this year since the new administration took over. I would say the two key ones from a macro perspective so far have been trade policy and immigration policy.Tariffs have gone up, tariffs have gone down, tariffs have been suspended. Right now, what we think is going to ultimately take place is that we will see persistent, notable tariffs on China, lower tariffs on the rest of the world, and then we'll have to see how things evolve. What does that mean? Well, it means for the U.S. higher inflation and lower growth. In addition, immigration reform means that growth is going to slow because the growth rate of the labor force is going to slow.Now around the rest of the world, the tariff shock matters as well. When the U.S. puts in tariffs on its imports from other countries, that's negative demand for those other countries. So, we're looking for pretty weak growth in the euro area. Now, I will note, lots of people were excited about possible expansionary fiscal policy in Germany, and we think that's still there. We just don't think it's enough to give the euro area robust growth.In Asia, China's a main driver of the economy. China is a big recipient of these tariffs. We think the deflation cycle that we expected in China keeps going on. This reduction in demand from the U.S. is not going to help, but there'll probably be a little bit at the margin offsetting fiscal policy.So, what does that mean put together? Lackluster growth in China. Call it 4 percent slow growth for yet another year. Overall, the global economy should step down. Will it be a recession? That's one of the key questions that we hear from clients, but we don't think so. Not quite. Just a meaningful step downSerena: Interesting. Any particular regions that seem to be bright spots or surprises -- or perhaps have seen the biggest shift in your outlook?Seth: I guess I'd flag two potential bright spots around the world. The first is India. India has been, for us, a favorite. It will have the highest growth rate of any economy that we have in our coverage area. And because it's such a big economy, that's part of why the global economy can't lose that much steam. India has lots going for it. There are cyclical factors boosting growth in the near term. But there are also longer-term structural policy driven reasons to think that Indian growth will stay solid for the foreseeable future.I guess I'd also throw in Japan. Now its growth rate isn't going to be anywhere near the kind of growth in number terms that we're going to see from India. But this has to be taken in the context of 25 years of essentially zero growth of nominal GDP. The reflationary cycle that we think started a couple years ago remains intact, even with the tariff shock. And so, we're...]]>610alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1388fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/japan-summit-consumer-resilience-and-trade-uncertainty--75648263Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Lee-san: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chiwoong Lee, Principal Global Economist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Nakazawa-san: And I’m Sho Nakazawa, Japan Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Lee-san: Today we’re coming to you live from the Morgan Stanley Japan Summit in Tokyo. And we’ll be sharing our views on Japan in the context of global economic growth. We will also focus on Japan’s position vis-à-vis its two largest trading partners, the U.S. and China.It’s Tuesday, May 20, at 3pm in Tokyo.Lee-san: Nakazawa-san, you and I both have been talking with a large number of clients here at the summit. Based on your conversations, what issues are most top of mind right now?Nakazawa-san: There are many inquiries about how to position because of the uncertainty of U.S. trade policy and the investment strategy for governance reform. These are both catalysts for Japan. And in Japan, there are multiple governance investment angles, with increasing interest in the removal of parent-child listings, which is when a parent company and a subsidiary company are both listed on an exchange. This reform [would] remove the subsidiaries. So, clients are very focused on who will be the next candidate for the removal of a parent-child listing.And what are you hearing from clients on your side, Lee-san?Lee-san: I would say the most frequent questions we received were regarding the Trump administration's policies, of course. While the reciprocal tariffs have been somewhat relaxed compared to the initial announcements, they still remain very high; and there was a strong focus on their negative impact on the U.S. economy and the global economy, including Japan. Of course, external demand is critical for Japanese economy, but when we pointed out the resilience of domestic demand, many investors seemed to agree with that view.Nakazawa-san: How do investors’ views square with your outlook for the global economy over the rest of the year?Lee-san: Well, there was broad consensus that tariffs and policy uncertainty are negatively affecting trade and investment activities across countries. In particular, there is concern about the impact on investment. As Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke wrote in his papers in [the] 1980s, uncertainty tends to delay investment decisions. However, I got the impression that views varied on just how sensitive investment behavior is to this uncertainty.Nakazawa-san: How significant are U.S. tariffs on global economy including Japan both near-term and longer-term?Lee-san: The negative effects on the global economy through trade and investment are certainly important, but the most critical issue is the impact on the U.S. economy. Tariffs essentially act as a tax burden on U.S. consumers and businesses.For example, in 2018, there was some impact on prices, but the more significant effect was on business production and employment. Now, with even higher tariff rates, the impact on inflation and economic activity is expected to be even greater. Given the inflationary pressures from tariffs, we believe the Fed will find it difficult to cut rates in 2025. On the other hand, once it becomes feasible, likely in 2026, we anticipate the Fed will need to implement substantial rate cuts.Lee-san: So, Nakazawa-san, how has the Japanese stock market reacted to U.S. tariffs?Nakazawa-san: Investors positioning have skewed sharply to domestic-oriented non-manufacturing sectors since the U.S. government’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs on April 2nd. Tariff talks with some nations have achieved some progress at this stage, spurring buybacks of export-oriented manufacturer shares. However, the screening by our analysts of the cumulative surplus returns against Japan’s TOPIX index for around 500 stocks in their coverage universe, divided into stocks relatively vulnerable to tariff effects and those less impacted, finds a continued poor performance at the former. We believe it is important to enhance the portfolio’s robustness by revising sector skews in accordance with any progress in the trade talks and adjusting long/short positioning with the sectors in line with the impact of the tariffs.Lee-san: I see. You recently revised your Topix index target, right. Can you quickly walk us through your call?Nakazawa-san：Yes, of course. We recently revised down our base case TOPIX target for end-2025 from 3,000 to 2,600. This revision was considered by several key factors: So first, our Japan economics team revised down its Japanese nominal growth forecast from 3.7% to 3.3%, reflecting implementation of reciprocal tariffs and lower growth forecasts for the U.S., China, and Europe. Second, our FX team lowered its USD/JPY target from 145 to 135 due to the risk of U.S. hard data taking a marked turn for the worse. The timing aligns with growing uncertainty on the business environment, which may lead firms to manage cash allocation more cautiously. So, this year might be a bit challenging for Japanese equities that I recommend staying defensive positioning with defensive non-manufacturing sectors overall.Nakazawa-san: And given tariff risks, do you see a change in the Bank of Japan’s rate path for the rest of the year?Lee-san: Yeah well, external demand is a very important driver of Japanese economy. Even if tariffs on Japan do not rise significantly, auto tariffs, for example, remain in place and cannot be ignored. The earnings deterioration among export-oriented companies, especially in the auto sector, will take time for the Bank of Japan to assess in terms of its impact on winter bonuses and next spring's wage growth. If trade negotiations between the U.S. and countries including Japan make major progress by summer, a rate hike in the fall could be a risk scenario. However, our Japan teams’ base case remains that the policy rate will be unchanged through 2026.Lee-san: How is the Japanese yen faring relative to the U.S. dollar, and how does it impact the Japanese stock market, Nakazawa-san?Nakazawa-san：I would say USD/JPY is not only driver for Japanese equities. Of course, USD/JPY still plays a key role in earnings, as our regression model suggests a 1% higher USD/JPY lifting TOPIX 0.5% on average. But this sensitivity has trended down over the past decade. A structural reason is that as value chain building close to final demand locations has lifted overseas production ratios, which implies continuous efforts of Japanese corporate optimizing global supply chain.That said, from sector allocation perspective, sectors showing greater resilience include domestic demand-driven sectors, such as foods, construction & materials, IT & services/others, transportation & logistics, and retails.Nakazawa-san: And finally, the trade relationship between Japan and China is one of the largest trading partnerships in the world. Are U.S. tariffs impacting this partnership in any way?Lee-san: That's a very difficult question, I have to say, but I think there are multiple angles to consider. Geopolitical risk remains to be a key focus, and in terms of the military alliance, Japan-U.S. relationships have been intact. At the same time, Japan faces increased pressure to meet U.S. demands. That said, Japan has been taking steps such as strengthening semiconductor manufacturing and increasing defense spending, so I believe there is a multifaceted evaluation which is necessary.Lee-san: That said, I think it’s time to head back to the conference. Nakazawa-san, thanks for taking the time to talk.Nakazawa-san: Great speaking with you, Lee-san.Lee-san: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/51EnuG1-TA9XY5esr6NCOBg7dgCdvXz1oF2WYY_8TCMTue, 20 May 2025 21:30:06 +0000gtyLive from the Morgan Stanley Japan Summit, our analysts Chiwoong Lee and Sho Nakazawa discuss their outlook for the Japanese economy and stock market in light of the country’s evolving trade partnerships with the U.S. and China. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Lee-san: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chiwoong Lee, Principal Global Economist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Nakazawa-san: And I’m Sho Nakazawa, Japan Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Lee-san: Today we’re coming to you live from the Morgan Stanley Japan Summit in Tokyo. And we’ll be sharing our views on Japan in the context of global economic growth. We will also focus on Japan’s position vis-à-vis its two largest trading partners, the U.S. and China.It’s Tuesday, May 20, at 3pm in Tokyo.Lee-san: Nakazawa-san, you and I both have been talking with a large number of clients here at the summit. Based on your conversations, what issues are most top of mind right now?Nakazawa-san: There are many inquiries about how to position because of the uncertainty of U.S. trade policy and the investment strategy for governance reform. These are both catalysts for Japan. And in Japan, there are multiple governance investment angles, with increasing interest in the removal of parent-child listings, which is when a parent company and a subsidiary company are both listed on an exchange. This reform [would] remove the subsidiaries. So, clients are very focused on who will be the next candidate for the removal of a parent-child listing.And what are you hearing from clients on your side, Lee-san?Lee-san: I would say the most frequent questions we received were regarding the Trump administration's policies, of course. While the reciprocal tariffs have been somewhat relaxed compared to the initial announcements, they still remain very high; and there was a strong focus on their negative impact on the U.S. economy and the global economy, including Japan. Of course, external demand is critical for Japanese economy, but when we pointed out the resilience of domestic demand, many investors seemed to agree with that view.Nakazawa-san: How do investors’ views square with your outlook for the global economy over the rest of the year?Lee-san: Well, there was broad consensus that tariffs and policy uncertainty are negatively affecting trade and investment activities across countries. In particular, there is concern about the impact on investment. As Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke wrote in his papers in [the] 1980s, uncertainty tends to delay investment decisions. However, I got the impression that views varied on just how sensitive investment behavior is to this uncertainty.Nakazawa-san: How significant are U.S. tariffs on global economy including Japan both near-term and longer-term?Lee-san: The negative effects on the global economy through trade and investment are certainly important, but the most critical issue is the impact on the U.S. economy. Tariffs essentially act as a tax burden on U.S. consumers and businesses.For example, in 2018, there was some impact on prices, but the more significant effect was on business production and employment. Now, with even higher tariff rates, the impact on inflation and economic activity is expected to be even greater. Given the inflationary pressures from tariffs, we believe the Fed will find it difficult to cut rates in 2025. On the other hand, once it becomes feasible, likely in 2026, we anticipate the Fed will need to implement substantial rate cuts.Lee-san: So, Nakazawa-san, how has the Japanese stock market reacted to U.S. tariffs?Nakazawa-san: Investors positioning have skewed sharply to domestic-oriented non-manufacturing sectors since the U.S. government’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs on April 2nd. Tariff talks with some nations have achieved some...]]>491alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,japan,macro,markets,strategyfalse1387fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/market-risks-persist-after-u-s-china-trade-detente--75648769Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll talk about the impact of last week's 90-day pause in the reciprocal tariffs between the U.S. and China, and the impact on the economy and markets.It's Monday, May 19th at 11am in New York.Market response to last Monday's announcement has been resoundingly positive. The S&P 500 was up 4.5 percent in the first four days since the announcement and the year-to-date returns are back in the black after Liberation Day drove steep declines in April.Credit markets have also rallied, notably with the investment grade spreads tightening by over 10 basis points and high yield spreads by over 50 basis points. And the Treasury market took out 50 basis points of rate cuts in 2025, leaving market implied rate cuts by the end of 2026 at around 100 basis points.While these moves across markets are significant, it is really important to put them into perspective and tease out what this detente in trade tensions implies. And more importantly, what it does not imply.On the positive side, we think that the de-escalation reduces the risk of a sudden stop in trade volumes and a sharp rise in unemployment rate. While this is clearly just a truce and we don't know exactly where the tariffs between the two largest economies in the world will end up, it seems reasonable to infer that tariffs in the vicinity of 125 percent or 145 percent are substantially less likely now. Overall, the probability of a U.S. recession, therefore, has fallen on the margin.To be clear, a recession during 2025 was never really our base case. But the de-escalation shifts risks in the direction of a little more growth, a little less inflation, and keeps unemployment rate at near current levels. If the world before Liberation Day was bimodal and close to a coin toss; it is still bimodal, but skewed towards an expansion, not contraction. Since we were in the expansion mode to begin with, this detente gives us greater comfort in our baseline outlook and strengthens our conviction that the Fed will remain on hold for rest of the year.The positive vibes from Geneva not withstanding, we would stress that it is far from clear that the 90-day pause is an uncertainty clearing event. Trade tensions are likely to remain elevated. The administration is still investigating tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, copper, and other products. It is also unclear if the template of negotiations between the U.S. and China can work for other regions, especially Europe. Even if U.S. tariffs on imports from China and the rest of the world end up roughly around the current levels, they would still be about four times higher than the levels at the start of the year.This means inflation should continue to move higher into year end, with the surge that peaks in the third quarter. While the impulse inflation from tariffs is likely to be smaller, it still is coming. Likewise, higher tariffs will dampen growth even though recession will continue to be avoided.For risk markets, we think that the detente has reduced the risk of substantial drawdowns. While policy uncertainty about the ultimate level of tariff remains, a return to last month’s mind-boggling volatility driven by trade policy is probably behind us. So, it's unlikely that we will see markets revisiting the lows of April in the near term.For credit markets, a lower likelihood of recession is indeed welcome news, especially considering the current strong credit fundamentals. With the market taking out a couple of rate cuts, the all in yields for credit remain in the range to sustain the demand for yield buyers such as insurance companies.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YK9mRuCNOj8n0963fdSdZ9ycxEIdnUo1ZEVaqOb9H2wMon, 19 May 2025 21:00:10 +0000gtyMarkets have reacted positively to the U.S.-China détente in tariffs. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist, Vishy Tirupattur, digs into the rallies to better understand potential longer-term outcomes. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll talk about the impact of last week's 90-day pause in the reciprocal tariffs between the U.S. and China, and the impact on the economy and markets.It's Monday, May 19th at 11am in New York.Market response to last Monday's announcement has been resoundingly positive. The S&P 500 was up 4.5 percent in the first four days since the announcement and the year-to-date returns are back in the black after Liberation Day drove steep declines in April.Credit markets have also rallied, notably with the investment grade spreads tightening by over 10 basis points and high yield spreads by over 50 basis points. And the Treasury market took out 50 basis points of rate cuts in 2025, leaving market implied rate cuts by the end of 2026 at around 100 basis points.While these moves across markets are significant, it is really important to put them into perspective and tease out what this detente in trade tensions implies. And more importantly, what it does not imply.On the positive side, we think that the de-escalation reduces the risk of a sudden stop in trade volumes and a sharp rise in unemployment rate. While this is clearly just a truce and we don't know exactly where the tariffs between the two largest economies in the world will end up, it seems reasonable to infer that tariffs in the vicinity of 125 percent or 145 percent are substantially less likely now. Overall, the probability of a U.S. recession, therefore, has fallen on the margin.To be clear, a recession during 2025 was never really our base case. But the de-escalation shifts risks in the direction of a little more growth, a little less inflation, and keeps unemployment rate at near current levels. If the world before Liberation Day was bimodal and close to a coin toss; it is still bimodal, but skewed towards an expansion, not contraction. Since we were in the expansion mode to begin with, this detente gives us greater comfort in our baseline outlook and strengthens our conviction that the Fed will remain on hold for rest of the year.The positive vibes from Geneva not withstanding, we would stress that it is far from clear that the 90-day pause is an uncertainty clearing event. Trade tensions are likely to remain elevated. The administration is still investigating tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, copper, and other products. It is also unclear if the template of negotiations between the U.S. and China can work for other regions, especially Europe. Even if U.S. tariffs on imports from China and the rest of the world end up roughly around the current levels, they would still be about four times higher than the levels at the start of the year.This means inflation should continue to move higher into year end, with the surge that peaks in the third quarter. While the impulse inflation from tariffs is likely to be smaller, it still is coming. Likewise, higher tariffs will dampen growth even though recession will continue to be avoided.For risk markets, we think that the detente has reduced the risk of substantial drawdowns. While policy uncertainty about the ultimate level of tariff remains, a return to last month’s mind-boggling volatility driven by trade policy is probably behind us. So, it's unlikely that we will see markets revisiting the lows of April in the near term.For credit markets, a lower likelihood of recession is indeed welcome news, especially considering the current strong credit fundamentals. With the market taking out a couple of...]]>264alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1386fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lessons-amid-the-market-rollercoaster--75648744Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to discuss what we think we can actually learn from all of the back and forth in markets.It's Friday, May 16th at 2pm in London.One of the dominant questions of 2025 has been and continues to be: What exactly is the strategy behind U.S. tariff policy. Are these tariffs simply a negotiating tactic, designed to bring countries to the table in order to strike quick deals. Or are they something very, very different. An attempt to fundamentally reduce U.S. trade deficits, raise significant revenue, and bring production back to American shores.At a recent conference with some of our largest investors, we asked them which of these explanations they thought best applied. Well, about a quarter thought it was a negotiating tactic; another quarter thought it was that fundamental shift. And the remaining half simply weren't sure yet.Now, it's possible that this ambiguity is actually the point designed to keep trade partners guessing in order to secure better terms. It's also possible that very different views on trade exist within the administration, and we're seeing them vie for influence – perhaps almost in real time. So, amidst all this uncertainty and back and forth, it's useful for investors to try to take a step back and think what, if anything, we've learned.First, we think we've learned that markets have a pretty clear view on tariffs. Credit and equities sold off aggressively as tariffs were ramped up. They have rallied back almost as quickly as these same policies were paused or reversed. Second, this back and forth does complicate the economic data and makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will leave interest rates unchanged, waiting for more clarity. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to think that the Fed makes no interest rate cuts this year.Third, even with the Fed doing nothing and interest rates moving around, bonds did diversify portfolios. Over the last 90 days, a portfolio of high-grade bonds, like the U.S. aggregate bond index has had just one-fifth of the volatility of the S&P 500, while at the same time delivering a higher total return. Yes, we think there is absolutely still a case for bonds to diversify within portfolios.Fourth and finally, the shock of the initial tariff announcement has passed. But there is still very real uncertainty about the economic impact, as even with the recent pauses, U.S. tariffs remain relatively high versus recent history.The next two months should start to give us the true picture of this impact – or the lack thereof – on both activity and prices. That will tell us whether the storm has truly passed through or whether we're simply in the eye of it.Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think about our thoughts in the market. You can leave us a review wherever you get this podcast. And if you like what you hear, share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/huzI6wm7svXldbtm5xtllgUCzneDU45t_COsLdP6W_4Fri, 16 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs market uncertainty continues around the Trump administration’s trade policy, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets reflects on the key takeaways that investors may learn from the ongoing volatility. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to discuss what we think we can actually learn from all of the back and forth in markets.It's Friday, May 16th at 2pm in London.One of the dominant questions of 2025 has been and continues to be: What exactly is the strategy behind U.S. tariff policy. Are these tariffs simply a negotiating tactic, designed to bring countries to the table in order to strike quick deals. Or are they something very, very different. An attempt to fundamentally reduce U.S. trade deficits, raise significant revenue, and bring production back to American shores.At a recent conference with some of our largest investors, we asked them which of these explanations they thought best applied. Well, about a quarter thought it was a negotiating tactic; another quarter thought it was that fundamental shift. And the remaining half simply weren't sure yet.Now, it's possible that this ambiguity is actually the point designed to keep trade partners guessing in order to secure better terms. It's also possible that very different views on trade exist within the administration, and we're seeing them vie for influence – perhaps almost in real time. So, amidst all this uncertainty and back and forth, it's useful for investors to try to take a step back and think what, if anything, we've learned.First, we think we've learned that markets have a pretty clear view on tariffs. Credit and equities sold off aggressively as tariffs were ramped up. They have rallied back almost as quickly as these same policies were paused or reversed. Second, this back and forth does complicate the economic data and makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will leave interest rates unchanged, waiting for more clarity. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to think that the Fed makes no interest rate cuts this year.Third, even with the Fed doing nothing and interest rates moving around, bonds did diversify portfolios. Over the last 90 days, a portfolio of high-grade bonds, like the U.S. aggregate bond index has had just one-fifth of the volatility of the S&P 500, while at the same time delivering a higher total return. Yes, we think there is absolutely still a case for bonds to diversify within portfolios.Fourth and finally, the shock of the initial tariff announcement has passed. But there is still very real uncertainty about the economic impact, as even with the recent pauses, U.S. tariffs remain relatively high versus recent history.The next two months should start to give us the true picture of this impact – or the lack thereof – on both activity and prices. That will tell us whether the storm has truly passed through or whether we're simply in the eye of it.Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think about our thoughts in the market. You can leave us a review wherever you get this podcast. And if you like what you hear, share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>213alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1385fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-rise-of-the-humanoid-economy--75648490Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Autos and Shared Mobility.Sheng Zhong: And I'm Sheng Zhong, Head of China Industrials.Adam Jonas: Today we're talking about humanoid robots and the $5 trillion global market opportunity we see by 2050.It's Thursday, May 15th at 9am in New York.If you're a Gen Xer or a boomer, you probably grew up with the idea of Rosie, the robot from the Jetsons. Rosie was a mechanical butler who cooked, cleaned, and did the laundry while dishing out a side of sarcasm.Today's idea of a humanoid robot for the home is much more evolved. We want robots that can adapt to unpredictable environments, and not just clean up a messy kitchen but also provide care for an elderly relative. This is really the next frontier in the development of AI. In other words, AI must become more human-like or humanoid, and this is happening.So, Sheng, let's start with setting some expectations. What do humanoid robots look like today and how close are we to seeing one in every home?Sheng Zhong: The humanoid is like a young child, in my opinion, although their abilities are different. A robot is born with a developed brain that is Large Language Model, and its body function develops fast.Less than three years ago, a robot barely can walk, but now they can jump, they can run. And just in last week, Beijing had a humanoid half marathon. While robot may lack on connecting its brain to its body action for work execution; sometimes they fail a lot of things. Maybe they break cups, glasses, and even they may fall down.So, you definitely don't want a robot at home like that, until they are safe enough and can help on something. To achieve that a lot of training and practice are needed on how to do things at a high success rate. And it takes time, maybe five years, 10. But in the long term, to have a Rosie at every family is a goal.So, Adam, our U.S. team has argued that the global humanoid Total Adjustable Market will reach $5 trillion USD by 2050. What is the current size of this market and how do we get to that eye-popping number in next 25 years?Adam Jonas: So, the current size of the market, because it's in development phase, is extremely low. I won't put it a zero but call it a black zero – when you look back in time at where we came from. The startups, or the public companies working on this are maybe generating single digit million type dollar revenues. In order to get to that number of $5 trillion by 2050 – that would imply roughly 1 billion humanoids in service, by that year. And that is the amount of the replacement value of actual units sold into that population of 1 billion humanoid robots on our global TAM model.The more interesting way to think about the TAM though is the substitution of labor. There are currently, for example, 4 billion people in the global labor market at $10,000 per person. That's $40 trillion. You know, we're talking 30 or 40 per cent of global GDP. And so, imagining it that way, not just in terms of the unit times price, but the value that these humanoids, can represent is, we think, a more accurate way of thinking about the true economic potential of this adjustable market.Sheng Zhong: So, with all these humanoids in use by 2050, could you paint us a picture in broad strokes of what the economy might look like in terms of labor market and economic growth?Adam Jonas: We can only work through a scenario analysis and there's certainly a lot of false precision that could be dangerous here. But, you know, there's no limit to the imagination to think about what happens to a world where you actually produce your labor; what it means for dependency ratios, retirement age, the whole concept of a GDP could change.I don't think it's an exaggeration to contemplate these technologies being comparable to that of electric light or the wheel or movable type or paper. Things that just completely transform an economy and don't just increase it by five or 10 per cent but could increase it by five or 10 times or more. And so, there are all sorts of moral and ethical and legal issues that are also brought up.The response to which; our response to which will also dictate the end state. And then the question of national security issues and what this means for nation states and, we've seen in our tumultuous human history that when there are changes of technologies – even if they seem to be innocent at first, and for the benefit of mankind – can often be  uh, used to, grow power and to create conflict. So Sheng, how should investors approach the humanoid theme and is it investible right now?Sheng Zhong: Yes, it's not too early to invest in this mega trend. Humanoid will be a huge market in the future, like you said. And it starts now. There are multi parties in this industry, including the leading companies from various background: the capital, the smart people, and the government. So, I believe the industry will evolve rapidly. And in Morgan Stanley’s Humanoid: A Hundred Report a hundred names was identified in three categories. They are brand developers, bodies components suppliers, and the robot integrators. And we'd like to stick with the leading companies in all these categories, which have leading edge technology and good track record. But at the meantime, I would emphasize that we should keep close eyes on the disruptors.Adam Jonas: So, Sheng, it seems that national support for the humanoid and embodied AI theme in China is at least today, far greater than in any other nation. What policy support are you seeing and how exactly does it compare to other regions?Sheng Zhong: Government plays an important role in the industry development in China, and I see that in humanoid industry as well. So currently, the local government, they set out the target, and they connect local resources for supply chain corporation. And on the capital perspective, we see the government background funds flow into the industry as well. And even on the R&D, there are Robot Chinese Center set up by the government and corporates together. In the past there were successful experience in China, that new industry grow with government support, like solar panels, electronic vehicles. And I believe China government want to replicate this success in humanoids. So, I won't be surprised to see in the near future there will be national humanoid target industry standard setup or adoption subsidies even at some time.And in fact we see the government supports in other countries as well. Like in South Korea there is a K Humanoid Alliance and Korean Ministry of Trade has full support in terms of the subsidy on robotic R&D infrastructure and verification.So, what is U.S. doing now to keep up with China? And is the gap closing or widening?Adam Jonas: So, Sheng, I think that there's a real wake up call going on here. Again, some have called it a Sputnik moment. Of course the DeepSeek moment in terms of the GenAI and the ability for Chinese companies to show just extraordinary and remarkable level of ingenuity and competition in these key fields, even if they lack the most leading-edge compute resources like the U.S. has – has really again been quite shocking to the rest of the world. And it certainly gotten the attention of the administration, and lawmakers in the DOD. But then thinking further about other incentives, both carrot and stick to encourage onshoring of critical embodiment of AI industries – including the manufacturing of these types of products across not just humanoids, but electronic vertical takeoff and landing aircraft drones, autonomous vehicles – will become increasingly evident. These technologies are not seen as, ‘Hey, let's have a Rosie, the robot. This is fun. This is nice to have.’ No, Sheng. This is seen as existential technology that we have to get right.Finally, Sheng, as far as moving humanoid technology to open source, is this a region specific or a global trend? And what is your outlook on this issue?Sheng Zhong: I actually think this could be a global trend because for technology and especially for humanoid, the Vision Language Model is obviously if there is more adoption, then more data can be collected, and the model will be smarter. So maybe unlike the Windows and Android dominant global market, I think for humanoid there could be regional level open-source models; and China will develop its own model. For any technology the application on the downstream is key. For humanoid as an AI embodiment, the software value needs to be realized on hardware. So I think it's key to have mass production of nice performance humanoid at a competitive cost.Adam Jonas: Listen, if I can get a humanoid robot to take my dog, Foster out and clean up after him, I'm gonna be pretty excited. As I am sure some of our listeners will be as well. Sheng, thank you so much for this peak into our near future.Sheng Zhong: Thank you very much, Adam, and great speaking with you,Adam Jonas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8fDSC_PuD_Eq8u9nhbTGeDdjNar8nglXfYdY5D-TQuwThu, 15 May 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss the rapidly evolving humanoid technologies and investment opportunities that could lead to a $5 trillion market by 2050.  Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Autos and Shared Mobility.Sheng Zhong: And I'm Sheng Zhong, Head of China Industrials.Adam Jonas: Today we're talking about humanoid robots and the $5 trillion global market opportunity we see by 2050.It's Thursday, May 15th at 9am in New York.If you're a Gen Xer or a boomer, you probably grew up with the idea of Rosie, the robot from the Jetsons. Rosie was a mechanical butler who cooked, cleaned, and did the laundry while dishing out a side of sarcasm.Today's idea of a humanoid robot for the home is much more evolved. We want robots that can adapt to unpredictable environments, and not just clean up a messy kitchen but also provide care for an elderly relative. This is really the next frontier in the development of AI. In other words, AI must become more human-like or humanoid, and this is happening.So, Sheng, let's start with setting some expectations. What do humanoid robots look like today and how close are we to seeing one in every home?Sheng Zhong: The humanoid is like a young child, in my opinion, although their abilities are different. A robot is born with a developed brain that is Large Language Model, and its body function develops fast.Less than three years ago, a robot barely can walk, but now they can jump, they can run. And just in last week, Beijing had a humanoid half marathon. While robot may lack on connecting its brain to its body action for work execution; sometimes they fail a lot of things. Maybe they break cups, glasses, and even they may fall down.So, you definitely don't want a robot at home like that, until they are safe enough and can help on something. To achieve that a lot of training and practice are needed on how to do things at a high success rate. And it takes time, maybe five years, 10. But in the long term, to have a Rosie at every family is a goal.So, Adam, our U.S. team has argued that the global humanoid Total Adjustable Market will reach $5 trillion USD by 2050. What is the current size of this market and how do we get to that eye-popping number in next 25 years?Adam Jonas: So, the current size of the market, because it's in development phase, is extremely low. I won't put it a zero but call it a black zero – when you look back in time at where we came from. The startups, or the public companies working on this are maybe generating single digit million type dollar revenues. In order to get to that number of $5 trillion by 2050 – that would imply roughly 1 billion humanoids in service, by that year. And that is the amount of the replacement value of actual units sold into that population of 1 billion humanoid robots on our global TAM model.The more interesting way to think about the TAM though is the substitution of labor. There are currently, for example, 4 billion people in the global labor market at $10,000 per person. That's $40 trillion. You know, we're talking 30 or 40 per cent of global GDP. And so, imagining it that way, not just in terms of the unit times price, but the value that these humanoids, can represent is, we think, a more accurate way of thinking about the true economic potential of this adjustable market.Sheng Zhong: So, with all these humanoids in use by 2050, could you paint us a picture in broad strokes of what the economy might look like in terms of labor market and economic growth?Adam Jonas: We can only work through a scenario analysis and there's certainly a lot of false precision that could be dangerous here. But, you know, there's no limit to the imagination to think about what happens to a world where...]]>629alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1384fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-the-tax-debate-could-mean-for-markets--75648456Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll dig into Congress's deliberations on taxes and fiscal spending.It's Wednesday, May 14th at 10am in New York.Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, there's been a lot of news around the tax and spending plans that Congress is pursuing; this fiscal package – and clients are really, really focused on it. You're having a lot of those conversations right now. Why are clients so focused on all of this?Ariana Salvatore: So, clients have reasons to focus on this tax policy bill across equities, fixed income, and for macroeconomic impacts.Starting with equities, there's a lot of the 2017 tax cut bill that's coming up for expiration towards the end of this year. So, this bill is Congress's chance to extend the expiring TCJA. And add on some incremental tax cuts that President Trump floated on the campaign trail. So, there's some really important sector impacts on the specific legislation side. And then as far as the deficit goes, that matters a lot for the economic ramifications next year and for bond yields.But Mike, to pivot this back to you, where do you think investor expectations are for the outcome of this package?Michael Zezas: So there's a lot of moving pieces in this fiscal policy package, and I think what's happening here is that investors can project a lot onto this. They can project a lot of positivity and constructive outcomes for markets; and a lot of negativity and negative outcomes for markets.So, for example, if you are really focused on the deficit impact of cutting taxes and whether or not there's enough spending cuts to offset those tax extensions, then you could look at the array of possible outcomes here and expect a major deficit expansion. And that might make you less constructive on bonds because you would expect yields to go higher as there was greater supply of Treasuries needed to borrow that much to finance the tax cuts. Again, not necessarily fully offset by spending cuts.So, you could look at this and say, well, this will ultimately be something where economic growth helps tax revenues. And you might be looking at the benefits for companies and the feed through to the equity markets and think really positively about it.And we think the truth is probably somewhere in between. You’re not going to get policy that really justifies either your highest hopes or your greatest fears here.Ariana Salvatore: So, it's really like a Rorschach test for investors. When we think about our base case, how do you think that's going to materialize? What on the policy front are we watching for?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so we have to consider the starting point here, which is Congress is trying to address a series of tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. And if they extend all of those tax cuts, then on a year-over-year basis, you didn't really change any policy. So that just on its own might not mean a meaningful deficit increase.Now, if Congress is able to extend greater tax cuts on top of that; but it's going to offset those greater tax cuts with spending cuts in revenue raises elsewhere, then again you might end up with a net effect close to zero on a deficit basis.And the way our economists look at this mix is that you might end up with an effect from a stimulus perspective on the economy that's something close to neutral as well. So, there's a lot of policy changes happening beneath the surface. But in the aggregate, it might not mean a heck of a lot for the economic outlook for next year.Now, that doesn't mean that there would be zero deficit increase in the aggregate next year because this is just one policy that is part of a larger set of government policies that make up the total spending posture of the government. There's already something in the range of $200-250 billion of deficit increase that was already going to happen next year. Because of weaker revenue growth on slower economic growth this year, and some spending that would automatically have happened because of inflation cost adjustments and higher interest on the debt. So, long story short, the policy that's happening right now that we think is going to be the endpoint for congressional deliberations isn't something our economists see as meaningfully uplifting growth for next year, and it probably increases the deficit – at least somewhat next year.Now we're thinking very short term here about what happens in 2026. But I think investors need to think around that timeline because if you're thinking about what this means for getting deficits smaller, multiple years ahead, or creating the type of tax environment that might induce greater corporate investment and greater economic growth years ahead – all those things are possible. But they're very hypothetical and they're subject to policy changes that could happen after the next Congress comes in or the next president comes in.So, Ariana, that's the overall look at our base case. But I think it's important to understand here that there are multiple different paths this legislation could follow. Can you explain what are some of the sticking points? And, depending on how they're resolved, how that might change the trajectory of what's ultimately passed here?Ariana Salvatore: There are a number of disagreements that need to be resolved. In particular, one of the biggest that we're focused on is on the SALT cap; so that's the cap on State And Local Tax deductions that individuals can take. That raised about a trillion dollars of revenue in the first iteration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.Republicans generally are okay with making a modification to that cap, maybe taking it a bit higher, or imposing some income thresholds. But the SALT caucus, this small group of Republicans in Congress, they're pushing for a full repeal or something bigger than just a small dollar amount increase.There's also a group of moderate Republicans pushing against any sort of spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP; that's the food stamps program. And then there's another cohort of House Republicans that are seeking to preserve the Inflation Reduction Act. Ultimately, these are all going to be continuous tension points. They're going to have to settle on some pay fors, some savings, and we think where that lands is effectively at a $90 billion or so deficit increase from just the tax policy changes next year.Now with tariff revenue excluded, that's probably closer to [$]130 billion. But Mike, to your point, there are these scheduled increases in outlays that also are going to have to be considered for next year's deficit. So, you're looking at an overall increase of about $310 billion.Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right and the different ways those different dynamics could play out, I think puts us in a range of a $200 billion expansion maybe on the low end, and a $400 billion expansion on the high end. And these are meaningful numbers. But I think important context for investors is that these numbers might seem a lot smaller than some of what's been reported in the press, and that's because the press reports on the congressional budget office scoring, and these are typically 10-year numbers.So, you would multiply that one-year number by 10 at least conceptually. And these are numbers relative to a reality in which the tax cuts were allowed to expire. So, it's basically counting up revenue that is being missed by not allowing the tax cuts to expire. So, the context matters a lot here. And so we have been encouraging investors to really kind of look through the headlines, really kind of break down the context and really kind of focus on the short term impacts because those are the most reliable impacts and the ones to really anchor to; because policy uncertainty beyond a year is substantially higher than even the very high policy uncertainty we're experiencing right now.So, sticking with the theme of uncertainty, let's talk timing here. Like we came into the year thinking this tax bill would be resolved late in the year. Is that still the case or are you thinking it might be a bit sooner?Ariana Salvatore: I think that timing still holds up. Right now, the reconciliation bill is supposed to address the expiring debt ceiling. So, the real deadline for getting the bill done is the X date or the date by which the extraordinary measures are projected to be exhausted. That's the date that we would potentially hit an actual default.Of course, that date is somewhat of a moving target. It's highly dependent on tax receipts from Treasury. But our estimate is that it's somewhere around August or September. In the meantime, there's a number of key catalysts that we're watching; namely, I would say, other projections of the X date coming from Treasury, as well as some of these markups when we start to get more bill text and hear about how some of the disputes are being resolved.As I mentioned, we had text earlier this week, but there's still no quote fix for the SALT cap, and the house is still tentatively pushing for its Memorial Day deadline. That's just six legislative days away.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, I think then that means that we're starting to learn a lot more about how this bill comes together. We will be learning even a lot more over the next few months and while we set out our expectations that you're going to have some fiscal policy expansion. But largely a broadly unchanged posture for U.S. fiscal poli]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rM7XNi1fxuZb5i0tr2OKTVmNH7rfO9ULVO5-2OuarggWed, 14 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur strategists Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore provide context around U.S. House Republicans’ proposed tax bill and how investors should view its potential market impact. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll dig into Congress's deliberations on taxes and fiscal spending.It's Wednesday, May 14th at 10am in New York.Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, there's been a lot of news around the tax and spending plans that Congress is pursuing; this fiscal package – and clients are really, really focused on it. You're having a lot of those conversations right now. Why are clients so focused on all of this?Ariana Salvatore: So, clients have reasons to focus on this tax policy bill across equities, fixed income, and for macroeconomic impacts.Starting with equities, there's a lot of the 2017 tax cut bill that's coming up for expiration towards the end of this year. So, this bill is Congress's chance to extend the expiring TCJA. And add on some incremental tax cuts that President Trump floated on the campaign trail. So, there's some really important sector impacts on the specific legislation side. And then as far as the deficit goes, that matters a lot for the economic ramifications next year and for bond yields.But Mike, to pivot this back to you, where do you think investor expectations are for the outcome of this package?Michael Zezas: So there's a lot of moving pieces in this fiscal policy package, and I think what's happening here is that investors can project a lot onto this. They can project a lot of positivity and constructive outcomes for markets; and a lot of negativity and negative outcomes for markets.So, for example, if you are really focused on the deficit impact of cutting taxes and whether or not there's enough spending cuts to offset those tax extensions, then you could look at the array of possible outcomes here and expect a major deficit expansion. And that might make you less constructive on bonds because you would expect yields to go higher as there was greater supply of Treasuries needed to borrow that much to finance the tax cuts. Again, not necessarily fully offset by spending cuts.So, you could look at this and say, well, this will ultimately be something where economic growth helps tax revenues. And you might be looking at the benefits for companies and the feed through to the equity markets and think really positively about it.And we think the truth is probably somewhere in between. You’re not going to get policy that really justifies either your highest hopes or your greatest fears here.Ariana Salvatore: So, it's really like a Rorschach test for investors. When we think about our base case, how do you think that's going to materialize? What on the policy front are we watching for?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so we have to consider the starting point here, which is Congress is trying to address a series of tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. And if they extend all of those tax cuts, then on a year-over-year basis, you didn't really change any policy. So that just on its own might not mean a meaningful deficit increase.Now, if Congress is able to extend greater tax cuts on top of that; but it's going to offset those greater tax cuts with spending cuts in revenue raises elsewhere, then again you might end up with a net effect close to zero on a deficit basis.And the way our economists look at this mix is that you might end up with an effect from a stimulus perspective on the economy that's something close to neutral as well. So, there's a lot of policy changes happening beneath the surface. But in the aggregate, it...]]>619alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1383fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-private-credit-weather-macro-risks--75648496Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Joyce Jiang: And I'm Joyce Jiang, U.S. Leverage Finance Strategist.Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll take a look at private credit markets. Will it stay resilient in the current macro conditions? Or a reckoning is ahead of us.It's Tuesday, May 13th at 10am in New York.Tariffs and policy uncertainty are on the top of mind for people with an eye on the economy and markets. Certainly, a frequent topic of discussion for us on this podcast. In this environment, there has been growing concern about the health of corporate credit – and within corporate credit direct lending or middle market segments, where companies tend to be smaller in size and have weaker fundamentals are of particular concern. The business models of these companies are sensitive to slower growth.Joyce, can you map out the risks associated with private credit companies?Joyce Jiang: To your point, risks are rising in private credit, but I think these risks would be measured given the still resilient fundamental backdrop. Looking at fundamental trends, there is no clear sign of leverage building up in the system yet, and multiple data sources actually show that the leverage ratios among direct lending companies have either improved or remained flat. And that's very different from the previous cycles where excessive corporate leverage set the stage for the eventual downturn.So, this time around credit, including both public credit and private credit, is not the source of the problem. But, of course, these direct lending companies would be impacted by higher tariffs. So, Vishy what's your view on the tariff impact?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the direct impact of tariffs, Joyce, we think is likely to be muted. It's quite hard to quantify this exposure, but if you look at a number of different data sources, we find that the direct lending loans are more skewed towards defensive and service-oriented sectors.For example, sectors such as a technology, business services and healthcare account for over half of the loans in typical BDC portfolios or Business Development Company portfolios of direct lending loans. But that said, even though the direct impact could be somewhat limited, there could be second order effects because there is higher uncertainty and weaker confidence, and that could weigh on demand. There could be a tail cohort that could be developing.So, some data from Lincoln International, for example, shows that about 15 per cent of direct lending companies have EBITDA interest coverage ratio below 1x. Another way of looking at tail cohort is by looking at companies generating negative free operating cash flow. According to S&P data, that's about 40 per cent. These tail cohorts are stretched and are weakly positioned to weather macro challenges ahead.So, Joyce, another thing that comes up frequently when we talk about private credit is Payment In Kind interest or the so-called PIK interest. Can you walk us through what is a PIK and why is it a concern?Joyce Jiang: So, Payment In Kind interest – it occurs when the company stops paying interest in cash, but instead the interest is accrued and added to the principal balance. It is quite common for companies under liquidity stress to switch to PIKs for cash preservation, But in many cases, PIKs don't really clean up the company's balance sheet, and the companies may still end up in a conventional default. So, PIK is generally considered as a leading indicator of default by market participants.And to be clear, not all PIK loans are bad. PIK toggles are actually a key feature that distinguishes direct lending loans from syndicated loans because it provides non-distressed companies the flexibility to reallocate cash for other business needs. So, PIKs do not necessarily signal higher defaults. And in fact, data showed that BDCs or Business Development Companies with a higher PIK income don't always see a greater increase in nonaccruals. So, in other words, the relationship between PIK income and defaults is not persistently strong.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to summarize, overall fundamentals are on a relatively strong footing, but risks in private credit are rising, especially if we have a potential economic slowdown ahead. On the other hand, there are a few structural features with the private credit loans that could potentially help mitigate some of the vulnerabilities we've just talked about.First thing, direct lending loans are not marked to market by design, so they have lower volatility and are relatively immune from daily price moves. And really related to that, redemption risk of private credit funds has been fairly contained so far. These funds usually have tools like lockup periods and redemption caps to guard against unexpected large outflows.But of course, the effectiveness of these mechanisms has not yet been tested in severe downturns. Moreover, the capital that is going into private credit is relatively sticky capital. Key investors, such as insurance companies and pension funds are hold-to-maturity type buyers, and they're entering in the space for the attractiveness of the higher yields and to harvest illiquidity premia embedded in these loans. So, with that long-term investment horizon, they would be more willing to support companies through temporary liquidity challenges. Also, small lender groups in direct lending market makes it easier to negotiate restructurings.Joyce Jiang: Lastly, there is also ample dry powder. According to PitchBook, there is $570 billion of dry powder in private debt fund, and another $2 trillion in private equity funds. And this capital can be deployed to backstop distressed companies and help keeping defaults in check. And in terms of defaults, we are expecting syndicated loan defaults to end the year at 4 per cent. And that's our base case.And based on the historical relationship, that implies a like for like default rate for perfect credit at 5 per cent, which means a mild uptake from the current level, but is still below the COVID peak.Vishy Tirupattur: Joyce, thanks for taking the time to talk about this.Joyce Jiang: Thanks for having me, Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur: And to our listeners, thank you for your attention. Let us know what you think of this podcast and the topics we cover. And if you think a friend or a colleague might find this information useful, please share Thoughts on the Market with them today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LA7ApHa19egimw18tbaMTsurFABBNoqzPlNY1NVGBqETue, 13 May 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Vishy Tirupattur and Joyce Jiang discuss the health of private credit as default pressures are building for borrowers amid weaker growth, fewer rate cuts and policy uncertainty. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Joyce Jiang: And I'm Joyce Jiang, U.S. Leverage Finance Strategist.Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll take a look at private credit markets. Will it stay resilient in the current macro conditions? Or a reckoning is ahead of us.It's Tuesday, May 13th at 10am in New York.Tariffs and policy uncertainty are on the top of mind for people with an eye on the economy and markets. Certainly, a frequent topic of discussion for us on this podcast. In this environment, there has been growing concern about the health of corporate credit – and within corporate credit direct lending or middle market segments, where companies tend to be smaller in size and have weaker fundamentals are of particular concern. The business models of these companies are sensitive to slower growth.Joyce, can you map out the risks associated with private credit companies?Joyce Jiang: To your point, risks are rising in private credit, but I think these risks would be measured given the still resilient fundamental backdrop. Looking at fundamental trends, there is no clear sign of leverage building up in the system yet, and multiple data sources actually show that the leverage ratios among direct lending companies have either improved or remained flat. And that's very different from the previous cycles where excessive corporate leverage set the stage for the eventual downturn.So, this time around credit, including both public credit and private credit, is not the source of the problem. But, of course, these direct lending companies would be impacted by higher tariffs. So, Vishy what's your view on the tariff impact?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the direct impact of tariffs, Joyce, we think is likely to be muted. It's quite hard to quantify this exposure, but if you look at a number of different data sources, we find that the direct lending loans are more skewed towards defensive and service-oriented sectors.For example, sectors such as a technology, business services and healthcare account for over half of the loans in typical BDC portfolios or Business Development Company portfolios of direct lending loans. But that said, even though the direct impact could be somewhat limited, there could be second order effects because there is higher uncertainty and weaker confidence, and that could weigh on demand. There could be a tail cohort that could be developing.So, some data from Lincoln International, for example, shows that about 15 per cent of direct lending companies have EBITDA interest coverage ratio below 1x. Another way of looking at tail cohort is by looking at companies generating negative free operating cash flow. According to S&P data, that's about 40 per cent. These tail cohorts are stretched and are weakly positioned to weather macro challenges ahead.So, Joyce, another thing that comes up frequently when we talk about private credit is Payment In Kind interest or the so-called PIK interest. Can you walk us through what is a PIK and why is it a concern?Joyce Jiang: So, Payment In Kind interest – it occurs when the company stops paying interest in cash, but instead the interest is accrued and added to the principal balance. It is quite common for companies under liquidity stress to switch to PIKs for cash preservation, But in many cases, PIKs don't really clean up the company's balance sheet, and the companies may still end up in a conventional default. So, PIK is generally considered as a leading indicator of default by market participants.And to be clear, not...]]>419alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1382fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-china-trade-truce-what-s-next--75648647Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the recent tariff negotiations for equity markets. It's Monday, May 12th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Over the weekend, U.S.-China trade negotiations made better than expected progress with both sides agreeing to a détente in the trade war that began just one short month ago. The main question I’m getting from investors is whether they should trust this initial agreement, and if it will eventually lead to something more sustainable? From my perspective, this misses the more important point for equity investors. To remind listeners, equity markets trade in the future.  Therefore, the question to ask yourself is do you think things will be more or less uncertain in six months and will they be better or worse? The other thing to consider is that stocks trade on the second derivative, or rate of change, in growth. On that score, I believe it is likely we saw the trough rate of change in variables that tend to correlate with stock prices the most.  More specifically, earnings revisions breadth showed a meaningful uptick last week for the first time this year. Some of this was driven by a pull forward in demand during the first quarter ahead of the tariff announcements that led to better than feared earnings. In addition, several leading companies posted better than expected results thanks to a weaker dollar. Importantly, the translation benefit for U.S. multinational earnings is likely to be a big earnings tailwind for the next six months.  Many of the growth negative things we were worried about five months ago have played out now with Liberation Day marking the point of maximum negative sentiment and positioning. There is an adage that equity markets bottom on bad news, and I can’t think of a better example of that than Liberation Day last month. Similarly, markets tend to top on good news and this weekend’s better than expected outcome on trade negotiations with China could very well lead to a pause in the rally. Therefore, we would buy dips rather than chase stocks on days like today. Markets can look forward to the possibility of growth positive policy changes that still may be in front of us. Things like tax cut extensions, de-regulation and resolution of the debt ceiling and budget appropriations for the next year.  Finally, with the threat of further escalation of tariff rates now diminished, the Fed can also come back into the picture with rate cuts sooner than perhaps what the Fed told us last week. While we don’t know exactly how much the tariffs will impact inflation over the next year, it is likely to be front-end loaded. In fact, there is a case to be made that tariffs may hurt demand and end up being disinflationary. The Fed is likely to determine this outcome over the summer and could begin to at least signal rate cuts. Such a move will potentially lead to a more sustainable rotation towards lower quality, cyclical stocks and drive animal spirits in a way that many investors were expecting six months ago but simply jumped the gun. Bottom line, I feel more confident in our original outlook for this year for a tough first half, followed by a strong second one. This outlook was based on our view that AI capex growth was bound to decelerate this year, while policy changes were likely to be growth negative to start. Now, we can look forward to growth positive policy changes and productivity benefits from the spending on AI that has already taken place. After such a strong rally, pullbacks are inevitable but unlikely to be anything like we saw last month. So, buy the dips.  Thank you for choosing to listen. Leave us a review, and let us know what you think about the podcast. If you enjoy listening to Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/X9BUGigUoeihwY82PHY0h-dp9JGMJKDZR766VQGeQDgMon, 12 May 2025 21:45:03 +0000gtyEquity markets saw big rallies after trade tensions eased over the weekend. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he’s optimistic that the worst of the market trough is over. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the recent tariff negotiations for equity markets. It's Monday, May 12th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Over the weekend, U.S.-China trade negotiations made better than expected progress with both sides agreeing to a détente in the trade war that began just one short month ago. The main question I’m getting from investors is whether they should trust this initial agreement, and if it will eventually lead to something more sustainable? From my perspective, this misses the more important point for equity investors. To remind listeners, equity markets trade in the future.  Therefore, the question to ask yourself is do you think things will be more or less uncertain in six months and will they be better or worse? The other thing to consider is that stocks trade on the second derivative, or rate of change, in growth. On that score, I believe it is likely we saw the trough rate of change in variables that tend to correlate with stock prices the most.  More specifically, earnings revisions breadth showed a meaningful uptick last week for the first time this year. Some of this was driven by a pull forward in demand during the first quarter ahead of the tariff announcements that led to better than feared earnings. In addition, several leading companies posted better than expected results thanks to a weaker dollar. Importantly, the translation benefit for U.S. multinational earnings is likely to be a big earnings tailwind for the next six months.  Many of the growth negative things we were worried about five months ago have played out now with Liberation Day marking the point of maximum negative sentiment and positioning. There is an adage that equity markets bottom on bad news, and I can’t think of a better example of that than Liberation Day last month. Similarly, markets tend to top on good news and this weekend’s better than expected outcome on trade negotiations with China could very well lead to a pause in the rally. Therefore, we would buy dips rather than chase stocks on days like today. Markets can look forward to the possibility of growth positive policy changes that still may be in front of us. Things like tax cut extensions, de-regulation and resolution of the debt ceiling and budget appropriations for the next year.  Finally, with the threat of further escalation of tariff rates now diminished, the Fed can also come back into the picture with rate cuts sooner than perhaps what the Fed told us last week. While we don’t know exactly how much the tariffs will impact inflation over the next year, it is likely to be front-end loaded. In fact, there is a case to be made that tariffs may hurt demand and end up being disinflationary. The Fed is likely to determine this outcome over the summer and could begin to at least signal rate cuts. Such a move will potentially lead to a more sustainable rotation towards lower quality, cyclical stocks and drive animal spirits in a way that many investors were expecting six months ago but simply jumped the gun. Bottom line, I feel more confident in our original outlook for this year for a tough first half, followed by a strong second one. This outlook was based on our view that AI capex growth was bound to decelerate this year, while policy changes were likely to be growth negative to start. Now, we can look forward to growth positive policy changes and productivity benefits from the spending on AI that has already...]]>243alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1381fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-eye-of-a-market-storm--75648862Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today we're going to discuss whether the worst is over for markets – or whether it's just the eye of the storm.It's Friday, May 9th at 2pm in London.After extreme recent volatility, markets have bounced back, generally unwinding their losses since April 2nd. So was that it? The shock of tariff announcements and positioning adjustments may have now passed through, but the impact on the real economy is still to come. In meteorological terms, we think this may be just the eye of the storm.There are several specific bouts of potentially bad weather that we're looking at, driven by tariffs that may be about to pass through.First is the Federal Reserve. Our economists still see no cuts from the Fed this year as tariffs keep inflation elevated on our forecast. The markets in contrast are expecting more action. A scenario where credit markets face both weaker growth and a lack of central bank support remains one of our top concerns.Second is the data. So far in 2025, measures of consumer and company expectations have generally been weak, while readings of activity have tended to be stronger. Now, we think there's a good historical case that it's the expectations that tend to leave and are thus concerned that actual activity could start to soften – as it starts to be measured in a post tariff period.To this end, we're keenly watching measures like shipping and trucking activity, which could give us a better picture of the real impact. Again, a core driver of our concern, despite the economic data holding up so far, is that the impact of tariffs usually takes more time. As our economists note, tariffs historically have pushed up prices after a couple of months and pushed down growth after a couple of quarters. In short, the full storm of that impact may be yet to pass through.That thinking also lies behind our inflation views. Those more optimistic on inflation, and thus expecting more interest rate cuts from the Fed, note that the latest core inflation readings were generally fine. But in contrast, our economists remain more concerned that tariff price impacts simply haven't yet arrived in the official data, noting little change in the core inflation readings for things like goods that in theory should see the largest tariff impact. This, in our view, suggests that the impact on the underlying numbers that the Fed is looking at is still to come.The initial surprise of the U.S. tariff announcements is behind us. Things feel calmer. And the recent economic data has been relatively resilient. One scenario is this simply speaks to how resilient the U.S. economy is. But another explanation is that there's a gap between the surprise of those tariffs and their ultimate economic impact. And our concern remains that those impacts are real, driving forecast at Morgan Stanley for weaker growth, higher inflation, and later interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve than the market consensus.With credit spreads below average, we'd recommend patience. Those forecasts at these spreads could still drive turbulence.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts in the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen; and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/N5YyWIhCtzmIHtqNNQszcxJ7ScnQFoJJDSl8CrJDD1MFri, 09 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe initial shock of the U.S. administration’s tariff announcements is over, but Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, suggests the current calm could still give way to headwinds for the markets. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today we're going to discuss whether the worst is over for markets – or whether it's just the eye of the storm.It's Friday, May 9th at 2pm in London.After extreme recent volatility, markets have bounced back, generally unwinding their losses since April 2nd. So was that it? The shock of tariff announcements and positioning adjustments may have now passed through, but the impact on the real economy is still to come. In meteorological terms, we think this may be just the eye of the storm.There are several specific bouts of potentially bad weather that we're looking at, driven by tariffs that may be about to pass through.First is the Federal Reserve. Our economists still see no cuts from the Fed this year as tariffs keep inflation elevated on our forecast. The markets in contrast are expecting more action. A scenario where credit markets face both weaker growth and a lack of central bank support remains one of our top concerns.Second is the data. So far in 2025, measures of consumer and company expectations have generally been weak, while readings of activity have tended to be stronger. Now, we think there's a good historical case that it's the expectations that tend to leave and are thus concerned that actual activity could start to soften – as it starts to be measured in a post tariff period.To this end, we're keenly watching measures like shipping and trucking activity, which could give us a better picture of the real impact. Again, a core driver of our concern, despite the economic data holding up so far, is that the impact of tariffs usually takes more time. As our economists note, tariffs historically have pushed up prices after a couple of months and pushed down growth after a couple of quarters. In short, the full storm of that impact may be yet to pass through.That thinking also lies behind our inflation views. Those more optimistic on inflation, and thus expecting more interest rate cuts from the Fed, note that the latest core inflation readings were generally fine. But in contrast, our economists remain more concerned that tariff price impacts simply haven't yet arrived in the official data, noting little change in the core inflation readings for things like goods that in theory should see the largest tariff impact. This, in our view, suggests that the impact on the underlying numbers that the Fed is looking at is still to come.The initial surprise of the U.S. tariff announcements is behind us. Things feel calmer. And the recent economic data has been relatively resilient. One scenario is this simply speaks to how resilient the U.S. economy is. But another explanation is that there's a gap between the surprise of those tariffs and their ultimate economic impact. And our concern remains that those impacts are real, driving forecast at Morgan Stanley for weaker growth, higher inflation, and later interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve than the market consensus.With credit spreads below average, we'd recommend patience. Those forecasts at these spreads could still drive turbulence.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts in the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen; and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.]]>227alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1380fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-is-the-taiwanese-dollar-suddenly-surging--75648675Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.James Lord: And I'm James Lord Morgan Stanley's, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on some extreme moves in the currency markets and give you a sense of what's driving them, and why investors should pay close attention.It's Thursday, May 8th at 10am in New York.James Lord: And 3pm in London.Michael Zezas: So, James, coming into the year, the consensus was that the U.S. dollar might strengthen quite a bit because the U.S. was going to institute tariffs amongst other things. That's actually not what's happened. So, can you explain why the dollar's been weakening and why you expect this trend to continue?James Lord: I think a big factor for the weakening in the dollar, at least in the initial part of the year before the April tariff announcements came through, was a concern that the U.S. economy was going to be slowing down this year. I mean, this was against some of the consensus expectations at the beginning of the year.In our year ahead outlook, we made this call that the dollar would be weakening because of the potential weakness in the U.S. economy, driven by slow down in immigration, limited action on fiscal policy. And whatever tariffs did come through would be kind of damaging for the U.S. economy.And this would all sort of lead to a big slowdown and a kind of end to the U.S. exceptionalism trade that people now talk about all the time. And I think since April 1st or April 2nd tariff announcements came, the tariffs were so large that it raised real concerns about the damage that was potentially going to happen to the U.S. economy.The sort of methodology in which the tariff formulas were created raised a bit of concern about the credibility of the announcements. And then we had this constant on again, off again, on again, off again tariffs. That just created a lot of uncertainty. And in the context of a 15-year bull market of the dollar where it had sucked enormous amounts of capital inflows into the U.S. economy. You know, investors just felt that maybe it was worth taking a few chips off the table and unwinding a little bit of that dollar risk. And we've seen that play out quite notably over the last month. So, I think it's been, yeah, really that those concerns about growth but also this sort of uncertainty about policy in general in the context of, you know, a big bull run for the dollar; and fairly heavy valuations and positioning. Those have been the main issues, I think.Michael Zezas: Right, so we've got here this dynamic where there are economic fundamental reasons the dollar could keep weakening. But also concerns from investors overseas, whether they're ultimately founded or not, that they just might have less demand for owning U.S. dollar denominated assets because of the U.S. trade dynamic. Now it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there was a major market move in the past week around the Taiwanese dollar, which reflected these concerns and created an unusually large move in that currency. Can you explain that dynamic?James Lord:  Yeah, so we've seen really significant moves in the Taiwan dollar. In fact, on May 2nd, the currency saw its largest one-day rally since the 1980s, and over two days gained over 6.5 percent, which for a Taiwan dollar, which is pretty low volatility currency usually, these are really big moves. So in our view, the rally in the Taiwan dollar, and it was remarkably big. We think it's been mostly driven by Taiwanese exporters selling some of their dollar assets with a little bit of foreign equity inflow helping as well. And this is linked back to the sort of trade negotiations as well.I mean, as you know, like one of the things that the U.S. administration has been focused on currency valuations. Historically, many people in the U.S. administration believe the dollar is very strong. And so there has been this sort of issue of currency valuations hanging over the trade negotiations between the U.S. and various Asian countries. And local media in Taiwan have been talking about the possibility that as part of a trade negotiation or trade deal, there could be a currency aspect to that – where the U.S. government would ask the Taiwanese authorities to try to push Taiwan dollar stronger.And you know, I think this sort of media reporting created a little bit of a -- well, not just a little, a significant shift from Taiwanese exporters where they suddenly rush to sell their dollar deposits in to get ahead of any possible effort from the Taiwanese authorities to strengthen their currency. The central bank is being very clear on this.We should have to point this out that the currency has not been part of the trade deal. And yet this hasn't prevented market participants from acting on the perceived risk of it being part of the trade talks. So, you know, Taiwanese exporters own a lot of dollars. Corporates and individuals in Taiwan hold about $275 billion worth of FX deposits and for an $800 billion or so economy, that's pretty sizable. So we think that is that dynamic, which has been the biggest factor in pushing Taiwan dollar stronger.Michael Zezas: Right, so the Taiwan dollar is this interesting case study then in how U.S. public policy choices might be creating the perception of changes in demand for the dollar changes in policy around how foreign governments are supposed to value their currency and investors might be getting ahead of that.Are there any other parts of the world where you're looking at foreign exchange globally, where you see things mispriced in a way relative to some of these expectations that investors need to talk about?James Lord: We do think that the dollar has further to go. I mean, it's on the downside. It's not necessarily linked to expectations that currency agreements will be part of any trade agreement. But, we think the Fed will need to cut rates quite a bit on the back of the slow down in the U.S. economy. Not so much this year. But Mike Gapen and Seth Carpenter, and the U.S. economics team are expecting to see the Fed cut to around 2.5 per cent or so next year. And that's absolutely not priced. And, And so I think as this slowdown – and, this is more of a sort of traditional currency driver compared to some of these other policy issues that we've been talking about. But if the Fed does indeed cut that far, I do think that that's going to put some meaningful pressure on the dollar. And on a sort of interest rate differential perspective, and when we look at what is mispriced and correctly priced, we see the Fed as being mispriced, but the ECB is being quite well priced at the moment.So as that weakening downward pressure comes through on the dollar, it should be reflected on the euro leg. And we see it heading up to 1.2. But just on the trade issue, Mike, what's your view on how those trade negotiations are going? Are we going to get lots of deals being announced soon?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so the news flow here suggests that the U.S. is engaged in multiple negotiations across the globe and are looking to establish agreements relatively quickly, which would at least give us some information about what happens next with regard to the tariffs that are scheduled to increase after that 90 day pause that was announced in earlier in April. We don't know much beyond that.I'd say our expectation is that because the U.S. has enough in common in terms of interests and how it manages its own economy and how most of its trading partners manage their own economies – that there are trade agreements, at least in concept. Perhaps memorandums of understanding that the U.S. can establish with more traditional allies, call it Japan, Europe, for example, that can ultimately put another pause on tariff escalation with those countries.We think it'll be harder with China where there are more fundamental disagreements about how the two countries should interact with each other economically. And while tariffs could come down from these very, very high levels with China, we still see them kind of settling out at still meaningful substantial headline numbers; call it the 50 to 60 per cent range. And while that might enable more trade than we're seeing right now with China because of these 145 per cent tariff levels, it'll still be substantially less than where we started the year where tariff levels were, you know, sub 20 per cent for the most part with China.So, there is a variety of different things happening. I would expect the general dynamic to be – we are going to see more agreements with more counterparties. However, those will mostly result in more pauses and ongoing negotiation, and so the uncertainty will not be completely eliminated. And so, to that point, James, I think I hear you saying that there is potentially a difference between sometimes currencies move based on general policy uncertainty and anxieties created around that.James Lord: Yeah, that's right. I think that's safer ground, I think for us as currency strategists to be anchoring our view to because it’s something that we deal with day in, day out for all economies. The impact of this uncertainty variable. It could be like, I think directionally supports a weaker dollar, but sort of quantifying it, understanding like how much of that is in the price; could it get worse, could it get better? That's something that's a little bit more difficult to sort of anchor the view to. So, at the moment we feel that it's pushing in the same dire]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1f-V9Fh4pXMq7zNarLGFVHbjS8Sju7DIi_nZefU7wYcThu, 08 May 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyInvestors were caught off guard last week when the Taiwanese dollar surged to a multi-year high. Our strategists Michael Zezas and James Lord look at what was behind this unexpected rally. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.James Lord: And I'm James Lord Morgan Stanley's, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on some extreme moves in the currency markets and give you a sense of what's driving them, and why investors should pay close attention.It's Thursday, May 8th at 10am in New York.James Lord: And 3pm in London.Michael Zezas: So, James, coming into the year, the consensus was that the U.S. dollar might strengthen quite a bit because the U.S. was going to institute tariffs amongst other things. That's actually not what's happened. So, can you explain why the dollar's been weakening and why you expect this trend to continue?James Lord: I think a big factor for the weakening in the dollar, at least in the initial part of the year before the April tariff announcements came through, was a concern that the U.S. economy was going to be slowing down this year. I mean, this was against some of the consensus expectations at the beginning of the year.In our year ahead outlook, we made this call that the dollar would be weakening because of the potential weakness in the U.S. economy, driven by slow down in immigration, limited action on fiscal policy. And whatever tariffs did come through would be kind of damaging for the U.S. economy.And this would all sort of lead to a big slowdown and a kind of end to the U.S. exceptionalism trade that people now talk about all the time. And I think since April 1st or April 2nd tariff announcements came, the tariffs were so large that it raised real concerns about the damage that was potentially going to happen to the U.S. economy.The sort of methodology in which the tariff formulas were created raised a bit of concern about the credibility of the announcements. And then we had this constant on again, off again, on again, off again tariffs. That just created a lot of uncertainty. And in the context of a 15-year bull market of the dollar where it had sucked enormous amounts of capital inflows into the U.S. economy. You know, investors just felt that maybe it was worth taking a few chips off the table and unwinding a little bit of that dollar risk. And we've seen that play out quite notably over the last month. So, I think it's been, yeah, really that those concerns about growth but also this sort of uncertainty about policy in general in the context of, you know, a big bull run for the dollar; and fairly heavy valuations and positioning. Those have been the main issues, I think.Michael Zezas: Right, so we've got here this dynamic where there are economic fundamental reasons the dollar could keep weakening. But also concerns from investors overseas, whether they're ultimately founded or not, that they just might have less demand for owning U.S. dollar denominated assets because of the U.S. trade dynamic. Now it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there was a major market move in the past week around the Taiwanese dollar, which reflected these concerns and created an unusually large move in that currency. Can you explain that dynamic?James Lord:  Yeah, so we've seen really significant moves in the Taiwan dollar. In fact, on May 2nd, the currency saw its largest one-day rally since the 1980s, and over two days gained over 6.5 percent, which for a Taiwan dollar, which is pretty low volatility currency usually, these are really big moves. So in our view, the rally in the Taiwan dollar, and it was remarkably big. We think it's been mostly driven by...]]>671alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1379fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-investors-searching-for-new-safe-havens--75648694Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist.Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Serena Tang: Today's topic, how investors' perceptions of safe havens are evolving, the impact on correlation between asset classes, and what all this means for your portfolio.It's Wednesday, May 7th at 10am in New York.April was a really challenging month, and some market moves were highly unusual. There was also a lot of investor concern whether U.S. Treasuries would continue to be a safe haven. In fact, this became one of the biggest market debates over the last few weeks.Vishy, let's start here. Prior to this recent sell off, foreign investors looked at U.S. assets as a safe haven. Why is that? And is it still the case now after this turbulent month?Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, if you just step back and look at it, U.S. enjoyed positive growth differentials and positive yield differentials with developed markets in the rest of the world. On top of that, there was a consistent policy – not necessarily infallible policy – but there's a consistent policy with a clear sense of demarcation between the executive and the central bank.All of this meant U.S. was a very attractive destination for foreign investor flows. Not only during periods of normalcy where U.S. equities really attracted inflows and performed really well, but also during the periods of economic stress; where even periods where the stress was coming from the U.S. itself, such as the Global Financial Crisis. This correlation between bonds and stocks held and U.S. Treasuries were the safe haven asset as the single largest and most liquid, and highly negatively correlated asset with risk assets. So that really worked.What we are now seeing is that growth differential I talked about may no longer be holding. You know, for these [20]25 and [20]26 U.S. and euro area growth basically will converge – and if our economists’ expectations are right, in 2026, euro area will be growing at a faster pace than the U.S.So, growth differential argument is fading. And there are some questions about the continued Fed independence. So put all these things together. Some investors are beginning to question whether U.S. assets will continue to be safe haven assets.So let me come back to you Serena. There've been some recent market moves that have been extremely unusual. That's what created all this debate. In some of – a few days in April, during the periods of sell off, we had both stocks and bonds selling off. And it felt like cross-asset correlations have gone totally haywire.So, can you talk a little bit about which correlations have changed? Which correlations have held up in these sell off?Serena Tang: What was highly unusual, and I think reflects part of the debate on U.S. as a safe haven, is the correlation between U.S. equities and the dollar. It is very high at the moment, about sort of two standard deviation above the five-year average. While it's not unheard of for FX stocks correlation to be high, it is usually more associated with EM or emerging markets rather than DM or developed markets. As a means, investors now require higher risk premium for holding the equities, which is a risk asset; but also holding the dollar, which again, traditionally is not thought of as a risk asset.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, how did the correlation between bonds and stocks hold up in this period?Serena Tang: Surprisingly, the correlation have really, really held up. Stocks and bond return correlation turned very negative during the sell off that we saw, which means that equity losses were actually offset by bond returns. Now, this isn't entirely true across the curve. You saw 2 Year Treasuries being a much effective diversifier than say the 30 Year Treasury. But all in all, I think it means bonds still work as a diversifier.Now on this point Vishy, how do you think policy will impact asset correlations we've been talking about, as well as the perception of U.S. assets as a safe haven.Vishy Tirupattur: So, as I said before, positive growth differentials fade, and we have negative growth differential. And if there are continued questions about the Fed's independence, so some of the attraction of U.S. assets, particularly U.S. Treasuries as a safe haven asset, will be challenged. But that challenge hits the practical reality of the size and the scale of the safe haven assets.So, if you look around, if you add the comparably rated European government bond market and compare that to the U.S. government bond market, the U.S. market is about 10 times as larger. So, more scale, more liquidity, and the ability to deploy capital during the periods of stress is clearly more in the U.S.So, this is what I would say. The status of U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency and U.S. Treasuries as the global safe haven asset have taken a bit of a ding, but not gone away.Serena Tang: Vishy, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Vishy Tirupattur: Great speaking with you, Serena, as always.Serena Tang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pFjNA3mwHVHaneUEKjC4A-j1HYJ3WvxII6xuTBFtadMWed, 07 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyThe traditional correlations between some asset classes went haywire in April. Our analysts Serena Tang and Vishy Tirupattur discuss whether, in this environment, investors still consider U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar to be reliable ports in a...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist.Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Serena Tang: Today's topic, how investors' perceptions of safe havens are evolving, the impact on correlation between asset classes, and what all this means for your portfolio.It's Wednesday, May 7th at 10am in New York.April was a really challenging month, and some market moves were highly unusual. There was also a lot of investor concern whether U.S. Treasuries would continue to be a safe haven. In fact, this became one of the biggest market debates over the last few weeks.Vishy, let's start here. Prior to this recent sell off, foreign investors looked at U.S. assets as a safe haven. Why is that? And is it still the case now after this turbulent month?Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, if you just step back and look at it, U.S. enjoyed positive growth differentials and positive yield differentials with developed markets in the rest of the world. On top of that, there was a consistent policy – not necessarily infallible policy – but there's a consistent policy with a clear sense of demarcation between the executive and the central bank.All of this meant U.S. was a very attractive destination for foreign investor flows. Not only during periods of normalcy where U.S. equities really attracted inflows and performed really well, but also during the periods of economic stress; where even periods where the stress was coming from the U.S. itself, such as the Global Financial Crisis. This correlation between bonds and stocks held and U.S. Treasuries were the safe haven asset as the single largest and most liquid, and highly negatively correlated asset with risk assets. So that really worked.What we are now seeing is that growth differential I talked about may no longer be holding. You know, for these [20]25 and [20]26 U.S. and euro area growth basically will converge – and if our economists’ expectations are right, in 2026, euro area will be growing at a faster pace than the U.S.So, growth differential argument is fading. And there are some questions about the continued Fed independence. So put all these things together. Some investors are beginning to question whether U.S. assets will continue to be safe haven assets.So let me come back to you Serena. There've been some recent market moves that have been extremely unusual. That's what created all this debate. In some of – a few days in April, during the periods of sell off, we had both stocks and bonds selling off. And it felt like cross-asset correlations have gone totally haywire.So, can you talk a little bit about which correlations have changed? Which correlations have held up in these sell off?Serena Tang: What was highly unusual, and I think reflects part of the debate on U.S. as a safe haven, is the correlation between U.S. equities and the dollar. It is very high at the moment, about sort of two standard deviation above the five-year average. While it's not unheard of for FX stocks correlation to be high, it is usually more associated with EM or emerging markets rather than DM or developed markets. As a means, investors now require higher risk premium for holding the equities, which is a risk asset; but also holding the dollar, which again, traditionally is not thought of as a risk asset.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, how did the correlation between bonds and stocks hold up in this period?Serena Tang: Surprisingly, the...]]>345alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1378fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-economy-solid-footing-for-now-uncertainty-ahead--75648651Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today we're talking about the Federal Open Market Committee Meeting underway, and the path for rates from here.It's Tuesday, May 6th at 10am in New York.Mike, before we talk about your expectations for the FOMC meeting itself, I wanted to get your take on the U.S. economy heading into the meeting. How are you seeing things today? And in particular, how do you think what happened on April 2nd, so-called Liberation Day, affects the outlook?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think right now, Matt, I would say the economy's still on relatively solid footing, and by that I mean the economy had been moderating. Yes, the first quarter GDP print was negative. But that was mainly because firms were frontloading a lot of inventories through imports. So imports were up over 40 percent at an annualized pace in the quarter. A lot of that went into inventories and into business spending. That was just a mechanical drag on activity.And the April employment report, I think, showed the same thing. We're now averaging about 145,000 jobs per month this year. That's down from about 170,000 per month in the second half of last year. So the hiring rate is slowing down, but no signs of a sudden stop. No signs in layoffs picking up. So I'd say the economy is on fairly solid footing, and the labor market is also on fairly solid footing – as we enter the period now when we think tariffs will have a greater effect on the outlook. So you asked, you know, Liberation Day. How does that affect the outlook? Right now we'd say it puts a lot of uncertainty in front of us. on pretty solid footing now. But Matt, looking forward, we have a lot of concerns about where things may go and we expect activity to slow and inflation to rise.Matthew Hornbach: That's great background, Mike, for what I want to ask you about next, which is of course the FOMC meeting this week. We won't get a new set of economic projections from the committee. But if we did, what do you think they would do with them and how would you assess the reaction function one might be able to tease out of those economic projections?Michael Gapen: You're right, we don't get a new set of projections, but New York Fed President John Williams did provide some indication about how he adjusted his forecast, and John tends to be one of the – kind of a median participant.He tends to be centrist in his thinking and his projection. So I do think that that gives us an indication of what the Fed is thinking; and he said he expects GDP growth to slow to somewhat below 1 percent in 2025. He expects inflation to rise to 3.5 to 4 percent this year, and he said the unemployment rates likely to move between 4.5 and 5 percent over the next year. And those phrases are really key. That's the same thing, Matt, as you know, we are expecting for the U.S. economy and I do think the Fed is thinking of it the same way.Matthew Hornbach: So one final question for you, Mike. In terms of this meeting itself, what are you expecting the Fed to deliver this week? And what are the risks you see being around that expectation; you know, that might catch investors off guard?Michael Gapen:I think the Fed's main message this week will be that they're prepared to wait, that they think policy's in a good spot right now. They think inflation will be rising sharply, that the tariff shock is a lot larger than they had anticipated earlier this year. And they will need time to assess whether that inflation impulse is transitory, or whether it creates more persistent inflation. So I think what they will say is we're in a good position to wait and we need clarity on the outlook before we can act.In this case, we think acting means doing nothing. But acting could also mean cutting if the labor market weakens. So I think there'll be worried about inflation today, a weak labor market tomorrow. And so I think risks around this meeting really are tilted in the direction of a more hawkish message than markets are expecting at least vis-a-vis current pricing. I think the market wants to hear the Fed will be ready to support the economy. Of course, we think they will, but I think the Fed's also going to be worried about inflation pressures in the near term. So that, I think, might catch investors off guard.So Matt, what I think might catch investors off guard may be a little misplaced. I'm an economist after all. You're the strategist, you're the expert on the treasury market and how investors may be perceiving events at the moment. So the treasury market had quite the month since April 2nd. For a moment U.S. treasuries didn't act like the safe haven asset many have come to expect. What do you think happened?Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, you're absolutely right. Treasury yields initially fell, but then spent a healthy portion of the last month rising and investors were caught off guard by what they saw happening in the treasury market. I've seen this type of behavior in the treasury market, which I've been watching now for 25 years. I've seen this happen twice before in my career. The first time was during the Great Financial Crisis, and the second time I saw it was in March of 2020. So, this being the third time you know, I don't know if it was the charm or if it was something else, but treasury yields went up quite a bit.I think what investors were witnessing in the treasury market is really a reflection of the degree of uncertainty and the breadth with which that uncertainty, traversed the world. Both the Great Financial Crisis and the initial stage of the pandemic in March of 2020 were events that were global in nature. They were in many ways systemic in nature, and they were events that most investors hadn't contemplated or seen in their lifetimes. And when this happens, I think investors tend to reduce risk in all of its forms until the dust settles. And one of those very important forms of risk in the fixed income markets is duration risk.So, I think investors were paring back duration risk, which helped the U.S. Treasury market perform pretty poorly at one moment over the past month.Michael Gapen: So Matt, one aspect of market pricing that stands out to me is how rates markets are pricing 75 basis points of rate cuts this year. And just after April 2nd, the market had priced in about 100 basis points of cuts.How are you thinking about the market pricing today? Matt, as you know, it differs quite a bit from what we think will happen.Matthew Hornbach: Yeah. This is where, you know, understanding that market prices in the interest rate complex reflect the average outcome of a wide variety of scenarios; really every scenario that is conceivable in the minds of investors. And, of course, as you mentioned, Mike depending on exactly how this year ends up playing out there, there could be a scenario in which the Federal Reserve has to lower rates much more aggressively than perhaps even markets are pricing today.So, the market being an average of a wide variety of outcome will find it really challenging to take out all of the rate cuts that are priced in today. Or said differently, the market will find it challenging to price in your baseline scenario. And ultimately, I think the way in which the market ends up truing up to your projections, Mike, is just with time.I think as we make our way through this year and the economic data come in, in-line with your baseline projections, the market will eventually price out those rate cuts that you see in there today. But that's going to take time. It's going to take investors growing increasingly comfortable that we can avoid a recession at least in perception this year before, you know, on your projections, we have a bit of a slower economy in 2026.Michael Gapen: Well, it definitely does feel like a bimodal world, where investor conviction is low. Matt, where do you have conviction in the rates market today?Matthew Hornbach: So, the way we've been thinking about this environment where we can avoid a recession this year, but maybe 2026 the risks rise a bit more. We think that that's the type of environment where the yield curve in the United States can steepen, and what that means practically is that yields on longer maturity bonds will go up relative to yields on shorter maturity bonds. So, you get this steepening of the yield curve. And that is where we have the highest conviction; in terms of, what happens with the Treasury market this year is we have a steeper yield curve by the time we get to December.Now part of that steepening we think comes because as we approach 2026 where Mike, you have the Fed beginning to lower rates in your baseline, the market will have to increasingly price with more conviction a lower policy rate from the Fed. But then at the same time, you know, we probably will have an environment where treasury supply will have to increase.As a result of the fiscal policies that the government is discussing at the moment. And so you have this environment where yields on longer maturity securities are pressured higher relative to yields on shorter maturity treasuries.So, with that, Mike, we'll wrap our conversation. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: It's been great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/j0ZYON61y2oHd1OsA6-QR_i0KLf5j7St1uiTh_H1OZoTue, 06 May 2025 20:20:07 +0000gtyWith the May FOMC meeting in progress, our analysts Matt Hornbach and Michael Gapen offer perspective on U.S. economic projections and whether markets are aligned. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today we're talking about the Federal Open Market Committee Meeting underway, and the path for rates from here.It's Tuesday, May 6th at 10am in New York.Mike, before we talk about your expectations for the FOMC meeting itself, I wanted to get your take on the U.S. economy heading into the meeting. How are you seeing things today? And in particular, how do you think what happened on April 2nd, so-called Liberation Day, affects the outlook?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think right now, Matt, I would say the economy's still on relatively solid footing, and by that I mean the economy had been moderating. Yes, the first quarter GDP print was negative. But that was mainly because firms were frontloading a lot of inventories through imports. So imports were up over 40 percent at an annualized pace in the quarter. A lot of that went into inventories and into business spending. That was just a mechanical drag on activity.And the April employment report, I think, showed the same thing. We're now averaging about 145,000 jobs per month this year. That's down from about 170,000 per month in the second half of last year. So the hiring rate is slowing down, but no signs of a sudden stop. No signs in layoffs picking up. So I'd say the economy is on fairly solid footing, and the labor market is also on fairly solid footing – as we enter the period now when we think tariffs will have a greater effect on the outlook. So you asked, you know, Liberation Day. How does that affect the outlook? Right now we'd say it puts a lot of uncertainty in front of us. on pretty solid footing now. But Matt, looking forward, we have a lot of concerns about where things may go and we expect activity to slow and inflation to rise.Matthew Hornbach: That's great background, Mike, for what I want to ask you about next, which is of course the FOMC meeting this week. We won't get a new set of economic projections from the committee. But if we did, what do you think they would do with them and how would you assess the reaction function one might be able to tease out of those economic projections?Michael Gapen: You're right, we don't get a new set of projections, but New York Fed President John Williams did provide some indication about how he adjusted his forecast, and John tends to be one of the – kind of a median participant.He tends to be centrist in his thinking and his projection. So I do think that that gives us an indication of what the Fed is thinking; and he said he expects GDP growth to slow to somewhat below 1 percent in 2025. He expects inflation to rise to 3.5 to 4 percent this year, and he said the unemployment rates likely to move between 4.5 and 5 percent over the next year. And those phrases are really key. That's the same thing, Matt, as you know, we are expecting for the U.S. economy and I do think the Fed is thinking of it the same way.Matthew Hornbach: So one final question for you, Mike. In terms of this meeting itself, what are you expecting the Fed to deliver this week? And what are the risks you see being around that expectation; you know, that might catch investors off guard?Michael Gapen:I think the Fed's main message this week will be that they're prepared to wait, that they think policy's in a good spot right now. They think inflation will be rising sharply, that the tariff shock is a lot larger than they had anticipated earlier this year. And they will need time to assess whether that...]]>679alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1377fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/munis-tax-free-income-in-times-of-stress--75648551Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
For a full list of episode disclosures click here.
----- Transcript -----
Mark Schmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Schmidt, Morgan Stanley's Head of Municipal Strategy.Craig Brandon: I'm Craig Brandon, Co-Director of Municipal Investments at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Mark Schmidt: Today, let's talk about the biggest market you hardly ever hear about – municipal bonds, a $4 trillion asset class.It's Monday, May 5th at 10am in Boston.Mark Schmidt: If you've driven, flown, gone to school or turned on a tap, chances are munis made it happen. Although munis are late cycle haven, they were not immune to the latest bout of market volatility. Craig, why was April so tough?Craig Brandon: So, what we say in April, it was sort of the trifecta of things that happened that were a little different than other asset classes. The first thing that happened is we saw a significant increase in treasury rates – and munis are generally correlated to treasuries. We're a very high-quality asset class, that's viewed as a duration asset class. So, one thing we saw were rates going up. When we see rates going up, you generally see money coming out of the market, right? So, I think investors were a little bit impacted by the higher rates, the correlation to treasuries, the duration, and saw some flows out of the market.Secondly, what we saw is conversation about the tax exemption in Washington D.C. What that did is it caused muni issuers to pull their issuance forward. So, if you're an infrastructure issuer, you are issuing bonds in the next year to year and a half; you're going to pull that forward because if there's any risk of loss of the tax exemption, you want to get these bonds issued today. So that's basically what drives technicals. It's supply and demand. So, what we saw was a decrease in demand because of higher rates; an increase in supply because of issuance being pulled forward.And the third part of the trifecta we refer to is the conversations about the economy. So, I would put that, it's sort of a distant third, but there's still conversations about maybe credit weakness driven by a slowing economy.Mark Schmidt: Craig, your team has been through a lot of tough market cycles. Given your experience, how did the most recent selloff compare? And why was it not like 2008?Craig Brandon: I started my career back in 1998 during the long-term capital management crisis. I lived through 2008. I lived through the COVID crisis, and you know, really when I look at the crisis in 2008 – no banks went out of business three weeks ago, right? In 2008 we were really sitting on a trading desk wondering where this was going to end.You know, we had a number of meetings with our staff, over the last couple weeks explaining to them why it was different and how. Yes, there was some volatility here, but you could see that there was going to be an end to this, and this was not going to be a permanent restructuring of the market. So, I think we felt comfortable. It was very different than 2008 and it really felt different than COVID.Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring. But with economic growth set to slow sharply, how does your credit team think the fiscal health of America's state and local governments will hold up?Craig Brandon: Well, remember state and local governments, and when we're talking about munis, we're also talking about other infrastructure asset classes like water and sewer bonds. Like, you know, transportation, bonds, airports. We're talking about toll roads.They went into this with a very strong balance sheet, right? Remember, there was a lot of infrastructure money spent by the federal government during COVID to give issuers money to make it through COVID. There's still a lot of money on balance sheets. So, what we do is we're going into this crisis with a lot of cash on balance sheets, allowing issuers to be able to withstand some weakness in the economy and get through to the other side of this.Mark Schmidt: Not only do state and local governments have a lot of cash, but they're just not that impacted by tariffs, right? So why did muni yields perform worse than U.S. treasuries over the past couple of weeks?Craig Brandon: Right. It really… We're technically driven, right? The U.S. muni market is more retail driven than some other asset classes. Remember – investment grade corporates, treasury bonds, there's a lot of institutional buyers in those markets. In the municipal market, it's primarily retail driven.So, when you know, individual retail investors get nervous, they tend to pull money out of the market. So, what we saw was money coming out of the market. At the same time, we saw an individual increase in more bonds, which just led to very weak technicals, which when we see that it eventually reverses itself.Mark Schmidt: Now I almost buried the lede, right? Why invest in munis? Well, they're great credit quality, but they're also tax free. In fact, muni bonds have been exempt from federal taxes for over a century. You have a lot of experience putting together tax bills, and right now people are worried about tax reform. Do you think investors should be concerned?Craig Brandon: Listen. I'm not really losing a lot of sleep at night over the tax exemption. And I think there's other, you know, issues to worry about. Why do I say that?As you mentioned Mark, I spent the early years of my career working for the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee. I spent seven years negotiating budgets and what that did is it gave me a window – into how, you know, not only state budgets, but the federal budget gets put together.So, what it also showed me was the relationship between state and local elected officials and your representatives in Congress and your representatives in the Senate. So, I know firsthand that members of Congress and members of the Senate in Washington have very close relationships with members of the state legislatures, with governors, with mayors, with city council members, with school board members – who are all delivering the message that significantly higher financing costs that could potentially happen from the loss of the exemption, could be meaningful to them.And I think members of Congress and members of the Senate and Washington get it. They understand it because they were all there when it happened. The last time the muni exemption came under fire was back in 2012; and in 2012, a lot of members of Congress were in the state legislature back then, so they understand it.Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring because right now, tax equivalent yields in the muni market are 7 to 8 per cent. That's equal to or greater than the long run rate of return on the stock market. So, whether to invest in the muni market seems pretty straightforward. How to invest in the muni market? Well, with 50,000 issuers, that's a little complicated. How do you recommend investors get exposure to tax-free munis right now?Craig Brandon: Well, and that is a very common question. The muni market can be very confusing because there are just so many bonds out there. You know, over 50,000 issuers, there's over a million individual CUSIPs in the muni market.So as an individual investor, where do you start? There's different coupon structures, different call structures, different maturity structures, ratings. There's so many different variables that go into a decision in investing in muni bonds.I can make an argument that you could probably mimic the S&P 500 with 500 different stocks. But most muni indices are over 50,000 constituents. It's very difficult to replicate the muni market by yourself, which is why a lot of people, you know, they let professional money managers, do the investing for them. Whether you're looking at mutual funds, whether you're looking at separately managed accounts, whether you're looking at exchange traded fund ETFs, there's a lot of different ways to get exposure to the muni market. But with the huge amount of choices you have to make, I think a lot of individual investors would just let a professional with the experience do it.Mark Schmidt: And active managers let you customize portfolios to your unique tax situation and risk tolerance. So, Craig, a final question for you. How do munis fit into a diversified portfolio?Craig Brandon: Munis are generally the stable part of most people's portfolios. Remember, you don't have a choice of whether you're going to pay your taxes or not. You have to pay your taxes, you have to pay your water bill, you have to pay your power bill. You have to pay tolls on highways. You have to pay airport fees when you buy an airline ticket, right?It's not an option. So, because the revenue streams are so stable, you see most muni bonds rated AA or AAA. The default rate for rated munis is significantly below 1 per cent. It's something in the ballpark of about 0.2 per cent*. So, with such a low default rate – listen, we're technically driven, as I said. You see ups and downs in the market. But over a longer period of time, munis can give you generally stable returns, tax exempt income over the long term, and they're one of the more stable asset classes that you see in your overall portfolio.Mark Schmidt: That sounds boring, and I mean that in the best possible way. Craig, thanks so much for your time today.Craig Brandon: Thanks, Mark, happy to be hereMark Schmidt: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wh]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4gTHGTSMXctnwpepnqQvh1mPD8Iq3sS4e9QaJlu_2zoMon, 05 May 2025 22:38:49 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research analyst Mark Schmidt and Investment Management’s Craig Brandon discuss the heightened uncertainty in the U.S. municipal bonds market. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
For a full list of episode disclosures click here.
----- Transcript -----
Mark Schmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Schmidt, Morgan Stanley's Head of Municipal Strategy.Craig Brandon: I'm Craig Brandon, Co-Director of Municipal Investments at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Mark Schmidt: Today, let's talk about the biggest market you hardly ever hear about – municipal bonds, a $4 trillion asset class.It's Monday, May 5th at 10am in Boston.Mark Schmidt: If you've driven, flown, gone to school or turned on a tap, chances are munis made it happen. Although munis are late cycle haven, they were not immune to the latest bout of market volatility. Craig, why was April so tough?Craig Brandon: So, what we say in April, it was sort of the trifecta of things that happened that were a little different than other asset classes. The first thing that happened is we saw a significant increase in treasury rates – and munis are generally correlated to treasuries. We're a very high-quality asset class, that's viewed as a duration asset class. So, one thing we saw were rates going up. When we see rates going up, you generally see money coming out of the market, right? So, I think investors were a little bit impacted by the higher rates, the correlation to treasuries, the duration, and saw some flows out of the market.Secondly, what we saw is conversation about the tax exemption in Washington D.C. What that did is it caused muni issuers to pull their issuance forward. So, if you're an infrastructure issuer, you are issuing bonds in the next year to year and a half; you're going to pull that forward because if there's any risk of loss of the tax exemption, you want to get these bonds issued today. So that's basically what drives technicals. It's supply and demand. So, what we saw was a decrease in demand because of higher rates; an increase in supply because of issuance being pulled forward.And the third part of the trifecta we refer to is the conversations about the economy. So, I would put that, it's sort of a distant third, but there's still conversations about maybe credit weakness driven by a slowing economy.Mark Schmidt: Craig, your team has been through a lot of tough market cycles. Given your experience, how did the most recent selloff compare? And why was it not like 2008?Craig Brandon: I started my career back in 1998 during the long-term capital management crisis. I lived through 2008. I lived through the COVID crisis, and you know, really when I look at the crisis in 2008 – no banks went out of business three weeks ago, right? In 2008 we were really sitting on a trading desk wondering where this was going to end.You know, we had a number of meetings with our staff, over the last couple weeks explaining to them why it was different and how. Yes, there was some volatility here, but you could see that there was going to be an end to this, and this was not going to be a permanent restructuring of the market. So, I think we felt comfortable. It was very different than 2008 and it really felt different than COVID.Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring. But with economic growth set to slow sharply, how does your credit team think the fiscal health of America's state and local governments will hold up?Craig Brandon: Well, remember state and local governments, and when we're talking about munis, we're also talking about other infrastructure asset classes like water and sewer bonds. Like, you know, transportation,...]]>568alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1376fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-uk-may-be-poised-for-a-surprising-rebound--75648724Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Chief UK Economist at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today we're going to talk about the United Kingdom and why, despite a downbeat outlook by many in the market, we remain more optimistic.It's Friday, May 2nd at 2pm in London.Bruna, it's great to talk to you again about the UK and not just because this is an unusual day in London where it's sunny and warm, and at the moment warmer than Los Angeles. You know, when discussing the UK, I do think you kind of need to take a step back. This is a country and an economy that's had a tough number of years where growth has been sub-trend, inflation's been higher, and a lot of assets have traded at a discount.So maybe just to give some context, talk to us a little bit about the last couple of years in the UK and the challenges the economy has faced.Bruna Skarica: Indeed, Andrew, I do think it's important to take a step back to appreciate just the amount of supply side shocks the UK has seen in recent years. First, between 2016 and 2020, of course, the country had to navigate Brexit negotiations. The elevated uncertainty kept a lid on business CapEx. In 2020, of course, as the rest of the world, we saw the lockdown and the pandemic. What followed were supply chain disruptions, and then, the European energy shock in 2022. I do want to zoom in on this final point because in its scale, the natural gas price surge in the UK was twice more of a hit to growth compared to the 1970s oil price shock.We've also seen a fair share of volatile market moves, most notably around the mini budget in the autumn of 2022. On top of all of this, the Bank of England into these supply side shocks had to hike interest rates to cap the inflation surge. And they went to above 5 per cent and have recently been relatively slower in reducing policy restrictiveness than most of its peers.So, when you tally all these factors up, it's really no surprise that the UK has seen an exceptionally weak post COVID recovery.Andrew Sheets: And that's continued right into this year. You know, I remember a lot of conversations with global investors heading into 2025, and again, the sentiment around the UK was kind of downbeat. Growth was pretty soft. Inflation was still high. Because inflation was high, interest rates here were still quite high. And so, you really had this, you know, unattractive mix of weak growth, high inflation, tight monetary policy. And then you could throw onto that, this uncertainty around the U.S. and trade. And you had a Trump administration that was adopting a more adversarial policy towards trade and towards Europe, which the UK was getting caught up in.So, you know – again, did I miss any of the challenges that the UK was facing, entering this year?Bruna Skarica: No, I think that's a great summary. First, at the end of last year, of course, the government faced some pretty tough decisions in the October budget, and they hiked a tax – a payroll tax really – in order to balance the books, which created somewhat subdued sentiment around the labor market this year.Now the labor market has been soft in the UK at the start of this year, but it did hold up a little bit better perhaps than the expectations from the end of last year. At the start of the year, we also saw the energy inflation forecast rise. So, that led to a more cautious tone by the Bank of England in February and March, as you mentioned. And now on the trade front, although we have a small manufacturing sector, we are a small open economy, we're a big beta to global growth dynamics.I would just like to mention here that one of the real bright spots of the UK economy in recent years have been services exports to the U.S., the kind of high-value-added white-collar services exports, which rose between 2019 and 2023 by 50 per cent. Now with the growth in the U.S. slowing and obviously the Euro area as well, UK growth will be affected too this year. We actually took our growth forecast down by around 30 basis points in our latest GDP revisions.Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, we're here to talk about the future and you know, I do think it's fair to say that going forward we think this picture is starting to look better. So, let's jump right into that. Across a number of specific points. Why do we think the UK story could look better as you look ahead?Bruna Skarica: Absolutely. I mean, the last point that I mentioned, I do think I want to put it in context. The trade related revisions in the UK are still less than what our colleagues in the euro area and the U.S. had undertaken in recent months on the back of the U.S. trade policy shifts. So, the UK does look a little bit like a relative winner there.Second, we now think that inflation can come down faster than both the Bank of England and the market expected at the beginning of the year. Commodities prices will do a fair bit of heavy lifting this year, but we do think that next year in particular, domestically generated inflation could slow fairly sharply as wage growth sticks around 3 to 3.5 per cent, which we think is fairly inflation target consistent.This all means the Bank of England should be able to cut more than the markets expect. We anticipate 125 basis point worth of cuts between May and November, and we think the terminal rate could fall to as low as 2 ¾. So, we think the neutral rate in the UK is between 2.5 to 3.5 per cent, and we do think the market still has a bit of adjustment to do in the sense of the pricing of the terminal rate one and two years ahead.The third point around fiscal policy I think is quite interesting. Fiscal policy has been in great focus in the UK in recent years. We had a big fiscal event in October. We had another fiscal event just now in March. The borrowing increase was less than what the market expected. Deficit projections are such that we are expecting deficit to fall from around 4.8 per cent this year to 3 per cent over the course of the next three years, and for debt to GDP ratio to remain at around 100 per cent of GDP. I would perhaps contrast that with France where our economist is expecting the deficit to remain north of 5 per cent over the course of the next two years.Finally, an important point to make is that the UK government amid trade shifts in the U.S. is looking for a closer relationship with the EU, or rather a trade reset with the EU. EU remains our closest trading partner and in the aftermath of Brexit, the current government has an ambition to improve trading in food and goods; and also to ensure that the UK is part of the European Defense Program, which would allow UK defense companies to partake in the defense and security path that the European Union presented in recent weeks. There is a summit being held on May 19th, and obviously the trade and corporation agreement is coming up for revision in 2026.So, we do think those relations between UK and the EU could become somewhat closer over the course of this year and next.But now a question from me, which is, what does all this mean on the strategy side? UK assets have obviously been quite unloved in recent years. Do you think that's about to change?Andrew Sheets: So again, I think it's pretty interesting that markets are anticipatory, and I think markets are pretty smart here. So, you've already seen the British pound, the currency do quite well. This year it's up against the dollar. You've seen the UK stock market do quite well. It's up about 5 per cent this year, despite the S&P 500 being down quite significantly.So, you're already seeing, I think, some signs that investors are warming up to the UK and you know, I do think that if our expectations play out, that could continue. You know, UK stocks do tend to be concentrated and slower growing, less exciting sectors. But their valuations are also less demanding. You know, the U.S. Stock Index trades at about 21 times next year's earnings. The UK stock market trades a little bit under 13 times next year's earnings.And I also think it's really important that if the Bank of England does cut interest rates more than the market expects, which again, as you discussed, is one of our expectations here at Morgan Stanley, that could be pretty supportive for the UK bond market, which continues to offer pretty high yields.Bruna, thanks for joining me for this conversation. It's always great to catch up with you.Bruna Skarica: My pleasure, Andrew. Thank you for the invite.Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eUbB6nHvcFq1eaTJpzUe9LDdsfNmbMSiQJK9obPXMHIFri, 02 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyDespite news that the UK economy is set to slow due to uncertainty around US trade policy, our analysts Andrew Sheets and Bruna Skarica explain why they have a more optimistic outlook. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Chief UK Economist at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today we're going to talk about the United Kingdom and why, despite a downbeat outlook by many in the market, we remain more optimistic.It's Friday, May 2nd at 2pm in London.Bruna, it's great to talk to you again about the UK and not just because this is an unusual day in London where it's sunny and warm, and at the moment warmer than Los Angeles. You know, when discussing the UK, I do think you kind of need to take a step back. This is a country and an economy that's had a tough number of years where growth has been sub-trend, inflation's been higher, and a lot of assets have traded at a discount.So maybe just to give some context, talk to us a little bit about the last couple of years in the UK and the challenges the economy has faced.Bruna Skarica: Indeed, Andrew, I do think it's important to take a step back to appreciate just the amount of supply side shocks the UK has seen in recent years. First, between 2016 and 2020, of course, the country had to navigate Brexit negotiations. The elevated uncertainty kept a lid on business CapEx. In 2020, of course, as the rest of the world, we saw the lockdown and the pandemic. What followed were supply chain disruptions, and then, the European energy shock in 2022. I do want to zoom in on this final point because in its scale, the natural gas price surge in the UK was twice more of a hit to growth compared to the 1970s oil price shock.We've also seen a fair share of volatile market moves, most notably around the mini budget in the autumn of 2022. On top of all of this, the Bank of England into these supply side shocks had to hike interest rates to cap the inflation surge. And they went to above 5 per cent and have recently been relatively slower in reducing policy restrictiveness than most of its peers.So, when you tally all these factors up, it's really no surprise that the UK has seen an exceptionally weak post COVID recovery.Andrew Sheets: And that's continued right into this year. You know, I remember a lot of conversations with global investors heading into 2025, and again, the sentiment around the UK was kind of downbeat. Growth was pretty soft. Inflation was still high. Because inflation was high, interest rates here were still quite high. And so, you really had this, you know, unattractive mix of weak growth, high inflation, tight monetary policy. And then you could throw onto that, this uncertainty around the U.S. and trade. And you had a Trump administration that was adopting a more adversarial policy towards trade and towards Europe, which the UK was getting caught up in.So, you know – again, did I miss any of the challenges that the UK was facing, entering this year?Bruna Skarica: No, I think that's a great summary. First, at the end of last year, of course, the government faced some pretty tough decisions in the October budget, and they hiked a tax – a payroll tax really – in order to balance the books, which created somewhat subdued sentiment around the labor market this year.Now the labor market has been soft in the UK at the start of this year, but it did hold up a little bit better perhaps than the expectations from the end of last year. At the start of the year, we also saw the energy inflation forecast rise. So, that led to a more cautious tone by the Bank of England in February and March, as you mentioned. And now on the trade front, although we have a small manufacturing...]]>496alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1375fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-south-korea-afford-to-grow-old--75648781Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll revisit Korea's demographic emergency and how the recent pension reform is trying to address it.It's Thursday, May 1st, at 4pm in Hong Kong.Some of you may remember that I came on the show last fall to talk about the crisis-level demographic challenges in Korea. Korea officially became a super-aged society at the end of 2024. This means that more than 20 per cent of the population is 65 or older.In the face of its rapidly aging population and a fertility rate that has hit rock bottom, Korea is taking decisive action finally. The national assembly recently passed a landmark pension reform bill to amend the National Pension Act. This measure marks the first major change to its pension system in 18 years. And it’s supposed to improve the pension fund's financial sustainability to prepare for a rapidly aging population that will only accelerate from here.The amendments include raising pension contribution rates and adjusting the income replacement ratio to 43 per cent. These changes aim to delay the depletion of the fund to 2064 to 2071, in an upside scenario. Without this reform, the fund would have been depleted by 2055, just 30 years later.This reform avoids having to sell the fund's financial assets by delaying depletion. It also assures pension-holders of the stability of future pension assets. And, last but not least, it increases the pension fund's capacity for financial investments, which could lead to higher returns.This is the first step towards making legislative, and therefore more structural changes to respond to the reality of a super-aged society. Moreover, it kicks off a sweeping reform agenda that includes the pension program, labor market, education system, and capital markets.It’s also notable because the center-left Democratic Party of Korea and the conservative People Power Party were able to show bipartisan support and a public consensus to reach a deal, especially during the recent tumultuous political events that took place in Korea.That said, the reform also has some potentially negative economic impacts. Higher pension contributions could squeeze households' disposable income, putting mild but additional downward pressure on aggregate consumption and savings. Especially considering that as people age, they tend to consume less – and this can lead to a structural slowdown in private consumption.Despite Korea's challenges with an aging population, we're cautiously optimistic about its future – especially because [of] the recent rebound in the country's fertility rate. After marking a drop every year since 2015, it rebounded to 0.75 in 2024. While still far below the ideal replacement ratio of 2.1, this rebound is a small but certainly a positive sign.Looking ahead, Korea's working population is expected to decrease by 50 per cent in the next 40 years unless the country ensures a dramatic rebound in the fertility rate to 1.0 or higher by 2030. In the meantime, we expect further adjustments to the pension reform bill, we expect further discussions around lifting of retirement age, along with the labor market reform next in line on the economic front. The Korean government will continue to execute on its demographic policy agenda.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yomoPl7kUZyb23uI3N2fZtmpERv0WCj9tYzo3Q4-QB0Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist Kathleen Oh discusses Korea's recent pension reform and its implications for the country's rapidly aging population. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley....Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll revisit Korea's demographic emergency and how the recent pension reform is trying to address it.It's Thursday, May 1st, at 4pm in Hong Kong.Some of you may remember that I came on the show last fall to talk about the crisis-level demographic challenges in Korea. Korea officially became a super-aged society at the end of 2024. This means that more than 20 per cent of the population is 65 or older.In the face of its rapidly aging population and a fertility rate that has hit rock bottom, Korea is taking decisive action finally. The national assembly recently passed a landmark pension reform bill to amend the National Pension Act. This measure marks the first major change to its pension system in 18 years. And it’s supposed to improve the pension fund's financial sustainability to prepare for a rapidly aging population that will only accelerate from here.The amendments include raising pension contribution rates and adjusting the income replacement ratio to 43 per cent. These changes aim to delay the depletion of the fund to 2064 to 2071, in an upside scenario. Without this reform, the fund would have been depleted by 2055, just 30 years later.This reform avoids having to sell the fund's financial assets by delaying depletion. It also assures pension-holders of the stability of future pension assets. And, last but not least, it increases the pension fund's capacity for financial investments, which could lead to higher returns.This is the first step towards making legislative, and therefore more structural changes to respond to the reality of a super-aged society. Moreover, it kicks off a sweeping reform agenda that includes the pension program, labor market, education system, and capital markets.It’s also notable because the center-left Democratic Party of Korea and the conservative People Power Party were able to show bipartisan support and a public consensus to reach a deal, especially during the recent tumultuous political events that took place in Korea.That said, the reform also has some potentially negative economic impacts. Higher pension contributions could squeeze households' disposable income, putting mild but additional downward pressure on aggregate consumption and savings. Especially considering that as people age, they tend to consume less – and this can lead to a structural slowdown in private consumption.Despite Korea's challenges with an aging population, we're cautiously optimistic about its future – especially because [of] the recent rebound in the country's fertility rate. After marking a drop every year since 2015, it rebounded to 0.75 in 2024. While still far below the ideal replacement ratio of 2.1, this rebound is a small but certainly a positive sign.Looking ahead, Korea's working population is expected to decrease by 50 per cent in the next 40 years unless the country ensures a dramatic rebound in the fertility rate to 1.0 or higher by 2030. In the meantime, we expect further adjustments to the pension reform bill, we expect further discussions around lifting of retirement age, along with the labor market reform next in line on the economic front. The Korean government will continue to execute on its demographic policy agenda.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>274alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1374fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-possible-roadmap-for-u-s-tariff-policy--75648657Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Rajeev Sibal: And I am Rajeev Sibal, Senior Global Economist.Michael Zezas: Today we look through the potential escalation and de-escalation of tariff rates and discuss what the lasting impact of higher tariffs will be for companies and the economy.It's Wednesday, April 30th at 11am in New York.Rajeev Sibal: And 4pm in London.Michael Zezas: Last week during a White House News conference, President Trump announced that tariffs on goods from China will come down substantially, but it won't be zero. And this was after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made comments about high tariffs against China being unsustainable, according to some news reports.Now, some of this has been walked back, and there's further discussion of challenging negotiations with China and potential escalations if those negotiations don't go well. Meanwhile, Canadian voters elected a Liberal government, led by Mark Carney yesterday. That federal election played out against the backdrop of the U.S. proposing higher tariffs on its northern neighbors. So, Rajeev, amidst all this noise, what seems clear is that tariff levels will end up higher than where we started before President Trump took office. Though we don't exactly know how high they will be. What is it that investors need to understand about the economic impacts of higher tariffs just generically?Rajeev Sibal: So yeah, we do view that tariffs are going to structurally be higher than they were before the Trump administration. This has been a baseline of our outlook since last year. Now I think the challenge is figuring out where they're going to settle as you've highlighted. We do think that peak tariff was probably a couple weeks ago, when we were at the max pain threshold, vis-a-vis China and the rest of the world. We've since seen the reciprocal tariffs move to 10 per cent for everyone but China.China's clearly higher than 60 per cent today, but we do think that over time the implied rate to China will start to graduate and come down. If you look at the electronics exemption for example, that's a big step in getting the average tariff rate out of China lower. So, we think we're on a journey. We think we were past peak tariff pain in terms of level. But over the next few months, it's going to take some time and negotiation to figure out where we settle. And we are still looking to kind of our baseline outlook, that had been defined some time ago of a 10 per cent baseline with an elevated level on China, if you will.Michael Zezas: So, I think this is an important point, that there's a lot of back and forth about tariff levels, which countries are going to be levied on, to what degree, and to what products. But at the end of the day, we think there'll be more tariffs than where we started.Rajeev, you have a view on where investors should focus, in terms of what tariffs are durable. And maybe at the end of the day it'll be less about countries and more about products. Can you talk us through that?Rajeev Sibal: You know, on April 2nd when the Trump administration released the fact sheet about tariffs and reciprocal tariffs, there was a small clause in there that I think the market did not pay enough attention to, and which is becoming front and center now.And in that clause, they identified that a number of tariffs related to Section 232 would be exempted from reciprocal tariffs. And the notion is that country tariffs would evolve or shift into sector tariffs over time. And in the note that we recently published, we highlighted some of the legal mechanisms that may be at play here. There's still a lot of uncertainty as to how things will settle down, but what we do know is that legally speaking, country tariffs are coming through IEEPA, which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; whereas section and sector tariffs are coming through Section 232; and some of the other section structures that exist in U.S. trade law.And so, the experience of 2018 leaned a lot more to these sections than it did to IEEPA. And that was a guiding, I guess, mechanism for us, as we thought about what was happening in the current tariff structure. And the fact that the White House included this carve out, if you will, for Section 232 tariffs in their April 2nd fact sheet was a big lead indicator for us that, over time, there would be an increased shift towards sectors.And, so for us, we think the market should be focusing more in that direction. As we think about how this evolves over time, now that we've not completely de-escalated, but brought a materially lower tariff level and everywhere in the world except for China. The big variability is probably going to be in the sector tariffs now going forward.Michael Zezas: So, what sectors do you think are particularly in focus here?Rajeev Sibal: So, on the April 2nd fact sheet that the White House provided to countries and to the market, they specifically identified steel, aluminum, autos and auto parts as already having Section 232 tariffs. And we know that's true because those investigations had started in a prior Trump administration. And so, kind of the framework was already in place for them to execute those tariffs.The guidance then suggested that copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber would also potentially fall under Section 232 tariffs in the future. And then there's been a range of indications as to what might be in play, so to speak, for Section 232.I know pharmaceuticals is at the top of the list of many investors, as are semiconductors. So, this is our kind of sample list, but we're pretty certain that this will evolve over time. But that's where we're starting.Michael Zezas: Okay, so pharmaceutical, semiconductors, automobile, steel, aluminum. It's a pretty substantial list. So, if that's the sort of end game landscape here – relatively elevated China tariffs, and then all of these products specific tariffs – what does an investor need to know about a company's options in this world? Can companies just rewire their supply chains around all of this? And you know, ultimately there's some temporary price pain. But once things are rewired around this, that should dissipate. Or are the decisions more difficult than that and that there has to be some cost passed through to the consumer or to the companies themselves – because this is just too many tariffs in too many places?Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, so I think the latter of your question – the difficulty – is really where we need to be thinking about what's happening here. If you think about the bigger picture, and you go back to the note that we collaborated on earlier in the year called Supply Chain Strain, we highlighted the complexity of moving factors of production and the extreme levels of investment that have required to shift factors of production.So, companies, if they're going to move a factory from country A to country B, have to make sure that country B has the institutional framework, that it has the capital, it has the labor input, and this is a big, big decision. So, as a company you're not going to make that decision to shift your investment or reconstruct productive facilities in a new country – until you understand the cost benefit analysis. And in order to understand the cost benefit analysis, you really need to know what the sector-based Section 232 tariff looks like in the end.If we remember back in 2018, the government tried to implement a wide range of tariffs. On average, it took about 250 days for each investigation to be completed. And that's a long timeframe. And so, I think what we're going through now, apart from automobiles and steel and aluminum where that process has kind of already been done, and we kind of have the framework of the tariffs and the new sectors, companies are going to have to wait for this investigation to take place so that they understand what the tariff level is. Because the tariff level is going determine the risk of actually shifting productive facilities. Or if you just kind of absorb the cost because the tariff isn't at a high enough level that it incentivizes the shift.And so, these are the changes that I think remain an open question and will be the focus of companies over the next few months as their sectors are exposed to tariffs.Michael Zezas: Right. So, what I think I'm hearing then, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that some of the focus on the China tariffs or the country level specific tariffs in the headlines – about they're moving up, they're moving down – might mask that at the end of the day, we're still dealing with considerably higher tariffs on a broad enough array of products; that it will mean difficult choices for companies and/or higher costs. And so therefore markets are still going to have to price some of the economic challenges around that.Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And we've seen the market try to price some of this stuff at a country level context. But it's been hard. And, you know, even the headline tariff rate in the U.S. is really hard to pin down for the simple reason that we don't know if the Mexican and Canadian trade into the U.S. is compliant or non-compliant, and how that gets counted in the current structure of the tariff regime. And so, as these questions remain outstanding, markets are going to be volatile, trying to figure out where the tariff level is. I think that uncertainty at a country level then]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8LkJFFq7Y7CoFQxqo81Cu3CExne75rY9ysdas2oGBssWed, 30 Apr 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Michael Zezas and Rajeev Sibal unpack the significance of a little-discussed clause in the Trump administration’s tariff policy, which suggests investors should think less about countries and more about products. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Rajeev Sibal: And I am Rajeev Sibal, Senior Global Economist.Michael Zezas: Today we look through the potential escalation and de-escalation of tariff rates and discuss what the lasting impact of higher tariffs will be for companies and the economy.It's Wednesday, April 30th at 11am in New York.Rajeev Sibal: And 4pm in London.Michael Zezas: Last week during a White House News conference, President Trump announced that tariffs on goods from China will come down substantially, but it won't be zero. And this was after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made comments about high tariffs against China being unsustainable, according to some news reports.Now, some of this has been walked back, and there's further discussion of challenging negotiations with China and potential escalations if those negotiations don't go well. Meanwhile, Canadian voters elected a Liberal government, led by Mark Carney yesterday. That federal election played out against the backdrop of the U.S. proposing higher tariffs on its northern neighbors. So, Rajeev, amidst all this noise, what seems clear is that tariff levels will end up higher than where we started before President Trump took office. Though we don't exactly know how high they will be. What is it that investors need to understand about the economic impacts of higher tariffs just generically?Rajeev Sibal: So yeah, we do view that tariffs are going to structurally be higher than they were before the Trump administration. This has been a baseline of our outlook since last year. Now I think the challenge is figuring out where they're going to settle as you've highlighted. We do think that peak tariff was probably a couple weeks ago, when we were at the max pain threshold, vis-a-vis China and the rest of the world. We've since seen the reciprocal tariffs move to 10 per cent for everyone but China.China's clearly higher than 60 per cent today, but we do think that over time the implied rate to China will start to graduate and come down. If you look at the electronics exemption for example, that's a big step in getting the average tariff rate out of China lower. So, we think we're on a journey. We think we were past peak tariff pain in terms of level. But over the next few months, it's going to take some time and negotiation to figure out where we settle. And we are still looking to kind of our baseline outlook, that had been defined some time ago of a 10 per cent baseline with an elevated level on China, if you will.Michael Zezas: So, I think this is an important point, that there's a lot of back and forth about tariff levels, which countries are going to be levied on, to what degree, and to what products. But at the end of the day, we think there'll be more tariffs than where we started.Rajeev, you have a view on where investors should focus, in terms of what tariffs are durable. And maybe at the end of the day it'll be less about countries and more about products. Can you talk us through that?Rajeev Sibal: You know, on April 2nd when the Trump administration released the fact sheet about tariffs and reciprocal tariffs, there was a small clause in there that I think the market did not pay enough attention to, and which is becoming front and center now.And in that clause, they identified that a number of tariffs related to Section 232 would be exempted from reciprocal tariffs. And the notion is that country tariffs would evolve or...]]>657alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1373fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-oil-market-flashing-a-potential-recession-warning--75648701Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today on the podcast – the uncertainty in the oil market and how it can play out for the rest of the year.It’s Tuesday, April 29th, at 3pm in London.Now, notwithstanding the energy transition, the cornerstone of the world’s energy system is still the oil market; and in that market, the most important price is the one for Brent crude oil. Therefore, fluctuations in oil prices can have powerful ripple effects on various industries and sectors, as well as on the average consumer who, of course, pays attention to gasoline prices at the pump. Now with that in mind, we are asking the question: what's been happening in the global oil market recently?Earlier this month, Brent crude oil prices dropped sharply, falling 12.5 per cent over just two trading sessions, from around 75 dollars a barrel to close to 65 dollar a barrel. That was primarily driven by two factors: first, worries about the impact of trade wars on the global economy and therefore on oil demand, after the Trump administration’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs.Secondly, was OPEC’s announcement that, notwithstanding all the demand uncertainty that this created, it would still accelerate supply growth, progressing not only with the planned production increases for May; but bring forward the planned production increases for June and July as well. Now you can imagine, when OPEC releases extra production whilst the GDP outlook is weakening, understandably, this weighs on the price of oil.Now to put things into context, two-day declines of 12.5 per cent are rare. The Brent futures market was created in 1988, and since then this has only happened 24 times, and 22 of those instances coincided with recessions. So therefore, some commentators have taken the recent drop as a potential sign of an impending recession.Now while Brent prices have recovered slightly from the recent lows, they’re still very volatile as they continue to reflect the ongoing trade concerns, the economic outlook, and also a strong outlook for supply growth from OPEC and non-OPEC countries alike. The last few weeks have already seen unusually large speculator selling. So with that in mind, we suspect that oil prices will hold up in the near-term. However, we still see potential for further headwinds later in the year.In our base case scenario, we expect that demand growth will slow down to approximately 0.5 million barrels a day year-on-year by the second half of 2025, and that is down from an an initial estimate earlier in the year when were still forecasting about a million barrel a day growth over the same period. Now this slowdown – coupled with an increase in non-OPEC and OPEC supply – could result in an oversupply of the market of about a million barrels a day over the remainder of 2025. Now with that outlook, we believe that Brent prices could eventually drop further down into the low-$60s.That said, let's also consider a more bearish scenario. Oil demand has never grown continuously during recessions. So if tariffs and counter-tariffs tip the economy into recession, oil demand growth could also fall to zero. In such a situation, the surplus we're currently modeling could be substantially larger, possibly north of 1.5 million barrels a day. Now that would require non-OPEC production to slow down more severely to balance the market. In that scenario, we estimate that Brent prices may need to fall into the mid-$50s to create the necessary supply slowdown.On the flip side, there's also a bullish scenario where we and the market are all overestimating the demand impact. If oil demand doesn't slow down as much as we currently expect and OPEC were to revert quite quickly back to managing the supply side again, then inventories would still build but only slowly. Now in that case, Brent could actually return into the low-$70s as well.All in all, we would suspect that the twin headwinds of higher-than-expected trade tariffs and faster-than-expected OPEC+ quota increases will continue to weigh on oil prices in the months ahead. And so we have lowered our demand forecast for the second half of the year to just 0.5 million barrels a day, year-on-year. And we’ve also lowered our prices forecasts for 2026; we’re now calling for $65 a barrel – that’s $5 a barrel lower than we were forecasting before.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BQJG9LaCj_f0W2PqlqHyeAqDP184R1-Jx5bl8REeK3QTue, 29 Apr 2025 20:10:46 +0000gtyOur Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the ongoing volatility in the oil market and potential macroeconomic scenarios for the rest of this year. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today on the podcast – the uncertainty in the oil market and how it can play out for the rest of the year.It’s Tuesday, April 29th, at 3pm in London.Now, notwithstanding the energy transition, the cornerstone of the world’s energy system is still the oil market; and in that market, the most important price is the one for Brent crude oil. Therefore, fluctuations in oil prices can have powerful ripple effects on various industries and sectors, as well as on the average consumer who, of course, pays attention to gasoline prices at the pump. Now with that in mind, we are asking the question: what's been happening in the global oil market recently?Earlier this month, Brent crude oil prices dropped sharply, falling 12.5 per cent over just two trading sessions, from around 75 dollars a barrel to close to 65 dollar a barrel. That was primarily driven by two factors: first, worries about the impact of trade wars on the global economy and therefore on oil demand, after the Trump administration’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs.Secondly, was OPEC’s announcement that, notwithstanding all the demand uncertainty that this created, it would still accelerate supply growth, progressing not only with the planned production increases for May; but bring forward the planned production increases for June and July as well. Now you can imagine, when OPEC releases extra production whilst the GDP outlook is weakening, understandably, this weighs on the price of oil.Now to put things into context, two-day declines of 12.5 per cent are rare. The Brent futures market was created in 1988, and since then this has only happened 24 times, and 22 of those instances coincided with recessions. So therefore, some commentators have taken the recent drop as a potential sign of an impending recession.Now while Brent prices have recovered slightly from the recent lows, they’re still very volatile as they continue to reflect the ongoing trade concerns, the economic outlook, and also a strong outlook for supply growth from OPEC and non-OPEC countries alike. The last few weeks have already seen unusually large speculator selling. So with that in mind, we suspect that oil prices will hold up in the near-term. However, we still see potential for further headwinds later in the year.In our base case scenario, we expect that demand growth will slow down to approximately 0.5 million barrels a day year-on-year by the second half of 2025, and that is down from an an initial estimate earlier in the year when were still forecasting about a million barrel a day growth over the same period. Now this slowdown – coupled with an increase in non-OPEC and OPEC supply – could result in an oversupply of the market of about a million barrels a day over the remainder of 2025. Now with that outlook, we believe that Brent prices could eventually drop further down into the low-$60s.That said, let's also consider a more bearish scenario. Oil demand has never grown continuously during recessions. So if tariffs and counter-tariffs tip the economy into recession, oil demand growth could also fall to zero. In such a situation, the surplus we're currently modeling could be substantially larger, possibly north of 1.5 million barrels a day. Now that would require non-OPEC production to slow down more severely to balance the market. In that scenario, we estimate that Brent prices may need to fall into the mid-$50s to create the necessary supply slowdown.On the flip side, there's also a bullish scenario where we and the market are all...]]>282alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1372fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-should-investors-expect-from-earnings-season--75648714Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what to expect from Equity markets as we enter the heart of earnings season.  It's Monday, April 28th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. The S&P 500 tested both the lower and upper ends of our 5000-5500 range last week, reinforcing the notion that we remain in a volatile trading environment. Incrementally positive news on a potential tariff deal with China and hope for a more dovish Fed lifted stocks into the end of the week, and the S&P 500 closed slightly above the upper end of our range. While a modest overshoot of 5500 can persist very short-term, a sustainable break above this level is dependent on developments that have yet to come to fruition. Those include a tariff deal with China that brings down the effective rate materially; a more dovish Fed; 10-year Treasury yields falling below 4 percent without recessionary risks increasing; and a clear rebound in earnings revisions. Bottom line, until we see clear positive shift in one or more of these factors, range trading is likely to continue with risks to the downside given that we are now at the top end of the range. A frequent question we're getting from clients is does the soft data matter for equities or is the market waiting for the hard data to make up its mind in terms of an upside or downside breakout above or below this range? Our view has been consistent that the most important macro data at this stage is from the labor market while the most important micro data are earnings revisions. Equities have already priced a meaningful slowdown in growth relative to expectations.  What's not priced is a labor cycle or recession. While this risk has been reduced to some extent given the recent, more dovish tone shift on tariffs from the administration, it's far from extinguished. Until we see clear evidence over multiple months that the labor market remains solid, a recession will likely remain a coin toss. One soft data point to pay attention to this week that could move the market is the April ISM Manufacturing data on May 1st. Recall this series accelerated the August 2024 selloff ahead of a soft July payroll report. The most important takeaway from an equity strategy perspective is to stay up the quality curve. No matter what the hard data says, we remain in a late cycle backdrop where both quality and large cap relative outperformance should continue. While uncertainty remains higher than usual, defensives should continue to do well. However, given their relative outperformance over the past year, it also makes sense to pick spots in high quality cyclicals that have already discounted a material slowdown in both macro conditions and earnings. To be clear, this is not a blanket call on cyclicals; it's a selective, stock-specific one. More specifically, look for quality, cyclical stocks that are more de-risked based on what the stocks are pricing from a forward earnings growth standpoint. See our written research for stock screens. And from a global standpoint, we recommend favoring U.S. over international equities at this point as a weaker dollar should benefit U.S. relative earnings revisions, particularly versus Europe and Japan. Furthermore, less volatile earnings growth and a higher quality bias should benefit the U.S. on a relative basis in today's late cycle backdrop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/b_yDOPDn6pADXtHjd_GmSGH92uhE0MglIfcvKYkkCVYMon, 28 Apr 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how market volatility over the last month will affect equity markets as earnings season begins. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what to expect from Equity markets as we enter the heart of earnings season.  It's Monday, April 28th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. The S&P 500 tested both the lower and upper ends of our 5000-5500 range last week, reinforcing the notion that we remain in a volatile trading environment. Incrementally positive news on a potential tariff deal with China and hope for a more dovish Fed lifted stocks into the end of the week, and the S&P 500 closed slightly above the upper end of our range. While a modest overshoot of 5500 can persist very short-term, a sustainable break above this level is dependent on developments that have yet to come to fruition. Those include a tariff deal with China that brings down the effective rate materially; a more dovish Fed; 10-year Treasury yields falling below 4 percent without recessionary risks increasing; and a clear rebound in earnings revisions. Bottom line, until we see clear positive shift in one or more of these factors, range trading is likely to continue with risks to the downside given that we are now at the top end of the range. A frequent question we're getting from clients is does the soft data matter for equities or is the market waiting for the hard data to make up its mind in terms of an upside or downside breakout above or below this range? Our view has been consistent that the most important macro data at this stage is from the labor market while the most important micro data are earnings revisions. Equities have already priced a meaningful slowdown in growth relative to expectations.  What's not priced is a labor cycle or recession. While this risk has been reduced to some extent given the recent, more dovish tone shift on tariffs from the administration, it's far from extinguished. Until we see clear evidence over multiple months that the labor market remains solid, a recession will likely remain a coin toss. One soft data point to pay attention to this week that could move the market is the April ISM Manufacturing data on May 1st. Recall this series accelerated the August 2024 selloff ahead of a soft July payroll report. The most important takeaway from an equity strategy perspective is to stay up the quality curve. No matter what the hard data says, we remain in a late cycle backdrop where both quality and large cap relative outperformance should continue. While uncertainty remains higher than usual, defensives should continue to do well. However, given their relative outperformance over the past year, it also makes sense to pick spots in high quality cyclicals that have already discounted a material slowdown in both macro conditions and earnings. To be clear, this is not a blanket call on cyclicals; it's a selective, stock-specific one. More specifically, look for quality, cyclical stocks that are more de-risked based on what the stocks are pricing from a forward earnings growth standpoint. See our written research for stock screens. And from a global standpoint, we recommend favoring U.S. over international equities at this point as a weaker dollar should benefit U.S. relative earnings revisions, particularly versus Europe and Japan. Furthermore, less volatile earnings growth and a higher quality bias should benefit the U.S. on a relative basis in today's late cycle backdrop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>237alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1371fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tariffs-could-drag-on-growth-in-asia-as-well-as-u-s--75648761Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Michael Gapen: Today we'll discuss some significant changes to our Asia growth forecast on the heels of tariffs. As well as how the U.S. economy is reacting to the changes in the global trading environment.It's Friday, April 25th at 8am in New York.Chetan Ahya: And 8pm in Hong Kong.Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, since the last time we were both on the show, it appears that we are headed towards at least some de-escalation of trade tensions. Just last week, you wrote in your report that the tariffs on China are too prohibitive for any trade to take place – and that you expected some dialing down of the escalatory action. And this week the administration started to talk about easing tariffs on China significantly.Considering all the events since April 2nd – and it's felt like a lot of events since April 2nd –where does it leave you in terms of how you are thinking about the outlook?Chetan Ahya: So, Mike, that's right. You know what we thought was that the current level of tariffs that the U.S. has on China and what China has on the U.S. means that effectively there are no transactions possibleBut look, even after those tariff rates are going down, we are still expecting it to be in the range of around 60 per cent. And that would still be relatively high level of tariffs. If I were just to translate this into what it means for the whole region? So, for the whole region, the weighted average tariff will still be around 32 per cent. And remember this number was close to 5 per cent in early January.So, we are talking about a huge amount of uncertainty related to this tariff path and the tariff level itself is going to remain somewhat high.And so, with that concern on uncertainty, we are expecting a region's investment growth to be affected significantly, taking down region's growth lower.Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, I was looking over your growth forecast and noticed that you have a sharp step down in growth from the second quarter of 2025 on. Can you walk us through these revisions in particular?Chetan Ahya: So yes, we have changed our forecast and what we are now seeing is in terms of growth path is that Asia's overall GDP growth will slow from 4.8 per cent that we saw in fourth quarter of last year, to around 3.6 per cent by fourth quarter of this year.And for comparable time period, China's growth will slow from 5.4 to 3.7 [per cent]. So that's another meaningful step down for ChinaMichael Gapen: What do you think Asian economies can do to counteract the impact from tariffs at this point?Chetan Ahya: So, we expect the policy makers in the region to take up both monetary and fiscal policy easing. But, you know, despite that policy easing effort, you will still see that meaningful growth drag. So, for China, we think it'll be the fiscal policy that will do the heavy lifting. Whereas for Asia ex-China is going to be more monetary policy that will do the heavy lifting.And in terms of the exact magnitude, we're expecting 50 to 150 basis points depending upon the economy in the region in form of rate cuts. And specifically on China; on the fiscal policy, we expect them to take up about 2.5 per cent of GDP increase in fiscal deficit in form of investment in infrastructure, as well as some programs for supporting consumption spending.Michael Gapen: So Chetan, it sounds like a lot of monetary and fiscal policy easing and support is coming from the Asian economies. But I guess the bottom line is that you don't think it would be sufficient to fully counteract the impact from tariffs. Is that right?Chetan Ahya: That's right Mike. And let me come to you now and get your thoughts on how you see the development of the tariffs, et cetera, affecting the U.S. economy. You've already recently characterized your view on the U.S. economy as still living on the edge. What's driving this view?Michael Gapen: It's a way that we were trying to communicate that, you know, we don't see the economy at the moment, falling into a recession, but we think it's close. If we thought that the effective tariff rate was going to stay where it was -- or where it is -- roughly around 18 per cent, then we would have a much more negative view on the outlook. And we do expect the effective tariff rate to come down for all the reasons that you suggested there. And there's openings for that, to happen. And that's where the conversation has been going in recent days.And so, I think there's a tension between how much uncertainty can be reduced on one hand. And then on the other hand, how quickly volumes in the economy, activity in the economy may slow. So, I think we're in a window here where – where we are in a race against time to bring the effective tariff rate lower, in order to keep the economy in recovery. So that was really my narrative here where living on the edge, where we're not projecting a recession, but we're close enough to one. That, it’s almost a coin toss. And I think we need to backpedal here relatively quickly, or we could have much more negative effects on the economy.Chetan Ahya: And Mike, I remember that, in 2018, we did not see this kind of a reaction in the consumer confidence data, but we are seeing that in this cycle. And on top of it, we have this expectation that corporate confidence will also be weighed down by policy uncertainty. So how does this double whammy of weak confidence feature in your forecast?Michael Gapen: I think the key component or in, in this case two key components for the outlook for the economy – because it's relatively straightforward to try and project or pass through the direct effect of tariffs on consumer spending, real incomes and trade volumes. But what's really hard to understand here is what does a highly uncertain environment do to asset markets and business sentiment?So, the, the two channels here that you mentioned, consumer confidence and business confidence. These are kind of what might get you spill over effects, and a recession.So, for the consumer, what we're really focused on here is, yes.  Stated confidence by households is weak, but they're still generally spending. And tariffs affect lower- and middle-income houses more than they do upper income households. So, we're really keyed in on: Do equity markets fall enough? Do we get a negative wealth shock on upper income consumers, where they decide, ‘Hey, I feel less wealthy, therefore I'm going to spend less than save more.’So, then the business sector delays spending and may even, you know, generate some layoffs; and recessions, as you know, happen when there's a lot of negative feedback loops in the economy. And so, this is what we're worried about.Chetan Ahya: Another interesting debate, that we as a team are having with the investors is about the Fed policy response. And so, Fed Chair Powell has said that tariffs would generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. How do you think the Fed will handle a tariff induced spike in inflation?Michael Gapen: So, there has been an evolution in the Fed's thought and thinking around how to handle tariffs. Given the dramatic increase in tariffs,, I think the Fed has to wait and they have to see the actual data come in.So, in our view, with inflation rising first and activity weakening later, you probably don't get any Fed cuts this year. And the Fed moves to rate cuts in 2026. If we're wrong in the economy, and, and it decelerates, and moves into a recession more quickly than we would anticipate, and the labor market deteriorates rapidly, then the Fed will ease.But what they're doing here is they're responding to a world where both sides of their mandate are getting worse. And they're going to respond to the one that's more offsides than the other. And in the short run, we think that'll be inflation. So, it means the Fed moves much later than markets currently expect.Chetan Ahya: In terms of the next set of data points or events that you're watching, uh, which can change your view on the growth outlook – what are you really, looking out for?Michael Gapen: Well, I think in the very short run, it's looking at all the inflation data and seeing whether or not   the higher tariff rates are getting passed through to the final consumer. We think a little of that will show up in the April inflation data that's due out in the middle of May. That'll be mainly around autos. But then we think the May, June, and July data will begin to show much more increase in goods prices from the tariff pass through. So, we'll be kind of watching that to see whether the inflation impulse is as strong as we think it will be.Second, I think in the very short run, we'll be watching trade volumes. We'll be watching even, shipping container volumes.We'll be watching for blank sales where ships skip ports because there's just not any activity or demand. And then finally, I'd say employment, right? Obviously, expansion versus contraction and whether the economy will stay in expansion phase will be dependent on whether employment continues to grow. We'll get an early look on that. For the April employment data in early May. We don't think there'll be much negative imprint on April employment, but as we move into May, June, and July, we could see hiring slow down more rapidly.So, Chetan, that's what I would point to – just ascertaining the near-term inflation impulse, looking out for any sharp slowdown in trade volumes and whether or not the labor market holds up.Michael Gapen: Before we close, based on what I just de]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UF0EWq7Q7F6Bm0uXPOgpYi_520-UlvjKPWIr2MlRqckFri, 25 Apr 2025 21:30:00 +0000gtyOur U.S. and Asia economists Michael Gapen and Chetan Ahya discuss how tariff uncertainty is shaping their expectations for these economies over the second half of 2025. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Michael Gapen: Today we'll discuss some significant changes to our Asia growth forecast on the heels of tariffs. As well as how the U.S. economy is reacting to the changes in the global trading environment.It's Friday, April 25th at 8am in New York.Chetan Ahya: And 8pm in Hong Kong.Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, since the last time we were both on the show, it appears that we are headed towards at least some de-escalation of trade tensions. Just last week, you wrote in your report that the tariffs on China are too prohibitive for any trade to take place – and that you expected some dialing down of the escalatory action. And this week the administration started to talk about easing tariffs on China significantly.Considering all the events since April 2nd – and it's felt like a lot of events since April 2nd –where does it leave you in terms of how you are thinking about the outlook?Chetan Ahya: So, Mike, that's right. You know what we thought was that the current level of tariffs that the U.S. has on China and what China has on the U.S. means that effectively there are no transactions possibleBut look, even after those tariff rates are going down, we are still expecting it to be in the range of around 60 per cent. And that would still be relatively high level of tariffs. If I were just to translate this into what it means for the whole region? So, for the whole region, the weighted average tariff will still be around 32 per cent. And remember this number was close to 5 per cent in early January.So, we are talking about a huge amount of uncertainty related to this tariff path and the tariff level itself is going to remain somewhat high.And so, with that concern on uncertainty, we are expecting a region's investment growth to be affected significantly, taking down region's growth lower.Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, I was looking over your growth forecast and noticed that you have a sharp step down in growth from the second quarter of 2025 on. Can you walk us through these revisions in particular?Chetan Ahya: So yes, we have changed our forecast and what we are now seeing is in terms of growth path is that Asia's overall GDP growth will slow from 4.8 per cent that we saw in fourth quarter of last year, to around 3.6 per cent by fourth quarter of this year.And for comparable time period, China's growth will slow from 5.4 to 3.7 [per cent]. So that's another meaningful step down for ChinaMichael Gapen: What do you think Asian economies can do to counteract the impact from tariffs at this point?Chetan Ahya: So, we expect the policy makers in the region to take up both monetary and fiscal policy easing. But, you know, despite that policy easing effort, you will still see that meaningful growth drag. So, for China, we think it'll be the fiscal policy that will do the heavy lifting. Whereas for Asia ex-China is going to be more monetary policy that will do the heavy lifting.And in terms of the exact magnitude, we're expecting 50 to 150 basis points depending upon the economy in the region in form of rate cuts. And specifically on China; on the fiscal policy, we expect them to take up about 2.5 per cent of GDP increase in fiscal deficit in form of investment in infrastructure, as well as some programs for supporting consumption spending.Michael Gapen: So Chetan, it sounds like a lot of monetary and fiscal policy easing and support is coming from the Asian economies. But I guess the bottom line is that you don't think it...]]>680alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1370fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-housing-prices-keep-climbing--75648107Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And today we're here to talk about all of the headlines that we've been seeing and how they impact the U.S. housing market.It's Thursday, April 24th at 9am in New York.Jay Bacow: Jim, there are a lot of headlines right now. Mortgage rates have decreased about 60 basis points from the highs that we saw in January through the beginning of April. But since the tariff announcements, they've retraced about half of that move. Now, speaking of the tariffs, I would imagine that's going to increase the cost of building homes.So, what does all of this mean for the U.S. housing market?James Egan: On top of everything you just mentioned, the stock market is down over 15 per cent from recent peaks, so there is a lot going on these days. We think it all has implications for the U.S. housing market. Where do you want me to start?Jay Bacow: I think it's hard to have a conversation these days without talking about tariffs, so let's start there.James Egan: So, we worked on the impacts of tariffs on the U.S. housing market with our colleagues in economics research, and we did share some of the preliminary findings on another episode of this podcast a couple weeks ago. Since then, we have new estimates on tariffs, and that does raise our baseline expectation from about a 4 to 5 per cent increase in the cost of materials used to build a home to closer to 8 per cent right now.Jay Bacow: Now I assume at least some of that 8 per cent is going to get pushed through into home prices, which presumably is then going to put more pressure on affordability. And given the – I don't know – couple hundred conversations that you and I have had over the past few years, I am pretty sure affordability's already under a lot of pressure.James Egan: It is indeed. And this is also coming at a time when new home sales are playing their largest role in the U.S. housing market in decades. New home sales, as a percent of total, make up their largest share since 2006. New homes for sale – so now talking about the inventory piece of this – they’re making up their largest share of the homes that are listed for sale every month in the history of our data. And that's going back to the early 1980s.Jay Bacow: And since presumably the cost of construction is much higher on a new home sale than an existing home sale, that's going to have an even bigger impact now than it has when we look to the history where new home sales were making up a much smaller portion of housing activity.James Egan: Right, and we're already seeing this impact come through on the home builder side of this, specifically weighing on home builder sentiment and single unit building volumes. Through the first quarter of this year, single unit housing starts are down 6 per cent versus the first quarter of 2024.Jay Bacow: All right. And we're experiencing a housing shortage already; but if building volumes are going to come down, then presumably that puts upward pressure on home prices. Now, Jim, you mentioned home builder sentiment. But there's got to be home buyer sentiment right now. And that can't feel very good given the sell off in equity markets and what that does with home buyer's ability to afford to put down money for down payment. So how does that all affect the housing market?James Egan: Now that's a question that we've been getting a lot over the past couple weeks. And to answer it, we took a look at all of the times that the stock market has fallen by at least 20 per cent over the past few decades.Jay Bacow: I assume when you looked at that, the answers weren't very good.James Egan: You know, it depends on the question. We identified 10 instances of at least a 20 per cent drawdown in equity markets over the past few decades. For eight of them, we have sufficient home price data. Outside of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), which you could argue was a housing led global recession, every other instance saw home prices actually climb during the equity market correction.Jay Bacow: So, people were buying homes during a drawdown in the equity market?James Egan: No home prices were climbing. But in every instance, and here we can go back a little bit further, sales declined during the drawdown. Now, once stock markets officially bottomed, sales climbed sharply in the following 12 months. But while stock prices were falling, so were sales.And Jay, at the top of this podcast, you mentioned mortgage rate volatility. That matters a lot here…Jay Bacow: Can you elaborate on why I said something so thoughtful?James Egan: Well, it's because you're a very thoughtful person. But why mortgage rate volatility matters here? While sales volumes fall in all instances, the magnitude of that decrease falls into two distinct camps. There are four of these roughly 10 instances, where the decrease in sales volumes is large; it exceeds 10 per cent. And again, one of those was that GFC – housing led global recession. But the other three all had mortgage rates increased by at least 200 basis points alongside the equity market selloff.Jay Bacow: So not only were people feeling less wealthy, but homes were getting more expensive. That just seems like a double whammy.James Egan: Bingo. And there were more instances where rates did actually decrease amid the equity market selloff. And while that didn't stop sales from falling, it did contain the decrease. In each of these instances, sales were virtually flat to down low single digits. So, call it a 3 or 4 per cent drop.Jay Bacow: All right, so that's a really good history lesson. What's going to happen now? We've been talking about the housing market being at almost trough turnover rates already for some time.James Egan: Right, so when we think about the view forward, and you talk about trough turnover rates, I've said some version of this statement on this podcast a few times…Jay Bacow [crosstalk]: You’re saying it again…James Egan: … but there’s some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where rates and affordability are. And coming into this year, we really thought we were at those levels. I'm not saying we don't still think that we're there, but if mortgage rates were to stay elevated like they are today as we're recording this podcast, amid this broader equity market volatility, we do think that could introduce a little bit more downside to sales volumes.Jay Bacow: All right, but if we've got this equity drawdown, then I feel like we've been getting other questions from homeowners’ ability to pay for these mortgages – and delinquencies in the pipeline. Do you have anything to highlight there?James Egan: Yes, so I think one of the things we've also highlighted with respect to the unique situation that we're in in the US housing market is – just how low effective mortgage rates are on the outstanding universe versus the prevailing rate today.We've talked about the implications of the lock-in effect. But if we take a closer look on just how much bifurcation that's led to in terms of household mortgage payments as a share of income, depending on when you bought your house. If you bought your house back in 2016, your income, if we at least look at median income growth, is up in the interim.You probably refinanced in 2020 when mortgage rates came down. That monthly payment as a share of today's income, today's median household income, roughly 8.5 per cent. If you bought up the median priced home at prevailing rates in 2024, you're talking about a payment to income north of 26 per cent. When we look at performance from a mortgage perspective, we are seeing real delineations by vintage of mortgage origination – with mortgages before 2021, behaving a lot better than mortgages after 2021. So the 2022 to [20]24 vintages.I would highlight that losses and foreclosures, those remain incredibly contained. We expect them to stay that way. But when we think about all of this on a go forward basis, we do think that mortgage rate volatility is going to be important for sales volumes next year. But everything we talked about should lead to continued support for home prices. They're growing at 4 per cent year-over-year now. By the end of the year, maybe 2 to 3 per cent growth. So, a little bit of deceleration, but still climbing home prices.Jay Bacow: Interesting. So normally we talk about the housing market. It's location, location, location. But it sounds like the timing of when you bought is also going to impact things as well. Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/i1cWW3uBPx1KHS2pyjWpZ19F38VRQsRETjx0qZSTNGMThu, 24 Apr 2025 21:02:00 +0000gtyOur Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain how mortgage rates, tariffs and stock market volatility are affecting the U.S. housing market. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And today we're here to talk about all of the headlines that we've been seeing and how they impact the U.S. housing market.It's Thursday, April 24th at 9am in New York.Jay Bacow: Jim, there are a lot of headlines right now. Mortgage rates have decreased about 60 basis points from the highs that we saw in January through the beginning of April. But since the tariff announcements, they've retraced about half of that move. Now, speaking of the tariffs, I would imagine that's going to increase the cost of building homes.So, what does all of this mean for the U.S. housing market?James Egan: On top of everything you just mentioned, the stock market is down over 15 per cent from recent peaks, so there is a lot going on these days. We think it all has implications for the U.S. housing market. Where do you want me to start?Jay Bacow: I think it's hard to have a conversation these days without talking about tariffs, so let's start there.James Egan: So, we worked on the impacts of tariffs on the U.S. housing market with our colleagues in economics research, and we did share some of the preliminary findings on another episode of this podcast a couple weeks ago. Since then, we have new estimates on tariffs, and that does raise our baseline expectation from about a 4 to 5 per cent increase in the cost of materials used to build a home to closer to 8 per cent right now.Jay Bacow: Now I assume at least some of that 8 per cent is going to get pushed through into home prices, which presumably is then going to put more pressure on affordability. And given the – I don't know – couple hundred conversations that you and I have had over the past few years, I am pretty sure affordability's already under a lot of pressure.James Egan: It is indeed. And this is also coming at a time when new home sales are playing their largest role in the U.S. housing market in decades. New home sales, as a percent of total, make up their largest share since 2006. New homes for sale – so now talking about the inventory piece of this – they’re making up their largest share of the homes that are listed for sale every month in the history of our data. And that's going back to the early 1980s.Jay Bacow: And since presumably the cost of construction is much higher on a new home sale than an existing home sale, that's going to have an even bigger impact now than it has when we look to the history where new home sales were making up a much smaller portion of housing activity.James Egan: Right, and we're already seeing this impact come through on the home builder side of this, specifically weighing on home builder sentiment and single unit building volumes. Through the first quarter of this year, single unit housing starts are down 6 per cent versus the first quarter of 2024.Jay Bacow: All right. And we're experiencing a housing shortage already; but if building volumes are going to come down, then presumably that puts upward pressure on home prices. Now, Jim, you mentioned home builder sentiment. But there's got to be home buyer sentiment right now. And that can't feel very good given the sell off in equity markets and what that does with home buyer's ability to afford to put down money for down payment. So how does that all affect the housing market?James Egan: Now that's a question that we've been getting a lot over the past couple weeks. And to answer it, we took a look at all of the times...]]>508alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1369fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-beverage-industry-drying-up--75648717Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Today’s topic: Is America sobering up? Recent trends point to a national decline in alcohol use.It's Wednesday, April 23rd, at 2pm in London.Picture this: It's Friday night, and you're at a bar with friends. The drinks menu offers many options. A cold beer or glass of wine, sure. But how about a Phony Negroni. And your friends nod approvingly.This isn't just a passing trend – we believe it's a structural shift that's set to reshape the beverage industry. Overall alcohol consumption in volume terms has been relatively flat over the last decade in the U.S. - with spirits growing mid single digits in value terms and beer growing low single digits. But both categories are currently declining. The big debate is whether it’s cyclical or structural. We acknowledge that the consumer is under pressure right now, but we equally see long term structural pressures that are starting to play out. There are three key factors behind this trend: increased moderation by younger drinkers, an ageing population, and then broader health and wellness trends. So let’s talk first about Gen Z – those born between 1997 and 2012. They're drinking notably less than previous generations of the same age. In fact, today’s 18-34 year-olds drink 30 per cent less than the same age group 20 years ago. And we think it’s pretty unlikely they will catch up as they get older. This isn't a temporary blip caused by the after-effects of COVID-19 lockdowns or economic pressures. It's a long-term trend that predates both of these factors. And importantly this isn’t the case of abstinence – as in the case of tobacco – but moderation. Younger generations are simply drinking less alcohol and allocating more of their beverage spending towards soft drinks. Secondly, developed market populations are ageing. If we look at population data, we see it’s today’s 45-55 year old age group that drinks the most alcohol; and has exhibited the highest growth in consumption and spending over the last 20 years. However, over the next 20 years, this cohort is likely to cut back on drinking due to physiological reasons as they age. The body simply becomes less able to metabolize alcohol, and there’s much higher usage of prescription medication in the over 65 age group. And in just the same way that this cohort was growing faster than the population overall over the last 20 years – because of the higher birth rate in the late 60s and 70s – in future, the aging of these GenX-ers will drive outsized growth in the number of people aged over 75, who consume much less alcohol. And so, the result is a disproportionate impact on overall alcohol consumption. And on top of this, there’s increased adoption of GLP-1 weight loss drugs that we’ve talked about previously. And increasingly negative perceptions of the health implications of alcohol – as the broader health and wellness trend takes hold. On the flip side, there's also a growing acceptance of non-alcoholic beverages, driven by better products and broader distribution. We expect low- and zero-alcohol alternatives to gain a larger share of the market as a result. And we think beer looks particularly well-positioned; it already accounts for about 85 per cent of the non-alcoholic market overall. And this year in the U.S., non-alcoholic beer has nearly doubled its share of U.S. beer retail sales, compared to where it was in 2021. Now it’s still small, but the growth rate in the well over 20 per cent range, suggests that share gain will continue. Meanwhile, we’re seeing more mocktails on menus and zero-alcohol beer on draft in pubs. All of this is further contributing to less stigma associated with not drinking alcohol. And all these trends add up to one conclusion, we think: earnings pressures on alcohol makers are not simply cyclical but structural. They have been underway even prior to COVID. And looking to the future, we think they’re here to stay. So now, many more people can say cheers to that. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. And tell your friends about us too.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/diEd2Isxrw2Aho3DEMZ3sKRA0cn8C7AWiRE_PFBXLg4Wed, 23 Apr 2025 20:37:10 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s Head of European Consumer Staples, Sarah Simon, discusses why aging populations, wellness trends and Gen Z’s moderation are putting pressure on the long-term outlook for alcoholic beverages. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.  ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Today’s topic: Is America sobering up? Recent trends point to a national decline in alcohol use.It's Wednesday, April 23rd, at 2pm in London.Picture this: It's Friday night, and you're at a bar with friends. The drinks menu offers many options. A cold beer or glass of wine, sure. But how about a Phony Negroni. And your friends nod approvingly.This isn't just a passing trend – we believe it's a structural shift that's set to reshape the beverage industry. Overall alcohol consumption in volume terms has been relatively flat over the last decade in the U.S. - with spirits growing mid single digits in value terms and beer growing low single digits. But both categories are currently declining. The big debate is whether it’s cyclical or structural. We acknowledge that the consumer is under pressure right now, but we equally see long term structural pressures that are starting to play out. There are three key factors behind this trend: increased moderation by younger drinkers, an ageing population, and then broader health and wellness trends. So let’s talk first about Gen Z – those born between 1997 and 2012. They're drinking notably less than previous generations of the same age. In fact, today’s 18-34 year-olds drink 30 per cent less than the same age group 20 years ago. And we think it’s pretty unlikely they will catch up as they get older. This isn't a temporary blip caused by the after-effects of COVID-19 lockdowns or economic pressures. It's a long-term trend that predates both of these factors. And importantly this isn’t the case of abstinence – as in the case of tobacco – but moderation. Younger generations are simply drinking less alcohol and allocating more of their beverage spending towards soft drinks. Secondly, developed market populations are ageing. If we look at population data, we see it’s today’s 45-55 year old age group that drinks the most alcohol; and has exhibited the highest growth in consumption and spending over the last 20 years. However, over the next 20 years, this cohort is likely to cut back on drinking due to physiological reasons as they age. The body simply becomes less able to metabolize alcohol, and there’s much higher usage of prescription medication in the over 65 age group. And in just the same way that this cohort was growing faster than the population overall over the last 20 years – because of the higher birth rate in the late 60s and 70s – in future, the aging of these GenX-ers will drive outsized growth in the number of people aged over 75, who consume much less alcohol. And so, the result is a disproportionate impact on overall alcohol consumption. And on top of this, there’s increased adoption of GLP-1 weight loss drugs that we’ve talked about previously. And increasingly negative perceptions of the health implications of alcohol – as the broader health and wellness trend takes hold. On the flip side, there's also a growing acceptance of non-alcoholic beverages, driven by better products and broader distribution. We expect low- and zero-alcohol alternatives to gain a larger share of the market as a result. And we think beer looks particularly well-positioned; it already accounts for about 85 per cent of the non-alcoholic market overall. And this year in the U.S., non-alcoholic beer has nearly doubled its share of U.S. beer retail sales, compared to where it was in 2021. Now it’s still small, but the growth rate in the well over 20 per cent range, suggests that share gain will...]]>305alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1367fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-investors-are-playing-defense--75648720Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
No investment recommendation is made with respect to any of the ETFs or mutual funds referenced herein. Investors should not rely on the information included in making investment decisions with respect to those funds. ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today I want to look at how investors are playing defense amid elevated macro uncertainty.It’s Tuesday, April 22, at 10am in New York.So, the last three weeks have brought intense volatility to global markets, and investors have had to reexamine their relationship with risk. Typically, in times like these, mutual fund and ETF flows from stocks into bonds serve as a clear gauge of investor defensiveness. But this pattern hasn’t really been informative this time around.Instead, flows to gold – rather than bonds – have been the clearest evidence of flight-to-quality most recently. Between April 3rd and 11th almost US$5 billion went into gold ETFs globally, one of the strongest seven-day net flow stretches ever. There's been US$22 billion of net inflows to gold ETFs with assets under management totaling about US$250 billion year-to-date. Of the 10 days of the highest net inflows to gold ETFs over the last 20 years, three occurred in the last month.Cash also benefited from the dash to defensives, with over US$100bn flowing into money market funds year-to-date. And we expect that reallocating to cash will be a theme for the rest of the year for many reasons. For one, our U.S. economists expect no Fed cuts in 2025 and back-loaded cuts in 2026 following a projected surge in core PCE inflation from tariffs. This means that money market fund yields should stay higher for longer. And with investors seeing the wild gyrations in safe government bonds in recent weeks, money market funds’ low volatility offer a strong risk/reward argument over holding Treasuries. For another, let's say our economists' base case is incorrect, and we do get steep cuts from the Fed sooner rather than later. That probably means we're on the brink of a recession; and in that situation, cash is king.You know what's been particularly surprising in the middle of this recent flight to quality? Outflows from high-grade US fixed income. These outflows are notable because U.S. Treasuries, Agency mortgages, and investment grade credit are usually seen as low-beta and defensives. But U.S. high-grade bonds saw net outflows of approximately US$1.4bn during the week of April 7th. These are the largest outflows since the pandemic; and we think that this trend can continue.So we need to ask ourselves if this is the end of American exceptionalism. And are we seeing a rotation from U.S. assets into rest-of-the-world?The answer may surprise you, but despite the outflows in U.S. bonds, there hasn’t really been a persistent rotation out of U.S. risk assets and into rest-of-world markets. At least not a lot of evidence in the data yet. U.S. equity investors still have a strong home bias, and we've seen continued net buying from Japanese and euro area investors of foreign equities – at least some of which are U.S. equities. We think investors should stay defensive amid the current uncertainty. But figuring out what's actually defensive has been challenging. This recent turmoil in the global markets suggests that the investors’ shifting idea of what's risky is a risk in itself. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yM-RQKfjsvPbaW9RFTFmWiqBCap2H1QT6yXocesd6WUTue, 22 Apr 2025 20:38:10 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses the market’s shifting perception of risk and what’s behind some unusual patterns in fund flows among asset classes. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
No investment recommendation is made with respect to any of the ETFs or mutual funds referenced herein. Investors should not rely on the information included in making investment decisions with respect to those funds. ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today I want to look at how investors are playing defense amid elevated macro uncertainty.It’s Tuesday, April 22, at 10am in New York.So, the last three weeks have brought intense volatility to global markets, and investors have had to reexamine their relationship with risk. Typically, in times like these, mutual fund and ETF flows from stocks into bonds serve as a clear gauge of investor defensiveness. But this pattern hasn’t really been informative this time around.Instead, flows to gold – rather than bonds – have been the clearest evidence of flight-to-quality most recently. Between April 3rd and 11th almost US$5 billion went into gold ETFs globally, one of the strongest seven-day net flow stretches ever. There's been US$22 billion of net inflows to gold ETFs with assets under management totaling about US$250 billion year-to-date. Of the 10 days of the highest net inflows to gold ETFs over the last 20 years, three occurred in the last month.Cash also benefited from the dash to defensives, with over US$100bn flowing into money market funds year-to-date. And we expect that reallocating to cash will be a theme for the rest of the year for many reasons. For one, our U.S. economists expect no Fed cuts in 2025 and back-loaded cuts in 2026 following a projected surge in core PCE inflation from tariffs. This means that money market fund yields should stay higher for longer. And with investors seeing the wild gyrations in safe government bonds in recent weeks, money market funds’ low volatility offer a strong risk/reward argument over holding Treasuries. For another, let's say our economists' base case is incorrect, and we do get steep cuts from the Fed sooner rather than later. That probably means we're on the brink of a recession; and in that situation, cash is king.You know what's been particularly surprising in the middle of this recent flight to quality? Outflows from high-grade US fixed income. These outflows are notable because U.S. Treasuries, Agency mortgages, and investment grade credit are usually seen as low-beta and defensives. But U.S. high-grade bonds saw net outflows of approximately US$1.4bn during the week of April 7th. These are the largest outflows since the pandemic; and we think that this trend can continue.So we need to ask ourselves if this is the end of American exceptionalism. And are we seeing a rotation from U.S. assets into rest-of-the-world?The answer may surprise you, but despite the outflows in U.S. bonds, there hasn’t really been a persistent rotation out of U.S. risk assets and into rest-of-world markets. At least not a lot of evidence in the data yet. U.S. equity investors still have a strong home bias, and we've seen continued net buying from Japanese and euro area investors of foreign equities – at least some of which are U.S. equities. We think investors should stay defensive amid the current uncertainty. But figuring out what's actually defensive has been challenging. This recent turmoil in the global markets suggests that the investors’ shifting idea of what's risky is a risk in itself. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>261alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1366fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/recession-fears-are-a-wild-card-for-markets--75648730Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what it will take for the US equity market to break out of the 5000-5500 range. It's Monday, April 21st at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.Last week, we focused on our view that the S&P 500 was likely to remain in a 5000-5500 range in the near term given the constraints on both the upside and the downside. First, on the upside, we think it will be challenging for the index to break through prior support of 5500 given the recent acceleration lower in earnings revisions, uncertainty on how tariff negotiations will progress and the notion that the Fed appears to be on hold until it has more clarity on the inflationary and growth impacts of tariffs and other factors. At the same time, we also believe the equity market has been contemplating all of these challenges for much longer than the consensus acknowledges. Nowhere is this evidence clearer than in the ratio of Cyclical versus Defensive stocks as discussed on this podcast many times. In fact, the ratio peaked a year ago and is now down more than 40 per cent.Coming into the year, we had a more skeptical view on growth than the consensus for the first half due to expectations that appeared too rosy in the context of policy sequencing that was likely to be mostly growth negative to start. Things like immigration enforcement, DOGE, and tariffs. Based on our industry analysts' forecasts, we were also expecting AI Capex growth to decelerate, particularly in the first half of the year when growth rate comparisons are most challenging. Recall the Deep Seek announcement in January that further heightened investor concerns on this factor. And given the importance of AI Capex to the overall growth expectations of the economy, this dynamic remains a major consideration for investors. A key point of today’s episode is that just as many were overly optimistic on growth coming into the year, they may be getting too pessimistic now, especially at the stock level. As the breakdown in cyclical stocks indicate, this correction is well advanced both in price and time, having started nearly a year ago. Now, with the S&P 500 closing last week very close to the middle of our range, the index appears to be struggling with the uncertainty of how this will all play out.Equities trade in the future as they try to discount what will be happening in six months, not today. Predicting the future path is very difficult in any environment and that is arguably more difficult today than usual, which explains the high volatility in equity prices. The good news is that stocks have discounted quite a bit of slowing at this point. It’s worth remembering the factors that many were optimistic about four-to-give months ago—things like de-regulation, lower interest rates, AI productivity and a more efficient government—are still on the table as potential future positive catalysts. And markets have a way of discounting them before it's obvious.However, there is also a greater risk of a recession now, which is a different kind of slowdown that has not been fully priced at the index level, in our view. So as long as that risk remains elevated, we need to remain balanced with our short-term views even if we believe the odds of a positive outcome for growth and equities are more likely than consensus does over the intermediate term. Hence, we will continue to range trade.Further clouding the picture is the fact that companies face more uncertainty than they have since the early days of the pandemic. As a result, earnings revisions breadth is now at levels rarely witnessed and approaching downside extremes assuming we avoid a recession. Keep in mind that these revisions peaked almost a year ago, well before the S&P 500 topped, further supporting our view that this correction is much more advanced than acknowledged by the consensus. This is why we are now more interested in looking at stocks and sectors that may have already discounted a mild recession even if the broader index has not. Bottom line, if a recession is averted, markets likely made their lows two weeks ago. If not, the S&P 500 will likely take those lows out. There are other factors that could take us below 4800 in a bear case outcome, too. For example, the Fed decides to raise rates due to tariff-driven inflation; or the term premium blows out, taking 10-year Treasury yields above 5 per cent without any growth improvement.Nevertheless, we think recession probability is the wildcard now that markets are wrestling with. In S&P terms, we think 5000-5500 is the appropriate range until this risk is either confirmed or refuted by the hard data – with labor being the most important. In the meantime, stay up the quality curve with your equity portfolio.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LXb4OtffM1v55lifHj3ExnBEc3ql4vxB4vqQ-HZIed8Mon, 21 Apr 2025 20:10:11 +0000gtyCan the U.S. equity market break out of its expected range? Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at whether the Trump administration’s shifting tariff policy and Fed uncertainty will continue weighing down stocks. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what it will take for the US equity market to break out of the 5000-5500 range. It's Monday, April 21st at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.Last week, we focused on our view that the S&P 500 was likely to remain in a 5000-5500 range in the near term given the constraints on both the upside and the downside. First, on the upside, we think it will be challenging for the index to break through prior support of 5500 given the recent acceleration lower in earnings revisions, uncertainty on how tariff negotiations will progress and the notion that the Fed appears to be on hold until it has more clarity on the inflationary and growth impacts of tariffs and other factors. At the same time, we also believe the equity market has been contemplating all of these challenges for much longer than the consensus acknowledges. Nowhere is this evidence clearer than in the ratio of Cyclical versus Defensive stocks as discussed on this podcast many times. In fact, the ratio peaked a year ago and is now down more than 40 per cent.Coming into the year, we had a more skeptical view on growth than the consensus for the first half due to expectations that appeared too rosy in the context of policy sequencing that was likely to be mostly growth negative to start. Things like immigration enforcement, DOGE, and tariffs. Based on our industry analysts' forecasts, we were also expecting AI Capex growth to decelerate, particularly in the first half of the year when growth rate comparisons are most challenging. Recall the Deep Seek announcement in January that further heightened investor concerns on this factor. And given the importance of AI Capex to the overall growth expectations of the economy, this dynamic remains a major consideration for investors. A key point of today’s episode is that just as many were overly optimistic on growth coming into the year, they may be getting too pessimistic now, especially at the stock level. As the breakdown in cyclical stocks indicate, this correction is well advanced both in price and time, having started nearly a year ago. Now, with the S&P 500 closing last week very close to the middle of our range, the index appears to be struggling with the uncertainty of how this will all play out.Equities trade in the future as they try to discount what will be happening in six months, not today. Predicting the future path is very difficult in any environment and that is arguably more difficult today than usual, which explains the high volatility in equity prices. The good news is that stocks have discounted quite a bit of slowing at this point. It’s worth remembering the factors that many were optimistic about four-to-give months ago—things like de-regulation, lower interest rates, AI productivity and a more efficient government—are still on the table as potential future positive catalysts. And markets have a way of discounting them before it's obvious.However, there is also a greater risk of a recession now, which is a different kind of slowdown that has not been fully priced at the index level, in our view. So as long as that risk remains elevated, we need to remain balanced with our short-term views even if we believe the odds of a positive outcome for growth and equities are more likely than consensus does over the intermediate term. Hence, we will continue to range trade.Further clouding the picture is the fact that companies face more...]]>327alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1365fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-much-more-could-your-smartphone-cost--75648785Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Erik Woodring: And I'm Erik Woodring, Head of the U.S. IT Hardware team.Michael Zezas: Today, we continue our tariff coverage with a closer look at the impact on tech hardware. Products such as your smartphone, computers, and other personal devices.It's Thursday, April 17th at 10am in New York.President Trump's reciprocal tariffs announcements, followed by a 90 day pause and exemptions have created a lot of turmoil in the tech hardware space. People started panic buying smartphones, worried about rising costs, only to find out that smartphones may or may not be exempted.As I pointed out on this podcast before, these tariffs are also significantly accelerating the transition to a multipolar world. This process was already well underway before President Trump's second term, but it's gathering steam as trade pressures escalate. Which is why I wanted to talk to you, Erik, given your expertise.In the multipolar world, IT hardware has followed a China+1 strategy. What is the strategy, and does it help mitigate the impact from tariffs?Erik Woodring: Historically, most IT hardware products have been manufactured in China. Starting in 2018, during the first Trump administration, there was an effort by my universe to diversify production outside of China to countries friendly with China – including Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand. This has ultimately helped to protect from some tariffs, but this does not make really any of these countries immune from tariffs given what was announced on April 2nd.Michael Zezas: And what do the current tariffs – recognizing, of course, that they could change – what do those current tariffs mean for device costs and the underlying stocks that you cover?Erik Woodring: In short, device costs are going up, and as it relates to my stocks, there's plenty of uncertainty. If I maybe dig one level deeper, when the first round of tariffs were announced on April 2nd, the cumulative cost that my companies were facing from tariffs was over $50 billion. The weighted average tariff rate was about 25 per cent. Today, after some incremental announcements and some exemptions, the ultimate cumulative tariff cost that my universe faces is about $7 billion. That is equivalent to an average tariff rate of about 7 per cent. And what that means is that device costs on average will go up about 5 per cent.Of course, there are some that won't be raised at all. There are some device costs that might go up by 20 to 30 per cent. But ultimately, we do expect prices to go up and as a result, that creates a lot of uncertainties with IT hardware stocks.Michael Zezas: Okay, so let's make this real for our listeners. Suppose they're buying a new device, a smartphone, or maybe a new laptop. How would these new tariffs affect the consumer price?Erik Woodring: Sure. Let's use the example of a smartphone. $1000 smartphone typically will be imported for a cost of maybe $500. In this current tariff regime, that would mean cost would go up about $50. So, $1000 smartphone would be $1,050.You could use the same equivalent for a laptop; and then on the enterprise side, you could use the equivalent of a server, an AI server, or storage – much more expensive. Meaning while the percentage increase in the cost will be the same, the ultimate dollar expense will go up significantly more.Michael Zezas: And so, what are some of the mitigation strategies that companies might be able to use to lessen the impact of tariffs?Erik Woodring: If we start in the short term, there's two primary mitigation strategies. One is pulling forward inventory and imports ahead of the tariff deadline to ultimately mitigate those tariff costs. The second one would be to share in the cost of these tariffs with your suppliers. For IT hardware, there's hundreds of suppliers and ultimately billions of dollars of incremental tariff costs can be somewhat shared amongst these hundreds of companies.Longer term, there are a few other mitigation strategies. First moving your production out of China or out of even some of these China+1 countries to more favorable tariff locations, perhaps such as Mexico. Many products which come from Mexico in my universe are exempted because of the USMCA compliance. So that is a kind of a medium-term strategy that my companies can use.Ultimately, the medium-term strategy that's going to be most popular is raising prices, as we talked about. But some of my companies will also leverage affordability tools to make the cost ultimately borne out over a longer period of time. Meaning today, if you buy a smartphone over two-year of an installment plan, they could extend this installment plan to three years. That means that your monthly cost will go down by 33 per cent, even if the price of your smartphone is rising.And then longer term, ultimately, the mitigation tool will be whether you decide to go and follow the process of onshoring. Or if you decide to continue to follow China+1 or nearshoring, but to a greater extent.Michael Zezas: Right. So, then what about onshoring – that is moving production capacity to the U.S.? Is this a realistic scenario for IT hardware companies?Erik Woodring: In reality, no. There is some small volume production of IT hardware projects that is done in the United States. But the majority of the IT hardware ecosystem outside of the United States has been done for a specific reason. And that is for decades, my companies have leveraged skilled workers, skilled in tooling expertise. And that has developed over time, that is extremely important. Tech CEOs have said that the reason hardware production has been concentrated in China is not about the cost of labor in the country, but instead about the number of skilled workers and the proximity of those skilled workers in one location. There's also the benefit of having a number of companies that can aggregate tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of workers, in a specific factory space. That just makes it much more difficult to do in the United States. So, the headwinds to onshoring would be just the cost of building facilities in the United States. It would be finding the skilled labor. It would be finding resources available for building these facilities. It would also be the decision whether to use skilled labor or humanoids or robots.Longer term, I think the decision most of my companies will have to face is the cost and time of moving your supply chain, which will take longer than three years versus, you know, the current presidential term, which will last another, call it three and a half years.Michael Zezas: Okay. And so how does all of this impact demand for tech hardware, and what's your outlook for the industry in the second half of this year?Erik Woodring: There's two impacts that we're seeing right now. In some cases, more mission critical products are being pulled forward, meaning companies or consumers are going and buying their latest and greatest device because they're concerned about a future pricing increase.The other impact is going to be generally lower demand. What we're most concerned about is that a pull forward in the second quarter ultimately leads to weaker demand in the second half – because generally speaking, uncertainty, whether that's policy or macro more broadly, leads to more concerns with hardware spending and ultimately a lower level of spending. So any 2Q pull forward could mean an even weaker second half of the year.Michael Zezas: Alright, Erik, thanks for taking the time to talk.Erik Woodring: Great. Thanks for speaking, Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-etHhkasEt3i1b5bbhdDIYUGqhRdaW0pNc7DCwFQSMcThu, 17 Apr 2025 20:01:40 +0000gtyOur analysts Michael Zezas and Erik Woodring discuss the ways tariffs are rewiring the tech hardware industry and how companies can mitigate the impact of the new U.S. trade policy. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Erik Woodring: And I'm Erik Woodring, Head of the U.S. IT Hardware team.Michael Zezas: Today, we continue our tariff coverage with a closer look at the impact on tech hardware. Products such as your smartphone, computers, and other personal devices.It's Thursday, April 17th at 10am in New York.President Trump's reciprocal tariffs announcements, followed by a 90 day pause and exemptions have created a lot of turmoil in the tech hardware space. People started panic buying smartphones, worried about rising costs, only to find out that smartphones may or may not be exempted.As I pointed out on this podcast before, these tariffs are also significantly accelerating the transition to a multipolar world. This process was already well underway before President Trump's second term, but it's gathering steam as trade pressures escalate. Which is why I wanted to talk to you, Erik, given your expertise.In the multipolar world, IT hardware has followed a China+1 strategy. What is the strategy, and does it help mitigate the impact from tariffs?Erik Woodring: Historically, most IT hardware products have been manufactured in China. Starting in 2018, during the first Trump administration, there was an effort by my universe to diversify production outside of China to countries friendly with China – including Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand. This has ultimately helped to protect from some tariffs, but this does not make really any of these countries immune from tariffs given what was announced on April 2nd.Michael Zezas: And what do the current tariffs – recognizing, of course, that they could change – what do those current tariffs mean for device costs and the underlying stocks that you cover?Erik Woodring: In short, device costs are going up, and as it relates to my stocks, there's plenty of uncertainty. If I maybe dig one level deeper, when the first round of tariffs were announced on April 2nd, the cumulative cost that my companies were facing from tariffs was over $50 billion. The weighted average tariff rate was about 25 per cent. Today, after some incremental announcements and some exemptions, the ultimate cumulative tariff cost that my universe faces is about $7 billion. That is equivalent to an average tariff rate of about 7 per cent. And what that means is that device costs on average will go up about 5 per cent.Of course, there are some that won't be raised at all. There are some device costs that might go up by 20 to 30 per cent. But ultimately, we do expect prices to go up and as a result, that creates a lot of uncertainties with IT hardware stocks.Michael Zezas: Okay, so let's make this real for our listeners. Suppose they're buying a new device, a smartphone, or maybe a new laptop. How would these new tariffs affect the consumer price?Erik Woodring: Sure. Let's use the example of a smartphone. $1000 smartphone typically will be imported for a cost of maybe $500. In this current tariff regime, that would mean cost would go up about $50. So, $1000 smartphone would be $1,050.You could use the same equivalent for a laptop; and then on the enterprise side, you could use the equivalent of a server, an AI server, or storage – much more expensive. Meaning while the percentage increase in the cost will be the same, the ultimate dollar expense will go up significantly more.Michael Zezas: And so, what are some of the mitigation strategies that companies might be able to use to lessen the impact of...]]>487alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1364fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tariff-uncertainty-creates-opportunity-in-credit--75648917Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about how high uncertainty can be a risk for credit, and also an opportunity.It's Wednesday, April 16th at 9am in New York.Markets year-to-date have been dominated by questions of U.S. trade policy. At the center of this debate is a puzzle: What, exactly, the goal of this policy is?Currently, there are two competing theories of what the U.S. administration is trying to achieve. In one, aggressive tariffs are a negotiating tactic, an aggressive opening move designed to be bargained down into something much, much lower for an ultimate deal.And in the other interpretation, aggressive tariffs are a new industrial policy. Large tariffs, for a long period of time, are necessary to encourage manufacturers to relocate operations to the U.S. over the long term.Both of these theories are plausible. Both have been discussed by senior U.S. administration officials. But they are also mutually exclusive. They can’t both prevail.The uncertainty of which of these camps wins out is not new. Market strength back in early February could be linked to optimism that tariffs would be more of that first negotiating tool. Weakness in March and April was linked to signs that they would be more permanent. And the more recent bounce, including an almost 10 percent one-day rally last week, were linked to hopes that the pendulum was once again swinging back.This back and forth is uncertain. But in some sense, it gives investors a rubric: signs of more aggressive tariffs would be more challenging to the market, signs of more flexibility more positive. But is it that simple? Do signs of a more lasting tariff pause solve the story?The important question, we think, is whether all of that back and forth has done lasting damage to corporate and consumer confidence. Even if all of the tariffs were paused, would companies and consumers believe it? Would they be willing to invest and spend over the coming quarters at similar levels to before – given all of the recent volatility?This question is more than hypothetical. Across a wide range of surveys, the so-called soft data, U.S. corporate and consumer confidence has plunged. Merger activity has slowed sharply. We expect intense investor focus on these measures of confidence over the coming months.For credit, lower confidence is a doubled edged sword. To some extent, it is good, keeping companies more conservative and better able to service their debt. But if it weakens the overall economy – and historically, weaker confidence surveys like we’ve seen recently have indicated much weaker growth in the future; that’s a risk. With overall spread levels about average, we do not see valuations as clearly attractive enough to be outright positive, yet.But maybe there is one silver lining. Long term Investment grade corporate debt now yields over 6 percent. As corporate confidence has soured, and these yields have risen, we think companies will find it unattractive to lock in high costs for long-term borrowing. Fewer bonds for sale, and attractive all-in yields for investors could help this part of the market outperform, in our view.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/g5GqoEPgR2PimPwZnDgANpxETbozZi3x1uerBkCLxbsWed, 16 Apr 2025 20:41:00 +0000gtyThe ever-evolving nature of the U.S. administration’s trade policy has triggered market uncertainty, impacting corporate and consumer confidence. But our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why he believes this volatility could...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about how high uncertainty can be a risk for credit, and also an opportunity.It's Wednesday, April 16th at 9am in New York.Markets year-to-date have been dominated by questions of U.S. trade policy. At the center of this debate is a puzzle: What, exactly, the goal of this policy is?Currently, there are two competing theories of what the U.S. administration is trying to achieve. In one, aggressive tariffs are a negotiating tactic, an aggressive opening move designed to be bargained down into something much, much lower for an ultimate deal.And in the other interpretation, aggressive tariffs are a new industrial policy. Large tariffs, for a long period of time, are necessary to encourage manufacturers to relocate operations to the U.S. over the long term.Both of these theories are plausible. Both have been discussed by senior U.S. administration officials. But they are also mutually exclusive. They can’t both prevail.The uncertainty of which of these camps wins out is not new. Market strength back in early February could be linked to optimism that tariffs would be more of that first negotiating tool. Weakness in March and April was linked to signs that they would be more permanent. And the more recent bounce, including an almost 10 percent one-day rally last week, were linked to hopes that the pendulum was once again swinging back.This back and forth is uncertain. But in some sense, it gives investors a rubric: signs of more aggressive tariffs would be more challenging to the market, signs of more flexibility more positive. But is it that simple? Do signs of a more lasting tariff pause solve the story?The important question, we think, is whether all of that back and forth has done lasting damage to corporate and consumer confidence. Even if all of the tariffs were paused, would companies and consumers believe it? Would they be willing to invest and spend over the coming quarters at similar levels to before – given all of the recent volatility?This question is more than hypothetical. Across a wide range of surveys, the so-called soft data, U.S. corporate and consumer confidence has plunged. Merger activity has slowed sharply. We expect intense investor focus on these measures of confidence over the coming months.For credit, lower confidence is a doubled edged sword. To some extent, it is good, keeping companies more conservative and better able to service their debt. But if it weakens the overall economy – and historically, weaker confidence surveys like we’ve seen recently have indicated much weaker growth in the future; that’s a risk. With overall spread levels about average, we do not see valuations as clearly attractive enough to be outright positive, yet.But maybe there is one silver lining. Long term Investment grade corporate debt now yields over 6 percent. As corporate confidence has soured, and these yields have risen, we think companies will find it unattractive to lock in high costs for long-term borrowing. Fewer bonds for sale, and attractive all-in yields for investors could help this part of the market outperform, in our view.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>225alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1363fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/gold-rush-picks-up-speed--75648812Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Amy Gower, Morgan Stanley’s Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist. Today I’m going to talk about the steady rise we’ve had in gold prices in recent months and whether or not this rally can continue. It’s Tuesday, April 15th, at 2pm in London.So gold breached $3000/oz for the first time ever on 17th of March this year, and has continued to rise since then; but we would argue it still has room to run. First of all, let’s look back at how we got here. So, gold already rallied 25 percent in 2024, which was driven largely by strong central bank demand as well as the start of the US Fed rate cutting cycle, and strong demand for bars and coins as geopolitical risk remained elevated. And arguably, these trends have continued in 2025, with gold up another 22 percent, and now rising tariff uncertainty also contributing. This comes in two ways – first, demand for gold as a safe haven asset against this current macro uncertainty. And second as an inflation hedge. Gold has historically been viewed by investors as a hedge against the impact of inflation. So, with the U.S. tariffs raising inflation risks, gold is seeing additional demand here too. But, of course, the question is: can this gold rally keep going? We think the answer is yes, but would caveat that in big market moves -- like the ones we have seen in recent weeks -- gold can also initially fall alongside other asset classes, as it is often used to provide liquidity. But this is often short-lived and already gold has been rebounding. We would expect this to continue with the price of gold to rise further to around $3500/oz by the third quarter of this year. There are three key drivers behind this projection: First, we see still strong physical demand for gold, both from central banks and from the return of exchange-traded funds or ETFs. Central banks saw what looks like a structural shift in their gold purchases in 2022, which has continued now for three consecutive years. And ETF inflows are returning after four years of outflows, adding a significant amount year-to-date, but still well below their 2020 highs, suggesting there’s arguably much more room to go here. Second, macro drivers are also contributing to this gold price outlook. A falling U.S. dollar is usually a tailwind for commodities in general, as it makes them cheaper for non-dollar holders; while a stagflation scenario, where growth expectations are skewed down and inflation risks are skewed up, would also be a set-up where gold would perform well. And third, continued demand for gold as a safe-haven asset amid rising inflation and growth risks is also likely to keep that bar and coin segment well supported.  And what would be the bullish risks to this gold outlook? Well, as prices rise, you tend to start ask questions about demand destruction. And this is no different for gold, particularly in the jewelry segment where consumers would go with usually a budget in mind, rather than a quantity of gold. And so demand can be quite price sensitive. Annual jewelry demand is roughly twice the size of that central bank buying and we already saw this fall around 11 percent year-on-year in 2024. So, we would expect a bit of weakness here. But offset by the other factors that I mentioned. So, all in all, a combination of physical buying, macro factors and uncertainty should be driving safe haven demand for gold, keeping prices on a rising trajectory from here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2WM6lsI66168H_wfFu42R0zFWOOKpxPWLA61QBtC06UTue, 15 Apr 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs gold prices reach new all-time highs, Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist Amy Gower discusses whether the rally is sustainable. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley.  ---- Transcript...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Amy Gower, Morgan Stanley’s Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist. Today I’m going to talk about the steady rise we’ve had in gold prices in recent months and whether or not this rally can continue. It’s Tuesday, April 15th, at 2pm in London.So gold breached $3000/oz for the first time ever on 17th of March this year, and has continued to rise since then; but we would argue it still has room to run. First of all, let’s look back at how we got here. So, gold already rallied 25 percent in 2024, which was driven largely by strong central bank demand as well as the start of the US Fed rate cutting cycle, and strong demand for bars and coins as geopolitical risk remained elevated. And arguably, these trends have continued in 2025, with gold up another 22 percent, and now rising tariff uncertainty also contributing. This comes in two ways – first, demand for gold as a safe haven asset against this current macro uncertainty. And second as an inflation hedge. Gold has historically been viewed by investors as a hedge against the impact of inflation. So, with the U.S. tariffs raising inflation risks, gold is seeing additional demand here too. But, of course, the question is: can this gold rally keep going? We think the answer is yes, but would caveat that in big market moves -- like the ones we have seen in recent weeks -- gold can also initially fall alongside other asset classes, as it is often used to provide liquidity. But this is often short-lived and already gold has been rebounding. We would expect this to continue with the price of gold to rise further to around $3500/oz by the third quarter of this year. There are three key drivers behind this projection: First, we see still strong physical demand for gold, both from central banks and from the return of exchange-traded funds or ETFs. Central banks saw what looks like a structural shift in their gold purchases in 2022, which has continued now for three consecutive years. And ETF inflows are returning after four years of outflows, adding a significant amount year-to-date, but still well below their 2020 highs, suggesting there’s arguably much more room to go here. Second, macro drivers are also contributing to this gold price outlook. A falling U.S. dollar is usually a tailwind for commodities in general, as it makes them cheaper for non-dollar holders; while a stagflation scenario, where growth expectations are skewed down and inflation risks are skewed up, would also be a set-up where gold would perform well. And third, continued demand for gold as a safe-haven asset amid rising inflation and growth risks is also likely to keep that bar and coin segment well supported.  And what would be the bullish risks to this gold outlook? Well, as prices rise, you tend to start ask questions about demand destruction. And this is no different for gold, particularly in the jewelry segment where consumers would go with usually a budget in mind, rather than a quantity of gold. And so demand can be quite price sensitive. Annual jewelry demand is roughly twice the size of that central bank buying and we already saw this fall around 11 percent year-on-year in 2024. So, we would expect a bit of weakness here. But offset by the other factors that I mentioned. So, all in all, a combination of physical buying, macro factors and uncertainty should be driving safe haven demand for gold, keeping prices on a rising trajectory from here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>248alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1362fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-is-the-bottom-of-the-market--75648725Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing last week’s volatility and what to expect going forward.It's Monday, April 14th at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.What a month for equity markets, and it's only halfway done! Entering April, we were much  more focused on growth risks than inflation risks given the headwinds from AI Capex growth  deceleration, fiscal slowing, DOGE and immigration enforcement. Tariffs were the final  headwind to face, and while most investors' confidence was low about how Liberation Day  would play out, positioning skewed more toward potential relief than disappointment.That combination proved to be problematic when the details of the reciprocal tariffs were  announced on April 2nd. From that afternoon's highs, S&P 500 futures plunged by 16.5 per cent into Monday morning. Remarkably, no circuit breakers were triggered, and markets functioned very well during this extreme stress. However, we did observe some forced selling as Treasuries, gold and defensive stocks were all down last Monday. In my view, Monday was a classic capitulation day on heavy volume. In fact, I would go as far  as to say that Monday will likely prove to be the momentum low for this correction that began back in December for most stocks; and as far back as a year ago for many cyclicals. This also means that we likely retest or break last week's price lows for the major indices even if some individual stocks have bottomed. We suspect a more durable low will come as early as next month or over the summer as earnings are adjusted lower, and multiples remain volatile with a downward bias given the Fed's apprehension to cut rates – or provide additional liquidity unless credit or funding markets become unstable. As discussed last week, markets are now contemplating a much higher risk of recession than  normal – with tariffs acting as another blow to an economy that was already weakening from the numerous headwinds; not to mention the fact that most of the private economy has been  struggling for the better part of two years. In my view, there have been three factors supporting headline GDP growth and labor markets: government spending, consumer services and AI Capex – and all three are now slowing.The tricky thing here is that the tariff impact is a moving target. The question is whether the  damage to confidence can recover. As already noted, markets moved ahead of the  fundamentals; and markets have once again done a better job than the consensus in predicting the slowdown that is now appearing in the data.  While everyone can see the deterioration in the S&P 500 and other popular indices, the  internals of the equity market have been even clearer. First, small caps versus large caps have  been in a distinct downtrend for the past four years. This is the quality trade in a nutshell which  has worked so well for reasons we have been citing for years — things like the k-economy and crowding out by government spending that has kept the headline economic statistics higher than they would have been otherwise. This strength has encouraged the Fed to maintain interest rates higher than the weaker cohorts of the economy need to recover.  Therefore, until interest rates come down, this bifurcated economy and equity markets are likely to persist. This also explains why we had a brief, yet powerful rally last fall in low quality  cyclicals when the Fed was cutting rates, and why it quickly failed when the Fed paused in  December. The dramatic correction in cyclical stocks and small caps is well advanced not only in  price, but also in time. While many have only recently become concerned about the growth  slowdown, the market began pricing it a year ago.Looking at the drawdown of stocks more broadly also paints a picture that suggests the market  correction is well advanced, but probably not complete if we end up in a recession or the fear  of one gets more fully priced. This remains the key question for stock investors, in my view, and  why the S&P 500 is likely to remain in a range of 5000-5500 and volatile – until we have a more  definitive answer to this specific question around recession, or the Fed decides to circumvent the growth risks  more aggressively, like last fall.With the Fed saying it is constrained by inflation risks, it appears likely to err on the side of remaining on hold despite elevated recession risk. It's a similar performance story at the sector and industry level, with many cohorts experiencing a drawdown equal to 2022. Bottom line, we've experienced a lot of price damage, but it's too early to conclude that the durable lows are in – with policy uncertainty persisting, earnings revisions in a downtrend, the Fed on hold and back-end rates elevated. While it’s too late to sell many individual stocks at this point, focus on adding risk over the next month or two as markets likely re-test last week’s lows.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bFoe9YlIyA5Mhc_SW1jgImpOsVNRonEcYsC4gr4em7AMon, 14 Apr 2025 20:09:58 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson probes whether market confidence can return soon as long as tariff policy remains in a state of flux. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing last week’s volatility and what to expect going forward.It's Monday, April 14th at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.What a month for equity markets, and it's only halfway done! Entering April, we were much  more focused on growth risks than inflation risks given the headwinds from AI Capex growth  deceleration, fiscal slowing, DOGE and immigration enforcement. Tariffs were the final  headwind to face, and while most investors' confidence was low about how Liberation Day  would play out, positioning skewed more toward potential relief than disappointment.That combination proved to be problematic when the details of the reciprocal tariffs were  announced on April 2nd. From that afternoon's highs, S&P 500 futures plunged by 16.5 per cent into Monday morning. Remarkably, no circuit breakers were triggered, and markets functioned very well during this extreme stress. However, we did observe some forced selling as Treasuries, gold and defensive stocks were all down last Monday. In my view, Monday was a classic capitulation day on heavy volume. In fact, I would go as far  as to say that Monday will likely prove to be the momentum low for this correction that began back in December for most stocks; and as far back as a year ago for many cyclicals. This also means that we likely retest or break last week's price lows for the major indices even if some individual stocks have bottomed. We suspect a more durable low will come as early as next month or over the summer as earnings are adjusted lower, and multiples remain volatile with a downward bias given the Fed's apprehension to cut rates – or provide additional liquidity unless credit or funding markets become unstable. As discussed last week, markets are now contemplating a much higher risk of recession than  normal – with tariffs acting as another blow to an economy that was already weakening from the numerous headwinds; not to mention the fact that most of the private economy has been  struggling for the better part of two years. In my view, there have been three factors supporting headline GDP growth and labor markets: government spending, consumer services and AI Capex – and all three are now slowing.The tricky thing here is that the tariff impact is a moving target. The question is whether the  damage to confidence can recover. As already noted, markets moved ahead of the  fundamentals; and markets have once again done a better job than the consensus in predicting the slowdown that is now appearing in the data.  While everyone can see the deterioration in the S&P 500 and other popular indices, the  internals of the equity market have been even clearer. First, small caps versus large caps have  been in a distinct downtrend for the past four years. This is the quality trade in a nutshell which  has worked so well for reasons we have been citing for years — things like the k-economy and crowding out by government spending that has kept the headline economic statistics higher than they would have been otherwise. This strength has encouraged the Fed to maintain interest rates higher than the weaker cohorts of the economy need to recover.  Therefore, until interest rates come down, this bifurcated economy and equity markets are likely to persist. This also explains why we had a brief, yet powerful rally last fall in low quality  cyclicals when the Fed was cutting rates, and why it quickly failed when the Fed paused in  December. The dramatic correction in cyclical stocks...]]>324alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1361fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-market-rebound-a-mirage--75648902Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the historic gains we saw this week in markets, and what they may or may not tell us. It's Friday April 11th at 2pm in London. Wednesday saw the S&P 500 gain 9.5 percent. It was the 10th best day for the U.S. equity market in the last century. Which raises a reasonable question: Is that a good thing? Do large one-day gains suggest further strength ahead – or something else? This is the type of Research question we love digging into. Pulling together the data, it’s pretty straightforward to sort through those other banner days in stock market history going back to 1925. And what they show is notable. I’m now going to read to you when those large gains occurred, in order of the gains themselves. The best day in market history, March 15th 1933, when stocks soared over 16 per cent? It happened during the Great Depression. The 2nd best day, Oct 30th 1929. During the Great Depression. The 3rd best day – Great Depression. The fourth best – the first trading day after Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and World War 2 began. The 5th best day – Great Depression. The 6th Best – October 2008, during the Financial Crisis. The 7th Best – also during the Financial Crisis. The 8th best. The Great Depression again. The 9th best – The Great Depression. And 10th best? Well, that was Wednesday. We are in interesting company, to say the least. Incidentally, we stop here in the interest of brevity; this is a podcast known for being sharp and to the point. But if we kept moving further down the list, the next best 20 days in history all happen during either COVID, the 1987 Crash, a Recession, or a Depression. So why would that be? Why, factually, have some of the best days in market history occurred during some of the very worst of possible backdrops. In some cases, it really was a sign of a buying opportunity. As terrible as the Great Depression was – and as the grandson of a South Dakota farmer I heard the tales – stocks were very cheap at this time, and there were some very large rallies in 1932, 1933, or even 1929. During COVID, the gains on March 24th of 2020, which were associated with major stimulus, represented the major market low. But it can also be the case that during difficult environments, investors are cautious. And they are ultimately right to be cautious. But because of that fear, any good news – any spark of hope – can cause an outsized reaction. But it also sometimes doesn't change that overall challenging picture. And then reverses. Those two large rallies that happened in October of 2008 during the Global Financial Crisis, well they both happened around hopes of government and central bank support. And that temporarily lifted the market – but it didn’t shift the overall picture. What does this mean for investors? On average, markets are roughly unchanged in the three months following some of these largest historical gains. But the range of what happens next is very wide. It is a sign, we think, that these are not normal times, and that the range of outcomes, unfortunately, has become larger. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VrEC4AbOAXiyYR4oakemF6DbD0WxRdrZM4D9S_vZoB0Fri, 11 Apr 2025 20:15:17 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research analyzes the market response to President Trump’s tariff reversal and explains why rallies do not always indicate an improvement in the overall environment. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the historic gains we saw this week in markets, and what they may or may not tell us. It's Friday April 11th at 2pm in London. Wednesday saw the S&P 500 gain 9.5 percent. It was the 10th best day for the U.S. equity market in the last century. Which raises a reasonable question: Is that a good thing? Do large one-day gains suggest further strength ahead – or something else? This is the type of Research question we love digging into. Pulling together the data, it’s pretty straightforward to sort through those other banner days in stock market history going back to 1925. And what they show is notable. I’m now going to read to you when those large gains occurred, in order of the gains themselves. The best day in market history, March 15th 1933, when stocks soared over 16 per cent? It happened during the Great Depression. The 2nd best day, Oct 30th 1929. During the Great Depression. The 3rd best day – Great Depression. The fourth best – the first trading day after Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and World War 2 began. The 5th best day – Great Depression. The 6th Best – October 2008, during the Financial Crisis. The 7th Best – also during the Financial Crisis. The 8th best. The Great Depression again. The 9th best – The Great Depression. And 10th best? Well, that was Wednesday. We are in interesting company, to say the least. Incidentally, we stop here in the interest of brevity; this is a podcast known for being sharp and to the point. But if we kept moving further down the list, the next best 20 days in history all happen during either COVID, the 1987 Crash, a Recession, or a Depression. So why would that be? Why, factually, have some of the best days in market history occurred during some of the very worst of possible backdrops. In some cases, it really was a sign of a buying opportunity. As terrible as the Great Depression was – and as the grandson of a South Dakota farmer I heard the tales – stocks were very cheap at this time, and there were some very large rallies in 1932, 1933, or even 1929. During COVID, the gains on March 24th of 2020, which were associated with major stimulus, represented the major market low. But it can also be the case that during difficult environments, investors are cautious. And they are ultimately right to be cautious. But because of that fear, any good news – any spark of hope – can cause an outsized reaction. But it also sometimes doesn't change that overall challenging picture. And then reverses. Those two large rallies that happened in October of 2008 during the Global Financial Crisis, well they both happened around hopes of government and central bank support. And that temporarily lifted the market – but it didn’t shift the overall picture. What does this mean for investors? On average, markets are roughly unchanged in the three months following some of these largest historical gains. But the range of what happens next is very wide. It is a sign, we think, that these are not normal times, and that the range of outcomes, unfortunately, has become larger. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>241alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1360fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-tariffs-spurred-a-dash-for-cash--75648846Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Martin Tobias: And I'm Martin Tobias, from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team.Vishy Tirupattur: Yesterday the U.S. stock market shot up quite dramatically after President Trump paused most tariffs for 90 days. But before that, there were some stresses in the funding markets. So today we will dig into what those stresses were, and what transpired, and what investors can expect going forward.It's Thursday, April 10th at 11:30am in New York.President Trump's Liberation Day tariff announcements led to a steep sell off in the global stock markets. Marty, before we dig into that, can you give us some Funding Markets 101? We hear a lot about terms like SOFR, effective fed funds rate, the spread between the two. What are these things and why should we care about this?Martin Tobias: For starters, SOFR is the secured overnight financing rate, and the effective fed funds rate – EFFR – are both at the heart of funding markets.Let's start with what our listeners are most likely familiar with – the effective fed funds rate. It's the main policy rate of the Federal Reserve. It's calculated as a volume weighted median of overnight unsecured loans in the Fed funds market. But volume in the Fed funds market has only averaged [$]95 billion per day over the past year.SOFR is the most important reference rate for market participants. It's a broad measure of the cost to borrow cash overnight, collateralized by Treasury securities. It's calculated as a volume weighted median that covers three segments of the repo market. Now SOFR volumes have averaged 2.2 trillion per day over the past year.Vishy Tirupattur: So, what you're telling me, Marty, is that the, the difference between these two rates really reflects how much liquidity stress is there, or the expectations of the uncertainty of funding uncertainty that exists in the market. Is that fair?Martin Tobias: That's correct. And to do this, investors look at futures contracts on fed funds and SOFR.Now fed funds futures reflect market expectations for the Fed's policy rate, SOFR futures reflect market expectations for the Fed policy rate, and market expectations for funding conditions. So, the difference or basis between the two contracts, isolates market expectations for funding conditions.Vishy Tirupattur: So, this basis that you just described. What is the normal sense of this? Where [or] how many basis points is the typical basis? Is it positive? Is it negative?Martin Tobias: In a normal environment over the past three years when reserves were in Abundancy, the three-month SOFR Fed funds Futures basis was positive 2 basis points. This reflected SOFR to set 2 basis points below fed funds on average over the next three months.Vishy Tirupattur: So, what happened earlier this week is – SOFR was setting above effective hedge advance rate, implying…Martin Tobias: Implying tighter funding conditions.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Marty, what actually changed yesterday? How bad did it get and why did it get so bad?Martin Tobias: So, three months SOR Fed funds tightened all the way to -4 basis points. And we think this was a reflection of investors’ increased demand for cash; whether it was lending more securities outright in repo to raise cash, or selling securities outright, or even not lending excess cash in repo. This caused dealer balance sheets [to] become more congested and contributed to higher SOFR rates.Vishy Tirupattur: So, let's give some context to our listeners. So, this is clearly not the first time we've experienced stress in the funding markets. So, in previous episodes – how far did it get and gimme some context.Martin Tobias: Funding conditions did indeed tighten this week, but the environment was far from true funding stress like in 2019 and certain periods in 2020. Now, in 2019 when funding markets seized, and the Fed had to intervene and inject liquidity, three months SOFR fed funds basis averaged -9 basis points. And that compares to -4 basis points during the peak macro uncertainty this week.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Marty, what is your assessment of the state of the funding markets right now?Martin Tobias: Right. Funding conditions have tightened, but I think the environment is far from true funding stress. Thus far, the repricing has occurred because of a higher floor for funding rates and not a scarcity of reserves in the banking system.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to summarize, so the funding stress has been quite a bit earlier this week. Not as bad as the worst conditions we saw say in 2019 or during the peak COVID periods in 2020. but still pretty bad. And relative to how bad it got, today we are slightly better than what we were two days ago. Is that a fair description?Martin Tobias: Yes. That's good. Now, Vishy, what is your view on why the longer end of the bond market sold off.Vishy Tirupattur: So longer end bond markets, as you know, Marty, while safe from a credit risk perspective, do have interest rate sensitivity. So, the longer the bonds, the greater the interest rate sensitivity. So, in periods of uncertainty, such as the ones we are in now, investors prefer to be in ultra short-term funds or cash – to minimize that interest rate sensitivity of their portfolios. So, what we saw happening in some sense, we can call it dash for cash.I think we both agree that this demand for safety will persist, and we will continue to see inflows into money market funds, which you covered in your research. So, your insights Marty will be very helpful to clients as we navigate these choppy waters going forward.Thanks a lot, Marty, for joining this webcast today.Martin Tobias: Great speaking with you, Vishy,Vishy Tirupattur: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.DisclaimerVishy Tirupattur: Yesterday all my troubles were so far away. I believe in yesterday.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9W8ShlHB5Mlha116oZwJnGX0Yv72fsXwne1BgOQeJ_cThu, 10 Apr 2025 20:15:00 +0000gtyOur analysts Vishy Tirupattur and Martin Tobias explain how the announcement of new tariffs and the subsequent pause in their implementation affected the bond market. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Martin Tobias: And I'm Martin Tobias, from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team.Vishy Tirupattur: Yesterday the U.S. stock market shot up quite dramatically after President Trump paused most tariffs for 90 days. But before that, there were some stresses in the funding markets. So today we will dig into what those stresses were, and what transpired, and what investors can expect going forward.It's Thursday, April 10th at 11:30am in New York.President Trump's Liberation Day tariff announcements led to a steep sell off in the global stock markets. Marty, before we dig into that, can you give us some Funding Markets 101? We hear a lot about terms like SOFR, effective fed funds rate, the spread between the two. What are these things and why should we care about this?Martin Tobias: For starters, SOFR is the secured overnight financing rate, and the effective fed funds rate – EFFR – are both at the heart of funding markets.Let's start with what our listeners are most likely familiar with – the effective fed funds rate. It's the main policy rate of the Federal Reserve. It's calculated as a volume weighted median of overnight unsecured loans in the Fed funds market. But volume in the Fed funds market has only averaged [$]95 billion per day over the past year.SOFR is the most important reference rate for market participants. It's a broad measure of the cost to borrow cash overnight, collateralized by Treasury securities. It's calculated as a volume weighted median that covers three segments of the repo market. Now SOFR volumes have averaged 2.2 trillion per day over the past year.Vishy Tirupattur: So, what you're telling me, Marty, is that the, the difference between these two rates really reflects how much liquidity stress is there, or the expectations of the uncertainty of funding uncertainty that exists in the market. Is that fair?Martin Tobias: That's correct. And to do this, investors look at futures contracts on fed funds and SOFR.Now fed funds futures reflect market expectations for the Fed's policy rate, SOFR futures reflect market expectations for the Fed policy rate, and market expectations for funding conditions. So, the difference or basis between the two contracts, isolates market expectations for funding conditions.Vishy Tirupattur: So, this basis that you just described. What is the normal sense of this? Where [or] how many basis points is the typical basis? Is it positive? Is it negative?Martin Tobias: In a normal environment over the past three years when reserves were in Abundancy, the three-month SOFR Fed funds Futures basis was positive 2 basis points. This reflected SOFR to set 2 basis points below fed funds on average over the next three months.Vishy Tirupattur: So, what happened earlier this week is – SOFR was setting above effective hedge advance rate, implying…Martin Tobias: Implying tighter funding conditions.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Marty, what actually changed yesterday? How bad did it get and why did it get so bad?Martin Tobias: So, three months SOR Fed funds tightened all the way to -4 basis points. And we think this was a reflection of investors’ increased demand for cash; whether it was lending more securities outright in repo to raise cash, or selling securities outright, or even not lending excess cash in repo. This caused dealer balance sheets [to] become more congested and contributed to higher SOFR rates.Vishy Tirupattur: So, let's give some context to our listeners. So, this is clearly not the first time we've...]]>394alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1359fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lingering-uncertainties-after-tariff-reprieve--75648663----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today – possible outcomes of President Trump's sudden pause on reciprocal tariffs.It’s Wednesday, April 9th, at 10pm in New York. We’d actually planned a different episode for release today where my colleague Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and I laid out developments in the market thus far and looked at different sets of potential outcomes. Needless to say, all of that changed after President Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs that were set to rise. And so, we needed to update our thinking.It's been a truly unprecedented week for financial markets. The volatility started on April 2, with President Trump’s announcement that new, reciprocal tariffs would take effect on April 9. When added to already announced tariffs, and later adding even more tariffs in for China, it all added up to a promise by the US to raise its average tariffs to levels not seen in 100 years. Understandably, equity markets sold off in a volatile fashion, reflecting investor concerns that the US was committed to retrenching from global trade – inviting recession and an economic future with less potential growth. The bond market also showed signs of considerable strain. Instead of yields falling to reflect growth concerns, they started rising and market liquidity weakened. The exact rationale is still hard to pin down, but needless to say the combined equity and bond market behavior was not a healthy situation.Then, a reprieve. President Trump announced he would delay the implementation of most new tariffs by 90 days to allow negotiations to progress. And though he would keep China tariffs at levels over 100 per cent, the announcement was enough to boost equity markets, with S&P gaining around 9 per cent on the day.So, what does it all mean? We’re still sorting it out for ourselves, but here’s some initial takeaways and questions we think will be important to answer in the coming days.First, there's still plenty of lingering uncertainties to deal with, and so investors can’t put US policy risk behind them. Will this 90 day reprieve hold? Or just delay inevitable tariff escalation? And even if the reprieve holds, do markets still need to price in slower economic growth and higher recession risk? After all, US tariff levels are still considerably higher than they were a week ago. And the experience of this market selloff and rapid shifts in economic policy may have impacted consumer and business confidence. In my travels this week I spent considerable time with corporate leaders who were struggling to figure out how to make strategic decisions amidst this uncertainty. So we’ll need to watch measures of confidence carefully in the coming weeks. One signal amidst the noise is about China, specifically that the US’ desire to improve supply chain security and reduce goods trade deficit would make for difficult negotiation with China and, ultimately, higher tariffs that would stay on for longer relative to other countries. That appears to be playing out here, albeit faster and more severely than we anticipated. So even if tariff relief is durable for the rest of the world, the trade relationship with China should be strained. And that will continue to weigh on markets, where costs to rewire supply chains around this situation could weigh on key sectors like tech hardware and consumer goods. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MGY5vqvJ5Gu5jm7UqQGP6VlyVmiA2JuSAGwKUGH63ZEThu, 10 Apr 2025 04:09:34 +0000gtyEarlier today, President Trump announced a pause on reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas looks at the fallout. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today – possible outcomes of President Trump's sudden pause on reciprocal tariffs.It’s Wednesday, April 9th, at 10pm in New York. We’d actually planned a different episode for release today where my colleague Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and I laid out developments in the market thus far and looked at different sets of potential outcomes. Needless to say, all of that changed after President Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs that were set to rise. And so, we needed to update our thinking.It's been a truly unprecedented week for financial markets. The volatility started on April 2, with President Trump’s announcement that new, reciprocal tariffs would take effect on April 9. When added to already announced tariffs, and later adding even more tariffs in for China, it all added up to a promise by the US to raise its average tariffs to levels not seen in 100 years. Understandably, equity markets sold off in a volatile fashion, reflecting investor concerns that the US was committed to retrenching from global trade – inviting recession and an economic future with less potential growth. The bond market also showed signs of considerable strain. Instead of yields falling to reflect growth concerns, they started rising and market liquidity weakened. The exact rationale is still hard to pin down, but needless to say the combined equity and bond market behavior was not a healthy situation.Then, a reprieve. President Trump announced he would delay the implementation of most new tariffs by 90 days to allow negotiations to progress. And though he would keep China tariffs at levels over 100 per cent, the announcement was enough to boost equity markets, with S&P gaining around 9 per cent on the day.So, what does it all mean? We’re still sorting it out for ourselves, but here’s some initial takeaways and questions we think will be important to answer in the coming days.First, there's still plenty of lingering uncertainties to deal with, and so investors can’t put US policy risk behind them. Will this 90 day reprieve hold? Or just delay inevitable tariff escalation? And even if the reprieve holds, do markets still need to price in slower economic growth and higher recession risk? After all, US tariff levels are still considerably higher than they were a week ago. And the experience of this market selloff and rapid shifts in economic policy may have impacted consumer and business confidence. In my travels this week I spent considerable time with corporate leaders who were struggling to figure out how to make strategic decisions amidst this uncertainty. So we’ll need to watch measures of confidence carefully in the coming weeks. One signal amidst the noise is about China, specifically that the US’ desire to improve supply chain security and reduce goods trade deficit would make for difficult negotiation with China and, ultimately, higher tariffs that would stay on for longer relative to other countries. That appears to be playing out here, albeit faster and more severely than we anticipated. So even if tariff relief is durable for the rest of the world, the trade relationship with China should be strained. And that will continue to weigh on markets, where costs to rewire supply chains around this situation could weigh on key sectors like tech hardware and consumer goods. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>235alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1358fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/three-things-that-could-ease-tariff-jitters--75648827Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing equity market reactions to the tariffs and what to expect from here. It's Tuesday, April 8th at 11:30am in New York.So, let's get after it. From our perspective, last week's Liberation Day was more like the cherry on top for a market that had been dealing with multiple headwinds to growth all year, rather than the beginning. While the magnitude of the tariffs turned out to be worse than our public policy team's base line expectations, the price reaction appears capitulatory to us given that many stocks were already down 30 to 40 percent before the announcement on Wednesday. As discussed in last week’s podcast, our 5500 first half support level on the S&P 500 quickly gave way given this worse than expected outcome for tariffs. The price action since then has forced us to consider new technical support levels which could be as low as the 200-week moving average. And that would be 4700 on the S&P 500. I think it’s worth highlighting that cyclical stocks started underperforming in April of last year and are now down more than 40 percent relative to defensive stocks. In other words, markets have been telling us for almost a year that growth was going to slow, and since January, it's been telling us it's going to slow significantly. In fact, cyclicals have underperformed defensives to a degree only seen during a recession, not prior to them. This fits very nicely with our long-standing view that most of the private economy has been much weaker than the headline numbers suggest – thanks to unprecedented fiscal spending, AI capex and wealthy consumers spending their gains from asset prices. With the exceptional fourth quarter surge in U.S. fiscal spending likely to decline even without  DOGE's efforts, global growth impulses will suffer too. Hence, foreign stocks are unlikely to provide much of a safe haven if the U.S. goes on a diet or detox from fiscal spending. Markets began to contemplate such an outcome with last week’s announcements. Therefore, I remain of the view we discussed two weeks ago that U.S. equities should trade better than foreign ones going forward. That is especially the case with China, Europe and Japan all which run big current account surpluses and are more vulnerable to weaker trade.Meanwhile, the headline numbers on employment and GDP have been flattered by government related jobs and the hiring of immigrants at below market wages. This is one reason the Fed has kept rates higher than many businesses and consumers need and why we remain in an economy of haves and have-nots. Our long standing thesis is that the government has been crowding out much of the economy since COVID, and arguably since the Great Financial Crisis. It's also why large cap quality has been such a consistent outperformer since the end of 2021 and why we have continued to have high conviction and our recommendation are overweight these factors despite short periods of outperformance by low quality cyclicals or small caps – like last fall when the Fed was cutting rates and we pivoted briefly to a more pro-cyclical recommendation. Bottom line, equity markets are discounting machines and they trade six months in advance of the headlines. With most stocks topping in December of last year and cyclicals’ relative performance peaking almost a year ago, this correction is well advanced, and this is not the time to be selling. However, it's fair to say that the tariff announcements last week have taken us to an area with greater tail risk that includes a recession or financial contagion that must be taken into consideration when thinking about levels and adding risk.I see three specific scenarios that could put in a durable floor more quickly:1. President Trump delays the effective date for the implementation of the additional tariffs beyond the initial 10 percent that went into effect this weekend2. The Fed offers support for markets, either explicitly or verbally3. A number of nations come to the table and negotiate on favorable terms to the United States.In short, get ready for another bumpy week and remember markets are looking much further ahead than today’s headline. I remain optimistic that the second half will be better than the first as these growth negative policies morph into growth positive ones via de-regulation, a better fiscal trajectory, lower interest rates and taxes and maybe even higher wages for the American consumer.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/PCHwAcVt58M8be14L-0oB1_28jm0UGvCm_wpD6ZAyNUTue, 08 Apr 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains why the new tariffs added momentum to a correction that was already underway, and what could ease the fallout in equity markets. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing equity market reactions to the tariffs and what to expect from here. It's Tuesday, April 8th at 11:30am in New York.So, let's get after it. From our perspective, last week's Liberation Day was more like the cherry on top for a market that had been dealing with multiple headwinds to growth all year, rather than the beginning. While the magnitude of the tariffs turned out to be worse than our public policy team's base line expectations, the price reaction appears capitulatory to us given that many stocks were already down 30 to 40 percent before the announcement on Wednesday. As discussed in last week’s podcast, our 5500 first half support level on the S&P 500 quickly gave way given this worse than expected outcome for tariffs. The price action since then has forced us to consider new technical support levels which could be as low as the 200-week moving average. And that would be 4700 on the S&P 500. I think it’s worth highlighting that cyclical stocks started underperforming in April of last year and are now down more than 40 percent relative to defensive stocks. In other words, markets have been telling us for almost a year that growth was going to slow, and since January, it's been telling us it's going to slow significantly. In fact, cyclicals have underperformed defensives to a degree only seen during a recession, not prior to them. This fits very nicely with our long-standing view that most of the private economy has been much weaker than the headline numbers suggest – thanks to unprecedented fiscal spending, AI capex and wealthy consumers spending their gains from asset prices. With the exceptional fourth quarter surge in U.S. fiscal spending likely to decline even without  DOGE's efforts, global growth impulses will suffer too. Hence, foreign stocks are unlikely to provide much of a safe haven if the U.S. goes on a diet or detox from fiscal spending. Markets began to contemplate such an outcome with last week’s announcements. Therefore, I remain of the view we discussed two weeks ago that U.S. equities should trade better than foreign ones going forward. That is especially the case with China, Europe and Japan all which run big current account surpluses and are more vulnerable to weaker trade.Meanwhile, the headline numbers on employment and GDP have been flattered by government related jobs and the hiring of immigrants at below market wages. This is one reason the Fed has kept rates higher than many businesses and consumers need and why we remain in an economy of haves and have-nots. Our long standing thesis is that the government has been crowding out much of the economy since COVID, and arguably since the Great Financial Crisis. It's also why large cap quality has been such a consistent outperformer since the end of 2021 and why we have continued to have high conviction and our recommendation are overweight these factors despite short periods of outperformance by low quality cyclicals or small caps – like last fall when the Fed was cutting rates and we pivoted briefly to a more pro-cyclical recommendation. Bottom line, equity markets are discounting machines and they trade six months in advance of the headlines. With most stocks topping in December of last year and cyclicals’ relative performance peaking almost a year ago, this correction is well advanced, and this is not the time to be selling. However, it's fair to say that the tariff announcements last week have taken us to an area with...]]>280alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1357fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tariff-roundtable-global-economy-on-the-brink-of-recession--75648772Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's, Global Chief Economist, and today we're going to be talking tariffs and what they mean for the global economy.It's Monday, April 7th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: It's 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And it's 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: And so, I'm here with our global economists from around the world: Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. So, let's jump into it. Let me go around first and ask each of you, what is the top question that you are getting from investors around the world?Chetan?Chetan Ahya: Tariffs.Seth Carpenter: Jens?Jens Eisenschmidt: Tariffs.Seth Carpenter: Mike?Michael Gapen: Tariffs.Seth Carpenter: All right. Well, that seems clear. Before we get into the likely effects of the tariffs, maybe each of you could just sketch for me where you were before tariffs were announced. Chetan, let me start with you. What was your outlook for the Chinese economy before the latest round of tariff announcements?Chetan Ahya: Well Seth, working with our U.S. public policy team, we were already assuming a 15-percentage point increase on tariffs on imports from China. And China also was going through some domestic challenges in terms of high levels of debt, excess capacities, and deflation. And so, combining both the factors, we were assuming China's growth will slow on Q4 by Q4 basis last year – from 5.4 percent to close to 4 percent this year.Jens, what about Europe? Before these broad-based tariffs, how were you thinking about the European economy?Jens Eisenschmidt: We had penciled in a slight recovery, not really getting us much beyond 1 percent. Backdrop here, still rising real wages. We had some tariffs in here, on steel, aluminum; in cars, much again a bit more of a beefed-up version if you want, of the 18 tariffs – but not much more than that. And then, of course, we had the German fiscal expansion that helped our outlook to sustain this positive growth rates into 2026.Seth Carpenter: Mike, for you. You also had thought that there were going to be some tariffs at some point before this last round of tariffs. Maybe you can tell us what you had in mind before last week's announcements.Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth. We had a lot of tariffs on China. The effective rate rising to say 35 to 40 percent. But as Jens just mentioned, outside of that, we had some on steel and aluminum, and autos with Europe, but not much beyond that. So, an effective tariff rate for the U.S. that reached maybe 8 to 9 percent.We thought that would gradually weigh on the economy. We had growth at around 1.5 percent this year and 1 percent next year. And the disinflation process stopping – meaning inflation finishes the year at around 2.8 core PCE, roughly where it is now. So, a gradual slowdown from tariff implementation.Seth Carpenter: Alright, so a little bit built in. You knew there was going to be something, but boy, I guess I have to say, judging from market reactions, the world was surprised at the magnitude of things. So, what's changed in your mind? It seems like tariffs have got to push down the outlook for growth and up the out outlook for inflation. Is that about right? And can you sketch for us how this new news is going to affect the outlook?Michael Gapen: Sure. So instead of effective tariff rates of 8 to 9 percent, we're looking at effective tariff rates, maybe as high as 22 percent.Seth Carpenter: Oh, that's a lot.Michael Gapen: Yeah. So more than twice what we were expecting. Obviously, some of that may get negotiated down. Seth Carpenter: And would you say that's the highest tariff rate we've seen in a while?Michael Gapen: At least a century. If we were to a 1.5 percent on growth before, it's pretty easy to revise that down, maybe even a full percentage point, right?So you’re, it's a tax on consumption and a tariff rate that high is going to pull down consumer spending. It's also going to lead to even much higher inflation than we were expecting. So rather than 2.8 for core PCE year-on-year, I wouldn't be surprised if we get something even in the high threes or perhaps even low fours.So, it pushes the economy, we would say, at least closer to a recession. If not, you're getting closer to the proverbial coin toss because there are the potential for a lot of indirect effects on business confidence. Do they spend less and hire less? And obviously we're seeing asset markets melt down. I think it's fair to describe it that way. And you could have negative wealth effects on the upper income consumers. So, the direct effects get you very modest growth a little bit above zero. It's the indirect effects that we're worried about.Seth Carpenter: Wow, that's quite a statement. So, a substantial slowdown for the U.S. Flirting with no growth. And then given all the uncertainty, the possibility that the U.S. actually goes into recession, a real possibility there. That feels like a big call.Jens, if the U.S. could be on the verge of recession with uncertainty and all of that, what are you thinking about Europe now? You had talked about Europe before the tariffs growing around 1 percent. That's not that far away from zero. So, what are you thinking about the outlook for Europe once we layer in these additional tariffs? And I guess every bit is important. Do you see retaliatory tariffs coming from the European Union?Jens Eisenschmidt: No, I think there are at least three parts here. I totally agree with that framing. So, first of all, we have the tariffs and then we have some estimates what they might mean, which, just suppose what we have heard last week sticks, would get us already in some countries into recessionary territory; and for the aggregate Euro area, not that far from it. So, we think effects could range between 60 and 120 basis points of less growth. Now that to some extent, incorporates retaliation. And so, the question is how much retaliation we might expect here. This is a key question we get from clients. I'd say we get something; that seems, sure.At the same time, it seems that Europe weighs a response that is taking into account all the constraints that are in the equation. After all the U.S. is an ally also in security concerns. You don't wanna necessarily endanger that good relationship. So that will for sure play a role. And then the U.S. has a services surplus with Europe, so it's also likely to be a response in the space of services regulation, which is not necessarily inflationary on the European side, and not necessarily growth impacting so much.But, you know, be it as it may. This is going to be down from here, for sure. And then the other thing just mentioned by Michael, I mean there is clearly a read across from a slower U.S. growth environment that will also not help growth in the Euro area. So, all being told it could very well mean, if we get the U.S. close to recession, that the Euro area is flirting with recession too.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Chetan Ahya: Seth, can I interrupt you on this one? I just wanted to add the perspective on retaliatory tariffs from China. What we had actually originally billed was that China would take up a retaliatory response, which would be less than be less than proportionate, just like the last time. But considering that China has actually, mashed U.S. reciprocal tariffs, it makes us feel that it's very unlikely that a deal will be done anytime soon.Seth Carpenter: Okay. So then how would you revise your view for what's going on with China?Chetan Ahya: Yeah, so as I mentioned earlier, we had already built in some downside but with these reciprocal tariffs, we see another 50 to 100 [basis points] downside to China's growth, depending upon how strong is the policy stimulus.Seth Carpenter: So, at some point, I suspect we're going to start having a discussion about what it really means to have a global recession, and markets are going to start to look to central banks.So, Mike, let me turn to you. Jay Powell spoke recently. He repeated that he is in no hurry to cut interest rates. Can you talk to me about the challenges that the Fed is facing right now?Michael Gapen: The Fed is faced with this problem where tariffs mean it's missing on both sides of its mandate, where inflation is rising and there's downside risk to the economy.So how do you respond to that?Really what Powell said is it's going to be tough for us to look through this rise in inflation and pre-emptively ease. So, for the moment they're on hold and they're just going to evaluate how the economy responds. If there's no recession, it likely means the Fed's on hold for a very long time. If we get negative job growth, if you will, or job cuts, then the Fed may be moving to ease policy. But right now, Powell doesn't know which one of those is going to materialize first.Seth Carpenter: Alright Mike. So, I understand what you're saying. Inflation going higher, growth going lower. Really awkward position for the Fed, and I think central banks around the world really have to weigh the two sides of these sorts of things, which one’s going to dominate…Jens Eisenschmidt: Exactly. Seth, may I jump in here because I think that's a perfect segue to the ECB; which I was thinking a lot about that – just recently coming back from the U.S. – how different the position really is here. So, the ECB currently is on the way to neutral, at least as we have always thought as a good way of framing their way. Inflation is falling to target. Now with all the risks that we have ment]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/sMuf0dzhW-VUca9KvC0iTaRZWLGVoIgQD8mieifnnjQMon, 07 Apr 2025 21:55:00 +0000gtyAs market turmoil continues, our global economists give their view on the ramifications of the Trump administration’s tariffs, and how central banks across key regions might react. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's, Global Chief Economist, and today we're going to be talking tariffs and what they mean for the global economy.It's Monday, April 7th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: It's 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And it's 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: And so, I'm here with our global economists from around the world: Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. So, let's jump into it. Let me go around first and ask each of you, what is the top question that you are getting from investors around the world?Chetan?Chetan Ahya: Tariffs.Seth Carpenter: Jens?Jens Eisenschmidt: Tariffs.Seth Carpenter: Mike?Michael Gapen: Tariffs.Seth Carpenter: All right. Well, that seems clear. Before we get into the likely effects of the tariffs, maybe each of you could just sketch for me where you were before tariffs were announced. Chetan, let me start with you. What was your outlook for the Chinese economy before the latest round of tariff announcements?Chetan Ahya: Well Seth, working with our U.S. public policy team, we were already assuming a 15-percentage point increase on tariffs on imports from China. And China also was going through some domestic challenges in terms of high levels of debt, excess capacities, and deflation. And so, combining both the factors, we were assuming China's growth will slow on Q4 by Q4 basis last year – from 5.4 percent to close to 4 percent this year.Jens, what about Europe? Before these broad-based tariffs, how were you thinking about the European economy?Jens Eisenschmidt: We had penciled in a slight recovery, not really getting us much beyond 1 percent. Backdrop here, still rising real wages. We had some tariffs in here, on steel, aluminum; in cars, much again a bit more of a beefed-up version if you want, of the 18 tariffs – but not much more than that. And then, of course, we had the German fiscal expansion that helped our outlook to sustain this positive growth rates into 2026.Seth Carpenter: Mike, for you. You also had thought that there were going to be some tariffs at some point before this last round of tariffs. Maybe you can tell us what you had in mind before last week's announcements.Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth. We had a lot of tariffs on China. The effective rate rising to say 35 to 40 percent. But as Jens just mentioned, outside of that, we had some on steel and aluminum, and autos with Europe, but not much beyond that. So, an effective tariff rate for the U.S. that reached maybe 8 to 9 percent.We thought that would gradually weigh on the economy. We had growth at around 1.5 percent this year and 1 percent next year. And the disinflation process stopping – meaning inflation finishes the year at around 2.8 core PCE, roughly where it is now. So, a gradual slowdown from tariff implementation.Seth Carpenter: Alright, so a little bit built in. You knew there was going to be something, but boy, I guess I have to say, judging from market reactions, the world was surprised at the magnitude of things. So, what's changed in your mind? It seems like tariffs have got to push down the outlook for growth and up the out outlook for inflation. Is that about right? And can you sketch for us how this new news is going to affect the outlook?Michael Gapen: Sure. So instead of effective tariff rates of 8 to 9 percent, we're looking at effective tariff rates, maybe as high as 22 percent.Seth Carpenter: Oh, that's a lot.Michael Gapen: Yeah. So more than twice what we were...]]>714alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1356fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tariff-fallout-where-do-markets-go-from-here--75648607Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be talking about the market impacts of the recently announced tariff increases.It’s Friday, April 4th, at 1pm in New York.This week, as planned, President Trump unveiled tariff increases. These reciprocal tariffs were hiked with the stated goal of reducing the U.S.’s goods trade deficit with other countries. We’ve long anticipated that higher tariffs on a broad range of imports would be a fixture of U.S. policy in a second Trump term. And that whatever you thought of the goals tariffs were driving towards, their enactment would come at an economic cost along the way. That cost is what helped drive our team’s preference for fixed income over more economically-sensitive equities. But this week’s announcement underscored that we actually underestimated the speed and severity of implementation. Following this week’s reciprocal tariff announcement, tariffs on imports from China are approaching 60 per cent, a level we didn’t anticipate would be reached until 2026. And while we expected a number of product-specific tariffs would be levied, we did not anticipate the broad-based import tariffs announced this week. All totaled, the U.S. effective tariff rate is now around 22 per cent, having started the year at 3 per cent. So what’s next? Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Research have detailed their expected impacts across equity sectors and asset classes and here are some key takeaways to keep in mind. First, we do think there’s a possibility that negotiation will lower some of these tariffs, particularly for traditional U.S. allies like Japan and Europe, giving some relief to markets and the economic outlook. However, successful negotiation may not arrive quickly, as it's not yet clear what the U.S. would deem sufficient concessions from its trading partners. Lower tariff levels and higher asset purchases might be part of the mix, but we’re still in discovery mode on this. And even if tariff reductions succeed, it's still likely that tariff levels would be meaningfully higher than previously anticipated. So for investors, we think that means there’s more room to go for markets to price in a weaker U.S. growth outlook. In U.S. equities, for example, our strategists argue that first-order impacts of higher tariffs may be mostly priced at this point, but second-order effects – such as knock-on effects of further hits to consumer and corporate confidence – could push the S&P 500 below the 5000 level. In credit markets, weakness has been, and may continue to be, more acute in key sectors where tariff costs are substantial; and may not be able to pass on to price, such as the consumer retail sector. These are companies whose costs are driven by overseas imports. So what happens from here? Are there positive catalysts to watch for? It's going to depend on market valuations. If we get to a point where a recession is more clearly in the price, then U.S. policy catalysts might help the stock market. That could include negotiations that result in smaller tariff increases than those just announced or a fiscal policy response, such as bigger than anticipated tax cuts. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hMq_oPZU4xTDqI36hLpvMxn1CtfhBDxxIQrf8BHK9yoFri, 04 Apr 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs markets continue reacting to the Trump administration’s tariffs, Michael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, lists the expected impacts for investors across equity sectors and asset classes. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be talking about the market impacts of the recently announced tariff increases.It’s Friday, April 4th, at 1pm in New York.This week, as planned, President Trump unveiled tariff increases. These reciprocal tariffs were hiked with the stated goal of reducing the U.S.’s goods trade deficit with other countries. We’ve long anticipated that higher tariffs on a broad range of imports would be a fixture of U.S. policy in a second Trump term. And that whatever you thought of the goals tariffs were driving towards, their enactment would come at an economic cost along the way. That cost is what helped drive our team’s preference for fixed income over more economically-sensitive equities. But this week’s announcement underscored that we actually underestimated the speed and severity of implementation. Following this week’s reciprocal tariff announcement, tariffs on imports from China are approaching 60 per cent, a level we didn’t anticipate would be reached until 2026. And while we expected a number of product-specific tariffs would be levied, we did not anticipate the broad-based import tariffs announced this week. All totaled, the U.S. effective tariff rate is now around 22 per cent, having started the year at 3 per cent. So what’s next? Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Research have detailed their expected impacts across equity sectors and asset classes and here are some key takeaways to keep in mind. First, we do think there’s a possibility that negotiation will lower some of these tariffs, particularly for traditional U.S. allies like Japan and Europe, giving some relief to markets and the economic outlook. However, successful negotiation may not arrive quickly, as it's not yet clear what the U.S. would deem sufficient concessions from its trading partners. Lower tariff levels and higher asset purchases might be part of the mix, but we’re still in discovery mode on this. And even if tariff reductions succeed, it's still likely that tariff levels would be meaningfully higher than previously anticipated. So for investors, we think that means there’s more room to go for markets to price in a weaker U.S. growth outlook. In U.S. equities, for example, our strategists argue that first-order impacts of higher tariffs may be mostly priced at this point, but second-order effects – such as knock-on effects of further hits to consumer and corporate confidence – could push the S&P 500 below the 5000 level. In credit markets, weakness has been, and may continue to be, more acute in key sectors where tariff costs are substantial; and may not be able to pass on to price, such as the consumer retail sector. These are companies whose costs are driven by overseas imports. So what happens from here? Are there positive catalysts to watch for? It's going to depend on market valuations. If we get to a point where a recession is more clearly in the price, then U.S. policy catalysts might help the stock market. That could include negotiations that result in smaller tariff increases than those just announced or a fiscal policy response, such as bigger than anticipated tax cuts. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>212alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1355fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-companies-can-navigate-new-tariffs--75648746Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3XReaj19JmAOUrROAEIFsbFINjcjH1w4ofdqR8mfluUThu, 03 Apr 2025 19:30:00 +0000gtyOur Thematics and Public Policy analysts Michelle Weaver and Ariana Salvatore discuss the top five strategies for companies to mitigate the effects of U.S. tariffs.  Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
]]>762alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1354fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/faceoff-u-s-vs-european-equities--75648523Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2QZO_sO8odXGtvhLXcziWlgBRJ9Gf5Q1VL3EYNhCDw4Wed, 02 Apr 2025 19:24:28 +0000gtyOur analysts Paul Walsh, Mike Wilson and Marina Zavolock debate the relative merits of U.S. and European stocks in this very dynamic market moment. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ]]>621alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1353fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-weighing-on-u-s-consumer-confidence--75648815Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UeRHmOET1uw3bYSyan7RwDT4V8GY2AqRLZknEQED1ogWed, 02 Apr 2025 00:20:54 +0000gtyOur analysts Arunima Sinha, Heather Berger and James Egan discuss the resilience of U.S. consumer spending, credit use and homeownership in light of the Trump administration’s policies. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ]]>578alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1352fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-any-stocks-immune-to-tariffs--75648763Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast – our views on tariffs and the implications for equity markets.  It's Monday, March 31st at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Over the past few weeks, tariffs have moved front and center for equity investors. While the reciprocal tariff announcement expected on April 2nd should offer some incremental clarity on tariff rates and countries or products in scope, we view it as a maximalist starting point ahead of bilateral negotiations as opposed to a clearing event. This means policy uncertainty and growth risks are likely to persist for at least several more months, even if it marks a short-term low for sentiment and stock prices. In the baseline for April 2nd, our policy strategists see the administration focusing on a continued ramp higher in the tariff rate on China – while product-specific tariffs on Europe, Mexico and Canada could see some de-escalation based on the USMCA signed during Trump’s first term. Additional tariffs on multiple Asia economies and products are also possible. Timing is another consideration. The administration has said it plans to announce some tariffs for implementation on April 2nd, while others are to be implemented later, signaling a path for negotiations. However, this is a low conviction view given the amount of latitude the President has on this issue. We don't think this baseline scenario prevents upside progress at the index level – as an "off ramp" for Mexico and Canada would help to counter some of the risk from moderately higher China tariffs. Furthermore, product level tariffs on the EU and certain Asia economies, like Vietnam, are likely to be more impactful on a sector basis. Having said that, the S&P 500 upside is likely capped at 5800-5900 in the near term – even if we get a less onerous than expected announcement. Such an outcome would likely bring no immediate additional increase in the tariff rate on China; more modest or targeted tariffs on EU products than our base case; an extended USMCA exemption for Mexico and Canada; and very narrow tariffs on other Asia economies. No matter what the outcome is on Wednesday, we think new highs for the S&P 500 are out of the question in the first half of the year; unless there is a clear reacceleration in earnings revisions breadth, something we believe is very unlikely until the third or fourth quarter.Conversely, to get a sustained break of the low end of our first half range, we would need to see a more severe April 2nd tariff outcome than our base case and a meaningful deterioration in the hard economic data, especially labor markets. This is perhaps the outcome the market was starting to price on Friday and this morning.  Looking at the stock level, companies that can mitigate the risk of tariffs are likely to outperform. Key strategies here include the ability to raise price, currency hedging, redirecting products to markets without tariffs, inventory stockpiling and diversifying supply chains geographically. All these strategies involve trade-offs or costs, but those companies that can do it effectively should see better performance. In short, it’s typically companies with scale and strong negotiating power with its suppliers and customers. This all leads us back to large cap quality as the key factor to focus on when picking stocks. At the sector level, Capital Goods is well positioned given its stronger pricing power; while consumer discretionary goods appears to be in the weakest position.  Bottom line, stay up the quality and size curve with a bias toward companies with good mitigation strategies. And see our research for more details.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qDio5e7fdPTJRDXHKJjGNBti1-5Ibqxt6oQZDXD3-bQMon, 31 Mar 2025 20:45:00 +0000gtyPolicy questions and growth risks are likely to persist in the aftermath of the Trump administration’s upcoming tariffs. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson outlines how to seek investments that might mitigate the fallout. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast – our views on tariffs and the implications for equity markets.  It's Monday, March 31st at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Over the past few weeks, tariffs have moved front and center for equity investors. While the reciprocal tariff announcement expected on April 2nd should offer some incremental clarity on tariff rates and countries or products in scope, we view it as a maximalist starting point ahead of bilateral negotiations as opposed to a clearing event. This means policy uncertainty and growth risks are likely to persist for at least several more months, even if it marks a short-term low for sentiment and stock prices. In the baseline for April 2nd, our policy strategists see the administration focusing on a continued ramp higher in the tariff rate on China – while product-specific tariffs on Europe, Mexico and Canada could see some de-escalation based on the USMCA signed during Trump’s first term. Additional tariffs on multiple Asia economies and products are also possible. Timing is another consideration. The administration has said it plans to announce some tariffs for implementation on April 2nd, while others are to be implemented later, signaling a path for negotiations. However, this is a low conviction view given the amount of latitude the President has on this issue. We don't think this baseline scenario prevents upside progress at the index level – as an "off ramp" for Mexico and Canada would help to counter some of the risk from moderately higher China tariffs. Furthermore, product level tariffs on the EU and certain Asia economies, like Vietnam, are likely to be more impactful on a sector basis. Having said that, the S&P 500 upside is likely capped at 5800-5900 in the near term – even if we get a less onerous than expected announcement. Such an outcome would likely bring no immediate additional increase in the tariff rate on China; more modest or targeted tariffs on EU products than our base case; an extended USMCA exemption for Mexico and Canada; and very narrow tariffs on other Asia economies. No matter what the outcome is on Wednesday, we think new highs for the S&P 500 are out of the question in the first half of the year; unless there is a clear reacceleration in earnings revisions breadth, something we believe is very unlikely until the third or fourth quarter.Conversely, to get a sustained break of the low end of our first half range, we would need to see a more severe April 2nd tariff outcome than our base case and a meaningful deterioration in the hard economic data, especially labor markets. This is perhaps the outcome the market was starting to price on Friday and this morning.  Looking at the stock level, companies that can mitigate the risk of tariffs are likely to outperform. Key strategies here include the ability to raise price, currency hedging, redirecting products to markets without tariffs, inventory stockpiling and diversifying supply chains geographically. All these strategies involve trade-offs or costs, but those companies that can do it effectively should see better performance. In short, it’s typically companies with scale and strong negotiating power with its suppliers and customers. This all leads us back to large cap quality as the key factor to focus on when picking stocks. At the sector level, Capital Goods is well positioned given its stronger pricing power; while consumer discretionary goods...]]>254alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1351fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-worries-in-the-credit-markets--75648916Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about why we think near term improvement may be temporary, and thus an opportunity to improve credit quality. It's Friday March 28th at 2pm in London. In volatile markets, it is always hard to parse how much is emotion, and how much is real change. As you would have heard earlier this week from my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, we see a window for short-term relief in U.S. stock markets, as a number of indicators suggest that markets may have been oversold. But for credit, we think this relief will be temporary. Fundamentals around the medium-term story are on the wrong track, with both growth and inflation moving in the wrong direction. Credit investors should use this respite to improve portfolio quality. Taking a step back, our original thinking entering 2025 was that the future presented a much wider range of economic scenarios, not a great outcome for credit per se, and some real slowing of U.S. growth into 2026, again not a particularly attractive outcome. Yet we also thought it would take time for these risks to arrive. For the economy, it entered 2025 with some pretty decent momentum. We thought it would take time for any changes in policy to both materialize and change the real economic trajectory. Meanwhile, credit had several tailwinds, including attractive yields, strong demand and stable balance sheet metrics. And so we initially thought that credit would remain quite resilient, even if other asset classes showed more volatility. But our conviction in that resilience from credit is weakening as the fundamental backdrop is getting worse. Changes to U.S. policy have been more aggressive, and happened more quickly than we previously expected. And partly as a result, Morgan Stanley's forecasts for growth, inflation and policy rates are all moving in the wrong direction – with forecasts showing now weaker growth, higher inflation and fewer rate cuts from the Federal Reserve than we thought at the start of this year. And it’s not just us. The Federal Reserve's latest Summary of Economic Projections, recently released, show a similar expectation for lower growth and higher inflation relative to the Fed’s prior forecast path. In short, Morgan Stanley’s economic forecasts point to rising odds of a scenario we think is challenging: weaker growth, and yet a central bank that may be hesitant to cut rates to support the economy, given persistent inflation. The rising risks of a scenario of weaker growth, higher inflation and less help from central bank policy temper our enthusiasm to buy the so-called dip – and add exposure given some modest recent weakness. Our U.S. credit strategy team, led by Vishwas Patkar, thinks that U.S. investment grade spreads are only 'fair', given these changing conditions, while spreads for U.S. high yield and U.S. loans should actually now be modestly wider through year-end – given the rising risks.  In short, credit investors should try to keep powder dry, resist the urge to buy the dip, and look to improve portfolio quality. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fUcI2x9qAf2AkDm8qPObDTbGJ8PauB17djiCpux0cSgFri, 28 Mar 2025 20:45:13 +0000gtyAs credit resilience weakens with a worsening fundamental backdrop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets suggests investors reconsider their portfolio quality. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about why we think near term improvement may be temporary, and thus an opportunity to improve credit quality. It's Friday March 28th at 2pm in London. In volatile markets, it is always hard to parse how much is emotion, and how much is real change. As you would have heard earlier this week from my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, we see a window for short-term relief in U.S. stock markets, as a number of indicators suggest that markets may have been oversold. But for credit, we think this relief will be temporary. Fundamentals around the medium-term story are on the wrong track, with both growth and inflation moving in the wrong direction. Credit investors should use this respite to improve portfolio quality. Taking a step back, our original thinking entering 2025 was that the future presented a much wider range of economic scenarios, not a great outcome for credit per se, and some real slowing of U.S. growth into 2026, again not a particularly attractive outcome. Yet we also thought it would take time for these risks to arrive. For the economy, it entered 2025 with some pretty decent momentum. We thought it would take time for any changes in policy to both materialize and change the real economic trajectory. Meanwhile, credit had several tailwinds, including attractive yields, strong demand and stable balance sheet metrics. And so we initially thought that credit would remain quite resilient, even if other asset classes showed more volatility. But our conviction in that resilience from credit is weakening as the fundamental backdrop is getting worse. Changes to U.S. policy have been more aggressive, and happened more quickly than we previously expected. And partly as a result, Morgan Stanley's forecasts for growth, inflation and policy rates are all moving in the wrong direction – with forecasts showing now weaker growth, higher inflation and fewer rate cuts from the Federal Reserve than we thought at the start of this year. And it’s not just us. The Federal Reserve's latest Summary of Economic Projections, recently released, show a similar expectation for lower growth and higher inflation relative to the Fed’s prior forecast path. In short, Morgan Stanley’s economic forecasts point to rising odds of a scenario we think is challenging: weaker growth, and yet a central bank that may be hesitant to cut rates to support the economy, given persistent inflation. The rising risks of a scenario of weaker growth, higher inflation and less help from central bank policy temper our enthusiasm to buy the so-called dip – and add exposure given some modest recent weakness. Our U.S. credit strategy team, led by Vishwas Patkar, thinks that U.S. investment grade spreads are only 'fair', given these changing conditions, while spreads for U.S. high yield and U.S. loans should actually now be modestly wider through year-end – given the rising risks.  In short, credit investors should try to keep powder dry, resist the urge to buy the dip, and look to improve portfolio quality. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>228alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1350fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-tariffs-new-patterns-of-trade--75648796Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/clYuCO1wTK2eHEIurxPvR3yLBtdx5byH7BSVyQC7WJsThu, 27 Mar 2025 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur global economists Seth Carpenter and Rajeev Sibal discuss how global trade will need to realign in response to escalating U.S. tariff policy. Read more https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insights-17607 from Morgan Stanley.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
]]>549alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1349fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-future-of-food-fermented--75648484Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rachel Fletcher Morgan Stanley's, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research.Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal European Sustainability Strategist, based in London.Rachel Fletcher: From kombucha to kimchi, probiotic rich fermented foods have long been staples at health-focused grocers. On the show today, a deeper dive into the future of fermentation technology. Does it hold the key to meeting the world's growing nutrition needs as people live longer, healthier lives?It's Wednesday, 26th of March, at 3 pm in London.Many of you listening may remember hearing about longevity. It's one of our four long-term secular themes that we're following closely at Morgan Stanley; and this year we are looking even more closely at a sub-theme – affordable, healthy nutrition. Arushi, in your recent report, you highlight that traditional agriculture is facing many significant challenges. What are they and how urgent is this situation?Arushi Agarwal: There are four key environmental and social issues that we highlight in the note. Now, the first two, which are related to emissions intensity and resource consumption are quite well known. So traditional agriculture is responsible for almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it also uses more than 50 percent of the world's land and freshwater resources. What we believe are issues that are less focused on – are related to current agricultural practices and climate change that could affect our ability to serve the rising demand for nutrition.We highlight some studies in the note. One of them states that the produce that we have today has on average 40 percent less nutrition than it did over 80 years ago; and this is due to elevated use of chemicals and decline in soil fertility. Another study that we refer to estimates that average yields could decline by 30 to 50 percent before the end of the century, and this is even in the slowest of the warming scenarios.Rachel Fletcher: I think everyone would agree that there are four very serious issues. Are there potential solutions to these challenges?Arushi Agarwal: Yes, so when we've written about the future of food previously, we've identified alternative proteins, precision agriculture, and seeds technology as possible solutions for improving food security and reducing emissions.If I focus on alternative proteins, this category has so far been dominated by plant-based food, which has seen a moderation in growth due to challenges related to taste and price. However, we still see significant need for alternative proteins, and synthetic biology-led fermentation is a new way to tap into this market.In simple terms, this technology involves growing large amounts of microorganisms in tanks, which can then be harvested and used as a source of protein or other nutrients. We believe this technology can support healthy longevity, provide access to reliable and affordable food, and also fill many of the nutritional gaps that are related to plant-based food.Rachel Fletcher: So how big is the fermentation market and why are we focusing on it right now?Arushi Agarwal: So, we estimate a base case of $30 billion by 2030. This represents a 5,000-kiloton market for fermented proteins. We think the market will develop in two phases. Phase one from 2025 to 2027 will be focused on whey protein and animal nutrition. We are already seeing a few players sell products at competitive prices in these markets. Moving on to phase two from 2028 to 2030, we expect the market will expand to the egg, meat and daily replacement industry.There are a few reasons we think investors should start paying attention now. 2024 was a pivotal year in validating the technology's proof of concept. A lot of companies moved from labs to pilot state. They achieved regulatory approvals to sell their products in markets like U.S. and Singapore, and they also conducted extensive market testing. As this technology scales, we believe the next three years will be critical for commercialization.Rachel Fletcher: So, there's potentially significant growth there, but what's the capital investment needed for this scaling effort?Arushi Agarwal: A lot of CapEx will be required. Scaling of this technology will require large initial CapEx, predominantly in setting up bioreactors or fermentation tanks. Achieving our 2030 base case stamp will require 200 million liters in bioreactor capacity. This equals to an initial investment opportunity of a hundred billion dollars. But once these facilities are all set up, ongoing expenses will focus on input costs for carbon, oxygen, water, nitrogen, and electricity. PWC estimates that 40 to 60 percent of the ongoing costs with this process are associated with electricity, which makes it a key consideration for future commercial investments.Rachel Fletcher: Now we've talked a lot about the potential opportunity and the potential total addressable market, but what about consumer preferences? Do you think they'll be easy to shift?Arushi Agarwal: So, we are already seeing evidence of shifting consumer trends, which we think can be supportive of demand for fermented proteins. An analysis of Google Trends, data shows that since 2019, interest in terms like high protein diet and gut health has increased the most. Some of the products we looked at within the fermentation space not only contain fiber as expected, but they also offer a high degree of protein concentration, a lot of times ranging from 60 to 90 percent.Additionally, food manufacturers are focusing on new format foods that provide more than one use case. For example, free from all types of allergens. Fermentation technology utilizes a very diverse range of microbial species and can provide solutions related to non-allergenic foods.Rachel Fletcher: We've covered a lot today, but I do want to ask a final question around policy support. What's the government's role in developing the alternative proteins market, and what's your outlook around policy in Europe, the U.S., and other key regions, for example?Arushi Agarwal: This is an important question. Growth of fermentation technology hinges on adequate policy support; not just to enable the technology, but also to drive demand for its products. So, in the note, we highlight various instances of ongoing policy support from across the globe. For example, regulatory approvals in the U.S., a cellular agriculture package in Netherlands, plant-based food fund in Denmark, Singapore's 30 by 30 strategy.We believe these will all be critical in boosting the supply side of fermented products. We also mentioned Denmark's upcoming legislation on carbon tax related to agriculture emissions. We believe this could provide an indirect catalyst for demand for fermented goods. Now, whilst these initiatives support the direction of travel for this technology, it's important to acknowledge that more policy support will be needed to create a level playing field versus traditional agriculture, which as we know currently benefits from various subsidies.Rachel Fletcher: Arushi, this has been really interesting. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Arushi Agarwal: Thank you, Rachel. It was great speaking with you,Rachel Fletcher: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yEBNJO9RTcTZohFtxvxJwbQ7n-NSRV046U-v6K4fP44Wed, 26 Mar 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur European Sustainability Strategists Rachel Fletcher and Arushi Agarwal discuss how fermentation presents a new opportunity to tap into the alternative proteins market, offering a solution to mounting food supply challenges. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rachel Fletcher Morgan Stanley's, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research.Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal European Sustainability Strategist, based in London.Rachel Fletcher: From kombucha to kimchi, probiotic rich fermented foods have long been staples at health-focused grocers. On the show today, a deeper dive into the future of fermentation technology. Does it hold the key to meeting the world's growing nutrition needs as people live longer, healthier lives?It's Wednesday, 26th of March, at 3 pm in London.Many of you listening may remember hearing about longevity. It's one of our four long-term secular themes that we're following closely at Morgan Stanley; and this year we are looking even more closely at a sub-theme – affordable, healthy nutrition. Arushi, in your recent report, you highlight that traditional agriculture is facing many significant challenges. What are they and how urgent is this situation?Arushi Agarwal: There are four key environmental and social issues that we highlight in the note. Now, the first two, which are related to emissions intensity and resource consumption are quite well known. So traditional agriculture is responsible for almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it also uses more than 50 percent of the world's land and freshwater resources. What we believe are issues that are less focused on – are related to current agricultural practices and climate change that could affect our ability to serve the rising demand for nutrition.We highlight some studies in the note. One of them states that the produce that we have today has on average 40 percent less nutrition than it did over 80 years ago; and this is due to elevated use of chemicals and decline in soil fertility. Another study that we refer to estimates that average yields could decline by 30 to 50 percent before the end of the century, and this is even in the slowest of the warming scenarios.Rachel Fletcher: I think everyone would agree that there are four very serious issues. Are there potential solutions to these challenges?Arushi Agarwal: Yes, so when we've written about the future of food previously, we've identified alternative proteins, precision agriculture, and seeds technology as possible solutions for improving food security and reducing emissions.If I focus on alternative proteins, this category has so far been dominated by plant-based food, which has seen a moderation in growth due to challenges related to taste and price. However, we still see significant need for alternative proteins, and synthetic biology-led fermentation is a new way to tap into this market.In simple terms, this technology involves growing large amounts of microorganisms in tanks, which can then be harvested and used as a source of protein or other nutrients. We believe this technology can support healthy longevity, provide access to reliable and affordable food, and also fill many of the nutritional gaps that are related to plant-based food.Rachel Fletcher: So how big is the fermentation market and why are we focusing on it right now?Arushi Agarwal: So, we estimate a base case of $30 billion by 2030. This represents a 5,000-kiloton market for fermented proteins. We think the market will develop in two phases. Phase one from 2025 to 2027 will be focused on whey protein and animal nutrition. We are already seeing a few players sell products at competitive prices in these markets. Moving on to phase two from 2028 to 2030, we expect the market will expand to the...]]>454alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1348fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/european-banks-spark-rising-investor-interest--75648758Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Diversified Financials.Alvaro Serrano: And I'm Alvaro Serrano, Head of European Banks.Bruce Hamilton: Today we'll discuss our key takeaways from Morgan Stanley's 21st European Financials Conference last week.It's Tuesday, March 25th, 3pm, here in London.We were both at the conference here in London where we had more than 550 registered clients and roughly a hundred corporates in attendance. Alvaro, once again, you were the conference chair, and I wondered if you could first talk about the title of the conference this year – Europe's moment. What inspired this and was it a clear theme at the conference?Alvaro Serrano: European banks are probably one of the strongest performing sectors globally. That has been on the back of expectations and prospects of a Ukraine peace deal, expectations of high defense spending, and we were going to German elections. I think it's fair to say that post German elections, Germany has delivered above expectations on the fiscal package. And the announcement was a big boost, at a time where U.S. growth is starting to be questioned. I think it's turning the investment flows into Europe. It's Europe's moment to shine, and hence the title.Bruce Hamilton: And what were some of the other sort of key themes and debates that emerge from company presentations and panels at the conference?Alvaro Serrano: The German fiscal/financial package definitely dominated the debate. But it was how it fed through the PNL that was the more tangible discussion. First of all, on NII – Net Interest Income – definitely more optimism among banks. The yield curve has steepened more than 50 basis points since the announcement together with increased prospects of loan growth. Accelerated loan growth is definitely improving the confidence from management teams on the median term growth outlook. I think that was the biggest takeaway for me.Bruce Hamilton: Got it. And our North American colleagues have been tracking the risks and opportunities for U.S. financials under the Trump administration. How, if at all, are European financials better positioned than their U.S. counterparts?Alvaro Serrano: Ultimately deregulation has been a big theme in the U.S. from the new administration. We've seen tangible sort of measures like the delay in implementation of Basel endgame; and some steps in around consumer legislation – so that we haven't seen [in] Europe.We had events from the supervisory arm of the ECB. And I think the overall message is that there's unlikely to be deregulation on the capital front.What grabbed a lot of the headlines, a lot of the debate was the proposal from the European Commission on Capital Markets Union now rebranded Savings and Investment Union. There's been measures and proposals around savings products, around a reform of the securitization market, which have pretty positive implications. Medium term, it should increase the velocity of the bank's balance sheets, and ultimately the profitability. So, more optimistic on the medium-term outlook.Bruce, I wanted to turn it over to you. The capital markets recovery cycle was a very big topic of discussion, especially given the rising investor concerns lately. What did you learn at the conference?Bruce Hamilton: So, yeah, you're right. I mean, obviously the capital markets cycle is pretty key for the performance of the diversified financial sector – as was clear from investor polling. I would say the messages from the companies were mixed. On the one hand, the more transactional driven models – so, some of the exchanges that the investment platforms – were relatively upbeat, across asset classes. Volume, momentum has been strong through the first quarter of this year. And so that was encouraging.And looking further out – the confidence around some of these secular growth drivers, across the business model. So, data growth, software solutions growth, post-trade opportunities, expanding fixed income offerings were all clear from the exchanges.On the other hand, the business models that are more geared to sort of deal activity, to M&A – sort of private market firms. Clearly there, the messaging was more mixed, given the slower start to the year in the light of tariff uncertainty, which has driven a widening in bid our spread. So certainly there, the messaging was a little bit more downbeat. Though in the context of a still-improving sort of multi-year recovery cycle anticipated in capital markets. So, a pause rather than a cancellation of that improvement.Alvaro Serrano: And what about private markets? Especially in light of the sluggish capital markets activity since the start of the year?Bruce Hamilton: Well encouragingly, I think, you know, investors still had private markets, the private market sub-sector, as the most popular of the diverse vote financial sub-sectors. Which I think you could take to read as meaning that the pullback in shares has already captured some of the concerns around a slower start to the year in terms of capital markets activity.The view of most investors remains that some of the longer-term growth drivers, including increasing allocations from wealth, remain pretty supportive for the longer-term structural growth in the sector. So, I think, some clearly worry that a worsening in credit conditions could still cause share price moves down. But I think generally, we still feel the longer term looks pretty encouraging.Finally, Alvaro, any significant updates on the use of AI within the financial sector?Alvaro Serrano: It definitely came up pretty much in every session because ultimately AI and broader digitization efforts in mass market models like the banks are – is a key tool to improve efficiency. It came up as a key lever to improve user experience and at the same time improve cost efficiency. And when it comes to underwriting loans, it's also a very important tool, although asset quality's not a key theme at the moment.It’s a race to embrace, I would say, because it's a key competitive advantage. And if you're not, you fall behind.Bruce Hamilton: Great Alvaro. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Alvaro Serrano: Great speaking with you, Bruce.Bruce Hamilton: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/C928KTQZwlyrP-4r6_D2ZhOzR75H26xJBcR2WapAYMUTue, 25 Mar 2025 20:50:13 +0000gtyOur European Heads of Diversified Financials and Banks Research Bruce Hamilton and Alvaro Serrano discuss the biggest themes and debates from the recent Morgan Stanley European Financials Conference. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Diversified Financials.Alvaro Serrano: And I'm Alvaro Serrano, Head of European Banks.Bruce Hamilton: Today we'll discuss our key takeaways from Morgan Stanley's 21st European Financials Conference last week.It's Tuesday, March 25th, 3pm, here in London.We were both at the conference here in London where we had more than 550 registered clients and roughly a hundred corporates in attendance. Alvaro, once again, you were the conference chair, and I wondered if you could first talk about the title of the conference this year – Europe's moment. What inspired this and was it a clear theme at the conference?Alvaro Serrano: European banks are probably one of the strongest performing sectors globally. That has been on the back of expectations and prospects of a Ukraine peace deal, expectations of high defense spending, and we were going to German elections. I think it's fair to say that post German elections, Germany has delivered above expectations on the fiscal package. And the announcement was a big boost, at a time where U.S. growth is starting to be questioned. I think it's turning the investment flows into Europe. It's Europe's moment to shine, and hence the title.Bruce Hamilton: And what were some of the other sort of key themes and debates that emerge from company presentations and panels at the conference?Alvaro Serrano: The German fiscal/financial package definitely dominated the debate. But it was how it fed through the PNL that was the more tangible discussion. First of all, on NII – Net Interest Income – definitely more optimism among banks. The yield curve has steepened more than 50 basis points since the announcement together with increased prospects of loan growth. Accelerated loan growth is definitely improving the confidence from management teams on the median term growth outlook. I think that was the biggest takeaway for me.Bruce Hamilton: Got it. And our North American colleagues have been tracking the risks and opportunities for U.S. financials under the Trump administration. How, if at all, are European financials better positioned than their U.S. counterparts?Alvaro Serrano: Ultimately deregulation has been a big theme in the U.S. from the new administration. We've seen tangible sort of measures like the delay in implementation of Basel endgame; and some steps in around consumer legislation – so that we haven't seen [in] Europe.We had events from the supervisory arm of the ECB. And I think the overall message is that there's unlikely to be deregulation on the capital front.What grabbed a lot of the headlines, a lot of the debate was the proposal from the European Commission on Capital Markets Union now rebranded Savings and Investment Union. There's been measures and proposals around savings products, around a reform of the securitization market, which have pretty positive implications. Medium term, it should increase the velocity of the bank's balance sheets, and ultimately the profitability. So, more optimistic on the medium-term outlook.Bruce, I wanted to turn it over to you. The capital markets recovery cycle was a very big topic of discussion, especially given the rising investor concerns lately. What did you learn at the conference?Bruce Hamilton: So, yeah, you're right. I mean, obviously the capital markets cycle is pretty key for the performance of the diversified financial sector – as was clear from investor polling. I would say the messages from the companies were mixed. On the one hand, the more transactional driven...]]>396alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1347fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/key-indicators-of-how-far-markets-could-rebound--75648800Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the recent rally in stocks and why it can continue. It's Monday, March 24th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Last week's Fed meeting appeared to come as a relief to many market participants as Chair Powell seemed to downplay concerns about inflation, offering a bit more emphasis on the growth side of the Fed’s mandate. The Fed also made the decision to slow the pace of balance sheet runoff, a development that came sooner than some expected and indicated the Fed is ready to act, if necessary. Looking ahead, investors are now very focused on the April 2nd reciprocal tariff deadline. While this catalyst could offer some incremental clarity on tariff rates and countries and products in scope, we think it's more a starting point for tariff negotiations – as opposed to a clearing event. In short, a Fed put seems closer to being in the money than a Trump put though it probably would require material labor weakness or choppier credit and funding markets. So far, DOGE firings have had little impact on data like jobless claims or the overall unemployment rate. There may also be a lag between when employees are laid off and when these individuals show up as unemployed, given that severance is offered to most. The more important question for labor markets is whether the recent decline in the stock market, fall in confidence and rise in economic trade uncertainty will lead to layoffs in the private economy. Our economists' base case assumes that these factors won't drive an unemployment cycle this year; but payrolls, claims, and the unemployment rate will be critical to monitor to inform that view going forward.  As usual, looking at the S&P 500 alone does not fully describe the magnitude of the correction in equities. As I noted last week, equity markets got as oversold in this correction as they were during the bear market of 2022. One could ask: Is this the bottom or the beginning of something more severe? In our experience, it’s rare for volatility to end when price momentum is at its lows. However, you can get strong rallies from these conditions which is why we expected one to begin when the S&P 500 reached the bottom end of our first half trading range of 5500 on March 13th. Since then, stocks have rallied with lower quality, higher beta equities leading the bounce, so far. We believe that can continue in the near-term even though we are still advocating higher quality stocks in one's core portfolio for the intermediate term – given weakness in earnings revisions since last November. More specifically, earnings revisions have remained in negative territory for the major U.S. averages all year and have not yet showed signs of bottoming. However, we are starting to see some interesting shifts in revisions trends under the surface. The most notable change here is that the Magnificent 7 earnings revisions look to be stabilizing after a steep decline. This could halt the underperformance of these mega cap stocks in the near term as we head into earnings season and this would help stabilize the S&P 500, in line with our call from two weeks ago. It could also help to attract flows back into the U.S. In our view, one of the reasons why we've seen capital rotate to international markets is that the high-quality leadership cohort of the U.S. equity market began to underperform. So, if this group regains relative strength we could see a rotation back to the U.S. Finally, the weaker U.S. dollar could also reverse the relative earnings revisions downtrend between U.S. and European companies. If you remember, at the end of last year, the U.S. dollar was very strong and provided a headwind to U.S. relative revisions when companies reported fourth quarter results, as we previewed. This may be going the other way for first quarter results season and drive money back to the U.S., at least temporarily.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jyEZ3rybnftynRh9GBIHsdP6u4zJESHLqgFHZ1pxaX0Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:06:23 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. equity strategist Mike Wilson discusses investors’ outlook following last week’s Fed meeting, and lists the key signals to gauge whether stocks can fully rebound from the recent correction.   Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the recent rally in stocks and why it can continue. It's Monday, March 24th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Last week's Fed meeting appeared to come as a relief to many market participants as Chair Powell seemed to downplay concerns about inflation, offering a bit more emphasis on the growth side of the Fed’s mandate. The Fed also made the decision to slow the pace of balance sheet runoff, a development that came sooner than some expected and indicated the Fed is ready to act, if necessary. Looking ahead, investors are now very focused on the April 2nd reciprocal tariff deadline. While this catalyst could offer some incremental clarity on tariff rates and countries and products in scope, we think it's more a starting point for tariff negotiations – as opposed to a clearing event. In short, a Fed put seems closer to being in the money than a Trump put though it probably would require material labor weakness or choppier credit and funding markets. So far, DOGE firings have had little impact on data like jobless claims or the overall unemployment rate. There may also be a lag between when employees are laid off and when these individuals show up as unemployed, given that severance is offered to most. The more important question for labor markets is whether the recent decline in the stock market, fall in confidence and rise in economic trade uncertainty will lead to layoffs in the private economy. Our economists' base case assumes that these factors won't drive an unemployment cycle this year; but payrolls, claims, and the unemployment rate will be critical to monitor to inform that view going forward.  As usual, looking at the S&P 500 alone does not fully describe the magnitude of the correction in equities. As I noted last week, equity markets got as oversold in this correction as they were during the bear market of 2022. One could ask: Is this the bottom or the beginning of something more severe? In our experience, it’s rare for volatility to end when price momentum is at its lows. However, you can get strong rallies from these conditions which is why we expected one to begin when the S&P 500 reached the bottom end of our first half trading range of 5500 on March 13th. Since then, stocks have rallied with lower quality, higher beta equities leading the bounce, so far. We believe that can continue in the near-term even though we are still advocating higher quality stocks in one's core portfolio for the intermediate term – given weakness in earnings revisions since last November. More specifically, earnings revisions have remained in negative territory for the major U.S. averages all year and have not yet showed signs of bottoming. However, we are starting to see some interesting shifts in revisions trends under the surface. The most notable change here is that the Magnificent 7 earnings revisions look to be stabilizing after a steep decline. This could halt the underperformance of these mega cap stocks in the near term as we head into earnings season and this would help stabilize the S&P 500, in line with our call from two weeks ago. It could also help to attract flows back into the U.S. In our view, one of the reasons why we've seen capital rotate to international markets is that the high-quality leadership cohort of the U.S. equity market began to underperform. So, if this group regains relative strength we could see a rotation back to the...]]>263alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1346fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investors-look-beyond-u-s-for-opportunities--75648879Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1aRHiBGudKtMJ-vSdEHMlnFKFHhF8Mgn-SyyvFhtYYEFri, 21 Mar 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyAmid lower growth and inflation concerns in the US, investors have begun scouring international markets for other opportunities. Our analysts Andrew Sheets, Neville Mandimika and Anlin Zhang dig into one potential outperforming category.  Read more...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 

]]>555alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1345fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/risks-and-uncertainty-in-the-fed-s-new-outlook--75648641Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today we're talking about the March Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.It's Thursday, March 20th at 10am in New York.Mike, the Fed released a new set of projections yesterday. What do these say and what did you learn from them?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, well, the Fed's forecast actually now look a lot like our outlook for the U.S. economy. So, they revised down their expectation of growth. They revised up their expectation for inflation. So, it has a bit of a stagflation, slower growth, stickier inflation outlook – which is very much what we were thinking coming into this year. The Fed also, though, highlighted high policy uncertainty. They wrote down a forecast, but I'm not all that convinced that they have a lot of confidence in how things will evolve.So, I think for me, really, the bigger story were their updated perceptions about uncertainty and risks to the outlook. So, in December, if you remember, they told us; virtually everybody on the committee said, uncertainty around inflation is high and risk to inflation to the upside. They complemented that this week with the fact that uncertainty around growth in the labor market is high, but risk to growth is to the downside, the unemployment rate to the upside. So, you have kind of competing risks here around the Fed's dual mandate. They've got upside risk to inflation, downside risk to growth.To me, that's kind of the really important message. It's hard to have a confidence in a forecast right now, but I think that risk assessment is really interesting.Matthew Hornbach: And with that in mind, and given all the policy uncertainty that the Fed mentioned, what did Powell say about how the Fed should react? In other words, what is appropriate policy at this stage?Michael Gapen: Right. Yeah, it's tricky, right? So, on one side of your mandate, you think risks to inflation are squarely to the upside and growth in labor markets to the downside. So, what do you do? And I think Powell said, I think that the logical answer, which is, well, right now you do nothing, and you wait.But then I think what Powell said is: How we think this plays out is – tariffs may boost inflation in the short run. Which we're going to try to ignore. And if the economy does weaken and the labor market softens, we'll ease policy in order to support activity, right? So, there might be, say, symmetric risks around their dual mandate, but there's asymmetry in the policy outlook.He said we're either going to be on hold or we're going to be cutting rates. And generally, I think that's the right thing.Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, what I heard from you was that the Fed was going to look through inflation in the near term, and then eventually cut. I mean, do you think they can do that?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think, Matt, that's a great question. My answer to that is, I think it's easier said than done. We agree that the next move from the Fed is going to be a cut, but we think that cut comes much later.This is a very data dependent Fed. So, I think in the moment, if tariffs boost inflation now and weaken activity later, it's easy to say, ‘I'm going to look through that and cut.’ But in practice, I think it's hard.So, Matt, actually, at this point, though, I think I would actually kind of ask you the same question, but in a different way, right? We doubt the Fed may be able to do this. But the market priced in more rate cuts this year than we think is likely. How would you explain the market pricing and how far away from my expectation do you think it could run?Matthew Hornbach: What’s really interesting about how the market has priced the recent events is – it’s actually pricing more in line with the spirt of your view. In the sense that the market has priced more rate cuts in 2026 than it’s pricing in 2025. So, in spirit, the market is very much with you. But as we like to say, the market price is an average of all possible outcomes. And if one of the outcomes is the Fed does nothing for the foreseeable future. And the other outcome is the Fed cuts aggressively this year. Then the market price has to reflect some degree of additional easing in 2025 that wouldn't necessarily be aligned with a rational baseline for Fed policy.So, market in some ways is reflecting the idea that you're proposing in your forecast. But it's also reflecting the idea that it's a market and that it has to be priced for some amount of risk premia that the Fed is ultimately forced to cut rates more.And in fact, if I can ask you a question relating to that, Mike, you know, the equity market at one point last week had fallen about 10 per cent from the highs.Michael Gapen: Mm hmm.Matthew Hornbach: Number one, is there a percentage drawdown that gets the Fed’s attention? You know, how does the Fed think about the equity market in an environment like this?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the equity market, in my view, and I think the view of the Fed, is what I'll call a key spillover channel. Trade and manufacturing are relatively small shares of the economy. So, if we pursue restrictive trade policies, growth should slow, inflation may be firm. That's the Fed's essential baseline; it's ours. The risk here though is that somewhere in there you get a destabilizing period, equity markets fall, upper income consumers take a step back, and you have a much broader downturn at that point.So, you ask a great question, how far do equity markets have to fall? Well, we get 10 per cent declines in equity markets on average about once a year, so it's not that. And the theory would say households have to view that decline in wealth as permanent, right? So, it has to be a fairly substantial decline.Given how far wealth has risen, we're over [$]51 trillion now and an increase in net wealth since COVID. I think that decline has to be large. I would pencil in something, probably need about a 30 per cent decline in equity markets – before maybe that spillover risk gets very elevated.So, Matt, if I can turn back, because, you know, I think we're in general agreement here on what we heard yesterday. But what I'd like to do in terms of looking forward, so aside from the usual communications coming from the Fed, after the blackout period, following the meeting. What do you think investors will be focusing on over the next month?Matthew Hornbach: My sense is that there is already an unusual amount of focus on April 2nd.You know, that is the day when the Trump administration is supposed to unveil their plan for reciprocal tariffs. It's unclear what tariffs will be implemented on April 2nd; what tariffs will be saved for a negotiating process thereafter. So, clients are very focused on April 2nd. I also suspect that at some various periods between now and then, we are likely to receive previews, in the form of various communications coming from the Trump administration on the types of policies that we may end up seeing delivered on April 2nd.And so, I suspect that between now and then there will be a crescendo in concern, perhaps, over what will come of U.S. trade policy for the balance of this year. And really for the balance of the next three and a half years.So, with that, Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3rqNydRJ5PxGB_d1KsdwWmPPaB0es2pZwqKda-jBeGAThu, 20 Mar 2025 20:20:22 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the outcome of the recent FOMC meeting, and the outlook for interest rates in 2025 and 2026. Read...Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 
----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today we're talking about the March Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.It's Thursday, March 20th at 10am in New York.Mike, the Fed released a new set of projections yesterday. What do these say and what did you learn from them?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, well, the Fed's forecast actually now look a lot like our outlook for the U.S. economy. So, they revised down their expectation of growth. They revised up their expectation for inflation. So, it has a bit of a stagflation, slower growth, stickier inflation outlook – which is very much what we were thinking coming into this year. The Fed also, though, highlighted high policy uncertainty. They wrote down a forecast, but I'm not all that convinced that they have a lot of confidence in how things will evolve.So, I think for me, really, the bigger story were their updated perceptions about uncertainty and risks to the outlook. So, in December, if you remember, they told us; virtually everybody on the committee said, uncertainty around inflation is high and risk to inflation to the upside. They complemented that this week with the fact that uncertainty around growth in the labor market is high, but risk to growth is to the downside, the unemployment rate to the upside. So, you have kind of competing risks here around the Fed's dual mandate. They've got upside risk to inflation, downside risk to growth.To me, that's kind of the really important message. It's hard to have a confidence in a forecast right now, but I think that risk assessment is really interesting.Matthew Hornbach: And with that in mind, and given all the policy uncertainty that the Fed mentioned, what did Powell say about how the Fed should react? In other words, what is appropriate policy at this stage?Michael Gapen: Right. Yeah, it's tricky, right? So, on one side of your mandate, you think risks to inflation are squarely to the upside and growth in labor markets to the downside. So, what do you do? And I think Powell said, I think that the logical answer, which is, well, right now you do nothing, and you wait.But then I think what Powell said is: How we think this plays out is – tariffs may boost inflation in the short run. Which we're going to try to ignore. And if the economy does weaken and the labor market softens, we'll ease policy in order to support activity, right? So, there might be, say, symmetric risks around their dual mandate, but there's asymmetry in the policy outlook.He said we're either going to be on hold or we're going to be cutting rates. And generally, I think that's the right thing.Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, what I heard from you was that the Fed was going to look through inflation in the near term, and then eventually cut. I mean, do you think they can do that?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think, Matt, that's a great question. My answer to that is, I think it's easier said than done. We agree that the next move from the Fed is going to be a cut, but we think that cut comes much later.This is a very data dependent Fed. So, I think in the moment, if tariffs boost inflation now and weaken activity later, it's easy to say, ‘I'm going to look through that and cut.’ But in practice, I think it's hard.So, Matt, actually, at this point, though, I think I would actually kind of ask you the same question, but in a different way, right? We doubt the Fed may be able to do this. But the market...]]>513alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1344fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/making-a-bet-on-the-future-of-betting--75648899----- Transcript -----
Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research.Stephen Grambling: And I'm Stephen Grambling, head of U.S. Gaming, Lodging, and Leisure.Michael Cyprys: Today, we'll talk about sports betting and how prediction markets can disrupt it.It's Wednesday, March 19th at 10 am in New York.Sports betting used to be against the law in most of America, outside of Nevada. That changed in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared a federal ban on sports betting to be unconstitutional. As a result, many American states legalized sports betting. Over the last seven years, it's become even more popular and profitable. The American sports betting industry posted a record [$]13.7 billion of revenues last year. That's up from 2023's record of [$]11 billion, according to the American Gaming Association.Now, prediction markets are set to potentially disrupt this industry.Stephen, to set the stage, how is the U.S. sports betting industry currently organized and regulated?Stephen Grambling: Well, as you mentioned, Mike, with the overturning of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 2018, legalization of sports betting turned to the states. The path to legislation varies by state with different constituents to consider – beyond even the local government. You know, Senate and Congress, but also tribal casinos, commercial casinos, sports teams, leagues, etc.We now have 38 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico offering legal sports betting in some format, collecting billions of dollars in taxes in aggregate. At this point, the big states that are remaining are really only Texas, Florida, Georgia, and California. Each state forms its own framework across taxes, what sports can or can't bet on, and regulations around advertising. This means a separate commission for each state regulates the industry, in conjunction with state lawmakers,Michael Cyprys: I see. And what exactly are betting exchanges and how do they fit within the U.S. sports betting market?Stephen Grambling: Betting exchanges have existed for a long time in markets around the world. These are really exchanges – and are platforms – where individuals can bet directly against each other on an event outcome, rather than against a bookmaker. These exchanges match opposing bets and then take a commission on the winnings and typically offer better odds by eliminating traditional bookmaker margins.That said, the all in commission can range at two to five per cent. Whereas the spread on a traditional singles bet is about five to six per cent. So, it's relatively small. This is also known as the, the vigorish or the vig, or what the book gets to keep. Due to the need to be perfectly balanced as an exchange, these platforms, which operate in various markets, as I said around the world, are generally more akin to premarket, single bets. So single bet, or sometimes people call them straight bets, are really just betting on the outcome of a match or the over-under. They don't typically impact things like multi leg bets, also known as parlays, since there's less of a consistent betting pool.Because the type of bets are more limited than what a sports book offers, these exchanges somewhat plateaued in popularity in markets like the UK. For frame of reference, we estimate these singles bets are about $900 million in markets where it's legal for sports betting, and roughly another $800 million in states without legislation.Again, this is really just the market for people who only bet on that type of bet; that don't do both singles bets and parlays, or parlays alone.Mike, maybe turning it back to you, sports betting is a type of prediction market. But from where you sit, how would you define prediction markets more broadly, and can you give some examples?Michael Cyprys: Sure. So prediction markets are a type of marketplace where event contracts trade. Sometimes they're called forecast markets or even information markets. A core feature here is trading an outcome at an event, such as the November election, economic indicators, or even corporate events. But unlike futures contracts, event contracts have a defined risk and defined reward.Generally, they're structured as binary options, which can be easily understood. For instance, a contract could pay a dollar if the consumer price index, or CPI, exceeds say, 3 per cent in March. If an investor buys that contract for 75 cents, they could generate a 25 percent potential return if CPI comes in over 3 per cent and they collect a dollar on that contract.Now, the counterparty on the other side of that trade is the investor who sold that contract, collected the 75 cents, and they would stand to lose 25 cents potentially – if they held on to that contract, paid out the full dollar in the event that CPI came in hot.What's interesting is the price of that contract becomes the best forecast of that event happening, and so this can provide a lot of information value.Stephen Grambling: So, it sounds like you could bet on just about anything, so are these prediction markets legal?Michael Cyprys: Not only are they legal, they've been around for some time – though perhaps more esoteric in nature, in terms of where we have seen contracts and types of events traded on marketplaces. They've been geared more towards end users and farmers. For example, event contracts on the weather have been listed on a Chicago derivative exchange for over 25 years.What's new and interesting is that we're seeing new exchange upstarts enter the space. They're innovating, they're broadening access to retail investors, and they're benefiting from the confluence of a number of different trends around technology improvements – with mobile trading in recent years, the speed and access to information, the ease of account opening, broadly retail investors coming into the marketplace, and the pure simplicity and intuitive nature of event contracts.The 2024 election sparked people's interest in event contracts. And that's persisting post election. In the coming months, we do expect a large retail brokerage platform in the U.S. to really help potentially mainstream event contracts.Coming back to your legality point and question. One area of open debate, though, is around the legality of sports event contracts, where we expect regulators to provide some clarity around that in the months ahead.Stephen Grambling: Interesting, so some have also argued that the prediction markets are not just the future of trading, but for information in general. Do you think prediction markets can be a disruptive force in finance then?Michael Cyprys: Over time, potentially, yes. I do think that's going to require participation from both retail as well as institutional investors that can help fuel robust and liquid marketplace. The sheer simplicity is helpful in terms of driving retail adoption; but for institutional investors and corporates, they could look to prediction markets as a valuable hedging tool, with insurance-like properties – not to mention the information value that can be derived.Stephen, given our discussion of prediction markets and their relevance for sports betting, how are you framing the potential for risk and opportunity for the sports betting industry from the application of prediction market models?Stephen Grambling: There's a bit of a put and take wherein existing sports betting markets, that's where it's legal, the industry may face new competition. So, the incumbents will face new competition from these prediction markets being opened up. On the other hand, a new regulatory framework could also open up new states; so the states that I referenced before that are still out there that haven't been legalized, all of a sudden become fair game.Given the size of these new states, as I mentioned, folks like California, Texas, Florida; these are enormous economies, and they're roughly equal to the size of the existing markets. So, the potential upside opportunity, we think, actually outweighs the competitive risks. And we quantify this as being potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars, an incremental EBITDA to some of the incumbents that operate in the space.Michael Cyprys: That's fascinating, Stephen. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Stephen Grambling: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Cyprys: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/aCaabJ4o33sGfXNz4OzBJK3kPVceDZhR0aQGsWZBdwAWed, 19 Mar 2025 20:00:04 +0000gtyOur analysts Michael Cyprys and Stephen Grambling discuss prediction markets’ rising popularity and how they could disrupt the U.S. sports betting industry. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys,...----- Transcript -----
Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research.Stephen Grambling: And I'm Stephen Grambling, head of U.S. Gaming, Lodging, and Leisure.Michael Cyprys: Today, we'll talk about sports betting and how prediction markets can disrupt it.It's Wednesday, March 19th at 10 am in New York.Sports betting used to be against the law in most of America, outside of Nevada. That changed in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared a federal ban on sports betting to be unconstitutional. As a result, many American states legalized sports betting. Over the last seven years, it's become even more popular and profitable. The American sports betting industry posted a record [$]13.7 billion of revenues last year. That's up from 2023's record of [$]11 billion, according to the American Gaming Association.Now, prediction markets are set to potentially disrupt this industry.Stephen, to set the stage, how is the U.S. sports betting industry currently organized and regulated?Stephen Grambling: Well, as you mentioned, Mike, with the overturning of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 2018, legalization of sports betting turned to the states. The path to legislation varies by state with different constituents to consider – beyond even the local government. You know, Senate and Congress, but also tribal casinos, commercial casinos, sports teams, leagues, etc.We now have 38 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico offering legal sports betting in some format, collecting billions of dollars in taxes in aggregate. At this point, the big states that are remaining are really only Texas, Florida, Georgia, and California. Each state forms its own framework across taxes, what sports can or can't bet on, and regulations around advertising. This means a separate commission for each state regulates the industry, in conjunction with state lawmakers,Michael Cyprys: I see. And what exactly are betting exchanges and how do they fit within the U.S. sports betting market?Stephen Grambling: Betting exchanges have existed for a long time in markets around the world. These are really exchanges – and are platforms – where individuals can bet directly against each other on an event outcome, rather than against a bookmaker. These exchanges match opposing bets and then take a commission on the winnings and typically offer better odds by eliminating traditional bookmaker margins.That said, the all in commission can range at two to five per cent. Whereas the spread on a traditional singles bet is about five to six per cent. So, it's relatively small. This is also known as the, the vigorish or the vig, or what the book gets to keep. Due to the need to be perfectly balanced as an exchange, these platforms, which operate in various markets, as I said around the world, are generally more akin to premarket, single bets. So single bet, or sometimes people call them straight bets, are really just betting on the outcome of a match or the over-under. They don't typically impact things like multi leg bets, also known as parlays, since there's less of a consistent betting pool.Because the type of bets are more limited than what a sports book offers, these exchanges somewhat plateaued in popularity in markets like the UK. For frame of reference, we estimate these singles bets are about $900 million in markets where it's legal for sports betting, and roughly another $800 million in states without legislation.Again, this is really just the market for people who only bet on that type of bet; that don't do both singles bets and parlays, or parlays alone.Mike, maybe turning it back to you, sports betting is a type of prediction market. But from where you sit, how would you define prediction markets...]]>468alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1343fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-could-weaken-strong-credit--75648937----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today, I will talk about why credit markets have been resilient even as other markets have been volatile – and market implications going forward. It's Tuesday, March 18th, at 11 am in New York. Market sentiment has shifted quickly from post-election euphoria and animal spirits to increasingly growing concern about downside risks to the U.S. economy, driven by ongoing policy uncertainty and a spate of uninspiring soft data. However, signaling from different markets has not been uniform. For example, after reaching an all-time high just a few weeks ago, the S&P 500 index has given up all of its gains since the election and then some. Treasury yields have also yo-yoed, from a 40-basis points selloff to a 60+ basis points rally. Yet in the middle of this volatility in equities and rates, credit markets have barely budged. In other words, credit has been a low beta asset class so far. This resilience which resonates with our long-standing constructive view on credit has strong underpinnings. We had expected that many of the supporting factors from 2024 would continue – such as solid credit fundamentals, strong investor demand driven by elevated overall yields rather than the level of spreads. While we expected the economic growth in 2025 to slow somewhat, to about 2 per cent, we thought that would still be a robust level for credit investors. These expectations have largely played out until recently. While we maintain our overall positive stance on credit, some of the factors contributing to its resilience are changing, calling the persistence of credit’s low beta into question. While we did anticipate that sequencing and severity of policy would be key drivers of the economy and markets in 2025, growth constraining policies, especially tariffs, have come in faster and broader than what we had penciled in. Incorporating these policy signals, our U.S. economists have marked down real GDP growth to 1.5 per cent in 2025 and 1.2 per cent in 2026. From a credit perspective, we would highlight that our economists are not calling for a recession. Their growth expectations still leave us in territory we would deem credit friendly, although edging towards the bottom of our comfort zone. On the positive side of the ledger, cooling growth may also temper animal spirits and continue to constrain corporate debt supply, keeping market technicals supportive. Also, while treasury yields have rallied, overall yields are still at levels that sustain demand from yield-motivated buyers. That said, if growth concerns intensify from these levels, with weakness in soft data spreading notably to hard data, the probability of markets assigning above-average recession probabilities will increase. This could challenge credit’s low beta, that has prevailed so far, and the credit beta could increase on further drawdowns in risk assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/S2t-xF0npJVALbng1vA6-F2CJ9RGIi3j7pz9kvfHde8Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:20:32 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur explains why credit markets have held firm amid macro volatility, and the scenarios which could hurt its strong foundation. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today, I will talk about why credit markets have been resilient even as other markets have been volatile – and market implications going forward. It's Tuesday, March 18th, at 11 am in New York. Market sentiment has shifted quickly from post-election euphoria and animal spirits to increasingly growing concern about downside risks to the U.S. economy, driven by ongoing policy uncertainty and a spate of uninspiring soft data. However, signaling from different markets has not been uniform. For example, after reaching an all-time high just a few weeks ago, the S&P 500 index has given up all of its gains since the election and then some. Treasury yields have also yo-yoed, from a 40-basis points selloff to a 60+ basis points rally. Yet in the middle of this volatility in equities and rates, credit markets have barely budged. In other words, credit has been a low beta asset class so far. This resilience which resonates with our long-standing constructive view on credit has strong underpinnings. We had expected that many of the supporting factors from 2024 would continue – such as solid credit fundamentals, strong investor demand driven by elevated overall yields rather than the level of spreads. While we expected the economic growth in 2025 to slow somewhat, to about 2 per cent, we thought that would still be a robust level for credit investors. These expectations have largely played out until recently. While we maintain our overall positive stance on credit, some of the factors contributing to its resilience are changing, calling the persistence of credit’s low beta into question. While we did anticipate that sequencing and severity of policy would be key drivers of the economy and markets in 2025, growth constraining policies, especially tariffs, have come in faster and broader than what we had penciled in. Incorporating these policy signals, our U.S. economists have marked down real GDP growth to 1.5 per cent in 2025 and 1.2 per cent in 2026. From a credit perspective, we would highlight that our economists are not calling for a recession. Their growth expectations still leave us in territory we would deem credit friendly, although edging towards the bottom of our comfort zone. On the positive side of the ledger, cooling growth may also temper animal spirits and continue to constrain corporate debt supply, keeping market technicals supportive. Also, while treasury yields have rallied, overall yields are still at levels that sustain demand from yield-motivated buyers. That said, if growth concerns intensify from these levels, with weakness in soft data spreading notably to hard data, the probability of markets assigning above-average recession probabilities will increase. This could challenge credit’s low beta, that has prevailed so far, and the credit beta could increase on further drawdowns in risk assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>215alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1342fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-correction-over-yet--75648760----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the recent Equity Market correction and what to look for next. It's Monday, March 17th at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Major U.S. equity Indices are as oversold as they've been since 2022. Sentiment, positioning gauges are bearish, and seasonals improve in the second half of March for earnings revisions and price. Furthermore, recent dollar weakness should provide a tailwind to first quarter earnings season and second quarter guidance, particularly relative to the fourth quarter results; and the decline in rates should benefit economic surprises. In short, I stand by our view that 5,500 on the S&P 500 should provide support for a tradable rally led by lower quality, higher beta stocks that have sold off the most, and it looks like it may have started on Friday. The more important question is whether such a rally is likely to extend into something more durable and mark the end of the volatility we’ve seen YTD? The short answer is – probably not.  First, from a technical standpoint there has been significant damage to the major indices—more than what we witnessed in recent 10 per cent corrections, like last summer. More specifically, the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, Russell 1000 growth and value indices have all traded straight through their respective 200-day moving averages, making these levels now resistance, rather than support. Meanwhile, many stocks are closer to a 20 per cent correction with the lower quality Russell 2000 falling below its 200 week moving average for the first time since the 2022 bear market. At a minimum, this kind of technical damage will take time to repair, even if we don’t get additional price degradation at the index level. In order to forecast a larger, sustainable recovery, it’s important to acknowledge what’s really been driving this correction. From my conversations with institutional investors, there appears to be a lot of focus on the tariff announcements and other rapid-fire policy announcements from the new administration. While these factors are weighing on sentiment and confidence, other factors started this correction in December. In our year ahead outlook, we forecasted a tougher first half of the year for several reasons. First, stocks were extended on a valuation basis and relative to the key macro and fundamental drivers like earnings revisions, which peaked in early December. Second, the Fed went on hold in mid-December after aggressively cutting rates by 100 basis points over the prior three months. Third, we expected AI capex growth to decelerate this year and investors now have the DeepSeek development to consider. Add in immigration enforcement, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) exceeding expectations, and tariffs – and it’s no surprise that growth expectations are hitting equities in the form of lower multiples. As noted, we highlighted these growth headwinds in December and have been citing a first half range for the S&P 500 of 5500-6100 with a preference for large cap quality. Finally, President Trump has recently indicated he is not focused on the stock market in the near term as a barometer of his policies and agenda. Perhaps more than anything else, this is what led to the most recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500. In my view, it will take more than just an oversold market to get more than a tradable rally. Earnings revisions are the most important variable and while we could see some seasonal strength or stabilization in revisions, we believe it will take a few quarters for this factor to resume a positive uptrend. As noted in our outlook, the growth-positive policy changes like tax cuts, de-regulation, less crowding out and lower yields could arrive later in the second half of the year – but we think that’s too far away for the market to contemplate for now.  Finally, while the Trump put apparently doesn’t exist, the Fed put is alive and well, in our view. However, that will likely require conditions to get worse either on growth, especially labor, or in the credit and funding market, neither of which would be equity-positive, initially. Bottom line, a short-term rally from our targeted 5500 level is looking more likely after Friday’s price action. It’s also being led by lower quality stocks. This helps support my secondary view that the current rally is unlikely to lead to new highs until the numerous growth headwinds are reversed or monetary policy is loosened once again. The transition from a government heavy economy to one that is more privately driven should ultimately be better for many stocks. But the path is going to take time and it is unlikely to be smooth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-sbWqvRc6Zv3g7Ou8U7ldpVXjw0YvDWAOFhn5dbmoXcMon, 17 Mar 2025 20:33:38 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the stock market tumble and whether investors can hope for a rally. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the recent Equity Market correction and what to look for next. It's Monday, March 17th at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Major U.S. equity Indices are as oversold as they've been since 2022. Sentiment, positioning gauges are bearish, and seasonals improve in the second half of March for earnings revisions and price. Furthermore, recent dollar weakness should provide a tailwind to first quarter earnings season and second quarter guidance, particularly relative to the fourth quarter results; and the decline in rates should benefit economic surprises. In short, I stand by our view that 5,500 on the S&P 500 should provide support for a tradable rally led by lower quality, higher beta stocks that have sold off the most, and it looks like it may have started on Friday. The more important question is whether such a rally is likely to extend into something more durable and mark the end of the volatility we’ve seen YTD? The short answer is – probably not.  First, from a technical standpoint there has been significant damage to the major indices—more than what we witnessed in recent 10 per cent corrections, like last summer. More specifically, the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, Russell 1000 growth and value indices have all traded straight through their respective 200-day moving averages, making these levels now resistance, rather than support. Meanwhile, many stocks are closer to a 20 per cent correction with the lower quality Russell 2000 falling below its 200 week moving average for the first time since the 2022 bear market. At a minimum, this kind of technical damage will take time to repair, even if we don’t get additional price degradation at the index level. In order to forecast a larger, sustainable recovery, it’s important to acknowledge what’s really been driving this correction. From my conversations with institutional investors, there appears to be a lot of focus on the tariff announcements and other rapid-fire policy announcements from the new administration. While these factors are weighing on sentiment and confidence, other factors started this correction in December. In our year ahead outlook, we forecasted a tougher first half of the year for several reasons. First, stocks were extended on a valuation basis and relative to the key macro and fundamental drivers like earnings revisions, which peaked in early December. Second, the Fed went on hold in mid-December after aggressively cutting rates by 100 basis points over the prior three months. Third, we expected AI capex growth to decelerate this year and investors now have the DeepSeek development to consider. Add in immigration enforcement, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) exceeding expectations, and tariffs – and it’s no surprise that growth expectations are hitting equities in the form of lower multiples. As noted, we highlighted these growth headwinds in December and have been citing a first half range for the S&P 500 of 5500-6100 with a preference for large cap quality. Finally, President Trump has recently indicated he is not focused on the stock market in the near term as a barometer of his policies and agenda. Perhaps more than anything else, this is what led to the most recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500. In my view, it will take more than just an oversold market to get more than a tradable rally. Earnings revisions are the most important variable and while we could see some seasonal strength or stabilization in revisions, we believe it will take a few quarters for this factor to resume a positive uptrend. As noted in our outlook, the growth-positive policy changes like tax cuts, de-regulation, less crowding out...]]>334alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1341fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/credit-markets-remain-resilient-for-now--75648671----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing how much comfort or concern equity and credit markets should be taking from each other’s recent moves.It’s Friday, March 14th at 2pm in London. Credit has weakened as markets have gyrated in the face of rising uncertainty around U.S. economic policy. But it has been a clear outperformer. The credit market has taken longer to react to recent headlines, and seen a far more modest response to them. While the U.S. stock market, measured as the S&P 500, is down about 10 per cent, the U.S. High Yield bond index, comprised of lower-rated corporate bonds, is down about just 1 per cent.How much comfort should stock markets take from credit’s resilience? And what could cause Credit to now catch-down to that larger weakness in equities?A good place to start with these questions is what we think are really three distinct stories behind the volatility and weakness that we’re seeing in markets. First, the nature of U.S. policy towards tariffs, with plenty of on-again, off-again drama, has weakened business confidence and dealmaking; and that’s cut off a key source of corporate animal spirits and potential upside in the market. Second and somewhat relatedly, that reduced upside has lowered enthusiasm for many of the stocks that had previously been doing the best. Many of these stocks were widely held, and that’s created vulnerability and forced selling as previously popular positions were cut. And third, there have been growing concerns that this lower confidence from businesses and consumers will spill over into actual spending, and raise the odds of weaker growth and even a recession.I think a lot of credit’s resilience over the last month and a half, can be chalked up to the fact that the asset class is rightfully more relaxed about the first two of these issues. Lower corporate confidence may be a problem for the stock market, but it can actually be an ok thing if you’re a lender because it keeps borrowers more conservative. And somewhat relatedly, the sell-off in popular, high-flying stocks is also less of an issue. A lot of these companies are, for the most part, quite different from the issuers that dominate the corporate credit market.But the third issue, however, is a big deal. Credit is extremely sensitive to large changes in the economy. Morgan Stanley’s recent downgrade of U.S. growth expectations, the lower prices on key commodities, the lower yields on government bonds and the underperformance of smaller more cyclical stocks are all potential signs that risks to growth are rising. It's these factors that the credit market, perhaps a little bit belatedly, is now reacting to.So what does this all mean?First, we’re mindful of the temptation for equity investors to look over at the credit market and take comfort from its resilience. But remember, two of the biggest issues that have faced stocks – those lower odds of animal spirits, and the heavy concentration in a lot of the same names – were never really a credit story. And so to feel better about those risks, we think you’ll want to look at other different indicators.Second, what about the risk from the other direction, that credit catches up – or maybe more accurately down – to the stock market? This is all about that third factor: growth. If the growth data holds up, we think credit investors will feel justified in their more modest reaction, as all-in yields remain good. But if data weakens, the risks to credit grow rapidly, especially as our U.S. economists think that the Fed could struggle to lower interest rates as fast as markets are currently hoping they will.And so with growth so important, and Morgan Stanley’s tracking estimates for U.S. growth currently weak, we think it's too early to go bottom fishing in corporate bonds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/PsGRgKnu-89oAHJy9WRvhLA8Ql7SSzGMK7lgHESCIkYFri, 14 Mar 2025 22:51:11 +0000gtyAs equity markets gyrate in response to unpredictable U.S. policy, credit has taken longer to respond. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, suggests other indicators investors should have an eye on, including growth data. -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing how much comfort or concern equity and credit markets should be taking from each other’s recent moves.It’s Friday, March 14th at 2pm in London. Credit has weakened as markets have gyrated in the face of rising uncertainty around U.S. economic policy. But it has been a clear outperformer. The credit market has taken longer to react to recent headlines, and seen a far more modest response to them. While the U.S. stock market, measured as the S&P 500, is down about 10 per cent, the U.S. High Yield bond index, comprised of lower-rated corporate bonds, is down about just 1 per cent.How much comfort should stock markets take from credit’s resilience? And what could cause Credit to now catch-down to that larger weakness in equities?A good place to start with these questions is what we think are really three distinct stories behind the volatility and weakness that we’re seeing in markets. First, the nature of U.S. policy towards tariffs, with plenty of on-again, off-again drama, has weakened business confidence and dealmaking; and that’s cut off a key source of corporate animal spirits and potential upside in the market. Second and somewhat relatedly, that reduced upside has lowered enthusiasm for many of the stocks that had previously been doing the best. Many of these stocks were widely held, and that’s created vulnerability and forced selling as previously popular positions were cut. And third, there have been growing concerns that this lower confidence from businesses and consumers will spill over into actual spending, and raise the odds of weaker growth and even a recession.I think a lot of credit’s resilience over the last month and a half, can be chalked up to the fact that the asset class is rightfully more relaxed about the first two of these issues. Lower corporate confidence may be a problem for the stock market, but it can actually be an ok thing if you’re a lender because it keeps borrowers more conservative. And somewhat relatedly, the sell-off in popular, high-flying stocks is also less of an issue. A lot of these companies are, for the most part, quite different from the issuers that dominate the corporate credit market.But the third issue, however, is a big deal. Credit is extremely sensitive to large changes in the economy. Morgan Stanley’s recent downgrade of U.S. growth expectations, the lower prices on key commodities, the lower yields on government bonds and the underperformance of smaller more cyclical stocks are all potential signs that risks to growth are rising. It's these factors that the credit market, perhaps a little bit belatedly, is now reacting to.So what does this all mean?First, we’re mindful of the temptation for equity investors to look over at the credit market and take comfort from its resilience. But remember, two of the biggest issues that have faced stocks – those lower odds of animal spirits, and the heavy concentration in a lot of the same names – were never really a credit story. And so to feel better about those risks, we think you’ll want to look at other different indicators.Second, what about the risk from the other direction, that credit catches up – or maybe more accurately down – to the stock market? This is all about that third factor: growth. If the growth data holds up, we think credit investors will feel justified in their more modest reaction, as all-in yields remain good. But if data weakens, the risks to credit grow rapidly, especially as our U.S. economists think that the Fed could struggle to lower interest rates as fast as markets are currently hoping...]]>266alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1340fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/india-s-resurgence-should-weather-trade-tensions--75648991----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today I’ll be taking a look at the Indian economy amidst escalating trade tensions in Asia and around the globe. It’s Thursday, March 13, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Over the last few months, investors have been skeptical about India’s growth narrative. Investors – like us – have been caught off-guard by the surprising recent slowdown in India’s growth. With the benefit of hindsight, we can very clearly attribute the slowdown to an unexpected double tightening of fiscal and monetary policy. But India seems to be on its way to recovery. Green shoots are already emerging in recent data. And we believe the recovery will continue to firm up over the coming months. What makes us so confident in our outlook for India? We see several key factors behind this trend: First, fiscal policy’s turning supportive for growth again. The government has been ramping up capital expenditure for infrastructure projects like roads and railways, with growth accelerating markedly in recent months. They have also cut income tax for households which will be effective from April 2025. Second, monetary policy easing across rates, liquidity, and the regulatory front. With CPI inflation recently printing at just 3.6 per cent which is below target, we believe the central bank will continue to pursue easy monetary policy. And third, moderation in food inflation will mean real household incomes will be lifted. Finally, the strength in services exports. Services exports include IT services, and increasingly business services. In fact, post-COVID India’s had very strong growth in business services exports. And the key reason for that is, post-COVID, I think businesses have come to realize that if you can work from home, you can work from Bangalore. India's services exports have nearly doubled since December 2020, outpacing the 40 per cent rise in goods exports over the same period. This has resulted in services exports reaching $410 billion on an annualized basis in January, almost equal to the $430 billion of goods exports. Moreover, India continues to gain market share in services exports, which now account for 4.5 per cent of the global total, up from 4 per cent in 2020. To be sure there are some risks. India does face reciprocal tariff risks due to its large trade surplus with the US and high tariff rates that India imposes select imports from the U.S. But we believe that by September-October this year, India can reach a trade deal with the U.S. In any case, India's goods exports-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the region. And even if global trade slows down due to tariff uncertainties, India's economy won't be as severely affected. In fact, it could potentially outperform the other economies in the region.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BJMOjtRQpxq2QOvk1gdESd9tGH5Xyik9ODeKrqFKmJ4Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the early indications of India’s economic recovery and why the country looks best-positioned in the region for growth. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today I’ll be taking a look at the Indian economy amidst escalating trade tensions in Asia and around the globe. It’s Thursday, March 13, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Over the last few months, investors have been skeptical about India’s growth narrative. Investors – like us – have been caught off-guard by the surprising recent slowdown in India’s growth. With the benefit of hindsight, we can very clearly attribute the slowdown to an unexpected double tightening of fiscal and monetary policy. But India seems to be on its way to recovery. Green shoots are already emerging in recent data. And we believe the recovery will continue to firm up over the coming months. What makes us so confident in our outlook for India? We see several key factors behind this trend: First, fiscal policy’s turning supportive for growth again. The government has been ramping up capital expenditure for infrastructure projects like roads and railways, with growth accelerating markedly in recent months. They have also cut income tax for households which will be effective from April 2025. Second, monetary policy easing across rates, liquidity, and the regulatory front. With CPI inflation recently printing at just 3.6 per cent which is below target, we believe the central bank will continue to pursue easy monetary policy. And third, moderation in food inflation will mean real household incomes will be lifted. Finally, the strength in services exports. Services exports include IT services, and increasingly business services. In fact, post-COVID India’s had very strong growth in business services exports. And the key reason for that is, post-COVID, I think businesses have come to realize that if you can work from home, you can work from Bangalore. India's services exports have nearly doubled since December 2020, outpacing the 40 per cent rise in goods exports over the same period. This has resulted in services exports reaching $410 billion on an annualized basis in January, almost equal to the $430 billion of goods exports. Moreover, India continues to gain market share in services exports, which now account for 4.5 per cent of the global total, up from 4 per cent in 2020. To be sure there are some risks. India does face reciprocal tariff risks due to its large trade surplus with the US and high tariff rates that India imposes select imports from the U.S. But we believe that by September-October this year, India can reach a trade deal with the U.S. In any case, India's goods exports-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the region. And even if global trade slows down due to tariff uncertainties, India's economy won't be as severely affected. In fact, it could potentially outperform the other economies in the region.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>210alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1339fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-other-policy-choices-that-matter--75648996----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today, we’ll be talking about U.S. policy impacts on the market that aren’t about tariffs.It’s Wednesday, March 12th, at 10:30am in New York.If tariffs are dominating your attention, we sympathize. Again this week we heard the U.S. commit to raising tariffs and work out a resolution, this time all within the span of a workday. These twists and turns in the tariff path are likely to continue, but in the meantime it might make sense for investors to take some time to look away – instead focusing on some key sectoral impacts of U.S. policy choices that our Research colleagues have called out. For example, Andrew Percoco, who leads our Clean Energy Equity Research team, calls out that clean Energy stocks may be pricing in too high a probability of an Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) repeal. He cites a letter signed by 18 Republicans urging the speaker of the house to protect some of the energy tax credits in the IRA. That’s a good call out, in our view. Republicans’ slim majority means only a handful need to oppose a legislative action in order to block its enactment. Another example is around Managed Care companies. Erin Wright, who leads our Healthcare Services Research Effort, analyzed the impact to companies of cuts to the Medicaid program and found the impact to their sector’s bottom line to be manageable. So, keeping an in-line view for the sector. We think the sector won’t ultimately face this risk, as, like with the IRA, we do not expect there to be sufficient Republican votes to enact the cuts. Finally, Patrick Wood, who leads the Medtech team, caught up with a former FDA director to talk about how staffing cuts might affect the industry. In short, expect delays in approvals of new medical technologies. In particular, it seems the risk is most acute in the most cutting edge technologies, where skilled FDA staff are hard to find. Neurology and brain/computer interfaces stand out as areas of development that might slow in this market sector. All that said, if you just can’t turn away from tariffs, we reiterate our guidance here: Tariffs are likely going up, even if the precise path is uncertain. And whether or not you’re constructive on the goals the administration is attempting to achieve, the path to achieving them carries costs and execution risk. Our U.S. economics team’s recent downgrade of the U.S. growth outlook for this and next year exemplifies this. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fWadig_VYVFV_k1TJrCQ-chK4HThVUhjs3Exv38bEIEWed, 12 Mar 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyWhile tariffs continue to dominate headlines, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas suggests investors should also focus on the sectoral impacts of additional U.S. policy choices. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today, we’ll be talking about U.S. policy impacts on the market that aren’t about tariffs.It’s Wednesday, March 12th, at 10:30am in New York.If tariffs are dominating your attention, we sympathize. Again this week we heard the U.S. commit to raising tariffs and work out a resolution, this time all within the span of a workday. These twists and turns in the tariff path are likely to continue, but in the meantime it might make sense for investors to take some time to look away – instead focusing on some key sectoral impacts of U.S. policy choices that our Research colleagues have called out. For example, Andrew Percoco, who leads our Clean Energy Equity Research team, calls out that clean Energy stocks may be pricing in too high a probability of an Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) repeal. He cites a letter signed by 18 Republicans urging the speaker of the house to protect some of the energy tax credits in the IRA. That’s a good call out, in our view. Republicans’ slim majority means only a handful need to oppose a legislative action in order to block its enactment. Another example is around Managed Care companies. Erin Wright, who leads our Healthcare Services Research Effort, analyzed the impact to companies of cuts to the Medicaid program and found the impact to their sector’s bottom line to be manageable. So, keeping an in-line view for the sector. We think the sector won’t ultimately face this risk, as, like with the IRA, we do not expect there to be sufficient Republican votes to enact the cuts. Finally, Patrick Wood, who leads the Medtech team, caught up with a former FDA director to talk about how staffing cuts might affect the industry. In short, expect delays in approvals of new medical technologies. In particular, it seems the risk is most acute in the most cutting edge technologies, where skilled FDA staff are hard to find. Neurology and brain/computer interfaces stand out as areas of development that might slow in this market sector. All that said, if you just can’t turn away from tariffs, we reiterate our guidance here: Tariffs are likely going up, even if the precise path is uncertain. And whether or not you’re constructive on the goals the administration is attempting to achieve, the path to achieving them carries costs and execution risk. Our U.S. economics team’s recent downgrade of the U.S. growth outlook for this and next year exemplifies this. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>173alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1338fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ai-agents-are-here--75650886gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5T3H9O7v-SCzunGY8z9_3Va4mp3aoFal0rwjB2iQBS4Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:34:13 +0000gtyOur analysts Adam Jonas and Michelle Weaver share a glimpse into the future from Morgan Stanley’s Annual Tech, Media, and Telecom (TMT) Conference, as agentic AI powers autonomous vehicles, humanoid robots and more.696alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1337fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-uncertainty-won-t-slow-ai-hardware-investment--75650846----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. IT Hardware Research. Here are some reflections I recorded last week at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in San Francisco. It’s Monday, March 10th at 9am in New York. This was another year of record attendance at our TMT Conference. And what is clear from speaking to investors is that the demand for new, under-discovered or under-appreciated ideas is higher than ever. In a stock-pickers’ market – like the one we have now – investors are really digging into themes and single name ideas. Big picture – uncertainty was a key theme this week. Whether it’s tariffs and the changing geopolitical landscape, market volatility, or government spending, the level of relative uncertainty is elevated. That said, we are not hearing about a material change in demand for PCs, smartphones, and other technology hardware. On the enterprise side of my coverage, we are emerging from one of the most prolonged downcycles in the last 10-plus years, and what we heard from several enterprise hardware vendors and others is an expectation that most enterprise hardware markets – PCs , Servers, and Storage – return to growth this year given pent up refresh demand. This, despite the challenges of navigating the tariff situation, which is resulting in most companies raising prices to mitigate higher input costs. On the consumer side of the world, the demand environment for more discretionary products like speakers, cameras, PCs and other endpoint devices looks a bit more challenged. The recent downtick in consumer sentiment is contributing to this environment given the close correlation between sentiment and discretionary spending on consumer technology goods. Against this backdrop, the most dynamic topic of the conference remains GenerativeAI. What I’ve been hearing is a confidence that new GenAI solutions can increasingly meet the needs of market participants. They also continue to evolve rapidly and build momentum towards successful GenAI monetization. To this point, underlying infrastructure spending—on servers, storage and other data center componentry – to enable these emerging AI solutions remains robust. To put some numbers behind this, the 10 largest cloud customers are spending upwards of [$]350 billion this year in capex, which is up over 30 percent year-over-year. Keep in mind that this is coming off the strongest year of growth on record in 2024. Early indications for 2026 CapEx spending still point to growth, albeit a deceleration from 2025. And what’s even more compelling is that it’s still early days. My fireside chats this week highlighted that AI infrastructure spending from their largest and most sophisticated customers is only in the second inning, while AI investments from enterprises, down to small and mid-sized businesses, is only in the first inning, or maybe even earlier. So there appears to be a long runway ahead for AI infrastructure spending, despite the volatility we have seen in AI infrastructure stocks, which we see as an opportunity for investors. I’d just highlight that amidst the elevated market uncertainty, there is a prioritization on cost efficiencies and adopting GenAI to drive these efficiencies. Company executives from some of the major players this week all discussed near-term cost efficiency initiatives, and we expect these efforts to both help protect the bottom line and drive productivity growth amidst a quickly changing market backdrop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Qq2EchNfTVdNPbaRe0887Z1-i-kHKY_8nw8uc8Lr43IMon, 10 Mar 2025 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of U.S. IT Hardware Erik Woodring gives his key takeaways from Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) conference, including why there appears to be a long runway ahead for AI infrastructure spending, despite macro uncertainty. ...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. IT Hardware Research. Here are some reflections I recorded last week at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in San Francisco. It’s Monday, March 10th at 9am in New York. This was another year of record attendance at our TMT Conference. And what is clear from speaking to investors is that the demand for new, under-discovered or under-appreciated ideas is higher than ever. In a stock-pickers’ market – like the one we have now – investors are really digging into themes and single name ideas. Big picture – uncertainty was a key theme this week. Whether it’s tariffs and the changing geopolitical landscape, market volatility, or government spending, the level of relative uncertainty is elevated. That said, we are not hearing about a material change in demand for PCs, smartphones, and other technology hardware. On the enterprise side of my coverage, we are emerging from one of the most prolonged downcycles in the last 10-plus years, and what we heard from several enterprise hardware vendors and others is an expectation that most enterprise hardware markets – PCs , Servers, and Storage – return to growth this year given pent up refresh demand. This, despite the challenges of navigating the tariff situation, which is resulting in most companies raising prices to mitigate higher input costs. On the consumer side of the world, the demand environment for more discretionary products like speakers, cameras, PCs and other endpoint devices looks a bit more challenged. The recent downtick in consumer sentiment is contributing to this environment given the close correlation between sentiment and discretionary spending on consumer technology goods. Against this backdrop, the most dynamic topic of the conference remains GenerativeAI. What I’ve been hearing is a confidence that new GenAI solutions can increasingly meet the needs of market participants. They also continue to evolve rapidly and build momentum towards successful GenAI monetization. To this point, underlying infrastructure spending—on servers, storage and other data center componentry – to enable these emerging AI solutions remains robust. To put some numbers behind this, the 10 largest cloud customers are spending upwards of [$]350 billion this year in capex, which is up over 30 percent year-over-year. Keep in mind that this is coming off the strongest year of growth on record in 2024. Early indications for 2026 CapEx spending still point to growth, albeit a deceleration from 2025. And what’s even more compelling is that it’s still early days. My fireside chats this week highlighted that AI infrastructure spending from their largest and most sophisticated customers is only in the second inning, while AI investments from enterprises, down to small and mid-sized businesses, is only in the first inning, or maybe even earlier. So there appears to be a long runway ahead for AI infrastructure spending, despite the volatility we have seen in AI infrastructure stocks, which we see as an opportunity for investors. I’d just highlight that amidst the elevated market uncertainty, there is a prioritization on cost efficiencies and adopting GenAI to drive these efficiencies. Company executives from some of the major players this week all discussed near-term cost efficiency initiatives, and we expect these efforts to both help protect the bottom line and drive productivity growth amidst a quickly changing market backdrop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>244alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1336fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rewiring-global-trade--75650795----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be discussing what investors need to focus on amidst all the U.S. policy headlines.It’s Friday, March 7th, at 12:30 pm in New York.In recent weeks the news flow on tariffs, immigration, and geopolitics has been relentless, culminating in this week’s state of the union address by President Trump and, if headlines hold, a partial reversal in course on Mexico and Canada tariffs that were just levied earlier this week. Understandably, measures of policy uncertainty, such as the Baker, Bloom, and Davis index, have reached all time highs. And this tracks with the confusion expressed by investing and corporate clients. In our view, this policy noise is going to continue. But, there is an important signal. These developments track with one of our four key themes of 2025. The transition toward a multipolar world. The tense White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, played out live in front of the news cameras, was another reminder that the U.S. is evolving its role in driving international affairs. And tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China are a reminder of the U.S.’s interest in rewiring global trade. The reasons behind this are myriad and complex, but in the near term it's about the U.S. looking more inward. Economic populism is, well, popular with voters in both parties. There’s a few net takeaways for investors here. One is a positive for the European defense sector. The combination of tariffs and the evolving U.S. posture on global security has long been part of our thesis on why Europe would eventually chart a new path and step up to spend more on defense. The current situation in Russia and Ukraine underscores this, with potential for another $0.9-$2.7 trillion in defense spending through 2035. Germany’s new ‘whatever it takes’ approach to defense spending is a key signpost in this trend, per our colleagues in European economics, equities, and foreign exchange. Another critical takeaway is around the effects of U.S. trade realignment on both macro markets and equity sector preferences. Whether these trade policy changes play out well over time or not, the attempt costs something in the near term. Tariffs are part of that cost. And while the precise path of tariff increases is unclear, what is clear is that they’re headed higher in the aggregate, a tactic in service of the administration’s goal of reducing trade deficits and creating reciprocal trade barriers in order to incentivize greater production in the U.S. Over the next year, our economists expect that those tariff costs will crimp economic activity. That slower growth should eventually feed through into a more dovish monetary policy. Both factors, in the view of our U.S. rates strategy team, should continue pushing yields lower – good news for bond investors, but more challenging posture for equity investors, and a key reason our cross asset team is currently flagging a preference for fixed income. That tariff activity should also drive supply chain realignment. But, going forward, changing those supply chains may now be more costly. Per work from our Global economics team, the supply chains that need to be moved now are complex and concentrated in geopolitical rivals. That’s a challenge for certain sectors, like U.S. IT hardware and consumer discretionary. But the investment to make it happen creates demand and is a benefit for the capital goods and broader industrials sector. Bottom line, the policy noise will continue, as will the market cross currents it’s driving. We’ll keep you informed on it all here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eLJVRl-5QBhK1WHSXV-Mm_qr62mrnbCn1sGD58HPGS0Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyWhile policy noise continues to dominate the headlines, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas points out a key theme: a transition toward a multipolar world. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be discussing what investors need to focus on amidst all the U.S. policy headlines.It’s Friday, March 7th, at 12:30 pm in New York.In recent weeks the news flow on tariffs, immigration, and geopolitics has been relentless, culminating in this week’s state of the union address by President Trump and, if headlines hold, a partial reversal in course on Mexico and Canada tariffs that were just levied earlier this week. Understandably, measures of policy uncertainty, such as the Baker, Bloom, and Davis index, have reached all time highs. And this tracks with the confusion expressed by investing and corporate clients. In our view, this policy noise is going to continue. But, there is an important signal. These developments track with one of our four key themes of 2025. The transition toward a multipolar world. The tense White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, played out live in front of the news cameras, was another reminder that the U.S. is evolving its role in driving international affairs. And tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China are a reminder of the U.S.’s interest in rewiring global trade. The reasons behind this are myriad and complex, but in the near term it's about the U.S. looking more inward. Economic populism is, well, popular with voters in both parties. There’s a few net takeaways for investors here. One is a positive for the European defense sector. The combination of tariffs and the evolving U.S. posture on global security has long been part of our thesis on why Europe would eventually chart a new path and step up to spend more on defense. The current situation in Russia and Ukraine underscores this, with potential for another $0.9-$2.7 trillion in defense spending through 2035. Germany’s new ‘whatever it takes’ approach to defense spending is a key signpost in this trend, per our colleagues in European economics, equities, and foreign exchange. Another critical takeaway is around the effects of U.S. trade realignment on both macro markets and equity sector preferences. Whether these trade policy changes play out well over time or not, the attempt costs something in the near term. Tariffs are part of that cost. And while the precise path of tariff increases is unclear, what is clear is that they’re headed higher in the aggregate, a tactic in service of the administration’s goal of reducing trade deficits and creating reciprocal trade barriers in order to incentivize greater production in the U.S. Over the next year, our economists expect that those tariff costs will crimp economic activity. That slower growth should eventually feed through into a more dovish monetary policy. Both factors, in the view of our U.S. rates strategy team, should continue pushing yields lower – good news for bond investors, but more challenging posture for equity investors, and a key reason our cross asset team is currently flagging a preference for fixed income. That tariff activity should also drive supply chain realignment. But, going forward, changing those supply chains may now be more costly. Per work from our Global economics team, the supply chains that need to be moved now are complex and concentrated in geopolitical rivals. That’s a challenge for certain sectors, like U.S. IT hardware and consumer discretionary. But the investment to make it happen creates demand and is a benefit for the capital goods and broader industrials sector. Bottom line, the policy noise will continue, as will the market cross currents it’s driving. We’ll keep you informed on it all here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review...]]>239alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1334fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/funding-the-next-phase-of-ai-development--75650916----- Transcript -----
Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, Morgan Stanley's Lead Investment Grade TMT Credit Research Analyst, and I'm here with Michelle Wang, Head of Investment Grade Debt Coverage in Global Capital Markets.On this special episode, we're recording at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom (TMT) Conference, and we will discuss the latest on the technology space from the fixed income perspective.It's Thursday, March 6th at 12 pm in San Francisco.What a week it's been. Last I heard, we had over 350 companies here in attendance.To set the stage for our discussion, technology has grown from about 2 percent of the broader investment grade market – about two decades ago – to almost 10 percent now; though that is still relatively a small percentage, relative to the weightings in the equity market.So, can you address two questions? First, why was tech historically such a small part of investment grade? And then second, what has driven the growth sense?Michelle Wang: Technology is still a relatively young industry, right? I'm in my 40s and well over 90 percent of the companies that I cover were founded well within my lifetime. And if you add to that the fact that investment grade debt is, by definition, a later stage capital raising tool. When the business of these companies reaches sufficient scale and cash generation to be rated investment grade by the rating agencies, you wind up with just a small subset of the overall investment grade universe.The second question on what has been driving the growth? Twofold. Number one the organic maturation of the tech industry results in an increasing number of scaled investment grade companies. And then secondly, the increasing use of debt as a cheap source of capital to fund their growth. This could be to fund R&D or CapEx or, in some cases, M&A.Lindsay Tyler: Right, and I would just add in this context that my view for this year on technology credit is a more neutral one, and that's against a backdrop of being more cautious on the communications and media space.And part of that is just driven by the spread compression and the lack of dispersion that we see in the market. And you mentioned M&A and capital allocation; I do think that financial policy and changes there, whether it's investment, M&A, shareholder returns – that will be the main driver of credit spreads.But let's turn back to the conference and on the – you know, I mentioned investment. Let's talk about investment.AI has dominated the conversation here at the conference the past two years, and this year is no different. Morgan Stanley's research department has four key investment themes. One of those is AI and tech diffusion.But from the fixed income angle, there is that focus on ongoing and upcoming hyperscaler AI CapEx needs.Michelle Wang: Yep.Lindsay Tyler: There are significant cash flows generated by many of these companies, but we just discussed that the investment grade tech space has grown relative to the index in recent history.Can you discuss the scale of the technology CapEx that we're talking about and the related implications from your perspective?Michelle Wang: Let's actually get into some of the numbers. So in the past three years, total hyperscaler CapEx has increased from [$]125 billion three years ago to [$]220 billion today; and is expected to exceed [$]300 billion in 2027.The hyperscalers have all publicly stated that generative AI is key to their future growth aspirations. So, why are they spending all this money? They're investing heavily in the digital infrastructure to propel this growth. These companies, however, as you've pointed out, are some of the most scaled, best capitalized companies in the entire world. They have a combined market cap of [$]9 trillion. Among them, their balance sheet cash ranges from [$]70 to [$]100 billion per company. And their annual free cash flow, so the money that they generate organically, ranges from [$]30 to [$]75 billion.So they can certainly fund some of this CapEx organically. However, the unprecedented amount of spend for GenAI raises the probability that these hyperscalers could choose to raise capital externally.Lindsay Tyler: Got it.Michelle Wang: Now, how this capital is raised is where it gets really interesting. The most straightforward way to raise capital for a lot of these companies is just to do an investment grade bond deal.Lindsay Tyler: Yep.Michelle Wang: However, there are other more customized funding solutions available for them to achieve objectives like more favorable accounting or rating agency treatment, ways for them to offload some of their CapEx to a private credit firm. Even if that means that these occur at a higher cost of capital.Lindsay Tyler: You touched on private credit. I'd love to dig in there. These bespoke capital solutions.Michelle Wang: Right.Lindsay Tyler: I have seen it in the semiconductor space and telecom infrastructure, but can you please just shed some more light, right? How has this trend come to fruition? How are companies assessing the opportunity? And what are other key implications that you would flag?Michelle Wang: Yeah, for the benefit of the audience, Lindsay, I think just to touch a little bit…Lindsay Tyler: Some definitions,Michelle Wang: Yes, some definitions around ...Lindsay Tyler: Get some context.Michelle Wang: What we’re talking about.Lindsay Tyler: Yes.So the – I think what you're referring to is investment grade companies doing asset level financing. Usually in conjunction with a private credit firm, and like all financing trends that came before it, all good financing trends, this one also resulted from the serendipitous intersection of supply and demand of capital.On the supply of capital, the private credit pocket of capital driven by large pockets of insurance capital is now north of $2 trillion and it has increased 10x in scale in the past decade. So, the need to deploy these funds is driving these private credit firms to seek out ways to invest in investment grade companies in a yield enhanced manner.Lindsay Tyler: Right. And typically, we're saying 150 to 200 basis points greater than what maybe an IG bond would yield.Michelle Wang: That's exactly right. That's when it starts to get interesting for them, right? And then the demand of capital, the demand for this type of capital, that's always existed in other industries that are more asset-heavy like telcos.However, the new development of late is the demand for capital from tech due to two megatrends that we're seeing in tech. The first is semiconductors. Building these chip factories is an extremely capital-intensive exercise, so creates a demand for capital. And then the second megatrend is what we've seen with the hyperscalers and GenerativeAI needs. Building data centers and digital infrastructure for GenerativeAI is also extremely expensive, and that creates another pocket of demand for capital that private credit conveniently kinda serves a role in.Lindsay Tyler: Right.Michelle Wang: So look, think we've talked about the ways that companies are using these tools. I'm interested to get your view, Lindsay, on the investor perspective.Lindsay Tyler: Sure.Michelle Wang: How do investors think about some of these more bespoke solutions?Lindsay Tyler: I would say that with deals that have this touch of extra complexity, it does feel that investor communication and understanding is all important. And I have found that, some of these points that you're raising – whether it's the spread pickup and the insurance capital at the asset managers and also layering in ratings implications and the deal terms. I think all of that is important for investors to get more comfortable and have a better understanding of these types of deals.The last topic I do want us to address is the macro environment. This has been another key theme with the conference and with this recent earnings season, so whether it's rate moves this year, the talk of M& A, tariffs – what's your sense on how companies are viewing and assessing macro in their decision making?Michelle Wang: There are three components to how they're thinking about it.The first is the rate move. So, the fact that we're 50 to 60 basis points lower in Treasury yields in the past month, that's welcome news for any company looking to issue debt. The second thing I'll say here is about credit spreads. They remain extremely tight. Speaking to the incredible kind of resilience of the investment grade investor base. The last thing I'll talk about is, I think, the uncertainty. [Because] that's what we're hearing a ton about in all the conversations that we've had with companies that have presented here today at the conference.Lindsay Tyler: Yeah. For my perspective, also the regulatory environment around that M&A, whether or not companies will make the move to maybe be more acquisitive with the current new administration.Michelle Wang: Right, so until the dust settles on some of these issues, it's really difficult as a corporate decision maker to do things like big transformative M&A, to make a company public when you don't know what could happen both from a the market environment and, as you point out, regulatory standpoint.The thing that's interesting is that raising debt capital as an investment grade company has some counter cyclical dynamics to it. Because risk-off sentiment usually translates into lower treasury yields and more favorable cost of debt.And then the second point is when companies are risk averse it drives sometimes cash hoarding behavior, right? So, companies will raise what they call, you know, rainy day liquidity and park it on balance sheet –]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WE4EOjuBrda_tjdIuostd1jVF_DVF_Jw5QBY5sotVrkThu, 06 Mar 2025 22:34:04 +0000gtyRecorded at our 2025 Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Conference, TMT Credit Research Analyst Lindsay Tyler joins Head of Investment Grade Debt Coverage Michelle Wang to discuss the how the industry is strategically raising capital to fund growth....----- Transcript -----
Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, Morgan Stanley's Lead Investment Grade TMT Credit Research Analyst, and I'm here with Michelle Wang, Head of Investment Grade Debt Coverage in Global Capital Markets.On this special episode, we're recording at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom (TMT) Conference, and we will discuss the latest on the technology space from the fixed income perspective.It's Thursday, March 6th at 12 pm in San Francisco.What a week it's been. Last I heard, we had over 350 companies here in attendance.To set the stage for our discussion, technology has grown from about 2 percent of the broader investment grade market – about two decades ago – to almost 10 percent now; though that is still relatively a small percentage, relative to the weightings in the equity market.So, can you address two questions? First, why was tech historically such a small part of investment grade? And then second, what has driven the growth sense?Michelle Wang: Technology is still a relatively young industry, right? I'm in my 40s and well over 90 percent of the companies that I cover were founded well within my lifetime. And if you add to that the fact that investment grade debt is, by definition, a later stage capital raising tool. When the business of these companies reaches sufficient scale and cash generation to be rated investment grade by the rating agencies, you wind up with just a small subset of the overall investment grade universe.The second question on what has been driving the growth? Twofold. Number one the organic maturation of the tech industry results in an increasing number of scaled investment grade companies. And then secondly, the increasing use of debt as a cheap source of capital to fund their growth. This could be to fund R&D or CapEx or, in some cases, M&A.Lindsay Tyler: Right, and I would just add in this context that my view for this year on technology credit is a more neutral one, and that's against a backdrop of being more cautious on the communications and media space.And part of that is just driven by the spread compression and the lack of dispersion that we see in the market. And you mentioned M&A and capital allocation; I do think that financial policy and changes there, whether it's investment, M&A, shareholder returns – that will be the main driver of credit spreads.But let's turn back to the conference and on the – you know, I mentioned investment. Let's talk about investment.AI has dominated the conversation here at the conference the past two years, and this year is no different. Morgan Stanley's research department has four key investment themes. One of those is AI and tech diffusion.But from the fixed income angle, there is that focus on ongoing and upcoming hyperscaler AI CapEx needs.Michelle Wang: Yep.Lindsay Tyler: There are significant cash flows generated by many of these companies, but we just discussed that the investment grade tech space has grown relative to the index in recent history.Can you discuss the scale of the technology CapEx that we're talking about and the related implications from your perspective?Michelle Wang: Let's actually get into some of the numbers. So in the past three years, total hyperscaler CapEx has increased from [$]125 billion three years ago to [$]220 billion today; and is expected to exceed [$]300 billion in 2027.The hyperscalers have all publicly stated that generative AI is key to their future growth aspirations. So, why are they spending all this money? They're investing heavily in the digital infrastructure to propel this growth. These companies, however, as you've pointed out, are some of the most scaled, best...]]>640alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1333fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-there-too-much-focus-on-fed-s-moves--75650971----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about why the number of Fed rate cuts this year may matter less than you think.It's Wednesday, March 5th, at 2pm in London.Financial markets spend a lot of time discussing the Federal Reserve. And for good reason. The central bank of the world’s largest economy plays a central role in fighting inflation and setting interest rates. And what they’ll do this year is topical and shifting. At Morgan Stanley, our economists think that US Tariff and Immigration policy will lead the Fed to keep rates somewhat higher, for somewhat longer, than they did at the start of the year.Yet we think there may be just a little bit too much focus on just how much the Fed changes policy over the course of the year. Indeed, we’d go as far as to say that given the choice, investors should be rooting for less change, not more.To start, for all that’s happened in the world since the end of October of 2024, expectations for the Fed’s interest rate path have been remarkably stable. The US 2-year Treasury, which is a decent proxy of where the Fed’s rate will average over the next 24 months, has hovered in a very narrow range. It simply hasn’t been telling us very much; other factors have been moving markets.There’s also a pretty reasonable rule of thumb from history: stability is good. A stable Fed funds rate, almost by definition, implies a stable equilibrium that doesn’t involve overly high inflation pushing rates further up, or overly weak growth pushing them further down. The best growth in recent history, in the mid-1990s, occurred after the Fed reduced interest rates less than one-percent, and then kept them stable, at a pretty elevated rate for a pretty extended period of time.Large changes in rates, on the other hand, in either direction are a different story. Some of the markets worst losses have coincided with the largest declines in the Fed’s target rate – because those large rate cuts usually occur only when there is a large, unexpected slowing in the economy; something markets often don’t like.Meanwhile, we think the Fed also very much wants to avoid a scenario where it has to start raising rates again, given the potential confusion that this could signal after it only recently continued to lower them. And so if over the course of this year, the Fed does need to raise rates, given the very high bar we think they’ve given themselves for action – it probably suggests that something unexpected, and not in a necessarily good way, has occurred.Central bank policy will always matter for markets. But for investors, the question of whether the Fed will cut once, which is the Morgan Stanley base-case, twice, or not at all in 2025 may not matter all that much, at least for credit. Far more important is the performance of the economy, and whether big changes to tariffs or immigration policy drive big changes to growth and inflation. Those big changes, which could drive big changes in Fed policy responses, are the scenario that worries us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8vlv68dPD30o-lv59o0k-k68GriogczmIfIh6H7FCSsThu, 06 Mar 2025 03:32:50 +0000gtyWhile central bank policy will always matter for markets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why investors should not be worried about the number of Fed cuts in 2025. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about why the number of Fed rate cuts this year may matter less than you think.It's Wednesday, March 5th, at 2pm in London.Financial markets spend a lot of time discussing the Federal Reserve. And for good reason. The central bank of the world’s largest economy plays a central role in fighting inflation and setting interest rates. And what they’ll do this year is topical and shifting. At Morgan Stanley, our economists think that US Tariff and Immigration policy will lead the Fed to keep rates somewhat higher, for somewhat longer, than they did at the start of the year.Yet we think there may be just a little bit too much focus on just how much the Fed changes policy over the course of the year. Indeed, we’d go as far as to say that given the choice, investors should be rooting for less change, not more.To start, for all that’s happened in the world since the end of October of 2024, expectations for the Fed’s interest rate path have been remarkably stable. The US 2-year Treasury, which is a decent proxy of where the Fed’s rate will average over the next 24 months, has hovered in a very narrow range. It simply hasn’t been telling us very much; other factors have been moving markets.There’s also a pretty reasonable rule of thumb from history: stability is good. A stable Fed funds rate, almost by definition, implies a stable equilibrium that doesn’t involve overly high inflation pushing rates further up, or overly weak growth pushing them further down. The best growth in recent history, in the mid-1990s, occurred after the Fed reduced interest rates less than one-percent, and then kept them stable, at a pretty elevated rate for a pretty extended period of time.Large changes in rates, on the other hand, in either direction are a different story. Some of the markets worst losses have coincided with the largest declines in the Fed’s target rate – because those large rate cuts usually occur only when there is a large, unexpected slowing in the economy; something markets often don’t like.Meanwhile, we think the Fed also very much wants to avoid a scenario where it has to start raising rates again, given the potential confusion that this could signal after it only recently continued to lower them. And so if over the course of this year, the Fed does need to raise rates, given the very high bar we think they’ve given themselves for action – it probably suggests that something unexpected, and not in a necessarily good way, has occurred.Central bank policy will always matter for markets. But for investors, the question of whether the Fed will cut once, which is the Morgan Stanley base-case, twice, or not at all in 2025 may not matter all that much, at least for credit. Far more important is the performance of the economy, and whether big changes to tariffs or immigration policy drive big changes to growth and inflation. Those big changes, which could drive big changes in Fed policy responses, are the scenario that worries us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>217alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1335fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-will-tariffs-do-to-the-u-s-dollar--75650969----- Transcript ----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Andrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 FX Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll focus on the U.S. dollar and how it might fare in global markets during the first year of the new Trump administration.It's Tuesday, March 4th at 10am in New York.So, Andrew, a few weeks ago, James Lord came on to talk about the foreign exchange volatility. Since then, tariffs and trade policy have been in the news. Last night at midnight, 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada went into effect, in addition to 10 percent on China. So, let's set the scene for today's conversation. Is the dollar still dominant in global currency markets?Andrew Watrous: Yes, it is. The U.S. dollar is used in about $7 trillion worth of daily FX transactions. And the dollar's share of all currency transactions has been pretty stable over the last few decades. And something like 80 percent of all trade finance is invoiced in dollars, and that share has been pretty stable too.A big part of that dollar dominance is because of the depth and safety of the Treasury security market.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And the dollar fell in 2017, the first year of the Trump administration. Why did that happen?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so 2017 gets a lot of client attention because the Fed was hiking, there was a lot of uncertainty about would happen in NAFTA, and the U.S. passed a fiscally expansionary budget bill that year.So, people have asked us, ‘Why the U.S. dollar went down despite all those factors?’ And I think there are three reasons. One is that even though the possibility that the U.S. could leave NAFTA was all over the headlines that year, U.S. tariffs didn't actually go up. Another factor is that global growth turned out to be really strong in 2017, and that was helped in part by fiscal policy in China and Europe. And finally, there were some political risks in Europe that didn't end up materializing.So, investors took a sigh of relief about the possibility that I think had been priced in a bit that the Eurozone might break up. And then a lot of those factors went into reverse in 2018 and the U.S. dollar went up.Ariana Salvatore: So, applying that framework with those factors to today, is it possible that we see a repeat of 2017 in terms of the U.S. dollar decline?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, I think it's likely that the U.S. dollar continues to go lower for some of the same reasons as we saw in 2017. So, I think that compared to 2017, there's a lot more U.S. dollar positive risk premium around trade policy. So, the bar is higher for the U.S. dollar to go up just from trade headlines alone.And just like in 2017, European policy developments could be a tailwind to the euro. We've been highlighting the potential for German fiscal expansion as European defense policy comes into focus. And unlike in 2017, when the Fed was raising rates, now the Fed is probably going to cut more this year. So that's a headwind to the dollar that didn't exist back in 2017.So, on trade, Ariana. What developments do you expect? Do you think that Trump's new policies will make 2025 different in any way from 2017?Ariana Salvatore: So, taking a step back and looking at this from a very high level, a few things are different in spite of the fact that we're actually talking about a lot of similar policies. Tariffs and tax policy were a big focus in 2017 to 2019, and to be sure, this time around, they are too, but in a slightly different way.So, for example, on tax cuts, we're not talking about bringing rates lower on the individual and corporate side. We're talking about extending current policy. And on tariffs and trade policy, this round I would characterize as much broader, right? So, Trump has scoped in a broader range of trading partners into the discussion like Mexico and Canada; and is talking about a starting point that level-wise is much higher than what we saw in the whole 2018 2019 trade friction period.The highest rate back then we ever saw was 25 percent, and that was on the final batch of Chinese goods, that list four. Whereas this time, we're talking about 25 percent as a starting point for Mexico and Canada.I think sequencing is also a really important distinction. In 2017, we saw the tax cuts through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) come first, followed by trade tensions in 2018 to 2019. This time around, it's really the inverse. Republicans just passed their budget resolution in the House. That lays the groundwork for the tax cut extensions.But in the meantime, Trump has been talking about tariff implementation since before he was even elected. And we've already had a number of really key trade related catalysts in the just six weeks or so that he's been in office.Andrew Watrous: So, you mentioned expectations for fiscal policy. What are recent developments there, and what do you think will happen with U.S. fiscal?Ariana Salvatore: I mentioned the budget resolution in the house that was passed last week. And you can really think of that as the starting point for the reconciliation process to kick off. And consequently, the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.To be clear, we think that House Republicans will be able to align behind extending most of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but that's still in the books until the end of 2025. So, we see many months needed to kind of build this consensus among cohorts of the Republican caucus in Congress, and we already know there's some key sticking points in the discussion.What happens with the SALT [State and Local Tax] cap? What sort of clawbacks occur with the Inflation Reduction Act? All these are disagreements that right now are going to need time to work their way through Congress. So not a lot of alignment just yet. We think it's going to take most of the year to get there.But ultimately, we do see an extension of most of the TCJA, which is like I said, current law until the end of 2025.But Andrew from what I understand when it comes to fiscal policy, there are really two stages in terms of the market impact that we saw in the last administration. Can you walk us through those?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so one lesson from 2016 to 2018 is that there were really two stages of when fiscal developments boosted the dollar. The first was right after the U.S. election in 2016, and the second was much later after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed. So right after the 2016 election, within a couple of weeks, the dollar index rallied from 98 up to 103, and 10-year Treasury yields rose as well.And then things sort of moved sideways in between these two stages. Ten-year Treasury yield just moved sideways. Fiscal wasn't as supportive to the U.S. dollar. And as we know, the dollar went down. And then we had the second stage more than a year later. So, the TCJA was passed in December 2017. And then the dollar rallied after that along with the rise in Treasury yield.So, we think that now, what we've seen is actually very similar to what happened in 2017, where the dollar and yields moved a lot after the 2024 election; but now the budget reconciliation process probably won't be a tailwind to the dollar until after a tax cuts extension passes Congress. And as you mentioned, that's not going to be for many, many months. So, in the interim, we think there's a lot of room for the dollar to go down.Ariana Salvatore: And just to level set our expectations there to your point, it is probably going to be later this year. House Republicans have to align on a number of key sticking points. So, we have passage somewhere on the third or fourth quarter of 2025.But when we think about the fiscal picture, aside from the deficit and the macro impacts, a really key component is going to be what these tax changes mean for the equity market. The extension of certain tax policies will matter more for certain sectors versus others. For example, we know that extending some of the corporate provisions, aside from the lower rate, will have an impact across domestically oriented industries like industrials, healthcare, and telecom.But Andrew, to bring it back to this discussion, I want to think a little bit more about how we can loop in our expectations for the equity market and map that to certain dollar outcomes. How do you think that this as a barometer has changed, if at all, from Trump's first term?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, currency strategists like me love talking about yield differentials. But from 2016 to 2018, the U.S. dollar did not trade in line with yield differentials. Instead, in the initial years of President Trump's first term, equities were a much better barometer than interest rates for where the U.S. dollar would go.After President Trump was elected in 2016, U.S. stocks really outperformed stocks in the rest of the world, and the U.S. dollar went up. Then in 2017, stocks outside the U.S. caught up to the move in U.S. stocks, and the U.S. dollar fell. Then in 2018, all that went into reverse, and U.S. stocks started outperforming again, and the U.S. dollar went up.So, what we've been seeing in stocks today really echoes 2017, not 2018. Stocks outside the U.S. have caught up to the post election rise in U.S. stocks. And so, just like it did in 2017, we think that the U.S. dollar will decline to catch up to that move in relative stock indices.Ariana Salvatore: Finally, Andrew, we already discussed the U.S. dollar negative drivers from 2017. But what happened to these drivers the following year in 2018? And is that any indication for what might happen in 2026?Andrew Watrous: So 2018, as you mentioned, does offer a blueprint for how the U.S. dollar could go up. So, f]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NClwQVt0NH9uoAdqOwD0bYPp1j5dfJxc9Z5FlPkY0JoTue, 04 Mar 2025 22:19:09 +0000gtyOur U.S. Public Policy and Currency analysts, Ariana Salvatore and Andrew Watrous, discuss why the dollar fell at the beginning of the first Trump administration and whether it could happen again this year.  ----- Transcript ---- Ariana...----- Transcript ----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Andrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 FX Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll focus on the U.S. dollar and how it might fare in global markets during the first year of the new Trump administration.It's Tuesday, March 4th at 10am in New York.So, Andrew, a few weeks ago, James Lord came on to talk about the foreign exchange volatility. Since then, tariffs and trade policy have been in the news. Last night at midnight, 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada went into effect, in addition to 10 percent on China. So, let's set the scene for today's conversation. Is the dollar still dominant in global currency markets?Andrew Watrous: Yes, it is. The U.S. dollar is used in about $7 trillion worth of daily FX transactions. And the dollar's share of all currency transactions has been pretty stable over the last few decades. And something like 80 percent of all trade finance is invoiced in dollars, and that share has been pretty stable too.A big part of that dollar dominance is because of the depth and safety of the Treasury security market.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And the dollar fell in 2017, the first year of the Trump administration. Why did that happen?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so 2017 gets a lot of client attention because the Fed was hiking, there was a lot of uncertainty about would happen in NAFTA, and the U.S. passed a fiscally expansionary budget bill that year.So, people have asked us, ‘Why the U.S. dollar went down despite all those factors?’ And I think there are three reasons. One is that even though the possibility that the U.S. could leave NAFTA was all over the headlines that year, U.S. tariffs didn't actually go up. Another factor is that global growth turned out to be really strong in 2017, and that was helped in part by fiscal policy in China and Europe. And finally, there were some political risks in Europe that didn't end up materializing.So, investors took a sigh of relief about the possibility that I think had been priced in a bit that the Eurozone might break up. And then a lot of those factors went into reverse in 2018 and the U.S. dollar went up.Ariana Salvatore: So, applying that framework with those factors to today, is it possible that we see a repeat of 2017 in terms of the U.S. dollar decline?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, I think it's likely that the U.S. dollar continues to go lower for some of the same reasons as we saw in 2017. So, I think that compared to 2017, there's a lot more U.S. dollar positive risk premium around trade policy. So, the bar is higher for the U.S. dollar to go up just from trade headlines alone.And just like in 2017, European policy developments could be a tailwind to the euro. We've been highlighting the potential for German fiscal expansion as European defense policy comes into focus. And unlike in 2017, when the Fed was raising rates, now the Fed is probably going to cut more this year. So that's a headwind to the dollar that didn't exist back in 2017.So, on trade, Ariana. What developments do you expect? Do you think that Trump's new policies will make 2025 different in any way from 2017?Ariana Salvatore: So, taking a step back and looking at this from a very high level, a few things are different in spite of the fact that we're actually talking about a lot of similar policies. Tariffs and tax policy were a big focus in 2017 to 2019, and to be sure, this time around, they are too, but in a slightly different way.So, for example, on tax cuts, we're not talking about bringing rates lower on the individual and corporate side. We're talking about extending current policy. And on tariffs...]]>607alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1332fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-genai-turn-a-profit-in-2025--75650912----- Transcript -----
Joe Moore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Joe Moore, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Semiconductors.Keith Weiss: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software.Joe Moore: Today on the show, one of the biggest market debates in the tech sector has been around AI and the Return On Investment, or ROI. In fact, we think this will be the number one topic of conversation at Morgan Stanley's annual Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) conference in San Francisco.And that's precisely where we're bringing you this episode from.It's Monday, March 3rd, 7am in San Francisco.So, let's get right into it. ChatGPT was released November 2022. Since then, the biggest tech players have gained more than $9 trillion in combined market capitalization. They're up more than double the amount of the S&P 500 index. And there's a lot of investor expectation for a new technology cycle centered around AI. And that's what's driving a lot of this momentum.You know, that said, there's also a significant investor concern around this topic of ROI, especially given the unprecedented level of investment that we've seen and sparse data points still on the returns.So where are we now? Is 2025 going to be a year when the ROI and GenAI finally turns positive?Keith Weiss: If we take a step back and think about the staging of how innovation cycles tend to play out, I think it's a helpful context.And it starts with research. I would say the period up until When ChatGPT was released – up until that November 2022 – was a period of where the fundamental research was being done on the transformer models; utilizing, machine learning. And what fundamental research is, is trying to figure out if these fundamental capabilities are realistic. If we can do this in software, if you will.And with the release of ChatGPT, it was a very strong, uh, stamp of approval of ‘Yes, like these transformer models can work.’Then you start stage two. And I think that's basically November 22 through where are today of, where you have two tracks going on. One is development. So these large language models, they can do natural language processing well.They can contextually understand unstructured and semi structured data. They can generate content. They could create text; they could create images and videos.So, there's these fundamental capabilities. But you have to develop a product to get work done. How are we going to utilize those capabilities? So, we've been working on development of product over the past two years. And at the same time, we've been scaling out the infrastructure for that product development.And now, heading into 2025, I think we're ready to go into the next stage of the innovation cycle, which will be market uptake.And that's when revenue starts to flow to the software companies that are trying to automate business processes. We definitely think that monetization starts to ramp in 2025, which should prove out a better ROI or start to prove out the ROI of all this investment that we've been making.Joe Moore: Morgan Stanley Research projects that GenAI can potentially drive a $1.1 trillion dollar revenue opportunity in 2028, up from $45 billion in 2024. Can you break this down for our listeners?Keith Weiss: We recently put out a report where we tried to size kind of what the revenue generation capability is from GenerativeAI, because that's an important part of this ROI equation. You have the return on the top of where you could actually monetize this. On the bottom, obviously, investment. And we took a look at all the investment needed to serve this type of functionality.The [$]1.1 trillion, if you will, it breaks down into two big components. Um, One side of the equation is in my backyard, and that's the enterprise software side of the equation. It's about a third of that number. And what we see occurring is the automation of more and more of the work being done by information workers; for people in overall.And what we see is about 25 percent, of overall labor being impacted today. And we see that growing to over 45 percent over the next three years.So, what that's going to look like from a software perspective is a[n] opportunity ramping up to about, just about $400 billion of software opportunity by 2028. At that point, GenerativeAI will represent about 22 percent of overall software spending. At that point, the overall software market we expect to be about a $1.8 trillion market.The other side of the equation, the bigger side of the equation, is actually the consumer platforms. And that kind of makes sense if you think about the broader economy, it's basically one-third B2B, two-thirds B2C. The automation is relatively equivalent on both sides of the equation.Joe Moore: So, let's drill further into your outlook for software. What are the biggest catalysts you expect to see this year, and then over the coming three years?Keith Weiss: The key catalyst for this year is proving out the efficacy of these solutions, right?Proving out that they're going to drive productivity gains and yield real hard dollar ROI for the end customer. And I think where we'll see that is from labor savings.Once that occurs, and I think it's going to be over the next 12 to 18 months, then we go into the period of mainstream adoption. You need to start utilizing these technologies to drive the efficiencies within your businesses to be able to keep up with your competitors. So, that's the main thing that we're looking for in the near term.Over the next three years, what you're looking for is the breakthrough technologies. Where can we find opportunities not just to create efficiencies within existing processes, but to completely rewrite the business process.That's where you see new big companies emerge within the software opportunity – is the people that really fundamentally change the equation around some of these processes.So, Joe, turning it over to you, hardware remains a bottleneck for AI innovation. Why is that the case? And what are the biggest hurdles in the semiconductor space right now?Joe Moore: Well, this has proven to be an extremely computationally intensive application, and I think it started with training – where you started seeing tens of thousands of GPUs or XPUS clustered together to train these big models, these Large Language Models. And you started hearing comments two years ago around the development of ChatGPT that, you know, the scaling laws are tricky.You might need five times as much hardware to make a model that's 10 percent smarter. But the challenge of making a model that's 10 percent smarter, the table stakes of that are very significant. And so, you see, you know, those investments continuing to scale up. And that's been a big debate for the market.But we've heard from most of the big spenders in the market that we are continuing to scale up training. And then after that happened, we started seeing inference suddenly as a big user of advanced processors, GPUs, in a way that they hadn't before. And that was sort of simple conversational types of AI.Now as you start migrating into more of a reasoning AI, a multi pass approach, you're looking at a really dramatic scaling in the amount of hardware, that's required from both GPUs and XPUs.And at the same time the hardware companies are focused a lot on how do we deliver that – so that it doesn't become prohibitively expensive; which it is very expensive. But there's a lot of improvement. And that's where you're sort of seeing this tug of war in the stocks; that when you see something that's deflationary, uh, it becomes a big negative. But the reality is the hardware is designed to be deflationary because the workloads themselves  are inflationary.And so I think there's a lot of growth still ahead of us. A lot of investment, and a lot of rich debate in the market about this.Keith Weiss: Let's pull on that thread a little bit. You talked initially about the scaling of the GPU clusters to support training. Over the past year, we've gotten a little bit more pushback on the ideas or the efficacy of those scaling laws.They've come more under question. And at the same time, we've seen the availability of some lower cost, but still very high-performance models. Is this going to reshape the investments from the large semiconductor players in terms of how they're looking to address the market?Joe Moore: I think we have to assess that over time. Right now, there are very clear comments from everybody who's in charge of scaling large models that they intend to continue to scale.I think there is a benefit to doing so from the standpoint of creating a richer model, but is the ROI there? You know, and that's where I think, you know, your numbers do a very good job of justifying our model for our core companies – where we can say, okay, this is not a bubble. This is investment that's driven by these areas of economic benefit that our software and internet teams are seeing.And I think there is a bit of an arms race at the high end of the market where people just want to have the biggest cluster. And that's, we think that's about 30 percent of the revenue right now in hardware – is supporting those really big models. But we're also seeing, to your point, a very rich hardware configuration on the inference side post training model customization. Nvidia said on their on their earnings call recently that they see several orders of magnitude more compute required for those applications than for that pre-training. So, I think over time that's where the growth is going to come from.But you know, right now we're seeing growth really from all aspects of the market.Keith Weiss: Got it. So, a lot of really big opportunities out there utilizing these GPUs and AS]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Jy2qbOl5g5uPBnby8oUW8SJ5VyErOTju89HZCpXJyZYMon, 03 Mar 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Semiconductors and Software analysts Joe Moore and Keith Weiss dive into the biggest market debate around AI and why it’s likely to shape conversations at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Conference in San Francisco.  -----...----- Transcript -----
Joe Moore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Joe Moore, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Semiconductors.Keith Weiss: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software.Joe Moore: Today on the show, one of the biggest market debates in the tech sector has been around AI and the Return On Investment, or ROI. In fact, we think this will be the number one topic of conversation at Morgan Stanley's annual Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) conference in San Francisco.And that's precisely where we're bringing you this episode from.It's Monday, March 3rd, 7am in San Francisco.So, let's get right into it. ChatGPT was released November 2022. Since then, the biggest tech players have gained more than $9 trillion in combined market capitalization. They're up more than double the amount of the S&P 500 index. And there's a lot of investor expectation for a new technology cycle centered around AI. And that's what's driving a lot of this momentum.You know, that said, there's also a significant investor concern around this topic of ROI, especially given the unprecedented level of investment that we've seen and sparse data points still on the returns.So where are we now? Is 2025 going to be a year when the ROI and GenAI finally turns positive?Keith Weiss: If we take a step back and think about the staging of how innovation cycles tend to play out, I think it's a helpful context.And it starts with research. I would say the period up until When ChatGPT was released – up until that November 2022 – was a period of where the fundamental research was being done on the transformer models; utilizing, machine learning. And what fundamental research is, is trying to figure out if these fundamental capabilities are realistic. If we can do this in software, if you will.And with the release of ChatGPT, it was a very strong, uh, stamp of approval of ‘Yes, like these transformer models can work.’Then you start stage two. And I think that's basically November 22 through where are today of, where you have two tracks going on. One is development. So these large language models, they can do natural language processing well.They can contextually understand unstructured and semi structured data. They can generate content. They could create text; they could create images and videos.So, there's these fundamental capabilities. But you have to develop a product to get work done. How are we going to utilize those capabilities? So, we've been working on development of product over the past two years. And at the same time, we've been scaling out the infrastructure for that product development.And now, heading into 2025, I think we're ready to go into the next stage of the innovation cycle, which will be market uptake.And that's when revenue starts to flow to the software companies that are trying to automate business processes. We definitely think that monetization starts to ramp in 2025, which should prove out a better ROI or start to prove out the ROI of all this investment that we've been making.Joe Moore: Morgan Stanley Research projects that GenAI can potentially drive a $1.1 trillion dollar revenue opportunity in 2028, up from $45 billion in 2024. Can you break this down for our listeners?Keith Weiss: We recently put out a report where we tried to size kind of what the revenue generation capability is from GenerativeAI, because that's an important part of this ROI equation. You have the return on the top of where you could actually monetize this. On the bottom, obviously, investment. And we took a look at all the investment needed to serve this type of functionality.The [$]1.1 trillion, if you will, it breaks down into two big components. Um, One side of the equation is in my backyard, and...]]>770alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1331fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/searching-for-signals-in-u-s-policy-noise--75650673----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be discussing recent U.S. public policy headline noise and the signal within that for investors.It’s Friday, February 28th, at 12:30 pm in New York.For investors paying attention to events in Washington, D.C., the past few weeks have been disorienting. Tariff announcements have continued, but with shifting details on timing and magnitude. And Congress passed a bill to enable substantial spending cuts, but subsequent media reports made clear the votes to actually enact these cuts later this year may not be there.  Our recent client conversations have revealed that investors’ confusion has reached new heights, and there’s little consensus, or conviction, about whether U.S. policy choices are set to help or hurt the economy and markets. Net-net, it's a lot of policy noise, and very little signal. That said, here’s what we think investors can anchor to. For all the headlines on potential new tariffs for China, Mexico, Canada and on products like copper, actual tariff actions have followed a graduated pace, in line with our base case of ‘fast announcement, slow implementation’ – where tariffs on China start and continue to climb, but tariffs on the rest of world move slowly and are more subject to negotiation. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada appear, in our view, likely to be pushed out once again given progress in negotiation on harmonizing trade policy and progress in reduced border crossings.  On the other hand, tariffs on China, already raised an incremental 10 percent a few weeks back, seem likely to step up again as there are much bigger disagreements that the two nations don’t appear close to resolving. But even if tariffs move according to the pace that we expect, that doesn’t mean they come without cost. The U.S.’s goal is to bring more investment onshore, with an aim toward increasing goods production, thereby reducing trade deficits, securing important supply chains, and growing industrial jobs. The theory is that higher tariff barriers might incentivize more direct investment into the U.S., as companies build supply chains in the U.S. to avoid the higher tariff costs.  But even if that theory plays out, there’s a cost to that transition. In a recent blue paper, my colleague Rajeev Sibal led a team through an analysis demonstrating that the next phase of supply chain realignment would be considerably costlier to companies, given the complexity of production that must be shifted. So either way, companies take on new costs – tariffs, CapEx, or both. That challenges corporate margins, and economic growth, at least for a time. And there’s plenty of execution risk along the way. So what’s an investor to do? Our cross asset and interest rate strategy teams think it's time to lean more heavily into bonds. Equity markets may do just fine here, with investors looking through these near term costs, but the risk of something going wrong with, for example, tariffs escalation or broader geopolitical conflict, may keep a ceiling on investors’ risk appetite. Conversely, a growth slowdown presents a clearer case for owning bonds, particularly since it wasn’t that long ago that better economic data helped the Treasury market price out most of the expected monetary policy cuts for 2025. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Mckut_YuML83JjL99QkbaEWjrPAA9c9mCbOZxRXcDNEFri, 28 Feb 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy explains why conflicting news on tariffs and government spending may point to a case for bonds. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be discussing recent U.S. public policy headline noise and the signal within that for investors.It’s Friday, February 28th, at 12:30 pm in New York.For investors paying attention to events in Washington, D.C., the past few weeks have been disorienting. Tariff announcements have continued, but with shifting details on timing and magnitude. And Congress passed a bill to enable substantial spending cuts, but subsequent media reports made clear the votes to actually enact these cuts later this year may not be there.  Our recent client conversations have revealed that investors’ confusion has reached new heights, and there’s little consensus, or conviction, about whether U.S. policy choices are set to help or hurt the economy and markets. Net-net, it's a lot of policy noise, and very little signal. That said, here’s what we think investors can anchor to. For all the headlines on potential new tariffs for China, Mexico, Canada and on products like copper, actual tariff actions have followed a graduated pace, in line with our base case of ‘fast announcement, slow implementation’ – where tariffs on China start and continue to climb, but tariffs on the rest of world move slowly and are more subject to negotiation. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada appear, in our view, likely to be pushed out once again given progress in negotiation on harmonizing trade policy and progress in reduced border crossings.  On the other hand, tariffs on China, already raised an incremental 10 percent a few weeks back, seem likely to step up again as there are much bigger disagreements that the two nations don’t appear close to resolving. But even if tariffs move according to the pace that we expect, that doesn’t mean they come without cost. The U.S.’s goal is to bring more investment onshore, with an aim toward increasing goods production, thereby reducing trade deficits, securing important supply chains, and growing industrial jobs. The theory is that higher tariff barriers might incentivize more direct investment into the U.S., as companies build supply chains in the U.S. to avoid the higher tariff costs.  But even if that theory plays out, there’s a cost to that transition. In a recent blue paper, my colleague Rajeev Sibal led a team through an analysis demonstrating that the next phase of supply chain realignment would be considerably costlier to companies, given the complexity of production that must be shifted. So either way, companies take on new costs – tariffs, CapEx, or both. That challenges corporate margins, and economic growth, at least for a time. And there’s plenty of execution risk along the way. So what’s an investor to do? Our cross asset and interest rate strategy teams think it's time to lean more heavily into bonds. Equity markets may do just fine here, with investors looking through these near term costs, but the risk of something going wrong with, for example, tariffs escalation or broader geopolitical conflict, may keep a ceiling on investors’ risk appetite. Conversely, a growth slowdown presents a clearer case for owning bonds, particularly since it wasn’t that long ago that better economic data helped the Treasury market price out most of the expected monetary policy cuts for 2025. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>225alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1330fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/shaky-u-s-consumer-confidence-may-be-a-leading-signal--75650865----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the consumer side of the confidence debate. It’s Thursday, February 27th at 2pm in London. Two weeks ago on this program I discussed signs that uncertainty in U.S. government policy might be hitting corporate confidence, as evidenced by an unusually slow start to the year for dealmaking. That development is a mixed bag. Less confidence and more conservatism in companies holds back investment and reduces the odds of the type of animal spirits that can drive large gains. But it can be a good thing for lenders, who generally prefer companies to be more cautious and more risk-averse. But this question of confidence is also relevant for consumers. And today, I want to discuss what some of the early surveys suggest and how it can impact our view.To start with something that may sound obvious but is nonetheless important, Confidence is an extremely powerful psychological force in the economy and financial markets. If you feel good enough about the future, you’ll buy a stock or a car with little regard to the price or how the economy might feel at the moment. And if you’re worried, you won’t buy those same things, even if your current conditions are still ok, or if the prices are even cheaper. Confidence, you could say, can trump almost everything else. And so this might help explain the market’s intense focus on two key surveys over the last week that suggested that US consumer confidence has been deteriorating sharply.First, a monthly survey by the University of Michigan showed a drop in consumer confidence and a rise in expected inflation. And then a few days later, on Tuesday, a similar survey from the Conference Board showed a similar pattern, with consumers significantly more worried about the future, even if they felt the current conditions hadn't much changed. While different factors could be at play, there is at least circumstantial evidence that the flurry of recent U.S. policy actions may be playing a role. This drop in confidence, for example, was new, and has only really showed up in the last month or two. And the University of Michigan survey actually asks its respondents how news of Government Economic policy is impacting their level of confidence. And that response, over the last month, showed a precipitous decline. These confidence surveys are often called ‘soft’ data, as opposed to the hard economic numbers like the actual sales of cars or heavy equipment. But the reason they matter, and the reason investors listened to them this week, is that they potentially do something that other data cannot. One of the biggest challenges that investors face when looking at economic data is that financial markets often anticipate, and move ahead of turns in the underlying hard economic numbers. And so if expectations are predictive of the future, they may provide that important, more leading signal. One weak set of consumer confidence isn’t enough to change the overall picture, but it certainly has our attention. Our U.S. economists generally agree with these respondents in expecting somewhat slower growth and stickier inflation over the next 18 months; and Morgan Stanley continues to forecast lower bond yields across the U.S. and Europe on the expectation that uncertainties around growth will persist. For credit investors, less confidence remains a double-edged sword, and credit markets have been somewhat more stable than other assets. But we would view further deterioration in confidence as a negative – given the implications for growth, even if it meant a somewhat easier policy path. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9sYbBy4ZHB6fG-OLT2wesLON3YHmW2VER-r7LmHE0RwThu, 27 Feb 2025 22:17:16 +0000gtyTwo recent surveys indicate that U.S. consumer confidence has shown a notable decline amid talks about inflation and potential tariff. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses the market implications. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the consumer side of the confidence debate. It’s Thursday, February 27th at 2pm in London. Two weeks ago on this program I discussed signs that uncertainty in U.S. government policy might be hitting corporate confidence, as evidenced by an unusually slow start to the year for dealmaking. That development is a mixed bag. Less confidence and more conservatism in companies holds back investment and reduces the odds of the type of animal spirits that can drive large gains. But it can be a good thing for lenders, who generally prefer companies to be more cautious and more risk-averse. But this question of confidence is also relevant for consumers. And today, I want to discuss what some of the early surveys suggest and how it can impact our view.To start with something that may sound obvious but is nonetheless important, Confidence is an extremely powerful psychological force in the economy and financial markets. If you feel good enough about the future, you’ll buy a stock or a car with little regard to the price or how the economy might feel at the moment. And if you’re worried, you won’t buy those same things, even if your current conditions are still ok, or if the prices are even cheaper. Confidence, you could say, can trump almost everything else. And so this might help explain the market’s intense focus on two key surveys over the last week that suggested that US consumer confidence has been deteriorating sharply.First, a monthly survey by the University of Michigan showed a drop in consumer confidence and a rise in expected inflation. And then a few days later, on Tuesday, a similar survey from the Conference Board showed a similar pattern, with consumers significantly more worried about the future, even if they felt the current conditions hadn't much changed. While different factors could be at play, there is at least circumstantial evidence that the flurry of recent U.S. policy actions may be playing a role. This drop in confidence, for example, was new, and has only really showed up in the last month or two. And the University of Michigan survey actually asks its respondents how news of Government Economic policy is impacting their level of confidence. And that response, over the last month, showed a precipitous decline. These confidence surveys are often called ‘soft’ data, as opposed to the hard economic numbers like the actual sales of cars or heavy equipment. But the reason they matter, and the reason investors listened to them this week, is that they potentially do something that other data cannot. One of the biggest challenges that investors face when looking at economic data is that financial markets often anticipate, and move ahead of turns in the underlying hard economic numbers. And so if expectations are predictive of the future, they may provide that important, more leading signal. One weak set of consumer confidence isn’t enough to change the overall picture, but it certainly has our attention. Our U.S. economists generally agree with these respondents in expecting somewhat slower growth and stickier inflation over the next 18 months; and Morgan Stanley continues to forecast lower bond yields across the U.S. and Europe on the expectation that uncertainties around growth will persist. For credit investors, less confidence remains a double-edged sword, and credit markets have been somewhat more stable than other assets. But we would view further deterioration in confidence as a negative – given the implications for growth, even if it meant a somewhat easier policy path. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a...]]>242alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1329fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-impact-of-shifting-immigration-policy--75650937----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist. Today I’ll talk about the way restrictive immigration policies could potentially slow U.S. economic growth, push up inflation, and impact labor markets.It’s Wednesday, February 26th, at 2pm in New York.Lately, investors have been focused on the twists and turns of Trump’s tariffs. Several of my colleagues have discussed the issue of tariffs from various angles on this show. But we think the new administration’s immigration policy deserves more attention. Immigration is more than just the entry of foreign citizens into the U.S. for residency. It's a complex process with significant implications for our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2024, 19 per cent of the US workforce was made up of immigrants – which is over 32 million people. This is a significant increase from 1994, when only about 10 per cent of the workforce was foreign-born. Immigrants tend to be employed in sectors like agriculture, construction and manufacturing, but also in face-to-face services sectors like retail, restaurants, hotels and healthcare. Immigration surged to about 3 million per year after the pandemic. In fact, immigration rates in 2022 to 2024 were more than twice the historical run rate. This surge helped the US economy to "soft land" following a period of high inflation. It boosted both the supply side and the demand side of the U.S. economy. Labor force growth outpaced employment, which helped to moderate wage and price pressures. However, Trump’s policymakers are changing the rules rapidly and reversing the immigration narrative. Already by the second half of 2024, border flows were slowing significantly based on the lagged effects of steps previously taken by the Biden administration. Under the new administration, news reports suggest immigration has slowed to near zero in recent weeks.In our 2025 year-ahead outlook, we noted that restrictive immigration policies were a key factor in our prediction for slower growth and firmer inflation. We estimate that immigration will slow from 2.7 million last year to about 1 million this year and 500,000 next year. The recent data suggests immigration may slow every more forcefully than we expect.If immigration slows broadly in line as we predict, the result will be that population growth in 2025 will be about 4/10ths of 1 per cent. That’s less than half of what the U.S. economy saw in 2024. The impact of slower immigration on labor force measures should be visible over time. For the moment though, there is enough noise in monthly payrolls and the unemployment rate to mask some of the labor force effects. But over three or six months, the impact of slower immigration should become clearer.In terms of economic growth, if immigration falls back to 1 million this year and 500,000 next year, this could reduce the rate of GDP growth by about a-half a percentage point this year and maybe even more next year, and put upward pressure on inflation, particularly in services, and to some extent overall wages. Slower immigration could pull short-run potential GDP growth down from the 2.5-3.0 per cent that we saw in recent years to 2 per cent this year, and 1-1.5 per cent next year. On the other hand, the unemployment rate might fall modestly as immigration controls reduce the number of households with high participation rates and low spending capacity. This could lead to tighter labor markets, moderately faster wage growth, and upward pressure on inflation. So we think we are looking at a two-speed labor market. Slower employment growth will feel soft and sluggish. But a low unemployment rate suggests the labour market itself is still tight. Given all of this, we think more restrictive immigration policies could lead to tighter monetary policy and keep the Fed on its currently restrictive stance for longer. All of this supports our expectation of just one cut this year and further rate cuts only next year after growth slows.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TwCz5sMfFRIKr4n2hGyB3dwc5LoBIWtGfGVBqpPZSlMWed, 26 Feb 2025 23:09:17 +0000gtyOur Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discusses the possible economic implications of restrictive immigration policies in the U.S., highlighting their potential effect on growth, inflation and labor markets. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist. Today I’ll talk about the way restrictive immigration policies could potentially slow U.S. economic growth, push up inflation, and impact labor markets.It’s Wednesday, February 26th, at 2pm in New York.Lately, investors have been focused on the twists and turns of Trump’s tariffs. Several of my colleagues have discussed the issue of tariffs from various angles on this show. But we think the new administration’s immigration policy deserves more attention. Immigration is more than just the entry of foreign citizens into the U.S. for residency. It's a complex process with significant implications for our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2024, 19 per cent of the US workforce was made up of immigrants – which is over 32 million people. This is a significant increase from 1994, when only about 10 per cent of the workforce was foreign-born. Immigrants tend to be employed in sectors like agriculture, construction and manufacturing, but also in face-to-face services sectors like retail, restaurants, hotels and healthcare. Immigration surged to about 3 million per year after the pandemic. In fact, immigration rates in 2022 to 2024 were more than twice the historical run rate. This surge helped the US economy to "soft land" following a period of high inflation. It boosted both the supply side and the demand side of the U.S. economy. Labor force growth outpaced employment, which helped to moderate wage and price pressures. However, Trump’s policymakers are changing the rules rapidly and reversing the immigration narrative. Already by the second half of 2024, border flows were slowing significantly based on the lagged effects of steps previously taken by the Biden administration. Under the new administration, news reports suggest immigration has slowed to near zero in recent weeks.In our 2025 year-ahead outlook, we noted that restrictive immigration policies were a key factor in our prediction for slower growth and firmer inflation. We estimate that immigration will slow from 2.7 million last year to about 1 million this year and 500,000 next year. The recent data suggests immigration may slow every more forcefully than we expect.If immigration slows broadly in line as we predict, the result will be that population growth in 2025 will be about 4/10ths of 1 per cent. That’s less than half of what the U.S. economy saw in 2024. The impact of slower immigration on labor force measures should be visible over time. For the moment though, there is enough noise in monthly payrolls and the unemployment rate to mask some of the labor force effects. But over three or six months, the impact of slower immigration should become clearer.In terms of economic growth, if immigration falls back to 1 million this year and 500,000 next year, this could reduce the rate of GDP growth by about a-half a percentage point this year and maybe even more next year, and put upward pressure on inflation, particularly in services, and to some extent overall wages. Slower immigration could pull short-run potential GDP growth down from the 2.5-3.0 per cent that we saw in recent years to 2 per cent this year, and 1-1.5 per cent next year. On the other hand, the unemployment rate might fall modestly as immigration controls reduce the number of households with high participation rates and low spending capacity. This could lead to tighter labor markets, moderately faster wage growth, and upward pressure on inflation. So we think we are looking at a two-speed labor market. Slower employment growth will feel soft and sluggish. But a low unemployment rate suggests the labour market itself is still tight. Given all of...]]>286alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1328fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cruises-set-sail-for-private-islands--75650896----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jamie Rollo, Morgan Stanley’s Europe Leisure & Travel Analyst. And today I’ll talk about an intriguing trend – the cruise lines’ accelerating expansion into private islands. It’s Tuesday, February the 25th, at 2 PM in London.Now the lure of a private island cruise is simple. You get almost exclusive access to a tropical retreat. You can lounge or snorkel on a pristine beach, you can enjoy a meal in a private cabana, you can even book a massage or a yoga class. The only other people around are fellow passengers on your vacation. So this isn't just the stuff of popular TV shows. It’s potentially the future of cruising. Cruise lines have actually been offering private islands for more than a decade. So it’s hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, in 2019, we estimate the majority of Caribbean cruise passengers visited a private island. As it happens, the Caribbean is the world's largest cruise destination. About saw 36 million cruise calls were there last year; that’s about 40 percent of global passenger capacity. And that’s surpassing the second largest region, the Mediterranean, at about 17 percent. Of course, the Caribbean’s proximity to North America and its year-round tropical climate make it a prime location for cruising. But despite these advantages, historically the Caribbean’s been seen as more of a lower-yielding market compared to regions like Europe or Alaska, which arguably have even more amazing scenery or historic sites. Interestingly, recent trends suggest that reputation might be changing. And new private islands over the last few years have reinvigorated the Caribbean cruise market. So what’s a private destinations or islands offer? For your guests, they get a seamless integration with the cruise experience. There’s no transfer required to a destination. There’s no external visitors coming into the resort. No-hassle, no-traffic, and very low crime. And for the cruise lines, well, they get greater control over the customer experience. They create superior customer satisfaction, which generates more repeat business. In addition, they can get that on-island spend that the guest would have spent with external vendors. And they can charge premium rates for exclusive areas. On top of that, many of these islands are quote close to the U.S. mainland, so you’re saving on fuel because the ship doesn’t have to steam so far; and on port fees. And then finally, proximity to the U.S. also can increase the short cruise duration market, which widens the addressable market for new-to-cruise passengers. And also can limit anti-tourism or anti-cruise sentiment because it moves guests out of congested areas and prevents unwanted visitors. All in all, the private island model offers a very high return on invested capital and may well be the future of the cruise line industry. In fact, if we add up the expansion plans of the biggest listed cruise lines, we think their private island guest count will double over the next few years. And that could add over 10 per cent to top line sales and 30 per cent earnings-per-share for the fastest growing cruise lines. So very considerable financials, but also it’s a private paradise within reach … and an idea we can all set sail to. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ILeS9uHD0OezretJCYUAyDLIdQDYZiFjkzfztIJZDc0Tue, 25 Feb 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyA shift to private destinations for cruise lines could affect both operators and guests by 2030. Our Europe Leisure & Travel analyst Jamie Rollo explains. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jamie Rollo, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jamie Rollo, Morgan Stanley’s Europe Leisure & Travel Analyst. And today I’ll talk about an intriguing trend – the cruise lines’ accelerating expansion into private islands. It’s Tuesday, February the 25th, at 2 PM in London.Now the lure of a private island cruise is simple. You get almost exclusive access to a tropical retreat. You can lounge or snorkel on a pristine beach, you can enjoy a meal in a private cabana, you can even book a massage or a yoga class. The only other people around are fellow passengers on your vacation. So this isn't just the stuff of popular TV shows. It’s potentially the future of cruising. Cruise lines have actually been offering private islands for more than a decade. So it’s hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, in 2019, we estimate the majority of Caribbean cruise passengers visited a private island. As it happens, the Caribbean is the world's largest cruise destination. About saw 36 million cruise calls were there last year; that’s about 40 percent of global passenger capacity. And that’s surpassing the second largest region, the Mediterranean, at about 17 percent. Of course, the Caribbean’s proximity to North America and its year-round tropical climate make it a prime location for cruising. But despite these advantages, historically the Caribbean’s been seen as more of a lower-yielding market compared to regions like Europe or Alaska, which arguably have even more amazing scenery or historic sites. Interestingly, recent trends suggest that reputation might be changing. And new private islands over the last few years have reinvigorated the Caribbean cruise market. So what’s a private destinations or islands offer? For your guests, they get a seamless integration with the cruise experience. There’s no transfer required to a destination. There’s no external visitors coming into the resort. No-hassle, no-traffic, and very low crime. And for the cruise lines, well, they get greater control over the customer experience. They create superior customer satisfaction, which generates more repeat business. In addition, they can get that on-island spend that the guest would have spent with external vendors. And they can charge premium rates for exclusive areas. On top of that, many of these islands are quote close to the U.S. mainland, so you’re saving on fuel because the ship doesn’t have to steam so far; and on port fees. And then finally, proximity to the U.S. also can increase the short cruise duration market, which widens the addressable market for new-to-cruise passengers. And also can limit anti-tourism or anti-cruise sentiment because it moves guests out of congested areas and prevents unwanted visitors. All in all, the private island model offers a very high return on invested capital and may well be the future of the cruise line industry. In fact, if we add up the expansion plans of the biggest listed cruise lines, we think their private island guest count will double over the next few years. And that could add over 10 per cent to top line sales and 30 per cent earnings-per-share for the fastest growing cruise lines. So very considerable financials, but also it’s a private paradise within reach … and an idea we can all set sail to. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>259alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1327fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-behind-the-recent-stock-tumble--75650874----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing new headwinds for growth and what that means for equities. It's Monday, Feb 24th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Until this past Friday’s sharp sell off in stocks, the correlation between bond yields and stocks had been in negative territory since December. This inverse correlation strengthened further into year-end as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield definitively breached 4.5 per cent on the upside for the first time since April of 2024. In November, we had identified this as an important yield threshold for stock valuations. This view was based on prior rate sensitivity equities showed in April of 2024 and the fall of 2023 as the 10-year yield pushed above this same level. In our view, the equity market has been signaling that yields above this point have a higher likelihood of weighing on growth. Supporting our view, interest rate sensitive companies like homebuilders have underperformed materially. This is why we have consistently recommended the quality factor and industries that are less vulnerable to these headwinds.In our year ahead outlook, we suggested the first half of 2025 would be choppier for stocks than what we experienced last fall. We cited several reasons including the upside in yields and a stronger U.S. dollar. Since rates broke above 4.5 per cent in mid-December, the S&P 500 has made no progress. Specifically, the 6,100 resistance level that we identified in the fall has proven to be formidable for the time being. In addition to higher rates, softer growth prospects alongside a less dovish Fed are also holding back many stocks. As we have also discussed, falling rates won’t help if it’s accompanied by falling growth expectations as Friday’s sharp selloff in the face of lower rates illustrated. Beyond rates and a stronger US dollar, there are several other reasons why growth expectations are coming down. First, the immediate policy changes from the new administration, led by immigration enforcement and tariffs, are likely to weigh on growth while providing little relief on inflation in the short term. Second, the Dept of Govt Efficiency, or DOGE, is off to an aggressive start and this is another headwind to growth, initially.Third, there appears to have been a modest pull-forward of goods demand at the end of last year ahead of the tariffs, and that impulse may now be fading. Fourth, consumers are still feeling the affordability pinch of higher rates and elevated price levels which weighed on last month's retail sales data. Finally, difficult comparisons, broader awareness of Deep Seek, and the debate around AI [CapEx] deceleration are weighing on the earnings revisions of some of the largest companies in the major indices.All of these items are causing some investors to consider cheaper foreign stocks for the first time in quite a while – with China and Europe doing the best. In the case of China, it’s mostly related to the news around DeepSeek and perhaps stimulus for the consumer finally arriving this year. The European rally is predicated on hopes for peace in Ukraine and the German election results that may lead to the loosening of fiscal constraints. Of the two, China appears to have more legs to the story, in my opinion. Our Equity Strategy in the U.S. remains the same. We see limited upside at the index level in the first half of the year but plenty of opportunity at the stock, sector and factor levels. We continue to favor Financials, Software over Semiconductors, Media/Entertainment and Consumer Services over Goods. We also maintain an overriding penchant for quality across all size cohorts.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XP1X9jGrqu_ewXx2ETkhfqQnFYiQffTDI_RmSLlWnbAMon, 24 Feb 2025 21:32:59 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the challenges to growth for U.S. stocks and why some investors are looking to China and Europe. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing new headwinds for growth and what that means for equities. It's Monday, Feb 24th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Until this past Friday’s sharp sell off in stocks, the correlation between bond yields and stocks had been in negative territory since December. This inverse correlation strengthened further into year-end as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield definitively breached 4.5 per cent on the upside for the first time since April of 2024. In November, we had identified this as an important yield threshold for stock valuations. This view was based on prior rate sensitivity equities showed in April of 2024 and the fall of 2023 as the 10-year yield pushed above this same level. In our view, the equity market has been signaling that yields above this point have a higher likelihood of weighing on growth. Supporting our view, interest rate sensitive companies like homebuilders have underperformed materially. This is why we have consistently recommended the quality factor and industries that are less vulnerable to these headwinds.In our year ahead outlook, we suggested the first half of 2025 would be choppier for stocks than what we experienced last fall. We cited several reasons including the upside in yields and a stronger U.S. dollar. Since rates broke above 4.5 per cent in mid-December, the S&P 500 has made no progress. Specifically, the 6,100 resistance level that we identified in the fall has proven to be formidable for the time being. In addition to higher rates, softer growth prospects alongside a less dovish Fed are also holding back many stocks. As we have also discussed, falling rates won’t help if it’s accompanied by falling growth expectations as Friday’s sharp selloff in the face of lower rates illustrated. Beyond rates and a stronger US dollar, there are several other reasons why growth expectations are coming down. First, the immediate policy changes from the new administration, led by immigration enforcement and tariffs, are likely to weigh on growth while providing little relief on inflation in the short term. Second, the Dept of Govt Efficiency, or DOGE, is off to an aggressive start and this is another headwind to growth, initially.Third, there appears to have been a modest pull-forward of goods demand at the end of last year ahead of the tariffs, and that impulse may now be fading. Fourth, consumers are still feeling the affordability pinch of higher rates and elevated price levels which weighed on last month's retail sales data. Finally, difficult comparisons, broader awareness of Deep Seek, and the debate around AI [CapEx] deceleration are weighing on the earnings revisions of some of the largest companies in the major indices.All of these items are causing some investors to consider cheaper foreign stocks for the first time in quite a while – with China and Europe doing the best. In the case of China, it’s mostly related to the news around DeepSeek and perhaps stimulus for the consumer finally arriving this year. The European rally is predicated on hopes for peace in Ukraine and the German election results that may lead to the loosening of fiscal constraints. Of the two, China appears to have more legs to the story, in my opinion. Our Equity Strategy in the U.S. remains the same. We see limited upside at the index level in the first half of the year but plenty of opportunity at the stock, sector and factor levels. We continue to favor Financials, Software over Semiconductors, Media/Entertainment and Consumer Services over Goods. We also maintain an overriding penchant for quality across all size cohorts.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave...]]>256alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1326fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-a-potential-ukraine-peace-deal-could-impact-airlines--75650919----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Today’s topic is how a potential peace deal in Ukraine could affect global airlines. It’s Friday, February 21st, at 2pm in Hong Kong. The situation remains fluid, but we believe a potential peace deal in Ukraine could have broad implications for the global airline industry. From the reopening of Russian airspace to potential changes in fuel prices and flight routes, there are many variables at play. Russian airspace is currently off-limits due to the conflict, but a peace agreement could change that. The reopening of Russian airspace would be a significant catalyst for global airlines, reducing travel times and fuel consumption on routes between Europe, North America, and Asia. Fuel prices account for 20-40 per cent of airlines' costs, so any changes can have a significant impact on their bottom line. We believe a peace deal could lead to a moderate fall in fuel prices, benefiting all airlines, but particularly those with high-cost exposure and low margins. There could also be specific regional implications. The European air travel market could benefit significantly from an end to the Ukraine conflict. The reopening of Russian airspace would improve European airlines’ competitiveness on Asian routes, while a fall in fuel prices would reduce their operating costs. There would also be lower congestion in the intra-European market. Asian airlines, particularly Chinese ones, could experience a mixed impact. On the one hand, they could see an increase in wide-body utilization and passenger numbers if more direct flights to the U.S. are introduced. On the other hand, losing their advantage over European airlines of flying through Russian airspace would be negative. But, at the same time, Chinese airlines should remain competitive on pricing given meaningfully lower labor costs. U.S. airlines could also benefit in two significant ways. They could see a boost in revenues from adding back profitable routes such as U.S. to India or U.S. to South Korea that may have been suspended. Being able to fly directly over Russia would mean shorter, more direct flight paths resulting in less fuel burn and lower costs. U.S. airlines could also see a cost decrease from a moderate fall in jet fuel prices. Finally, Latin American carriers could also benefit from a peace deal. If global carriers reallocate capacity to China, it could tighten the market even further, creating an attractive capacity environment for the LatAm region. We’ll continue to bring you relevant updates on this evolving situation. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6zr-1B1uzGKco7GtX8E1vy3iVgB3z-LGkvBN9-4uD5kFri, 21 Feb 2025 22:45:20 +0000gtyOur Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan explores how a potential peace deal in Ukraine could reshape the global airline industry. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Today’s topic is how a potential peace deal in Ukraine could affect global airlines. It’s Friday, February 21st, at 2pm in Hong Kong. The situation remains fluid, but we believe a potential peace deal in Ukraine could have broad implications for the global airline industry. From the reopening of Russian airspace to potential changes in fuel prices and flight routes, there are many variables at play. Russian airspace is currently off-limits due to the conflict, but a peace agreement could change that. The reopening of Russian airspace would be a significant catalyst for global airlines, reducing travel times and fuel consumption on routes between Europe, North America, and Asia. Fuel prices account for 20-40 per cent of airlines' costs, so any changes can have a significant impact on their bottom line. We believe a peace deal could lead to a moderate fall in fuel prices, benefiting all airlines, but particularly those with high-cost exposure and low margins. There could also be specific regional implications. The European air travel market could benefit significantly from an end to the Ukraine conflict. The reopening of Russian airspace would improve European airlines’ competitiveness on Asian routes, while a fall in fuel prices would reduce their operating costs. There would also be lower congestion in the intra-European market. Asian airlines, particularly Chinese ones, could experience a mixed impact. On the one hand, they could see an increase in wide-body utilization and passenger numbers if more direct flights to the U.S. are introduced. On the other hand, losing their advantage over European airlines of flying through Russian airspace would be negative. But, at the same time, Chinese airlines should remain competitive on pricing given meaningfully lower labor costs. U.S. airlines could also benefit in two significant ways. They could see a boost in revenues from adding back profitable routes such as U.S. to India or U.S. to South Korea that may have been suspended. Being able to fly directly over Russia would mean shorter, more direct flight paths resulting in less fuel burn and lower costs. U.S. airlines could also see a cost decrease from a moderate fall in jet fuel prices. Finally, Latin American carriers could also benefit from a peace deal. If global carriers reallocate capacity to China, it could tighten the market even further, creating an attractive capacity environment for the LatAm region. We’ll continue to bring you relevant updates on this evolving situation. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>222alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1325fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-downside-risks-of-reciprocal-tariffs--75650838----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'm going to talk about downside risks to the U.S. economy, especially from tariffs.It's Thursday, February 20th at 10am in New York.Once again, tariffs are dominating headlines. The prospect of reciprocal tariffs is yet one more risk to our baseline forecast for the year. We have consistently said that the inflationary risk of tariffs gets its due attention in markets but the adverse growth implications that's an underappreciated risk.But we, like many other forecasters, were surprised to the upside in 2023 and 2024. So maybe we should ask, are there some upside risks that we're missing?The obvious upside risk to growth is a gain in productivity, and frequent readers of Morgan Stanley Research will know that we are bullish on AI. Indeed, the level of productivity is higher now than it was pre-COVID, and there is some tentative estimate that could point to faster growth for productivity as well.Of course, a cyclically tight labor market probably contributes and there could be some measurement error. But gains from AI do appear to be happening faster than in prior tech cycles. So, we can't rule very much out. In our year ahead outlook, we penciled in about a-tenth percentage point of extra productivity growth this year from AI. And there is also a bit of a boost to GDP from AI CapEx spending.Other upside risks, though, they're less clear. We don't have any boost in our GDP forecast from deregulation. And that view, I will say, is contrary to a lot of views in the market. Deregulation will likely boost profits for some sectors but probably will do very little to boost overall growth. Put differently, it helps the bottom line far more than it helps the top line. A notable exception here is probably the energy sector, especially natural gas.Our baseline view on tariffs has been that tariffs on China will ramp up substantially over the year, while other tariffs will either not happen or be fleeting, being part of, say, broader negotiations. The news flow so far this year can't reject that baseline, but recently the discussion of broad reciprocal tariffs means that the risk is clearly rising.But even in our baseline, we think the growth effects are underestimated. Somewhere in the neighborhood of two-thirds of imports from China are capital goods or inputs into U.S. manufacturing. The tariffs imposed before on China led to a sharp deterioration in industrial production. That slump went through the second half of 2018 and into and all the way through 2019 as a drag on the broader economy. Just as important, there was not a subsequent resurgence in industrial output.Part of the undergraduate textbook argument for tariffs is to have more produced at home. That channel works in a two-economy model. But it doesn't work in the real world.Now, the prospect of reciprocal tariffs broadens this downside risk. Free trade has divided production functions around the world, but it's also driven large trade imbalances, and it is precisely these imbalances that are at the center of the new administration's focus on tariffs. China, Canada, Mexico – they do stand out because of their imbalances in terms of trade with the U.S., but the underlying driving force is quite varied. More importantly, those imbalances were built over decades, so undoing them quickly is going to be disruptive, at least in the short run.The prospect of reciprocity globally forces us as well to widen the lens. The risks aren't just for the U.S., but around the world. For Latin America and Asia in particular, key economies have higher tariff supply to U.S. goods than vice versa.So, we can't ignore the potential global effects of a reciprocal tariff.Ultimately, though, we are retaining our baseline view that only tariffs on China will prove to be durable and that the delayed implementation we've seen so far is consistent with that view. Nevertheless, the broad risks are clear.Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nN6rZGEg__VurC8pSi-FRAoexKJz0K5r5kDSqKgB3XcThu, 20 Feb 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter explains the potential domino effect that President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs could have on the U.S. and global economies. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'm going to talk about downside risks to the U.S. economy, especially from tariffs.It's Thursday, February 20th at 10am in New York.Once again, tariffs are dominating headlines. The prospect of reciprocal tariffs is yet one more risk to our baseline forecast for the year. We have consistently said that the inflationary risk of tariffs gets its due attention in markets but the adverse growth implications that's an underappreciated risk.But we, like many other forecasters, were surprised to the upside in 2023 and 2024. So maybe we should ask, are there some upside risks that we're missing?The obvious upside risk to growth is a gain in productivity, and frequent readers of Morgan Stanley Research will know that we are bullish on AI. Indeed, the level of productivity is higher now than it was pre-COVID, and there is some tentative estimate that could point to faster growth for productivity as well.Of course, a cyclically tight labor market probably contributes and there could be some measurement error. But gains from AI do appear to be happening faster than in prior tech cycles. So, we can't rule very much out. In our year ahead outlook, we penciled in about a-tenth percentage point of extra productivity growth this year from AI. And there is also a bit of a boost to GDP from AI CapEx spending.Other upside risks, though, they're less clear. We don't have any boost in our GDP forecast from deregulation. And that view, I will say, is contrary to a lot of views in the market. Deregulation will likely boost profits for some sectors but probably will do very little to boost overall growth. Put differently, it helps the bottom line far more than it helps the top line. A notable exception here is probably the energy sector, especially natural gas.Our baseline view on tariffs has been that tariffs on China will ramp up substantially over the year, while other tariffs will either not happen or be fleeting, being part of, say, broader negotiations. The news flow so far this year can't reject that baseline, but recently the discussion of broad reciprocal tariffs means that the risk is clearly rising.But even in our baseline, we think the growth effects are underestimated. Somewhere in the neighborhood of two-thirds of imports from China are capital goods or inputs into U.S. manufacturing. The tariffs imposed before on China led to a sharp deterioration in industrial production. That slump went through the second half of 2018 and into and all the way through 2019 as a drag on the broader economy. Just as important, there was not a subsequent resurgence in industrial output.Part of the undergraduate textbook argument for tariffs is to have more produced at home. That channel works in a two-economy model. But it doesn't work in the real world.Now, the prospect of reciprocal tariffs broadens this downside risk. Free trade has divided production functions around the world, but it's also driven large trade imbalances, and it is precisely these imbalances that are at the center of the new administration's focus on tariffs. China, Canada, Mexico – they do stand out because of their imbalances in terms of trade with the U.S., but the underlying driving force is quite varied. More importantly, those imbalances were built over decades, so undoing them quickly is going to be disruptive, at least in the short run.The prospect of reciprocity globally forces us as well to widen the lens. The risks aren't just for the U.S., but around the world. For Latin America and Asia in particular, key economies have higher tariff supply to U.S. goods than vice versa.So, we can't ignore the potential global effects of a reciprocal tariff.Ultimately,...]]>273alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1324fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-rollercoaster-housing-market--75650931----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, a look at the latest trends in the mortgage and housing market.It's Wednesday, February 19th, at 11am in New York.Now, Jim, there's been a lot of headlines to kick off the year. How is the housing market looking here? Mortgage rates are about 80 basis points higher than the local lows in September. That can't be helping affordability very much.James Egan: No, it is not helping affordability. But let's zoom out a little bit here when talking about affordability. The monthly payment on the medium-priced home had fallen about $225 from the fourth quarter of 2023 to local troughs in September. About a 10 percent decrease. Since that low, the payment has increased about $150; so, it's given back most of its gains.Importantly, affordability is a three-pronged equation. It's not just that payment. Home prices, mortgage rates, and incomes. And incomes are up about 5 percent over the past year. So, affordability has improved more than those numbers would suggest, but those improvements have certainly been muted as a result of this recent rate move. Jay Bacow: Alright. Affordability is up, then it’s down. It’s wrong, then it’s right. It sounds like a Katy Perry song. So, how have home sales evolved through this rollercoaster?James Egan: Well, you and I came on this podcast several times last year to talk about the fact that home sales volumes weren't really increasing despite the improvement in affordability. One point that we made over and over again was that it normally takes 9 to 12 months for sales volumes to increase when you get this kind of affordability improvement. And that would make the fourth quarter of 2024 the potential inflection point that we were looking for. And despite this move in mortgage rates, that does appear to have been the case. Existing home sales had a very strong finish to last year. And in the fourth quarter, they were up 8 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2023. That's the first year-over-year increase since the second quarter of 2021.Jay Bacow: All right. So that's pretty meaningful. And if looking backward, home sales seem to be inflecting, what does that mean for 2025?James Egan: So, there's a number of different considerations there. For one thing, supply – the number of homes that are actually for sale – is still very tight, but it is increasing. It may sound a little too simplistic, but there do need to be homes for sale for homes to sell, and listings have reacted faster than sales. That strong fourth quarter in existing home sales that I just mentioned, that brought total sales volumes for the year to 1 percent above their 2023 levels. For sale inventory finished the year up 14 percent.Jay Bacow: Alright, that makes sense. So, more people are willing to sell their home, which means there's a little bit more transaction volume. But is that good for home prices?James Egan: Not exactly. And it is those higher listings and our expectation that listings are going to continue to climb that's been the main factor behind our call for home price growth to continue to slow. Ultimately, we think that you see home sales up in the context of about 5 percent in 2025 versus 2024.Our leading indicators of demand have softened, a little, in December and January, which may be a result of this sharp increase in rates. But ultimately, when we look at turnover in the housing market, and we're talking about existing sales as a share of the outstanding homes in the U.S. housing market, we think that we're kind of at the basement right now. If we're wrong in our sales volume call, I would think it's more likely that there are more sales than we think. Not less.Jay Bacow: Let me ask you another easy question. How far would rates have to fall to really incentivize more supply and/or demand in the housing market?James Egan: That's the $45 trillion question. We think the current housing market presents a fascinating case study in behavioral economics. Even if mortgage rates were to decline to 4.5 percent, only 35 percent of people would be in the money. And that's still over 200 basis points from where we are today.That being said, we think it's unlikely that mortgage rates need to fall all the way to that level to unlock the housing market. While the lack of any historical precedent makes it difficult for us to identify a specific threshold at which activity could increase meaningfully, we recently turned to Morgan Stanley's AlphaWise to conduct a consumer pulse survey to get a better sense of how people were feeling about their housing options.Jay Bacow: I like data. How are those people feeling?James Egan: All right, so 31 percent of people anticipate buying a home over the next two years, and almost half are considering buying over the next five. Interestingly, only 21 percent are considering selling their home over the next two years. In other words, perceived demand is about 50 percent greater than marginal supply, at least in the immediate future, which we think could be a representation of that lock-in effect.Current homeowners’ expectations of near-term listings are depressed because of how low their mortgage rate is. But we did ask: What if mortgage rates were to fall from 6.8 percent today to 5. 5 percent? In that world, 85 to 90 percent of the people planning to buy a home in the next two years stated that they would be more likely to execute on that purchase.So, we think it's safe to say that a decline in mortgage rates could accelerate purchase decisions. But Jay, are we going to see that decline?Jay Bacow: Well, our interest rate strategists do think that rates are going to rally from here. They've updated their 10-year forecast to expect the tenure note ends 2025 at 4 percent. If the tenure note's at 4 percent, mortgage rate should come down from here, but not to that 4.5 percent, or probably even that 5.5 percent level that you quoted. You know, honestly, you don't really want to stay, you don't really want to go. We're probably talking about like a 6 percent mortgage rate. Not quite that level.But Jim, this is a national level, a national mortgage rate, and housing markets about location and location and location. Are there geographical nuances to your forecast?James Egan: People all over the country are asking, should they stay or should they go now, and that answer is different depending on where you live, right? If you look at the top 100 MSAs in the country, 8 of the top 11 markets showing the largest increases in inventory over the past year can be found in Florida.So, we would expect Florida to be a little bit softer than our national numbers. On the other hand, inventory growth has been most subdued in the Northeast and the Midwest, with several markets continuing to see inventory declines.Jay Bacow: All right, well selfishly, as somebody that lives in the Northeast, I am a little bit happy to hear that. But otherwise, Jim, it's always a pleasure listening to you.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.DISCLAIMERJay Bacow: So, Jim, the lock-in effect is: You don’t really want to stay. No. But you don’t really want to go.James Egan: That is exactly; that is perfect! Wow. That is the whole issue with the housing market.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Rru4qC0A_4bFEhsexAVdSUswF0_EZYofoSI81g2oKfoWed, 19 Feb 2025 21:45:36 +0000gtyOur co-heads of Securitized Products Research, James Egan and Jay Bacow, explain how the increase in home prices, a tight market supply and steady mortgage rates are affecting home sales. ----- Transcript ----- James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, a look at the latest trends in the mortgage and housing market.It's Wednesday, February 19th, at 11am in New York.Now, Jim, there's been a lot of headlines to kick off the year. How is the housing market looking here? Mortgage rates are about 80 basis points higher than the local lows in September. That can't be helping affordability very much.James Egan: No, it is not helping affordability. But let's zoom out a little bit here when talking about affordability. The monthly payment on the medium-priced home had fallen about $225 from the fourth quarter of 2023 to local troughs in September. About a 10 percent decrease. Since that low, the payment has increased about $150; so, it's given back most of its gains.Importantly, affordability is a three-pronged equation. It's not just that payment. Home prices, mortgage rates, and incomes. And incomes are up about 5 percent over the past year. So, affordability has improved more than those numbers would suggest, but those improvements have certainly been muted as a result of this recent rate move. Jay Bacow: Alright. Affordability is up, then it’s down. It’s wrong, then it’s right. It sounds like a Katy Perry song. So, how have home sales evolved through this rollercoaster?James Egan: Well, you and I came on this podcast several times last year to talk about the fact that home sales volumes weren't really increasing despite the improvement in affordability. One point that we made over and over again was that it normally takes 9 to 12 months for sales volumes to increase when you get this kind of affordability improvement. And that would make the fourth quarter of 2024 the potential inflection point that we were looking for. And despite this move in mortgage rates, that does appear to have been the case. Existing home sales had a very strong finish to last year. And in the fourth quarter, they were up 8 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2023. That's the first year-over-year increase since the second quarter of 2021.Jay Bacow: All right. So that's pretty meaningful. And if looking backward, home sales seem to be inflecting, what does that mean for 2025?James Egan: So, there's a number of different considerations there. For one thing, supply – the number of homes that are actually for sale – is still very tight, but it is increasing. It may sound a little too simplistic, but there do need to be homes for sale for homes to sell, and listings have reacted faster than sales. That strong fourth quarter in existing home sales that I just mentioned, that brought total sales volumes for the year to 1 percent above their 2023 levels. For sale inventory finished the year up 14 percent.Jay Bacow: Alright, that makes sense. So, more people are willing to sell their home, which means there's a little bit more transaction volume. But is that good for home prices?James Egan: Not exactly. And it is those higher listings and our expectation that listings are going to continue to climb that's been the main factor behind our call for home price growth to continue to slow. Ultimately, we think that you see home sales up in the context of about 5 percent in 2025 versus 2024.Our leading indicators of demand have softened, a little, in December and January, which may be a result of this sharp increase in rates. But ultimately, when we look at turnover in the housing market, and we're talking about existing sales as a share of the outstanding homes in the U.S. housing market, we think that we're kind of at the basement right now. If we're wrong in our sales volume...]]>429alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1323fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/finding-opportunity-in-an-uncertain-u-s-equity-market--75650692----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing equities in the context of higher rates and weaker earnings revisions. It's Tuesday, Feb 18th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Since early December, the S&P 500 has made little headway. The almost unimpeded run from the summer was halted by a few things but none as important as the rise in 10-year Treasury yields, in my view. In December, we cited 4 to 4.5 percent as the sweet spot for equity multiples assuming growth and earnings remained on track. We viewed 4.5 percent as a key level for equity valuations. And sure enough, when the Fed leaned less dovish at its December meeting, yields crossed that 4.5 percent threshold; and correlations between stocks and yields settled firmly in negative territory, where they remain. In other words, yields are no longer supportive of higher valuations—a key driver of returns the past few years. Instead, earnings are now the primary driver of returns and that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. While the Fed was already increasingly less dovish, the uncertainty on tariffs and last week’s inflation data could further that shift with the bond market moving to just one cut for the rest of the year. Our official call is in line with that view with our economists now just looking for just one cut–in June. It depends on how the inflation and growth data roll in. Our strategy has shifted, too. With the S&P 500 reaching our tactical target of 6100 in December and earnings revision breadth now rolling over for the index, we have been more focused on sectors and factors. In particular, we’ve favored areas of the market showing strong earnings revisions on an absolute or relative basis.Financials, Media and Entertainment, Software over Semiconductors and Consumer Services over Goods continue to fit that bill. Within Defensives, we have favored Utilities over Staples, REITs and Healthcare. While we’ve seen outperformance in all these trades, we are sticking with them, for now. We maintain an overriding preference for Large-cap quality unless 10-year Treasury yields fall sustainably below 4.5 percent without a meaningful degradation in growth. The key component of 10-year yields to watch for equity valuations remains the term premium – which has come down, but is still elevated compared to the past few years. Other macro developments driving stock prices include the very active policy announcements from the White House including tariffs, immigration enforcement, and cost cutting efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE. For tariffs, we believe they will be more of an idiosyncratic event for equity markets. However, if tariffs were to be imposed and maintained on China, Mexico and Canada through 2026, the impact to earnings-per-share would be roughly 5-7 percent for the S&P 500. That’s not an insignificant reduction and likely one of the reasons why guidance this past quarter was more muted than fourth quarter results. Industries facing greater headwinds from China tariffs include consumer discretionary goods and electronics. Lower immigration flow and stock is more likely to affect aggregate demand than to be a wage cost headwind, at least for public companies. Finally, skepticism remains high as it relates to DOGE’s ability to cut Federal spending meaningfully. I remain more optimistic on that front, but realize greater success also presents a headwind to growth before it provides a tailwind via lower fiscal deficits and less crowding out of the private economy—things that could lead to more Fed cuts and lower long-term interest rates as term premium falls. Bottom line, higher backend rates and growth headwinds from the stronger dollar and the initial policy changes suggest equity multiples are capped for now. That means stock, factor and sector selection remains key to performance rather than simply adding beta to one’s portfolio. On that score, we continue to favor earnings revision breadth, quality, and size factors alongside financials, software, media/entertainment and consumer services at the industry level.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LJ63Xc0lYr77bSa565brSPSnVYAKrxvbE0eQb8tStdETue, 18 Feb 2025 22:18:10 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategy Mike Wilson suggests that stock, factor and sector selection remain key to portfolio performance. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing equities in the context of higher rates and weaker earnings revisions. It's Tuesday, Feb 18th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Since early December, the S&P 500 has made little headway. The almost unimpeded run from the summer was halted by a few things but none as important as the rise in 10-year Treasury yields, in my view. In December, we cited 4 to 4.5 percent as the sweet spot for equity multiples assuming growth and earnings remained on track. We viewed 4.5 percent as a key level for equity valuations. And sure enough, when the Fed leaned less dovish at its December meeting, yields crossed that 4.5 percent threshold; and correlations between stocks and yields settled firmly in negative territory, where they remain. In other words, yields are no longer supportive of higher valuations—a key driver of returns the past few years. Instead, earnings are now the primary driver of returns and that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. While the Fed was already increasingly less dovish, the uncertainty on tariffs and last week’s inflation data could further that shift with the bond market moving to just one cut for the rest of the year. Our official call is in line with that view with our economists now just looking for just one cut–in June. It depends on how the inflation and growth data roll in. Our strategy has shifted, too. With the S&P 500 reaching our tactical target of 6100 in December and earnings revision breadth now rolling over for the index, we have been more focused on sectors and factors. In particular, we’ve favored areas of the market showing strong earnings revisions on an absolute or relative basis.Financials, Media and Entertainment, Software over Semiconductors and Consumer Services over Goods continue to fit that bill. Within Defensives, we have favored Utilities over Staples, REITs and Healthcare. While we’ve seen outperformance in all these trades, we are sticking with them, for now. We maintain an overriding preference for Large-cap quality unless 10-year Treasury yields fall sustainably below 4.5 percent without a meaningful degradation in growth. The key component of 10-year yields to watch for equity valuations remains the term premium – which has come down, but is still elevated compared to the past few years. Other macro developments driving stock prices include the very active policy announcements from the White House including tariffs, immigration enforcement, and cost cutting efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE. For tariffs, we believe they will be more of an idiosyncratic event for equity markets. However, if tariffs were to be imposed and maintained on China, Mexico and Canada through 2026, the impact to earnings-per-share would be roughly 5-7 percent for the S&P 500. That’s not an insignificant reduction and likely one of the reasons why guidance this past quarter was more muted than fourth quarter results. Industries facing greater headwinds from China tariffs include consumer discretionary goods and electronics. Lower immigration flow and stock is more likely to affect aggregate demand than to be a wage cost headwind, at least for public companies. Finally, skepticism remains high as it relates to DOGE’s ability to cut Federal spending meaningfully. I remain more optimistic on that front, but realize greater success also presents a headwind to growth before it provides a tailwind via lower fiscal deficits and less crowding out of the private economy—things that could lead to more Fed cuts and lower long-term interest rates as term premium falls. Bottom line, higher backend rates and growth headwinds...]]>277alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1322fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-2-0-and-the-potential-economic-impact-of-immigration-policy--75650691----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist for Morgan Stanley.Michael Zezas: Our topic today: President Trump's immigration policy and its economic ramifications.It's Friday, February 14th at 10am in New York.Michael, migration has always been considered an important feature of the global economy. In fact, you believe that strong immigration flows were an important element in the supply side rebound that set the stage for a U.S. soft landing. If we think back to the time before President Trump took office almost a month ago, how would you categorize immigration trends then?Michael Gapen: So, we saw a very sharp increase in immigration coming out of the pandemic. I would say, if you look at longer term averages, say the 20 years leading up to the pandemic, normally we'd get about a million and a half immigrants, per year into the United States. A lot of variation around that number, but that was the long-term average.In 2022 through 2024, we saw immigration surge to about 3 million per year. So about twice as fast as we saw normally. And that happened at a very important time. It allowed for very significant and rapid growth in the labor force, just at a time when the economy was emerging from the pandemic and demand for labor was quite high.So, it filled that labor demand. It allowed the economy to grow rapidly, while at the same time helping to keep wages lower and inflation starting to come down. So, I do think it was a major underpinning force in the ability of the U.S. economy to soft land after several years of above target inflation.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so now, with a second President Trump term, are we set up for a reversal of this immigration driven boost to the economy?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's the key question for the outlook, and our answer is yes. That if we are going to significantly restrict immigration flows, the risk here is that we reverse the trends that we've just seen in the previous year.So, I certainly believe one of the main goals of the Trump administration is to harden the border and initiate greater deportations. And these steps in my mind come on the back of steps that the Biden administration already took around the middle of last year that began to slow immigration flows.So yes, I do think we should look for a reversal of the immigration driven boost to the economy. But Mike, I would actually throw this question back to you and say on the first day of his presidency, Trump issued a series of executive orders pertaining to immigration. Where are we now in that process after these initial announcements? And what do you expect in terms of policy implementation?Michael Zezas: Well, I think you hit on it. There's two levers here. There's stepped up deportations and removals and there's working with Mexico on border enforcement. Things like the remain in Mexico policy where Mexico agrees to keep those seeking asylum on their side of the border; and to facilitate that, they've stepped up their military presence to do that.Those are really kind of the two levers that the U.S. is pushing on to try and reduce the flow of migrants coming into the U.S. Still to be determined how much these actually have an impact, but I think that's the direction of policy travel.Michael Gapen: And are there any catalysts specifically that you're watching for? I mean, recently the administration proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada around border control, but those have been delayed. Is there anything on the horizon we should look for this time around?Michael Zezas: Yeah. So obviously the president tied the potential for tariffs on Mexico and Canada to the idea that there should be some improvement on border enforcement. It's going to be difficult for investors, I think, to assess in real time how much progress has been made there. Mostly it's a data challenge here. There are official government statistics which have a good amount of detail about removals and folks stopped at the border and demographics in terms of age and, and whether or not they were working. That might really kind of help us piece together the story in terms of whether or not there's going to be future tariffs – and Michael, probably for you, to what extent there's an impact on the economy if folks are already in the labor force.But that data is on a lag, it'll be really difficult to tell what's happening now for at least several months. Maybe we're going to get some hints about what's going on for comments coming in earnings calls, for example, from companies that deal in construction and food service and hospitality. But I don't know that those anecdotes would be sufficient to really draw substantial conclusions. So, I think we're a bit in a fog for the next couple months on exactly what's happening.But based on all this, Michael, what's your outlook for immigration this year and beyond?Michael Gapen: Yeah, so we, as I mentioned, we were getting about 3 million immigrants per year between 2022 and 2024; long run averages before the pandemic were more like a million and a half a year. Our outlook is that immigration flows should slow below pre- COVID averages to about 1 million this year and about 500,000 in 2026. And again, that would be the well below the long run average of about a million and a half per year.Now, as you mentioned, understanding these flows in real time is hard and there's a lot of uncertainty around this and how effective policies may be. So, I think people should consider ranges around this baseline, if you will. On one hand, we could see a reduction in unauthorized immigration replaced by more authorized immigration. So maybe there's a benign scenario where immigration slows back to its one and a half million per year. But it's more through legal and formal channels than unauthorized channels.Alternatively, it could be the case that some of the policies, you mentioned in terms of, say, stepped up deportations or other measures, and maybe there's a chilling effect. That there's just like an externality on immigration behavior. And in fact, we slow maybe to about 500,000 this year and see a decline in about 250,000 next year.So, I think there's a lot of uncertainty about it. We think immigration slows below its longer run averages, which would represent a major shift from what we've seen over the last three years.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, lots of crosscurrents here, about how the actual labour supply is impacted. But bottom line, if we do arrive at a point where there’s a significant reduction in immigration, what’s the expectation about what that means for the U.S. economy?Michael Gapen: Yeah, so a lot of cross currents here. Number one, I think with a high degree of confidence, we can say reduced immigration should lead to slower potential growth, right? So, a slower growth in the labor force should mean slower growth in trend hours, right? Potential GDP is really only the sum of growth in trend hours and trend productivity.So, the surge in immigration we saw really boosted potential growth up to 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent in recent years. So, if we reduce immigration, potential growth should slow. I think back towards, say, 2 per cent this year, maybe even 1 to 1.5 per cent next year. So, you slow down growth in the labor force, potential should moderate.Second, and I think the more difficult question is, well, okay, if you also reduce growth in the labor force, you're going to get less employment, and that's a demand side effect. So, which dominates here, the supply side or the demand side? And here, I think to go back to your first question – yeah, I do think we're going to get a reversal of the outcome that we just saw.So, I think it'll moderate both potential and actual growth. So, I think actual growth slows. The amount of employment we see should decline and soften. We're not saying the level of employment will decline, but the growth rate of employment should slow. But it should coincide with a low unemployment rate, so it's going to be a very different labor market. A lot less employment growth, but still a tight labor market in terms of low unemployment.That should keep wages firm, particularly in the service sector where a lot of immigrants work, and we think it'll also help keep inflation firm. So, it could keep the Fed on the sideline for a significant period of time, for example.And I'd just like to close, Mike, by saying I think this is an underappreciated risk for financial markets. I think investors have digested trade policy uncertainty, but I'm not convinced that risks around immigration and their effect on the economy are well understood.Michael Zezas: Got it. Well Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Thank you.Michael Zezas: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AD2IH08_ki_UohKlksGQU-3CX4l9sJugGVf7RHWNOLAFri, 14 Feb 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research, Michael Zezas, joins our Chief U.S. Economist, Michael Gapen, to discuss the possible outcomes for President Trump’s immigration policies and their effect on the U.S. economy. -----...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist for Morgan Stanley.Michael Zezas: Our topic today: President Trump's immigration policy and its economic ramifications.It's Friday, February 14th at 10am in New York.Michael, migration has always been considered an important feature of the global economy. In fact, you believe that strong immigration flows were an important element in the supply side rebound that set the stage for a U.S. soft landing. If we think back to the time before President Trump took office almost a month ago, how would you categorize immigration trends then?Michael Gapen: So, we saw a very sharp increase in immigration coming out of the pandemic. I would say, if you look at longer term averages, say the 20 years leading up to the pandemic, normally we'd get about a million and a half immigrants, per year into the United States. A lot of variation around that number, but that was the long-term average.In 2022 through 2024, we saw immigration surge to about 3 million per year. So about twice as fast as we saw normally. And that happened at a very important time. It allowed for very significant and rapid growth in the labor force, just at a time when the economy was emerging from the pandemic and demand for labor was quite high.So, it filled that labor demand. It allowed the economy to grow rapidly, while at the same time helping to keep wages lower and inflation starting to come down. So, I do think it was a major underpinning force in the ability of the U.S. economy to soft land after several years of above target inflation.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so now, with a second President Trump term, are we set up for a reversal of this immigration driven boost to the economy?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's the key question for the outlook, and our answer is yes. That if we are going to significantly restrict immigration flows, the risk here is that we reverse the trends that we've just seen in the previous year.So, I certainly believe one of the main goals of the Trump administration is to harden the border and initiate greater deportations. And these steps in my mind come on the back of steps that the Biden administration already took around the middle of last year that began to slow immigration flows.So yes, I do think we should look for a reversal of the immigration driven boost to the economy. But Mike, I would actually throw this question back to you and say on the first day of his presidency, Trump issued a series of executive orders pertaining to immigration. Where are we now in that process after these initial announcements? And what do you expect in terms of policy implementation?Michael Zezas: Well, I think you hit on it. There's two levers here. There's stepped up deportations and removals and there's working with Mexico on border enforcement. Things like the remain in Mexico policy where Mexico agrees to keep those seeking asylum on their side of the border; and to facilitate that, they've stepped up their military presence to do that.Those are really kind of the two levers that the U.S. is pushing on to try and reduce the flow of migrants coming into the U.S. Still to be determined how much these actually have an impact, but I think that's the direction of policy travel.Michael Gapen: And are there any catalysts specifically that you're watching for? I mean, recently the administration proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada around border control, but those have been delayed. Is there anything on the horizon we should look for this time around?Michael Zezas: Yeah. So obviously the...]]>568alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1321fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-do-tariffs-affect-currencies--75650885----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Foreign Exchange & Emerging Markets Strategy. Today – the implications of tariffs for volatility on foreign exchange markets. It’s Thursday, February 13th, at 3pm in London. Foreign exchange markets are following President Trump’s tariff proposals with bated breath. A little over a week ago investors faced significant uncertainty over proposed tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. In the end, the U.S. reached a deal with Canada and Mexico, but a 10 per cent tariff on Chinese imports went into effect. Currencies experienced heightened volatility during the negotiations, but the net impacts at the end of the negotiations were small. Announced tariffs on steel and aluminum have had a muted impact too, but the prospect of reciprocal tariffs are keeping investors on edge. We believe there are three key lessons investors can take away from this recent period of tariff tension. First of all, we need to distinguish between two different types of tariffs. The first type is proposed with the intention to negotiate; to reach a deal with affected countries on key issues. The second type of tariff serves a broader purpose. Imposing them might reduce the U.S. trade deficit or protect key domestic industries.There may also be examples where these two distinct approaches to tariffs meld, such as the reciprocal tariffs that President Trump has also discussed. The market impacts of these different tariffs vary significantly. In cases where the ultimate objective is to make a deal on a separate issue, any currency volatility experienced during the tariff negotiations will very likely reverse – if a deal is made. However, if the tariffs are part of a broader economic strategy, then investors should consider more seriously whether currency impacts are going to be more long-lasting. For instance, we believe that tariffs on imports from China should be considered in this context. As a result, we do see sustained dollar/renminbi upside, with that currency pair likely to hit 7.6 in the second half of 2025. A second key issue for investors is going to be the timing of tariffs. April 1st is very likely going to be a key date for Foreign Exchange markets as more details around the America First Trade Policy are likely revealed. We could see the U.S. dollar strengthen in the days leading up to this date, and investors are likely to consider where subsequently there will be a more significant push to enact tariffs. A final question for investors to ponder is going to be whether foreign exchange volatility would move to a structurally higher plane, or simply rise episodically. Many investors currently assume that FX volatility will be higher this year, thanks to the uncertainty created by trade policy. However, so far, the evidence doesn’t really support this conclusion. Indicators that track the level of uncertainty around global trade policy did rise during President Trump's first term, specifically around the period of escalating tariffs on China. And while this was associated with a stronger [U.S.] dollar, it did not lead to rising levels of FX volatility. We can see again, at the start of Trump's second term, that rising uncertainty over trade policy has been consistent with a stronger U.S. dollar. And while FX volatility has increased a bit, so far the impact has been relatively muted – and implied volatility is still well below the highs that we’ve seen in the past ten years. FX volatility is likely to rise around key dates and periods of escalation; and while structurally higher levels of FX volatility could still occur, the odds of that happening would increase if tariffs resulted in more substantial macro economic consequences for the U.S. economy.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YT31tu-zd2949dZNscEf5PtNlsjc5iJom_o7tfulVIYThu, 13 Feb 2025 22:37:02 +0000gtyOur Head of Foreign Exchange & Emerging Markets Strategy James Lord discusses how much tariff-driven volatility investors can expect in currency markets this year. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Foreign Exchange & Emerging Markets Strategy. Today – the implications of tariffs for volatility on foreign exchange markets. It’s Thursday, February 13th, at 3pm in London. Foreign exchange markets are following President Trump’s tariff proposals with bated breath. A little over a week ago investors faced significant uncertainty over proposed tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. In the end, the U.S. reached a deal with Canada and Mexico, but a 10 per cent tariff on Chinese imports went into effect. Currencies experienced heightened volatility during the negotiations, but the net impacts at the end of the negotiations were small. Announced tariffs on steel and aluminum have had a muted impact too, but the prospect of reciprocal tariffs are keeping investors on edge. We believe there are three key lessons investors can take away from this recent period of tariff tension. First of all, we need to distinguish between two different types of tariffs. The first type is proposed with the intention to negotiate; to reach a deal with affected countries on key issues. The second type of tariff serves a broader purpose. Imposing them might reduce the U.S. trade deficit or protect key domestic industries.There may also be examples where these two distinct approaches to tariffs meld, such as the reciprocal tariffs that President Trump has also discussed. The market impacts of these different tariffs vary significantly. In cases where the ultimate objective is to make a deal on a separate issue, any currency volatility experienced during the tariff negotiations will very likely reverse – if a deal is made. However, if the tariffs are part of a broader economic strategy, then investors should consider more seriously whether currency impacts are going to be more long-lasting. For instance, we believe that tariffs on imports from China should be considered in this context. As a result, we do see sustained dollar/renminbi upside, with that currency pair likely to hit 7.6 in the second half of 2025. A second key issue for investors is going to be the timing of tariffs. April 1st is very likely going to be a key date for Foreign Exchange markets as more details around the America First Trade Policy are likely revealed. We could see the U.S. dollar strengthen in the days leading up to this date, and investors are likely to consider where subsequently there will be a more significant push to enact tariffs. A final question for investors to ponder is going to be whether foreign exchange volatility would move to a structurally higher plane, or simply rise episodically. Many investors currently assume that FX volatility will be higher this year, thanks to the uncertainty created by trade policy. However, so far, the evidence doesn’t really support this conclusion. Indicators that track the level of uncertainty around global trade policy did rise during President Trump's first term, specifically around the period of escalating tariffs on China. And while this was associated with a stronger [U.S.] dollar, it did not lead to rising levels of FX volatility. We can see again, at the start of Trump's second term, that rising uncertainty over trade policy has been consistent with a stronger U.S. dollar. And while FX volatility has increased a bit, so far the impact has been relatively muted – and implied volatility is still well below the highs that we’ve seen in the past ten years. FX volatility is likely to rise around key dates and periods of escalation; and while structurally higher levels of FX volatility could still occur, the odds of that happening would increase if tariffs resulted in more substantial macro economic consequences for the U.S. economy.Thanks for...]]>248alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1320fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-credit-upside-of-market-uncertainty--75650915----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about a potential silver lining to the significant uptick in uncertainty around U.S. trade policy. It's Wednesday, February 12th at 2pm in London. One of the nuances of our market view is that we think credit spreads remain tight despite rising levels of corporate confidence and activity. We think these things can co-exist, at least temporarily, because the level of corporate activity is still so low, and so it could rise quite a bit and still only be in-line with the long-term trend. And so while more corporate activity and aggression is usually a negative for lenders and drives credit spreads wider, we don’t think it’s quite one yet. But maybe there is even less tension in these views than we initially thought. The first four weeks of the new U.S. Administration have seen a flurry of policy announcements on tariffs. This has meant a lot for investors to digest and discuss, but it’s meant a lot less to actual market prices. Since the inauguration, U.S. stocks and yields are roughly unchanged. That muted reaction may be because investors assume that, in many cases, these policies will be delayed, reversed or modified. For example, announced tariffs on Mexico and Canada have been delayed. A key provision concerning smaller shipments from China has been paused. So far, this pattern actually looks very consistent with the framework laid out by my colleagues Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore from the Morgan Stanley Public Policy team: fast announcements of action, but then much slower ultimate implementation. Yet while markets may be dismissing these headlines for now, there are signs that businesses are taking them more seriously. Per news reports, U.S. Merger and Acquisition activity in January just suffered its lowest level of activity since 2015. Many factors could be at play. But it seems at least plausible that the “will they, won’t they” down-to-the-deadline nature of trade policy has increased uncertainty, something businesses generally don’t like when they’re contemplating big transformative action. And for lenders maybe that’s the silver lining. We’ve been thinking that credit in 2025 would be a story of timing this steadily rising wave of corporate aggression. But if that wave is delayed, debt levels could end up being lower, bond issuance could be lower, and spread levels – all else equal – could be a bit tighter. Corporate caution isn’t everywhere. In sectors that are seen as multi-year secular trends, such as AI data centers, investment plans continue to rise rapidly, with our colleagues in Equity Research tracking over $320bn of investment in 2025. But for activity that is more economically sensitive, uncertainty around trade policy may be putting companies on the back foot. That isn’t great for business; but, temporarily, it could mean a better supply/demand balance for those that lend to them. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FLI5_btl6jlWLzi-Q7cM-fYSdqhmY4Zsw3qXG-xdG8UWed, 12 Feb 2025 22:10:56 +0000gtyThe down-to-the-deadline nature of Trump’s trade policy has created market uncertainty. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets points out a silver lining.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about a potential silver lining to the significant uptick in uncertainty around U.S. trade policy. It's Wednesday, February 12th at 2pm in London. One of the nuances of our market view is that we think credit spreads remain tight despite rising levels of corporate confidence and activity. We think these things can co-exist, at least temporarily, because the level of corporate activity is still so low, and so it could rise quite a bit and still only be in-line with the long-term trend. And so while more corporate activity and aggression is usually a negative for lenders and drives credit spreads wider, we don’t think it’s quite one yet. But maybe there is even less tension in these views than we initially thought. The first four weeks of the new U.S. Administration have seen a flurry of policy announcements on tariffs. This has meant a lot for investors to digest and discuss, but it’s meant a lot less to actual market prices. Since the inauguration, U.S. stocks and yields are roughly unchanged. That muted reaction may be because investors assume that, in many cases, these policies will be delayed, reversed or modified. For example, announced tariffs on Mexico and Canada have been delayed. A key provision concerning smaller shipments from China has been paused. So far, this pattern actually looks very consistent with the framework laid out by my colleagues Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore from the Morgan Stanley Public Policy team: fast announcements of action, but then much slower ultimate implementation. Yet while markets may be dismissing these headlines for now, there are signs that businesses are taking them more seriously. Per news reports, U.S. Merger and Acquisition activity in January just suffered its lowest level of activity since 2015. Many factors could be at play. But it seems at least plausible that the “will they, won’t they” down-to-the-deadline nature of trade policy has increased uncertainty, something businesses generally don’t like when they’re contemplating big transformative action. And for lenders maybe that’s the silver lining. We’ve been thinking that credit in 2025 would be a story of timing this steadily rising wave of corporate aggression. But if that wave is delayed, debt levels could end up being lower, bond issuance could be lower, and spread levels – all else equal – could be a bit tighter. Corporate caution isn’t everywhere. In sectors that are seen as multi-year secular trends, such as AI data centers, investment plans continue to rise rapidly, with our colleagues in Equity Research tracking over $320bn of investment in 2025. But for activity that is more economically sensitive, uncertainty around trade policy may be putting companies on the back foot. That isn’t great for business; but, temporarily, it could mean a better supply/demand balance for those that lend to them. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>209alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1319fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-rising-risk-of-trade-tensions-in-asia--75650950----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today: the possibilities of reciprocal tariffs between the U.S. and Asian economies. It’s Tuesday, February 11, at 2pm in Singapore.President Trump’s recent tariff actions have already been far more aggressive than in 2018 and 2019. And this time around, multiple trade partners are simultaneously facing broad-based tariffs, and tariffs are coming at a much faster pace. The risk of trade tensions escalating has risen, and the latest developments may have kicked that risk up another notch. The U.S. president is pushing a sweeping tariff of 25 per cent on all foreign steel and aluminum products. Trump has also indicated that he would propose reciprocal tariffs on multiple countries – to match the tariffs levied by each country on U.S. imports. This potential reciprocal tariff proposal suggests that Asia ex China may be more exposed to possible tariff hikes. As of now, Asia’s tariffs on US imports are, for the most part, slightly higher than US tariffs on Asian imports. And based on [the] latest available data, six economies in Asia do impose [a] higher weighted average tariff on the U.S. than the U.S. does on individual Asia economies. The tariff differentials are most pronounced for India, Thailand, and Korea. These three economies may face a risk of a hike in tariffs by 4 to 6 percentage points on a weighted average basis, if the U.S. imposes reciprocal tariffs. Individual products may yet face higher tariffs rates but we think [the] overall impact from steel, aluminum and reciprocal tariffs will be manageable. But look, trade tensions may still rise further given that 7 out of 10 economies with the largest trade surplus with the U.S. are in Asia. Against this backdrop, policy makers may have to look for ways to address the demands from the U.S. administration. For instance, Japan’s Prime Minister Ishiba has committed to increasing investment in the U.S. and is looking to raise energy imports from the U.S. This is seen as a positive step to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Japan. Meanwhile, ahead of the meeting between President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Modi later this week, India has already taken steps to lower tariffs on the U.S., and may propose [an] increase in imports of oil and gas, defense equipments and aircrafts to narrow its trade surplus with the U.S. However, as regards China is concerned, the wide scope of issues in the bilateral relationship suggests that [the] U.S. administration would cite a variety of reasons for expanding tariffs. As things stand, China has been the only economy so far where tariff hikes have stayed in place. Indeed, the recent 10 percent increase in tariffs has already matched the increase in the weighted average tariffs that transpired in 2018 and 2019. And we still expect that tariffs on imports from China will continue to rise over the course of 2025. To sum it up, there has been a constant stream of tariff threats from the U.S. administration. While the direct effects of [the] tariffs appear manageable, the bigger concern for us has been that this policy uncertainty will potentially weigh on corporate sector confidence, CapEx and growth cycle.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/c0Hs2MalNhPk2UaJWAKHEl3z6otBYw5gXU6ffhP9bHgTue, 11 Feb 2025 21:17:05 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the potential impact of reciprocal U.S. tariffs on Asian economies, highlighting the key markets at risk. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today: the possibilities of reciprocal tariffs between the U.S. and Asian economies. It’s Tuesday, February 11, at 2pm in Singapore.President Trump’s recent tariff actions have already been far more aggressive than in 2018 and 2019. And this time around, multiple trade partners are simultaneously facing broad-based tariffs, and tariffs are coming at a much faster pace. The risk of trade tensions escalating has risen, and the latest developments may have kicked that risk up another notch. The U.S. president is pushing a sweeping tariff of 25 per cent on all foreign steel and aluminum products. Trump has also indicated that he would propose reciprocal tariffs on multiple countries – to match the tariffs levied by each country on U.S. imports. This potential reciprocal tariff proposal suggests that Asia ex China may be more exposed to possible tariff hikes. As of now, Asia’s tariffs on US imports are, for the most part, slightly higher than US tariffs on Asian imports. And based on [the] latest available data, six economies in Asia do impose [a] higher weighted average tariff on the U.S. than the U.S. does on individual Asia economies. The tariff differentials are most pronounced for India, Thailand, and Korea. These three economies may face a risk of a hike in tariffs by 4 to 6 percentage points on a weighted average basis, if the U.S. imposes reciprocal tariffs. Individual products may yet face higher tariffs rates but we think [the] overall impact from steel, aluminum and reciprocal tariffs will be manageable. But look, trade tensions may still rise further given that 7 out of 10 economies with the largest trade surplus with the U.S. are in Asia. Against this backdrop, policy makers may have to look for ways to address the demands from the U.S. administration. For instance, Japan’s Prime Minister Ishiba has committed to increasing investment in the U.S. and is looking to raise energy imports from the U.S. This is seen as a positive step to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Japan. Meanwhile, ahead of the meeting between President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Modi later this week, India has already taken steps to lower tariffs on the U.S., and may propose [an] increase in imports of oil and gas, defense equipments and aircrafts to narrow its trade surplus with the U.S. However, as regards China is concerned, the wide scope of issues in the bilateral relationship suggests that [the] U.S. administration would cite a variety of reasons for expanding tariffs. As things stand, China has been the only economy so far where tariff hikes have stayed in place. Indeed, the recent 10 percent increase in tariffs has already matched the increase in the weighted average tariffs that transpired in 2018 and 2019. And we still expect that tariffs on imports from China will continue to rise over the course of 2025. To sum it up, there has been a constant stream of tariff threats from the U.S. administration. While the direct effects of [the] tariffs appear manageable, the bigger concern for us has been that this policy uncertainty will potentially weigh on corporate sector confidence, CapEx and growth cycle.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>243alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1318fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/who-might-benefit-from-trump-s-tax-policy-proposals--75650964----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Castagno, Head of Global Evaluation, Accounting and Tax.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on taxes under the new Trump administration.It's Monday, February 10th, at 10am in New York.Recently, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump stated his administration will pass the largest tax cut in American history, including substantial tax cuts for workers and families. He was short on the details, but tax policies were a significant focus of his election campaign.Todd, can you give us a better sense of the tax cuts that Trump's been vocal about so far?Todd Castagno: Well, there's tax cuts and tax extensions. So, I think that's an important place to set the baseline. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), under his first administration, starts to expire in 2025. And so, what we view is, the most likelihood is, an extension of those policies going forward. However, there's some new ideas, some new contours as well. So, for instance, a lower corporate rate that gets you in the 15 per cent ballpark can be through domestic tax credits, new incentives.I think there's other items on the individual side of the code that could be explored as well. But we also have to kind of step back and creating new policy is very challenging. So again, that baseline is an extension of kind of the tax world we live in today.So, Michael, looking at the broader macro picture and from conversations with our economist, how would these tax cuts impact GDP and macro in general?Michael Zezas: Well, if you're talking about extension of current policy, which is most of our expectation about what happens with taxes at the end of the year, the way our economists have been looking at this is to say that there's no net new impulse for households or companies to behave differently.That might be true on a sector-by-sector basis, but in the aggregate for the economy, there's no reason to look at this policy and think that it is going to provide a definitive uplift to the growth forecast that they have for 2026. Now, there may be some other provisions that could add in there that are incremental that we'd have to consider.But still, they would probably take time to play out or their measurable impact would be very hard to define. Things like raising the cap on the state and local tax deduction, that tends to impact higher income households who already aren't constrained from a spending perspective. And things like a domestic manufacturing tax credit for companies, that could take several years to play out before it actually manifests into spending.Todd Castagno: And you’re kind of seeing that with the prior administration's tax law, the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of this takes years in order to actually play through the economy. So that's something that investors should consider.Michael Zezas: Yeah, these things certainly take time; and you know back in 2018 it had been a long ambition, particularly of Republican lawmakers, to reduce the corporate tax rate. They succeeded in doing that, getting it down to 21 per cent in Trump's first term. Now, Trump's talked about getting corporate tax rates lower again here. If he's able to do that, how do you think he would do that? And would that affect how you're thinking about investment and hiring?Todd Castagno: So, there's the corporate rate itself, and it's at 21 per cent currently. There is a view to change that rate, lower it. However, there's other ways you can reduce that effective tax burden through what we've just discussed. So enhanced corporate deductions, timing differences, companies can benefit from a tax system that ultimately gets them a lower effective rate, even if the corporate rate doesn't move much.Michael Zezas: And so, what sorts of companies and what sorts of sectors of the market would benefit the most from that type of reduction in the corporate tax burden?Todd Castagno: So, if you think they're mosaic of all these items, it's going to accrue to domestic companies. That might sound kind of obvious, but if you look at our economy, we have large multinationals and we have domestic companies and we have small businesses. The policies that are being articulated, I think, mostly orient towards domestic companies, industrials, for instance, R&D incentives, again powering our AI plants, energy, et cetera.Michael Zezas: Got it. And is there any read through on if a company does better under this policy – if they're big relative to being small?Todd Castagno: There are a lot of small business elements as well. So, I mentioned that timing difference, being able to deduct a piece of machinery day one versus over seven years. So, there's a lot of benefits that are not in the rate itself that can accrue through smaller businesses.Michael Zezas: YAnd what about for individual taxpayers, particularly the middle class? What particular tax cuts are on the table there?Todd Castagno: So, first and foremost is the child tax care credit. So, it’s current policy, but after COVID, it was enhanced. A higher dollar amount, different mechanism for receiving funds. And so, there is bipartisan support and President Trump as well, bringing back a version of an enhanced credit. Now, the policy is a little bit tricky, but I would say there's very good odds that that comes back. You know, you mentioned the state and local tax deduction, right? The politics are also tricky, but there could be a rate of change where that reverts back to pre-TCJA.But one of the things, Michael, is all these policies are very expensive. So, I'm just curious, in your mind, how do we balance the price tag versus the outcome?Michael Zezas: Well, I think the main constraint here to consider is that Republicans have a very slim majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they're unlikely to get Democratic representatives crossing the aisle to vote with them on a tax package this large. So, they'll really need complete consensus on whatever tax items they extend and the deficit impact that it causes this is the type of thing that ultimately will constrain the package to be smaller than perhaps some of the president's stated ambitions.So, for example, items like making the interest payments on auto loans tax deductible, we think there might not be sufficient support for that and the budget costs that it would create. So ultimately, we think you get back to a package that's mostly about extending current cuts, adding in a couple more items like that domestic manufacturing tax credit, which is also very closely tied to Republicans larger trade ambition. And you might also see Republicans do some things to reduce the price tag, like, for example, only extend the tax cuts for a few years, as opposed to five or 10 years.Todd Castagno: Right.Michael Zezas: Todd, thanks for taking the time to talk.Todd Castagno: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/o9NsT-9xBH5IWwpJtBurg8kCSoNc2XlyagqrZ67qVkMMon, 10 Feb 2025 21:52:27 +0000gtyGlobal Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Head of Global Evaluation, Accounting and Tax Todd Castagno discuss the market and economic implications of proposed tax extensions and tax cuts. ----- Transcript ----- Michael...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Castagno, Head of Global Evaluation, Accounting and Tax.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on taxes under the new Trump administration.It's Monday, February 10th, at 10am in New York.Recently, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump stated his administration will pass the largest tax cut in American history, including substantial tax cuts for workers and families. He was short on the details, but tax policies were a significant focus of his election campaign.Todd, can you give us a better sense of the tax cuts that Trump's been vocal about so far?Todd Castagno: Well, there's tax cuts and tax extensions. So, I think that's an important place to set the baseline. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), under his first administration, starts to expire in 2025. And so, what we view is, the most likelihood is, an extension of those policies going forward. However, there's some new ideas, some new contours as well. So, for instance, a lower corporate rate that gets you in the 15 per cent ballpark can be through domestic tax credits, new incentives.I think there's other items on the individual side of the code that could be explored as well. But we also have to kind of step back and creating new policy is very challenging. So again, that baseline is an extension of kind of the tax world we live in today.So, Michael, looking at the broader macro picture and from conversations with our economist, how would these tax cuts impact GDP and macro in general?Michael Zezas: Well, if you're talking about extension of current policy, which is most of our expectation about what happens with taxes at the end of the year, the way our economists have been looking at this is to say that there's no net new impulse for households or companies to behave differently.That might be true on a sector-by-sector basis, but in the aggregate for the economy, there's no reason to look at this policy and think that it is going to provide a definitive uplift to the growth forecast that they have for 2026. Now, there may be some other provisions that could add in there that are incremental that we'd have to consider.But still, they would probably take time to play out or their measurable impact would be very hard to define. Things like raising the cap on the state and local tax deduction, that tends to impact higher income households who already aren't constrained from a spending perspective. And things like a domestic manufacturing tax credit for companies, that could take several years to play out before it actually manifests into spending.Todd Castagno: And you’re kind of seeing that with the prior administration's tax law, the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of this takes years in order to actually play through the economy. So that's something that investors should consider.Michael Zezas: Yeah, these things certainly take time; and you know back in 2018 it had been a long ambition, particularly of Republican lawmakers, to reduce the corporate tax rate. They succeeded in doing that, getting it down to 21 per cent in Trump's first term. Now, Trump's talked about getting corporate tax rates lower again here. If he's able to do that, how do you think he would do that? And would that affect how you're thinking about investment and hiring?Todd Castagno: So, there's the corporate rate itself, and it's at 21 per cent currently. There is a view to change that rate, lower it. However, there's other ways you can reduce that effective tax burden through what we've just discussed. So enhanced corporate deductions, timing...]]>437alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1317fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-disruption-in-the-ai-market--75650800----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I’ll be talking about the macro implications of the DeepSeek development.It's Friday February 7th at 9 am, and I’m on the road in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Recently we learned that DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has developed two open-source large language models – LLMs – that can perform at levels comparable to models from American counterparts at a substantially lower cost. This news set off shockwaves in the equity markets that wiped out nearly a trillion dollars in the market cap of listed US technology companies on January 27. While the market has recouped some of these losses, their magnitude raises questions for investors about AI. My equity research colleagues have addressed a range of stock-specific issues in their work. Today we step back and consider the broader implications for the economy in terms of productivity growth and investment spending on AI infrastructure.First thing. While this is an important milestone and a significant development in the evolution of LLMs, it doesn’t come entirely as a shock. The history of computing is replete with examples of dramatic efficiency gains. The DeepSeek development is precisely that – a dramatic efficiency improvement which, in our view, drives incremental demand for AI. Rapid declines in the cost of computing during the 1990s provide a useful parallel to what we are seeing now. As Michael Gapen, our US chief economist, has noted, the investment boom during the 1990s was really driven by the pace at which firms replaced depreciated capital and a sharp and persistent decline in the price of computing capital relative to the price of output. If efficiency gains from DeepSeek reflect a similar phenomenon, we may be seeing early signs [that] the cost of AI capital is coming down – and coming down rapidly. In turn, that should support the outlook for business spending pertaining to AI.In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot of reference to the Jevons paradox – which really dates from 1865 – and it states that as technological advancements reduce the cost of using a resource, the overall demand for the resource increases, causing the total resource consumption to rise. In other words, cheaper and more ubiquitous technology will increase its consumption. This enables AI to transition from innovators to more generalized adoption and opens the door for faster LLM-enabled product innovation. That means wider and faster consumer and enterprise adoption. Over time, this should result in greater increases in productivity and faster realization of AI’s transformational promise.From a micro perspective, our equity research colleagues, who are experts in covering stocks in these sectors, come to a very similar conclusion. They think it’s unlikely that the DeepSeek development will meaningfully reduce CapEx related to AI infrastructure. From a macroeconomic perspective, there is a good case to be made for higher business spending related to AI, as well as productivity growth from AI.Obviously, it is still early days, and we will see leaders and laggards at the stock level. But the economy as a whole we think will emerge as a winner. DeepSeek illustrates the potential for efficiency gains, which in turn foster greater competition and drive wider adoption of AI. With that premise, we remain constructive on AI’s transformational promise.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.DISCLAIMERIn the last few weeks… (Laughs) It’s almost like the birds are waiting for me to start speaking.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-GUZ_bC45ZEUQMCODrFl3vSER3xtwGwcVUKQDsd7TPcFri, 07 Feb 2025 23:41:36 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur thinks that efficiency gains from Chinese AI startup DeepSeek may drive incremental demand for AI. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I’ll be talking about the macro implications of the DeepSeek development.It's Friday February 7th at 9 am, and I’m on the road in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Recently we learned that DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has developed two open-source large language models – LLMs – that can perform at levels comparable to models from American counterparts at a substantially lower cost. This news set off shockwaves in the equity markets that wiped out nearly a trillion dollars in the market cap of listed US technology companies on January 27. While the market has recouped some of these losses, their magnitude raises questions for investors about AI. My equity research colleagues have addressed a range of stock-specific issues in their work. Today we step back and consider the broader implications for the economy in terms of productivity growth and investment spending on AI infrastructure.First thing. While this is an important milestone and a significant development in the evolution of LLMs, it doesn’t come entirely as a shock. The history of computing is replete with examples of dramatic efficiency gains. The DeepSeek development is precisely that – a dramatic efficiency improvement which, in our view, drives incremental demand for AI. Rapid declines in the cost of computing during the 1990s provide a useful parallel to what we are seeing now. As Michael Gapen, our US chief economist, has noted, the investment boom during the 1990s was really driven by the pace at which firms replaced depreciated capital and a sharp and persistent decline in the price of computing capital relative to the price of output. If efficiency gains from DeepSeek reflect a similar phenomenon, we may be seeing early signs [that] the cost of AI capital is coming down – and coming down rapidly. In turn, that should support the outlook for business spending pertaining to AI.In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot of reference to the Jevons paradox – which really dates from 1865 – and it states that as technological advancements reduce the cost of using a resource, the overall demand for the resource increases, causing the total resource consumption to rise. In other words, cheaper and more ubiquitous technology will increase its consumption. This enables AI to transition from innovators to more generalized adoption and opens the door for faster LLM-enabled product innovation. That means wider and faster consumer and enterprise adoption. Over time, this should result in greater increases in productivity and faster realization of AI’s transformational promise.From a micro perspective, our equity research colleagues, who are experts in covering stocks in these sectors, come to a very similar conclusion. They think it’s unlikely that the DeepSeek development will meaningfully reduce CapEx related to AI infrastructure. From a macroeconomic perspective, there is a good case to be made for higher business spending related to AI, as well as productivity growth from AI.Obviously, it is still early days, and we will see leaders and laggards at the stock level. But the economy as a whole we think will emerge as a winner. DeepSeek illustrates the potential for efficiency gains, which in turn foster greater competition and drive wider adoption of AI. With that premise, we remain constructive on AI’s transformational promise.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.DISCLAIMERIn the last few weeks… (Laughs) It’s almost like the birds are waiting for me to start speaking.]]>259alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1316fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chinese-airlines-breaking-through-turbulence--75650962----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Chinese airlines are at a once-in-a-decade inflection point, and today I’ll break down the elements of this turnaround story.It’s Thursday, Feb 6th at 10am in Hong Kong.Last week, hundreds of millions of people across Asia gathered to celebrate the lunar new year with their families. I was one of them and took a flight back to my hometown Nanjing. Airports were jam-packed for days, with air travel expected to exceed 90 million trips.It’s all indicative of Chinese airlines making a comeback after a seven-year run of underperformance. In fact, we believe Airlines will be one of the first industries to emerge from China's deflationary pressures this year. And this has implications for the country's broader economy.Although COVID impacted Airlines globally, other regions have since recovered. In China, the earnings recovery is just beginning. Since 2018, Chinese Airlines have experienced demand hits from the trade tension, currency depreciation, COVID-19, and post-COVID macro headwinds.It’s been two years since Chinese borders lifted restrictions and air travelers are returning in force. Excess capacity has now been digested. Slower deliveries of aircrafts continue to limit supply, and it is more difficult for airlines to get new aircraft and increase their available seats. Passenger load factors will continue to strengthen this year, which means the airlines are running close to full capacity. This will increase Airlines' pricing power within the next 6 to 12 months, feeding through to earnings.If we put that in a global context, China’s airlines industry handled around 700 million passengers in 2024, 8 per cent of global air passengers; but that 700 million passengers only account for half of China’s population. In the US, air passenger numbers can be three times its population.Chinese airlines have just reached break-even in the past year, while many of their global peers have already generated robust profits. Chinese Airlines’ earnings and valuations have lagged global peers in both absolute and relative terms. But now, with a turnaround coming into view, Chinese Airlines have a longer runway for stronger earnings growth and share price performance than global peers.What’s more, the August 2024 turnaround in US airlines offers several key takeaways for China. US Airlines’ share prices recovered last year, following a long period of underperformance post COVID. The wait before the inflection was long, but share prices moved up quickly once the turning point was reached, and valuation expanded ahead of earnings recovery. Big US airlines outperformed smaller players during the most recent rally. We think all these are relevant to the Chinese Airlines story.If we look at earnings – Chinese Big Three airlines reached breakeven in 2024, making a small profit in 2025, and that profit will double in 2026. But that’s not yet the peak of the cycle; peak cycle earnings could again double the 2026 level, probably in 2027 to 2028. That’s the reason why we think Chinese airlines are on the path to doubling share prices.To sum up, Chinese Airlines represent a once-in-a-decade opportunity for investors. With strengthened passenger load factors and a positive demand outlook, coupled with significant potential for earnings growth, this industry looks ready for takeoff.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. For those who celebrate – 新春快乐，恭喜发财！]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mEOjgSzDQeHZWpocuTPx8furQuLi2tLLglJ2Lxk-5kgThu, 06 Feb 2025 22:28:02 +0000gtyOur Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan explains why a resurgence in air travel is leading China’s emergence from deflation. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Chinese airlines are at a once-in-a-decade inflection point, and today I’ll break down the elements of this turnaround story.It’s Thursday, Feb 6th at 10am in Hong Kong.Last week, hundreds of millions of people across Asia gathered to celebrate the lunar new year with their families. I was one of them and took a flight back to my hometown Nanjing. Airports were jam-packed for days, with air travel expected to exceed 90 million trips.It’s all indicative of Chinese airlines making a comeback after a seven-year run of underperformance. In fact, we believe Airlines will be one of the first industries to emerge from China's deflationary pressures this year. And this has implications for the country's broader economy.Although COVID impacted Airlines globally, other regions have since recovered. In China, the earnings recovery is just beginning. Since 2018, Chinese Airlines have experienced demand hits from the trade tension, currency depreciation, COVID-19, and post-COVID macro headwinds.It’s been two years since Chinese borders lifted restrictions and air travelers are returning in force. Excess capacity has now been digested. Slower deliveries of aircrafts continue to limit supply, and it is more difficult for airlines to get new aircraft and increase their available seats. Passenger load factors will continue to strengthen this year, which means the airlines are running close to full capacity. This will increase Airlines' pricing power within the next 6 to 12 months, feeding through to earnings.If we put that in a global context, China’s airlines industry handled around 700 million passengers in 2024, 8 per cent of global air passengers; but that 700 million passengers only account for half of China’s population. In the US, air passenger numbers can be three times its population.Chinese airlines have just reached break-even in the past year, while many of their global peers have already generated robust profits. Chinese Airlines’ earnings and valuations have lagged global peers in both absolute and relative terms. But now, with a turnaround coming into view, Chinese Airlines have a longer runway for stronger earnings growth and share price performance than global peers.What’s more, the August 2024 turnaround in US airlines offers several key takeaways for China. US Airlines’ share prices recovered last year, following a long period of underperformance post COVID. The wait before the inflection was long, but share prices moved up quickly once the turning point was reached, and valuation expanded ahead of earnings recovery. Big US airlines outperformed smaller players during the most recent rally. We think all these are relevant to the Chinese Airlines story.If we look at earnings – Chinese Big Three airlines reached breakeven in 2024, making a small profit in 2025, and that profit will double in 2026. But that’s not yet the peak of the cycle; peak cycle earnings could again double the 2026 level, probably in 2027 to 2028. That’s the reason why we think Chinese airlines are on the path to doubling share prices.To sum up, Chinese Airlines represent a once-in-a-decade opportunity for investors. With strengthened passenger load factors and a positive demand outlook, coupled with significant potential for earnings growth, this industry looks ready for takeoff.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. For those who celebrate – 新春快乐，恭喜发财！]]>296alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1315fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-2-0-and-the-latest-on-tariffs--75651008----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today – the latest on tariffs and potential outcomes of a shifting North American trade policy. It’s Wednesday, February 5, at 10am in New York. In a series of last-minute phone calls on Monday, President Trump reached a deal with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. President Trump agreed to delay the announced 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month – citing their intention to do more on their borders against migration and drug trafficking. But President Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on all Chinese products went into effect yesterday morning. China responded promptly with its own countermeasures, which are not expected to take effect until Monday, February 10, leaving room for potential negotiations. These developments don’t come as a surprise. We had been assuming – one – that Canada and Mexico could avoid tariffs by making border concessions, which they did. And – two – that the US would craft a tariff policy related to China independent from its considerations around Mexico and Canada. If the underlying goal is to transform its trade relationship with China, then the US has an interest in preserving an alignment with Canada and Mexico. Given all of that, our base case of “fast announcements, slow implementation” looks intact. We expect tariffs on China and some products from Europe to ramp up through the end of the year, putting downward pressure on economic growth into 2026. If tariffs on Mexico and Canada are avoided or delayed further, there would be no change to our broader economic outlook. The U.S. dollar could weaken as it prices out some tariff risk. Within U.S. equities, consumer discretionary as well as broader cyclical stocks could lead. If, however, we're wrong and tariffs do go up on Mexico and Canada after this one-month pause, then we expect some rise in inflation, growth to slow, and the U.S. dollar and Treasuries to outperform equities; at least for a time as the U.S. gets to work rewiring its global trade relationships. Tariffs are likely to dominate news headlines in the days and months to come. We'll keep tracking the topic and bring you updates. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YbtXqbQAKsPEGveJJhFtFLjUbUitlR0v8YNSMtegTmQWed, 05 Feb 2025 20:02:47 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas discusses the potential economic outcomes of a shifting North American trade policy. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today – the latest on tariffs and potential outcomes of a shifting North American trade policy. It’s Wednesday, February 5, at 10am in New York. In a series of last-minute phone calls on Monday, President Trump reached a deal with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. President Trump agreed to delay the announced 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month – citing their intention to do more on their borders against migration and drug trafficking. But President Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on all Chinese products went into effect yesterday morning. China responded promptly with its own countermeasures, which are not expected to take effect until Monday, February 10, leaving room for potential negotiations. These developments don’t come as a surprise. We had been assuming – one – that Canada and Mexico could avoid tariffs by making border concessions, which they did. And – two – that the US would craft a tariff policy related to China independent from its considerations around Mexico and Canada. If the underlying goal is to transform its trade relationship with China, then the US has an interest in preserving an alignment with Canada and Mexico. Given all of that, our base case of “fast announcements, slow implementation” looks intact. We expect tariffs on China and some products from Europe to ramp up through the end of the year, putting downward pressure on economic growth into 2026. If tariffs on Mexico and Canada are avoided or delayed further, there would be no change to our broader economic outlook. The U.S. dollar could weaken as it prices out some tariff risk. Within U.S. equities, consumer discretionary as well as broader cyclical stocks could lead. If, however, we're wrong and tariffs do go up on Mexico and Canada after this one-month pause, then we expect some rise in inflation, growth to slow, and the U.S. dollar and Treasuries to outperform equities; at least for a time as the U.S. gets to work rewiring its global trade relationships. Tariffs are likely to dominate news headlines in the days and months to come. We'll keep tracking the topic and bring you updates. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>160alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1314fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trump-2-0-and-the-future-of-energy--75650990----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product for the Americas and Global Head of Sustainability Research.Devin McDermott: And I'm Devin McDermott, Head of North American Energy Research.Ariana Salvatore: Our topic today looms large in investors minds. We'll be digging into how the new policies proposed under President Trump's administration will fundamentally reshape energy markets.It's Tuesday, February 4th at 10am in New York.On his first day in office, President Trump declared a national energy emergency. He issued four key executive orders, setting out a sweeping plan to maximize oil and gas production. All of this on top of stepping back in tangible ways from the Biden administration's clean energy plans. We think these orders can have a significant impact on the future of energy, one of Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2025.So, Stephen, let's start there. One of the biggest questions is which segments of the power and AI theme stand to benefit the most, and which ones will be the most challenged?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Ariana, I'd say the two biggest beneficiaries will be natural gas and nuclear, probably in that order. And in terms of challenges, I do think, wind, especially offshore wind, will be quite challenged. So, when I think about natural gas, it's very clear that we have an administration that's very pro natural gas.And natural gas is also going to need to be part of the power mix for data centers. It's flexible. It could be built relatively quickly. There are a lot of locational options that are perfect here. So, I do think natural gas is a winner.On nuclear, we do think Republicans broadly, and also many Democrats, firmly support nuclear power. Nuclear is quite helpful, especially for larger data centers or supercomputers. They're large, there's a lot of land at these nuclear plants. And so, I would expect to see some very large data centers built at operational nuclear plants. And we do think the Trump administration will work hard to make that – from a regulatory point of view – make that happen.I also think we'll see a lot of support at the federal level for new nuclear power plant construction, as well as bringing the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle back to the U.S. So those are a few of the areas that I would expect to do well.Ariana Salvatore: Devin, same question for you on the energy sector. How are you thinking about the impacts?Devin McDermott: Yeah, it's a good question, and there's a lot in these executive orders. I mean, some of the key things that we're focused on as impacting the sector include encouraging federal lands development and leasing for oil and gas activity, with a specific focus on Alaska. Resuming LNG permit authorizations, which lifts the ban that's been in place for the last year. Eliminating EV targets, including pausing some IRA funds tied to EVs. Broad support for infrastructure permitting, including pipelines. And then a broader review of environmental regulations, including some recent headlines that point to rolling back fuel efficiency and emission standards for cars and trucks – something that the prior Trump administration did as well.The near-term financial impact to the industry of all this is fairly limited. But there are two key longer-term considerations. First, on the oil side, rolling back fuel efficiency standards and other environmental regulations doesn't stop the transition to lower carbon alternatives, but it does slow it. And in particular, it moderates the longer-term erosion of gasoline and diesel demand; and creates a backdrop where incumbent energy players have a longer runway to harvest cash from these legacy businesses and time to scale up profitable low carbon growth, which is still progressing, despite the policy changes.And then second, gas is the biggest winner, building on some of Stephen's comments. The policy initiatives that we're seeing here are likely to support more LNG exports and more gas power generation relative to the status quo.Ariana Salvatore: So, Devin, one of the things you mentioned there is regulation, and we think that's specifically reflected in this theme of unleashing American energy that Trump likes to talk about. It seems that this would set the stage for looser regulation and more supportive policy for oil and gas development.Do you expect any meaningful changes in near-term investment levels or production growth across the industry?Devin McDermott: It's an easy one, Ariana. No. The reality is the majority of U.S. oil and gas investment activity occurs on state or privately held lands. It's regulated at the state level. And the amount of investment that occurs across presidential election cycles really doesn't change all that much. And, in fact, some of the highest growth years ever for the U.S. oil and gas sector occurred under the Obama administration and also the most recent Biden term where production of both commodities actually hit all time highs.So, when your baseline is things really aren't that bad, it's tough to do much that really accelerates the throttle and causes companies to add more activity or add more oil or gas drilling rigs. And the last thing I just say on this point is the sector is not funding constrained. There's adequate free cash flow; there's adequate investment capacity. And that also is another limiting factor on doing anything that positively influences willingness to spend capital.In the end, it's really more about price – and where oil prices specifically goes as it relates to oil and gas investment – rather than policy.Stephen Byrd: So, Ariana, let me move from Devin's thoughts on price back to policy – and if you take a step back, a key question that we often get asked is: Will the President's executive orders be fully implemented? What do you think?Ariana Salvatore: Well, it's always necessary to frame these policy proposals in terms of their feasibility, right? So, we're still parsing through all of the details of these executive orders. But we already feel higher conviction in some areas over others, where we think the president has clear and present authority to make policy changes.For example, President Trump can pretty easily unilaterally decide to move away from Biden's clean energy targets, but he's going to have a much harder time rescinding money that has already been appropriated, dispersed, or obligated towards these ends. For example, through the Inflation Reduction Act. We think that process is going to be much longer and likely result in a very targeted repeal as opposed to a broad-based claw back of funds.Stephen Byrd: Just thinking about sequencing, can you talk more about, sort of, the potential specific sequencing of these policies?Ariana Salvatore: There are a few different balls in the air right now, so to speak, as we noted in the run up to the inauguration. We expected President Trump to focus first on the areas that are more within his unilateral control as president. So, that really comes down to tariffs and trade policy more broadly, as well as immigration.I would also put deregulation in that bucket, but more on a sector specific basis. So, as we've talked about, we think there's clear deregulatory tailwinds for the energy sector. It's also clear in financials. But across the board, these are going to have more limited success in the energy complex.But Stephen, back to you, given everything that we've been talking about, how do you see the future of clean energy, renewables, EVs – all these elements that make up the Inflation Reduction Act and the broader energy transition?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, as I think about the areas that are most at risk, I think it's very clearly electric vehicles as well as wind power. Both have been, the subject of direct criticism and we would expect a high risk of elimination or reduction of support there. So that will cause some issues. I would say especially offshore wind faces multiple issues and we think the growth outlook is now very challenged.Now that said, onshore wind is often, for example, done on private land rather than public land, and the economics in many locations for both wind and solar remain quite favorable. And I think a big area of underappreciated upside would be AI itself – in the sense that the hyperscalers have very significant zero carbon emissions goals. So, what we see happening is we think these hyperscalers over time as they build out more and more data centers, which do have very high carbon footprints, we do think these hyperscalers are going to engage in power contracts with new renewable projects. So that is a boost to demand that I think the market is really not well appreciating.Ariana Salvatore: And finally, let's consider the issue of powering data centers. Devin, you've spoken about your positive outlook for natural gas. Do you think natural gas is going to play a bigger role in powering large U.S. data centers?Devin McDermott: Yeah, we do, and there's been an uptick in natural gas related announcements as it relates to data center growth in the U.S. over the last few months. And more recently, we've actually seen some very large deals; plus carbon capture which addresses some of the emissions concerns that Stephen was mentioning before – that the hyperscalers have longer term.It's important to contextualize this, though, with the broader growth backdrop for natural gas. The market here domestically is on the cusp of what we see as a structural growth cycle driven really by two key pillars. The first of which is that rise in LNG exports that I was alluding to before, where we're on track to roughly double U.S. export capacity over the nex]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_9KoYhhbQoXQUJKywnfbIv1HlbGhZ1GR1Q-c6EQBNnITue, 04 Feb 2025 22:55:03 +0000gtyOur analysts Ariana Salvatore, Stephen Byrd and Devin McDermott discuss President Trump’s four executive orders around energy policy and how they could reshape the sector. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product for the Americas and Global Head of Sustainability Research.Devin McDermott: And I'm Devin McDermott, Head of North American Energy Research.Ariana Salvatore: Our topic today looms large in investors minds. We'll be digging into how the new policies proposed under President Trump's administration will fundamentally reshape energy markets.It's Tuesday, February 4th at 10am in New York.On his first day in office, President Trump declared a national energy emergency. He issued four key executive orders, setting out a sweeping plan to maximize oil and gas production. All of this on top of stepping back in tangible ways from the Biden administration's clean energy plans. We think these orders can have a significant impact on the future of energy, one of Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2025.So, Stephen, let's start there. One of the biggest questions is which segments of the power and AI theme stand to benefit the most, and which ones will be the most challenged?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Ariana, I'd say the two biggest beneficiaries will be natural gas and nuclear, probably in that order. And in terms of challenges, I do think, wind, especially offshore wind, will be quite challenged. So, when I think about natural gas, it's very clear that we have an administration that's very pro natural gas.And natural gas is also going to need to be part of the power mix for data centers. It's flexible. It could be built relatively quickly. There are a lot of locational options that are perfect here. So, I do think natural gas is a winner.On nuclear, we do think Republicans broadly, and also many Democrats, firmly support nuclear power. Nuclear is quite helpful, especially for larger data centers or supercomputers. They're large, there's a lot of land at these nuclear plants. And so, I would expect to see some very large data centers built at operational nuclear plants. And we do think the Trump administration will work hard to make that – from a regulatory point of view – make that happen.I also think we'll see a lot of support at the federal level for new nuclear power plant construction, as well as bringing the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle back to the U.S. So those are a few of the areas that I would expect to do well.Ariana Salvatore: Devin, same question for you on the energy sector. How are you thinking about the impacts?Devin McDermott: Yeah, it's a good question, and there's a lot in these executive orders. I mean, some of the key things that we're focused on as impacting the sector include encouraging federal lands development and leasing for oil and gas activity, with a specific focus on Alaska. Resuming LNG permit authorizations, which lifts the ban that's been in place for the last year. Eliminating EV targets, including pausing some IRA funds tied to EVs. Broad support for infrastructure permitting, including pipelines. And then a broader review of environmental regulations, including some recent headlines that point to rolling back fuel efficiency and emission standards for cars and trucks – something that the prior Trump administration did as well.The near-term financial impact to the industry of all this is fairly limited. But there are two key longer-term considerations. First, on the oil side, rolling back fuel efficiency standards and other environmental regulations doesn't stop the transition to lower carbon alternatives, but it does slow it. And in particular, it moderates the longer-term erosion of gasoline and diesel demand; and creates a backdrop where incumbent energy players have a longer runway to harvest cash from these...]]>707alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1313fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tariffs-and-tech-challenge-stocks--75650999----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing tariffs, recent developments in AI and what it means for stocks.It's Monday, Feb 3rd at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.While 2024 was a strong year for many stocks, it was mostly a second half story. With recession fears peaking last summer and a Fed that remained on hold due to still elevated inflation, markets were essentially flat year-to-date in early August.But then everything changed. The Fed surprised markets with a 50 basis points cut to show its commitment to keeping the economy out of recession. This was followed by better labor data and two more 25 basis points cuts from the Fed. Investors took this as a green light to add more equity to portfolios—the riskier the better. It also became clear to markets and many observers that President Trump was likely going to win the election, with a rising chance of a Republican sweep in Congress. Given the more pro-growth agenda proposed by candidate Trump and his track record during his first term as President, he made investors even more bullish. Finally, given all the concern about a hung election, the fact that we got such definitive results on election night only added fuel to the equation. Hedges were swiftly removed and even reversed to long positions as both asset managers and retail investors chased performance for fear of falling behind, or missing out. In October, I suggested the S&P 500 would likely trade to 6100 on a clean election outcome. After promptly hitting that level in early December, stocks had a very weak month to finish the year with deteriorating breadth. The S&P 500 started the year soft before rallying sharply into inauguration day, essentially re-testing that 6100 level once again. The difference this time is that the re-test occurred on much lower breadth with high quality resuming its leadership role. Tariffs were always on the agenda, as was immigration enforcement, both of which are growth negative in the short-term.In my view, investors simply got complacent about these risks and are now dealing with them in real time. This also fits with our view that the first half of the year was likely to be tougher for stocks as equity negative policies would be implemented immediately before the equity positive policies like de-regulation, tax extensions and reduced government spending had time to play out in the form of less crowding out and lower interest rates. At the Index level, I expect the S&P 500 to trade in a range between 5500 to 6100 for the next 3 to 6 months, with our fourth quarter price target at 6500 remaining intact. Since we have been expecting tariffs to be implemented, this realization only furthers our preference for consumer services over goods. It also supports our preference for financials and other domestically geared businesses that have limited currency or trade exposures. In addition to rising political uncertainty, we also saw the release of DeepSeek’s latest AI chat bot last week. This added another level of uncertainty for investors that could have lasting implications at both the stock and index level given the importance of this investment theme. On one hand it could also accelerate the adoption of AI technologies if it truly lowers the cost – but many portfolios will need to adjust for this shift if that’s the case. We think it further supports our ongoing preference for software and media over semiconductors. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Dnq4VopalUDHvkCC89UsN0mxN0dND5KdkOJ7KlMmbYcMon, 03 Feb 2025 21:11:29 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why U.S. stocks took a hit that is likely to sustain through the first half of 2025. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing tariffs, recent developments in AI and what it means for stocks.It's Monday, Feb 3rd at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.While 2024 was a strong year for many stocks, it was mostly a second half story. With recession fears peaking last summer and a Fed that remained on hold due to still elevated inflation, markets were essentially flat year-to-date in early August.But then everything changed. The Fed surprised markets with a 50 basis points cut to show its commitment to keeping the economy out of recession. This was followed by better labor data and two more 25 basis points cuts from the Fed. Investors took this as a green light to add more equity to portfolios—the riskier the better. It also became clear to markets and many observers that President Trump was likely going to win the election, with a rising chance of a Republican sweep in Congress. Given the more pro-growth agenda proposed by candidate Trump and his track record during his first term as President, he made investors even more bullish. Finally, given all the concern about a hung election, the fact that we got such definitive results on election night only added fuel to the equation. Hedges were swiftly removed and even reversed to long positions as both asset managers and retail investors chased performance for fear of falling behind, or missing out. In October, I suggested the S&P 500 would likely trade to 6100 on a clean election outcome. After promptly hitting that level in early December, stocks had a very weak month to finish the year with deteriorating breadth. The S&P 500 started the year soft before rallying sharply into inauguration day, essentially re-testing that 6100 level once again. The difference this time is that the re-test occurred on much lower breadth with high quality resuming its leadership role. Tariffs were always on the agenda, as was immigration enforcement, both of which are growth negative in the short-term.In my view, investors simply got complacent about these risks and are now dealing with them in real time. This also fits with our view that the first half of the year was likely to be tougher for stocks as equity negative policies would be implemented immediately before the equity positive policies like de-regulation, tax extensions and reduced government spending had time to play out in the form of less crowding out and lower interest rates. At the Index level, I expect the S&P 500 to trade in a range between 5500 to 6100 for the next 3 to 6 months, with our fourth quarter price target at 6500 remaining intact. Since we have been expecting tariffs to be implemented, this realization only furthers our preference for consumer services over goods. It also supports our preference for financials and other domestically geared businesses that have limited currency or trade exposures. In addition to rising political uncertainty, we also saw the release of DeepSeek’s latest AI chat bot last week. This added another level of uncertainty for investors that could have lasting implications at both the stock and index level given the importance of this investment theme. On one hand it could also accelerate the adoption of AI technologies if it truly lowers the cost – but many portfolios will need to adjust for this shift if that’s the case. We think it further supports our ongoing preference for software and media over semiconductors. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>236alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1312fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/big-debates-who-will-be-the-trade-winners-under-trump--75650785----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley.Christopher Snyder: I’m Chris Snyder, US Multi-Industry Analyst.Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Chief Latin America Equity Strategist.Michelle Weaver: On this episode of our special mini-series covering Big Debates, we'll talk about the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship and the key issues around reshoring and nearshoring.It's Friday, January 31st at 10am in New York.The imposition of tariffs back in 2018 under the first Trump administration and the COVID pandemic put a severe strain on global supply chains and catalyzed reshoring and nearshoring in North America. But with inflation and supply chain concerns no longer front and center, investors are questioning whether the U.S. reshoring momentum can continue.Chris, what's your view here?Christopher Snyder: I think it's in the very early innings. You know, if you look at the history of U.S. manufacturing, the country really started ceding share in about 2000 when China joined the World Trade Organization. So, it's been going on for 25 years; we've been giving share back to the world. I think the process of taking share back is probably slower and ultimately is a multi-decade opportunity.But you're absolutely right. The supply chain concerns are no longer like they were three to four years ago. But what I think has persevered since the pandemic is this heightened focus on operational durability and resiliency; and really shortening supply chains and getting closer to the end user, which I'm sure we'll hear more from Nick about, on the Mexico side.But, you know, if you kind of look back at global supply chains and manufacturing, it's really been a chase to find low-cost labor for the last 45 years. And while that's always important, we think going forward, capital and proximity to end users will increasingly dictate that regional allocation of CapEx. I mean, those parameters are very supportive for the U. S.You know, one thing I would like to kind of, you know, make sure is known on our U.S. reshoring view is that, you know, oftentimes it's thought of that we're shutting down a factory in China and reopening the same factory in the United States, and that's really a very rare example.Our view is that the world, and very specific industries need to add capacity. And we just simply think that the U.S. is better positioned to get that incremental factory relative to any point in the last 45 years, due to the combination of structural tech diffusion, but also this focus on resiliency. And one thing that I really do think is underappreciated is that global manufacturing grows 4 to 5 per cent a year. In the U.S. it's been more in the 1 to 2 percent range because we're constantly ceding share. But even if the U.S. just stops giving back share, you could see the growth profile of U.S. industrials double.Michelle Weaver: How would you size the reshoring opportunity? Do you have a dollar amount on what that could be worth?Christopher Snyder: Yeah, we’ve sized it at $10 trillion. You know, and it's been a combination of the CapEx, the fixed asset investment that's needed to build these factories, then ultimately the production, you know, opportunity that will come to those factories thereafter.Michelle Weaver: And you've argued that the U.S. reshoring flame was really lit in 2018 with the first wave of the Trump tariffs. It seems clear that trade policies by the new administration will continue to support reshoring. What's your outlook there?Christopher Snyder: Yeah, you're absolutely right. Prior to 2018, there wasn't really a thought process. If you need an incremental factory, you most likely just put it in China. And I think the tariffs, back in 2018 or [20]19 really started, or kickstarted boardroom conversations around global supply chains. So, I think a Trump presidency absolutely adds duration to this theme via protectionism or tariffs that the administration will implement.If you go back to the Trump 1.0 tariffs, supply chains reacted to the change in cost structures very quickly. We didn't see a huge wave of investment back into the United States. We just saw production exit China and move to broader Asia, because the focus was tariff avoidance.Now, we think the focus is around building operational, resiliency and durability which better positions the U.S. to get that incremental factory. And one thing that I think is underappreciated here is just how much leverage U.S. politicians have. The U.S. is the best demand region in the world. The U.S. accounts for about 30 per cent of global goods consumption. That's equal to the E.U. and China combined. It's also the best margin region in the world, not only for U.S. companies; but most international companies do their best margins in the United States. So, you can raise the cost to serve the U.S. market, and no one is turning away from the region that has the best demand and the best margins.Michelle Weaver: So, of course, tariffs in the pandemic have been major catalysts for U.S. reshoring. Have there been any other drivers like tech diffusion?Christopher Snyder: Yeah. I view the pandemic as the catalyst, and I view tech diffusion as the structural tailwind for U.S. manufacturing. Over time, we will continue to figure out ways to squeeze labor out of the manufacturing cost profile. It's hard to kind of pinpoint it, but I think if we look out over any 5- or 10-year window, we will see that. That's a structural talent for the United States, given the high labor costs. And really what it will help do is just narrow the cost delta, between low cost producing regions. I also think as we kind of extend this tech diffusion into GenAI; I also think what's going on is, will fuel another round of protectionism. So, you know, kind of further keeping that cycle going.Michelle Weaver: Nick, of course the big question investors are asking is how will the Trump trade agenda impact Mexico? Contrary to the prevailing market view, you've argued that Mexico can actually win big with Trump. How's this possible?Nikolaj Lippmann: That's right, Michelle. Look, we recently upgraded Mexico to equal weight, from underweight. And while some of the news we see around the administration seems a bit like a sequel, there are other things that are just very different.We're not talking about ripping apart the USMCA but actually bringing forward renegotiations from [20]26 to [20]25. It's a much more constructive message. It's a very young deal, and yet I think the world we live in today is quite different from the world of 2018. When we look at what are some of the things where Mexico could actually end up winning big, we look at the regionalism that appears to be a number one agenda.We look at the – how difficult it would be for the United States to de-risk from China. And from Mexico simultaneously. And also, fundamentally at that integration across the border, the industrial integration. It's clear that there's a need for calibration. There's a need for calibration in terms of a lot of the trade policy. There's been talks about maybe a customs union and I think that's far out in the future. But there's a need to try to figure out how to calibrate trade. And also, you know, there are things that Mexican policy makers can do to deal with the non-trade related issues, such as immigration or the cartels. And I think frankly, it's in Mexico's interest to deal with some of these issues.Michelle Weaver: Where are we in the whole Mexico as a China bridge versus China buffer debate?Nikolaj Lippmann: Right. That's another good question, Michelle. And one thing that we've been writing a lot about. The key difference from where we were, in Trump 1.0 and now is just how different the relationship with China really is. And I think one area where we've been scratching our head a little bit with regards to the – how Mexican policymakers have reacted after signing the USMCA deal is really just around that. That relationship with China. Well, I think that might have – they might have misread or underestimated just how much times have changed.We've seen a big increase in import from China. There have been very specific manufacturing ecosystems. And we've also seen increased investments by China and Mexico. Now, this has caused Mexico's trade deficit with China to go up a lot – almost double. And we've also seen an increase in the trade deficit between Mexico and the United States, in Mexico's favor.Now, that could imply that it's all the China bridge, I think that's far from the truth. But, you know, Mexico is probably two-third or a little more above. It's really that integration that I think policy makers in Mexico need to understand. And then you need to manage that these emerging elements of being a bridge. This is not in Mexico's interest; it's not in the U.S. interest to simply just be a bridge.We have done a lot of surveys with corporates around the world; and the way the European, and American companies in particular view Mexico is completely different from the way Asian and in particular Chinese companies view Mexico. The Chinese companies view Mexico much more as a place of assembly – whereas Americans think of Mexico as an integrated part of the manufacturing value chain.Michelle Weaver: Finally, how will the Mexico nearshoring theme develop from here?Nikolaj Lippmann: This is a great debate, I think. And one that's going to be – I think we're going to be writing a lot with Chris about, and with you guys around, about. Also, with the U.S. policy team. We laid out in 2022 this hypothesis that onshoring, nearshoring was about to happen. In terms of Mexico, it would imply $150 billion over five years. And very import]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/46XhIhu4P40NWrMoy3m2Vb8OF_JoKUvO-ijJyUhbvb0Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:18:17 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Chris Snyder and Nik Lippmann discuss U.S.-Mexico trade and the future of reshoring and near-shoring under the Trump administration. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley.Christopher Snyder: I’m Chris Snyder, US Multi-Industry Analyst.Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Chief Latin America Equity Strategist.Michelle Weaver: On this episode of our special mini-series covering Big Debates, we'll talk about the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship and the key issues around reshoring and nearshoring.It's Friday, January 31st at 10am in New York.The imposition of tariffs back in 2018 under the first Trump administration and the COVID pandemic put a severe strain on global supply chains and catalyzed reshoring and nearshoring in North America. But with inflation and supply chain concerns no longer front and center, investors are questioning whether the U.S. reshoring momentum can continue.Chris, what's your view here?Christopher Snyder: I think it's in the very early innings. You know, if you look at the history of U.S. manufacturing, the country really started ceding share in about 2000 when China joined the World Trade Organization. So, it's been going on for 25 years; we've been giving share back to the world. I think the process of taking share back is probably slower and ultimately is a multi-decade opportunity.But you're absolutely right. The supply chain concerns are no longer like they were three to four years ago. But what I think has persevered since the pandemic is this heightened focus on operational durability and resiliency; and really shortening supply chains and getting closer to the end user, which I'm sure we'll hear more from Nick about, on the Mexico side.But, you know, if you kind of look back at global supply chains and manufacturing, it's really been a chase to find low-cost labor for the last 45 years. And while that's always important, we think going forward, capital and proximity to end users will increasingly dictate that regional allocation of CapEx. I mean, those parameters are very supportive for the U. S.You know, one thing I would like to kind of, you know, make sure is known on our U.S. reshoring view is that, you know, oftentimes it's thought of that we're shutting down a factory in China and reopening the same factory in the United States, and that's really a very rare example.Our view is that the world, and very specific industries need to add capacity. And we just simply think that the U.S. is better positioned to get that incremental factory relative to any point in the last 45 years, due to the combination of structural tech diffusion, but also this focus on resiliency. And one thing that I really do think is underappreciated is that global manufacturing grows 4 to 5 per cent a year. In the U.S. it's been more in the 1 to 2 percent range because we're constantly ceding share. But even if the U.S. just stops giving back share, you could see the growth profile of U.S. industrials double.Michelle Weaver: How would you size the reshoring opportunity? Do you have a dollar amount on what that could be worth?Christopher Snyder: Yeah, we’ve sized it at $10 trillion. You know, and it's been a combination of the CapEx, the fixed asset investment that's needed to build these factories, then ultimately the production, you know, opportunity that will come to those factories thereafter.Michelle Weaver: And you've argued that the U.S. reshoring flame was really lit in 2018 with the first wave of the Trump tariffs. It seems clear that trade policies by the new administration will continue to support reshoring. What's your outlook there?Christopher Snyder: Yeah, you're absolutely right. Prior to 2018, there wasn't really a thought process. If you need an incremental factory, you most likely just put it in China. And I think the tariffs,...]]>620alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1311fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/managing-fiscal-policy-uncertainty-under-trump-2-0--75650908----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Matthew Hornbach: And I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about U.S. fiscal policy expectations under the new Trump administration and the path for U.S. Treasury yields.It's Thursday, January 30th at 10am in New York.Fiscal policy is one of the four key channels that have a major impact on markets. And I want to get into the outlook for the broader path for fiscal policy under the new administration. But Matt, let's start with your initial take on this week's FOMC meeting.Matthew Hornbach: So, investors came into the FOMC meeting this week with a view that they were going to hear a message from Chair Powell that sounded very similar to the message they heard from him in December. And I think that was largely the outcome. In other words, investors got what they expected out of this FOMC meeting. What did it say about the chance the Fed would lower interest rates again as soon as the March FOMC meeting? I think in that respect investors walked away with the message that the Fed’s baseline view for the path of monetary policy probably did not include a reduction of the policy rate at the March FOMC meeting. But that there was a lot of data to take on board between now and that meeting. And, of course, the Fed as ever remains data dependent.All of that said, the year ahead for markets will rely on more than just Fed policy. Fiscal policy may feature just as prominently. But during the first week of Trump's presidency, we didn't get much signaling around the president's fiscal policy intentions. There are plenty of key issues to discuss as we anticipate more details from the new administration.So, Mike, to set the scene here. What is the government's budget baseline at the start of Trump's second term? And what are the president's priorities in terms of fiscal policies?Michael Zezas: You know, I think the real big variable here is the set of tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025. These were tax cuts originally passed in President Trump's first term. And if they're allowed to expire, then the budget baseline would show that the deficit would be about $100 billion smaller next year.If instead the tax cuts are extended and then President Trump were able to get a couple more items on top of that – say, for example, lifting the cap on state and local tax deduction and creating a domestic manufacturing tax credit; two things that we think are well within the consensus of Republicans, even with their slim majority – then the deficit impact swings from a contraction to something like a couple hundred billion dollars of deficit expansion next year. So, there's meaningful variance there.And Matt, we've got 10-year Treasury yields hovering near highs that we haven't seen since before the global financial crisis around 10 years ago. And yields are up around a full percentage point since September. So, what's going on here and to what extent is the debate on the deficit influential?Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think we have to consider a couple of factors. The deficit certainly being one of them, but people have been discussing deficits for a long time now. It's certainly news to no one that the deficit has grown quite substantially over the past several years. And most investors expect that the deficit will continue to grow. So, concerns around the deficit are definitely a factor and in particular how those deficits create more government bonds supply. The U.S. Treasury, of course, is in charge of determining exactly how much government bond supply ends up hitting the marketplace.But it's important to note that the incoming U.S. Treasury secretary has been on the record as suggesting that lower deficits relative to the size of the economy are desired. Taking the deficit to GDP ratio from its current 7 per cent to 3 per cent over the next four years is desirable, according to the incoming Treasury secretary. So, I think it is far from conclusive that deficits are only heading in one direction. They may very well stabilize, and investors will eventually need to come to terms with that possibility.The other factor I think that's going on in the Treasury market today relates to the calendar. Effectively we have just gone through the end of the year. It's typically a time when investors pull back from active investment, but not every investor pulls back from actively investing in the market. And in particular, there is a consortium of investors that trade with more of a momentum bias that saw yields moving higher and invested in that direction; that, of course, exacerbated the move.And of course, this was all occurring ahead of a very important event, which was the inauguration of President Trump. There was a lot of concern amongst investors about exactly what the executive orders would entail for key issues like trade policy. And so there was, I think, a buyer's strike in the government bond market really until we got past the inauguration.So, Mike, with that background, can you help investors understand the process by which legislation and its deficit impact will be decided? Are there signposts to pay attention to? Perhaps people and processes to watch?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so the starting point here is Republicans have very slim majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. And extending these tax cuts in the way Republicans want to do it probably means they won't get enough Democratic votes to cross the aisle in the Senate to avoid a filibuster.So, you have to use this process called budget reconciliation to pass things with a simple majority. That's important because the first step here is determining how much of an expected deficit expansion that Republicans are willing to accept. So, procedurally then, what you can expect from here, is the House of Representatives take the first step – probably by the end of May. And then the Senate will decide what level of deficit expansion they're comfortable with – which then means really in the fall we'll find out what tax provisions are in, which ones are out, and then ultimately what the budget impact would be in 2026.But because of that, it means that between here and the fall, many different fiscal outcomes will seem very likely, even if ultimately our base case, which is an extension of the TCJA with a couple of extra provisions, is what actually comes true.And given that, Matt, would you say that this type of confusion in the near term might also translate into some variance in Treasury yields along the way to ultimately what you think the end point for the year is, which is lower yields from here?Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. There's such a focus amongst investors on the fiscal policy outlook that any volatility in the negotiation process will almost certainly show up in Treasury yields over time.Michael Zezas: Got it.Matthew Hornbach: On that note, Mike, one more question, if I may. Could you walk me through the important upcoming dates for Congress that could shed light on the willingness or ability to expand the deficit further?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so I'd pay attention to this March 14th deadline for extending stopgap appropriations because there will likely be a lot of chatter amongst Congressional Republicans about fiscal expectations. And it's the type of thing that could feed into some of the volatility and perception that you talked about, which might move markets in the meantime.I still think most of the signal we have to wait for here is around the reconciliation process, around what the Senate might say over the summer. And then probably most importantly, the negotiation in the fall about ultimately what taxes will be passed, what that deficit impact will be. And then there's this other variable around tariffs, which can also create an offsetting impact on any deficit expansion.So still a lot to play for despite that near term deadline, which might give us a little bit of information and might influence markets on a near term basis.Matthew Hornbach: Great. Well Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Zezas: Matt, great speaking with you. And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/R_vS8pfs1FNRcGiw46kGBpOgMuUzWJJiRRLG19g_VmAThu, 30 Jan 2025 23:04:45 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research, Michael Zezas, and Global Head of Macro Strategy, Matt Hornbach, discuss how the Trump administration’s fiscal policies could impact Treasuries markets. ----- Transcript ----- Michael...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Matthew Hornbach: And I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about U.S. fiscal policy expectations under the new Trump administration and the path for U.S. Treasury yields.It's Thursday, January 30th at 10am in New York.Fiscal policy is one of the four key channels that have a major impact on markets. And I want to get into the outlook for the broader path for fiscal policy under the new administration. But Matt, let's start with your initial take on this week's FOMC meeting.Matthew Hornbach: So, investors came into the FOMC meeting this week with a view that they were going to hear a message from Chair Powell that sounded very similar to the message they heard from him in December. And I think that was largely the outcome. In other words, investors got what they expected out of this FOMC meeting. What did it say about the chance the Fed would lower interest rates again as soon as the March FOMC meeting? I think in that respect investors walked away with the message that the Fed’s baseline view for the path of monetary policy probably did not include a reduction of the policy rate at the March FOMC meeting. But that there was a lot of data to take on board between now and that meeting. And, of course, the Fed as ever remains data dependent.All of that said, the year ahead for markets will rely on more than just Fed policy. Fiscal policy may feature just as prominently. But during the first week of Trump's presidency, we didn't get much signaling around the president's fiscal policy intentions. There are plenty of key issues to discuss as we anticipate more details from the new administration.So, Mike, to set the scene here. What is the government's budget baseline at the start of Trump's second term? And what are the president's priorities in terms of fiscal policies?Michael Zezas: You know, I think the real big variable here is the set of tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025. These were tax cuts originally passed in President Trump's first term. And if they're allowed to expire, then the budget baseline would show that the deficit would be about $100 billion smaller next year.If instead the tax cuts are extended and then President Trump were able to get a couple more items on top of that – say, for example, lifting the cap on state and local tax deduction and creating a domestic manufacturing tax credit; two things that we think are well within the consensus of Republicans, even with their slim majority – then the deficit impact swings from a contraction to something like a couple hundred billion dollars of deficit expansion next year. So, there's meaningful variance there.And Matt, we've got 10-year Treasury yields hovering near highs that we haven't seen since before the global financial crisis around 10 years ago. And yields are up around a full percentage point since September. So, what's going on here and to what extent is the debate on the deficit influential?Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think we have to consider a couple of factors. The deficit certainly being one of them, but people have been discussing deficits for a long time now. It's certainly news to no one that the deficit has grown quite substantially over the past several years. And most investors expect that the deficit will continue to grow. So, concerns around the deficit are definitely a factor and in particular how those deficits create more government bonds supply. The U.S. Treasury, of course, is in charge of determining exactly how much government bond supply ends up hitting the marketplace.But it's important to note that...]]>546alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1310fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-mixed-bag-for-retail-and-consumer-sectors--75650903----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Gianelli: I’m Jenna Gianelli, Head of Retail Consumer Credit, here at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: And today on this episode, we're going to discuss the outlook for the retail and consumer sectors.It’s Wednesday, Jan 29th at 9 am in New York.So, Jenna, it's great to talk with you, and it's really great to talk about the retail and consumer sectors heading into 2025, because it's such an important part of the investor debate. On the one hand, a lot of economic data in the U.S. seems strong, including a very low unemployment rate. And yet, we’re also hearing a lot about cost-of-living pressures on consumers, lower consumer confidence, and investor concern that the consumer is just not going to be able to hold up in this higher rate environment. And then you can layer on uncertainty from the new administration. Will we see tariffs? How large will they be? And how will retailers, which often import a lot of their goods, handle those changes?So, maybe just kind of starting off at a 40, 000-foot view, how are you thinking about consumer dynamics going into 2025?Jenna Gianelli: Of course. So, I think that that choppy consumer demand environment is actually one of the strongest pillars of our more cautious view, going into next year. How the sector, performed last year was not in tandem with kind of what the macro headlines suggested. The macro headlines were quite positive, and the consumer was, you know, seemingly strong. But there was a lot going on under the hood when you looked at different dichotomies, right? So, if you looked at the high-end versus the low-end, if you looked at goods versus services. And then within, you know, certain categories, there were categories that were, you know, really quite strong based on what the consumer was prioritizing – goods, essentials, personal care, beauty, right? And then there were others that they really shied away from.So, I think what we're going to see in 2025 is quite a bit more of that. When we think that the high-end will continue to be resilient, that pressure on the low-income consumer will continue. But actually moderate potentially as into [20]25, as we think about lower interest rates, potentially, you know, lesser immigration and so less competition for jobs at the lower income level. So maybe even some tailwinds, but it's really an alleviation of pressure and easier compares. But we do expect overall some deceleration, right? Because we had a lot of pent-up demand, especially on the high-end.So, we are expecting services, demand to slow, in 2025 and goods actually to hold up relatively well. So, we really are focused on what's going on at the individual category level and the different types of consumers that we're looking at.Andrew Sheets: And as you think about some of those, you know, subcategories that you, you cover, maybe just a minute on a couple that you think will perform the best over this year and some that you think might face the biggest challenges.Jenna Gianelli: There are some that have been under relative pressure, in [20]23 and [20]24 where we might actually see some, you know, relief. Now, depending on the direction of rates in the housing market, we could see and expect to see an uptick in bigger ticket spending, durables, home related, that have been under, you know, some pressure.And also, you know, categories where, you know, the consumer, they're arguably discretionary. But maybe they pulled back because there was a big surge in demand just post-COVID. Pet in our universe is actually one example of those, where it's been a bit depressed and we actually expect to see, you know, some recovery into next year; also tied to housing right as new house formation starts.So, but again, a lot of that is predicated on the, you know, housing direction of rates and some of these other macro factors. I'd say, irrespective of the more macro influences, we do still expect that essentials – grocery, and certain categories like a beauty, pockets of apparel and brands, right? It really comes down to the brands, the brand heat, the brand relevance. If it's relevant to the consumer, they're going to spend on it. And so, that's where we really focus on the micro level; our picks of which brands are resonating, which categories are resonating. Which is, those are some of the, you know, the few that we're expecting, either a recovery in or still, you know, relative, outperformance.I'd say on the laggard side, which is probably the next piece of that question. I mean, look, there's still a lot of secular headwinds at play. And so, you know, from a department store perspective outside of event risk or idiosyncratic risk, we're still generally expecting department stores and kind of traditional specialty apparel, mall-based, with not a lot of channel diversification to still generally underperform and see similar trends they've seen the last few years.Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, your sector is sitting at the center of this kind of very interesting economic debate over how healthy the consumer really is. And, you know, it's also sitting at the center of the policy debate because tariffs are a dynamic that could dramatically affect retailers depending on how large they are and how they're implemented.So how do you think about tariff risk? And can you give some sense of how you think about exposure of your sector to those dynamics?Jenna Gianelli: So, tariffs and policy risk and the uncertainty, is one of the big reasons. And when we think about, you know, retail – and particularly discretionary retail – why we're more cautious on the space into [20]25. Tariffs is the biggest piece of that. The degrees of exposure across our universe, varying degrees to a very wide range, right? So, we have some that are minimal, you know, let's say 5 per cent out of, you know, China sourcing some up to 70 per cent out of China sourcing. And then you layer in, well, what about goods from Canada and Mexico and what if there's a universal tariff?And so, the range of outcomes, is, you know, so significant. And so, what we are advocating to investors is that we go in with the expectation that tariffs are a – an uncertain, but certain threat, right? And not completely minimizing them within a portfolio but reducing the ones that do tend to have those higher, you know, exposures.I'd say the range from when we stress tested the earnings headwinds potential. I mean, it was anything from call it down 10 per cent EBITDA to down 60-70 per cent EBITDA in the most draconian scenarios. And so, I think taking a very prudent approach, assuming that there will be some level of tariffs phased in, you know; if we look back to the 2018 timeframe – different sets of goods, different times, different rates and go from there.Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, we've talked about the economy. We've talked about some of the policy and tariff risk potentially impacting consumer and retail. You know, a third really key strategic theme for us is more corporate activity, more M&A. And again, I think this is where your sector is so interesting because you were already kind of in the center of some of these debates, last year with corporate activity.So, can you talk a little bit about how you see that? And again, you also have this interesting dynamic that some of the targets of M&A activity in your sector were some of the businesses that were kind of struggling, that were kind of seen as some of these laggards. And so how does that just represent different investor views of their prospects? How do you think people should think about that going forward?Jenna Gianelli: So, look, I think M&A could have positive risk for 2025 and also negative risk for some of our companies. And it really depends, at least from a credit perspective, how we think about some of their indentures and bond language and likelihood of pro forma capital structures.But I think without getting, you know, too deep into that, our expectation is that M&A will increase. We know that there is private equity capital on the sidelines to the extent that rates, even if we're in a little bit of a higher for longer, if the expectation is that we do on the year [20]25 in a slightly lower regime, at least we have some stability or visibility on the rate front. Which should, you know, spur more corporate activity.And then also, I think, look, just equity valuations, right? I mean, our universe, particularly when you think about – the size of the equity check that you need to come in at and the valuations are a bit cheaper because across our universe, we did see some underperformance last year.So, I think those are the kind of main drivers of why we'll see the activity pick up on the underperforming pieces of the space. There are still pockets of value that I think private equity sponsors are seeing. The ones that have come up most notably are real estate, right? And, you know, we saw…Andrew Sheets: Because these retailers often own a large…Jenna Gianelli: Many of the department stores own a significant amount of their real estate. 20, 20, 40, 50 per cent depending on your, you know, assumptions and how you value this real estate. But even with conservative LTV assumptions, there is lending capability here. And I think so that's, you know, one piece of it, those that have multi-banner assets that appeal to different consumer cohorts, that have maybe a solid private label portfolio.When you think about intellectual property, there are real assets, for certain retailers. And so, I think that's what, you know, private equity historically has seen as the play. Now, how that manifests throughout the space? You know, from an LBO p]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CB5N47HMEwmJ2D_c5FjrKLzVw5zL8_K7zOyVGmsdbnMWed, 29 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research and Head of Retail Consumer Credit discuss what choppy demand and tariff risk could mean for sectors that depend on consumer spending. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Gianelli: I’m Jenna Gianelli, Head of Retail Consumer Credit, here at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: And today on this episode, we're going to discuss the outlook for the retail and consumer sectors.It’s Wednesday, Jan 29th at 9 am in New York.So, Jenna, it's great to talk with you, and it's really great to talk about the retail and consumer sectors heading into 2025, because it's such an important part of the investor debate. On the one hand, a lot of economic data in the U.S. seems strong, including a very low unemployment rate. And yet, we’re also hearing a lot about cost-of-living pressures on consumers, lower consumer confidence, and investor concern that the consumer is just not going to be able to hold up in this higher rate environment. And then you can layer on uncertainty from the new administration. Will we see tariffs? How large will they be? And how will retailers, which often import a lot of their goods, handle those changes?So, maybe just kind of starting off at a 40, 000-foot view, how are you thinking about consumer dynamics going into 2025?Jenna Gianelli: Of course. So, I think that that choppy consumer demand environment is actually one of the strongest pillars of our more cautious view, going into next year. How the sector, performed last year was not in tandem with kind of what the macro headlines suggested. The macro headlines were quite positive, and the consumer was, you know, seemingly strong. But there was a lot going on under the hood when you looked at different dichotomies, right? So, if you looked at the high-end versus the low-end, if you looked at goods versus services. And then within, you know, certain categories, there were categories that were, you know, really quite strong based on what the consumer was prioritizing – goods, essentials, personal care, beauty, right? And then there were others that they really shied away from.So, I think what we're going to see in 2025 is quite a bit more of that. When we think that the high-end will continue to be resilient, that pressure on the low-income consumer will continue. But actually moderate potentially as into [20]25, as we think about lower interest rates, potentially, you know, lesser immigration and so less competition for jobs at the lower income level. So maybe even some tailwinds, but it's really an alleviation of pressure and easier compares. But we do expect overall some deceleration, right? Because we had a lot of pent-up demand, especially on the high-end.So, we are expecting services, demand to slow, in 2025 and goods actually to hold up relatively well. So, we really are focused on what's going on at the individual category level and the different types of consumers that we're looking at.Andrew Sheets: And as you think about some of those, you know, subcategories that you, you cover, maybe just a minute on a couple that you think will perform the best over this year and some that you think might face the biggest challenges.Jenna Gianelli: There are some that have been under relative pressure, in [20]23 and [20]24 where we might actually see some, you know, relief. Now, depending on the direction of rates in the housing market, we could see and expect to see an uptick in bigger ticket spending, durables, home related, that have been under, you know, some pressure.And also, you know, categories where, you know, the consumer, they're arguably discretionary. But maybe they pulled back because there was a big surge in demand just post-COVID. Pet in our universe is actually one example of those, where it's been a bit depressed and we actually expect to see, you know, some recovery into next year; also tied to...]]>682alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1309fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-trump-s-tariffs-reshape-asian-economies--75650917----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what U.S. tariffs would mean for Asia's economy.It's Tuesday, January 28th at 8am in New York.Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong.Michael Zezas: Chetan, a week into the new Trump administration, I'm eager to talk tariffs with you. You and I came on the show before the U.S. election to discuss the potential impact of new tariff policies on China's economy in particular. And now that President Trump has taken office, he's been vocal about levying tariffs in a lot of places, including on China. The policy underpinning all of that appears to be a tariff review under the America First Trade Policy. That suggests to us that he's developing options to impose tariffs with China as a focus, but there's still time before implementation -- as these legal options are developed. That's in line with our base case; but investors have been talking a lot about the idea that maybe these tariffs never go on.What's your view here? And why do you think ultimately we are headed to a place where tariffs go higher?Chetan Ahya: Well, I think if you just look at the press comments that the president has made at the same time, if you read through this America First document, we sort of think that there are five avenues under which tariffs can go up on China.Number one is the recommendation from the America First policy document that the agencies in the U.S. will have to study how the large trade partners, which are running trade surpluses with the U.S. are managing their trade practices. Number two, a para in the America First document, which is suggesting that the trade agreements that US and China signed in 2018-19, how is China dealing with the commitments under that agreement?And number three is the clause which is currently exempting imports into the U.S. under [the] de minimis rule of imports under U.S. $800 per bill being allowed to import without any tariffs being imposed. And what the document is suggesting is to assess what is the potential revenue loss occurring to the government, and how can they plug that. Number four is a potential tariff action with the sale of a social media company. And number five, a potential tariff action which is linked to the fentanyl issue.So, as you can see, there are a number of avenues under which tariffs can go up on China and therefore we kind of keep that in our base case that tariffs will go up on China.And Mike, some investors are also optimistic and thinking that there is a possibility of a new trade deal being taken up by U.S. and China. What do you think are the chances of that?Michael Zezas: I think they're quite low. So, you mentioned five areas of potential dispute that the U.S. might want to use tariffs as a way of dealing with -- and I think that speaks to the idea that the bar is pretty high for China to avoid tariffs relative to some of the other negotiations the U.S. wants to engage in with other trade partners. Or maybe said differently, if the America First Trade Policy is pointing the U.S. at closing goods, trades, deficits, and improving security and making sure that it's not engaged with trade with other countries that are harming national security -- it seems that there are more of those activities going on between the U.S. and China than with other trade partners. Closing, for example, a $300 billion goods trades deficit would seem to be just really, really difficult within the structures of the economy.So, if we're right, and the chance of tariff de escalation with China appears to be slim, do you think Beijing, for example, might use renminbi depreciation to mitigate some of those economic risks?Chetan Ahya: Well, yes, we do think that China’s policymakers will allow depreciation in [renminbi] when tariffs are being imposed. However, we also think that the depreciation this time that they will allow will be less than what they did in 2018-19. And China has already been facing some capital outflows; and allowing a large depreciation could bring self fulfilling situation of more capital outflows and even sharper currency depreciation pressures.Michael Zezas: Beijing also started introducing stimulus measures last fall to boost the Chinese economy. Would tariffs disrupt this policy?Chetan Ahya: Certainly in our base case, despite the policy stimulus measures that China is taking, we think that overall growth in China will be lower in 2025 meaningfully. And more importantly in our view, China’s biggest challenge is deflation and tariffs will only exacerbate deflationary pressures.Michael Zezas: And so, we're talking a lot about China here, but obviously there's a risk of tariffs being applied to a broader set of U.S. trading partners in Asia. Now that's not our base case. We think ultimately the focus will be on China because a lot of those trading partners will be able to come to agreements with the U.S. to limit potential future tariffs; but of course, there's a considerable risk that we're wrong. As we mentioned this America First Trade Policy is developing a wide range of options to levy tariffs across multiple geographies and multiple products. So, if that were to come to pass, Chetan, what is it that other Asian governments might be able to do to mitigate the impact from higher tariffs?Chetan Ahya: First of all, this will be significantly negative for region's growth outlook. And there are two ways in which [the] region will get impacted. Firstly, because of the fact that China will be facing tariffs and China's growth will slow down, it will also have spillover effects for the rest of the region. At the same time, as you mentioned, there is a possibility that there are bilateral disputes opened up with other economies in the region. And so that will also add to the downside pressure for [the] region's growth.In terms of what they can do to offset this downside; we think that region's central bank will take up monetary easing and at the same time the governments will expand their fiscal deficit. But both of those measures will not be enough to fully offset the downside from tariff increase.Michael Zezas: Makes sense. Chetan, thanks for taking the time to talk.Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/H3rQbx8JjivKpXAgxCbpMgYJQkvpLPJg3gUQ9sfYtZ4Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:53:51 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discuss the potential impact of U.S. tariffs in China and beyond. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what U.S. tariffs would mean for Asia's economy.It's Tuesday, January 28th at 8am in New York.Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong.Michael Zezas: Chetan, a week into the new Trump administration, I'm eager to talk tariffs with you. You and I came on the show before the U.S. election to discuss the potential impact of new tariff policies on China's economy in particular. And now that President Trump has taken office, he's been vocal about levying tariffs in a lot of places, including on China. The policy underpinning all of that appears to be a tariff review under the America First Trade Policy. That suggests to us that he's developing options to impose tariffs with China as a focus, but there's still time before implementation -- as these legal options are developed. That's in line with our base case; but investors have been talking a lot about the idea that maybe these tariffs never go on.What's your view here? And why do you think ultimately we are headed to a place where tariffs go higher?Chetan Ahya: Well, I think if you just look at the press comments that the president has made at the same time, if you read through this America First document, we sort of think that there are five avenues under which tariffs can go up on China.Number one is the recommendation from the America First policy document that the agencies in the U.S. will have to study how the large trade partners, which are running trade surpluses with the U.S. are managing their trade practices. Number two, a para in the America First document, which is suggesting that the trade agreements that US and China signed in 2018-19, how is China dealing with the commitments under that agreement?And number three is the clause which is currently exempting imports into the U.S. under [the] de minimis rule of imports under U.S. $800 per bill being allowed to import without any tariffs being imposed. And what the document is suggesting is to assess what is the potential revenue loss occurring to the government, and how can they plug that. Number four is a potential tariff action with the sale of a social media company. And number five, a potential tariff action which is linked to the fentanyl issue.So, as you can see, there are a number of avenues under which tariffs can go up on China and therefore we kind of keep that in our base case that tariffs will go up on China.And Mike, some investors are also optimistic and thinking that there is a possibility of a new trade deal being taken up by U.S. and China. What do you think are the chances of that?Michael Zezas: I think they're quite low. So, you mentioned five areas of potential dispute that the U.S. might want to use tariffs as a way of dealing with -- and I think that speaks to the idea that the bar is pretty high for China to avoid tariffs relative to some of the other negotiations the U.S. wants to engage in with other trade partners. Or maybe said differently, if the America First Trade Policy is pointing the U.S. at closing goods, trades, deficits, and improving security and making sure that it's not engaged with trade with other countries that are harming national security -- it seems that there are more of those activities going on between the U.S. and China than with other trade partners. Closing, for example, a $300 billion goods trades deficit would seem to be just really, really difficult within the structures of the economy.So, if we're right, and the chance of tariff de escalation with China appears to be slim, do you think Beijing, for example, might...]]>415alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1308fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/europe-s-defense-dilemma--75650897----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Europe Product.Ross Law: And I'm Ross Law, Head of the European Aerospace and Defense Team.Paul Walsh: Today, we're discussing the outlook for European defense amid renewed pressure for more military spending from the Trump administration.It's Monday, the 27th of January, at 9.30am in London.Now Ross, the new Trump administration is now in place, and shifting NATO's defense burden to Europe is a top priority for President Trump. In fact, President Trump has made several comments throughout his campaign and after taking office. He has suggested that Europe should increase defense spending to 5 per cent of GDP. And just for reference, right now, many European countries are at or above NATO's target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defense.What's your reaction? Are President Trump's demands of 5 percent realistic?Ross Law: In short, we don't think so. In a perfect world, yes, 5 per cent is exactly where Europe should be, to make up for the huge underspend that we've seen over the past three decades since the end of the Cold War, which we've calculated at around the $2 trillion mark. There's also a desire in Europe to reduce its reliance on the US, particularly under a Trump presidency. But we see the 5 per cent spending level as unrealistic on multiple fronts.Firstly, from an economic perspective, given the lack of fiscal headroom in Europe; and for reference, 5 per cent would require an additional $600 billion of spend annually. Secondly, from a political perspective, given multiple pockets of uncertainty, and the fact that a rise in defense spending may mean a cut to spending elsewhere. And lastly, from an industry perspective, given the multi-decade underspend I mentioned, we don't think the industry could absorb anywhere close to such a strong increase in demand, at least near-term.So, while we do see upside pressure to European defense spending, our base case is that 3 per cent could be a more reasonable target. Not only would this be a compromise between the current 2 per cent target and Trump's 5 per cent demands; it would also allow Europe to match the spending levels of the US, which is expected at around 3.1 per cent in 2024. Even still, this would represent a 50 per cent increase or around $200 billion per year in additional European spent. This would, of course, further improve industry fundamentals and why we remain very positive on the sector.Paul Walsh: And as of now, Europe is heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defense. According to various data sources, more than 50 per cent of European arms imports came from the U.S. in 2019 through 2023, and that's up from 35 per cent in 2014. Given this, what steps would Europe need to take to reduce its dependence on the U.S.?Ross Law: The first step is to invest in the defense industrial base. Europe buys equipment from the U.S. for several reasons. Firstly, because the U.S. develops some of the most advanced technologies in the world because it has consistently invested in its defense industry. Secondly, because the U.S. equipment is often cheaper due to the benefits of scale. And thirdly, because it supports the very unique relationship between Europe and the U.S., which has essentially provided a security umbrella for the past three decades.So, Europe needs to invest, both to develop capabilities and technologies to rival U.S. peers, and also to expand capacity so that we can meet our own equipment needs. This, of course, all requires investment and also time. So, Europe will remain reliant on the U.S. for many years to come. But if Europe is serious about wanting to be more sovereign, we need a more capable defense industry.Paul Walsh: So, you talked there, Ross, about investment and time. So now the big question, how would Europe fund this upward pressure on defense budgets?Ross Law: Well, this is the million-dollar question, or the 200-billion-dollar question, you might say. Unfortunately, this is part of the equation that is, so far, most unclear – and the basis for an ongoing series of reports we've entitled the “European Defense Dilemma” – essentially the very clear need to spend more on defense, but no clear way to fund it. So far, we've seen some creative ways to fund near-term spending plans, from off balance sheet special funds like in Germany, to using the interest received on frozen Russian assets.But these, in our view, all seem fairly temporary in nature. What we really need is structural change, and that requires political commitment. Clearly, there is a lot of political change happening right now in Europe. Germany is holding an election in a few weeks time. France doesn't yet have a budget. There's also fiscal issues here in the UK. But we're hoping that 2025 is the year in which we may get clearer political commitments to longer-term structural improvements in defense spending. The German election is a clear near-term catalyst for us, where the raising of the debt break may in part be used to fund higher defense spending. But we're also looking to the upcoming NATO summit in June as an opportunity to officially increase the NATO spending target, we think potentially to 3 per cent, to support a more structural increase in European defense spending.Paul Walsh: In light of all of this, what's your outlook for the European defense industry?Ross Law: We remain bullish. In fact, we turned even more bullish as part of our 2025 outlook published earlier this month. The pressure to raise spending even to 3 per cent of GDP should progressively benefit industry fundamentals.So, we see upside to both forecasts. Given these are currently premised on a 2 per cent of GDP assumption, as well as devaluation multiples, which we view today as very attractive, with the sector trading in line with this long-term average – despite the improving fundamentals I've just described.Paul Walsh: And finally, Ross, what developments if any might change your outlook?Ross Law: The key for us this year is seeing clear political commitments from governments on more structural increases in spending. So, we're going to be watching the German election and the outcome of the French budgetary process very carefully. It's unlikely to be plain sailing. There was a media article published just this morning suggesting the UK government may be unwilling to raise spending beyond the current 2.3 per cent level. But we are hoping that as a whole 2025 sees Europe make a stronger commitment to defending itself.Paul Walsh: Ross, fascinating as always. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Ross Law: Great speaking with you Paul.Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/McBVFji9MY9_vUjviOxSFjoh80vn6KFoyEb1JrAnAw4Mon, 27 Jan 2025 21:39:40 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research looks at how the European defense industry might respond to military spending pressure from the Trump administration. ----- Transcript ----- Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head...----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Europe Product.Ross Law: And I'm Ross Law, Head of the European Aerospace and Defense Team.Paul Walsh: Today, we're discussing the outlook for European defense amid renewed pressure for more military spending from the Trump administration.It's Monday, the 27th of January, at 9.30am in London.Now Ross, the new Trump administration is now in place, and shifting NATO's defense burden to Europe is a top priority for President Trump. In fact, President Trump has made several comments throughout his campaign and after taking office. He has suggested that Europe should increase defense spending to 5 per cent of GDP. And just for reference, right now, many European countries are at or above NATO's target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defense.What's your reaction? Are President Trump's demands of 5 percent realistic?Ross Law: In short, we don't think so. In a perfect world, yes, 5 per cent is exactly where Europe should be, to make up for the huge underspend that we've seen over the past three decades since the end of the Cold War, which we've calculated at around the $2 trillion mark. There's also a desire in Europe to reduce its reliance on the US, particularly under a Trump presidency. But we see the 5 per cent spending level as unrealistic on multiple fronts.Firstly, from an economic perspective, given the lack of fiscal headroom in Europe; and for reference, 5 per cent would require an additional $600 billion of spend annually. Secondly, from a political perspective, given multiple pockets of uncertainty, and the fact that a rise in defense spending may mean a cut to spending elsewhere. And lastly, from an industry perspective, given the multi-decade underspend I mentioned, we don't think the industry could absorb anywhere close to such a strong increase in demand, at least near-term.So, while we do see upside pressure to European defense spending, our base case is that 3 per cent could be a more reasonable target. Not only would this be a compromise between the current 2 per cent target and Trump's 5 per cent demands; it would also allow Europe to match the spending levels of the US, which is expected at around 3.1 per cent in 2024. Even still, this would represent a 50 per cent increase or around $200 billion per year in additional European spent. This would, of course, further improve industry fundamentals and why we remain very positive on the sector.Paul Walsh: And as of now, Europe is heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defense. According to various data sources, more than 50 per cent of European arms imports came from the U.S. in 2019 through 2023, and that's up from 35 per cent in 2014. Given this, what steps would Europe need to take to reduce its dependence on the U.S.?Ross Law: The first step is to invest in the defense industrial base. Europe buys equipment from the U.S. for several reasons. Firstly, because the U.S. develops some of the most advanced technologies in the world because it has consistently invested in its defense industry. Secondly, because the U.S. equipment is often cheaper due to the benefits of scale. And thirdly, because it supports the very unique relationship between Europe and the U.S., which has essentially provided a security umbrella for the past three decades.So, Europe needs to invest, both to develop capabilities and technologies to rival U.S. peers, and also to expand capacity so that we can meet our own equipment needs. This, of course, all requires investment and also time. So, Europe will remain reliant on the U.S. for many years to come. But if Europe is serious about wanting to be more sovereign, we need a more capable defense industry.Paul Walsh: So, you talked there, Ross, about investment and time. So now the big...]]>434alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1306fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/have-markets-hit-peak-optimism--75650965----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about optimism, how we measure it, whether it’s overly excessive and what lies ahead. It's Friday January 24th at 2pm in London. A central tenet of investing, including credit investing, is to be on the lookout for excessive optimism. By definition, the highest prices in a market cycle will happen when people are the most convinced that only great things lie ahead. The lowest prices, when you’d love to buy, happen when investors have given up all hope. But identifying peak optimism, in real time, is tricky. It’s tricky because there is no generally agreed definition; and it's tricky because, sometimes, things just are good. Investors have been excited about the US Technology sector for more than a decade now. And yet this sector has managed to deliver extraordinary profit growth over this time – and extraordinarily good returns. Yet this debate does feel relevant. The US equity market has soared over 50 per cent in the last two years. Equity valuations are historically high, both outright and relative to bonds. Credit risk premiums are near 20-year lows. Speculative investor activity is increasing. And so, have we finally hit peak optimism, a level from which we can go no further? Our answer, for better or worse, is no. While we think investor optimism is elevated, corporate optimism is not. And corporations are really important in this debate, enjoying enormous financial resources that can invest in the economy or other companies. While we do think corporate confidence will pick up, it is going to take some time. One of our favorite measures of corporate confidence is merger and acquisition activity. Buying another company is one of the riskiest things management can do, making it a great proxy for underlying corporate confidence. Volumes of this type of activity rose about 25 per cent last year, but they are still well below historical averages. And it would be really unusual for a major market cycle to end without this sort of activity being above-trend. Another metric is the riskiness of new borrowing. Taking on new debt is another measure of corporate confidence, as you generally do something like this when you feel good about the future, and your ability to pay that debt off. But for the last three years the volume of low-rated debt in the US market has actually been shrinking, while the issuance of the riskiest grades of corporate borrowing is also down significantly from the 2017-2022 average. Again, these are not the types of trends you’d expect with excessive corporate optimism. Uncertainties around tariffs, or the policies from the new US administration could still hold corporate confidence back. But the low starting point for corporate confidence, combined with what we expect to be a deregulatory push, mean we think it is more likely that corporate activity and aggressiveness have room to rise – and that this continues throughout 2025. Such an increase usually does present greater risk down the line; but for now, we think it is too early to position for those more negative consequences of increasing corporate aggression.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/x60CNgG1-7_BzoBQSH9K-aSqKLgLzSzAMoCjI8GIEikFri, 24 Jan 2025 21:00:04 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets argues that while investor hopes are running high, corporate confidence isn’t. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about optimism, how we measure it, whether it’s overly excessive and what lies ahead. It's Friday January 24th at 2pm in London. A central tenet of investing, including credit investing, is to be on the lookout for excessive optimism. By definition, the highest prices in a market cycle will happen when people are the most convinced that only great things lie ahead. The lowest prices, when you’d love to buy, happen when investors have given up all hope. But identifying peak optimism, in real time, is tricky. It’s tricky because there is no generally agreed definition; and it's tricky because, sometimes, things just are good. Investors have been excited about the US Technology sector for more than a decade now. And yet this sector has managed to deliver extraordinary profit growth over this time – and extraordinarily good returns. Yet this debate does feel relevant. The US equity market has soared over 50 per cent in the last two years. Equity valuations are historically high, both outright and relative to bonds. Credit risk premiums are near 20-year lows. Speculative investor activity is increasing. And so, have we finally hit peak optimism, a level from which we can go no further? Our answer, for better or worse, is no. While we think investor optimism is elevated, corporate optimism is not. And corporations are really important in this debate, enjoying enormous financial resources that can invest in the economy or other companies. While we do think corporate confidence will pick up, it is going to take some time. One of our favorite measures of corporate confidence is merger and acquisition activity. Buying another company is one of the riskiest things management can do, making it a great proxy for underlying corporate confidence. Volumes of this type of activity rose about 25 per cent last year, but they are still well below historical averages. And it would be really unusual for a major market cycle to end without this sort of activity being above-trend. Another metric is the riskiness of new borrowing. Taking on new debt is another measure of corporate confidence, as you generally do something like this when you feel good about the future, and your ability to pay that debt off. But for the last three years the volume of low-rated debt in the US market has actually been shrinking, while the issuance of the riskiest grades of corporate borrowing is also down significantly from the 2017-2022 average. Again, these are not the types of trends you’d expect with excessive corporate optimism. Uncertainties around tariffs, or the policies from the new US administration could still hold corporate confidence back. But the low starting point for corporate confidence, combined with what we expect to be a deregulatory push, mean we think it is more likely that corporate activity and aggressiveness have room to rise – and that this continues throughout 2025. Such an increase usually does present greater risk down the line; but for now, we think it is too early to position for those more negative consequences of increasing corporate aggression.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>220alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1305fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/big-debates-how-will-m-a-and-ipos-drive-markets-in-2025--75651055----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley.Michael Cyprys: I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Research.Ryan Kenny: And I'm Ryan Kenney, U.S. Mid-Cap Advisors Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Michelle Weaver: In this episode of our special miniseries covering Big Debates, we'll focus on the improving M&A and IPO landscape and whether retail investing can sustain in 2025.It's Thursday, January 23rd at 10am in New York.2023 saw the lowest level of global M&A activity in at least 30 years. But we've started to see activity pick up in 2024. Mike, what have been the key drivers behind this resurgence, and where are we now?Michael Cyprys: Look, I think it's been a combination of factors in the context of a lot of pent-up activity and a growing urge to transact after a very subdued period of, you know, call it four- to six quarters of quite limited activity. Key drivers as we see it ranging from equity markets that have expanded across much of the world, low levels of equity volatility. broad financing, availability with meaningful issuance as you look across investment grade and high yield bond markets, tight credit spreads, interest rates stabilizing in [20]24, and then the Fed began to cut.So, liquidity pretty robust, all of that helping reduce bid-ask spreads. In terms of where we are now, post election, think there's just a lot of excitement here around a new administration; where we could see some changes around the antitrust environment that can be helpful, as we think about unlocking greater M&A activity across sponsors as well as strategics, and helping improve corporate confidence.But look, the recent rout of market could delay some of the transactional activity uplift. But we view that as more of a timing impact, and we are quite positive here in [20]25 as we think about scope for continued surge of activity.Michelle Weaver: We've seen rates rising pretty substantially since December. Does that throw a wrench into this at all, or do you think we see more stabilization there?Michael Cyprys: I think it could be a little bit of a slowdown, right? That would be the risk here, but as we think about the path for moving forward, I do think that there are a lot of factors that can be very helpful in terms of driving a continued pickup in activity, which we're going to talk about -- and why that will be the case.Michelle Weaver: Great. And you mentioned financial sponsors earlier, I want to drill down there a little more. What do you think would get sponsor activity to pick up more meaningfully?Michael Cyprys: Well, as I think about it, activity is already starting to pick up clearly across strategics as well as sponsors. On the sponsor side, it's been lagging a bit relative to strategics. We think both of which will build, and Ryan will get to that on the strategic side. As we think about the sponsors -- they're sitting with $4 trillion of capital to put to work that's been sitting on the sidelines where you just haven't seen as much activity over the past couple of years.Overall activity in [20]24 was probably call it maybe around 20 per cent below peak levels, and this is burning a hole in the pockets of both sponsors as well as their clients. And so, we see a growing urge to transact here, which gets to some of your earlier questions there too.So why is that? Well, the return clock is ticking; the lack of deployment is hurting returns within funds. Some of this dry powder also expires by the end of [20]25; and so if it's not yet deployed, then sponsors won't get some of the performance fee economics that come through to them on that capital. So that's all, all on the deployment side.As we think about the realization or exit side, we think that's probably going to lag, but we'd still expect, a steady build through this year. Today sponsors are sitting on call it around $10 trillion of portfolio of investments that are in the ground, and they haven't really provided much in the way of liquidity back to their customers, the LPs and the funds. And so, this is putting a little bit of a strain not only on the client relationships that want more money back from their private investments that haven't received it, but it's also one of the causes of what has been a little bit of a challenging fundraising backdrop across private equity funds.Hence if sponsors can return more capital to their clients, that can be helpful in terms of healing the overall fundraising backdrop. So, look, putting all that together, we expect an expanding pace of transactional deal activity across the sponsors from both the buy side as well as the sell side in terms of our activity.Michelle Weaver: And Ryan, how about IPOs? Have they been part of a similar trend?Ryan Kenny: Yes, definitely. So, with IPOs, we're also expecting a significant resurgence off of a low base. So just to put some numbers on it. In 2024, announced M&A volumes relative to nominal GDP, we're around 40 per cent below three-decade averages; equity capital markets [ECM] or ECM was even more muted, 50 per cent below three decade averages. And the leading indicators for ECM are very similar to the leading indicators for M&A. You want a strong equity market, relatively low volatility so that companies have the confidence to go public and so that deals can price well. And those conditions are really starting to materialize already in 2024; and we saw a few big IPOs price well last year, and launch well. The fourth quarter also looks strong. We saw a significant acceleration in industry ECM activity in October, November, December. 4Q volumes tracking up over 50 per cent year-over-year.Michelle Weaver: Let's dig a little deeper into potential policies from the incoming Trump administration. What are your expectations around antitrust regulation and its impact on M&A?Ryan Kenny: So, Trump has announced his appointments to the FTC and to the DOJ antitrust division. And our expectation is a return to normal. And that's coming off of what was a more onerous and not-clear environment under Biden. The Biden administration's approach was to disincentivize M&A; and they did that by defining M&A market concentration in novel ways -- looking at things like labor markets, and looking at how competitiveness is defined in new ways. And these new ways of defining concentration decrease the clarity of whether a specific deal would be challenged.So, from a CEO and board perspective, you don't want to waste the time of your management team and your board going through a deal that might not go through; in addition to the risk of prolonging the deal, and the risk of higher legal expenses during the process. So now that we're returning more towards normal, that's our expectation. We expect there will still be some deals like a challenge, but it will operate under more historical norms and so that really checks the box of getting CEO confidence up to transact more.Michelle Weaver: And I know that dynamic you’re talking about with market concentration created quite a big drag on large M&A deals and large-cap M& A. Do you think we could start to see that come back as well?Ryan Kenny: Yeah, expect large-cap deals to rebound even more than small-cap deals. When we started to see the activity pick up in 2024, it was led by more mid-cap corporates. And now we expect to see large deals return in force at a time when financial sponsors, like what Mike was just talking about, coming back in force at the same time -- which drives up the animal spirits when all parts of the M&A market are returning at the same time.Michelle Weaver: And what are some other catalysts beyond the political side that investors should watch in 2025 around capital markets developments?Ryan Kenny: So, I categorize it as macro catalysts and structural catalysts The macro catalysts are clarity on tariff and immigration policies, how that will impact GDP. Clarity on the interest rate path. And look you don't need more rate cuts to get this market moving; you can still have a significant increase, even if there are no more rate cuts this year.But narrowing the range of outcomes is important. And I think we're already there, where maybe we get no cuts this year. Maybe we get two cuts. It's a much tighter environment than where we were over the last few years. And so that helps narrow the bid-ask spread between buyers and sellers.Structural catalysts that are really critical this cycle are the need for AI capabilities. Innovation in tech, innovation in biotech healthcare, the energy transition, reshoring and exploring your geographic footprint in a multipolar world -- are all really critical when you evaluate the types of companies that a board would want to acquire.Michelle Weaver: What’s your outlook for 2025? And then even beyond that when it comes to both M&A and IPO activity?Ryan Kenny: So, in 2025, we see a strong rebound in both ECM and M&A. ECM volumes in our base case, we expect to roughly double off of a low base. M&A announcements, we expect up over 50 per cent year-over-year in 2025. And importantly, that's our base case. Even in our bear case, we model an increase in both ECM and M& A volumes, given we're coming off of such low levels.We've had three years of light activity and pent-up demand, and pipelines have already begun to build. When we look forward beyond 2025, we think this is the beginning of a multi-year capital markets growth cycle -- with bigger deal sizes and more deal count than average, driven by three years of pent-up demand and an economy that's a third larger than 2021, which was the last time we ha]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZhbcAF16jv6ocW3DAyF3WHOUuPDqRl_Loo1MLnSHMSYThu, 23 Jan 2025 22:58:04 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Michael Cyprys and Ryan Kenny discuss the resurgence in capital markets activity and how sponsors might deploy the $4 trillion that has been sitting on the sidelines.  ----- Transcript ----- Michelle...----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley.Michael Cyprys: I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Research.Ryan Kenny: And I'm Ryan Kenney, U.S. Mid-Cap Advisors Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Michelle Weaver: In this episode of our special miniseries covering Big Debates, we'll focus on the improving M&A and IPO landscape and whether retail investing can sustain in 2025.It's Thursday, January 23rd at 10am in New York.2023 saw the lowest level of global M&A activity in at least 30 years. But we've started to see activity pick up in 2024. Mike, what have been the key drivers behind this resurgence, and where are we now?Michael Cyprys: Look, I think it's been a combination of factors in the context of a lot of pent-up activity and a growing urge to transact after a very subdued period of, you know, call it four- to six quarters of quite limited activity. Key drivers as we see it ranging from equity markets that have expanded across much of the world, low levels of equity volatility. broad financing, availability with meaningful issuance as you look across investment grade and high yield bond markets, tight credit spreads, interest rates stabilizing in [20]24, and then the Fed began to cut.So, liquidity pretty robust, all of that helping reduce bid-ask spreads. In terms of where we are now, post election, think there's just a lot of excitement here around a new administration; where we could see some changes around the antitrust environment that can be helpful, as we think about unlocking greater M&A activity across sponsors as well as strategics, and helping improve corporate confidence.But look, the recent rout of market could delay some of the transactional activity uplift. But we view that as more of a timing impact, and we are quite positive here in [20]25 as we think about scope for continued surge of activity.Michelle Weaver: We've seen rates rising pretty substantially since December. Does that throw a wrench into this at all, or do you think we see more stabilization there?Michael Cyprys: I think it could be a little bit of a slowdown, right? That would be the risk here, but as we think about the path for moving forward, I do think that there are a lot of factors that can be very helpful in terms of driving a continued pickup in activity, which we're going to talk about -- and why that will be the case.Michelle Weaver: Great. And you mentioned financial sponsors earlier, I want to drill down there a little more. What do you think would get sponsor activity to pick up more meaningfully?Michael Cyprys: Well, as I think about it, activity is already starting to pick up clearly across strategics as well as sponsors. On the sponsor side, it's been lagging a bit relative to strategics. We think both of which will build, and Ryan will get to that on the strategic side. As we think about the sponsors -- they're sitting with $4 trillion of capital to put to work that's been sitting on the sidelines where you just haven't seen as much activity over the past couple of years.Overall activity in [20]24 was probably call it maybe around 20 per cent below peak levels, and this is burning a hole in the pockets of both sponsors as well as their clients. And so, we see a growing urge to transact here, which gets to some of your earlier questions there too.So why is that? Well, the return clock is ticking; the lack of deployment is hurting returns within funds. Some of this dry powder also expires by the end of [20]25; and so if it's not yet deployed, then sponsors won't get some of the performance fee economics that come through to them on that capital. So that's all,...]]>658alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1304fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/potential-economic-consequences-of-trump-s-executive-orders--75650976----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Strategy. On this episode of the podcast, we’ll discuss how trade policy uncertainty is creating volatility in markets.It’s Wednesday, January 22nd, at 10am in New York.Earlier this week, Donald Trump was again inaugurated as President of the United States. In the days that have followed, we’ve fielded tons of questions from investors, who are trying to parse the meaning of myriad executive orders and answers to press questions – looking through that noise for signals about the if, when, and how of policy changes around tariffs, taxes, and more. This effort is understandable because – as we’ve discussed here many times – the US public policy path will have substantial effects on the outlook for the global economy and markets. And while we’ve spent some time here explaining our assumptions for the US policy path, it's important for investors to understand this. Even if you correctly forecast the timing and severity of changes to trade, tax, immigration, and other policies, you shouldn’t expect markets to consistently track this path along the way. That’s because there’s bound to be a fair amount of confusion among investors, as President Trump and his political allies publicly speculate on their policy tactics and make a wide variety of outcomes seem plausible. Take tariff policy for example. On Monday, the President announced an America First Trade Policy, where the whole of government was instructed to come up with policy solutions to reduce goods trade deficits and related economic and national security concerns. Tariffs were cited as a tool to be used in furtherance of these goals, and instructions were given to develop authorities on a range of regional and product-specific tariff options. Said more simply, while new tariffs were not immediately implemented, the President appears to be maximizing his optionality to levy tariffs when and how he wants. That will mean that all public comments about tariffs and deadlines, including Trump’s comments to reporters on tariffs for Mexico, Canada, and China, must be taken seriously – even if they don’t ultimately come to fruition, which currently we don’t think they will for Mexico and Canada. For markets, that max optionality can drive all sorts of short term outcomes. In the US Treasury market, for example, our economists believe these tariffs and a variety of other factors ultimately make for slower economic growth in 2026; and so we expect Treasury yields will ultimately end the year lower. But along the way they could certainly move higher first. As my colleague Matt Hornbach points out, tariff threats can drive investor concerns about temporary inflation leading markets to price in a slower pace of Fed interest rate cuts, which helps push short maturity yields higher. So bottom line: investors should be carefully considering US public policy choices when thinking about the medium term direction of markets. But they should also expect considerable volatility along the way, because the short term path can look a lot different from the ultimate destination. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uBcn7KAjGBquW1OE2VS2EkVD__5kW4frSak5zD0iWxIWed, 22 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOn his first day in office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders, signaling his intent to deliver on campaign promises. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Strategy Michael Zezas takes a closer look at economic impacts of Trump’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Strategy. On this episode of the podcast, we’ll discuss how trade policy uncertainty is creating volatility in markets.It’s Wednesday, January 22nd, at 10am in New York.Earlier this week, Donald Trump was again inaugurated as President of the United States. In the days that have followed, we’ve fielded tons of questions from investors, who are trying to parse the meaning of myriad executive orders and answers to press questions – looking through that noise for signals about the if, when, and how of policy changes around tariffs, taxes, and more. This effort is understandable because – as we’ve discussed here many times – the US public policy path will have substantial effects on the outlook for the global economy and markets. And while we’ve spent some time here explaining our assumptions for the US policy path, it's important for investors to understand this. Even if you correctly forecast the timing and severity of changes to trade, tax, immigration, and other policies, you shouldn’t expect markets to consistently track this path along the way. That’s because there’s bound to be a fair amount of confusion among investors, as President Trump and his political allies publicly speculate on their policy tactics and make a wide variety of outcomes seem plausible. Take tariff policy for example. On Monday, the President announced an America First Trade Policy, where the whole of government was instructed to come up with policy solutions to reduce goods trade deficits and related economic and national security concerns. Tariffs were cited as a tool to be used in furtherance of these goals, and instructions were given to develop authorities on a range of regional and product-specific tariff options. Said more simply, while new tariffs were not immediately implemented, the President appears to be maximizing his optionality to levy tariffs when and how he wants. That will mean that all public comments about tariffs and deadlines, including Trump’s comments to reporters on tariffs for Mexico, Canada, and China, must be taken seriously – even if they don’t ultimately come to fruition, which currently we don’t think they will for Mexico and Canada. For markets, that max optionality can drive all sorts of short term outcomes. In the US Treasury market, for example, our economists believe these tariffs and a variety of other factors ultimately make for slower economic growth in 2026; and so we expect Treasury yields will ultimately end the year lower. But along the way they could certainly move higher first. As my colleague Matt Hornbach points out, tariff threats can drive investor concerns about temporary inflation leading markets to price in a slower pace of Fed interest rate cuts, which helps push short maturity yields higher. So bottom line: investors should be carefully considering US public policy choices when thinking about the medium term direction of markets. But they should also expect considerable volatility along the way, because the short term path can look a lot different from the ultimate destination. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>203alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1303fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-outlook-2025-three-critical-themes--75650998----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast: three critical themes that will shape Asia’s economy in 2025. It’s Tuesday, January 21, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. Let's start with the big picture: We foresee Asia's growth decelerating from 4.5 per cent last year to 4.1 per cent in 2025. The whole region faces a number of challenges and opportunities that could sway these numbers significantly. We highlight [the] following three key factors. First up, tariffs. They are our single biggest concern this year. The pace, scale and affected geographies will determine the magnitude of the growth drag. In our base case, within Asia, we expect tariffs to be imposed on China in a phased manner from the first half of 2025. As Mike Zezas, our Head of US Public Policy states, this will be about fast announcements and slow implementation. Given tariffs and trade tensions are not new, we think this means corporate confidence may not be as badly affected as it was in 2018-19. But the key risk is if trade tensions escalate. For instance, into more aggressive bilateral disputes outside of US-China or if [the] US imposes universal tariffs on all imports. Asia will be most affected, considering that seven out of [the] top ten economies that run large trade surpluses with the US are in Asia. If either of these risk scenarios materialize, it could bring a repeat of [the] 2018-19 growth shock. Next, let's consider the Fed and the US dollar. Asian central banks find themselves in a bind with the US Federal Reserve's hawkish shift – which we think will result in only two rate cuts in 2025. The Fed is taking a cautious approach, driven by worries over inflation concerns, which could be exacerbated by changes in trade and fiscal policy. This has led to strength in the US dollar and on the flipside, weakness in Asian currencies. This constrains Asian central banks from making aggressive rate reductions -- even though Asia’s inflation is in a range that central banks are comfortable with. Finally, with [the] external environment not likely to be supportive, domestic demand within key Asian economies will be an important anchor to [the[ region's growth outlook. We are constructive on the outlook for India and Japan but cautious on China. China has a deflation challenge, driven by excessive investment and excess capacity. Solving it requires policy makers to rely more on consumption as a means to meet its 5 per cent growth target. While some measures have been implemented and we think more are coming, we remain skeptical that these measures will be enough for China to lift consumption growth meaningfully. We see investment remaining the key growth driver and the implementation of tariffs will only exacerbate the ongoing deflationary pressures. In India and Japan, we think domestic demand tailwinds will be able to offset external headwinds. We expect a robust recovery in India fueled by government capital expenditure, monetary easing and acceleration in services exports. This should put GDP growth back on a 6.5 per cent trajectory. In Japan we expect real wage and consumption growth reacceleration, which will lead [the] Bank of Japan to be confident in the inflation outlook such that it hikes policy rates twice in 2025. This week marks the start of the new Trump administration. And together with my colleagues, we are watching closely and will continue to bring you updates on the impact of new policies on Asia.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wLZNcMSB7s2TME2xIv_BCBTOA7AZbQhUNndOeUJxm-ATue, 21 Jan 2025 22:17:15 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses how tariffs, the power of the U.S. dollar, and the strength of domestic demand will determine Asia’s economic growth in 2025. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast: three critical themes that will shape Asia’s economy in 2025. It’s Tuesday, January 21, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. Let's start with the big picture: We foresee Asia's growth decelerating from 4.5 per cent last year to 4.1 per cent in 2025. The whole region faces a number of challenges and opportunities that could sway these numbers significantly. We highlight [the] following three key factors. First up, tariffs. They are our single biggest concern this year. The pace, scale and affected geographies will determine the magnitude of the growth drag. In our base case, within Asia, we expect tariffs to be imposed on China in a phased manner from the first half of 2025. As Mike Zezas, our Head of US Public Policy states, this will be about fast announcements and slow implementation. Given tariffs and trade tensions are not new, we think this means corporate confidence may not be as badly affected as it was in 2018-19. But the key risk is if trade tensions escalate. For instance, into more aggressive bilateral disputes outside of US-China or if [the] US imposes universal tariffs on all imports. Asia will be most affected, considering that seven out of [the] top ten economies that run large trade surpluses with the US are in Asia. If either of these risk scenarios materialize, it could bring a repeat of [the] 2018-19 growth shock. Next, let's consider the Fed and the US dollar. Asian central banks find themselves in a bind with the US Federal Reserve's hawkish shift – which we think will result in only two rate cuts in 2025. The Fed is taking a cautious approach, driven by worries over inflation concerns, which could be exacerbated by changes in trade and fiscal policy. This has led to strength in the US dollar and on the flipside, weakness in Asian currencies. This constrains Asian central banks from making aggressive rate reductions -- even though Asia’s inflation is in a range that central banks are comfortable with. Finally, with [the] external environment not likely to be supportive, domestic demand within key Asian economies will be an important anchor to [the[ region's growth outlook. We are constructive on the outlook for India and Japan but cautious on China. China has a deflation challenge, driven by excessive investment and excess capacity. Solving it requires policy makers to rely more on consumption as a means to meet its 5 per cent growth target. While some measures have been implemented and we think more are coming, we remain skeptical that these measures will be enough for China to lift consumption growth meaningfully. We see investment remaining the key growth driver and the implementation of tariffs will only exacerbate the ongoing deflationary pressures. In India and Japan, we think domestic demand tailwinds will be able to offset external headwinds. We expect a robust recovery in India fueled by government capital expenditure, monetary easing and acceleration in services exports. This should put GDP growth back on a 6.5 per cent trajectory. In Japan we expect real wage and consumption growth reacceleration, which will lead [the] Bank of Japan to be confident in the inflation outlook such that it hikes policy rates twice in 2025. This week marks the start of the new Trump administration. And together with my colleagues, we are watching closely and will continue to bring you updates on the impact of new policies on Asia.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>257alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1302fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-surge-in-bond-yields-likely-doesn-t-present-risk-yet--75650979----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.With bond yields rising substantially over the last month, I’m going to discuss why we’ve been somewhat more relaxed about this development and what could change our mind. It's Friday January 17th at 2pm in London. We thought credit would have a good first half of this year as growth held up, inflation came down, and the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England all cut rates. That mix looked appealing, even if corporate activity increased and the range of longer-term economic outcomes widened with a new U.S. administration. We forecast spreads across regions to stay near cycle tights through the first half of this year, before a modest softening in the second half. Since publishing that outlook in November of last year, some of it still feels very much intact. Growth – especially in the U.S. – has been good. Core inflation in the U.S. and in Europe has continued to moderate. And the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank did lower interest rates back in December. But the move in government bond yields in the U.S. and Europe has been a surprise. They've risen sharply, meaning higher borrowing cost for governments, mortgages and companies. How much does our story change if yields are going to be higher for longer, and if the Fed is going to reduce interest rates less? One way to address this debate, which we’re mindful is currently dominating financial market headlines, is what world do these new bond yields describe? Focusing on the U.S., we see the following pattern. There’s been strong U.S. data, with Morgan Stanley tracking the U.S. economy to have grown to about 2.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year. Rates are rising, and they are rising faster than the expected inflation – a development that usually suggests more optimism on growth. We’re seeing a larger rise in long-term interest rates relative to shorter-term interest rates, which often suggests more confidence that the economy will stay stronger for longer. And we’ve seen expectations of fewer cuts from the Federal Reserve; but, and importantly, still expectations that they are more likely to cut rather than hike rates over the next 12 months. Putting all of that together, we think it’s a pattern consistent with a bond market that thinks the U.S. economy is strong and will remain somewhat stronger for longer, with that strength justifying less Fed help. That interpretation could be wrong, of course; but if it's right, it seems – in our view – fine for credit. What about the affordability of borrowing for companies at higher yields? Again, we’re somewhat more sanguine. While yields have risen a lot recently, they are still similar to their 24 month average, which has given corporate bond issuers a lot of time to adjust. And U.S. and European companies are also carrying historically high amounts of cash on their balance sheet, improving their resilience. Finally, we think that higher yields could actually improve the supply-demand balance in corporate bond markets, as the roughly 5.5 per cent yield today on U.S. Investment Grade credit attracts buyers, while simultaneously making bond issuers a little bit more hesitant to borrow any more than they have to. We now prefer the longer-term part of the Investment Grade market, which we think could benefit most from these dynamics. If interest rates are going to stay higher for longer, it isn’t a great story for everyone. We think some of the lowest-rated parts of the credit market, for example, CCC-rated issuers, are more vulnerable; and my colleagues in the U.S. continue to hold a cautious view on that segment from their year-ahead outlook. But overall, for corporate credit, we think that higher yields are manageable; and some relief this week on the back of better U.S. inflation data is a further support. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/e7MoBIdfQ8H8DgUlZA9tuSUgfTa-9rOv80diukfOgiQFri, 17 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyGovernment bond yields in the U.S. and Europe have risen sharply. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why this surprising trend is not yet cause for concern. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.With bond yields rising substantially over the last month, I’m going to discuss why we’ve been somewhat more relaxed about this development and what could change our mind. It's Friday January 17th at 2pm in London. We thought credit would have a good first half of this year as growth held up, inflation came down, and the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England all cut rates. That mix looked appealing, even if corporate activity increased and the range of longer-term economic outcomes widened with a new U.S. administration. We forecast spreads across regions to stay near cycle tights through the first half of this year, before a modest softening in the second half. Since publishing that outlook in November of last year, some of it still feels very much intact. Growth – especially in the U.S. – has been good. Core inflation in the U.S. and in Europe has continued to moderate. And the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank did lower interest rates back in December. But the move in government bond yields in the U.S. and Europe has been a surprise. They've risen sharply, meaning higher borrowing cost for governments, mortgages and companies. How much does our story change if yields are going to be higher for longer, and if the Fed is going to reduce interest rates less? One way to address this debate, which we’re mindful is currently dominating financial market headlines, is what world do these new bond yields describe? Focusing on the U.S., we see the following pattern. There’s been strong U.S. data, with Morgan Stanley tracking the U.S. economy to have grown to about 2.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year. Rates are rising, and they are rising faster than the expected inflation – a development that usually suggests more optimism on growth. We’re seeing a larger rise in long-term interest rates relative to shorter-term interest rates, which often suggests more confidence that the economy will stay stronger for longer. And we’ve seen expectations of fewer cuts from the Federal Reserve; but, and importantly, still expectations that they are more likely to cut rather than hike rates over the next 12 months. Putting all of that together, we think it’s a pattern consistent with a bond market that thinks the U.S. economy is strong and will remain somewhat stronger for longer, with that strength justifying less Fed help. That interpretation could be wrong, of course; but if it's right, it seems – in our view – fine for credit. What about the affordability of borrowing for companies at higher yields? Again, we’re somewhat more sanguine. While yields have risen a lot recently, they are still similar to their 24 month average, which has given corporate bond issuers a lot of time to adjust. And U.S. and European companies are also carrying historically high amounts of cash on their balance sheet, improving their resilience. Finally, we think that higher yields could actually improve the supply-demand balance in corporate bond markets, as the roughly 5.5 per cent yield today on U.S. Investment Grade credit attracts buyers, while simultaneously making bond issuers a little bit more hesitant to borrow any more than they have to. We now prefer the longer-term part of the Investment Grade market, which we think could benefit most from these dynamics. If interest rates are going to stay higher for longer, it isn’t a great story for everyone. We think some of the lowest-rated parts of the credit market, for example, CCC-rated issuers, are more vulnerable; and my colleagues in the U.S. continue to hold a cautious view on that segment from their year-ahead outlook. But overall, for...]]>247alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1301fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-drop-in-fed-reserves-concern-investors--75650983----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Martin Tobias: And I'm Martin Tobias from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team.Matthew Hornbach: Today, we're going to talk about the widespread concerns around the dip in reserve levels at the Fed and what it means for banking, money markets, and beyond.It's Thursday, January 16th at 10am in New York.The Fed has been shrinking its balance sheet since June 2022, when it embarked on quantitative tightening in order to combat inflation. Reserves held at the Fed recently dipped below [$]3 trillion at year end, their lowest level since 2020. This has raised a lot of questions among investors, and we want to address some of them.Marty, you've been following these developments closely, so let's start with the basics. What are Fed reserves and why are they important?Martin Tobias: Reserves are one of the key line items on the liability side of the Fed balance sheet. Like any balance sheet, even your household budget, you have liabilities, which are debts and financial obligations, and you have assets. For the Fed, its assets primarily consist of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, and then you have liabilities like U.S. currency in circulation and bank reserves held at the Fed.These reserves consist of electronic deposits that commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, and credit unions hold at Federal Reserve banks. And these depository institutions earn interest from the Fed on these reserve balances.There are other Fed balance sheet liabilities like the Treasury General Account and the Overnight Reversed Repo Facility. But, to save us from some complexity, I won't go into those right now. Bottom line, these three liabilities are inversely linked to one another, and thus cannot be viewed in isolation.Having said that, the reason this is important is because central bank reserves are the most liquid and ultimate form of money. They underpin nearly all other forms of money, such as the deposits individuals or businesses hold at commercial banks. In simplest terms, those reserves are a sort of security blanket.Matthew Hornbach: Okay, so what led to this most recent dip in reserves?Martin Tobias: Well, that's the good news. We think the recent dip in reserves below [$] 3 trillion was simply related to temporary dynamics in funding markets at the end of the year, as opposed to a permanent drain of cash from the banking system.Matthew Hornbach: This kind of reduction in reserves has far reaching implications on several different levels. The banking sector, money markets, and monetary policy. So, let's take them one at a time. How does it affect the banking sector?Martin Tobias: So individual banks maintain different levels of reserves to fit their specific business models; while differences in reserve management also appear across large compared to small banks. As macro strategists, we monitor reserve balances in the aggregate and have identified a few different regimes based on the supply of liquidity.While reserves did fall below [$]3 trillion at the end of the year, we note the Fed Standing Repo Facility, which is an instrument that offers on demand access to liquidity for banks at a fixed cost, did not receive any usage. We interpret this to mean, even though reserves temporarily dipped below [$]3 trillion, it is a level that is still above scarcity in the aggregate.Matthew Hornbach: How about potential stability and liquidity of money markets?Martin Tobias: Occasional signs of volatility in money market rates over the past year have been clear signs that liquidity is transitioning from a super abundancy closer to an ample amount. The fact that there has become more volatility in money market rates – but being limited to identifiable dates – is really indicative of normal market functioning where liquidity is being redistributed from those who have it in excess to those in need of it.Year- end was just the latest example of there being some more volatility in money market rates. But as has been the case over the past year, these temporary upward pressures quickly normalized as liquidity in funding markets still remains abundant. In fact, reserves rose by [$] 440 billion to [$] 3.3 trillion in the week ended January 8th.Matthew Hornbach: Would this reduction in reserves that occurred over the end of the year influence the Fed's future monetary policy decisions?Martin Tobias: Right. As you alluded to earlier, the Fed has been passively reducing the size of its balance sheet to complement its actions with its primary monetary policy tool, the Fed Funds Rate. And I think our listeners are all familiar with the Fed Funds Rate because in simplest terms it's the rate that banks charge each other when lending money overnight, and that in turn influences the interest you pay on your loans and credit cards. Now the goal of the Fed's quantitative tightening program is to bring the balance sheet to the smallest size consistent with efficient money market functioning.So, we think the Fed is closely watching when declines in reserves occur and the sensitivity of changes in money market rates to those declines. Our house baseline view remains at quantitative tightening ends late in the first quarter of 2025.Matthew Hornbach: So, bottom line, for people who invest in money market funds, what's the takeaway?Martin Tobias: The bottom line is money markets continue to operate normally, and even though the Fed has lowered its policy rates, the yields on money markets do remain attractive for many types of retail and institutional investors.Matthew Hornbach: Well, Marty, thanks for taking the time to talk.Martin Tobias: Great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, [00:06:00] please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LeREn6e0IJZKz7scGWubkIGLBwPznNWaH_6OV2juryAThu, 16 Jan 2025 22:54:55 +0000gtyThe Federal Reserve’s shrinking balance sheet could have far-reaching implications for the banking sector, money markets and monetary policy. Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Martin Tobias from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team...----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Martin Tobias: And I'm Martin Tobias from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team.Matthew Hornbach: Today, we're going to talk about the widespread concerns around the dip in reserve levels at the Fed and what it means for banking, money markets, and beyond.It's Thursday, January 16th at 10am in New York.The Fed has been shrinking its balance sheet since June 2022, when it embarked on quantitative tightening in order to combat inflation. Reserves held at the Fed recently dipped below [$]3 trillion at year end, their lowest level since 2020. This has raised a lot of questions among investors, and we want to address some of them.Marty, you've been following these developments closely, so let's start with the basics. What are Fed reserves and why are they important?Martin Tobias: Reserves are one of the key line items on the liability side of the Fed balance sheet. Like any balance sheet, even your household budget, you have liabilities, which are debts and financial obligations, and you have assets. For the Fed, its assets primarily consist of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, and then you have liabilities like U.S. currency in circulation and bank reserves held at the Fed.These reserves consist of electronic deposits that commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, and credit unions hold at Federal Reserve banks. And these depository institutions earn interest from the Fed on these reserve balances.There are other Fed balance sheet liabilities like the Treasury General Account and the Overnight Reversed Repo Facility. But, to save us from some complexity, I won't go into those right now. Bottom line, these three liabilities are inversely linked to one another, and thus cannot be viewed in isolation.Having said that, the reason this is important is because central bank reserves are the most liquid and ultimate form of money. They underpin nearly all other forms of money, such as the deposits individuals or businesses hold at commercial banks. In simplest terms, those reserves are a sort of security blanket.Matthew Hornbach: Okay, so what led to this most recent dip in reserves?Martin Tobias: Well, that's the good news. We think the recent dip in reserves below [$] 3 trillion was simply related to temporary dynamics in funding markets at the end of the year, as opposed to a permanent drain of cash from the banking system.Matthew Hornbach: This kind of reduction in reserves has far reaching implications on several different levels. The banking sector, money markets, and monetary policy. So, let's take them one at a time. How does it affect the banking sector?Martin Tobias: So individual banks maintain different levels of reserves to fit their specific business models; while differences in reserve management also appear across large compared to small banks. As macro strategists, we monitor reserve balances in the aggregate and have identified a few different regimes based on the supply of liquidity.While reserves did fall below [$]3 trillion at the end of the year, we note the Fed Standing Repo Facility, which is an instrument that offers on demand access to liquidity for banks at a fixed cost, did not receive any usage. We interpret this to mean, even though reserves temporarily dipped below [$]3 trillion, it is a level that is still above scarcity in the aggregate.Matthew Hornbach: How about potential stability and liquidity of money markets?Martin Tobias: Occasional signs of volatility in money market rates over the past year have been clear signs that liquidity is transitioning from a super abundancy closer to an ample amount. The fact...]]>388alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1300fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/four-key-investment-themes-for-2025--75650938----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research. Today I’ll discuss the key investment megatrends Morgan Stanley Research will be following closely in 2025. It’s Wednesday, January 15th, at 10am in New York. Short-term trends can offer investors valuable insights into immediate market dynamics. But it’s the long-term trends that truly shape the investment landscape. That’s why each year, Morgan Stanley Research identifies a short list of megatrends that we believe will provide long-term investment opportunities in an ever-changing world. Three of Morgan Stanley’s megatrends—artificial intelligence, longevity, and the future of energy—carry over from last year. A fourth—the rewiring of the global economy—returns to our list after a hiatus in 2024. While none of these megatrends is new, each has evolved in terms of how it applies to investment strategies. Let’s start with the rewiring of global commerce for a Multipolar World. As I mentioned, this theme rejoins our list of key megatrends after a year-long break. Why? In short, it’s clear that policymakers globally are poised to implement policies that will speed up the breakdown of the post-Cold War globalization trend. Simply put, policymakers are keen to promote their visions of national and economic security through less open commerce and more local control of supply chains and key technologies. Multinationals and sovereigns may have to accelerate their adaptation to this reality. Some will face tougher choices than others, while there are some who may still benefit from facilitating this transition. Knowing who fits into which category—and how this new reality may play out—will be critical for investors. Our next theme—Longevity—remains an essential long-term secular trend, and this year the focus will be on measurable impacts for governments, economies, and corporates. The ripple effects of an aging population, the drive for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many geographies continue to impact markets. And in 2025, we see investors focusing on several specific longevity debates: First, innovation across healthcare – especially in an AI world, with obesity medications remaining front and center. Second, impacts on consumer behavior – including the drive for affordable nutrition. Third, the need to reskill aging workforces – especially if retirement ages move higher. And, finally, there’s implications for financial planning and retirement – with a bull market for financial advice just starting. Our next theme centers around energy. When we think about the future of energy, our focus for 2025 shifts from decarbonization to the wide range of factors driving the supply, demand, and delivery of energy across geographies. And the common thread here is the potential for rapid evolution. We’ll be tracking four key dynamics: First, an increasing focus on energy security. Second, the massive growth in energy demand driven by trillions of dollars of AI infrastructure spend, to be met both by fossil fuel-powered plants and renewables. Third, innovative energy technologies such as carbon capture, energy storage, nuclear power, and power grid optimization. And fourth, increased electrification across many industries. We continue to believe that carbon emissions will likely exceed the targets in various nations’ climate pledges. So, we expect focus to shift toward climate adaptation and resilience technologies and business models. Our last key theme is artificial intelligence and tech diffusion. Although it’s been two years since the launch of ChatGPT, we’re still in the early innings of AI's diffusion across sectors and geographies. However, while 2024 was driven by AI enablers and infrastructure companies, in 2025 we expect the market to focus on early AI downstream use cases that drive efficiency and market share. As you heard yesterday, our Global Head of Thematic Research Ed Stanley, explained that there’s alpha in understanding this rate of change. Agentic AI will be center stage, with robust enterprise adoption, stock outperformance for early adopters, positive surprises in model capabilities, greater breadth of monetization, and thus less attention to return-on-investment debates. Before I close, it’s worth mentioning that you will likely see connections between these complex themes. As an example, the complexity of a multipolar world makes energy security all the more vital. The demand for energy connects with the enormous power requirements of AI. And AI is set to drive healthcare innovations which could help us lead longer healthier lives. We see these four themes not as static categories but as an interconnected roadmap for investing over the long-term – and we’ll be sharing more on specific debates throughout the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/C7f14rG4y-HBSXtLcxVUS2xCIzrEhMbIbBnW4jH4ut0Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income & Public Policy Research Michael Zezas discusses how Morgan Stanley’s key themes – deglobalization, longevity, the future of energy, and artificial intelligence – will evolve in 2025 and beyond. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research. Today I’ll discuss the key investment megatrends Morgan Stanley Research will be following closely in 2025. It’s Wednesday, January 15th, at 10am in New York. Short-term trends can offer investors valuable insights into immediate market dynamics. But it’s the long-term trends that truly shape the investment landscape. That’s why each year, Morgan Stanley Research identifies a short list of megatrends that we believe will provide long-term investment opportunities in an ever-changing world. Three of Morgan Stanley’s megatrends—artificial intelligence, longevity, and the future of energy—carry over from last year. A fourth—the rewiring of the global economy—returns to our list after a hiatus in 2024. While none of these megatrends is new, each has evolved in terms of how it applies to investment strategies. Let’s start with the rewiring of global commerce for a Multipolar World. As I mentioned, this theme rejoins our list of key megatrends after a year-long break. Why? In short, it’s clear that policymakers globally are poised to implement policies that will speed up the breakdown of the post-Cold War globalization trend. Simply put, policymakers are keen to promote their visions of national and economic security through less open commerce and more local control of supply chains and key technologies. Multinationals and sovereigns may have to accelerate their adaptation to this reality. Some will face tougher choices than others, while there are some who may still benefit from facilitating this transition. Knowing who fits into which category—and how this new reality may play out—will be critical for investors. Our next theme—Longevity—remains an essential long-term secular trend, and this year the focus will be on measurable impacts for governments, economies, and corporates. The ripple effects of an aging population, the drive for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many geographies continue to impact markets. And in 2025, we see investors focusing on several specific longevity debates: First, innovation across healthcare – especially in an AI world, with obesity medications remaining front and center. Second, impacts on consumer behavior – including the drive for affordable nutrition. Third, the need to reskill aging workforces – especially if retirement ages move higher. And, finally, there’s implications for financial planning and retirement – with a bull market for financial advice just starting. Our next theme centers around energy. When we think about the future of energy, our focus for 2025 shifts from decarbonization to the wide range of factors driving the supply, demand, and delivery of energy across geographies. And the common thread here is the potential for rapid evolution. We’ll be tracking four key dynamics: First, an increasing focus on energy security. Second, the massive growth in energy demand driven by trillions of dollars of AI infrastructure spend, to be met both by fossil fuel-powered plants and renewables. Third, innovative energy technologies such as carbon capture, energy storage, nuclear power, and power grid optimization. And fourth, increased electrification across many industries. We continue to believe that carbon emissions will likely exceed the targets in various nations’ climate pledges. So, we expect focus to shift toward climate adaptation and resilience technologies and business models. Our last key theme is artificial intelligence and tech diffusion. Although it’s been two years since the launch of ChatGPT, we’re still in the early innings of AI's diffusion across sectors and...]]>317alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1299fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/finding-opportunity-in-ai-s-evolution--75650911----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic Research. Today I'll discuss how understanding AI’s rate of change can generate alpha in the year of AI agents.It’s Tuesday, the 14th of January, at 2 PM in London.Even if you haven't been using artificial intelligence in your work or home life yet – you’ll doubtless have heard about its capabilities by now. Tasked, for example, with drafting an elevator pitch for a 100-page report; it's a tedious task at the best of times. But using an AI model not only does it become a breeze, but these models can also generate you a podcast – if you so wish – through which to disseminate it, and almost in any language conceivable. But now imagine the algorithm begins thinking through multi-stage processes itself – planning, executing – to generate that 100-page report itself, in the first place. That … is an example of Agentic AI. As the name implies, this next phase of AI development is where software programs gain agency, transitioning from reactive chatbots that we’ve been using into proactive task fulfillment agents. And this transition is happening now. Over the past 36 months, we’ve gone from reliable output that can displace or supplement 5-second or 5-minute tasks, such as translation or quick summaries, to models that are providing reliable output for 15-minute tasks, 1-hour tasks – like the ones that I just mentioned. And each time the skeptics have claimed that model improvements are slowing down, and thus call into question the returns on hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on AI infrastructure, the AI research labs manage to take another leap forward, surprising even seasoned analysts. That’s why we think this is such an important trend for 2025. AI Adopter companies that can leverage these agents will start to pull ahead of their peers. And as a result, tracking AI’s evolution in the materiality of companies’ investment cases, we think, has never been more important. Since our first AI Adopter survey in January 2024 to our latest just published in January 2025, we've seen profound shifts in the thousands of stocks that we cover globally. This ongoing transformation not only underscores that AI’s diffusion is advancing rapidly, but that we’re still very much in its early innings.To understand the breakneck speed of the AI evolution through the lens of its impact on the stock markets, we need to wrap our heads around the concept of “rate of change.” We just published the third iteration of our AI mapping survey of 3,700 global stocks under coverage. And it reveals that 585 of those stocks had their AI exposure or materiality to investment case changed by our analysts – and that is just versus 6 months ago. And it impacts around $14 trillion of global market cap. And this rate of change in AI isn't just a buzzword; it's a tangible metric driving outperformance. So, if we look back in the second half of last year, 2024, stocks where our analysts previously increased both AI exposure and materiality in our last survey – went on to outperform broader equity markets by over 20 per cent in the second half of 2024. If we apply the same logic looking forward, where do we think most outperformance is going to come from? It’s in those same stocks where our analysts have just upgraded the exposure and materiality to the investment case. Beyond this simple screen for AI outperformers we think there are three other key conclusions from our latest survey. The first is AI Enabler stocks with Rising Materiality, within which we believe that Semiconductors, which have outperformed well, might soon pass the baton to the Software layer in terms of equity market dominance. Second, Adopters with Pricing Power. These are companies that adopt AI early and use it to expand their margins but sustainably, without having to give it back to their customers. And the third is Financial stocks, in particular, where AI Rate of Change has been the fastest of any sector in our global coverage – in terms of the efficiency gains that we think it can manifest for the share prices. So all in all, 2025 promises a slew of significant developments in AI, and, of course, we’ll be here to bring you all of the updates. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review wherever you listen to your podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/up8qIa4uyfmqvG6reXK6Pks2V1plQommoUzwplO4iN4Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Thematic Research Ed Stanley discusses how artificial intelligence is changing and what could be in store for investors in 2025. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic Research. Today I'll discuss how understanding AI’s rate of change can generate alpha in the year of AI agents.It’s Tuesday, the 14th of January, at 2 PM in London.Even if you haven't been using artificial intelligence in your work or home life yet – you’ll doubtless have heard about its capabilities by now. Tasked, for example, with drafting an elevator pitch for a 100-page report; it's a tedious task at the best of times. But using an AI model not only does it become a breeze, but these models can also generate you a podcast – if you so wish – through which to disseminate it, and almost in any language conceivable. But now imagine the algorithm begins thinking through multi-stage processes itself – planning, executing – to generate that 100-page report itself, in the first place. That … is an example of Agentic AI. As the name implies, this next phase of AI development is where software programs gain agency, transitioning from reactive chatbots that we’ve been using into proactive task fulfillment agents. And this transition is happening now. Over the past 36 months, we’ve gone from reliable output that can displace or supplement 5-second or 5-minute tasks, such as translation or quick summaries, to models that are providing reliable output for 15-minute tasks, 1-hour tasks – like the ones that I just mentioned. And each time the skeptics have claimed that model improvements are slowing down, and thus call into question the returns on hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on AI infrastructure, the AI research labs manage to take another leap forward, surprising even seasoned analysts. That’s why we think this is such an important trend for 2025. AI Adopter companies that can leverage these agents will start to pull ahead of their peers. And as a result, tracking AI’s evolution in the materiality of companies’ investment cases, we think, has never been more important. Since our first AI Adopter survey in January 2024 to our latest just published in January 2025, we've seen profound shifts in the thousands of stocks that we cover globally. This ongoing transformation not only underscores that AI’s diffusion is advancing rapidly, but that we’re still very much in its early innings.To understand the breakneck speed of the AI evolution through the lens of its impact on the stock markets, we need to wrap our heads around the concept of “rate of change.” We just published the third iteration of our AI mapping survey of 3,700 global stocks under coverage. And it reveals that 585 of those stocks had their AI exposure or materiality to investment case changed by our analysts – and that is just versus 6 months ago. And it impacts around $14 trillion of global market cap. And this rate of change in AI isn't just a buzzword; it's a tangible metric driving outperformance. So, if we look back in the second half of last year, 2024, stocks where our analysts previously increased both AI exposure and materiality in our last survey – went on to outperform broader equity markets by over 20 per cent in the second half of 2024. If we apply the same logic looking forward, where do we think most outperformance is going to come from? It’s in those same stocks where our analysts have just upgraded the exposure and materiality to the investment case. Beyond this simple screen for AI outperformers we think there are three other key conclusions from our latest survey. The first is AI Enabler stocks with Rising Materiality, within which we believe that Semiconductors, which have outperformed well, might soon pass the baton to the Software layer in terms of equity market dominance. Second, Adopters with Pricing Power. These are companies that adopt AI early and use it...]]>306alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1298fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/big-debates-the-state-of-the-energy-transition--75650914----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley.Devin McDermott: I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North America Energy Team.Mike Canfield: And I'm Mike Canfield, Head of the Europe Sustainability Team,Michelle Weaver: This is the second episode of our special miniseries, Big Debates, where we cover key investment debates for 2025. Today, we'll look at where we are in the energy transition and some key investment opportunities.It's Monday, January 13th at 10am in New York.Mike Canfield: And 3pm in London.Michelle Weaver: Since 2005, U.S. carbon emissions have fallen by about 15 percent. Nearly all of this has been tied to the power sector. Natural gas has been displacing coal. Renewable resources have seen higher penetration. When you look outside the power sector, though, progress has been a lot more limited.Let me come to you first, Devin. What is behind these trends, and where are we right now in terms of the energy transition in the U.S.?Devin McDermott: Over the last 20 years now, it's actually been a pretty steady trend for overall U.S. emissions. There's been gradual annual declines, ratcheting lower through much of this period. [There’s] really two primary drivers.The first is, the displacement of coal by natural gas, which is driven about 60 percent of this reduction over the period. And the remainder is higher penetration of renewable resources, which drive the remaining 40 percent. And this ratio between these two drivers -- net gas displacing coal, renewables adding to the power sector -- really hasn't changed all that much. It's been pretty consistent even in this post COVID recovery relative to the 15 years prior.Outside of power, there's been almost no progress, and it doesn't vary much depending on which end market you're looking at. Industrial missions, manufacturing, PetChem -- all relatively stable. And then the transport sector, which for the U.S. in particular, relative to many other markets and the rest of the world, is a big driver transport, a big driver of emissions. And there it's a mix of different factors. The biggest of which, though, driving the slow uptick in alternatives is the lack of viable economic options to decarbonize outside of fossil fuels. And the fact that in the U.S. specifically, there is a very abundant, low-cost base of natural gas; which is a low carbon, the lowest carbon fossil fuel, but still does have carbon intensity tied to it.Michelle Weaver: You've also argued that the domestic natural gas market is positioned for growth. What's your outlook for this year and beyond?Devin McDermott: The natural gas market has been a story of growth for a while now, but these last few years have had a bit of a pause on major expansion.From 2010 to 2020, that's when you saw the biggest uptick in natural gas penetration as a portion of primary energy in the U.S. The domestic market doubled in size over that 10-year period, and you saw growth in really every major end market power and decarbonization. There was a big piece of it. But the U.S. also transitioned from a major importer of LNG, which stands for liquefied natural gas, to one of the world's largest exporters by the end of last decade. And you had a lot of industrial and petrochemical growth, which uses natural gas as a feedstock.Over the last several years, globally, gas markets have faced a series of shocks, the biggest of which is the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Europe's loss of a significant portion of their gas supply, which historically had come on pipelines from Russia. To replace that, Europe bought a lot more LNG, drove up global prices, and in response to higher global prices, you saw a wave of new project sanctioning activity around the world. The U.S. is a key driver of that expansion cycle.The U.S. over the next five years will double; roughly double, I should say, its export capacity. And that is an unprecedented amount of volume growth domestically, as well as globally, and will drive a significant uptick in domestic consumption.So that the additional exports is pillar number one; and pillar number two, which I'd say is more of an emerging trend, is the rise of incremental power consumption. For the last 15 years, U.S. electricity consumption on a weather adjusted basis has not grown. But if you look out at forecasts from utilities, from various market operators in the country, you're now seeing a trend of growth for the balance of this decade and beyond tied to three key things.The first is onshore manufacturing. The second is power demand tied to data centers and AI. And the third is this broader trend of electrification. So, a little bit from EV's, more electric appliances, which fit into this decarbonization theme more broadly. We're looking at now an outlet, this is our base case of U.S. electricity demand growing at just shy of 2 percent per year over the next five years. That is a growth rate that we have not seen this century. And natural gas, which generates about 40 percent of U.S. power today, will continue to be a key player in meeting this incremental demand. And that becomes then a second pillar of consumption growth for the domestic market.Michelle Weaver: And we're coming up on the inauguration here, and I think one really important question for investors is what's going to happen to the energy sector and to renewables when Trump takes office? What are you thinking here?Devin McDermott: Yes. Well, the policy that supports renewable development in the U.S., wind and solar specifically, has survived many different administrations, both Republican and Democratic. And there's actually several examples over the last 10 to 15 years of Republican controlled Congress extending both the production tax credit and investment tax credit for wind and solar.So, our base case is no major change on deployments, but also unlikely to see any incremental supportive policy for these technologies. Instead, I think the focus will be on some of the other major themes that we've been talking about here.One, there's currently a pause on new LNG export permits under the Biden administration that should be lifted shortly post Trump's inauguration. Second, there are greenhouse gas intensity limits on new power plant and existing power plant construction in the U.S. that will likely be lifted, under the incoming Trump administration. So, gas takes a larger share of incremental power needs under Trump than it would have under the prior status quo. And then lastly. Consistently over the last few years, penetration of electric vehicles and low carbon vehicles in general in the United States have fallen short of expectations.And interestingly, if you look at just the composition of new vehicles sold in the U.S. over the past years, nearly two-thirds were SUVs or heavier light duty vehicles that offset some of the other underlying trends of some uptick in EV penetration.Under the prior Trump administration, there was a rollback of initiatives to improve the fuel economy of both light duty and heavy-duty transport. I would not be surprised if we see that same thing happen again, which means you have more longevity to gasoline, diesel, other fossil-based transport fuels. Which kind of put this all together -- significant growth for natural gas that could accelerate under Trump, more longevity to legacy businesses like gasoline and diesel for these incumbent energy companies is not a bad backdrop.Trade's still at double its historical discount versus the broader market. So, not a bad setup when you put it all together.Michelle Weaver: Great. Thank you, Devin. Mike, new policies under the second Trump administration will likely have an impact far beyond the U.S. And with a potential withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and increased greenhushing, many investors are starting to question whether companies may walk back or delay their sustainability ambitions.Will decarbonization still be a corporate priority or will the pace of the energy transition in Europe slow in 2025?Mike Canfield: Yeah, that's the big question. The core issues for EU policymakers at the moment include things like competitiveness, climate change, security, digitalization, migration and the cost of living.At the same time, Mario Draghi highlighted in his report entitled “The Future of European Competitiveness” that there are three transformations Europe has to contend with: to become more innovative and competitive; to complete its energy transition; and to adapt to a backdrop of less stable geopolitics where dependencies are becoming vulnerabilities, to use his phrase.We do still expect the EU's direction of travel on things like the Fit for 55 goals, its targets to address critical mineral supplies, and the overall net zero transition to remain consistent. And the UK's Labour Party has advocated for Clean Power 2030 goals of 95 percent clean generation sources.At the same time, it's fair to say some commentators have pointed to the higher regulatory burden on EU corporates as a potentially damaging factor in competitiveness, suggesting that regulations are costly and can be overcomplicated, particularly for smaller companies. While we've already had a delay in the implementation of the EU's deforestation regulation, some questions do remain over other rules, including things like the corporate sustainability, due diligence directive, and the design of the carbon border adjustment mechanism or CBAM.We're closely watching corporates themselves to see whether they'll reevaluate their investment plans or targets. One example we've actually already seen is in the metals and mining space where decarbonisation investm]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LqR90cS0dwhfRs7n_p6Lj7y-20mwtXgIPg3SQe0ZF6gMon, 13 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyIn the latest edition of our Big Debates miniseries, Morgan Stanley Research analysts discuss the factors that will shape the global energy market in 2025 and beyond, and where to look for investment opportunities. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle...----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley.Devin McDermott: I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North America Energy Team.Mike Canfield: And I'm Mike Canfield, Head of the Europe Sustainability Team,Michelle Weaver: This is the second episode of our special miniseries, Big Debates, where we cover key investment debates for 2025. Today, we'll look at where we are in the energy transition and some key investment opportunities.It's Monday, January 13th at 10am in New York.Mike Canfield: And 3pm in London.Michelle Weaver: Since 2005, U.S. carbon emissions have fallen by about 15 percent. Nearly all of this has been tied to the power sector. Natural gas has been displacing coal. Renewable resources have seen higher penetration. When you look outside the power sector, though, progress has been a lot more limited.Let me come to you first, Devin. What is behind these trends, and where are we right now in terms of the energy transition in the U.S.?Devin McDermott: Over the last 20 years now, it's actually been a pretty steady trend for overall U.S. emissions. There's been gradual annual declines, ratcheting lower through much of this period. [There’s] really two primary drivers.The first is, the displacement of coal by natural gas, which is driven about 60 percent of this reduction over the period. And the remainder is higher penetration of renewable resources, which drive the remaining 40 percent. And this ratio between these two drivers -- net gas displacing coal, renewables adding to the power sector -- really hasn't changed all that much. It's been pretty consistent even in this post COVID recovery relative to the 15 years prior.Outside of power, there's been almost no progress, and it doesn't vary much depending on which end market you're looking at. Industrial missions, manufacturing, PetChem -- all relatively stable. And then the transport sector, which for the U.S. in particular, relative to many other markets and the rest of the world, is a big driver transport, a big driver of emissions. And there it's a mix of different factors. The biggest of which, though, driving the slow uptick in alternatives is the lack of viable economic options to decarbonize outside of fossil fuels. And the fact that in the U.S. specifically, there is a very abundant, low-cost base of natural gas; which is a low carbon, the lowest carbon fossil fuel, but still does have carbon intensity tied to it.Michelle Weaver: You've also argued that the domestic natural gas market is positioned for growth. What's your outlook for this year and beyond?Devin McDermott: The natural gas market has been a story of growth for a while now, but these last few years have had a bit of a pause on major expansion.From 2010 to 2020, that's when you saw the biggest uptick in natural gas penetration as a portion of primary energy in the U.S. The domestic market doubled in size over that 10-year period, and you saw growth in really every major end market power and decarbonization. There was a big piece of it. But the U.S. also transitioned from a major importer of LNG, which stands for liquefied natural gas, to one of the world's largest exporters by the end of last decade. And you had a lot of industrial and petrochemical growth, which uses natural gas as a feedstock.Over the last several years, globally, gas markets have faced a series of shocks, the biggest of which is the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Europe's loss of a significant portion of their gas supply, which historically had come on pipelines from Russia. To replace that, Europe bought a lot more LNG, drove up global prices, and in response to higher global prices, you saw a...]]>837alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1297fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/big-debates-the-ai-evolution--75650975----- Transcript -----
Michelle: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Keith: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research.Michelle: This episode is the first episode of a special series we’re calling “Big Debates” – where we dig deeper into some of the many hot topics of conversation going on right now. Ideas that will shape global markets in 2025. First up in the series: Artificial Intelligence.It's Friday, January 10th at 10am in New York.When we look back at 2024, there were three major themes that Morgan Stanley Research followed. And AI and tech diffusion were among them. Throughout last year the market was largely focused on AI enablers – we’re talking semiconductors, data centers, and power companies. The companies that are really building out the infrastructure of AI.Now though, as we’re looking ahead, that story is starting to change.Keith, you cover enterprise software. Within your space, how will the AI story morph in 2025?Keith: I do think 2025 is going to be an exciting year for software [be]cause a lot of these fundamental capabilities that have come out from the training of these models, of putting a lot of compute into the Large Language Models, those capabilities are now being built into software functionality. And that software functionality has been in the market long enough that investors can expect to see more of it come into results. That the product is there for people to actually buy on a go forward basis.One of the avenues of that product that we're most excited about heading into 2025 is what we're calling agentic computing, where we're moving beyond chatbots to a more automated proactive type of interface into that software functionality that can handle more complex problems, handle it more accurately and really make use of that generative AI capability in a corporate or in an enterprise software setting as we head into 2025.Michelle: Could you give us an example of what agentic AI is and how might an end user interact with it?Keith: Sure. So, you and I have been interacting with chatbots a lot to gain access to this generative AI functionality. And if you think about the way you interact with that chatbot, right, you have a prompt, you have a question. You have to come up with the question. going to take that question and it's going to, try to contextually understand the nature of that question, and to the best of its ability it's going to give you back an answer.In agentic computing, what you're looking for is to add more agency into that chatbot; meaning that it can reason more over the overall question. It's not just one model that it's going to be using to compose the answer. And it's not just the composition of an answer where the functionality of that chatbot is going to end. There's actually an ability to execute what that answer is. So, it can handle more complex problems.And it could actually automate the execution of the answer to those problems.Michelle: It sounds like this tech is going to have a massive impact on the workplace. Have you estimated what this could do to productivity?Keith: Yeah, this is -- really aligns to the work that we did actually back in 2023, where we did our AI index, right. We came up with the conclusion that given the current capabilities of Large Language Models, 25 per cent of U.S. occupations are going to be impacted by these technologies. As the capabilities evolve, we think that could go as high as 45 per cent of U.S. labor touched by these productivity enhancing. Or, sort of, being replaced by these technologies. That equates to, at the high end, $4 trillion of labor that's being augmented or replaced on a go forward basis. The productivity gains still yet to be seen; how much of a productivity gain you could see on average. But the numbers are massive, right, in terms of the potential because it touches so much labor.Michelle: And finally on agentic, is the market missing anything and how does your view differ from the consensus?Keith: I think part of what the market is missing is that these agentic computing frameworks is not just one model, right? There's typically a reasoning engine of some sort that's organizing multiple models, multiple components of the system that enable you to -- one, handle more complex queries, more complex problems to be solved, lets you actually execute to the answer. So, there's execution capabilities that come along with that. And equally as important, put more error correction into the system as well. So, you could have agents that are actually ensuring you have a higher accuracy of the answer.It's the sugar that's going to make the medicine go down, if you will. It's going to make a lot easier to adopt in enterprise environments. I think that's why we're a little bit more optimistic about the pace of adoption and the adoption curves we could see with agentic computing despite the fact it's a relatively early-stage technology.Michelle: You just mentioned Large Language Models, or LLMs; and one barrier there has been training these models. It requires a ton of computing power, among other constraints. How are companies addressing this, and what's in the cards for next year?Keith: So, if you think about the demand for that compute in our mind comes from two fundamental sources. And as a software analyst, I break this down into research versus development, right? Research is investment that you make to find core fundamental capabilities.Development is when you take those capabilities and make the investment to create product out of it. Thus far, again, the primary focus has been on the training side of the equation.I think that part of the equation looks to be asymptotic to a certain extent. The – what people call the scaling laws, the amount of incremental capability that you're getting from putting more compute at the equation is starting to come down.What people are overlooking is the amount of improvement that you could see from the development side of the equation. So, whereas the demand for GPUs, the demand for data center for that pure training side of the equation might start to slow down a little bit, I think what we're going to see expand greatly is the demand for inference, the demand to utilize these models more fully to solve real business problems.In terms of where we're going to source this; there are constraints in terms of data center capacity. The companies that we cover, they've been thinking about these problems for the past decade, right? And they have these decade long planning cycles. They have good visibility in terms of being able to meet that demand in the immediate future. But these questions on how we are going to power these data centers is definitely top of mind for our companies, and they're looking for new sources of power and trying to get more creative there.The pace with which data centers can be built out is a fundamental constraint in terms of how quickly this demand can be realized. So those supply constraints I don't think are going to be a immediate limiter for any of our names when we're thinking about calendar [20]25. But definitely, part of the planning process and part of the longer-term forecasting for all of these companies in terms of where are they going to find all this fundamental resource – because whether it's training or inference, still a lot of GPUs are going to be needed. A lot of compute is going to be needed.Michelle: Recently we've been hearing about so called artificial general intelligence or AGI. What is it? And do you think we're going to see it in 2025?Keith: Yeah, so, AGI is the – it's basically the holy grail of all of these development efforts. Can we come up with models that can reason in the human world as well as we can, right? That can understand the inputs that we give it, understand the domains that we're trying to operate in as well or better than we can, so it can solve problems as effectively and as efficiently as we can.The easiest way to solve that systems integration problem of like, how can we get the software, how could we get the computers to interact with the world in the way that we do? Or get all the impact that we do is for it to replicate all those functionalities. For it to be able to reason over unstructured text the same way we do. To take visual stimuli the same way that we do. And then we don't have to take data and put into a format that's readable by the system anymore.2025 is probably too early to be thinking about AGI, to be honest. Most technologists think that there's more breakthroughs needed before the algorithms are going to be that good; before the models are going to be that good.There's very few people who think Large Language Models and the scaling of Large Language Models in themselves are going to get us to that AGI. You're probably talking 10 to 20 years before we truly see AGI emerge. So, 2025 is probably a little bit too early.Michelle: Well, great, Keith. Thank you for taking the time to talk and helping us kick off big debates. It looks like 2025 we'll see some major developments in AI.And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xxEZ5iFQEfQm8rdunOmHDFHYbV6K4DR01rHeGxZ8aRkFri, 10 Jan 2025 22:08:38 +0000gtyIn the first of a special series, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses new frontiers in artificial intelligence with Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Michelle: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Keith: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research.Michelle: This episode is the first episode of a special series we’re calling “Big Debates” – where we dig deeper into some of the many hot topics of conversation going on right now. Ideas that will shape global markets in 2025. First up in the series: Artificial Intelligence.It's Friday, January 10th at 10am in New York.When we look back at 2024, there were three major themes that Morgan Stanley Research followed. And AI and tech diffusion were among them. Throughout last year the market was largely focused on AI enablers – we’re talking semiconductors, data centers, and power companies. The companies that are really building out the infrastructure of AI.Now though, as we’re looking ahead, that story is starting to change.Keith, you cover enterprise software. Within your space, how will the AI story morph in 2025?Keith: I do think 2025 is going to be an exciting year for software [be]cause a lot of these fundamental capabilities that have come out from the training of these models, of putting a lot of compute into the Large Language Models, those capabilities are now being built into software functionality. And that software functionality has been in the market long enough that investors can expect to see more of it come into results. That the product is there for people to actually buy on a go forward basis.One of the avenues of that product that we're most excited about heading into 2025 is what we're calling agentic computing, where we're moving beyond chatbots to a more automated proactive type of interface into that software functionality that can handle more complex problems, handle it more accurately and really make use of that generative AI capability in a corporate or in an enterprise software setting as we head into 2025.Michelle: Could you give us an example of what agentic AI is and how might an end user interact with it?Keith: Sure. So, you and I have been interacting with chatbots a lot to gain access to this generative AI functionality. And if you think about the way you interact with that chatbot, right, you have a prompt, you have a question. You have to come up with the question. going to take that question and it's going to, try to contextually understand the nature of that question, and to the best of its ability it's going to give you back an answer.In agentic computing, what you're looking for is to add more agency into that chatbot; meaning that it can reason more over the overall question. It's not just one model that it's going to be using to compose the answer. And it's not just the composition of an answer where the functionality of that chatbot is going to end. There's actually an ability to execute what that answer is. So, it can handle more complex problems.And it could actually automate the execution of the answer to those problems.Michelle: It sounds like this tech is going to have a massive impact on the workplace. Have you estimated what this could do to productivity?Keith: Yeah, this is -- really aligns to the work that we did actually back in 2023, where we did our AI index, right. We came up with the conclusion that given the current capabilities of Large Language Models, 25 per cent of U.S. occupations are going to be impacted by these technologies. As the capabilities evolve, we think that could go as high as 45 per cent of U.S. labor touched by these productivity enhancing. Or, sort of, being replaced by these technologies. That equates to, at the high end, $4 trillion of labor that's being augmented or replaced on a go forward basis. The productivity gains still yet to be...]]>559alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1296fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2025-setting-expectations--75651166----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I’m going to revisit our story for 2025 – and what could make things better or worse.It's Thursday, January 9th at 2pm in London. Based on the number of out-of-office replies, I have a sneaking suspicion that many investors took advantage [of] the timing of holidays this year for a well deserved break. With this week marking the first full week back, I thought it would be a good opportunity to refresh listeners on what we expect in 2025, and realistic scenarios where things are better or worse.Our base case is that credit holds up well this year, doing somewhat better in the first half of 2025 than the second. Credit likes moderation, and while we think the shift in U.S. policy leadership generally means less moderation, and a wider range of economic outcomes, this shift doesn’t arrive immediately. On Morgan Stanley’s forecasts, the bulk of the disruptive impact from any changes to tariffs or immigration policy hits in 2026.Meanwhile, Credit is entering 2025 with some pretty decent tailwinds. The economy is good. The all-in yield – the total yield – on US investment grade corporate bonds, at above 5.4 per cent, is the highest to start any year since January of 2009 – which we think helps demand. And while we think corporate confidence and aggression will rise this year, normally a bad thing for credit; this is going to be coming off of a low, conservative starting point. We think that credit spreads will be modestly tighter by mid-year relative to where they finished 2024, and then start to widen modestly in the second half of the year – as the market attempts to price that greater policy uncertainty in 2026. We think that issuers in the Financial and Utilities sectors outperform, and we think bonds between five- and ten-year maturity will do the best.The bear case is that we exit the current period of moderation more quickly. At one end, a deregulatory push by a new administration could usher in an even faster rise in corporate confidence and aggression, leading to more borrowing and riskier dealmaking. At the other extreme, the strong current state of the economy and jobs market could make further gains harder to come by. If the rise in unemployment that our economists expect in 2026 is larger or arrives earlier, credit could start to weaken well ahead of this.So, how could things be better – especially given the relatively low, tight starting point for credit spreads? Well, we’d argue that the current mix of data for credit is border-line ideal: reasonable growth, falling inflation, still-low levels of corporate aggressiveness, and still-high yields that are attracting buyers. Recall that the tightest levels of credit in the modern era, which are still tighter than today, occurred during a period with similar characteristics – the mid-1990s.When thinking about the mid-90s as a bull case, there’s a further detail that’s relevant and topical, especially this week. At that time, interest rates stayed somewhat high and the Fed only lowered short-term rates modestly because the economy held up. In short, in the best environment that we’ve seen for credit, less action by the Federal Reserve was fine – so long as the economic data was good.This is a bull-case, rather than our base case, because there are also a number of key differences with the mid 1990s, not the least being a much worse trajectory – today – for the US government's budget. But in a scenario where things change less, and the status quo lasts longer, it could come into play.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/sxBZiNUqQr8giPjHb8pkSv8mDHCKrJs5sGTpGCJ84dYFri, 10 Jan 2025 00:05:44 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, offers up bull, bear and base cases for credit markets in the year ahead. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I’m going to revisit our story for 2025 – and what could make things better or worse.It's Thursday, January 9th at 2pm in London. Based on the number of out-of-office replies, I have a sneaking suspicion that many investors took advantage [of] the timing of holidays this year for a well deserved break. With this week marking the first full week back, I thought it would be a good opportunity to refresh listeners on what we expect in 2025, and realistic scenarios where things are better or worse.Our base case is that credit holds up well this year, doing somewhat better in the first half of 2025 than the second. Credit likes moderation, and while we think the shift in U.S. policy leadership generally means less moderation, and a wider range of economic outcomes, this shift doesn’t arrive immediately. On Morgan Stanley’s forecasts, the bulk of the disruptive impact from any changes to tariffs or immigration policy hits in 2026.Meanwhile, Credit is entering 2025 with some pretty decent tailwinds. The economy is good. The all-in yield – the total yield – on US investment grade corporate bonds, at above 5.4 per cent, is the highest to start any year since January of 2009 – which we think helps demand. And while we think corporate confidence and aggression will rise this year, normally a bad thing for credit; this is going to be coming off of a low, conservative starting point. We think that credit spreads will be modestly tighter by mid-year relative to where they finished 2024, and then start to widen modestly in the second half of the year – as the market attempts to price that greater policy uncertainty in 2026. We think that issuers in the Financial and Utilities sectors outperform, and we think bonds between five- and ten-year maturity will do the best.The bear case is that we exit the current period of moderation more quickly. At one end, a deregulatory push by a new administration could usher in an even faster rise in corporate confidence and aggression, leading to more borrowing and riskier dealmaking. At the other extreme, the strong current state of the economy and jobs market could make further gains harder to come by. If the rise in unemployment that our economists expect in 2026 is larger or arrives earlier, credit could start to weaken well ahead of this.So, how could things be better – especially given the relatively low, tight starting point for credit spreads? Well, we’d argue that the current mix of data for credit is border-line ideal: reasonable growth, falling inflation, still-low levels of corporate aggressiveness, and still-high yields that are attracting buyers. Recall that the tightest levels of credit in the modern era, which are still tighter than today, occurred during a period with similar characteristics – the mid-1990s.When thinking about the mid-90s as a bull case, there’s a further detail that’s relevant and topical, especially this week. At that time, interest rates stayed somewhat high and the Fed only lowered short-term rates modestly because the economy held up. In short, in the best environment that we’ve seen for credit, less action by the Federal Reserve was fine – so long as the economic data was good.This is a bull-case, rather than our base case, because there are also a number of key differences with the mid 1990s, not the least being a much worse trajectory – today – for the US government's budget. But in a scenario where things change less, and the status quo lasts longer, it could come into play.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>235alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1295fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/market-implications-of-trump-s-agenda--75651016----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about recent US policy developments.It’s Wednesday, Jan 8th, at 2:30pm in New York. In less than two weeks, Donald Trump will again become the sitting President of the United States. The economic and market consequences of the policies he might enact, either on his own or in concert with the Congress, continue to be an important debate for investors. Our view has been that the sequencing and severity of policy choices across tariffs, taxes, immigration, and regulation would be very meaningful to the market's outlook. So, have we learned anything from news around the policy discussions inside the incoming administration and congressional leaders? Let’s consider it here and level set. First, there‘s been news about Republicans debating their approach to legislating some of President Trump’s top policy priorities. That debate centers around whether to create one big bill around taxes, immigration, and a host of other issues or to break it into multiple bills. Leading with immigration reforms, where there may be more consensus within Republicans’ slim Congressional majority; and then following it up with tax cuts and extensions, which may take more time to negotiate given myriad interests. While investors have asked us about this debate quite a bit, the distinction between the approaches may not make much of a difference to investors. At the end of the day, what should matter most to markets is the timing and size of the fiscal impact driven by tax changes. Going with one big bill may seem faster, but we’re reminded of the saying ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.’ In other words, that one big bill would probably only pass as fast as Republicans could agree on its toughest negotiating points – so likely not very soon. As for the size of fiscal impact, we continue to see consensus around extending most of the tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025, with some new benefits, like a domestic manufacturing tax credit. So, there should be some fiscal expansion in 2026, a few hundred billion dollars in our view; but this is meaningfully different than the trillions of dollars that the media cites when discussing the whole of the tax policy wish list. There’s also been some news on the approach to tariffs, but again it seems more noise than signal. Recent media reports are that Trump might adopt a tariff plan focused on specific products as opposed to a blanket approach on all imports. Trump denied the report via social media. But even if he hadn’t, it's unclear that such a plan could be executed quickly through existing executive powers or through legislation, where it's far from clear that tariffs could be enacted given Democrats' opposition and procedural barriers from budget reconciliation. So, our view remains that new tariffs will likely be enacted but through executive authority – which means a phased-in focus on China and Europe in 2025; and any new authorities developed via existing laws might not be enactable until 2026. So said more simply, the impact of tariffs on the economy may be a late 2025 into 2026 story. Putting it together for investors: So far, the news flow hasn’t materially changed our view on the US policy path. Yes, important policy changes are coming, but their implementation may be slow. That should mean that, to start 2025, the healthy fundamentals of the US economy should help drive risk markets, namely U.S. equities and corporate credit, to outperform. If we’re wrong and, for example, tariffs are implemented in larger magnitude at a quicker pace, then it may be a year where less risky assets, like government bonds, outperform. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gZpE-MY0zbaUgc0PiJTZgnaPZUvfbMt64tALO6P8I98Wed, 08 Jan 2025 22:06:53 +0000gtyWith the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump approaching, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research weighs the impact for investors of his potential policy measures. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about recent US policy developments.It’s Wednesday, Jan 8th, at 2:30pm in New York. In less than two weeks, Donald Trump will again become the sitting President of the United States. The economic and market consequences of the policies he might enact, either on his own or in concert with the Congress, continue to be an important debate for investors. Our view has been that the sequencing and severity of policy choices across tariffs, taxes, immigration, and regulation would be very meaningful to the market's outlook. So, have we learned anything from news around the policy discussions inside the incoming administration and congressional leaders? Let’s consider it here and level set. First, there‘s been news about Republicans debating their approach to legislating some of President Trump’s top policy priorities. That debate centers around whether to create one big bill around taxes, immigration, and a host of other issues or to break it into multiple bills. Leading with immigration reforms, where there may be more consensus within Republicans’ slim Congressional majority; and then following it up with tax cuts and extensions, which may take more time to negotiate given myriad interests. While investors have asked us about this debate quite a bit, the distinction between the approaches may not make much of a difference to investors. At the end of the day, what should matter most to markets is the timing and size of the fiscal impact driven by tax changes. Going with one big bill may seem faster, but we’re reminded of the saying ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.’ In other words, that one big bill would probably only pass as fast as Republicans could agree on its toughest negotiating points – so likely not very soon. As for the size of fiscal impact, we continue to see consensus around extending most of the tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025, with some new benefits, like a domestic manufacturing tax credit. So, there should be some fiscal expansion in 2026, a few hundred billion dollars in our view; but this is meaningfully different than the trillions of dollars that the media cites when discussing the whole of the tax policy wish list. There’s also been some news on the approach to tariffs, but again it seems more noise than signal. Recent media reports are that Trump might adopt a tariff plan focused on specific products as opposed to a blanket approach on all imports. Trump denied the report via social media. But even if he hadn’t, it's unclear that such a plan could be executed quickly through existing executive powers or through legislation, where it's far from clear that tariffs could be enacted given Democrats' opposition and procedural barriers from budget reconciliation. So, our view remains that new tariffs will likely be enacted but through executive authority – which means a phased-in focus on China and Europe in 2025; and any new authorities developed via existing laws might not be enactable until 2026. So said more simply, the impact of tariffs on the economy may be a late 2025 into 2026 story. Putting it together for investors: So far, the news flow hasn’t materially changed our view on the US policy path. Yes, important policy changes are coming, but their implementation may be slow. That should mean that, to start 2025, the healthy fundamentals of the US economy should help drive risk markets, namely U.S. equities and corporate credit, to outperform. If we’re wrong and, for example, tariffs are implemented in larger magnitude at a quicker pace, then it may be a year where less...]]>245alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1294fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-could-shape-the-global-economy-in-2025--75650985----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about 2025 and what we might expect in the global economy.It's Tuesday, January 7th at 10am in New York.Normally, our year ahead outlook is a roadmap for markets. But for 2025, it feels a bit more like a choose your own adventure book.uncertainty is a key theme that we highlighted in our year ahead outlook. The new U.S. administration, in particular, will choose its own adventure with tariffs, immigration, and fiscal policy.Some of the uncertainty is already visible in markets with the repricing of the Fed at the December meeting and the strengthening of the dollar. Our baseline has disinflation stalling on the back of tariffs and immigration policy, while growth moderates, but only late in the year as the policies are gradually phased in.But in reality, the sequencing, the magnitude and the timing of these policies remains unknown for now, but they're going to have big implications for the economies and central banks around the world. The U.S. economy comes into the year on solid footing with healthy payrolls and solid consumption spending.Disinflation is continuing, and the inflation data for November were in line with our forecast, but softer in terms of PCE than what the Fed expected. While the Fed did lower their policy rate 25 basis points at the December meeting, Chair Powell's tone was very cautious, and the Fed's projections had inflation risks skewed to the upside.The chair noted that the FOMC was only beginning to build in assumptions about policy changes from the new administration. Now, we have conviction that tariffs and immigration restriction will both slow the economy and boost inflation -- but we've assumed that these policies are phased in gradually over the entirety of the year. And consequently -- that materially Stagflationary impetus? Well, it's reserved for 2026, not this year.Similarly, we've assumed that effectively the entire year is consumed by the process of tax cut extensions. And so, we've penciled in no meaningful fiscal impetus for this year. And in fact, with the bulk of the process simply extending current tax policy, we have very little net fiscal impact, even in 2026.Now, in China, the deflationary pressure is set to continue with any policy reaction further complicated by U.S. policy uncertainty. The policymaker meeting in late December that they held provided only a modest upside surprise in terms of fiscal stimulus, so we're going to have to wait for any further details on that spending until March with the National People's Congress.Meanwhile, during our holiday break, the renminbi broke above 7.3, and that level matches roughly the peaks that we saw in 2022 and 2023. The strong dollar is clearly weighing on the fixing. The framework for policy will have to account for a potentially trade relationship with the U.S. So, again, in China, there's a great deal of uncertainty, a lot of it driven by policy.The euro area is arguably less exposed to U.S. trade risks than China. A weaker euro may help stabilize inflation that's trending lower there, but our growth forecasts suggest a tepid outlook. Private consumption spending should moderate, and maybe firm a bit, as inflation continues to fall, and continued policy easing from the ECB should support CapEx spending.Fiscal consolidation, though, is a key risk to growth, especially in France and Italy, and any postponement in investment from potential trade tensions could further weaken growth.Now, in Japan, the key debate is whether the Bank of Japan will raise rates in January or March. After the last Bank of Japan meeting, Governor Ueda indicated a desire for greater confidence on the inflation outlook.Nonetheless, we've retained our call that the hike will be in January because we believe the Bank of Japan's regional Branch manager meeting will give sufficient insight about a strong wage trend. And in combination with the currency weakness that we've been watching, we think that's gonna be enough for the BOJ to hike this month. Alternatively, the BOJ might wait until the Rengo negotiation results come out in March to decide if a hike is appropriate. So far, the data remains supportive and Japanese style core CPI inflation has gone to 2.7 per cent in November. The market's going to focus on Deputy Governor Himino's speech on January 14th for clues on the timing – January or March.Finally, as the Central Bank of Mexico highlighted in their most recent rate cut decision, caution is the word as we enter the new year. As economists, we could not agree more. The year ahead is the most uncertain since the start of the pandemic. Politics and policy are inherently difficult to forecast. We fully expect to revise our forecasts more -- and more often than usual.Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LIga1OXzUxnrSKnit7eG8VNBLCT6ad8g5X97lrZNVwITue, 07 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter weighs the myriad variables which could impact global markets in 2025, and why this year may be the most uncertain for economies since the start of the pandemic. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about 2025 and what we might expect in the global economy.It's Tuesday, January 7th at 10am in New York.Normally, our year ahead outlook is a roadmap for markets. But for 2025, it feels a bit more like a choose your own adventure book.uncertainty is a key theme that we highlighted in our year ahead outlook. The new U.S. administration, in particular, will choose its own adventure with tariffs, immigration, and fiscal policy.Some of the uncertainty is already visible in markets with the repricing of the Fed at the December meeting and the strengthening of the dollar. Our baseline has disinflation stalling on the back of tariffs and immigration policy, while growth moderates, but only late in the year as the policies are gradually phased in.But in reality, the sequencing, the magnitude and the timing of these policies remains unknown for now, but they're going to have big implications for the economies and central banks around the world. The U.S. economy comes into the year on solid footing with healthy payrolls and solid consumption spending.Disinflation is continuing, and the inflation data for November were in line with our forecast, but softer in terms of PCE than what the Fed expected. While the Fed did lower their policy rate 25 basis points at the December meeting, Chair Powell's tone was very cautious, and the Fed's projections had inflation risks skewed to the upside.The chair noted that the FOMC was only beginning to build in assumptions about policy changes from the new administration. Now, we have conviction that tariffs and immigration restriction will both slow the economy and boost inflation -- but we've assumed that these policies are phased in gradually over the entirety of the year. And consequently -- that materially Stagflationary impetus? Well, it's reserved for 2026, not this year.Similarly, we've assumed that effectively the entire year is consumed by the process of tax cut extensions. And so, we've penciled in no meaningful fiscal impetus for this year. And in fact, with the bulk of the process simply extending current tax policy, we have very little net fiscal impact, even in 2026.Now, in China, the deflationary pressure is set to continue with any policy reaction further complicated by U.S. policy uncertainty. The policymaker meeting in late December that they held provided only a modest upside surprise in terms of fiscal stimulus, so we're going to have to wait for any further details on that spending until March with the National People's Congress.Meanwhile, during our holiday break, the renminbi broke above 7.3, and that level matches roughly the peaks that we saw in 2022 and 2023. The strong dollar is clearly weighing on the fixing. The framework for policy will have to account for a potentially trade relationship with the U.S. So, again, in China, there's a great deal of uncertainty, a lot of it driven by policy.The euro area is arguably less exposed to U.S. trade risks than China. A weaker euro may help stabilize inflation that's trending lower there, but our growth forecasts suggest a tepid outlook. Private consumption spending should moderate, and maybe firm a bit, as inflation continues to fall, and continued policy easing from the ECB should support CapEx spending.Fiscal consolidation, though, is a key risk to growth, especially in France and Italy, and any postponement in investment from potential trade tensions could further weaken growth.Now, in Japan, the key debate is whether the Bank of Japan will raise rates in January or March. After the last Bank of Japan meeting, Governor Ueda indicated a desire for greater...]]>313alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1293fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-2024-s-weak-finish-extend-into-the-new-year--75650913----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the weak finish to 2024 and what it means for 2025. It's Monday, Jan 6th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.While 2024 was another solid year for US equity markets, December was not. The weak finish to the year is likely attributable to several factors. First, from September to the end of November, equity markets had one of their better 3-month runs that also capped the historically strong 1- and 2-year advances. This rally was due to a combination of events including a reversal of recession fears this summer, an aggressive 50 basis points start to a new Fed cutting cycle, and an election that resulted in both a Republican sweep and an unchallenged outcome that led to covering of hedges into early December. This also lines up with my view in October that the S&P 500 could run to 6,100 on a decisive election outcome.Second, long-term interest rates have backed up considerably since the summer when recession fears peaked. Importantly, this 100 basis point back-up in the 10-year US Treasury yield occurred as the Fed cut interest rates by 100 basis points. In my view, the bond market may be calling into question the Fed’s decision to cut rates so aggressively in the context of stabilizing employment data. The fact that the term premium has risen by 77 basis points from the September lows is also significant and may be a by-product of this dynamic and uncertainty around fiscal sustainability. As we suggested two months ago, if the change in the term premium was to materially exceed 50 basis points, the equity market could start to take notice and hurt valuations. Indeed, Equity multiples peaked in early- to mid-December around the time when the term premium crossed this threshold. Finally, the rise in rates and the Trump election win has ushered in a stronger dollar which is now reaching a level that could also weigh on equities with significant international exposure. More specifically, the US dollar is quickly approaching the 10 per cent year-over-year rate of change threshold that has historically pressured S&P 500 earnings growth and guidance. All of these factors have combined to weigh on market breadth, something that still looks like a warning. The divergence between the S&P 500 Index as a ratio of its 200-day moving average and the percent of stocks trading above their 200-day moving average has rarely been wider. This divergence can close in two ways—either breadth improves or the S&P 500 trades closer to its own 200-day moving average, which is 10 per cent below current prices. The first scenario likely relies on a combination of lower rates, a weaker dollar, clarity on tariff policy and stronger earnings revisions. In the absence of those developments, we think 2025 could be a year of two halves with the first half being more challenged before the more market-friendly policy changes can have their desired effects.It's also worth pointing out that this gap between index pricing and breadth has been more persistent in recent years, something that we attribute to the generous liquidity provisions provided by the Treasury and the Fed. It's also been aided by interventions from other central banks. While not a perfect measure, we do find that the year-over-year change in global money supply in US Dollars is a good way to monitor key inflection points, and that measure has recently rolled over again. The recent moves in rates and US dollar is just another reason to stick with quality equities. Our quality bias is rooted in the notion that we remain in a later cycle environment which is typical of a backdrop that is consistent with outperformance of this cohort and the fact that the relative earnings revisions for this high quality factor are inflecting higher. As long as these dynamics persist, we think it also makes sense to stay selective within cyclicals and focused on areas of the market that are showing clear relative strength in earnings revisions. These groups include Software, Financials, and Media & Entertainment.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6OUi8odUuCC0ZktUNfO-pLhrwabJWoXIeqRd-74gRdkMon, 06 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson considers the year-end slump in U.S. stocks, and whether more market-friendly policies can change the narrative. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the weak finish to 2024 and what it means for 2025. It's Monday, Jan 6th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.While 2024 was another solid year for US equity markets, December was not. The weak finish to the year is likely attributable to several factors. First, from September to the end of November, equity markets had one of their better 3-month runs that also capped the historically strong 1- and 2-year advances. This rally was due to a combination of events including a reversal of recession fears this summer, an aggressive 50 basis points start to a new Fed cutting cycle, and an election that resulted in both a Republican sweep and an unchallenged outcome that led to covering of hedges into early December. This also lines up with my view in October that the S&P 500 could run to 6,100 on a decisive election outcome.Second, long-term interest rates have backed up considerably since the summer when recession fears peaked. Importantly, this 100 basis point back-up in the 10-year US Treasury yield occurred as the Fed cut interest rates by 100 basis points. In my view, the bond market may be calling into question the Fed’s decision to cut rates so aggressively in the context of stabilizing employment data. The fact that the term premium has risen by 77 basis points from the September lows is also significant and may be a by-product of this dynamic and uncertainty around fiscal sustainability. As we suggested two months ago, if the change in the term premium was to materially exceed 50 basis points, the equity market could start to take notice and hurt valuations. Indeed, Equity multiples peaked in early- to mid-December around the time when the term premium crossed this threshold. Finally, the rise in rates and the Trump election win has ushered in a stronger dollar which is now reaching a level that could also weigh on equities with significant international exposure. More specifically, the US dollar is quickly approaching the 10 per cent year-over-year rate of change threshold that has historically pressured S&P 500 earnings growth and guidance. All of these factors have combined to weigh on market breadth, something that still looks like a warning. The divergence between the S&P 500 Index as a ratio of its 200-day moving average and the percent of stocks trading above their 200-day moving average has rarely been wider. This divergence can close in two ways—either breadth improves or the S&P 500 trades closer to its own 200-day moving average, which is 10 per cent below current prices. The first scenario likely relies on a combination of lower rates, a weaker dollar, clarity on tariff policy and stronger earnings revisions. In the absence of those developments, we think 2025 could be a year of two halves with the first half being more challenged before the more market-friendly policy changes can have their desired effects.It's also worth pointing out that this gap between index pricing and breadth has been more persistent in recent years, something that we attribute to the generous liquidity provisions provided by the Treasury and the Fed. It's also been aided by interventions from other central banks. While not a perfect measure, we do find that the year-over-year change in global money supply in US Dollars is a good way to monitor key inflection points, and that measure has recently rolled over again. The recent moves in rates and US dollar is just another reason to stick with quality equities. Our quality bias is rooted in the notion that we remain in a later cycle environment which is typical of a backdrop that is consistent with outperformance of this...]]>274alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1292fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lessons-to-take-into-2025--75650953----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the lessons we can learn from 2024 – a remarkable year that also may be easily forgotten. It's Friday January 3rd at 2pm in London. In 2024 I celebrated my 20th year with Morgan Stanley. Among my regrets over this time was not keeping a better journal. It’s notable how quickly events in the market that seemed large and remarkable at the time can fade in one’s memory as the years merge together. How markets that seem easy or obvious in hindsight were anything but. I say this because many years from now, 2024 may end up being one of those relatively forgettable years. Another year where – as usually happens – the stock market went up. Another year where stocks outperformed bonds, the US dollar strengthened, and US stocks beat those abroad. Yet what is significant about 2024 is the scale of all these trends. For anyone managing money, the question of “stocks versus bonds”, “US versus rest-of-world”, “large versus small” or “growth versus value” are some of the most fundamental strategic questions one faces. These calls don’t always matter. But last year, they did – to a very large degree. Global stocks outperformed bonds by about 20 percent. Growth outperformed Value by practically the same amount. US stocks beat their global peers by 13 per cent. In short, one’s experience in 2024 and relative performance could have varied significantly, based on just a few relatively simple decisions. Related to that is the second lesson. 2024 was the reminder that while Valuation is a powerful long-term force, it can be a much more frustrating 12-month guide. All of those relative relationships I just mentioned – stocks versus bonds, growth versus value, US versus International – all worked in favor of the market that was historically richer entering last year. For our third lesson from last year, we’ll focus on Credit, where investors earned a premium over safer government bonds by lending to riskier corporate borrowers. Notable for this asset class in 2024 was, for the most part, it did its own thing; showing some encouraging independence from other markets and highlighting the value of digging into a borrower’s details. Specifically, I think this independence showed up in a few different ways. Credit showed low correlation to government bonds, for example, delivering good excess returns despite very large swings in yields or central bank expectations. It also, even more impressively, bucked some of 2024’s biggest trends. For example, while the outperformance of the US economy and US assets was one of the biggest stories of 2024, that wasn’t the case in Credit – where Europe and Asia credit actually did marginally better. In contrast to the equity market, smaller companies and Credit outperformed, as spreads and higher yielded loans outperformed larger Investment Grade spreads, even after adjusting for risk. And this was true even at a more granular level. Rising corporate activity, alongside more aggressive strategies for companies to deal with their own borrowing created very dispersed outcomes driven by bond-level documentation; far removed from the macro machinations of politics and monetary policy. This somewhat weaker connection to the broader world is central to how we think about Credit looking ahead. While big economic and political questions certainly loom in 2025, we think that Credit, for now, will be driven more by more micro, company level trends, and show somewhat lower correlation to other assets – at least through the first half of this year. From all of us at Thoughts on the Market, we wish you a very Happy New Year, and all the best for 2025. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OGkGHlqH2OO46VmIYlfPwAw7leykBiz78TRT1DH5FJUFri, 03 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyWith the start of the new year, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets looks back to look ahead at trends for credit and other markets in 2025. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the lessons we can learn from 2024 – a remarkable year that also may be easily forgotten. It's Friday January 3rd at 2pm in London. In 2024 I celebrated my 20th year with Morgan Stanley. Among my regrets over this time was not keeping a better journal. It’s notable how quickly events in the market that seemed large and remarkable at the time can fade in one’s memory as the years merge together. How markets that seem easy or obvious in hindsight were anything but. I say this because many years from now, 2024 may end up being one of those relatively forgettable years. Another year where – as usually happens – the stock market went up. Another year where stocks outperformed bonds, the US dollar strengthened, and US stocks beat those abroad. Yet what is significant about 2024 is the scale of all these trends. For anyone managing money, the question of “stocks versus bonds”, “US versus rest-of-world”, “large versus small” or “growth versus value” are some of the most fundamental strategic questions one faces. These calls don’t always matter. But last year, they did – to a very large degree. Global stocks outperformed bonds by about 20 percent. Growth outperformed Value by practically the same amount. US stocks beat their global peers by 13 per cent. In short, one’s experience in 2024 and relative performance could have varied significantly, based on just a few relatively simple decisions. Related to that is the second lesson. 2024 was the reminder that while Valuation is a powerful long-term force, it can be a much more frustrating 12-month guide. All of those relative relationships I just mentioned – stocks versus bonds, growth versus value, US versus International – all worked in favor of the market that was historically richer entering last year. For our third lesson from last year, we’ll focus on Credit, where investors earned a premium over safer government bonds by lending to riskier corporate borrowers. Notable for this asset class in 2024 was, for the most part, it did its own thing; showing some encouraging independence from other markets and highlighting the value of digging into a borrower’s details. Specifically, I think this independence showed up in a few different ways. Credit showed low correlation to government bonds, for example, delivering good excess returns despite very large swings in yields or central bank expectations. It also, even more impressively, bucked some of 2024’s biggest trends. For example, while the outperformance of the US economy and US assets was one of the biggest stories of 2024, that wasn’t the case in Credit – where Europe and Asia credit actually did marginally better. In contrast to the equity market, smaller companies and Credit outperformed, as spreads and higher yielded loans outperformed larger Investment Grade spreads, even after adjusting for risk. And this was true even at a more granular level. Rising corporate activity, alongside more aggressive strategies for companies to deal with their own borrowing created very dispersed outcomes driven by bond-level documentation; far removed from the macro machinations of politics and monetary policy. This somewhat weaker connection to the broader world is central to how we think about Credit looking ahead. While big economic and political questions certainly loom in 2025, we think that Credit, for now, will be driven more by more micro, company level trends, and show somewhat lower correlation to other assets – at least through the first half of this year. From all of us at Thoughts on the Market, we wish you a very Happy New Year, and all the best for 2025. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a...]]>254alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1291fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-bumpy-road-ahead-for-onshoring-evs--75650925----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Autos and Shared Mobility. Today, I'll be talking about the outlook for U.S. automakers and electric vehicles.It's Thursday, January 2nd at 1pm in New York.With Trump's inauguration just around the corner, we've seen a resurgence in many auto stocks tied to Internal Combustion Engines, also known as ICE. While questions swirl around the outlook for electric vehicles. In the near term we do think it'll be a bumpy ride for the U.S. EV market. But looking toward the second half of this year and beyond, we think there's hidden value in the EV sector for a number of reasons.First, let's look at the big picture. In our 2025 outlook for U.S. auto sales, we anticipate demand of 16.3 million units, a modest increase from the previous year, underpinned by projected U.S. GDP growth of around 1.9 percent and lower policy interest rates for auto loans. Looking specifically at EVs, we think the trajectory will be first a dip, then a rip scenario. That is, we're lowering our 2025 forecasts for U.S. EV penetration to 8.5 percent, down slightly from 9 percent previously. However, our long-term outlook remains unchanged, and we continue to forecast significant growth for EVs by 2040.Now for the big question. What does a Trump administration mean for EVs? Following the U.S. election, investors hopped on the ‘ICE is Nice’ trade based on the expectation that a Trump administration will bring more relaxed U.S. emission standards, reduced EV incentives, and finally increased tariffs – which would drive up the costs of key EV components, such as batteries and semiconductors, predominantly manufactured in Asia.But the real story is more nuanced. You can't talk about EVs without talking about Elon Musk, who will be leading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. And we struggle with the idea that the incoming Trump administration working in close partnership with Musk would structurally impede U.S. participation in two of the most important industrial transitions in over a century: electrification and embodied AI.If the U.S. wants to be a leader in autonomy, it must ultimately embrace EVs, which are the sockets of autonomous capability, and expand its EV infrastructure. How long will the U.S. cling to the soothing vibrations of its internal combustion fleet, while its rivals in China solidify their dominance in software defined electric mobility? Not for very long, in our opinion.While a rolling back of incentives under Trump may make 2025 a reset year for EV adoption, we view this mainly as a temporary action to help support a more capable and sustainable crop of domestic champions.That takes us to a resurgence in U.S. onshoring. Bringing manufacturing back to American soil has gained significant momentum and is another factor influencing the long-term outlook; not just for EV makers, but the entire supply chain. With the U.S. light vehicle market predominantly ICE-based at 92 percent of total sales, the real issue isn't the presence of gas powered combustion engines, but the glaring lack of advanced onshore EV production capabilities.Again, this puts the U.S. at a disadvantage compared to its global competitors and raises questions the Trump administration will need to address. Just what type of manufacturing does the U.S. want to prioritize? Are we looking to maintain the status quo with ICE, or are we aiming to be at the forefront of EV technology?No doubt, the U.S. auto industry stands at a crossroads between maintaining traditional technologies and embracing new, potentially disruptive advancements in EV and AV sectors. The decisions made in the next few years will likely dictate the pace and direction of the U.S.'s role in the global automotive landscape; and for investors, this brings new challenges – as well as opportunities.Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KyrOBp6be_rYqcHcKU3-s03HeFtfVoBsEpANooqCHBUThu, 02 Jan 2025 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility Adam Jonas discusses why the electric vehicle market may see a small reset in 2025, but ultimately accelerate under a Trump Administration. ----- Transcript ----- Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Autos and Shared Mobility. Today, I'll be talking about the outlook for U.S. automakers and electric vehicles.It's Thursday, January 2nd at 1pm in New York.With Trump's inauguration just around the corner, we've seen a resurgence in many auto stocks tied to Internal Combustion Engines, also known as ICE. While questions swirl around the outlook for electric vehicles. In the near term we do think it'll be a bumpy ride for the U.S. EV market. But looking toward the second half of this year and beyond, we think there's hidden value in the EV sector for a number of reasons.First, let's look at the big picture. In our 2025 outlook for U.S. auto sales, we anticipate demand of 16.3 million units, a modest increase from the previous year, underpinned by projected U.S. GDP growth of around 1.9 percent and lower policy interest rates for auto loans. Looking specifically at EVs, we think the trajectory will be first a dip, then a rip scenario. That is, we're lowering our 2025 forecasts for U.S. EV penetration to 8.5 percent, down slightly from 9 percent previously. However, our long-term outlook remains unchanged, and we continue to forecast significant growth for EVs by 2040.Now for the big question. What does a Trump administration mean for EVs? Following the U.S. election, investors hopped on the ‘ICE is Nice’ trade based on the expectation that a Trump administration will bring more relaxed U.S. emission standards, reduced EV incentives, and finally increased tariffs – which would drive up the costs of key EV components, such as batteries and semiconductors, predominantly manufactured in Asia.But the real story is more nuanced. You can't talk about EVs without talking about Elon Musk, who will be leading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. And we struggle with the idea that the incoming Trump administration working in close partnership with Musk would structurally impede U.S. participation in two of the most important industrial transitions in over a century: electrification and embodied AI.If the U.S. wants to be a leader in autonomy, it must ultimately embrace EVs, which are the sockets of autonomous capability, and expand its EV infrastructure. How long will the U.S. cling to the soothing vibrations of its internal combustion fleet, while its rivals in China solidify their dominance in software defined electric mobility? Not for very long, in our opinion.While a rolling back of incentives under Trump may make 2025 a reset year for EV adoption, we view this mainly as a temporary action to help support a more capable and sustainable crop of domestic champions.That takes us to a resurgence in U.S. onshoring. Bringing manufacturing back to American soil has gained significant momentum and is another factor influencing the long-term outlook; not just for EV makers, but the entire supply chain. With the U.S. light vehicle market predominantly ICE-based at 92 percent of total sales, the real issue isn't the presence of gas powered combustion engines, but the glaring lack of advanced onshore EV production capabilities.Again, this puts the U.S. at a disadvantage compared to its global competitors and raises questions the Trump administration will need to address. Just what type of manufacturing does the U.S. want to prioritize? Are we looking to maintain the status quo with ICE, or are we aiming to be at the forefront of EV technology?No doubt, the U.S. auto industry stands at a crossroads between maintaining traditional technologies and embracing new, potentially disruptive advancements in EV and AV sectors. The decisions made in the next few years will likely dictate the pace and direction of the U.S.'s role in the...]]>271alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1290fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-will-us-tariffs-drive-mexico-closer-to-china--75650944----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago, it was more about sending products down, paint them blue, put a lid on it. Now there's much more value add.The link, however, is still alive. It's a play on enhancing US competitiveness. You can kind of, as you did, call it a China buffer; a fender that helps protect US competitiveness. But by the end of the day, I think integration and alignment is going to be the key here.Ariana Salvatore: But of course, it's not just the direct trade relationship between the US and Mexico. We need to also consider the global geopolitical landscape, and specifically this question of the role of China. What's Mexico's current trade policy like with China?Nikolaj Lippmann: Another great question, Ariana, and I think this is the key. There is growing evidence that China is trying to use Mexico as a China bridge.And I think this is an area where we will see the biggest adjustments or need for realignment. This is a debate we've been following. We saw, with interest, that Mexico introduced first a 25 per cent tariff and then a 35 per cent tariff on Chinese imports. And saw this as the initial signs of growing alignment between the two countries.However, Mexican import from China never really dropped. So, we started looking at like the complicated math saying 35 per cent times $115 billion of import. You know, best case scenario, Mexico should be collecting $40 billion from tariffs; that's huge and almost unrealistic number for Mexico. Even half of that would go a long way to solve fiscal challenges in that country.However, when we started looking at the actual tax collection from Chinese imports, it was closer to $3 billion, as we highlighted in a note with our Mexico economist just recently. There's just multiple discounts and exemptions to effective tariffs at neither 25 per cent nor 35 per cent, but actually closer to 2.5 [or] 3 per cent. I think there's a problem with Chinese content in Mexican exports, and I think it's likely to be an area that policymakers will examine more closely. Why not drive-up US or North American content?Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like what you're saying is that there is a political, or rhetorical at least, alignment between the US and Mexico when it comes to China. But the reality is that the policy implementation is not yet there.We know that there's currently nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from importing goods from China. But a lot has changed over the past four years, even since the pandemic. So, looking forward, do you expect Mexico's policy vis-a-vis China to change after Trump takes office?Nikolaj Lippmann: I think, I certainly think so, and I think this is again; this is going to be the key. As you mentioned, there's nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from buying the stuff from China. And it's not a customs union. Mexican consumers, much like American consumers, like to buy cheap stuff.However, the geopolitics that you refer to is important. And when I reflect, frankly, on the bilateral relationship between the two countries, I think Mexican policymakers need to perhaps pause and think a little bit about things like the spirit of the treaty and not just the letter of the treaty; and also about how to maintain public opinion support in the United States.By the end of the day, when we see what has happened with regards to China after the pandemic, it has been a significant change in political consensus and public opinion. When I think Americans are not necessarily interested in just using Mexico as a China bridge for Chinese products.During the first Trump administration, the NAFTA agreement was renegotiated as the US Mexico Canada agreement, the USMCA, that took effect or took force in mid 2020. This agreement will come under review in 2026.Ariana, what are the expectations for the future of this agreement under the Trump administration?Ariana Salvatore: So, I think this USMCA review that's coming up in 2026 is going to be a really critical litmus test of the US-Mexico relationship, and we're going to learn a lot about this China bridge or buffer question that you mentioned. Just for some very brief context, that agreement as you mentioned was signed in 2020, but it includes a clause that lets all parties evaluate the agreement six years into a 16-year time horizon.So, at that point, they can decide to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Or to conduct a joint review on an annual basis until that original 16 years lapses. So, although the agreement will stay in force until at least 2036, the review period, which is around June of [20]26, provides an opportunity for the signing parties to provide recommendations or propose changes to the agreement short of a full-scale renegotiation.We do see some overlapping objectives between the two parties. For example, things like updating the foundation for digital trade and AI, ensuring the endurance of labor protections, and addressing Mexico's energy sector. But Trump's approach likely will involve confronting the auto EV disputes and could possibly introduce an element of immigration policy within the revision. We also definitely expect this theme of Chinese investment in Mexico to feature heavily in the USMCA review discussions.Finally, Nik, keeping in mind everything that we've discussed today, with global supply chains getting rewired post the pandemic, Mexico has been a beneficiary of the nearshoring trend. Do you think this is going to change as we look ahead?Nikolaj Lippmann: So, look, we [are] still underweight Mexico, but I think risk ultimately biased with the upside over time with regards to trade.We need evidence to be able to lay it out, these scenarios; Mexico could end up doing quite well with Trump. But much work needs to be done south of the border with regards to all the areas that we just mentioned there, Ariana.When we reflect on this over the next couple of years, there's a couple of things that really stand out. Number one is that first wave of reshoring or nearshoring]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RnytCjM5I2d-CuW4OyP1a6_8TXnuEKLiGxXqSrdVplcTue, 31 Dec 2024 19:30:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date November 22, 2024: Our US Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore and Chief Latin America Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discuss what Trump’s victory could mean for new trade relationships. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago,...]]>599alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1288fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-uncertainty-surrounds-2025-u-s-equities-outlook--75651056----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.So let's get after it.Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of confusion. Some stocks sold off on that. But remember a lot of stocks rallied yesterday on the news of Scott Bessent being announced as Treasury Secretary because he's maybe not going to be as tough on tariffs.So, what I view the next two months as is sort of a trial period where we're going to see a lot of announcements going out. And then the people in the cabinet positions who are appointed along with the President-elect are going to look at how the market reacts. And they're going to want to try to, you know, think about that in the context of how they're going to propose policy when they actually take office.So, a lot of volatility over the next two months as these announcements are kind of floated out there as trial balloons. And then, of course, you also have the enforcement of immigration and the impact there on growth and also labor supply and labor costs. And that could be a net negative in the first half of next year. And so, look, it's going to be about the sequencing. Those are the two easy ones that you can see – tariffs of some form, and of course, immigration enforcement. And those are probably the two biggest potential negatives in the first half of next year.Andrew Pauker: Mike, the title of our Outlook is “Stay Nimble Amid Changing Market Leadership,” and I think that reflects our mentality when it comes to remaining focused on capturing the leadership changes under the surface of the market. We rotated from a defensive posture over the summer to a more pro-cyclical stance in the fall. Talk about our latest views when it comes to positioning across styles, themes, and sectors here.Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, you know, you have to understand that that pivot was not about the election as much as it was about kind of the economy, moving from the risk of a hard landing, which people were worried about this summer to, soft landing again. And then of course we got the Fed to, you know, aggressively begin a new rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points, which was a bit of a surprise given, you know, the context of a still decent labor markets.That was the main reason for kind of the cyclical pivot, and then, of course, the election outcome sort of turbocharges some of that. So that's why we're sticking with it for now.So, to be more specific, what we basically did was we went to quality cyclical rotation. What does that mean? It means, you know, we prefer things like financials, maybe industrials, kind of a close second from a sector standpoint. But this quality feature we think is important for people to consider because interest rates are still pretty high. You know, balance sheets are still a little stretched and, you know, price levels are still high.So that means that lower quality businesses -- and the stocks of those lower quality businesses -- are probably a higher risk than we want to assume right now. But going into year end first and in 2025, we're going to stick with what we've sort of been recommending. On the defensive side. We didn't abandon all of them – because of , you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. So, we kept Utilities as an overweight because it has some offensive properties as well – most notably lever to kind of this, power deficiency within the United States. And that, of course with deregulation, a new twist on that could be things like natural gas, deployment of, you know, natural gas resources, which would help pipelines, LNG facilities potentially, and also, new ways to drive electricity production.So, with that, Andrew, why don't you maybe dig in a little bit deeper on our financials column, and why it's not just, you know, about the election and kind of a rotation, but there's actually fundamental drivers here.Andrew Pauker: Yeah, so Financials remains our top sector pick, following our upgrade in early October. And the drivers of that view are – a rebounding capital markets backdrop, strong earnings revisions, and the potential for an acceleration in buybacks into next year. And then post the election, expectation for deregulation can also continue to drive performance for the sector in addition to those fundamental catalysts. And then finally, even with the outperformance that we've seen for the group, over the last month and a half or so, relative valuation remains on demand – and kind of the 50th percentile of historical levels.So, Mike, I want to wrap up by spending a minute on investor feedback to our outlook. Which aspects of our view have you gotten the most questions on? Where do investors agree and where do they disagree?Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of been ongoing because, as we noted, we really pivoted, more constructively on kind of a pro-cyclical basis a while ago. And the pushback then is the same as it is now, which is that equities are expensive. And I mean, quite frankly, the reason we pivoted to some of these more cyclical areas is because they're not as expensive. But that doesn't take away from the fact that stocks are pricey. And so, people just want to understand this analysis that, you know, we did this time around, which kind of just shows why multiples can stay higher.They do appreciate that, you know, things can change. So, you know, we need to be, you know, cognizant of that. I would]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mVAs-2gbaxhkG5gGhDDOHEnAZeBJJeLfaeQ4fDbWqosMon, 30 Dec 2024 19:30:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date November 26, 2024: Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson joins Andrew Pauker of the U.S. Equity Strategy team to break down the key issues for equity markets ahead of 2025, including the impact of...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.So let's get after it.Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a...]]>711alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1287fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-a-10-trillion-opportunity-in-us-reshoring--75650934----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Chris Snyder: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DQwU0484h8kteKbbueUimRMa_Z0VXyQREAQPgzP6I-cFri, 27 Dec 2024 19:30:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date October 25, 2024: After decades of offshoring, the pendulum for US manufacturing is swinging back toward domestic production. Our US Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder looks at what’s behind this trend. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Chris Snyder: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>238alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1286fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-housing-currency-markets-in-focus--75650974----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around 1.45 per cent by the middle of next year; and ending the year at 1.15 per cent.Vishy Tirupattur: That's very helpful, Matt. James, clearly the incoming administration has policy choices, and their sequencing and severity will have major implications for the strength of the dollar that has rallied substantially in the last few months. Against this backdrop, how do you assess 2025 to be? What differences do you expect to see between DM and EM currency markets?James Lord: The incoming administration's proposed policies could have far-reaching impacts on currency markets, some of which are already being reflected in the price of the dollar today. We had argued ahead of the election that a Republican sweep was probably the most bullish dollar outcome, and we are now seeing that being reflected.We do think the dollar rally continues for a little bit longer as markets price in a higher likelihood of tariffs being implemented against trading partners and there being a risk of additional deficit expansion in 2025. However, we don't really see that dollar strength persisting for long throughout 2025.So, I think that is – compared to the current debate, compared to the current market pricing – a negative dollar catalyst that should get priced into markets.And to your question, Vishy, that there will be differences with EM and also within EM as well. Probably the most notable one is the renminbi. We have the renminbi as the weakest currency within all of our forecasts for 2025, really reflecting the impact of tariffs.We expect tariffs against China to be more consequential than against other countries, thus requiring a bigger adjustment on the FX side. We see dollar China, or dollar renminbi ending next year at 7.6. So that represents a very sharp divergence versus dollar yen and the broader DXY moves – and is a consequence of tariffs.And that does imply that the Fed's broad dollar index only has a pretty modest decline next year, despite the bigger move in the DXY. The rest of Asia will likely follow dollar China more closely than dollar yen, in our view, causing AXJ currencies to generally underperform; versus CMEA and Latin America, which on the whole do a bit better.Vishy Tirupattur: Jay, in contrast to corporate credit, mortgage spreads are at or about their long-term average levels. How do you expect 2025 to pan out for mortgages? What are the key drivers of your expectations, and which potential policy changes you are most focused on?Jay Bacow: As you point out, mortgage spreads do look wide to corporate spreads, but there are good reasons for that. We all know that the Fed is reducing their holdings of mortgages, and they're the largest holder of mortgages in the world.We don't expect Fed balance sheet reduction of mortgages to change, even if they do NQT, as is our forecast in the first quarter of 2025. When they NQT, we expect mortgage runoff to continue to go into treasuries. What we do expect to change next year is that bank demand function will shift. We are working under the assumption that the Basel III endgame either stalls under the next administration or gets released in a way that is capital neutral. And that's going to free up excess capital for banks and reduce regulatory uncertainty for them in how they deploy the cash in their portfolios.The one thing that we've been waiting for is this clarity around regulations. When that changes, we think that's going to be a positive, but it's not just banks returning to the market.We think that there's going to be tailwinds from overseas investors that are going to be hedging out their FX risks as the Fed cuts rates, and the Bank of Japan hikes, so we expect more demand from Japanese life insurance companies.A steeper yield curve is going to be good for REIT demand. And these buyers, banks, overseas REITs, they typically buy CUSIPs, and that's going to help not just from a demand side, but it's going to help funding on mortgages improve as well. And all of those things are going to take mortgage spreads tighter, and that's why we are bullish.I also want to mention agency CMBS for a moment. The technical pressure there is even better than in single family mortgages. The supply story is still constrained, but there is no Fed QT in multifamily. And then also the capital that's going to be available for banks from the deregulation will allow them – in combination with the portfolio layer hedging – to add agency CMBS in a way that they haven't really been adding in the last few years. So that could take spreads tighter as well.Now, Vishy, you also mentioned policy changes. We think discussions around GSE reform are likely to become more prevalent under the new administration.And we think that given that improved capitalization, depending on the path of their earnings and any plans to raise capital, we could see an attempt to exit conservatorship during this administration.But we will simply state our view that any plan that results in a meaningful change to the capital treatment – or credit risk – to the investors of conventional mortgages is going to be too destabilizing for the housing finance markets to implement. And so, we don't think that path could go forward.Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. Jim, it was a challenging year for the housing market with historically high levels of unaffordability and continued headwinds of limited supply. How do you see 2025 to be for the US housing market? And going beyond housing, what is your outlook for the opportunity set in securitized credit for 2025?James Egan: For the housing market, the 2025 narrative is going to be one about absolute level versus the direction and rate of change. For instance, Vishy, you mentioned affordability. Mortgage rates have increased significantly since the beginning of September, but it's also true that they're down roughly a hundred basis points from the fourth quarter of 2023 and we're forecasting pretty healthy decreases in the 10-year Treasury throughout 2025. So, we expect]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kOxZTqPwRs5kw3_Ll19TTxzXyy5X8MGT4so4WqfVTx8Thu, 26 Dec 2024 19:30:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date November 19, 2024: On the second part of a two-part roundtable, our panel gives its 2025 preview for the housing and mortgage landscape, the US Treasury yield curve and currency markets. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: 2024...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around...]]>775alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1285fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-what-s-ahead-for-markets-in-2025--75651000----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we see? Well, the ECB cutting down below their best guess of neutral. They think 2 percent nominal is neutral and they go below that.China is another big curveball here for the forecast because they've been in this debt deflation spiral for a while. We don't think the pivot in fiscal policy is anywhere near sufficient to ward things off. And so, we could actually see a further slowing down of growth in China in 2025 as the policy makers do this reactive kind of policy response. And so, it's going to take a while there, and we think there's a downside risk there.On the upside. I mean, we're still bullish on Japan. We're still very bullish on India and its growth; and across other parts of EM, there's some bright spots. So, it's a real mixed bag. I don't think there's a single trend across the globe that's going to drive the overall growth narrative.Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Seth. Mike, I'd like to go to you next. 2024 has turned out to be a strong year for equity markets globally, particularly for US and Japanese equities. While we did see modest earnings growth, equity returns were mostly about multiple expansion. How do you expect 2025 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities ahead for the equity markets that you see?Mike Wilson: Yeah, this year was interesting because we had what I would say was very modest earnings growth in the US in particular; relative to the performance. It was really all multiple expansion, and that's probably not going to repeat this year. We're looking for better earnings growth given our soft landing outcome from an economic standpoint and rates coming down. But we don't think multiples will expand any further. In fact, we think they'll come down by about 5 percent. But that still gets us a decent return in the base case of sort of high single digits.You know, Japan is the second market we like relative to the rest of the world because of the corporate governance story. So there, too, we're looking for high single digit earnings growth and high single digits or 10 percent return in total. And Europe is when we're sort of down taking a bit because of tariff risk and also pressure from China, where they have a lot of export business.You know, the challenges I think going forward is that growth continues to be below trend in many regions. The second challenge is that, you know, high quality assets are expensive everywhere. It's not just the US. It's sort of everywhere in the world. So, you get what you pay for. You know, the S&P is extremely expensive, but that's because the ROE is higher, and growth is higher.So, you know, in other words, these are not well-kept secrets. And so just valuation is a real challenge. And then, of course, the consensus views are generally fairly narrow around the soft landing and that's very priced as well. So, the risks are that the consensus view doesn't play out. And that's why we have two bull and two bear cases in the US – just like we did in the mid-year outlook; and in fact, what happened is one of our bull cases is what played out in the second half of this year.So, the real opportunity from our standpoint, I think this is a global call as well – which is that we continue to be pretty big rotations around the macro-outlook, which remains uncertain, given the policy changes we're seeing in the US potentially, and also the geopolitical risks that still is out there.And then the other big opportunity has been stock picking. Dispersion is extremely high. Clients are really being rewarded for taking single stock exposures. And I think that continues into next year. So, we're going to do what we did this year is we're going to try to rotate around from a style and size perspective, depending on the macro-outlook.Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Mike. Andrew, we are ending 2024 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, with spreads at or near multi-decade tights for many markets. How do you expect the global credit markets to play out in 2025? What are the best places to be within the credit spectrum and across different regions?Andrew Sheets: I think that's the best way to frame it – to start a little bit about where we are and then talk about where we might be going. I think it's safe to say that this has been an absolutely phenomenal backdrop for corporate credit. Corporate credit likes moderation. And I think you've seen an unusual amount of moderation at both the macro and the micro level.You've seen kind of moderate growth, moderating inflation, moderating policy rates across DM. And then at the micro level, even though markets have been very strong, corporate aggressiveness has not been. M&A has been well below trend. Corporate balance sheets have been pretty stable.So, what I think is notable is you've had an economic backdrop that credit has really liked, as you correctly note. We've pushed spreads near 20-year tights based on that backdrop. But it's a backdrop that credit markets liked, but US voters did not like, and they voted for different policy.And so, when we look ahead – the range of outcomes, I think across both the macro and the micro, is expanding. And I think the policy uncertainty that markets now face is increasing both scenarios to the upside where things are hotter and you see more animal spirits; and risk to the downside, where potentially more aggressive tariffs or action on immigration creates more kind of stagflationary types of risk.So one element that we're facing is we feel like we're leaving behind a really good environment for corporate credit and we're entering something that's more uncertain. But then balancing that is that you're not going to transition immediately.You still have a lot of momentum in the US and European economy. I look at the forecasts from Seth's team, the global economic numbers, or at least kind of the DM economic numbers into the first half of next year – still look fine. We still have the Fed cutting. We still have the ECB cu]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LQwxGh--ZHauQz5h893KxvtBbBRmdorABpUcgdWbY7ETue, 24 Dec 2024 19:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date November 18, 2024: On the first part of a two-part roundtable, our panel discusses why the US is likely to see a slowdown and where investors can look for growth. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we...]]>659alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1284fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-many-potential-policy-paths-of-trump-s-second-term--75650963----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's global head of fixed income and thematic research.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. public policy strategist.Michael: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about potential policy paths the second Trump administration might pursue.It's Monday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.The U.S. presidential election is behind us and we're well into the holiday season, but we're still focusing closely on what U.S. policy might look like in 2025. Ariana, what have we learned in the past couple of weeks regarding Trump's policy plans for next year?Ariana: So the variables or policy items that we're watching are still the same ones that we were tracking over the past year or so. That's tariffs, taxes, immigration and deregulation. But to your point, the election is now obviously behind us, and we do have some incremental information that's helped us construct a base case across these variables. For example, President elect Trump has made some key personnel appointments that we think are going to play a big role in exactly how these policies are carried out. His pick for Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, is a good example that gives us conviction in a more gradual, incrementalist approach to tariffs. Translating that principle across all the policy variables, as well as the extremely thin majority the Republicans have in the House of Representatives, has helped us form the foundation of our base case, which we call “fast decisions, slow implementation.”In short, we think that means you should expect major policy changes will be announced quickly, think first quarter of next year, but achieved more slowly. That, in our view, enables more benign macro conditions to persist into 2025, but does create some more uncertainty, both positive and negative, into 2026. We think that lag is attributable to a variety of logistical, legal, and political constraints, and does vary depending on the policy area and executive authorities. For example, we think Trump might have an easier time unilaterally modifying tariff rates, but other constraints outside of timing might limit implementation nonetheless.So, Michael, taking this a step beyond just the policy paths, how should investors be thinking about the potential market and economic consequences of our base case? Aside from the specific policy changes, how do you think about our base case in terms of broader market themes?Michael: I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing puts pressure on economic growth, but on a lag. So most of these effects are for later in 2025 or into 2026 per economist expectations.  So I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing exerts pressure on economic growth, albeit on a lag. So in our economist expectations later in 2025 and into 2026. So what that means is as we go into 2025, there's still a pretty good growth backdrop to support risk assets and equities in particular. It's also a pretty good backdrop for bonds because as we get closer to 2026, our bond strategist expectation is that markets will start to reflect expectations of growth pressure. And they'll probably be less concerned about what's a debate right now, which is the size of U.S. deficits. There's been this expectation that policies extending tax cuts would really grow the deficit substantially in the way that might put downward pressure on bond prices.However, we think when investors take a closer look, they'll see that extending current tax cuts, which is our expectations, basically, they'll be able to extend current tax cuts with a few sweeteners on top, that's mostly an extension of current policy, as opposed to some of the headlines in the news talking about major deficit expansion, that's an expansion relative to if Congress did nothing and just let tax cuts expire. So the year over year difference in deficits is perhaps not as big as some of the headlines would suggest. So that's a good backdrop for bonds and a pretty good backdrop for equities and risk assets, at least to start the year.Ariana: But of course, there's a lot of uncertainty embedded in these policy paths. Can you talk through how we're thinking about potential risks to our base case, or maybe some key signposts that could indicate that other scenarios are becoming plausible?Michael: So if there are policies that shift that growth downside sooner, so instead of it manifesting in 2026, it manifests sooner in 2025, that's the type of thing that might make us less constructive on risk assets and equities. So if we got indications, for example, that tariffs were going to be implemented more quickly and to a greater degree, for example, announcements happening quickly, but also showing implementation is happening very quickly, that's the type of thing that might skew risk assets in a more negative direction. Similarly, if Congress were to pledge to appropriate more powers to the executive branch on tariff authority, not necessarily something we think they could get done, but that could be an indication that there could be more powerful tariff potential relative to what the executive branch currently has.On the more positive side, if Congress indicates that it wants to move much faster and bigger on tax cuts and the executive branch were to flag that tariffs are going to be implemented later or suggest that there's more negotiating room with trade partners to avoid tariffs, then that might be the type of sequencing of policy that enables the market to focus more on the good aspects of policy, the helpful aspects to corporate earnings, to individual consumption, and to GDP growth that might just make for an all around more conducive environment to risk assets.So there's a lot to keep an eye on between now and inauguration day. In the meantime, enjoy your holiday. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share our thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/quipHgVA4v4TlwelQxxqADye_17lB10BvN_2lLjty5gMon, 23 Dec 2024 21:00:37 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research joins our U.S. Public Policy Strategist to give investors their policy expectations for President-elect Trump’s second term, including the potential market and economic consequences of those...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's global head of fixed income and thematic research.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. public policy strategist.Michael: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about potential policy paths the second Trump administration might pursue.It's Monday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.The U.S. presidential election is behind us and we're well into the holiday season, but we're still focusing closely on what U.S. policy might look like in 2025. Ariana, what have we learned in the past couple of weeks regarding Trump's policy plans for next year?Ariana: So the variables or policy items that we're watching are still the same ones that we were tracking over the past year or so. That's tariffs, taxes, immigration and deregulation. But to your point, the election is now obviously behind us, and we do have some incremental information that's helped us construct a base case across these variables. For example, President elect Trump has made some key personnel appointments that we think are going to play a big role in exactly how these policies are carried out. His pick for Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, is a good example that gives us conviction in a more gradual, incrementalist approach to tariffs. Translating that principle across all the policy variables, as well as the extremely thin majority the Republicans have in the House of Representatives, has helped us form the foundation of our base case, which we call “fast decisions, slow implementation.”In short, we think that means you should expect major policy changes will be announced quickly, think first quarter of next year, but achieved more slowly. That, in our view, enables more benign macro conditions to persist into 2025, but does create some more uncertainty, both positive and negative, into 2026. We think that lag is attributable to a variety of logistical, legal, and political constraints, and does vary depending on the policy area and executive authorities. For example, we think Trump might have an easier time unilaterally modifying tariff rates, but other constraints outside of timing might limit implementation nonetheless.So, Michael, taking this a step beyond just the policy paths, how should investors be thinking about the potential market and economic consequences of our base case? Aside from the specific policy changes, how do you think about our base case in terms of broader market themes?Michael: I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing puts pressure on economic growth, but on a lag. So most of these effects are for later in 2025 or into 2026 per economist expectations.  So I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing exerts pressure on economic growth, albeit on a lag. So in our economist expectations later in 2025 and into 2026. So what that means is as we go into 2025, there's still a pretty good growth backdrop to support risk assets and equities in particular. It's also a pretty good backdrop for bonds because as we get closer to 2026, our bond strategist expectation is that markets will start to reflect expectations of growth pressure. And they'll probably be less concerned about what's a debate right now, which is the size of U.S. deficits. There's been this expectation that policies extending tax cuts would really grow the deficit substantially in the way that might put downward pressure on bond prices.However, we think when investors take a closer look, they'll see that extending current tax cuts, which is our expectations, basically, they'll be able to extend current tax cuts with a few...]]>373alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1289fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/more-talk-less-action-could-be-good-for-credit-markets--75650966----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things could be better than we expect.It's Friday December 20th at 2pm in London.Credit is an asset class that always faces more limited upside, and the low starting point for spreads as we enter 2025 further limits potential gains. Nevertheless, there are still a number of ways where this market could do better than expected, with spreads tighter than expected, into next year.An obvious place to start is U.S. policy. Morgan Stanley’s public policy strategy team thinks the incoming administration will be a story of “fast announcement, slow implementation”, with the growth and inflation impact of tariffs and immigration falling more in 2026 (rather than say earlier). And so if one looks at Morgan Stanley’s forecasts, our growth numbers for 2025 are good, our 2026 numbers are weaker.The bull case could be that we see more talk but less ultimate action. Scenarios where tariffs are more of a negotiating tool than a sustained policy would likely mean less change to the current (credit friendly) status quo, and also increase the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will be able to lower interest rates even as growth holds up. Rate cuts with good growth is a rare occurrence, but when you do get it, it can be extremely good. If one thinks of the mid-1990s, another time where we had this combination, credit spreads were even tighter than current levels. Another path to the bull case is better funding conditions in the market. Some loosening of bank capital requirements or stronger demand for collateralized loan obligations could both flow through to tighter spreads for the assets that these fund, especially things like leveraged loans. If we think back to periods where credit spreads were tighter than today, easier funding was often a part of the story.Now, a more aggressive phase of corporate activity could be a risk to credit, but M&A can also be a positive event, especially on a name by name basis. If merger and acquisition activity becomes a story of, say, larger companies buying smaller ones, that could mean that weaker, high yield credits get absorbed by larger, stronger, investment grade balance sheets. And so for those high yield bonds or loans, this can be an outstanding outcome. Another way things could be better than expected for credit is that growth in Europe and China is better than expected. In speaking with investors over the last few weeks, I think it's safe to say that expectations for both regions are pretty low. And so if things are better than these low expectations, spreads, especially in Europe, which are not as tight as those in the U.S., could go tighter.But the most powerful form of the credit bull case might be the simplest. Morgan Stanley expects the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the European Central Bank to all lower interest rates much more than markets expect next year, even as, for the most part, growth in 2025 holds up. Due in a large part to those expected rate cuts, we also think the yields fall more than expected. If that's right, credit could quietly have an outstanding year for total return, which is boosted as yields fall. Indeed, on our forecast, U.S. investment grade credit, a relatively sleepy asset class, would see a total return of roughly 10%, higher than our expected total return for the mighty S&P 500. Not all credit investors care about total return. But for those that do, that outcome could feel very bullish. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MHc1vj4eNVeHaYzhO02ftgPQ3cIpPNMVieWdXnima1gFri, 20 Dec 2024 18:30:45 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research lists realistic scenarios for why credit could outperform expectations in 2025, despite some risks posed by policy changes from the incoming administration. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things could be better than we expect.It's Friday December 20th at 2pm in London.Credit is an asset class that always faces more limited upside, and the low starting point for spreads as we enter 2025 further limits potential gains. Nevertheless, there are still a number of ways where this market could do better than expected, with spreads tighter than expected, into next year.An obvious place to start is U.S. policy. Morgan Stanley’s public policy strategy team thinks the incoming administration will be a story of “fast announcement, slow implementation”, with the growth and inflation impact of tariffs and immigration falling more in 2026 (rather than say earlier). And so if one looks at Morgan Stanley’s forecasts, our growth numbers for 2025 are good, our 2026 numbers are weaker.The bull case could be that we see more talk but less ultimate action. Scenarios where tariffs are more of a negotiating tool than a sustained policy would likely mean less change to the current (credit friendly) status quo, and also increase the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will be able to lower interest rates even as growth holds up. Rate cuts with good growth is a rare occurrence, but when you do get it, it can be extremely good. If one thinks of the mid-1990s, another time where we had this combination, credit spreads were even tighter than current levels. Another path to the bull case is better funding conditions in the market. Some loosening of bank capital requirements or stronger demand for collateralized loan obligations could both flow through to tighter spreads for the assets that these fund, especially things like leveraged loans. If we think back to periods where credit spreads were tighter than today, easier funding was often a part of the story.Now, a more aggressive phase of corporate activity could be a risk to credit, but M&A can also be a positive event, especially on a name by name basis. If merger and acquisition activity becomes a story of, say, larger companies buying smaller ones, that could mean that weaker, high yield credits get absorbed by larger, stronger, investment grade balance sheets. And so for those high yield bonds or loans, this can be an outstanding outcome. Another way things could be better than expected for credit is that growth in Europe and China is better than expected. In speaking with investors over the last few weeks, I think it's safe to say that expectations for both regions are pretty low. And so if things are better than these low expectations, spreads, especially in Europe, which are not as tight as those in the U.S., could go tighter.But the most powerful form of the credit bull case might be the simplest. Morgan Stanley expects the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the European Central Bank to all lower interest rates much more than markets expect next year, even as, for the most part, growth in 2025 holds up. Due in a large part to those expected rate cuts, we also think the yields fall more than expected. If that's right, credit could quietly have an outstanding year for total return, which is boosted as yields fall. Indeed, on our forecast, U.S. investment grade credit, a relatively sleepy asset class, would see a total return of roughly 10%, higher than our expected total return for the mighty S&P 500. Not all credit investors care about total return. But for those that do, that outcome could feel very bullish. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>244alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1283fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fed-signals-inflation-fight-isn-t-over--75651194----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew: Today, we're going to talk about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.It's Thursday, December 19th at 10a.m. in New York.The FOMC meeting concluded yesterday with the Federal Reserve cutting rates by a quarter of a percentage point, marking the third rate cut for the year. This move by the Fed was just as the consensus had anticipated. However, in its meeting yesterday, the Fed indicated that 2025 rate cuts would happen at a slower pace than investors were expecting. So Mike, what are committee members projecting in terms of upcoming rate cuts in 2025 and 2026?Michael: Yeah, Matt, the Fed dialed back its expectations for policy rate easing in both 2025 and 2026. They now only look for two rate cuts of 50 basis points worth of cuts in 2025, which would bring the funds rate to 3.9% and then only another 50 basis points in 2026, bringing the policy rate to 3.4%. So a major dialing back in their expectations of rate cuts over the next two years.Matthew: What are the factors that are driving what now appears to be a slightly less dovish view of the policy rate?Michael: Chair Powell mentioned, I think, two things that were really important. One, he said that many committee members saw recent firmness in inflation as a surprise. And so I think some FOMC members extrapolated that strength in inflation going forward and therefore thought fewer rate cuts were appropriate. But Chair Powell also said other FOMC members incorporated expectations about potential changes in policy, which we inferred to mean changes about tariffs, immigration policy, maybe additional fiscal spending. And so whether they bake that in as explicit assumptions or just saw it as risks to the outlook, I think that these were the two main factors. So either just momentum in inflation or views on policy rate changes, which could lead to greater inflation going forward.Matthew: So Mike, what were your expectations going into this meeting and how did yesterday's outcome change Morgan Stanley's outlook for Federal Reserve policy next year and the year thereafter?Michael: We are a little more comfortable with inflation than the Fed appears to be. So we previously thought the Fed would be cutting rates three times next year and doing all of that in the first half of the year. But we have to listen to what they're thinking and it appears that the bar for rate cuts is higher. In other words, they may need more evidence to reduce policy rates. One month of inflation isn't going to do it, for example. So what we did is we took one rate cut out of the forecast for 2025. We now only look for two rate cuts in 2025, one in March and one in June.As we look into 2026, we do think the effect of higher tariffs and restrictions on immigration policy will slow the economy more, so we continue to look for more rate cuts in 2026 than the Fed is projecting but obviously 2026 is a long way away. So in short, Matt, we dialed back our assumptions for policy rate easing to take into account what the Fed appears to be saying about a higher bar for comfort on inflation before they ease again.So Matt, if I can actually turn it back to you: how, if at all, did yesterday's meeting, and what Chair Powell said, change some of your key forecasts?Matthew: So we came into this meeting advocating for a neutral stance in the bond market. We had seen a market pricing that ended up being more in line with the outcome of the meetings. We didn't expect yields to fall dramatically in the wake of this meeting, and we didn't expect yields to rise dramatically in the wake of this meeting. But what we ended up seeing in the marketplace was higher yields as a result of a policy projection that I think surprised investors somewhat and now the market is pricing an outlook that is somewhat similar to how the Fed is forecasting or projecting their policy rate into the future.In terms of our treasury yield forecasts, we didn’t see anything in that meeting that changes the outlook for treasury markets all that much. As you said, Mike, that in 2026, we're expecting much lower policy rates. And that ultimately is going to weigh on treasury yields as we make our way through the course of 2025. When we forecast market rates or prices, we have to think about where we are going to be in the future and how we're going to be thinking about the future from then. And so when we think about where our treasury yield's going to be at the end of 2025, we need to try to invoke the views of investors at the end of 2025, which of course are going to be looking out into 2026.So when we consider the rate policy path that you're projecting at the moment and the factors that are driving that rate policy projection - a slower growth, for example, a bit more moderate inflation - we do think that investors will be looking towards investing in the government bond market as we make our way through next year, because 2026 should be even more supportive of government bond markets than perhaps the economy and Fed policy might be in 2025.So that's how we think about the interest rate marketplace. We continue to project a 10 year treasury yield of just about three and a half percent at the end of 2025 that does seem a ways away from where we are today, with the 10 year treasury yield closer to four and a half percent, but a year is a long time. And that's plenty of time, we think, for yields to move lower gradually as policy does as well. On the foreign exchange side. The dollar we are projecting to soften next year, and this would be in line with our view for lower treasury yields. For the time being, the dollar reacted in a very positive way to the FOMC meeting this week but we think in 2025, you will see some softening in the dollar. And that primarily occurs against the Australian dollar, the Euro, as well as the Yen. We are projecting the dollar/yen exchange rate to end next year just below 140, which is going to be quite a move from current levels, but we do think that a year is plenty of time to see the dollar depreciate and that again links up very nicely with our forecast for lower treasury yields.Mike, with that said, one more question for you, if you would: where do things stand with inflation now? And how does this latest FOMC signal, how does it relate to inflation expectations for the year ahead?Michael: So right now, inflation has been a little bit stronger than we and I think the Fed had anticipated, and that's coming from two sources. One, hurricane-related effects on car prices. So the need to replace a lot of cars has pushed new and used car prices higher. We think that's a temporary story that's likely to reverse in the coming months. The more longer term concern has been around housing related inflation, or what we would call shelter inflation. The good news in that is in November, it took a marked step lower. So I do think it tells us that that component, which has been holding up inflation, will continue to move down. But as we look ahead to your point about inflation expectations, the real concern here is about potential shifts in policy, maybe the implementation of tariffs, the restriction of immigration.We as economists would normally say those should have level effects or one-off effects on inflation. And normally I'd have a high confidence in that statement. But we just came out of a very prolonged period of higher than normal inflation, so I think the concern is repetitive, one-off shocks to inflation, lead inflation expectations to move higher. Now, we don't think that will happen. Our outlook is for rate cuts, but this is the concern. So we think inflation moves lower. But we're certainly watching the behavior of inflation expectations to see if our forecast is misguided.Matthew: Well, great Mike. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Mike: Great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0kAPxRNQTHMdLU8rRTZKgP2DvOfYcXhy8hhYU9Ho0-MThu, 19 Dec 2024 23:13:01 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Macro Strategy joins our Chief U.S. Economist to discuss the Fed’s recent rate cut and why persistent inflation is likely to slow the pace of future cuts. ----- Transcript ----- Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew: Today, we're going to talk about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.It's Thursday, December 19th at 10a.m. in New York.The FOMC meeting concluded yesterday with the Federal Reserve cutting rates by a quarter of a percentage point, marking the third rate cut for the year. This move by the Fed was just as the consensus had anticipated. However, in its meeting yesterday, the Fed indicated that 2025 rate cuts would happen at a slower pace than investors were expecting. So Mike, what are committee members projecting in terms of upcoming rate cuts in 2025 and 2026?Michael: Yeah, Matt, the Fed dialed back its expectations for policy rate easing in both 2025 and 2026. They now only look for two rate cuts of 50 basis points worth of cuts in 2025, which would bring the funds rate to 3.9% and then only another 50 basis points in 2026, bringing the policy rate to 3.4%. So a major dialing back in their expectations of rate cuts over the next two years.Matthew: What are the factors that are driving what now appears to be a slightly less dovish view of the policy rate?Michael: Chair Powell mentioned, I think, two things that were really important. One, he said that many committee members saw recent firmness in inflation as a surprise. And so I think some FOMC members extrapolated that strength in inflation going forward and therefore thought fewer rate cuts were appropriate. But Chair Powell also said other FOMC members incorporated expectations about potential changes in policy, which we inferred to mean changes about tariffs, immigration policy, maybe additional fiscal spending. And so whether they bake that in as explicit assumptions or just saw it as risks to the outlook, I think that these were the two main factors. So either just momentum in inflation or views on policy rate changes, which could lead to greater inflation going forward.Matthew: So Mike, what were your expectations going into this meeting and how did yesterday's outcome change Morgan Stanley's outlook for Federal Reserve policy next year and the year thereafter?Michael: We are a little more comfortable with inflation than the Fed appears to be. So we previously thought the Fed would be cutting rates three times next year and doing all of that in the first half of the year. But we have to listen to what they're thinking and it appears that the bar for rate cuts is higher. In other words, they may need more evidence to reduce policy rates. One month of inflation isn't going to do it, for example. So what we did is we took one rate cut out of the forecast for 2025. We now only look for two rate cuts in 2025, one in March and one in June.As we look into 2026, we do think the effect of higher tariffs and restrictions on immigration policy will slow the economy more, so we continue to look for more rate cuts in 2026 than the Fed is projecting but obviously 2026 is a long way away. So in short, Matt, we dialed back our assumptions for policy rate easing to take into account what the Fed appears to be saying about a higher bar for comfort on inflation before they ease again.So Matt, if I can actually turn it back to you: how, if at all, did yesterday's meeting, and what Chair Powell said, change some of your key forecasts?Matthew: So we came into this meeting advocating for a neutral stance in the bond market. We had seen a market pricing that ended up being more in line with the outcome of the meetings. We didn't expect yields to fall dramatically in the wake of this meeting, and we didn't expect yields to rise dramatically in the wake of this...]]>570alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1282fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/banking-on-deregulation--75650997----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll be discussing the policy changes that we have the highest conviction in terms of their market impact.It's Wednesday, December 18th at 10 a.m. in New York.As our regular readers are aware, Morgan Stanley strategists and economists around the globe came together to formulate our outlook for 2025 across the wide range of markets and economies we cover. A key aspect of this year's outlook is the potential for policy changes ahead from the incoming administration. The substance, severity, and sequencing of policies will matter and will have an important bearing on how markets perform over the course of 2025. We would put the potential range of policy changes into four broad categories: Tariffs and Trade Policy; Immigration Controls; Tax Cuts and Fiscal Policy; and finally, Deregulation. In terms of sequencing, our central case is for tariffs to go first and tax cuts to be last. As our public policy team sees it, the incoming administration will see fast announcements but a slow implementation of policy, especially in terms of tariffs and immigration. Slower implementation will mean that the changes will also be slow and the impacts on the economy and markets likely to be a lot more gradual.That said, it is in the area of deregulation that we expect to see the highest impact on markets, even though precise measurement of these impacts in terms of macroeconomic indicators such as growth and inflation is hard to come through. So with deregulation, we expect an environment in support of bank activity. As our bank equity analysts have noted, banks in their coverage area currently are sitting on record levels of excess capital: 177 billion of excess capital and a weighted average CET1 ratio of 12.8 percent, which is 140 basis points higher than pre-COVID levels of 11.4 percent.If Basel III Endgame is re proposed in a more capital neutral manner, we expect U.S. banks will begin deploying their excess capital into lending, supporting clients in trading and underwriting, increasing their securities purchases, as well as increasing buybacks and dividends. Changes to the existing Basel III Endgame proposal will also make U.S. banks more competitive globally.We also believe all global banks with significant capital markets businesses will benefit from the return of the M&A. Another by-product of Basel III Endgame being reproposed in a capital neutral way pertains to what banks do in their securities portfolios. In the last few years, in anticipation of higher capital requirements, U.S. banks have not been very active in deploying their capital in securities purchases, particularly Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs. With the deregulation focus, we expect that banks will revert to buying the assets that they have stayed away from, in particular, Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs.The return of bank demand for CLO AAAs will have a bearing on the underlying broadly syndicated loan market and even more broadly on credit formation and sponsor activity, which will be supportive of a stronger return of M&A than our credit strategists have been expecting. So in fixed income, if you pardon the pun, we are really banking on the impact of deregulation, which supports our view on the range of relative value opportunities and spread products, especially in securitized products.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JH1wZ6YSLz9qqVtSGtHJqpZePF_dB3ySc4AyWJZqWXUWed, 18 Dec 2024 21:59:31 +0000gtyOf all of the potential policy changes from the incoming U.S. presidential administration, deregulation could have the most significant impact on markets. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains what’s coming. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll be discussing the policy changes that we have the highest conviction in terms of their market impact.It's Wednesday, December 18th at 10 a.m. in New York.As our regular readers are aware, Morgan Stanley strategists and economists around the globe came together to formulate our outlook for 2025 across the wide range of markets and economies we cover. A key aspect of this year's outlook is the potential for policy changes ahead from the incoming administration. The substance, severity, and sequencing of policies will matter and will have an important bearing on how markets perform over the course of 2025. We would put the potential range of policy changes into four broad categories: Tariffs and Trade Policy; Immigration Controls; Tax Cuts and Fiscal Policy; and finally, Deregulation. In terms of sequencing, our central case is for tariffs to go first and tax cuts to be last. As our public policy team sees it, the incoming administration will see fast announcements but a slow implementation of policy, especially in terms of tariffs and immigration. Slower implementation will mean that the changes will also be slow and the impacts on the economy and markets likely to be a lot more gradual.That said, it is in the area of deregulation that we expect to see the highest impact on markets, even though precise measurement of these impacts in terms of macroeconomic indicators such as growth and inflation is hard to come through. So with deregulation, we expect an environment in support of bank activity. As our bank equity analysts have noted, banks in their coverage area currently are sitting on record levels of excess capital: 177 billion of excess capital and a weighted average CET1 ratio of 12.8 percent, which is 140 basis points higher than pre-COVID levels of 11.4 percent.If Basel III Endgame is re proposed in a more capital neutral manner, we expect U.S. banks will begin deploying their excess capital into lending, supporting clients in trading and underwriting, increasing their securities purchases, as well as increasing buybacks and dividends. Changes to the existing Basel III Endgame proposal will also make U.S. banks more competitive globally.We also believe all global banks with significant capital markets businesses will benefit from the return of the M&A. Another by-product of Basel III Endgame being reproposed in a capital neutral way pertains to what banks do in their securities portfolios. In the last few years, in anticipation of higher capital requirements, U.S. banks have not been very active in deploying their capital in securities purchases, particularly Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs. With the deregulation focus, we expect that banks will revert to buying the assets that they have stayed away from, in particular, Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs.The return of bank demand for CLO AAAs will have a bearing on the underlying broadly syndicated loan market and even more broadly on credit formation and sponsor activity, which will be supportive of a stronger return of M&A than our credit strategists have been expecting. So in fixed income, if you pardon the pun, we are really banking on the impact of deregulation, which supports our view on the range of relative value opportunities and spread products, especially in securitized products.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague.]]>239alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1281fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-calm-before-the-storm--75650993----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about how the year end is wrapping up with, surprisingly, a fair amount of certainty about central banks.It's Tuesday, December 17th at 10 a. m. in New York.Unlike the rest of this past year, year end seems to have a lot more certainty about the last few central bank meetings. Perhaps it is just the calm before the storm, but for now, let's enjoy a benign central bank week ahead of the holidays. Last Thursday, the ECB cut interest rates 25 basis points, right in line with what we were thinking and what the market was thinking. Similarly, but I have to say, with a pretty different narrative, we expect the Fed to cut 25 basis points this week and the market seems to be all in there as well.The Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, well, we think they're closed accounts; that is to say, they're going to be on pause until the new year. Last week's 25 basis point cut by the ECB came amidst a debate as to whether or not the ECB should accelerate their pace of rate cuts. With most doubts about disinflation resolved, it’s downside growth risks that have gained prominence in the decision making process there. Restrictive monetary policy is starting to look less and less necessary and President Lagarde’s statement seems to reflect that the council's negotiated stance, that easing will continue until the ECB reaches neutral. The question is what happens next? In our view, the ECB will come to see there's a need to cut through neutral and get all the way down to 1%.In stark contrast, there's the Fed, where there are very few residual growth concerns, but there have been more and more questions about the pace of disinflation. The recent employment data, for example, clearly suggests that the recession risk is low. Some members on the committee have started to express concerns, however, that inflation data really have proven stickier and that maybe the disinflation process is stalled.From our perspective, last week's CPI data and all the other inflation data we just got really point to the next PCE print showing continued clear disinflation, leaving very little room for debate for the Fed to cut 25 basis points in December. And indeed, if it's as weak as we think it is, that provides extra fuel for a cut in January.That said, our baseline view of cuts in March and May are going to get challenged if future data releases show a reversal in this disinflationary trend, if it's from residual seasonality or maybe pass through from newly imposed tariffs, and Chair Powell's remarks at next week's press conference are really going to be critical to see if they really are becoming more cautious about cuts.Now, we don't expect the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan to move until next year. The recent currency weakness in Japan has raised the prospect of a rate hike as soon as this month, but we've kept the view that a January rate hike is much more likely. The timing would allow the Bank of Japan to get greater insight into the Shunto wage negotiations, and that gives them greater insight into future inflation. And recent communications from the Bank of Japan also aligns with our view and in particular, there is a scheduled speech by Deputy Governor Himino on January 14th, one week before the January 23rd and 24th meeting. All of that says the stars are lined up for a January rate hike. Market pricing over the past couple weeks have moved against a hike in December and towards our call for a hike in January.Now, the market's also pricing the next Bank of England cut to be next year rather than this year. We expect those cuts to come at alternating meetings. December on pause, a cut in February, and gradual rate cuts thereafter. Now, services inflation, the key focus of the Bank of England so far, has remained elevated through the end of the year, but we expect to see mounting evidence of labor market weakness, and as a result, wage growth deceleration, and that, we think, is what pushes the MPC towards more cuts. All of that said, the recent announcement of fiscal stimulus in the UK starts to raise some inflationary risks at the margin.All right, well, as the year comes to an end, it has been quite a year to say the least. Elections around the world, not least of which here in the United States, wildly swinging expectations for central banks, and a structural shift in Japan ending decades of nominal stagnation. And I have to say an early glimpse into 2025 suggests that the roller coaster is not over yet. But for now, let's take some respite because there should be limited drama from central banks this week. Happy holidays.Well, thanks for listening, and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zg6T_FtqCYyKNa4No4ADU1C9xqJVyfbXAO5D37gsHcMTue, 17 Dec 2024 20:56:14 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist explains why a predictable end to 2024 for central banks may give way to a tempestuous 2025. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about how the year end is wrapping up with, surprisingly, a fair amount of certainty about central banks.It's Tuesday, December 17th at 10 a. m. in New York.Unlike the rest of this past year, year end seems to have a lot more certainty about the last few central bank meetings. Perhaps it is just the calm before the storm, but for now, let's enjoy a benign central bank week ahead of the holidays. Last Thursday, the ECB cut interest rates 25 basis points, right in line with what we were thinking and what the market was thinking. Similarly, but I have to say, with a pretty different narrative, we expect the Fed to cut 25 basis points this week and the market seems to be all in there as well.The Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, well, we think they're closed accounts; that is to say, they're going to be on pause until the new year. Last week's 25 basis point cut by the ECB came amidst a debate as to whether or not the ECB should accelerate their pace of rate cuts. With most doubts about disinflation resolved, it’s downside growth risks that have gained prominence in the decision making process there. Restrictive monetary policy is starting to look less and less necessary and President Lagarde’s statement seems to reflect that the council's negotiated stance, that easing will continue until the ECB reaches neutral. The question is what happens next? In our view, the ECB will come to see there's a need to cut through neutral and get all the way down to 1%.In stark contrast, there's the Fed, where there are very few residual growth concerns, but there have been more and more questions about the pace of disinflation. The recent employment data, for example, clearly suggests that the recession risk is low. Some members on the committee have started to express concerns, however, that inflation data really have proven stickier and that maybe the disinflation process is stalled.From our perspective, last week's CPI data and all the other inflation data we just got really point to the next PCE print showing continued clear disinflation, leaving very little room for debate for the Fed to cut 25 basis points in December. And indeed, if it's as weak as we think it is, that provides extra fuel for a cut in January.That said, our baseline view of cuts in March and May are going to get challenged if future data releases show a reversal in this disinflationary trend, if it's from residual seasonality or maybe pass through from newly imposed tariffs, and Chair Powell's remarks at next week's press conference are really going to be critical to see if they really are becoming more cautious about cuts.Now, we don't expect the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan to move until next year. The recent currency weakness in Japan has raised the prospect of a rate hike as soon as this month, but we've kept the view that a January rate hike is much more likely. The timing would allow the Bank of Japan to get greater insight into the Shunto wage negotiations, and that gives them greater insight into future inflation. And recent communications from the Bank of Japan also aligns with our view and in particular, there is a scheduled speech by Deputy Governor Himino on January 14th, one week before the January 23rd and 24th meeting. All of that says the stars are lined up for a January rate hike. Market pricing over the past couple weeks have moved against a hike in December and towards our call for a hike in January.Now, the market's also pricing the next Bank of England cut to be next year rather than this year. We expect those cuts to come at alternating meetings. December on pause, a cut in February, and gradual rate cuts thereafter. Now, services inflation, the key focus of the Bank...]]>293alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1280fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-investors-can-best-position-for-2025--75651063----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to position as we head into the new year.It's Monday, Dec 16th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.The big question for most investors trying to beat the S&P 500 is whether returns will continue to be dominated by the Magnificent 7 and a few other high quality large cap stocks or if we're going to will see a sustainable broadening out of performance to new areas. Truth be told, 2024 has been a year during which investors have oscillated between a view of broadening out or continued narrowing. This preference has coincided with the ever-changing macro view about growth and inflation and how the Fed would respond.To recount this past year, our original framework suggested investors would have to contend with markets reacting to these different macro-outcomes. More specifically, whether the economy would end up in a soft landing, a hard landing or a “no landing” outcome of accelerating growth and inflation. Getting this view right helped us navigate what kinds of stocks, sectors and factors would outperform during the year. The perfect portfolio this year would have been overweight broad cyclicals like energy, industrials and financials in the first quarter, followed by a Magnificent 7 tilt in early 2Q that got more defensive over the summer before shifting back toward high quality cyclicals in late third quarter. Lately, that cyclical tilt has included some lower quality stocks while the Magnificent 7 has had a big resurgence in the past few weeks. We attributed these shifts to the changing perceptions on the macro which have been more uncertain than normal.Going into next year, I think this pattern continues, and it currently makes sense to have a barbell of large cap high quality cyclicals and growth stocks even though small caps and the biggest losers of the prior year tend to outperform in January as portfolios rebalance. We remain up the quality curve because it appears the seasonal low quality cyclical small cap rally was pulled forward this year due to the decisive election outcome. In addition to the large hedges being removed, there was also a spike in many confidence surveys which further spilled into excitement about this small cap lower quality rotation.Therefore, it makes sense that the short-term euphoria that's now taking a break with the rotation back toward large cap quality mentioned earlier. The fundamental driver of this rotation is earnings. Both earnings revisions and the expected growth rate of earnings next year remain much better for higher quality stocks and sectors. Given the uncertainty around policy sequencing and implementation on tariffs, immigration and how much the Fed can cut rates next year, we suspect equity markets will tread a bit more conservatively in the first quarter than what we observed this fall.The biggest risks to the upside would be a more modest implementation of tariffs, a de-emphasis on deportations of working illegal immigrants and perhaps more aggressive de-regulation that is viewed as pro-growth. Other variables worth watching closely include how quickly and aggressively the new department of government efficiency acts with respect to shrinking the size of the Federal agencies. While I'm hopeful this new effort can prove the skeptics wrong, success may prove to be growth negative in the near term given how much the government has been driving overall GDP growth for the past few years. In my view, a true broadening out of the economy and the stock market is contingent on a smaller government both in terms of regulation and absolute size. In my view, this is the most exciting potential change for taxpayers, smaller businesses and markets overall. However, it is also likely to take several years to fully manifest.In the meantime, I wish you a happy holiday season and a healthy and prosperous New Year.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/QFgudf_9tdY74g87q33EwOo5VqGgNAvy9VikwhH_TXoMon, 16 Dec 2024 20:55:07 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist recaps how equity markets have fared in 2024, and why they might look more conservative early in the new year. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to position as we head into the new year.It's Monday, Dec 16th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.The big question for most investors trying to beat the S&P 500 is whether returns will continue to be dominated by the Magnificent 7 and a few other high quality large cap stocks or if we're going to will see a sustainable broadening out of performance to new areas. Truth be told, 2024 has been a year during which investors have oscillated between a view of broadening out or continued narrowing. This preference has coincided with the ever-changing macro view about growth and inflation and how the Fed would respond.To recount this past year, our original framework suggested investors would have to contend with markets reacting to these different macro-outcomes. More specifically, whether the economy would end up in a soft landing, a hard landing or a “no landing” outcome of accelerating growth and inflation. Getting this view right helped us navigate what kinds of stocks, sectors and factors would outperform during the year. The perfect portfolio this year would have been overweight broad cyclicals like energy, industrials and financials in the first quarter, followed by a Magnificent 7 tilt in early 2Q that got more defensive over the summer before shifting back toward high quality cyclicals in late third quarter. Lately, that cyclical tilt has included some lower quality stocks while the Magnificent 7 has had a big resurgence in the past few weeks. We attributed these shifts to the changing perceptions on the macro which have been more uncertain than normal.Going into next year, I think this pattern continues, and it currently makes sense to have a barbell of large cap high quality cyclicals and growth stocks even though small caps and the biggest losers of the prior year tend to outperform in January as portfolios rebalance. We remain up the quality curve because it appears the seasonal low quality cyclical small cap rally was pulled forward this year due to the decisive election outcome. In addition to the large hedges being removed, there was also a spike in many confidence surveys which further spilled into excitement about this small cap lower quality rotation.Therefore, it makes sense that the short-term euphoria that's now taking a break with the rotation back toward large cap quality mentioned earlier. The fundamental driver of this rotation is earnings. Both earnings revisions and the expected growth rate of earnings next year remain much better for higher quality stocks and sectors. Given the uncertainty around policy sequencing and implementation on tariffs, immigration and how much the Fed can cut rates next year, we suspect equity markets will tread a bit more conservatively in the first quarter than what we observed this fall.The biggest risks to the upside would be a more modest implementation of tariffs, a de-emphasis on deportations of working illegal immigrants and perhaps more aggressive de-regulation that is viewed as pro-growth. Other variables worth watching closely include how quickly and aggressively the new department of government efficiency acts with respect to shrinking the size of the Federal agencies. While I'm hopeful this new effort can prove the skeptics wrong, success may prove to be growth negative in the near term given how much the government has been driving overall GDP growth for the past few years. In my view, a true broadening out of the economy and the stock market is contingent on a smaller government both in terms of regulation and absolute size. In my view, this is the most exciting potential change for taxpayers, smaller businesses and...]]>257alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1279fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-airline-industry-could-take-off-in-2025--75651037----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Today I’ll discuss why we remain bullish on the US Airlines industry for 2025.It’s Friday, December 13, at 10am in New York.The Airline industry entered 2024 with good momentum, lost it during the middle of the year with some concerns around the economy and capacity, but then turned it around in the fall to finish the year with the strongest run that the Airlines have had since the pandemic. The coast looks clear for 2025, and we remain bullish on the US Airlines for next year.While many airline stocks enter 2025 close to post-pandemic if not all-time highs, valuations are still attractive enough across the space to see upside across the industry. The big question right now is: will the focus on premium services continue to pay off, or will there be a resurgence in domestic travel that alters the market dynamics? We think the answer is both.Premium beneficiaries will continue to shine in 2025. We believe the premiumization trend in the industry is structural and will continue next year. Legacy carriers have successfully capitalized on this trend, enhancing their revenue streams significantly through upgraded service offerings such as premium seating and lounge access. This move isn't just about luxury—it's a calculated play to boost ancillary revenues, which are becoming a more critical component of financial stability in the airline industry. The premium leaders are building annuity-like business models – think razorblades, printers or smartphones – where the sale of a popular gateway product is followed by the bulk of the profitability coming from ancillary revenues generated in the following years, as loyalty and adjacent revenues contribute a steady stream of earnings and free cash flow to the airlines.On the flip side, the conversation around better margins on domestic travel is gaining momentum as well. 2024 saw a big shift where several domestic carriers made significant changes and even in some cases fundamentally overhauled their business models to fly less, fly differently, bundle fares, and move upmarket. This change brought significant disruption in 2024 but could be set to pay dividends in 2025 and reignite investor interest in these domestic names. This shift toward domestic travel could potentially redistribute market share and redefine competitive dynamics within the entire Airlines industry.To sum up, the setup for 2025 looks very good. But volatility could remain high due to external factors. The biggest risk into 2025 -- especially the second half of [20]25 -- continues to be the macro backdrop. More specifically, our economists' view of a sharply slowing GDP growth and services spending environment in the second half of [20]25 and into [20]26. While we take comfort from the resilience of travel spending so far, we know that things could change quickly. We will continue to keep you updated throughout the next year.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JTjpo471nzQZMBnHc_8W0ePJ9NZaq-wI7UMUHki1vPAFri, 13 Dec 2024 20:21:21 +0000gtyAfter an up-and-down 2024 for the U.S. airlines industry, our Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst Ravi Shanker explains why he is bullish about the sector’s trajectory over the next year. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Today I’ll discuss why we remain bullish on the US Airlines industry for 2025.It’s Friday, December 13, at 10am in New York.The Airline industry entered 2024 with good momentum, lost it during the middle of the year with some concerns around the economy and capacity, but then turned it around in the fall to finish the year with the strongest run that the Airlines have had since the pandemic. The coast looks clear for 2025, and we remain bullish on the US Airlines for next year.While many airline stocks enter 2025 close to post-pandemic if not all-time highs, valuations are still attractive enough across the space to see upside across the industry. The big question right now is: will the focus on premium services continue to pay off, or will there be a resurgence in domestic travel that alters the market dynamics? We think the answer is both.Premium beneficiaries will continue to shine in 2025. We believe the premiumization trend in the industry is structural and will continue next year. Legacy carriers have successfully capitalized on this trend, enhancing their revenue streams significantly through upgraded service offerings such as premium seating and lounge access. This move isn't just about luxury—it's a calculated play to boost ancillary revenues, which are becoming a more critical component of financial stability in the airline industry. The premium leaders are building annuity-like business models – think razorblades, printers or smartphones – where the sale of a popular gateway product is followed by the bulk of the profitability coming from ancillary revenues generated in the following years, as loyalty and adjacent revenues contribute a steady stream of earnings and free cash flow to the airlines.On the flip side, the conversation around better margins on domestic travel is gaining momentum as well. 2024 saw a big shift where several domestic carriers made significant changes and even in some cases fundamentally overhauled their business models to fly less, fly differently, bundle fares, and move upmarket. This change brought significant disruption in 2024 but could be set to pay dividends in 2025 and reignite investor interest in these domestic names. This shift toward domestic travel could potentially redistribute market share and redefine competitive dynamics within the entire Airlines industry.To sum up, the setup for 2025 looks very good. But volatility could remain high due to external factors. The biggest risk into 2025 -- especially the second half of [20]25 -- continues to be the macro backdrop. More specifically, our economists' view of a sharply slowing GDP growth and services spending environment in the second half of [20]25 and into [20]26. While we take comfort from the resilience of travel spending so far, we know that things could change quickly. We will continue to keep you updated throughout the next year.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>215alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1278fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/could-private-label-products-transform-retail--75651149----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s US Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today, we’ll talk about a fascinating shift in the retail landscape: the rise of private label products and what this could mean for the future of grocery and discount retailers.It’s Thursday, December 12, at 10am in New York.Think about your recent trip to your favorite grocery store. As you reached towards the shelves for your preferred brand of mayonnaise, frozen pizza, or bread, you may have noticed that more and more shelves are stocked with store-brand products. Products that not only match the quality of national brands but often exceed it. This isn't just a minor trend. We estimate private label sales growth will accelerate by 40 per cent to reach $462 billion by 2030. An expansion that will redefine market dynamics significantly.In essence, we think the private label grocery market is on the cusp of a super cycle. This super cycle is a by-product of COVID-era shifts in the way that customers shop and how retailers invest into this trend. At the same time, private label groceries reflect the rise of mega platforms, which are taking ever greater consumer wallet share and are innovating more than ever before.When you look at macro drivers, US consumers have been navigating a difficult post-COVID environment. While inflation is currently moderating, overall food prices remain 30-34 per cent above their 2018 levels. Most consumers are spending more on food at home vs. food away from home, which is a positive catalyst for private label acceleration. Further, consumers are willing to substitute lower priced goods, especially groceries, and these categories present a growth opportunity for private labels. This is the tipping point that we’re talking about. High costs, recent innovation, and innovation like we’ve never seen before – with the rise of these mega platforms, this industry looks like it’s ripe for disruption.The market views private label penetration as a slow, gradual, and ongoing event. But our work challenges this premise. We believe the rate of change in private label growth will accelerate substantially over the next few years. We think private label products will grow at double the rate of the overall grocery market bringing private label market penetration from about 19 per cent in 2023 to about 23 per cent by 2030.This growth is not just about stocking up the shelves. It's about changing consumer perceptions and behavior. Consumers increasingly see private labels as viable alternatives to national brands because they often offer better value and innovation. From healthier ingredients, like no more seed oils, to organic products that you had no idea they can produce, to premium products like frozen lobster ravioli to mushroom and truffle pizza. There are a couple of retailers in the US that are all private label and they are among the fastest growing ones, taking away the stigma of what private label products could mean.So what does this mean for the broader retail and consumer packaged good industries? For grocers and discounters with already strong private label offerings, this shift presents a significant opportunity for growth. It’s also accretive to margins. On the flip side, traditional food companies might face increased competition. These companies have historically relied on brand superiority. But as private label gains market share – particularly in food categories – these national brands could see a hit to their gross profit growth, which could fall from 3 per cent historically to about 2 per cent. And while household and personal care categories have seen some resilience against private label encroachment, the ongoing economic pressures and shifts in consumer spending habits could challenge the status quo.Looking ahead, the rise of private labels could lead to a reevaluation of what brands mean to consumers. As private label becomes synonymous with quality and value, we may see a new era in which traditional brand loyalty becomes less significant compared to product quality and cost-effectiveness.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KeAfuCrmuIbQ4_mrnBcQHwCCb23RX83bV8_ItaoSGY8Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:54:31 +0000gtyOur U.S. Retail Analyst Simeon Gutman discusses shoppers’ embrace of a private labels super cycle and how changing consumer behavior could fundamentally change grocery and discount retailers. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s US Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today, we’ll talk about a fascinating shift in the retail landscape: the rise of private label products and what this could mean for the future of grocery and discount retailers.It’s Thursday, December 12, at 10am in New York.Think about your recent trip to your favorite grocery store. As you reached towards the shelves for your preferred brand of mayonnaise, frozen pizza, or bread, you may have noticed that more and more shelves are stocked with store-brand products. Products that not only match the quality of national brands but often exceed it. This isn't just a minor trend. We estimate private label sales growth will accelerate by 40 per cent to reach $462 billion by 2030. An expansion that will redefine market dynamics significantly.In essence, we think the private label grocery market is on the cusp of a super cycle. This super cycle is a by-product of COVID-era shifts in the way that customers shop and how retailers invest into this trend. At the same time, private label groceries reflect the rise of mega platforms, which are taking ever greater consumer wallet share and are innovating more than ever before.When you look at macro drivers, US consumers have been navigating a difficult post-COVID environment. While inflation is currently moderating, overall food prices remain 30-34 per cent above their 2018 levels. Most consumers are spending more on food at home vs. food away from home, which is a positive catalyst for private label acceleration. Further, consumers are willing to substitute lower priced goods, especially groceries, and these categories present a growth opportunity for private labels. This is the tipping point that we’re talking about. High costs, recent innovation, and innovation like we’ve never seen before – with the rise of these mega platforms, this industry looks like it’s ripe for disruption.The market views private label penetration as a slow, gradual, and ongoing event. But our work challenges this premise. We believe the rate of change in private label growth will accelerate substantially over the next few years. We think private label products will grow at double the rate of the overall grocery market bringing private label market penetration from about 19 per cent in 2023 to about 23 per cent by 2030.This growth is not just about stocking up the shelves. It's about changing consumer perceptions and behavior. Consumers increasingly see private labels as viable alternatives to national brands because they often offer better value and innovation. From healthier ingredients, like no more seed oils, to organic products that you had no idea they can produce, to premium products like frozen lobster ravioli to mushroom and truffle pizza. There are a couple of retailers in the US that are all private label and they are among the fastest growing ones, taking away the stigma of what private label products could mean.So what does this mean for the broader retail and consumer packaged good industries? For grocers and discounters with already strong private label offerings, this shift presents a significant opportunity for growth. It’s also accretive to margins. On the flip side, traditional food companies might face increased competition. These companies have historically relied on brand superiority. But as private label gains market share – particularly in food categories – these national brands could see a hit to their gross profit growth, which could fall from 3 per cent historically to about 2 per cent. And while household and personal care categories have seen some resilience against private label encroachment, the ongoing economic pressures and shifts in...]]>295alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1277fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-could-go-wrong-for-corporate-credit--75650893----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things are worse than we expect. Next week, I’ll cover what could be better.It's Wednesday, December 11th at 2pm in London.Morgan Stanley strategists and economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead, and regular listeners will have now heard our expectations across a wide range of economies and markets. But I’d stress that these forecasts are a central case. The world is uncertain, with a probability distribution around all forecasts. So in the case of credit, what could go wrong?As a quick reminder, our baseline for credit is reasonably constructive. We think that low credit spreads can remain low, especially in the first half of next year – as policy change is slow to come through, economic data holds up, the Fed and European Central Bank ease rates more than expected, and still-high yields on corporate bonds attract buyers.So how does all of that go wrong? Well, there are a few specific, realistic factors that could lead us to something worse, i.e., our bear case.Let me start with US policy. Morgan Stanley’s Public Policy team’s view is that the incoming US administration will see fast announcement, but slow implementation on key issues like tariffs, fiscal policy, and immigration; and that that slower implementation of any of these policies will mean that change comes less quickly to the economy. But that change could happen faster, which would mean weaker growth and higher prices – if, for example, tariffs were to hit earlier and or in larger size. In the case of immigration, we are actually still forecasting positive net immigration over the next several years. But a larger change in policy would raise the odds of a more severe labor shortage.Even outside any specific change from the new US administration, there’s also a risk that the US economy simply runs out of gas. The recovery since COVID has been extraordinary – one of the fastest on record, especially in the labor market. The risk is that companies have now done all the hiring they need to do, meaning a slower job market going forward. Even in their base-case, Morgan Stanley’s economists see job market growth slowing, adding just 28,000 jobs/month in 2026. And to give you a sense of how low that number is, the average over the last 12 months was 190,000. And so, the bear case is that the labor market slows even more, more quickly, raising the risk of recession and dramatically lowering bond yields, both of which would reduce investor demand for corporate bonds.At the other extreme, credit could be challenged if conditions are too hot. Because current levels of corporate aggression are still quite low, we think they could rise in 2025 without creating a major problem. But if those corporate animal spirits arrive more rapidly, it could be a negative.Outside the US, we think the growth in Europe holds up as the European Central Bank cuts rates and Europeans end up saving at a slightly less elevated rate, and that that can keep growth near this year’s levels, around 1 per cent. But you don’t need me to tell you that Europe is riddled with challenges: from the political in France, to major structural questions around Germany’s economy. Meanwhile, China, the world’s second largest economy, continues to struggle with too little inflation. We think that growth in China muddles through, but a larger trade escalation could drive downside risk; one reason we prefer ex-China credit within Asia.Of course, maybe the most obvious risk to Credit is simply valuation. Credit spreads in the US are near 20-year lows, while the US Equity Price-to-Earnings Multiples for the equity market is near 20-year highs. In our view, valuation is a much better guide to returns over the next six years, rather than say the next six months. And that’s one reason we are currently looking through this. But those valuations do leave a lot less margin for error.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pnv1A5hcoOW5l3qZakMkwkdZZwPrdX4jPUKhV_ifXg8Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:05:52 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why corporate credit may struggle in 2025, including the risks of aggressive policy shifts in the U.S. along with political and structural challenges in Europe and Asia. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things are worse than we expect. Next week, I’ll cover what could be better.It's Wednesday, December 11th at 2pm in London.Morgan Stanley strategists and economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead, and regular listeners will have now heard our expectations across a wide range of economies and markets. But I’d stress that these forecasts are a central case. The world is uncertain, with a probability distribution around all forecasts. So in the case of credit, what could go wrong?As a quick reminder, our baseline for credit is reasonably constructive. We think that low credit spreads can remain low, especially in the first half of next year – as policy change is slow to come through, economic data holds up, the Fed and European Central Bank ease rates more than expected, and still-high yields on corporate bonds attract buyers.So how does all of that go wrong? Well, there are a few specific, realistic factors that could lead us to something worse, i.e., our bear case.Let me start with US policy. Morgan Stanley’s Public Policy team’s view is that the incoming US administration will see fast announcement, but slow implementation on key issues like tariffs, fiscal policy, and immigration; and that that slower implementation of any of these policies will mean that change comes less quickly to the economy. But that change could happen faster, which would mean weaker growth and higher prices – if, for example, tariffs were to hit earlier and or in larger size. In the case of immigration, we are actually still forecasting positive net immigration over the next several years. But a larger change in policy would raise the odds of a more severe labor shortage.Even outside any specific change from the new US administration, there’s also a risk that the US economy simply runs out of gas. The recovery since COVID has been extraordinary – one of the fastest on record, especially in the labor market. The risk is that companies have now done all the hiring they need to do, meaning a slower job market going forward. Even in their base-case, Morgan Stanley’s economists see job market growth slowing, adding just 28,000 jobs/month in 2026. And to give you a sense of how low that number is, the average over the last 12 months was 190,000. And so, the bear case is that the labor market slows even more, more quickly, raising the risk of recession and dramatically lowering bond yields, both of which would reduce investor demand for corporate bonds.At the other extreme, credit could be challenged if conditions are too hot. Because current levels of corporate aggression are still quite low, we think they could rise in 2025 without creating a major problem. But if those corporate animal spirits arrive more rapidly, it could be a negative.Outside the US, we think the growth in Europe holds up as the European Central Bank cuts rates and Europeans end up saving at a slightly less elevated rate, and that that can keep growth near this year’s levels, around 1 per cent. But you don’t need me to tell you that Europe is riddled with challenges: from the political in France, to major structural questions around Germany’s economy. Meanwhile, China, the world’s second largest economy, continues to struggle with too little inflation. We think that growth in China muddles through, but a larger trade escalation could drive downside risk; one reason we prefer ex-China credit within Asia.Of course, maybe the most obvious risk to Credit is simply valuation. Credit spreads in the US are near 20-year lows, while the US Equity...]]>262alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1276fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-equity-markets-are-feeling-about-2025--75650924----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I will be discussing how equity markets have traded post the election and how this fits with our thinking.It's Tuesday, Dec 10 at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Post the election, our focus has been on the potential for a rebound in animal spirits like we observed following the 2016 election. During that historical period, we saw a broad-based surge in corporate, consumer and investor confidence as the sentiment analysis we’ve done shows. So far over the last month, sentiment data has reflected a more measured level of optimism led by small business confidence while services related business outlooks were actually tempered somewhat. Our assessment of the details of these surveys and commentary from corporates suggests that consumers and companies are feeling more optimistic heading into 2025. But the uncertainty around tariffs and the still elevated price levels are likely holding back the type of exuberance we saw post the 2016 election.In 2016, we were also coming out of an industrial/manufacturing downturn, which was then aided by aggressive China stimulus. Due to that downturn, interest rates were much lower globally and sovereign deficits and balance sheets were in much better shape to absorb reflationary type policies like tax cuts and deregulation. As a result, the equity market almost immediately embraced an expansionary fiscal agenda that was interpreted as being pro-growth. Today, that policy agenda appears to be less front-footed in this regard, perhaps due to some of these constraints.Nevertheless, these dynamics are still supportive of our preference for more cyclical sectors. However, given the stickiness of interest rates, it also makes sense to remain up the quality curve within cyclicals and constructively focused on sectors with clearer de-regulation tailwinds. As a result, Financials remain our preferred over-weight, followed by Software, Utilities and Industrials. On the topic of interest rates, we find it interesting that the correlation of S&P 500 returns versus the change in bond yields remains in positive territory. In other words, good macro data is good for equity returns. Furthermore, there is a clear bifurcation in terms of this correlation between cyclical and defensive sectors. Cyclical sectors are showing a positive correlation to rates, with one exception of Materials, while defensive cohorts are showing a negative correlation except for Utilities.In our view, this is a sign that cyclicals and the market overall still like stronger macro data even if it comes amid higher yields. Having said that, there is a point where this dynamic would likely reverse if interest rates rise due to less dovish monetary policy or an increase in the term premium. In April of this year, that level was 4.5 per cent on the 10-year Treasury yield when growth and inflation drove the term premium higher. For now, rates remain contained well below that threshold and the term premium is close to zero.On the flipside, a material decline in yields due to weakness in the macro growth data would also hurt cyclical stocks disproportionately leaving 4.00-4.50 per cent on the 10-year treasury yield as the sweet spot for equity valuations. Yields below that range can certainly be tolerated by equities assuming the driver is Fed rate cuts in the absence of a material slowdown in growth. Yields above that range can also be tolerated if the pace of the rate rise is measured, and the driver is stronger nominal growth versus a more hawkish Fed or a rising inflation. Finally, as we approach year-end, December seasonality is likely to be a focal point for investors. Over the past 45 years, the S&P 500's median return over the month of December is 1.5 per cent and the index has a positive return 73 per cent of the time. Notably, almost all of that performance comes in the second half of the month. These trends are directionally consistent for the Russell 2000 small cap index except that it’s even stronger at about 2.5 per cent. This performance could be further enhanced by the larger post-election spike in small business confidence mentioned earlier. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ywMmoqB7pbeSZjdKEWT3xWmpm1VDp3DJQYVc0dgd4AYTue, 10 Dec 2024 21:40:39 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist says that while equity market activity suggests a measured level of optimism about 2025, the questions around tariffs and inflation have tempered expectations. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I will be discussing how equity markets have traded post the election and how this fits with our thinking.It's Tuesday, Dec 10 at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Post the election, our focus has been on the potential for a rebound in animal spirits like we observed following the 2016 election. During that historical period, we saw a broad-based surge in corporate, consumer and investor confidence as the sentiment analysis we’ve done shows. So far over the last month, sentiment data has reflected a more measured level of optimism led by small business confidence while services related business outlooks were actually tempered somewhat. Our assessment of the details of these surveys and commentary from corporates suggests that consumers and companies are feeling more optimistic heading into 2025. But the uncertainty around tariffs and the still elevated price levels are likely holding back the type of exuberance we saw post the 2016 election.In 2016, we were also coming out of an industrial/manufacturing downturn, which was then aided by aggressive China stimulus. Due to that downturn, interest rates were much lower globally and sovereign deficits and balance sheets were in much better shape to absorb reflationary type policies like tax cuts and deregulation. As a result, the equity market almost immediately embraced an expansionary fiscal agenda that was interpreted as being pro-growth. Today, that policy agenda appears to be less front-footed in this regard, perhaps due to some of these constraints.Nevertheless, these dynamics are still supportive of our preference for more cyclical sectors. However, given the stickiness of interest rates, it also makes sense to remain up the quality curve within cyclicals and constructively focused on sectors with clearer de-regulation tailwinds. As a result, Financials remain our preferred over-weight, followed by Software, Utilities and Industrials. On the topic of interest rates, we find it interesting that the correlation of S&P 500 returns versus the change in bond yields remains in positive territory. In other words, good macro data is good for equity returns. Furthermore, there is a clear bifurcation in terms of this correlation between cyclical and defensive sectors. Cyclical sectors are showing a positive correlation to rates, with one exception of Materials, while defensive cohorts are showing a negative correlation except for Utilities.In our view, this is a sign that cyclicals and the market overall still like stronger macro data even if it comes amid higher yields. Having said that, there is a point where this dynamic would likely reverse if interest rates rise due to less dovish monetary policy or an increase in the term premium. In April of this year, that level was 4.5 per cent on the 10-year Treasury yield when growth and inflation drove the term premium higher. For now, rates remain contained well below that threshold and the term premium is close to zero.On the flipside, a material decline in yields due to weakness in the macro growth data would also hurt cyclical stocks disproportionately leaving 4.00-4.50 per cent on the 10-year treasury yield as the sweet spot for equity valuations. Yields below that range can certainly be tolerated by equities assuming the driver is Fed rate cuts in the absence of a material slowdown in growth. Yields above that range can also be tolerated if the pace of the rate rise is measured, and the driver is stronger nominal growth versus a more hawkish Fed or a rising inflation. Finally, as we approach year-end, December seasonality is likely to be a focal point for...]]>279alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1275fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-ai-is-revolutionizing-healthcare--75651073----- Transcript -----
Craig Hettenbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Craig Hettenbach, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Healthcare Technology and Providers analyst. Today I'm here with my colleague Steve Rodgers from Morgan Stanley Capital Partners to talk about a growing and underappreciated segment of healthcare – the behind-the-scenes technology that is transforming the sector to keep costs down and improve patient care. It's Monday, December 9th at 9am in New York. In 2022, the size of the U.S. healthcare sector was [$]4.5 trillion and is projected to grow to [$]6.8 trillion in 2030, accounting for 20 per cent of overall U.S. GDP. We know that the U.S. population is aging, and we expect to see 71 million U.S. citizens age 65 and over by 2030. That puts ever growing demand on health care systems. So, Steve, you and your colleagues in investment management have been looking lately at key macro trends driving change in the healthcare sector.What are these drivers and how do they work together?Steve Rodgers: When we look at the health care landscape, we really think about four major macro trends. The first is cost containment. And this is just this simple idea that costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate. The second is demographics; we also know that things like obesity is increasing the prevalence of chronic conditions and increasing the overall utilization of the healthcare system. And so, we're looking at ways to invest behind that macro trend. We've also identified something called consumerism. And consumerism stems from the reality that today, patients are taking more of a financial responsibility in their healthcare. And with that comes more decision making. So, the old days – where the patient received healthcare services, but the payer paid, and there was really no link between the two – have moved on.We call it the retailization of health care. Waiting in the office for your appointment for 30 minutes used to be a standard. Today, that's unacceptable because these patients will move to the next provider who's providing them a better retail experience. The final macro driver we call enabling technology. Health care has lagged many other industry segments in the use of technology as a source of efficiency. I like to give the example of chemotherapy treatments, right? Technology would produce a new chemotherapy treatment, and while that's great for patient care and outcomes. It actually could lead to increased costs to the system because it was an added route that people would go down.Now there's technology which allows a provider to say, “Start with this one because of your genetic makeup.” And not only will you have a better outcome more quickly, but it will be less cost to the system. We're also seeing that kind of efficiency happen on the administrative side of healthcare as well. The way we think about these macro trends and how they work together is really thinking about demand versus supply. So, we see demand drivers coming from demographics and consumerism. We see supply drivers coming from cost containment and really enabling technology has impacts on both demand and supply.Craig Hettenbach: Let's focus more specifically on just how digitization and cost containment dovetail. When people talk about the impact of AI and ML on healthcare, typically the focus is on things like big pharma, medical equipment, and hospitals. But there's actually a whole intricate infrastructure that helps healthcare run.Can you talk about these behind-the-scenes businesses and why investment managers are so interested in the opportunities they offer? Steve Rodgers: Yeah, it's really important. We focus on investments that are using technology to enable their businesses. And so that's automation. That's machine learning. It's AI. But all of these technologies are being used behind the scenes to make care more efficient and they're a better use of our dollars. For example the personalization of communications from health plans. So historically a health plan would send the same communication, you know, to – the same form to every patient.Well now, technology allows the health plan, at the point of generating that communication, to know that information about the person that's getting it. And having the ability to personalize it in ways that might help them be more likely to interact with it. Maybe they're trying to get them to do something about their health. Well, they can take an administrative communication, you know, called an explanation of benefit, which really just explains how much you owe versus how much the health plan owes. And you can also add important information to that that might help you utilize your benefits better.Another example that we see is on the hospital side. As people I think have heard, hospitals have been very inefficient, right? They pay bills     the wrong bills, they're duplicative invoices, and there haven't been really good ways to figure that out. Well, we now have technology that can identify those duplicative invoices, that can actually identify that there are multiple contracts that they have with a vendor and direct them to use the cheapest one.Last one that I would highlight is around the procurement of pharmaceuticals. So, again, if you imagine a hospital system that has 50 different hospitals and one person at each hospital might be buying the pharmaceuticals that fit to the needs they have in that facility. Well, now there's technology that's really helping consolidate those purchases, get the benefits of scale. Also tracking what is a very dynamic pricing market and figuring out today this channels is less costly than that one, so buy it from here; tomorrow it might be different.We're seeing behind-the-scenes uses of technology in all of those types of areas, which are leading to efficiencies. Craig Hettenbach: That's really interesting and I agree. Sometimes investors can overlook healthcare infrastructure as an area offering a lot of hidden growth. Let's take a subsector like Revenue Cycle Management or RCM. What is it exactly and what opportunities does it offer when it comes to technology and cost containment?Steve Rodgers: What it is, it really is the whole process from start to finish of a healthcare episode. So, starting with something as simple as eligibility, or is this patient eligible for this procedure?Then once that procedure happens, it has to be documented and coded and billed. And then once that bill goes out that needs to be collected and paid on. So, this whole process is really how healthcare works and it's one of the most important business processes for healthcare companies .And what we've seen with revenue cycle is it's been a very, historically, a very manual process that involved a lot of human effort. So early on, some of the most basic functions of revenue cycle were automated. So, the example I can give there would be the front-end entry of a claim.So that used to be sent over by fax and a person would have to look at that and type it into a computer and start the processing that way. Well that, for a long time, that's now been automated with either what's called OCR, which is a scanning technology. But even, you know, now, a lot of that's coming in digitally. But a lot of the rest of the process is still manual. And the reason is because the tasks are so complex. So, to resolve a claim, you often need to pull data from multiple sources. There'd be some subjective determinations about what's allowed or not allowed.You would then need to apply [it] against a multiple complex rules and benefits. And sometimes the sheer dollars involved would make it too risky to just pay that claim without someone actually looking at it. Really we're entering an automation cycle where some of these new technologies are making it possible to reliably automate these more complex functions.And so it's a combination of machine learning and AI but it's really driving efficiencies that are really exciting from an investment perspective to us right now.Craig Hettenbach: Got it. In addition to revenue cycle management, are there any other subsectors that look interesting to you right now?Steve Rodgers: We also, we call it cost cycle management. This is the idea of applying the same principles that we're seeing in revenue cycle to the purchasing of providers. So that can be supply costs, inventory management. Another area that we think is interesting is self insured employer outsourcing. One of the main frustrations that we hear time and time again from self insured employers is that their employees are not utilizing the benefits that they have. With technology, companies that are finding ways to get broader and better adoption; then in turn allowing these employers to see better utilization, which is going to lead to a healthier workforce and hopefully do so also, with some cost containment.So Craig, it's clear that there's an overlap between what we look at from the investment management side and what you and your colleagues focus on in research. How do you think about analyzing how AI and machine learning are impacting healthcare?Craig Hettenbach: Yeah, so for research across the department, we came up with a framework to look at and that's the NEXT framework. So number one, new business opportunities to evaluate. Number two, efficiencies. Number three, external productivity. And number four, content creation. So those are four things to help kind of frame what the opportunity set looks like, when leveraging AI and technology.Steve Rodgers: And how does this framework apply to your space, healthcare services and technology specifically?Craig Hettenbach: The second point of that next framework, the E for efficiencies, is something that we're already starting to see the tangible benefits. And so, just t]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/56AwK7L5vBFf7IMeSqh_iCG0NmYCaaY-rY1948SKqE0Mon, 09 Dec 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research and Investment Management analysts discuss how AI can keep costs down for the industry and give patients a more personalized experience. ----- Transcript ----- Craig Hettenbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Craig...----- Transcript -----
Craig Hettenbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Craig Hettenbach, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Healthcare Technology and Providers analyst. Today I'm here with my colleague Steve Rodgers from Morgan Stanley Capital Partners to talk about a growing and underappreciated segment of healthcare – the behind-the-scenes technology that is transforming the sector to keep costs down and improve patient care. It's Monday, December 9th at 9am in New York. In 2022, the size of the U.S. healthcare sector was [$]4.5 trillion and is projected to grow to [$]6.8 trillion in 2030, accounting for 20 per cent of overall U.S. GDP. We know that the U.S. population is aging, and we expect to see 71 million U.S. citizens age 65 and over by 2030. That puts ever growing demand on health care systems. So, Steve, you and your colleagues in investment management have been looking lately at key macro trends driving change in the healthcare sector.What are these drivers and how do they work together?Steve Rodgers: When we look at the health care landscape, we really think about four major macro trends. The first is cost containment. And this is just this simple idea that costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate. The second is demographics; we also know that things like obesity is increasing the prevalence of chronic conditions and increasing the overall utilization of the healthcare system. And so, we're looking at ways to invest behind that macro trend. We've also identified something called consumerism. And consumerism stems from the reality that today, patients are taking more of a financial responsibility in their healthcare. And with that comes more decision making. So, the old days – where the patient received healthcare services, but the payer paid, and there was really no link between the two – have moved on.We call it the retailization of health care. Waiting in the office for your appointment for 30 minutes used to be a standard. Today, that's unacceptable because these patients will move to the next provider who's providing them a better retail experience. The final macro driver we call enabling technology. Health care has lagged many other industry segments in the use of technology as a source of efficiency. I like to give the example of chemotherapy treatments, right? Technology would produce a new chemotherapy treatment, and while that's great for patient care and outcomes. It actually could lead to increased costs to the system because it was an added route that people would go down.Now there's technology which allows a provider to say, “Start with this one because of your genetic makeup.” And not only will you have a better outcome more quickly, but it will be less cost to the system. We're also seeing that kind of efficiency happen on the administrative side of healthcare as well. The way we think about these macro trends and how they work together is really thinking about demand versus supply. So, we see demand drivers coming from demographics and consumerism. We see supply drivers coming from cost containment and really enabling technology has impacts on both demand and supply.Craig Hettenbach: Let's focus more specifically on just how digitization and cost containment dovetail. When people talk about the impact of AI and ML on healthcare, typically the focus is on things like big pharma, medical equipment, and hospitals. But there's actually a whole intricate infrastructure that helps healthcare run.Can you talk about these behind-the-scenes businesses and why investment managers are so interested in the opportunities they offer? Steve Rodgers: Yeah, it's really important. We focus on investments that are using technology to enable their businesses. And so that's automation. That's machine learning. It's AI. But all of these...]]>774alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1274fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-very-merry-start-to-u-s-holiday-shopping--75651058----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Simeon Gutman: I'm Simeon Gutman, U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, North America Softlines, Retail, and Brands analyst.Michelle Weaver: Thanksgiving and Black Friday are behind us; and now that the holiday shopping season is in full swing, we have some interesting new data we wanted to dig into. We also recently concluded Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York, and we'll share some key takeaways from that.It's Friday, December 6th at 10am in New York.I was recently on the show to talk about our holiday shopping outlook and survey takeaways, and noted that overall, we're expecting stronger spending this holiday season relative to last year. Inflation's cooled, and U.S. consumers are more positive on spending this season versus the past two holiday seasons. Now that we've got Black Friday in the rearview mirror, Simeon, within your space, how's holiday season tracking so far?Simeon Gutman: Better. And the three key metrics – traffic, physical store sales, digital sales – all seem to be tracking better. The question is the magnitude and the length of ahead that the entire industry is – and what does that give us through the rest of the season? As we all know, the holiday season, shopping season is shorter; with the later fall of Thanksgiving, we're losing a weekend. The tone at our conference affirmed all of this, all the data points we heard were pretty upbeat. And it seems like the weather couldn't have broken at a better time, which is different from the October lead up to holiday.So, it seems like we're off to a pretty healthy start. I think there's some questions of what do we make up in the last three weeks in this final push. Some companies at our conference sounded good on that. Some were a little bit, call it cautiously optimistic about the rest of the season.Michelle Weaver: And what are you expecting for the rest of the holiday season?Simeon Gutman: In theory, and as we do our models what the good start typically portends a pretty good finish. There will be like a frenetic, frantic rush till the end. And because we lose that last weekend, you know, we might just lose some days. That's what history has told us. And those couple of days, it could end up being a couple of points or a couple hundred points of growth. That's understandable. I think the market knows that. And if that were to happen, as long as the underlying tone of business is healthy, I think it's pretty excusable because it's either made up in the subsequent months, and it'll especially be made up in the following year.Michelle Weaver: Great. And then Alex, in your space with Black Friday now behind us, were there any surprises?Alex Straton: The headline on Black Friday out of the apparel and footwear space was very positive. That's the message everyone should hear. I think I'll break down how we thought about – and what we observed – into two buckets. One being what we saw on demand, and the other being what we saw on promotional or discounting activity.Now, starting with demand, I think context is really important here, and we had a pretty lackluster September and October trend line in the space. To us, this was a function of adverse weather; it was much hotter than usual, really deterring apparel spending. We also had high hurricane activity, which deterred overall discretionary spending. And then also we had the election overhang upon consumers, which can, you know, deter spending as well.So as a result, we had fall apparel spending not necessarily as robust as many retailers would have liked. We've seen that in third quarter earnings reports. And we viewed Black Friday as, almost this very powerful potential catalyst for pent up demand. It was very weather dependent, though, and Simeon mentioned this briefly. We got a cold front across the country, and I think that created this important catalyst to kick off the holiday season. So, demand was strong. Just to put some numbers around it. Our line counts were up 30 per cent year-over-year. That's a data set that typically grows mid-single digits. So, speaks to, you know, outstanding demand. It doesn't capture conversion, so it's not perfect, but it gives you a sense for our confidence and how strong it was.The second piece that I wanted to cover is just promotions. And what we saw there was consistent activity year-over-year. That was a positive surprise for me. We were braced for discounting to be higher across the group because we exited both the second quarter and out of the early third quarter reporters with some excess inventory. So, we thought they might look to clear it.We had seen a recent uptick in promotional activity in October across the group. And then also, we're facing down a pretty competitive fourth quarter set up because of a number of the dynamics that Simeon mentioned. So, the fact that we didn't see retailers, kind of, push the panic button on discounting and promotions to drive that strong sales result, I think further underscores how strong it was; and also tells you retailers are willing to wait later for the consumer, similar to how they behaved last year.Michelle Weaver: In your outlook for holiday shopping this year, you cautioned about some potential headwinds. What were they and have they been playing out as you expected?Alex Straton: Yeah. So, since the start of the year, there's been a number of dynamics that we're going to weigh on the fourth quarter, no matter what. The first is that it's companies in my coverage most difficult year-over-year comparison quarter from both the sales and a profitability perspective. The second is that we have a compressed holiday shopping period, five fewer days, one less weekend; that’s very impactful for these retailers. And the last thing is that most retailers are lapping an extra week last year. They have a 53rd week calendar dynamic that reverses out this week. So, think about it as one last less week of sales opportunity.And so, I could have sat here in January and told you all of that. What we've learned since is that these retailers are now also facing incremental freight headwinds in the back half. Some of which are just repercussions from the Red Sea dynamic. And then second, this inventory build that I mentioned that started to show up in the second quarter and some of these earlier third quarter reporters. So, all of those headwinds, I'm putting them on the table.I think the good news is that the market seems to now mostly appreciate those. There's not really high bars as we think about fourth quarter results expectations or even sentiment more broadly. So, while it is a very challenging set up, I feel like it's mostly appreciated.Michelle Weaver: Great. And final question for both of you. What are some of your key takeaways from the fireside chats you hosted at the conference that just closed?Simeon Gutman: A few thoughts. First on the tone of holiday, I'll reiterate again: companies that are most exposed to holiday, in my coverage – ones that have weather exposure, ones that have seasonal exposure, ones that have large Black Friday promotions and into Cyber Monday – sounded good. There was a sense of relief that we're making up sales, especially on cold weather categories, and there's momentum that's being carried into the rest of the year.Second, in our chats with some of the largest companies, a discussion around how starting from a retail point of view and leveraging into Omnichannel has actually been beneficial, because now as these companies gain scale and leverage, the economies of scale in Omnichannel are actually more beneficial for profits than they thought; and in some cases that's just getting started. So, an interesting dichotomy, or almost an irony for the way that these businesses were positioned about 10 to 15 years ago.Third inventories – building; companies acknowledge that, but generally feel good. That reflected underlying optimism on sales trends and buying good inventory they think the customer will respond to. And then lastly, on housing; acknowledgment that the backdrop and the rebuild will be slow and steady, but at the same time that the industry is bottoming.Alex Straton: Yeah, on my end, I would underscore what Simeon said on demand in the holiday. Clearly a strong start in terms of the weather finally turning around this big initial event with Black Friday.Secondly, on inventory we're asking our companies the same question is – how do they feel about this build that we're seeing? And they attributed to a little bit of a pull forward of receipts in advance of holiday. Some also pulling forward even further than normal to offset some of the freight expense, or they were worried about some degree of freight disruption that could have impacted the receipts. So they have explanations for why that's the case, but we're monitoring it nonetheless.And then lastly, the one magic dynamic we didn't mention yet is tariff, of course, and what the outlooks are there. I would say most companies in my space feel that they have a number of levers that they can pull to offset any potential incremental tariff next year. But the reality there is that apparel is a deflationary category. There's no pricing power. So I'll be really interested to see how this plays out next year.Michelle Weaver: Simeon and Alex, thank you for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YAAcmrtzLkP0clMy8fsi3CFxKa3YnvroButR4xJzytEFri, 06 Dec 2024 21:33:20 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley Research analysts see a strong start following Black Friday but question whether the short shopping season will hurt retailers. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Simeon Gutman: I'm Simeon Gutman, U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, North America Softlines, Retail, and Brands analyst.Michelle Weaver: Thanksgiving and Black Friday are behind us; and now that the holiday shopping season is in full swing, we have some interesting new data we wanted to dig into. We also recently concluded Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York, and we'll share some key takeaways from that.It's Friday, December 6th at 10am in New York.I was recently on the show to talk about our holiday shopping outlook and survey takeaways, and noted that overall, we're expecting stronger spending this holiday season relative to last year. Inflation's cooled, and U.S. consumers are more positive on spending this season versus the past two holiday seasons. Now that we've got Black Friday in the rearview mirror, Simeon, within your space, how's holiday season tracking so far?Simeon Gutman: Better. And the three key metrics – traffic, physical store sales, digital sales – all seem to be tracking better. The question is the magnitude and the length of ahead that the entire industry is – and what does that give us through the rest of the season? As we all know, the holiday season, shopping season is shorter; with the later fall of Thanksgiving, we're losing a weekend. The tone at our conference affirmed all of this, all the data points we heard were pretty upbeat. And it seems like the weather couldn't have broken at a better time, which is different from the October lead up to holiday.So, it seems like we're off to a pretty healthy start. I think there's some questions of what do we make up in the last three weeks in this final push. Some companies at our conference sounded good on that. Some were a little bit, call it cautiously optimistic about the rest of the season.Michelle Weaver: And what are you expecting for the rest of the holiday season?Simeon Gutman: In theory, and as we do our models what the good start typically portends a pretty good finish. There will be like a frenetic, frantic rush till the end. And because we lose that last weekend, you know, we might just lose some days. That's what history has told us. And those couple of days, it could end up being a couple of points or a couple hundred points of growth. That's understandable. I think the market knows that. And if that were to happen, as long as the underlying tone of business is healthy, I think it's pretty excusable because it's either made up in the subsequent months, and it'll especially be made up in the following year.Michelle Weaver: Great. And then Alex, in your space with Black Friday now behind us, were there any surprises?Alex Straton: The headline on Black Friday out of the apparel and footwear space was very positive. That's the message everyone should hear. I think I'll break down how we thought about – and what we observed – into two buckets. One being what we saw on demand, and the other being what we saw on promotional or discounting activity.Now, starting with demand, I think context is really important here, and we had a pretty lackluster September and October trend line in the space. To us, this was a function of adverse weather; it was much hotter than usual, really deterring apparel spending. We also had high hurricane activity, which deterred overall discretionary spending. And then also we had the election overhang upon consumers, which can, you know, deter spending as well.So as a result, we had fall apparel spending not necessarily as robust as many retailers would have liked. We've seen that in third quarter earnings reports. And we viewed Black Friday...]]>559alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1273fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-as-a-second-set-of-eyes--75651020----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Robert Davies, Morgan Stanley’s Head of the Europe MedTech research team. Today I want to take you behind the scenes to show you how AI is revolutionizing our approach to medical diagnostics via Smart Imaging.It’s Thursday, December 5, at 10 AM in Boston.When was the last time you needed to get an X-Ray, a CT scan, or an ultrasound? Depending on where you live, your wait time could be as long as a month. Medical diagnostics through imaging is facing enormous challenges right now. Population growth, rising longevity, and intensifying chronic disease burdens are driving ever increasing volumes of medical scans. In the U.S. alone, CT scan volumes have quadrupled since 1995. So, what is the impact of this? Imagine a radiologist interpreting a CT or MRI image every 3-4 seconds during an eight-hour workday. This is the current pace needed to meet the soaring demand.At the same time, the U.S. population is getting older and a growing number of people are signing up for Medicare. Healthcare costs are continually rising, total U.S. healthcare spend is now hitting $4.5 trillion. That's nearly 20% of U.S. GDP. On top of that, patients need fast, accurate diagnosis. But long wait times often mean that patients don’t get the diagnostic done in time or sometimes not at all. All of this indicates that more and more stress is being placed on hospital systems each year in terms of diagnostic imaging.Smart Imaging uses AI tools to improve imaging processing and workflows to enhance traditional image gathering, processing, and analysis. It sits at the intersection of Longevity and Tech Diffusion, two of Morgan Stanley Research’s big themes for 2024. And it can help solve these acute demand challenges. In fact, AI is already transforming the $45 billion Diagnostic Imaging market.AI-driven Smart Imaging integrates into the diagnostic imaging workflow at multiple stages—from preparation and planning, all the way to image processing and interpretation. The primary benefits of using AI are twofold. Firstly, it enhances image quality, which ensures more accurate diagnoses. And secondly it improves the speed, efficiency, and overall comfort of the patient journey. At the same time, AI effectively acts as a second set of eyes for the radiologist, often surpassing human accuracy in pattern recognition. That's crucial in reducing diagnostic errors—a problem costing the U.S. healthcare system around $100 billion annually at the moment.In addition to minimizing misdiagnosis, AI is not only capable of identifying the primary disease, but also registering any potential secondary diseases. Otherwise, this isn’t normally a priority for the radiologist who is only able to spend 3-4 seconds looking at any individual image. But it’s a potentially life-saving benefit for using Smart Imaging applications.So how does AI fit into the clinical setting? There are multiple stages to the Diagnostic Imaging workflow and AI can play a role across the entire value chain from preparing a patient’s scan, to processing the images, and finally, aiding in the diagnosis, reporting, and treatment planning.Radiology is currently dominating the FDA list of AI/Machine Learning-Enabled Medical Devices. And when we look at the broader economic implications, it's clear Smart Imaging represents a pivotal development in healthcare technology that has broad implications for healthcare costs, quality of care, and better healthcare outcomes.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/r23mXINWloJnFjMztNd71_rRHj9Xj27h34a4FsKvagIThu, 05 Dec 2024 23:29:54 +0000gtyOur Europe MedTech Analyst digs into the transformational impact of AI-driven diagnostic imaging on healthcare systems. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Robert Davies, Morgan Stanley’s Head of the Europe MedTech research...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Robert Davies, Morgan Stanley’s Head of the Europe MedTech research team. Today I want to take you behind the scenes to show you how AI is revolutionizing our approach to medical diagnostics via Smart Imaging.It’s Thursday, December 5, at 10 AM in Boston.When was the last time you needed to get an X-Ray, a CT scan, or an ultrasound? Depending on where you live, your wait time could be as long as a month. Medical diagnostics through imaging is facing enormous challenges right now. Population growth, rising longevity, and intensifying chronic disease burdens are driving ever increasing volumes of medical scans. In the U.S. alone, CT scan volumes have quadrupled since 1995. So, what is the impact of this? Imagine a radiologist interpreting a CT or MRI image every 3-4 seconds during an eight-hour workday. This is the current pace needed to meet the soaring demand.At the same time, the U.S. population is getting older and a growing number of people are signing up for Medicare. Healthcare costs are continually rising, total U.S. healthcare spend is now hitting $4.5 trillion. That's nearly 20% of U.S. GDP. On top of that, patients need fast, accurate diagnosis. But long wait times often mean that patients don’t get the diagnostic done in time or sometimes not at all. All of this indicates that more and more stress is being placed on hospital systems each year in terms of diagnostic imaging.Smart Imaging uses AI tools to improve imaging processing and workflows to enhance traditional image gathering, processing, and analysis. It sits at the intersection of Longevity and Tech Diffusion, two of Morgan Stanley Research’s big themes for 2024. And it can help solve these acute demand challenges. In fact, AI is already transforming the $45 billion Diagnostic Imaging market.AI-driven Smart Imaging integrates into the diagnostic imaging workflow at multiple stages—from preparation and planning, all the way to image processing and interpretation. The primary benefits of using AI are twofold. Firstly, it enhances image quality, which ensures more accurate diagnoses. And secondly it improves the speed, efficiency, and overall comfort of the patient journey. At the same time, AI effectively acts as a second set of eyes for the radiologist, often surpassing human accuracy in pattern recognition. That's crucial in reducing diagnostic errors—a problem costing the U.S. healthcare system around $100 billion annually at the moment.In addition to minimizing misdiagnosis, AI is not only capable of identifying the primary disease, but also registering any potential secondary diseases. Otherwise, this isn’t normally a priority for the radiologist who is only able to spend 3-4 seconds looking at any individual image. But it’s a potentially life-saving benefit for using Smart Imaging applications.So how does AI fit into the clinical setting? There are multiple stages to the Diagnostic Imaging workflow and AI can play a role across the entire value chain from preparing a patient’s scan, to processing the images, and finally, aiding in the diagnosis, reporting, and treatment planning.Radiology is currently dominating the FDA list of AI/Machine Learning-Enabled Medical Devices. And when we look at the broader economic implications, it's clear Smart Imaging represents a pivotal development in healthcare technology that has broad implications for healthcare costs, quality of care, and better healthcare outcomes.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>214alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1271fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-investors-should-know-about-trump-s-tariffs--75651086----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about tariffs.It’s Wednesday, Dec 4, at 2 pm in London.There’s still over a month before Trump takes office again. But in the meantime he’s started sending messages about his policy plans. Most notably, for investors, he’s started talking about his ideas for tariffs. He’s floated the idea of tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico, and Canada. He’s talked about tariffs on all the BRICs countries unless they publicly dismiss the idea of pursuing an alternative reserve currency to the US dollar. In short, he’s talking about tariffs a lot.While we certainly don’t dismiss Trump’s sincerity in suggesting these tariffs, nor the ability for a President to execute on tariffs like these – well, mostly anyway – it’s important for investors to know that the ultimate policies enacted to address the concerns driving the tariff threats could look quite different than what a literal interpretation of Trump’s words might suggest. After all, there are plenty of examples of policies enacted on Trump’s watch that address his concerns that were not implemented exactly as he initially suggested.The Tax Cuts and Jobs act is a good example, where Trump advocated for a 15 percent corporate tax rate but signed a bill with a 21 percent tax rate. Another is the exceptions process for the first round of China tariffs, where some companies got exceptions based on modest onshoring concessions. These examples speak to the idea that procedural, political, and economic considerations can shape policy in a way that’s different from what’s initially proposed.This is why our base case for the US policy path in 2025 includes higher tariffs announced shortly after Trump takes office; but with a focus on China and some exports from Europe; and implementation of those tariffs would ramp up over time, as has been suggested by key policy advisors. There's broad political consensus on a stronger tariff approach to China, and there’s already executive authority to take that approach. Something similar can be said about Europe, but with a focus more on certain products than across imports broadly. However, we see scope for Mexico to avoid incremental tariffs through negotiation. And a global tariff via executive order risks getting held up in court, and we’re skeptical even a Republican-controlled Congress would authorize this approach.Of course we could be wrong. For example it's possible the incoming administration might be less concerned about the economic challenges posed by a rapid escalation of tariffs. So if they start quicker and are more severe than we anticipate, then our 2025 economic projections are probably too rosy, as are our expectations for equities and credit to outperform over the next 12 months. The US dollar and US Treasuries might be the outperformer in that scenario.So stick with us, we’ll be paying attention and trying to tease out the policy path signal from the media noise from the new administration.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eR7OnlWQJ98wKpzPG6fHIazt0gndguCUSSJt9XcSh4QWed, 04 Dec 2024 21:05:58 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains why President-elect Trump’s proposed tariff plans may look different than the policies that are ultimately put in place. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about tariffs.It’s Wednesday, Dec 4, at 2 pm in London.There’s still over a month before Trump takes office again. But in the meantime he’s started sending messages about his policy plans. Most notably, for investors, he’s started talking about his ideas for tariffs. He’s floated the idea of tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico, and Canada. He’s talked about tariffs on all the BRICs countries unless they publicly dismiss the idea of pursuing an alternative reserve currency to the US dollar. In short, he’s talking about tariffs a lot.While we certainly don’t dismiss Trump’s sincerity in suggesting these tariffs, nor the ability for a President to execute on tariffs like these – well, mostly anyway – it’s important for investors to know that the ultimate policies enacted to address the concerns driving the tariff threats could look quite different than what a literal interpretation of Trump’s words might suggest. After all, there are plenty of examples of policies enacted on Trump’s watch that address his concerns that were not implemented exactly as he initially suggested.The Tax Cuts and Jobs act is a good example, where Trump advocated for a 15 percent corporate tax rate but signed a bill with a 21 percent tax rate. Another is the exceptions process for the first round of China tariffs, where some companies got exceptions based on modest onshoring concessions. These examples speak to the idea that procedural, political, and economic considerations can shape policy in a way that’s different from what’s initially proposed.This is why our base case for the US policy path in 2025 includes higher tariffs announced shortly after Trump takes office; but with a focus on China and some exports from Europe; and implementation of those tariffs would ramp up over time, as has been suggested by key policy advisors. There's broad political consensus on a stronger tariff approach to China, and there’s already executive authority to take that approach. Something similar can be said about Europe, but with a focus more on certain products than across imports broadly. However, we see scope for Mexico to avoid incremental tariffs through negotiation. And a global tariff via executive order risks getting held up in court, and we’re skeptical even a Republican-controlled Congress would authorize this approach.Of course we could be wrong. For example it's possible the incoming administration might be less concerned about the economic challenges posed by a rapid escalation of tariffs. So if they start quicker and are more severe than we anticipate, then our 2025 economic projections are probably too rosy, as are our expectations for equities and credit to outperform over the next 12 months. The US dollar and US Treasuries might be the outperformer in that scenario.So stick with us, we’ll be paying attention and trying to tease out the policy path signal from the media noise from the new administration.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>220alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1270fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/private-vs-public-credit-competition-intensifies--75650996----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today we'll be talking about how private credit has evolved over 2024 and the outlook for 2025. I'm joined by my colleague, Joyce Jiang, from our Leveraged Finance Strategy team.It's Tuesday, December 3rd at 10am in New York.A lot has happened over 2024 in private credit. We are credit people. Let's talk about defaults and returns. How has 2024 been thus far for private credit in terms of defaults and returns?Joyce Jiang: It's always tricky to talk about defaults in private credit because the reported measures tend to vary a lot depending on how defaults are defined and calculated. Using S&P's credit estimate defaults as a proxy for the overall private credit defaults, we see that defaults appear to have peaked, and the peak level was significantly lower than during the COVID cycle.Since then, defaults have declined and converged to levels seen in public loans. In this cycle, the elevated policy rates have clearly weighed on the credit fundamentals, but direct lenders and sponsors have worked proactively to help companies extending maturities and converting debt into PIK loans. Also, the high level of dry powder enabled both private credit and PE funds to provide liquidity support, keeping default rates relatively contained.From a returns perspective for credit investors, the appeal of private credit comes from the potential for higher and more stable returns, and also its role as a portfolio diversifier. Data from Lincoln International shows that over the past seven years, direct lending loans have outperformed single B public loans in total return terms by approximately 2.3 percentage point annually, largely driven by the better carry profile. And this year, although the spread premium has narrowed, private credit continues to generate higher returns.So, Vishy, credit spreads are close to historical tights. And the market conditions have clearly improved compared to last year. With that, the competition between the public and private credit has intensified. How do you see this dynamic playing out between these two markets?Vishy Tirupattur: The competition between public and private credit has indeed intensified, especially as the broadly syndicated market reopened with some vigor this year.While the public market has regained some share it lost to private credit, I think it is important to note that the activity has been, especially the financing activity, has been really more two-way. Improved market conditions have lured some of the borrowers back to the public markets from private credit markets due to cheaper funding costs.At the same time, borrowers with lower rating or complex capital structure seem to continue to favor private credit markets. So, there is really a lot of give and take between the two markets. Also, traditionally, private credit markets have played a major role in financing LBOs or leveraged buyouts. Its importance has really grown during the last Fed's hiking cycle when elevated policy rates and bouts of market turmoil weaken banks’ risk appetite and tighten the public-funding access to many leveraged borrowers.Then, as the Fed's policy tightening ended, and uncertainty about the future direction of policy rates began to fade, deal activity rebounded in both markets, and more materially in public markets. This really led to a decline in the share of LBOs financed by private credit. Of course, the two markets tend to cater for deals of different sizes. Private credit is playing a bigger role in smaller size deals and a broadly syndicated loan market is relatively much more active in larger sized LBOs. So, overall, public credit is both a complement and competitor to private credit markets.Joyce Jiang: The decline in spread basis is evident in larger companies, but more recently, the spread basis have even compressed within smaller-sized deals, although they don't have the access to public credit. This is likely due to some private credit funds shifting their focuses to deals down in the site spectrum. So, the growing competition got spilled over to the lower middle-market segment as well. In addition to pricing conversions, we've also seen a gradual erosion in covenant quality in private credit deals. Some data sources noted that covenant packages have increasingly favored borrowers, a reflection of the heightened competition between these two markets.So Vishy, looking ahead, how do you see this competition between public and private credit evolving in 2025, and what implications might this have for returns?Vishy Tirupattur:, The competition, I think, will persist in [the ]next year. We have seen strong demand from hold to maturity investors, such as insurance companies and pension funds; and this demand, we think, will continue to sustain, so the appetite for private credit from these investors would be there.On the supply side, the deal volume has been light over the last couple of years. Next year, acquisition LBO activity, likely to pick up more materially given the solid macro backdrop, lower rates that we expect, and sponsor pressure to return capital to investors. So, in 2025, we could see greater specialization in terms of deal financing. Instead of competing directly for deals, public and private credit markets can find their own niches. For example, public credit might dominate larger deals, while private credit could further strengthen its competitive advantage within smaller size deals or with companies that value its unique advantages, such as the flexible terms and speed of execution.Regarding returns, while spread premium in private credit has indeed come down, a pickup in deal activity could to some extent be a release valve. But sustained competition may keep the spreads tight. Overall, private credit should continue to offer attractive returns, although with tighter margins compared to historical levels.Joyce, it was great speaking with you on today's podcast.Joyce Jiang: Thank you, Vishy, for having me.Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you all for listening. If you enjoy today's podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TLx5TVkPiTcrBz-l-OK50ZUPVSNlgFQcLl7Cb-B2mO8Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:08:09 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and Leveraged Finance Strategist Joyce Jiang discuss how the dynamic between private and public credit markets will evolve in 2025, and how each can find their own niches for success. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today we'll be talking about how private credit has evolved over 2024 and the outlook for 2025. I'm joined by my colleague, Joyce Jiang, from our Leveraged Finance Strategy team.It's Tuesday, December 3rd at 10am in New York.A lot has happened over 2024 in private credit. We are credit people. Let's talk about defaults and returns. How has 2024 been thus far for private credit in terms of defaults and returns?Joyce Jiang: It's always tricky to talk about defaults in private credit because the reported measures tend to vary a lot depending on how defaults are defined and calculated. Using S&P's credit estimate defaults as a proxy for the overall private credit defaults, we see that defaults appear to have peaked, and the peak level was significantly lower than during the COVID cycle.Since then, defaults have declined and converged to levels seen in public loans. In this cycle, the elevated policy rates have clearly weighed on the credit fundamentals, but direct lenders and sponsors have worked proactively to help companies extending maturities and converting debt into PIK loans. Also, the high level of dry powder enabled both private credit and PE funds to provide liquidity support, keeping default rates relatively contained.From a returns perspective for credit investors, the appeal of private credit comes from the potential for higher and more stable returns, and also its role as a portfolio diversifier. Data from Lincoln International shows that over the past seven years, direct lending loans have outperformed single B public loans in total return terms by approximately 2.3 percentage point annually, largely driven by the better carry profile. And this year, although the spread premium has narrowed, private credit continues to generate higher returns.So, Vishy, credit spreads are close to historical tights. And the market conditions have clearly improved compared to last year. With that, the competition between the public and private credit has intensified. How do you see this dynamic playing out between these two markets?Vishy Tirupattur: The competition between public and private credit has indeed intensified, especially as the broadly syndicated market reopened with some vigor this year.While the public market has regained some share it lost to private credit, I think it is important to note that the activity has been, especially the financing activity, has been really more two-way. Improved market conditions have lured some of the borrowers back to the public markets from private credit markets due to cheaper funding costs.At the same time, borrowers with lower rating or complex capital structure seem to continue to favor private credit markets. So, there is really a lot of give and take between the two markets. Also, traditionally, private credit markets have played a major role in financing LBOs or leveraged buyouts. Its importance has really grown during the last Fed's hiking cycle when elevated policy rates and bouts of market turmoil weaken banks’ risk appetite and tighten the public-funding access to many leveraged borrowers.Then, as the Fed's policy tightening ended, and uncertainty about the future direction of policy rates began to fade, deal activity rebounded in both markets, and more materially in public markets. This really led to a decline in the share of LBOs financed by private credit. Of course, the two markets tend to cater for deals of different sizes. Private credit is playing a bigger role in smaller size deals and a broadly syndicated loan market is relatively much more active in larger sized LBOs. So,...]]>413alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1269fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-2025-be-a-turning-point-for-credit--75650977----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the Outlook for global Credit Markets in 2025.It’s Monday, Dec 2nd at 2 pm in London.Morgan Stanley Strategists and Economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead. For Credit, 2025 looks like a year of saying goodbye.2024 has been an exceptionally good environment for credit. As you’ve probably grown tired of hearing, credit is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. And 2024 has been full of moderation. Moderate growth, moderating inflation and gradual rate cuts have defined the economic backdrop. Corporates have also been moderate, with stable balance sheets and still-low levels of corporates buying each other despite the strong stock market.The result has been an almost continuous narrowing of the extra premium that companies have to pay relative to governments, to some of the lowest, i.e. best spread levels in over 20 years.We think that changes. The U.S. election and resulting Republican sweep have now ushered in a much wider range of policy outcomes – from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. These policies are in turn driving a much wider range of economic outcomes than we had previously, to scenarios that include everything from much greater corporate optimism and animal spirits, to much weaker growth and higher inflation, under certain scenarios of tariffs and immigration.Now, for some asset classes, this wider range of outcomes may simply be a wash, balancing out in the aggregate. But not for credit. This asset class doesn’t stand to return more if corporate activity booms; but it stands to still lose if growth slows more than expected. And given the challenges that tariffs could pose to both Europe and Asia, we think these dynamics are global. We see spreads modestly wider next year, across global regions.But if 2025 is about saying goodbye to the credit-friendly moderation of 2024, we’d stress this is a long goodbye. A key element of our economic forecasts is that even if major changes are coming to tariffs or taxes or immigration policy, that won’t arrive immediately. Today’s strong, credit-friendly economy should persist – well into next year. Indeed, for most of the first half of 2025, Morgan Stanley’s forecasts look much like today: moderate growth, falling inflation, and falling central bank rates.In short, when thinking about the year ahead, 2025 may be a turning point for credit – but one that doesn’t arrive immediately. Our best estimate is that we continue to see quite strong and supportive conditions well into the first half of the year, while the second half becomes much more challenging. We think leveraged loans offer the strongest risk-adjusted returns in Corporate Credit, while Agency Mortgages offer an attractive alternative to corporates for those looking for high quality spread.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iH4ZW35wR89jjLzYDZP1i5Z0kjvDVAkw67x6_4YROoUMon, 02 Dec 2024 21:56:33 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets recaps an exceptional year for credit — but explains why 2025 could be a more challenging year for the asset class. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the Outlook for global Credit Markets in 2025.It’s Monday, Dec 2nd at 2 pm in London.Morgan Stanley Strategists and Economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead. For Credit, 2025 looks like a year of saying goodbye.2024 has been an exceptionally good environment for credit. As you’ve probably grown tired of hearing, credit is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. And 2024 has been full of moderation. Moderate growth, moderating inflation and gradual rate cuts have defined the economic backdrop. Corporates have also been moderate, with stable balance sheets and still-low levels of corporates buying each other despite the strong stock market.The result has been an almost continuous narrowing of the extra premium that companies have to pay relative to governments, to some of the lowest, i.e. best spread levels in over 20 years.We think that changes. The U.S. election and resulting Republican sweep have now ushered in a much wider range of policy outcomes – from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. These policies are in turn driving a much wider range of economic outcomes than we had previously, to scenarios that include everything from much greater corporate optimism and animal spirits, to much weaker growth and higher inflation, under certain scenarios of tariffs and immigration.Now, for some asset classes, this wider range of outcomes may simply be a wash, balancing out in the aggregate. But not for credit. This asset class doesn’t stand to return more if corporate activity booms; but it stands to still lose if growth slows more than expected. And given the challenges that tariffs could pose to both Europe and Asia, we think these dynamics are global. We see spreads modestly wider next year, across global regions.But if 2025 is about saying goodbye to the credit-friendly moderation of 2024, we’d stress this is a long goodbye. A key element of our economic forecasts is that even if major changes are coming to tariffs or taxes or immigration policy, that won’t arrive immediately. Today’s strong, credit-friendly economy should persist – well into next year. Indeed, for most of the first half of 2025, Morgan Stanley’s forecasts look much like today: moderate growth, falling inflation, and falling central bank rates.In short, when thinking about the year ahead, 2025 may be a turning point for credit – but one that doesn’t arrive immediately. Our best estimate is that we continue to see quite strong and supportive conditions well into the first half of the year, while the second half becomes much more challenging. We think leveraged loans offer the strongest risk-adjusted returns in Corporate Credit, while Agency Mortgages offer an attractive alternative to corporates for those looking for high quality spread.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>215alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1268fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-the-beginning-of-an-m-a-boom--75651104----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FeXZKK9zNGoIjAWbC9ssswJyo6qCc9VX3LqSXWbYYxgFri, 29 Nov 2024 19:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date November 15, 2024: Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why a stronger economy, moderate inflation and future rate cuts could prompt deal-making. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>240alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1267fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-how-young-people-think-about-money--75651106----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Vp38n9Cst18wNGUrP2Axf7kkVlx2Ehz1ec0RR95Q9dQWed, 27 Nov 2024 19:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date November 1, 2024: Our US Fintech and Payments analyst reviews a recent survey that reveals key trends on how Gen Z and Millennials handle their personal finances. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>251alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1266fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/uncertainty-surrounds-2025-u-s-equities-outlook--75650967----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.So let's get after it.Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of confusion. Some stocks sold off on that. But remember a lot of stocks rallied yesterday on the news of Scott Bessent being announced as Treasury Secretary because he's maybe not going to be as tough on tariffs.So, what I view the next two months as is sort of a trial period where we're going to see a lot of announcements going out. And then the people in the cabinet positions who are appointed along with the President-elect are going to look at how the market reacts. And they're going to want to try to, you know, think about that in the context of how they're going to propose policy when they actually take office.So, a lot of volatility over the next two months as these announcements are kind of floated out there as trial balloons. And then, of course, you also have the enforcement of immigration and the impact there on growth and also labor supply and labor costs. And that could be a net negative in the first half of next year. And so, look, it's going to be about the sequencing. Those are the two easy ones that you can see – tariffs of some form, and of course, immigration enforcement. And those are probably the two biggest potential negatives in the first half of next year.Andrew Pauker: Mike, the title of our Outlook is “Stay Nimble Amid Changing Market Leadership,” and I think that reflects our mentality when it comes to remaining focused on capturing the leadership changes under the surface of the market. We rotated from a defensive posture over the summer to a more pro-cyclical stance in the fall. Talk about our latest views when it comes to positioning across styles, themes, and sectors here.Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, you know, you have to understand that that pivot was not about the election as much as it was about kind of the economy, moving from the risk of a hard landing, which people were worried about this summer to, soft landing again. And then of course we got the Fed to, you know, aggressively begin a new rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points, which was a bit of a surprise given, you know, the context of a still decent labor markets.That was the main reason for kind of the cyclical pivot, and then, of course, the election outcome sort of turbocharges some of that. So that's why we're sticking with it for now.So, to be more specific, what we basically did was we went to quality cyclical rotation. What does that mean? It means, you know, we prefer things like financials, maybe industrials, kind of a close second from a sector standpoint. But this quality feature we think is important for people to consider because interest rates are still pretty high. You know, balance sheets are still a little stretched and, you know, price levels are still high.So that means that lower quality businesses -- and the stocks of those lower quality businesses -- are probably a higher risk than we want to assume right now. But going into year end first and in 2025, we're going to stick with what we've sort of been recommending. On the defensive side. We didn't abandon all of them – because of , you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. So, we kept Utilities as an overweight because it has some offensive properties as well – most notably lever to kind of this, power deficiency within the United States. And that, of course with deregulation, a new twist on that could be things like natural gas, deployment of, you know, natural gas resources, which would help pipelines, LNG facilities potentially, and also, new ways to drive electricity production.So, with that, Andrew, why don't you maybe dig in a little bit deeper on our financials column, and why it's not just, you know, about the election and kind of a rotation, but there's actually fundamental drivers here.Andrew Pauker: Yeah, so Financials remains our top sector pick, following our upgrade in early October. And the drivers of that view are – a rebounding capital markets backdrop, strong earnings revisions, and the potential for an acceleration in buybacks into next year. And then post the election, expectation for deregulation can also continue to drive performance for the sector in addition to those fundamental catalysts. And then finally, even with the outperformance that we've seen for the group, over the last month and a half or so, relative valuation remains on demand – and kind of the 50th percentile of historical levels.So, Mike, I want to wrap up by spending a minute on investor feedback to our outlook. Which aspects of our view have you gotten the most questions on? Where do investors agree and where do they disagree?Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of been ongoing because, as we noted, we really pivoted, more constructively on kind of a pro-cyclical basis a while ago. And the pushback then is the same as it is now, which is that equities are expensive. And I mean, quite frankly, the reason we pivoted to some of these more cyclical areas is because they're not as expensive. But that doesn't take away from the fact that stocks are pricey. And so, people just want to understand this analysis that, you know, we did this time around, which kind of just shows why multiples can stay higher.They do appreciate that, you know, things can change. So, you know, we need to be, you know, cognizant of that. I would say, there's also debate around small caps. You know, we're neutral on small caps; we upgraded that about the same time after having been underweight for several years.I think, you know, people really want to get behind that. It's been a; it's been a trade that people have gotten wrong, repeatedly over the last couple years trying to buy small caps. This time it seems like there may be some more behind it. We agree. That's why we went to neutral. And I think, you know, there are people who want to figure out, well, why? Why don't we go overweight now? And what we're really waiting for is for rates to come down a bit more. It's still sort of a late cycle environment. So, you know, typically you want to wait until you kind]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3k6uI7A25pionBX4zA9bEqhIwEP-xj9UjRrnpiq6mLMTue, 26 Nov 2024 22:18:09 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson joins Andrew Pauker of the U.S. Equity Strategy team to break down the key issues for equity markets ahead of 2025, including the impact of potential deregulation and tariffs. -----...----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.So let's get after it.Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of...]]>666alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1265fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-holiday-shoppers-spend-more-on-smaller-items--75651035----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, US Thematic and Equity Strategist. The holiday season is just around the corner, and today I'll be discussing what US consumers are planning for this year's holiday shopping.It's Monday, November 25th at 10am in New York.It's that time of year when New York City goes from skyscrapers to sky high trees. So, cue the holiday music, holiday shopping season is here. My colleagues Jim Egan, Arunima Sinha, and Heather Berger recently came on this show to discuss the current state of the US Consumer. Today, I want to expand a little bit on their analysis by looking specifically at how holiday shopping could fare this year.Overall, consumer spending trends have been robust year to date, which does bode well for holiday spending. We recently ran a proprietary survey of around 2000 US Consumers that showed a more positive outlook for holiday shopping this year versus in 2023 and 2022. Not surprisingly, though, higher income households – who've really been the key drivers of aggregate consumer spending – are likely to drive the spending this holiday season as well.Overall, we expect to see increased holiday budgets this year. Our survey found that 37 percent of US consumers are planning to keep their holiday budgets roughly the same as last year. Around 35 percent are expecting to spend more and 22 percent are expecting to spend less. So, this yields a net gain of around +13 percent. It's not off to the races, though, and consumers will continue to be selective on where they're planning to allocate their dollars.Discounts and promotions are going to have an impact on shoppers. And in fact, if retailers don't offer discounts, 44 percent of shoppers say they may pull back or trade down somewhat, and another quarter of purchasers say they'll scale back substantially. Only about a quarter of people would go ahead with all the planned purchases if there were no discounts or promotions.We also asked questions in our survey looking at the categories shoppers are planning to make purchases in. We looked at the net difference between the percent of consumers expecting to spend more and the percent expecting to spend less. And the lowest net spending intentions are reported for big ticket categories like sports equipment, home and kitchen, and electronics. And then the results were more positive for apparel and toys, which are cheaper items.Let's dive in now to some of the specifics around consumer facing industries. Within airlines, we're expecting a strong holiday season for air travel based on encouraging TSA data. This lines up with continued strong demand for travel and live experiences.Within durable goods, which are the kind of things you might find at a big box store or a furniture store, spending has slowed this year, but the backdrop is normalizing, which could create a more favorable setup this holiday season. E-commerce, though, on the other hand, has been pressured recently, and the weakness has impacted discretionary goods, while outsized growth has come from non-discretionary categories like groceries and everyday essentials.The shorter holiday shopping season may also have an impact on e-commerce. This year, there are only 27 days between Black Friday and Christmas, which is the shortest that range could possibly be. So, this could affect e-commerce players with longer average delivery times. We're cautious on consumer electronic sales this holiday season. Consumer hardware spending intentions remain negative as we near the holiday season. And then finally for toys, leisure products, and services, we're cautiously optimistic that the holiday season could prove better than feared.So, all in all, the holidays are looking reasonably bright for many businesses, especially those with more exposure to the high-end consumer; but like consumers, we think that the results will vary by industry and by company.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and Share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/x9kC3CP5DngVx7UYxn7Um9N3USbtOLgQvyXvCWV6wuQMon, 25 Nov 2024 21:45:51 +0000gtyAs Black Friday approaches, our US Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver explains why some US consumers will increase their spending and which industries could benefit. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, US Thematic and Equity Strategist. The holiday season is just around the corner, and today I'll be discussing what US consumers are planning for this year's holiday shopping.It's Monday, November 25th at 10am in New York.It's that time of year when New York City goes from skyscrapers to sky high trees. So, cue the holiday music, holiday shopping season is here. My colleagues Jim Egan, Arunima Sinha, and Heather Berger recently came on this show to discuss the current state of the US Consumer. Today, I want to expand a little bit on their analysis by looking specifically at how holiday shopping could fare this year.Overall, consumer spending trends have been robust year to date, which does bode well for holiday spending. We recently ran a proprietary survey of around 2000 US Consumers that showed a more positive outlook for holiday shopping this year versus in 2023 and 2022. Not surprisingly, though, higher income households – who've really been the key drivers of aggregate consumer spending – are likely to drive the spending this holiday season as well.Overall, we expect to see increased holiday budgets this year. Our survey found that 37 percent of US consumers are planning to keep their holiday budgets roughly the same as last year. Around 35 percent are expecting to spend more and 22 percent are expecting to spend less. So, this yields a net gain of around +13 percent. It's not off to the races, though, and consumers will continue to be selective on where they're planning to allocate their dollars.Discounts and promotions are going to have an impact on shoppers. And in fact, if retailers don't offer discounts, 44 percent of shoppers say they may pull back or trade down somewhat, and another quarter of purchasers say they'll scale back substantially. Only about a quarter of people would go ahead with all the planned purchases if there were no discounts or promotions.We also asked questions in our survey looking at the categories shoppers are planning to make purchases in. We looked at the net difference between the percent of consumers expecting to spend more and the percent expecting to spend less. And the lowest net spending intentions are reported for big ticket categories like sports equipment, home and kitchen, and electronics. And then the results were more positive for apparel and toys, which are cheaper items.Let's dive in now to some of the specifics around consumer facing industries. Within airlines, we're expecting a strong holiday season for air travel based on encouraging TSA data. This lines up with continued strong demand for travel and live experiences.Within durable goods, which are the kind of things you might find at a big box store or a furniture store, spending has slowed this year, but the backdrop is normalizing, which could create a more favorable setup this holiday season. E-commerce, though, on the other hand, has been pressured recently, and the weakness has impacted discretionary goods, while outsized growth has come from non-discretionary categories like groceries and everyday essentials.The shorter holiday shopping season may also have an impact on e-commerce. This year, there are only 27 days between Black Friday and Christmas, which is the shortest that range could possibly be. So, this could affect e-commerce players with longer average delivery times. We're cautious on consumer electronic sales this holiday season. Consumer hardware spending intentions remain negative as we near the holiday season. And then finally for toys, leisure products, and services, we're cautiously optimistic that the holiday season could prove better than feared.So, all in all, the holidays are looking reasonably bright for many...]]>248alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1264fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-us-tariffs-drive-mexico-closer-to-china--75651119----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago, it was more about sending products down, paint them blue, put a lid on it. Now there's much more value add.The link, however, is still alive. It's a play on enhancing US competitiveness. You can kind of, as you did, call it a China buffer; a fender that helps protect US competitiveness. But by the end of the day, I think integration and alignment is going to be the key here.Ariana Salvatore: But of course, it's not just the direct trade relationship between the US and Mexico. We need to also consider the global geopolitical landscape, and specifically this question of the role of China. What's Mexico's current trade policy like with China?Nikolaj Lippmann: Another great question, Ariana, and I think this is the key. There is growing evidence that China is trying to use Mexico as a China bridge.And I think this is an area where we will see the biggest adjustments or need for realignment. This is a debate we've been following. We saw, with interest, that Mexico introduced first a 25 per cent tariff and then a 35 per cent tariff on Chinese imports. And saw this as the initial signs of growing alignment between the two countries.However, Mexican import from China never really dropped. So, we started looking at like the complicated math saying 35 per cent times $115 billion of import. You know, best case scenario, Mexico should be collecting $40 billion from tariffs; that's huge and almost unrealistic number for Mexico. Even half of that would go a long way to solve fiscal challenges in that country.However, when we started looking at the actual tax collection from Chinese imports, it was closer to $3 billion, as we highlighted in a note with our Mexico economist just recently. There's just multiple discounts and exemptions to effective tariffs at neither 25 per cent nor 35 per cent, but actually closer to 2.5 [or] 3 per cent. I think there's a problem with Chinese content in Mexican exports, and I think it's likely to be an area that policymakers will examine more closely. Why not drive-up US or North American content?Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like what you're saying is that there is a political, or rhetorical at least, alignment between the US and Mexico when it comes to China. But the reality is that the policy implementation is not yet there.We know that there's currently nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from importing goods from China. But a lot has changed over the past four years, even since the pandemic. So, looking forward, do you expect Mexico's policy vis-a-vis China to change after Trump takes office?Nikolaj Lippmann: I think, I certainly think so, and I think this is again; this is going to be the key. As you mentioned, there's nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from buying the stuff from China. And it's not a customs union. Mexican consumers, much like American consumers, like to buy cheap stuff.However, the geopolitics that you refer to is important. And when I reflect, frankly, on the bilateral relationship between the two countries, I think Mexican policymakers need to perhaps pause and think a little bit about things like the spirit of the treaty and not just the letter of the treaty; and also about how to maintain public opinion support in the United States.By the end of the day, when we see what has happened with regards to China after the pandemic, it has been a significant change in political consensus and public opinion. When I think Americans are not necessarily interested in just using Mexico as a China bridge for Chinese products.During the first Trump administration, the NAFTA agreement was renegotiated as the US Mexico Canada agreement, the USMCA, that took effect or took force in mid 2020. This agreement will come under review in 2026.Ariana, what are the expectations for the future of this agreement under the Trump administration?Ariana Salvatore: So, I think this USMCA review that's coming up in 2026 is going to be a really critical litmus test of the US-Mexico relationship, and we're going to learn a lot about this China bridge or buffer question that you mentioned. Just for some very brief context, that agreement as you mentioned was signed in 2020, but it includes a clause that lets all parties evaluate the agreement six years into a 16-year time horizon.So, at that point, they can decide to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Or to conduct a joint review on an annual basis until that original 16 years lapses. So, although the agreement will stay in force until at least 2036, the review period, which is around June of [20]26, provides an opportunity for the signing parties to provide recommendations or propose changes to the agreement short of a full-scale renegotiation.We do see some overlapping objectives between the two parties. For example, things like updating the foundation for digital trade and AI, ensuring the endurance of labor protections, and addressing Mexico's energy sector. But Trump's approach likely will involve confronting the auto EV disputes and could possibly introduce an element of immigration policy within the revision. We also definitely expect this theme of Chinese investment in Mexico to feature heavily in the USMCA review discussions.Finally, Nik, keeping in mind everything that we've discussed today, with global supply chains getting rewired post the pandemic, Mexico has been a beneficiary of the nearshoring trend. Do you think this is going to change as we look ahead?Nikolaj Lippmann: So, look, we [are] still underweight Mexico, but I think risk ultimately biased with the upside over time with regards to trade.We need evidence to be able to lay it out, these scenarios; Mexico could end up doing quite well with Trump. But much work needs to be done south of the border with regards to all the areas that we just mentioned there, Ariana.When we reflect on this over the next couple of years, there's a couple of things that really stand out. Number one is that first wave of reshoring or nearshoring, which was really focused on brownfield. It was bringing our manufacturing ecosystems where we already had existing infrastructure.What is potentially next, and what we're going to be watching in terms of sort of policy maker incentives and so on, will be some of the greenfield manufacturing ecosystems. That could involve things like IT hardware, maybe EV batteries, and a couple of other really important sectors.Ariana Salvatore: And that's something we might get some insight into when we hear personnel appointments from President-elect Trump over the coming months. Nik, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Nikolaj Lippmann: Thank you very much, Arianna.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Th]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2sUvNjouCGQhk5SrxVPrgqf09pNWMTnwgHPF7JD6EGIFri, 22 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur US Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore and Chief Latin America Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discuss what Trump’s victory could mean for new trade relationships. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago, it was more about sending products down, paint them blue, put a lid on it. Now there's much more value add.The link, however, is still alive. It's a play on enhancing US competitiveness. You can kind of, as you did, call it a China buffer; a fender that helps protect US competitiveness. But by the end of the day, I think integration and alignment is going to be the key here.Ariana Salvatore: But of course, it's not just the direct trade relationship between the US and Mexico. We need to also consider the global geopolitical landscape, and specifically this question of the role of China. What's Mexico's current trade policy like with China?Nikolaj Lippmann: Another great question, Ariana, and I think this is the key....]]>560alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1263fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-this-the-future-of-clean-energy-under-trump-2-0--75651139----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and Head of Research Product for the Americas.Laura Sanchez: And I'm Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research for the Americas.Stephen Byrd: Today, Laura and I will talk about the potential impact of the next Trump administration on the US energy transition, and on the US ESG Investing landscape.It's Thursday, November 21st at 8 am in New York.Now that Donald Trump has been re-elected, all eyes are on potential changes to the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA. So Laura, what are your expectations and on what kind of timeframe?Laura Sanchez: There has been a lot of dialogue internally between our clean tech and public policy teams exactly on this question, Stephen. Basically, we continue to believe that a full repeal of the IRA is unlikely because a significant amount of investment has gone to Republican states that has in turn driven a good amount of good paying jobs. On the back of this, we have seen a large number of Republican legislators, as well as large oil and gas companies, write letters to high members of Congress supporting portions of the IRA.Now, unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it won't be noisy. We do think that a partial repeal is likely, potentially a rebranding, and/or a clear phase out of the tax credits, by, let's say, the end of the decade.It will take some time to get clarity around what's in and what's out to the second part of your question. We believe clarity on final changes is likely by the end of 2025 at the earliest, which is when the TCJA, or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, is set to expire. And so, a lot of tax related conversations and concessions will happen then.Lastly, a point that I want to make here is that many technologies received support in the IRA, and even though the next 12 months will be volatile or noisy, as I said before, we do think that some of them are relatively safe. And those include the domestic manufacturing tax credit, the production tax credit for nuclear power, and the tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration technology, as well as for clean hydrogen.Stephen Byrd: That's really interesting, Laura. So, it really is a bit more nuanced than we often hear from many investors with portion of the IRA that are clearly at risk, others much less so at risk. That's really helpful. And Laura, a related topic that comes up a lot is concern around tariffs. So, do you see any risk to clean technologies from elevated trade tensions?Laura Sanchez: Yes, I see multi multilayered risks. The first, which is I think well understood by investors, is the potential risk for higher tariffs on goods imported from China. We know that the supply chain for energy storage specifically, and particularly lithium-ion storage batteries, is highly linked to China. And even though solar equipment also tends to come up in conversations with investors, the supply chain there has somewhat decoupled from China.However, a significant amount of supply is still sourced from China domiciled entities that operate in low-cost countries, such as those in Southeast Asia. But another risk, and I think this one is less understood or discussed by investors, is the potential inflationary pressure that could result from number one, higher tariffs on imported materials that are needed in the manufacturing of clean energy technologies. And number two, the potential risk of China responding to US imposed tariffs with additional export bans on minerals or materials that are key for the energy transition.We have analyzed a long list and believe that those at the highest risk of disruption include rare earths, graphite, gallium, and cobalt, which are all used in electric vehicles, but also in other clean tech equipment such as wind and solar systems, stationary battery storage, and electrolysers.Now, Stephen. Along with tariff escalation, President-elect Trump may look to roll back important EPA regulations that were put in place by the current administration to put the country on track to meet Paris aligned goals. What are the most important regulations investors should watch in your view?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Laura, I think there are going to be several EPA regulations that are going to be targeted for rollbacks. Let me just start first on the truck side of things, the Clean Trucks Plan that's commonly known as the EPA Tailpipe Emissions Rule – could be rolled back. We could also see the greenhouse gas standards and guidelines for fossil fuel fired power plants get rolled back. And lastly, we could see waste emissions charged for petroleum and natural gas systems get rolled back.So, I think the overall message is actually; that the stock implications of this are actually relatively modest in most cases. What this does, in my view, is it sends a signal in terms of greater support from the Trump administration for fossil fuel. Usage in a number of areas, transport, infrastructure, et cetera I think we'll see that in power. And this does line up with some of the work we've done around the growth in data centers that we think will be powered by natural gas fire generation. So, this is consistent with that, and we do expect to see multiple layers of rollback at EPA.Laura Sanchez: And outside of changes to the stick – which are the EPA regulations that you mentioned – and changes to the carrot – which is the IRA – what are other factors or risks that investors with a mandate on sustainability should consider during a second Trump presidency?Stephen Byrd: Yes, for investors that do focus on sustainability, a few things that are on our mind. We could see additional states restrict the ability of state pension funds to consider ESG factors in their investment decision making process. We also, I think will see a lack of federal regulation that will require corporates to disclose certain ESG information. I think that's quite clear. And then also there could be additional legal and regulatory challenges around corporates and asset managers using sustainability as part of their decision-making process, as part of their fiduciary duties. So those are all the things that are on our mind.Laura Sanchez: I think it's worth noting that some states, California particularly, are moving forward with their state level decarbonization goals and greenhouse gas emissions rules. But there is one dynamic to consider or track and that is the EPA granting the state of California a waiver that is needed for the state to move forward with heavy duty low NOx rules. So, linking this back to the EPA rules commentary, Stephen, I think that one, the EPA 2027 low NOx rules is one to keep an eye on because it links to the California waiver and the California rules; and is something that could potentially impact some of those stocks.Stephen Byrd: Well, that's a good point, Laura, and I think that highlights this potential distinction between actions at the state level versus at the federal level, but sometimes those do intersect, such as, with the California heavy duty low NOx rules. So that’s helpful.Well, Laura, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Laura Sanchez: Great speaking with you, Stephen.Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gZOtCeYCpwtZdSXcVD6gpkgAPOQwNlK6sNaQlIFxsJUThu, 21 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Sustainability analysts Stephen Byrd and Laura Sanchez discuss the range of impacts that the Republican sweep may have on energy policy and the ESG space. ----- Transcript ----- Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd,...----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and Head of Research Product for the Americas.Laura Sanchez: And I'm Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research for the Americas.Stephen Byrd: Today, Laura and I will talk about the potential impact of the next Trump administration on the US energy transition, and on the US ESG Investing landscape.It's Thursday, November 21st at 8 am in New York.Now that Donald Trump has been re-elected, all eyes are on potential changes to the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA. So Laura, what are your expectations and on what kind of timeframe?Laura Sanchez: There has been a lot of dialogue internally between our clean tech and public policy teams exactly on this question, Stephen. Basically, we continue to believe that a full repeal of the IRA is unlikely because a significant amount of investment has gone to Republican states that has in turn driven a good amount of good paying jobs. On the back of this, we have seen a large number of Republican legislators, as well as large oil and gas companies, write letters to high members of Congress supporting portions of the IRA.Now, unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it won't be noisy. We do think that a partial repeal is likely, potentially a rebranding, and/or a clear phase out of the tax credits, by, let's say, the end of the decade.It will take some time to get clarity around what's in and what's out to the second part of your question. We believe clarity on final changes is likely by the end of 2025 at the earliest, which is when the TCJA, or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, is set to expire. And so, a lot of tax related conversations and concessions will happen then.Lastly, a point that I want to make here is that many technologies received support in the IRA, and even though the next 12 months will be volatile or noisy, as I said before, we do think that some of them are relatively safe. And those include the domestic manufacturing tax credit, the production tax credit for nuclear power, and the tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration technology, as well as for clean hydrogen.Stephen Byrd: That's really interesting, Laura. So, it really is a bit more nuanced than we often hear from many investors with portion of the IRA that are clearly at risk, others much less so at risk. That's really helpful. And Laura, a related topic that comes up a lot is concern around tariffs. So, do you see any risk to clean technologies from elevated trade tensions?Laura Sanchez: Yes, I see multi multilayered risks. The first, which is I think well understood by investors, is the potential risk for higher tariffs on goods imported from China. We know that the supply chain for energy storage specifically, and particularly lithium-ion storage batteries, is highly linked to China. And even though solar equipment also tends to come up in conversations with investors, the supply chain there has somewhat decoupled from China.However, a significant amount of supply is still sourced from China domiciled entities that operate in low-cost countries, such as those in Southeast Asia. But another risk, and I think this one is less understood or discussed by investors, is the potential inflationary pressure that could result from number one, higher tariffs on imported materials that are needed in the manufacturing of clean energy technologies. And number two, the potential risk of China responding to US imposed tariffs with additional export bans on minerals or materials that are key for the energy transition.We have analyzed a long list and believe that those at the highest risk of disruption include rare earths, graphite, gallium, and cobalt, which are all used in electric vehicles, but also in other...]]>454alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1262fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-clean-power-at-a-tipping-point-in-asia--75651077----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s South Asia Energy Analyst. There’s been an investment surge in renewable energy – to field the world’s rising demands for energy and power. With a new White House administration, however, there are questions about its future. Today I want to dig into the profound shifts impacting the production and consumption of power in Asia.It’s Wednesday, November 20, at 9pm in Singapore. The world consumed 25 trillion units of power last year and Asia accounted for about half of that. Asia demand is booming like the rest of the world, and power consumption is at a tipping point. We forecast global power consumption will grow 26 per cent faster through 2030 than in the last decade. Somewhat similar to the US, we are actually seeing tightness in Asian power markets in coming years as well. But even today countries like India, Singapore, and increasingly Malaysia are seeing power demand grow at 1.5 to 2x faster than pre-COVID levels. So, what’s driving this rapid growth? Outside of the residential power demand, growth is driven by GenAI datacenters, re-shoring of manufacturing facilities, there are new semi-conductor investments that are coming through, and expanding new energy supply chains itself are actually adding to the tightness. Importantly though, regional differences in clean power costs and demand are stark. In Asia, power prices have steadily risen. Multiple regulators are acknowledging the tightness by extending the life of coal plants, building new gas and coal facilities, and even restarting nuclear power generation capacity – as clean power alone cannot by itself handle this surge in demand. Interestingly though, the cost to produce clean power has declined pretty rapidly in 2024 to below-trend levels after a period of significant inflation we saw post-COVID. On average, solar panel prices in Asia declined 50 per cent, and the cost of onshore wind declined 10 per cent – with energy storage costs deflating by a third to levels not seen in the past five years. However, this cost deflation has been a lot more uneven across regions, with the US and Europe seeing much smaller declines due to tariffs and other supply bottlenecks. Asia is hence seeing significant inflection in the economics for power generation companies, especially in South Asia, which had lagged China capacity adds over the last several years. Part of the deflation in the clean power supply chain comes from even the capacity overbuilds that we are seeing in geographies that are looking to build their own clean power supply chains. Regions such as India and Southeast Asia, where clean power demand is growing very quickly, are adding to the glut in capacity on clean power supply chains that we have already seen in China.Amid all the clean power developments in Asia, COP29 announced a[n] updated climate goal. The UN climate conference being held in Azerbaijan this year aims for a 59 per cent to 67 per cent reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. That’s the clean energy update from Asia for now. Listen in tomorrow, as my colleagues engage in a conversation about the impact of the US election results on the sector.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1Dq0HvkTI6o22UZD82haU3PM12h4t9QuoCN1xrho1JEWed, 20 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur South Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses the main drivers behind a shifting electric power landscape in his outlook for Asia energy. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s South Asia Energy Analyst. There’s been an investment surge in renewable energy – to field the world’s rising demands for energy and power. With a new White House administration, however, there are questions about its future. Today I want to dig into the profound shifts impacting the production and consumption of power in Asia.It’s Wednesday, November 20, at 9pm in Singapore. The world consumed 25 trillion units of power last year and Asia accounted for about half of that. Asia demand is booming like the rest of the world, and power consumption is at a tipping point. We forecast global power consumption will grow 26 per cent faster through 2030 than in the last decade. Somewhat similar to the US, we are actually seeing tightness in Asian power markets in coming years as well. But even today countries like India, Singapore, and increasingly Malaysia are seeing power demand grow at 1.5 to 2x faster than pre-COVID levels. So, what’s driving this rapid growth? Outside of the residential power demand, growth is driven by GenAI datacenters, re-shoring of manufacturing facilities, there are new semi-conductor investments that are coming through, and expanding new energy supply chains itself are actually adding to the tightness. Importantly though, regional differences in clean power costs and demand are stark. In Asia, power prices have steadily risen. Multiple regulators are acknowledging the tightness by extending the life of coal plants, building new gas and coal facilities, and even restarting nuclear power generation capacity – as clean power alone cannot by itself handle this surge in demand. Interestingly though, the cost to produce clean power has declined pretty rapidly in 2024 to below-trend levels after a period of significant inflation we saw post-COVID. On average, solar panel prices in Asia declined 50 per cent, and the cost of onshore wind declined 10 per cent – with energy storage costs deflating by a third to levels not seen in the past five years. However, this cost deflation has been a lot more uneven across regions, with the US and Europe seeing much smaller declines due to tariffs and other supply bottlenecks. Asia is hence seeing significant inflection in the economics for power generation companies, especially in South Asia, which had lagged China capacity adds over the last several years. Part of the deflation in the clean power supply chain comes from even the capacity overbuilds that we are seeing in geographies that are looking to build their own clean power supply chains. Regions such as India and Southeast Asia, where clean power demand is growing very quickly, are adding to the glut in capacity on clean power supply chains that we have already seen in China.Amid all the clean power developments in Asia, COP29 announced a[n] updated climate goal. The UN climate conference being held in Azerbaijan this year aims for a 59 per cent to 67 per cent reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. That’s the clean energy update from Asia for now. Listen in tomorrow, as my colleagues engage in a conversation about the impact of the US election results on the sector.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.]]>214alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1261fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-outlook-housing-currency-markets-in-focus--75650781----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around 1.45 per cent by the middle of next year; and ending the year at 1.15 per cent.Vishy Tirupattur: That's very helpful, Matt. James, clearly the incoming administration has policy choices, and their sequencing and severity will have major implications for the strength of the dollar that has rallied substantially in the last few months. Against this backdrop, how do you assess 2025 to be? What differences do you expect to see between DM and EM currency markets?James Lord: The incoming administration's proposed policies could have far-reaching impacts on currency markets, some of which are already being reflected in the price of the dollar today. We had argued ahead of the election that a Republican sweep was probably the most bullish dollar outcome, and we are now seeing that being reflected.We do think the dollar rally continues for a little bit longer as markets price in a higher likelihood of tariffs being implemented against trading partners and there being a risk of additional deficit expansion in 2025. However, we don't really see that dollar strength persisting for long throughout 2025.So, I think that is – compared to the current debate, compared to the current market pricing – a negative dollar catalyst that should get priced into markets.And to your question, Vishy, that there will be differences with EM and also within EM as well. Probably the most notable one is the renminbi. We have the renminbi as the weakest currency within all of our forecasts for 2025, really reflecting the impact of tariffs.We expect tariffs against China to be more consequential than against other countries, thus requiring a bigger adjustment on the FX side. We see dollar China, or dollar renminbi ending next year at 7.6. So that represents a very sharp divergence versus dollar yen and the broader DXY moves – and is a consequence of tariffs.And that does imply that the Fed's broad dollar index only has a pretty modest decline next year, despite the bigger move in the DXY. The rest of Asia will likely follow dollar China more closely than dollar yen, in our view, causing AXJ currencies to generally underperform; versus CMEA and Latin America, which on the whole do a bit better.Vishy Tirupattur: Jay, in contrast to corporate credit, mortgage spreads are at or about their long-term average levels. How do you expect 2025 to pan out for mortgages? What are the key drivers of your expectations, and which potential policy changes you are most focused on?Jay Bacow: As you point out, mortgage spreads do look wide to corporate spreads, but there are good reasons for that. We all know that the Fed is reducing their holdings of mortgages, and they're the largest holder of mortgages in the world.We don't expect Fed balance sheet reduction of mortgages to change, even if they do NQT, as is our forecast in the first quarter of 2025. When they NQT, we expect mortgage runoff to continue to go into treasuries. What we do expect to change next year is that bank demand function will shift. We are working under the assumption that the Basel III endgame either stalls under the next administration or gets released in a way that is capital neutral. And that's going to free up excess capital for banks and reduce regulatory uncertainty for them in how they deploy the cash in their portfolios.The one thing that we've been waiting for is this clarity around regulations. When that changes, we think that's going to be a positive, but it's not just banks returning to the market.We think that there's going to be tailwinds from overseas investors that are going to be hedging out their FX risks as the Fed cuts rates, and the Bank of Japan hikes, so we expect more demand from Japanese life insurance companies.A steeper yield curve is going to be good for REIT demand. And these buyers, banks, overseas REITs, they typically buy CUSIPs, and that's going to help not just from a demand side, but it's going to help funding on mortgages improve as well. And all of those things are going to take mortgage spreads tighter, and that's why we are bullish.I also want to mention agency CMBS for a moment. The technical pressure there is even better than in single family mortgages. The supply story is still constrained, but there is no Fed QT in multifamily. And then also the capital that's going to be available for banks from the deregulation will allow them – in combination with the portfolio layer hedging – to add agency CMBS in a way that they haven't really been adding in the last few years. So that could take spreads tighter as well.Now, Vishy, you also mentioned policy changes. We think discussions around GSE reform are likely to become more prevalent under the new administration.And we think that given that improved capitalization, depending on the path of their earnings and any plans to raise capital, we could see an attempt to exit conservatorship during this administration.But we will simply state our view that any plan that results in a meaningful change to the capital treatment – or credit risk – to the investors of conventional mortgages is going to be too destabilizing for the housing finance markets to implement. And so, we don't think that path could go forward.Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. Jim, it was a challenging year for the housing market with historically high levels of unaffordability and continued headwinds of limited supply. How do you see 2025 to be for the US housing market? And going beyond housing, what is your outlook for the opportunity set in securitized credit for 2025?James Egan: For the housing market, the 2025 narrative is going to be one about absolute level versus the direction and rate of change. For instance, Vishy, you mentioned affordability. Mortgage rates have increased significantly since the beginning of September, but it's also true that they're down roughly a hundred basis points from the fourth quarter of 2023 and we're forecasting pretty healthy decreases in the 10-year Treasury throughout 2025. So, we expect affordability to improve over the coming year. Supply? It remains near historic lows, but it's been increasing year to date.So similar to the affordability narrative, it's more challenged than it's been in decades; but it's also less challenged than it was a year ago.So, what does all this mean for the housing market as we look through 2025? Despite the improvements in affordability, sales volumes have been pretty stagnant this year. Total volumes – so existing plus new volumes – are actually down about 3 per cent year to date. And look, that isn't unusual. It typically takes about a year for sales volumes to pick up when you see this kind of significant affordability improvement that we've witnessed over the past year, e]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rIZSQdDZWIS2a39mAIwCcciR_LNFv_TizcIj0Ic9-3ITue, 19 Nov 2024 22:43:54 +0000gtyOn the second part of a two-part roundtable, our panel gives its 2025 preview for the housing and mortgage landscape, the US Treasury yield curve and currency markets. ----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am...----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around 1.45 per cent by the middle of next year; and ending the year at 1.15 per cent.Vishy Tirupattur: That's very helpful, Matt. James, clearly the incoming administration has policy choices, and their sequencing and severity will have major implications for the strength of the dollar that has rallied substantially in the last few months. Against this backdrop, how do you assess 2025 to be? What differences do you expect to see between DM and EM currency markets?James Lord: The incoming administration's proposed policies could have far-reaching impacts on currency markets, some of which are already being reflected in the price of the dollar today. We had argued ahead of the election that a Republican sweep was probably the most...]]>736alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1260fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-outlook-what-s-ahead-for-markets-in-2025--75651235----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we see? Well, the ECB cutting down below their best guess of neutral. They think 2 percent nominal is neutral and they go below that.China is another big curveball here for the forecast because they've been in this debt deflation spiral for a while. We don't think the pivot in fiscal policy is anywhere near sufficient to ward things off. And so, we could actually see a further slowing down of growth in China in 2025 as the policy makers do this reactive kind of policy response. And so, it's going to take a while there, and we think there's a downside risk there.On the upside. I mean, we're still bullish on Japan. We're still very bullish on India and its growth; and across other parts of EM, there's some bright spots. So, it's a real mixed bag. I don't think there's a single trend across the globe that's going to drive the overall growth narrative.Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Seth. Mike, I'd like to go to you next. 2024 has turned out to be a strong year for equity markets globally, particularly for US and Japanese equities. While we did see modest earnings growth, equity returns were mostly about multiple expansion. How do you expect 2025 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities ahead for the equity markets that you see?Mike Wilson: Yeah, this year was interesting because we had what I would say was very modest earnings growth in the US in particular; relative to the performance. It was really all multiple expansion, and that's probably not going to repeat this year. We're looking for better earnings growth given our soft landing outcome from an economic standpoint and rates coming down. But we don't think multiples will expand any further. In fact, we think they'll come down by about 5 percent. But that still gets us a decent return in the base case of sort of high single digits.You know, Japan is the second market we like relative to the rest of the world because of the corporate governance story. So there, too, we're looking for high single digit earnings growth and high single digits or 10 percent return in total. And Europe is when we're sort of down taking a bit because of tariff risk and also pressure from China, where they have a lot of export business.You know, the challenges I think going forward is that growth continues to be below trend in many regions. The second challenge is that, you know, high quality assets are expensive everywhere. It's not just the US. It's sort of everywhere in the world. So, you get what you pay for. You know, the S&P is extremely expensive, but that's because the ROE is higher, and growth is higher.So, you know, in other words, these are not well-kept secrets. And so just valuation is a real challenge. And then, of course, the consensus views are generally fairly narrow around the soft landing and that's very priced as well. So, the risks are that the consensus view doesn't play out. And that's why we have two bull and two bear cases in the US – just like we did in the mid-year outlook; and in fact, what happened is one of our bull cases is what played out in the second half of this year.So, the real opportunity from our standpoint, I think this is a global call as well – which is that we continue to be pretty big rotations around the macro-outlook, which remains uncertain, given the policy changes we're seeing in the US potentially, and also the geopolitical risks that still is out there.And then the other big opportunity has been stock picking. Dispersion is extremely high. Clients are really being rewarded for taking single stock exposures. And I think that continues into next year. So, we're going to do what we did this year is we're going to try to rotate around from a style and size perspective, depending on the macro-outlook. Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Mike. Andrew, we are ending 2024 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, with spreads at or near multi-decade tights for many markets. How do you expect the global credit markets to play out in 2025? What are the best places to be within the credit spectrum and across different regions?Andrew Sheets: I think that's the best way to frame it – to start a little bit about where we are and then talk about where we might be going. I think it's safe to say that this has been an absolutely phenomenal backdrop for corporate credit. Corporate credit likes moderation. And I think you've seen an unusual amount of moderation at both the macro and the micro level.You've seen kind of moderate growth, moderating inflation, moderating policy rates across DM. And then at the micro level, even though markets have been very strong, corporate aggressiveness has not been. M&A has been well below trend. Corporate balance sheets have been pretty stable.So, what I think is notable is you've had an economic backdrop that credit has really liked, as you correctly note. We've pushed spreads near 20-year tights based on that backdrop. But it's a backdrop that credit markets liked, but US voters did not like, and they voted for different policy.And so, when we look ahead – the range of outcomes, I think across both the macro and the micro, is expanding. And I think the policy uncertainty that markets now face is increasing both scenarios to the upside where things are hotter and you see more animal spirits; and risk to the downside, where potentially more aggressive tariffs or action on immigration creates more kind of stagflationary types of risk.So one element that we're facing is we feel like we're leaving behind a really good environment for corporate credit and we're entering something that's more uncertain. But then balancing that is that you're not going to transition immediately.You still have a lot of momentum in the US and European economy. I look at the forecasts from Seth's team, the global economic numbers, or at least kind of the DM economic numbers into the first half of next year – still look fine. We still have the Fed cutting. We still have the ECB cutting. We still have inflation moderating.So, part of our thinking for this year is it could be a little bit of a story of two halves that we titled our section, “On Borrowed Time.” That the credit is still likely to hold in well and perform better in the first half of the year. Yields are still good; the Fed is still cutting; the backdrop hasn't changed that much. And then it's the second half of the year where some of our economic numbers start to show more divergence, where the Fed is no longer cutting rates, where all in yield levels are lower on our interest rate forecasts, which could temper demand. That looks somewhat trickier.In terms of how we think about what we like within credit, we do think the levered loan]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XHmLtPTgXoUSwN2Qfxa35803vyaaXeLBQ1BLmQcLuYwMon, 18 Nov 2024 23:02:11 +0000gtyOn the first part of a two-part roundtable, our panel discusses why the US is likely to see a slowdown and where investors can look for growth. ----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we see? Well, the ECB cutting down below their best guess of neutral. They think 2 percent nominal is neutral and they go below that.China is another big curveball here for the forecast because they've been in this debt deflation spiral for a while. We don't think the pivot in fiscal policy is anywhere near sufficient to ward things off. And so, we could actually see a further slowing down of growth in China in 2025 as the policy makers do this reactive kind of policy response. And so, it's going to take a while there, and we think there's a downside risk there.On the upside. I mean, we're still bullish on Japan. We're still very bullish on India and its growth; and across other parts of EM, there's some bright spots. So, it's...]]>618alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1259fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-beginning-of-an-m-a-boom--75651047----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/n7hzaqKx0H-Ro7fmNYj-1L8Po0N_ppUyl2RJ-Gs7Zj4Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why a stronger economy, moderate inflation and future rate cuts could prompt deal-making. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>241alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1258fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/decoding-signals-following-the-us-election--75651064----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast we’ll be talking about key themes coming out of the US election.It’s Thursday, Nov 14 at 10am in New York.The US election is over, and now the work begins for President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress. They’ll continue to focus in the coming weeks on staffing key roles in the government and fleshing out the policy agenda. When it comes to the economic and markets outlook for 2025, those details will matter a lot – particularly the sequencing and severity of changes to tariffs, immigration, and tax policy. That means for us the next few weeks will be key to learning what next year will look like. But there are still some areas where there’s already some signal for investors to lean on. One is in the financial sector and relates to regulation. A potentially delayed or diluted approach to bank regulation resulting from the policies of the new administration is one reason that our Banks Analyst Betsy Graseck is flagging a more bullish outcome and substantial outperformance potential for the sector. Similarly, our global head of credit research, Andrew Sheets, notes this election outcome should boost M&A activity, where an expected 50 percent pick-up in volumes next year could reach 75 percent or more. Another area is industrials, a sector where companies tend to spend a lot on capital. The Republican sweep substantially increases the chances that key tax benefits reducing the cost of capital expenditures are extended in a timely fashion. And in the U.S. treasury market, there’s signs that the most volatile part of the increase in yields is behind us. While it's true that extending expiring tax cuts means deficits will be higher next year than they otherwise would have been, it's basically just an extension of current policy – so any incremental impact to growth and inflation expectations being priced into this market is still an open question. This should be helpful to fixed income markets finding their footing into year end. But, as we started off with, there’s a lot to be learned in the coming weeks, and we’ll flag here what you need to know and how it may impact the direction of markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xwclQ00v8L_FLDpj1Fgvacl4-HSBqU_EToXYvC3PYp8Thu, 14 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyWhile the market waits for the incoming Trump administration to present its policy agenda, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas maps out some areas of early investor interest, including regulation and the US Treasury...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast we’ll be talking about key themes coming out of the US election.It’s Thursday, Nov 14 at 10am in New York.The US election is over, and now the work begins for President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress. They’ll continue to focus in the coming weeks on staffing key roles in the government and fleshing out the policy agenda. When it comes to the economic and markets outlook for 2025, those details will matter a lot – particularly the sequencing and severity of changes to tariffs, immigration, and tax policy. That means for us the next few weeks will be key to learning what next year will look like. But there are still some areas where there’s already some signal for investors to lean on. One is in the financial sector and relates to regulation. A potentially delayed or diluted approach to bank regulation resulting from the policies of the new administration is one reason that our Banks Analyst Betsy Graseck is flagging a more bullish outcome and substantial outperformance potential for the sector. Similarly, our global head of credit research, Andrew Sheets, notes this election outcome should boost M&A activity, where an expected 50 percent pick-up in volumes next year could reach 75 percent or more. Another area is industrials, a sector where companies tend to spend a lot on capital. The Republican sweep substantially increases the chances that key tax benefits reducing the cost of capital expenditures are extended in a timely fashion. And in the U.S. treasury market, there’s signs that the most volatile part of the increase in yields is behind us. While it's true that extending expiring tax cuts means deficits will be higher next year than they otherwise would have been, it's basically just an extension of current policy – so any incremental impact to growth and inflation expectations being priced into this market is still an open question. This should be helpful to fixed income markets finding their footing into year end. But, as we started off with, there’s a lot to be learned in the coming weeks, and we’ll flag here what you need to know and how it may impact the direction of markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>154alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1257fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-elections-lessons-from-the-uk--75651191----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about the US election and fiscal policy and what lessons we might be able to draw from the fiscal experience in the UK. It's Wednesday, November 13th at 10am in New York.  In a lot of our recent research, the US election has figured prominently, and we highlighted three key policy dimensions that the US administration is going to have to confront. Immigration, tariffs, and, of course, fiscal policy. We're going to keep elections as a theme, but it might be useful to draw some comparisons to the UK to see what lessons we might have for the US. We think the experience in the UK, which recently proposed a new fiscal budget months after an election, is relevant mostly because of the time between taking power and the budget being presented. While markets are in the business of anticipating changes, the process of actually creating policy is a lot more cumbersome and time consuming. In this week, where we've seen lots of expectations already being priced in, it's probably useful to try to think about that process of forming policy in the UK and see what lessons it implies for the US.  Back in May, the UK elected a new government, changing party control after 14 years. A key moment for markets came just over a week ago, though, when the new government's presentation of their budget for the next fiscal year came up. Now, we should remember, the trust government had faced a market test when the announcement of their budget proposals led to a big sell off in interest rates. As a result, markets were keenly attuned this time to the new labor government's budget, particularly because the US fiscal position requires a primary balance to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio. And in particular, when their debt costs rise, when interest rates go up, the primary balances that are needed keep increasing if they want to keep the debt stable. Now, the new labor government proposed to fill a funding gap through tax increases while simultaneously increasing Government investment spending. To manage some of the communication challenges here, many of these proposals, especially about the tax increases, they were made public in advance. The likelihood of additional government spending was also well known, and UK rates had moved higher for months leading up to the formal presentation of the budget. But, markets reacted on the day of the budget reveal, despite all of that prelude. The degree of front loading of the investment spending was seen as a surprise in markets, as was the Office of Budget Responsibility's concurrent assessment that the policy would lead to higher growth, higher inflation, and as a result, a need for higher interest rates. Now, conversations with clients have brought up the similarities of the US and the UK. US interest costs are steadily rising as the cost of the debt reprices to the current yield curve. And, over time, the ratio of interest expense on the debt relative to, say, the GDP of the country, well, that's going to continue to rise as well, and it will very soon eclipse its previous all time high. So, fiscal consolidation would be needed in the United States if we really want to see a stabilized debt to GDP ratio. Markets will need to assess the credibility of fiscal policy and the scrutiny will increase the higher the interest burden gets. The budget process for the US is much less clear cut than that in the UK and deliberations and debates will likely happen over most of 2025. And there's an additional question of how much revenue tariffs might be able to generate on a sustained basis. History suggests that trade diversion tends to limit those revenue gains. All of these facts taken together suggest that the outlook for US fiscal policy will continue to evolve for quite some time.  Well, thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VxX7f1EUx2utUJwrVrnPnD0Z4Bwi0T060Dr460a7maMWed, 13 Nov 2024 23:03:49 +0000gtyAs President-Elect Trump’s new administration takes shape, all eyes are on fiscal policy that may follow. Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter uses the United Kingdom’s recent election as a guide for how markets could react to a policy shift in...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about the US election and fiscal policy and what lessons we might be able to draw from the fiscal experience in the UK. It's Wednesday, November 13th at 10am in New York.  In a lot of our recent research, the US election has figured prominently, and we highlighted three key policy dimensions that the US administration is going to have to confront. Immigration, tariffs, and, of course, fiscal policy. We're going to keep elections as a theme, but it might be useful to draw some comparisons to the UK to see what lessons we might have for the US. We think the experience in the UK, which recently proposed a new fiscal budget months after an election, is relevant mostly because of the time between taking power and the budget being presented. While markets are in the business of anticipating changes, the process of actually creating policy is a lot more cumbersome and time consuming. In this week, where we've seen lots of expectations already being priced in, it's probably useful to try to think about that process of forming policy in the UK and see what lessons it implies for the US.  Back in May, the UK elected a new government, changing party control after 14 years. A key moment for markets came just over a week ago, though, when the new government's presentation of their budget for the next fiscal year came up. Now, we should remember, the trust government had faced a market test when the announcement of their budget proposals led to a big sell off in interest rates. As a result, markets were keenly attuned this time to the new labor government's budget, particularly because the US fiscal position requires a primary balance to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio. And in particular, when their debt costs rise, when interest rates go up, the primary balances that are needed keep increasing if they want to keep the debt stable. Now, the new labor government proposed to fill a funding gap through tax increases while simultaneously increasing Government investment spending. To manage some of the communication challenges here, many of these proposals, especially about the tax increases, they were made public in advance. The likelihood of additional government spending was also well known, and UK rates had moved higher for months leading up to the formal presentation of the budget. But, markets reacted on the day of the budget reveal, despite all of that prelude. The degree of front loading of the investment spending was seen as a surprise in markets, as was the Office of Budget Responsibility's concurrent assessment that the policy would lead to higher growth, higher inflation, and as a result, a need for higher interest rates. Now, conversations with clients have brought up the similarities of the US and the UK. US interest costs are steadily rising as the cost of the debt reprices to the current yield curve. And, over time, the ratio of interest expense on the debt relative to, say, the GDP of the country, well, that's going to continue to rise as well, and it will very soon eclipse its previous all time high. So, fiscal consolidation would be needed in the United States if we really want to see a stabilized debt to GDP ratio. Markets will need to assess the credibility of fiscal policy and the scrutiny will increase the higher the interest burden gets. The budget process for the US is much less clear cut than that in the UK and deliberations and debates will likely happen over most of 2025. And there's an additional question of how much revenue tariffs might be able to generate on a sustained basis. History suggests that...]]>252alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1256fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-tariffs-dampen-asia-s-economic-growth--75651120----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast – with a Republican White House now in place, tariffs are the key issue that will matter to Asia.It’s Tuesday, November 12, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. With the US election results in, the question now is not if there will be tariff hikes, but when and how much. Will China alone see rising tariffs, or will there be universal tariff imposed on all imports to the US? The previous president Trump administration imposed several tariffs on Chinese imports beginning in 2018. And looking back, our learning is that weaker corporate confidence weighed more heavily on Asia’s growth outlook than the direct effect of tariffs on exports. Just to elaborate on the point on direct impact of tariffs: Despite the tariffs imposed on China during that period, what we observed is that China’s market share in global goods exports improved after the US started to impose tariffs on imports from China. Looking forward, let’s consider a scenario of 50 per cent tariffs on China alone. The hit to global and China corporate confidence may not be as large as it was in 2018 and 2019. This is in part because US-China trade tensions have persisted for several years now. Companies have invested in diversifying their supply chains since then, and the US share in China's exports has declined since 2017. Given all this, the drag on China’s exports may be less than the 1 percentage point that we saw last time. The rest of Asia would also experience a slowdown, but we think the overall drag on growth would be less significant this time. The effects on individual economies would differ based on their exposure to China. We think Australia and Indonesia will be more exposed. Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand would be moderately exposed. And India and Japan would be less exposed given a low share of export to China. But what happens if the US imposes 50 per cent tariffs on China and a 10 per cent universal tariff on the rest of the world? In this scenario, the damage to corporate confidence and the global capex and trade cycle would be much larger. The drag could be similar or greater than what we saw in 2018 and 2019. Asia excluding China has now become more dependent on the US as a source of end-demand. Global supply chains might have to be rewired yet again. This would cause a significant disruption to the corporate sector and a material impact on Asia’s growth trajectory. Of course, the final effect of US tariffs on Asia growth would also depend on the scale of policy support. Asia’s policy makers could allow their currencies to depreciate in response to a strong dollar. Then, against a backdrop of weaker currencies, Asia’s central banks could be constrained in their ability to cut rates immediately – similar to what happened in 2018-[20]19. Hence, they would prefer to take a fiscal easing first. Back in 2017-[20]19, Asia's fiscal deficit widened in aggregate by 1.1 percentage point as policymakers sought to provide some cushion to growth downside. Once currencies stabilize, they will take up monetary easing.Things may move quickly once Trump takes office in January, and we will continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/vRQUXj95sXkizDVKo4d_480h-jUc-IAk6pI6p0AHgroTue, 12 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the potential impact of tariffs on China and other Asian countries following the US election. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast – with a Republican White House now in place, tariffs are the key issue that will matter to Asia.It’s Tuesday, November 12, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. With the US election results in, the question now is not if there will be tariff hikes, but when and how much. Will China alone see rising tariffs, or will there be universal tariff imposed on all imports to the US? The previous president Trump administration imposed several tariffs on Chinese imports beginning in 2018. And looking back, our learning is that weaker corporate confidence weighed more heavily on Asia’s growth outlook than the direct effect of tariffs on exports. Just to elaborate on the point on direct impact of tariffs: Despite the tariffs imposed on China during that period, what we observed is that China’s market share in global goods exports improved after the US started to impose tariffs on imports from China. Looking forward, let’s consider a scenario of 50 per cent tariffs on China alone. The hit to global and China corporate confidence may not be as large as it was in 2018 and 2019. This is in part because US-China trade tensions have persisted for several years now. Companies have invested in diversifying their supply chains since then, and the US share in China's exports has declined since 2017. Given all this, the drag on China’s exports may be less than the 1 percentage point that we saw last time. The rest of Asia would also experience a slowdown, but we think the overall drag on growth would be less significant this time. The effects on individual economies would differ based on their exposure to China. We think Australia and Indonesia will be more exposed. Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand would be moderately exposed. And India and Japan would be less exposed given a low share of export to China. But what happens if the US imposes 50 per cent tariffs on China and a 10 per cent universal tariff on the rest of the world? In this scenario, the damage to corporate confidence and the global capex and trade cycle would be much larger. The drag could be similar or greater than what we saw in 2018 and 2019. Asia excluding China has now become more dependent on the US as a source of end-demand. Global supply chains might have to be rewired yet again. This would cause a significant disruption to the corporate sector and a material impact on Asia’s growth trajectory. Of course, the final effect of US tariffs on Asia growth would also depend on the scale of policy support. Asia’s policy makers could allow their currencies to depreciate in response to a strong dollar. Then, against a backdrop of weaker currencies, Asia’s central banks could be constrained in their ability to cut rates immediately – similar to what happened in 2018-[20]19. Hence, they would prefer to take a fiscal easing first. Back in 2017-[20]19, Asia's fiscal deficit widened in aggregate by 1.1 percentage point as policymakers sought to provide some cushion to growth downside. Once currencies stabilize, they will take up monetary easing.Things may move quickly once Trump takes office in January, and we will continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>234alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1255fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/pricing-in-the-likely-republican-sweep--75651042----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about the results of last week’s election and its impact on equity markets.It's Monday, Nov 11th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Our work leading up to the election showed that stocks likely to benefit from a Republican sweep did not actually see material outperformance up and through November 5th. In other words, this political outcome was not fully priced. As a result, this allowed for significant outperformance of Financials, Industrials, and other cyclicals last week. We see further follow through to the upside in quality cyclicals as prospects for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a potential rebound in animal spirits should rise following the election outcome. These developments came on the back of a macro backdrop that was already becoming more supportive of cyclical outperformance – and why we upgraded this cohort to overweight in early October. We continue to be sellers though of tariff-exposed consumer stocks and renewable energy stocks. Our upgrade to Financials in early October was rooted in our view that expectations were low going into earnings season while positioning remained light. Our work since then showed that the majority of the group's outperformance into the election could be explained by strong earnings revisions as opposed to rising odds of a Trump win in prediction markets. Now that we have the election results in hand, it appears that expectations for de-regulation are also driving performance upside in addition to improving fundamentals.  While the 2016 playbook would suggest small caps and lower quality equities could see a period  of outperformance following the election, there are a couple of important differences worth considering. First, several of these areas of the market are exhibiting a negative correlation to interest rates today whereas they were showing a positive correlation in 2016. In other words, in today's later cycle environment, these cohorts' adverse sensitivity to rising rates is greater than it was in that period. Should rates see more upside post the election, there is likely less upside this time for small caps and lower quality cyclicals. Furthermore, relative earnings revisions breadth for small cap cyclicals is negative today, whereas it was positive in 2016. Finally, even with the increase in animal spirits following the 2016 election, small caps' relative performance peaked in early December of that year, just one month after the election.While the momentum remains to the upside for US equity markets led by quality cyclicals, it's  worth considering the potential risks. The first one is a material move higher in interest rates driven by a rising term premium. The 50 basis point rise in term premium so far has not been enough to worry equity investors yet. However, should the term premium accelerate materially from here driven by fiscal sustainability concerns, equity valuations would likely face headwinds. Second, one of the more popular views in the macro community is for a stronger dollar. If such strength continues into year-end, it could provide a headwind to multinationals' Earnings growth for 2024 and 2025. A final risk to the positive price momentum is simply price itself. Over the past several months, the price change of the S&P 500 has distanced itself from the fundamentals. More specifically, the year-over-year change in the S&P has rarely been this disconnected from earnings revision breadth and business confidence surveys. However, given the positive reaction to the election so far in markets and from many business leaders, perhaps animal spirits can take earnings guidance higher – which is necessary to maintain the current trajectory in equity markets, especially since that is now expected by stock prices.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MUQHJuILV2Zj1lJbZFZqoShDH1KZOMvH62ZlI2IS2sQMon, 11 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyWith the Republican party poised to clinch control of the White House and Congress, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist says markets are readying for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a possible rebound in investor...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about the results of last week’s election and its impact on equity markets.It's Monday, Nov 11th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Our work leading up to the election showed that stocks likely to benefit from a Republican sweep did not actually see material outperformance up and through November 5th. In other words, this political outcome was not fully priced. As a result, this allowed for significant outperformance of Financials, Industrials, and other cyclicals last week. We see further follow through to the upside in quality cyclicals as prospects for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a potential rebound in animal spirits should rise following the election outcome. These developments came on the back of a macro backdrop that was already becoming more supportive of cyclical outperformance – and why we upgraded this cohort to overweight in early October. We continue to be sellers though of tariff-exposed consumer stocks and renewable energy stocks. Our upgrade to Financials in early October was rooted in our view that expectations were low going into earnings season while positioning remained light. Our work since then showed that the majority of the group's outperformance into the election could be explained by strong earnings revisions as opposed to rising odds of a Trump win in prediction markets. Now that we have the election results in hand, it appears that expectations for de-regulation are also driving performance upside in addition to improving fundamentals.  While the 2016 playbook would suggest small caps and lower quality equities could see a period  of outperformance following the election, there are a couple of important differences worth considering. First, several of these areas of the market are exhibiting a negative correlation to interest rates today whereas they were showing a positive correlation in 2016. In other words, in today's later cycle environment, these cohorts' adverse sensitivity to rising rates is greater than it was in that period. Should rates see more upside post the election, there is likely less upside this time for small caps and lower quality cyclicals. Furthermore, relative earnings revisions breadth for small cap cyclicals is negative today, whereas it was positive in 2016. Finally, even with the increase in animal spirits following the 2016 election, small caps' relative performance peaked in early December of that year, just one month after the election.While the momentum remains to the upside for US equity markets led by quality cyclicals, it's  worth considering the potential risks. The first one is a material move higher in interest rates driven by a rising term premium. The 50 basis point rise in term premium so far has not been enough to worry equity investors yet. However, should the term premium accelerate materially from here driven by fiscal sustainability concerns, equity valuations would likely face headwinds. Second, one of the more popular views in the macro community is for a stronger dollar. If such strength continues into year-end, it could provide a headwind to multinationals' Earnings growth for 2024 and 2025. A final risk to the positive price momentum is simply price itself. Over the past several months, the price change of the S&P 500 has distanced itself from the fundamentals. More specifically, the year-over-year change in the S&P has rarely been this disconnected from earnings revision breadth and business confidence surveys. However, given the positive reaction to the election so far...]]>258alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1254fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investor-expectations-after-the-us-election--75651097----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the US election - the implications in the past, present and future. It's Friday, November 8th at 2pm in London. The US Election is over, and the result was relatively clear. Republicans won control of the Presidency, the Senate, and on current projections, are likely to narrowly take the House of Representatives. The so-called ‘sweep’ will provide significant leeway to enact policy. There is going to be lots of time over future weeks and months, and even years, to discuss what all of this is going to mean. But for now, I want to offer a few thoughts on the impact across the past, the present and the future. Looking back, the US election has been a very well-known uncertainty that has hung over this market all year. The polling was close between two candidates with very different policy priorities. To the extent the simply not knowing was holding some investors back, or that investors were worried about a contested outcome, or even worse, political unrest – that issue has now passed. The relief from that passing may help explain some of the recent positive market reaction. For the present, we now sit in this curious middle-place where the uncertainty of the result is behind us, but any uncertainty from policy changes have not yet arrived. Coupled with still strong US economic data, another interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve yesterday, and the tendency of markets to perform well in November and December, and the path of least resistance in the near term may be for markets to continue to trade well.The future, however, may have just become less certain. Credit likes moderation and stability, and we think the current economic mix, with US GDP growth and inflation at both around 2.5 per cent, while the unemployment rate sits near historic lows at 4.2 per cent, has been a good one for credit. It’s been a major driver of our optimistic spread forecasts this year. Yet based on exit polls, US voters were not happy with this economy, and voted for change. The question, which will now dominate investor conversations, is how much of what the new administration has said they will do, will end up happening – on everything from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. I can assure you that there’s a very wide investor expectations around this. The ambiguity isn’t necessarily a problem now, but we expect these questions to harden as we get into early next year. And given the likely sweep, the odds for larger changes in policy, especially much looser fiscal policy, have risen significantly. Whatever your average expectation for the US economy over the next 24 months now is, we think the bands around that have widened, and that’s also true globally, from Latin America, to Europe, to Asia. To be a little more specific about these wider bands: To the downside, there are now scenarios where tariffs and deportations push up inflation and weaken growth. And to the upside, there are scenarios where potentially lower taxes and looser regulation could drive higher stock markets and more corporate animal spirits. But for credit, both of these present challenges: tight spreads are absolutely not priced for stagflation, while animal spirits and more corporate aggression aren’t necessarily a great story if you’re a lender. A more benign, middle scenario is, of course, still possible, and we’re keeping an open mind. But the future has now become more uncertain. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CbRHUVdhCYh7aO8_sYNIxoKc0EZ0F57spAImi7WtY9kFri, 08 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets provides an overview of uncertainty around policy following the election of a Republican administration. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the US election - the implications in the past, present and future. It's Friday, November 8th at 2pm in London. The US Election is over, and the result was relatively clear. Republicans won control of the Presidency, the Senate, and on current projections, are likely to narrowly take the House of Representatives. The so-called ‘sweep’ will provide significant leeway to enact policy. There is going to be lots of time over future weeks and months, and even years, to discuss what all of this is going to mean. But for now, I want to offer a few thoughts on the impact across the past, the present and the future. Looking back, the US election has been a very well-known uncertainty that has hung over this market all year. The polling was close between two candidates with very different policy priorities. To the extent the simply not knowing was holding some investors back, or that investors were worried about a contested outcome, or even worse, political unrest – that issue has now passed. The relief from that passing may help explain some of the recent positive market reaction. For the present, we now sit in this curious middle-place where the uncertainty of the result is behind us, but any uncertainty from policy changes have not yet arrived. Coupled with still strong US economic data, another interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve yesterday, and the tendency of markets to perform well in November and December, and the path of least resistance in the near term may be for markets to continue to trade well.The future, however, may have just become less certain. Credit likes moderation and stability, and we think the current economic mix, with US GDP growth and inflation at both around 2.5 per cent, while the unemployment rate sits near historic lows at 4.2 per cent, has been a good one for credit. It’s been a major driver of our optimistic spread forecasts this year. Yet based on exit polls, US voters were not happy with this economy, and voted for change. The question, which will now dominate investor conversations, is how much of what the new administration has said they will do, will end up happening – on everything from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. I can assure you that there’s a very wide investor expectations around this. The ambiguity isn’t necessarily a problem now, but we expect these questions to harden as we get into early next year. And given the likely sweep, the odds for larger changes in policy, especially much looser fiscal policy, have risen significantly. Whatever your average expectation for the US economy over the next 24 months now is, we think the bands around that have widened, and that’s also true globally, from Latin America, to Europe, to Asia. To be a little more specific about these wider bands: To the downside, there are now scenarios where tariffs and deportations push up inflation and weaken growth. And to the upside, there are scenarios where potentially lower taxes and looser regulation could drive higher stock markets and more corporate animal spirits. But for credit, both of these present challenges: tight spreads are absolutely not priced for stagflation, while animal spirits and more corporate aggression aren’t necessarily a great story if you’re a lender. A more benign, middle scenario is, of course, still possible, and we’re keeping an open mind. But the future has now become more uncertain. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>236alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1253fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/taking-the-pulse-of-the-us-consumer--75650957----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, Morgan Stanley's co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, and today we're going to take a look at the state of the US consumer from several different perspectives.Recent economic data suggests that the US economy is strong, and that inflation is on a downward trend. Yet, some of the underlying performance data is a little bit weaker. To understand what's happening, I'm joined by my colleagues Arunima Sinha and Heather Berger from the Global and US Economics teams.It's Thursday, November 7th, at 10am in New York.Now, the macro data on the consumer has looked pretty strong. Arunima, can you give a little bit more detail here? And specifically, how has consumer spending in the US been trending relative to where it was last year?Arunima Sinha: So, a good place to start, Jim, would be just to see where consumption spending was last year. And there it ended on a strong note. And in the first three-quarters of 2023, the average quarterly analyzed growth for consumption was just under 3 per cent. And that's where we are this year. We've seen solid growth rates in all three quarters this year, with the third quarter at 3.7 per cent. A particularly interesting aspect has been that the spending on goods has actually accelerated this year, with the third [quarter] number at a blistering 6.0 per cent on a quarterly basis.We have chalked this down to labor income growth remaining robust; and we did an analysis which showed that past growth in labor income boosts real consumption spending. Over this year, labor compensation has been growing strongly. So over 6 per cent in the first quarter and about 3.5 per cent in quarters two and three.And so, we continue to expect that that solid labor income growth is going to continue to boost real consumption spending.James Egan: All right. So, if I'm hearing you correctly – good spending, holding up; services, holding up. What about discretionary versus non-discretionary spend?Arunima Sinha: That's a great question, Jim, especially because discretionary spending is 70 per cent of all nominal personal consumption spending in the US. So just for context, what does discretionary include? It's going to be all the spending on durable goods, some non-durables, and then non-essential services such as health and transport, financial services, etc. And what we also saw – that a larger share of labor income is now being spent on discretionary items relative to the pre-COVID phase.So where are growth rates running? Discretionary spending is running strong on both a nominal and a real basis. So, on a nominal basis, we have about 5.5 to 6 per cent year on year, over this year, and over 3 per cent on a real basis. And these are largely in line with pre-COVID rates, if a little bit stronger now.For non-discretionary spending – that's the spending on food at home, and clothing, energy, and housing services – nominal spending has been decent. So, 4 per cent year on year on the first three quarters this year, and real spending has been a little bit less than the pre-COVID rate. So, between 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent. And so, this suggests what we expected to see, which is there's likely greater price sensitivity among consumers for these non-discretionary categories.What do we see going forward? We think that those increases in labor income are going to continue to provide boosts to discretionary spending. And one of the interesting aspects that we found was that lending standards seem to matter for discretionary spending. So, there's been some slowing down and the tightening of lending standards – and that could provide a further tailwind to discretionary spending.James Egan: Alright, that all sounds pretty positive and makes sense as to why we're getting so many questions about economic data that looks very healthy from a consumer perspective. But then, Heather. Other consumer data is showing a little bit more weakness. Arunima just mentioned credit standards. What are we seeing from the performance perspective on the consumer credit side?Heather Berger: Well, as you mentioned, the consumer credit data has shown more weakness, as more consumers are missing payments on their loans. We initially saw delinquency rates start to pick up in loans concentrated towards consumers with lower credit scores, such as subprime auto loans and unsecured personal loans, as those consumers were more affected early on by high inflation and then rising rates.Delinquency rates for those lower credit score loans are near the highest we have on record in some cases. In the past year, though, we have also seen that delinquency rates have picked up in loans aimed at consumers with higher credit scores, such as credit cards and prime auto loans. The weakness in these is not as extreme as in subprime, but the delinquency rates of the loans taken out recently is still relatively high historically. James Egan: So, it sounds like what you are describing is that there are pockets of consumers that are feeling more weakness than others.Heather Berger: Yes, exactly. And so, on the prime consumer side, even if these consumers have higher credit scores or higher incomes, if they took out loans recently, they likely did so at higher rates, and they're really feeling the pressures of higher debt service costs.We can also see some of the bifurcation between low income and high-income consumers. In some of the more detailed economic data, we have a breakdown of 2023 spending by income group, which is a bit outdated but still useful to see the narrative – and what it shows is that in 2023 higher income consumers made up near the largest share of discretionary spending as they have historically. For lower income consumers, their spending has shifted more towards essentials, with shelter increasing the most as a share of their spending from the prior year.Now, Jim, we really think that the housing backdrop has played a role here, so can you explain a bit more of what's going on there?James Egan: Yes, now my co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, Jay Bacow, and I have been on this podcast a few times talking about the role that the housing market is playing in the economy right now. We've really talked about the lock in effect. And when we're thinking about the role that housing plays in the consumer specifically, we're talking about lower income households, more discretionary spending, shelter increasing that's not happening at the higher end, and we think that's the lock in effect.A majority of homeowners were able to get low fixed rate mortgages for 30 years with 3 or 4 per cent mortgage rates. The effective mortgage rate would be on the outstanding market right now is, average is 4 per cent. Prevailing rates are north of 6 per cent right now. So that has helped that higher end consumer who is more likely to be a homeowner – 65 per cent of the US households are homeowners – maintain that lower level.But I don't want to gloss over that entirely. Other costs of homeownership are increasing. For instance, property taxes and insurance costs are up. Homeowners have realized swelling home equity amounts amid record home price growth in recent years; perhaps giving them more confidence to spend, but that equity hasn't exactly been easy to access.Now, second lean and HELOC balances have been increasing; but the amount of equity that's being withdrawn falls well shy of previous highs, which were set back in 2009. And that's despite the fact that the overall equity in the housing market is $20 trillion larger today than it was back then. While the equity itself should provide a buffer for homeowning consumers from ultimately defaulting, these dynamics could be resulting in some of the short-term delinquency increases that we think we're seeing in products like Prime Auto, for example.But Arunima, can you tie a bow on this for us? What does all of this mean for the consumer moving forward?Arunima Sinha: Moving forward Jim, we really just see a solid consumer. So, for the end of this year, our forecast is real consumption spending growing at 2.6 per cent; at the end of next year at over 2 per cent. And that really is tied to our view on the labor market – that it's going to continue to decelerate, but not in any sudden ways.So that's it. We are seeing a strong consumer, and we are going to be watching for pockets of weakness.James Egan: All right. Arunima, Heather, thanks for taking the time to talk.Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me on, Jim.Heather Berger: Great talking to you both.James Egan: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/td6pHmKQctB3GOu0s2Lsy5tOBQ7xGS-HSS450ePX2YsThu, 07 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur panel of analysts discusses the health of the US consumer through the lens of spending, credit use and home ownership.  ----- Transcript ----- James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, Morgan Stanley's co-head of Securitized...----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, Morgan Stanley's co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, and today we're going to take a look at the state of the US consumer from several different perspectives.Recent economic data suggests that the US economy is strong, and that inflation is on a downward trend. Yet, some of the underlying performance data is a little bit weaker. To understand what's happening, I'm joined by my colleagues Arunima Sinha and Heather Berger from the Global and US Economics teams.It's Thursday, November 7th, at 10am in New York.Now, the macro data on the consumer has looked pretty strong. Arunima, can you give a little bit more detail here? And specifically, how has consumer spending in the US been trending relative to where it was last year?Arunima Sinha: So, a good place to start, Jim, would be just to see where consumption spending was last year. And there it ended on a strong note. And in the first three-quarters of 2023, the average quarterly analyzed growth for consumption was just under 3 per cent. And that's where we are this year. We've seen solid growth rates in all three quarters this year, with the third quarter at 3.7 per cent. A particularly interesting aspect has been that the spending on goods has actually accelerated this year, with the third [quarter] number at a blistering 6.0 per cent on a quarterly basis.We have chalked this down to labor income growth remaining robust; and we did an analysis which showed that past growth in labor income boosts real consumption spending. Over this year, labor compensation has been growing strongly. So over 6 per cent in the first quarter and about 3.5 per cent in quarters two and three.And so, we continue to expect that that solid labor income growth is going to continue to boost real consumption spending.James Egan: All right. So, if I'm hearing you correctly – good spending, holding up; services, holding up. What about discretionary versus non-discretionary spend?Arunima Sinha: That's a great question, Jim, especially because discretionary spending is 70 per cent of all nominal personal consumption spending in the US. So just for context, what does discretionary include? It's going to be all the spending on durable goods, some non-durables, and then non-essential services such as health and transport, financial services, etc. And what we also saw – that a larger share of labor income is now being spent on discretionary items relative to the pre-COVID phase.So where are growth rates running? Discretionary spending is running strong on both a nominal and a real basis. So, on a nominal basis, we have about 5.5 to 6 per cent year on year, over this year, and over 3 per cent on a real basis. And these are largely in line with pre-COVID rates, if a little bit stronger now.For non-discretionary spending – that's the spending on food at home, and clothing, energy, and housing services – nominal spending has been decent. So, 4 per cent year on year on the first three quarters this year, and real spending has been a little bit less than the pre-COVID rate. So, between 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent. And so, this suggests what we expected to see, which is there's likely greater price sensitivity among consumers for these non-discretionary categories.What do we see going forward? We think that those increases in labor income are going to continue to provide boosts to discretionary spending. And one of the interesting aspects that we found was that lending standards seem to matter for discretionary spending. So, there's been some slowing down and the tightening of lending standards – and that could provide a further tailwind to discretionary spending.James Egan: Alright, that all sounds pretty positive and makes sense as to why we're getting so many questions about economic data that...]]>519alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1252fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/after-trump-win-where-do-markets-move-from-here--75651061----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast – some initial thoughts on the market implications of a second term for President Trump.It’s Wednesday, Nov 6, at 2pm in New York.As it became clearer on election night that Former President Trump was set to win a second term in the White House, markets began to price in the expected impacts of resulting public policy choices. The US dollar rallied, which makes sense when you consider that President Trump has argued for higher tariffs, something that could hurt rest of world growth more than the US.  US Treasuries sold off and yield rose, something that makes sense given President Trump supports tax policy choices that could meaningfully expand deficits. And US equity markets rallied led by key sectors that could benefit fundamentally from extended tax breaks and deregulation, including industrials and energy. But with a second Trump term now at least partially reflected in the price of markets across assets, it gets harder from here to understand how markets move.  There’s several key debates we’ll be tracking, here’s two that are top of mind. First, how will tariffs be implemented? Per the work of our economists, higher tariffs can raise inflation and crimp growth. They estimated that a blanket 10 per cent tariffs and 60 per cent tariffs on China imports would raise inflation by 1 per cent and dampen GDP growth by 1.4 per cent. Some pretty big numbers that would really challenge the soft-landing narrative and positive backdrop for equities and other riskier assets. Other approaches may carry the same risks, but to a lesser degree. Tariffs exercised via executive authority would, in our view, likely have to be targeted to countries and products – as opposed to implemented on a blanket basis. So, the approach to tariffs could represent a substantial difference in the outlook for markets. Second, how quickly and to what degree might US deficits expand? Our presumption has been that fiscal policy action, regardless of US election outcome, wouldn’t become clear until late 2025, largely governed by the need to address several provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire at the end of that year. But, while not our base case it's of course possible that a Republican Congressional majority could deliver on tax cuts earlier – and perhaps even in larger size. The resolution to this debate could make the difference between yields climbing even higher than they have recently and taking a pause at these levels. Bottom line, as the election ends and the Presidential transition begins, there’s a lot about policy implementation that we can learn to guide our market strategy. We’ll be paying attention to all the key policymaker statements and deliberations, and feed through the signal to you.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/c4sjBDe_hAPO-JxdeNlyxzv1AglNMHlEnBYnsR6SX_wWed, 06 Nov 2024 20:47:48 +0000gtyWith a second Trump term at least partially reflected in the price of global markets, we focus on two key debates for the longer-term: Potential tariffs and fiscal policy.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast – some initial thoughts on the market implications of a second term for President Trump.It’s Wednesday, Nov 6, at 2pm in New York.As it became clearer on election night that Former President Trump was set to win a second term in the White House, markets began to price in the expected impacts of resulting public policy choices. The US dollar rallied, which makes sense when you consider that President Trump has argued for higher tariffs, something that could hurt rest of world growth more than the US.  US Treasuries sold off and yield rose, something that makes sense given President Trump supports tax policy choices that could meaningfully expand deficits. And US equity markets rallied led by key sectors that could benefit fundamentally from extended tax breaks and deregulation, including industrials and energy. But with a second Trump term now at least partially reflected in the price of markets across assets, it gets harder from here to understand how markets move.  There’s several key debates we’ll be tracking, here’s two that are top of mind. First, how will tariffs be implemented? Per the work of our economists, higher tariffs can raise inflation and crimp growth. They estimated that a blanket 10 per cent tariffs and 60 per cent tariffs on China imports would raise inflation by 1 per cent and dampen GDP growth by 1.4 per cent. Some pretty big numbers that would really challenge the soft-landing narrative and positive backdrop for equities and other riskier assets. Other approaches may carry the same risks, but to a lesser degree. Tariffs exercised via executive authority would, in our view, likely have to be targeted to countries and products – as opposed to implemented on a blanket basis. So, the approach to tariffs could represent a substantial difference in the outlook for markets. Second, how quickly and to what degree might US deficits expand? Our presumption has been that fiscal policy action, regardless of US election outcome, wouldn’t become clear until late 2025, largely governed by the need to address several provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire at the end of that year. But, while not our base case it's of course possible that a Republican Congressional majority could deliver on tax cuts earlier – and perhaps even in larger size. The resolution to this debate could make the difference between yields climbing even higher than they have recently and taking a pause at these levels. Bottom line, as the election ends and the Presidential transition begins, there’s a lot about policy implementation that we can learn to guide our market strategy. We’ll be paying attention to all the key policymaker statements and deliberations, and feed through the signal to you.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>191alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1251fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-are-users-and-investors-breaking-up-with-online-dating--75651027----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nathan Feather, Morgan Stanley’s Online Dating and US Small- and Mid-Cap eCommerce Analyst. Today, people across America are casting their votes. On this podcast, however, we're taking a break from our election coverage. And taking a leap into a different matter on many minds … and hearts. Online dating. Why it fell out of favor and how it might make a comeback.It’s November 5, at 10am in New York. Finding love is a tricky business. Dating has never been easy; but with an epidemic of loneliness and isolation, singles today are finding it harder than ever. For those looking for love, online dating seems to offer endless possibilities. Since its inception just three decades ago, the stigma around online dating has faded, leading more and more daters to put their faith – and money – into the algorithm. In the US, three out of four actively dating singles have used it at some point in their journey. But after years of consistent double-digit growth, the online dating market is now faltering, with US industry revenue growing just 1 per cent this year.  Why? Well, we think the issue lies primarily in weakening user trends with the US user bases of major dating apps in decline. Since last spring, we have seen around a 15 per cent decrease in dating app use by singles actively looking for a relationship. To us this indicates that the product is not matching user expectations as some daters have grown tired of the persistent swiping and dead ends. Consequently, daters' intentions to use online dating in the future have consistently declined. Now, there are many theories about why this is happening. We think there may be residual impact from the pandemic when singles used online dating at record rates. People who found relationships during that time likely left the apps. And those who didn't find a partner also often left the apps, disappointed and less likely to return. But that’s not all; while Millennials embraced the fun and casual experience of swipe apps, Gen Z isn’t so enamored – instead searching for greater authenticity. So, can online dating be fixed or are these issues beyond repair? Well, there are two main schools of thought. The first believes that the issue with online dating is a lack of innovation, and an improved product should lead to improved financials. The second camp argues that daters are fundamentally shifting away from these products to date in person or not at all. We sit firmly in the first camp and think this is a product issue. The apps need to do a better job helping people find lasting relationships. Granted, fixing this is far easier said than done. Human relationships are messy and complicated. But we do think there are clear opportunities. Many of the large apps have stayed relatively unchanged over the past five to 10 years and are meeting the demands of users from then – and not now. With improvements to the user experience and better tailoring to the goals of today’s daters, we believe the apps can reaccelerate user growth. In fact, brands that have consistently improved the user experience have recently fared far better. With that being said, we do think it will take time to find the product improvements that really work and convince daters to give the apps another shot. But as products evolve, we think daters and investors can rekindle their relationship with online dating.If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market today, with a friend, colleague, significant other -- even a situationship. Thanks for listening.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/We_5xJhEx-CLQUINn1JpYC-FIxxf50uA09HYNPLiqwITue, 05 Nov 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyAnalyst Nathan Feather discusses why the online dating market is slowing down, and whether or not it can get back on track. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nathan Feather, Morgan Stanley’s Online Dating and US Small- and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nathan Feather, Morgan Stanley’s Online Dating and US Small- and Mid-Cap eCommerce Analyst. Today, people across America are casting their votes. On this podcast, however, we're taking a break from our election coverage. And taking a leap into a different matter on many minds … and hearts. Online dating. Why it fell out of favor and how it might make a comeback.It’s November 5, at 10am in New York. Finding love is a tricky business. Dating has never been easy; but with an epidemic of loneliness and isolation, singles today are finding it harder than ever. For those looking for love, online dating seems to offer endless possibilities. Since its inception just three decades ago, the stigma around online dating has faded, leading more and more daters to put their faith – and money – into the algorithm. In the US, three out of four actively dating singles have used it at some point in their journey. But after years of consistent double-digit growth, the online dating market is now faltering, with US industry revenue growing just 1 per cent this year.  Why? Well, we think the issue lies primarily in weakening user trends with the US user bases of major dating apps in decline. Since last spring, we have seen around a 15 per cent decrease in dating app use by singles actively looking for a relationship. To us this indicates that the product is not matching user expectations as some daters have grown tired of the persistent swiping and dead ends. Consequently, daters' intentions to use online dating in the future have consistently declined. Now, there are many theories about why this is happening. We think there may be residual impact from the pandemic when singles used online dating at record rates. People who found relationships during that time likely left the apps. And those who didn't find a partner also often left the apps, disappointed and less likely to return. But that’s not all; while Millennials embraced the fun and casual experience of swipe apps, Gen Z isn’t so enamored – instead searching for greater authenticity. So, can online dating be fixed or are these issues beyond repair? Well, there are two main schools of thought. The first believes that the issue with online dating is a lack of innovation, and an improved product should lead to improved financials. The second camp argues that daters are fundamentally shifting away from these products to date in person or not at all. We sit firmly in the first camp and think this is a product issue. The apps need to do a better job helping people find lasting relationships. Granted, fixing this is far easier said than done. Human relationships are messy and complicated. But we do think there are clear opportunities. Many of the large apps have stayed relatively unchanged over the past five to 10 years and are meeting the demands of users from then – and not now. With improvements to the user experience and better tailoring to the goals of today’s daters, we believe the apps can reaccelerate user growth. In fact, brands that have consistently improved the user experience have recently fared far better. With that being said, we do think it will take time to find the product improvements that really work and convince daters to give the apps another shot. But as products evolve, we think daters and investors can rekindle their relationship with online dating.If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market today, with a friend, colleague, significant other -- even a situationship. Thanks for listening.]]>230alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1250fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-elections-weighing-the-options--75651216----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.Andrew Sheets: I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Mike Wilson: Today on the show, the day before the US election, we're going to do a conversation with my colleagues about what we're watching out for in the markets.It's Monday, November 4th, at 1130am in New York.So let's get after it.Andrew Sheets: Well, Mike, like you said, it's the day before the US election. The campaign is going down to the wire and the polling looks very close. Which means both it could be a while before we know the results and a lot of different potential outcomes are still in play. So it would be great to just start with a high-level overview of how you're thinking about the different outcomes.So, first Mike, to you, as you think across some of the broad different scenarios that we could see post election, what do you think are some of the most important takeaways for how markets might react?Mike Wilson: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I mean, it's hard to, you know, consider oneself as an expert in these types of events, which are extremely hard to predict. And there's a lot of permutations, by the way. There's obviously the presidential election, but then of course there's congressional elections. And it's the combination of all those that then feed into policy, which could be immediate or longer lasting.So, the other thing to just keep in mind is that, you know, markets tend to pre-trade events like this. I mean, this is a known date, right? A known kind of event. It's not a surprise. And the outcome is a surprise. So people are making investments based on how they think the outcome is going to come. So that's the way we think about it now.Clearly, you know, treasury markets have sold off. Some of that's better economic data, as our strategists in fixed income have told us. But I think it's also this view that, you know, Trump presidency, particularly Republican sweep, may lead to more spending or bigger budget deficits. And so, term premium has widened out a bit, so that’s been an area; here I think you could get some reversion if Harris were to win.And that has impact on the equity markets -- whether that's some maybe small cap stocks or financials; some of the, you know, names that are levered to industrial spending that they want to do from a traditional energy standpoint.And then, of course, on the negative side, you know, a lot of consumer-oriented stocks have suffered because of fears about tariffs increasing along with renewables. Because of the view that, you know, the IRA would be pared back or even repealed.And I think there's still follow through particularly in financials. So, if Trump were to win, with a Republican Congress, I think, you know, financials could see some follow through. I think you could see some more strength in small caps because of perhaps animal spirits increasing a little further; a bit of a blow off move, perhaps, in the indices.And then, of course, if Harris wins, I would expect, perhaps, bonds to rally. I think you might see some of these, you know, micro trades like in financials give back some along with small caps. And then you'd see a big rally in the renewables. And some of the tariff losers that have suffered recently. So, there's a lot, there's a lot of opportunity, depending on the outcome tomorrow.Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, as you think about these outcomes for fixed income, what really stands out to you?Vishy Tirupattur: I think what is important, Andrew, is really to think about what's happening today in the macro context, related to what was happening in 2016. So, if you look at 2016; and people are too quick to turn to the 2016 playbook and look at, you know, what a potential Trump, win would mean to the rates markets.I think we should keep in mind that going into the polls in 2016, the market was expecting a 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. And that rate hike expectation transitioned into something like a 125 place basis points over the following 12 months. And where we are today is very different.We are looking at a[n] expectation of a 130-135 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. So what that means to me is underlying macroeconomic conditions in where the economy is, where monetary policy is very, very different. So, we should not expect the same reaction in the markets, whether it's a micro or macro -- similar to what happened in 2016.So that's the first point. The second thing I want to; I'm really focused on is – if it is a Harris win, it's more of a policy continuity. And if it's a Trump win, there is going to be significant policy changes. But in thinking about those policy changes, you know, before we leap into deficit expansion, et cetera, we need to think in terms of the sequencing of the policy and what is really doable.You know, we're thinking three buckets. I think in terms of changes to immigration policy, changes to tariff policy, and changes to tax code. Of these things, the thing that requires no congressional approval is the changes to tariff policy, and the tariffs are probably are going to be much more front loaded compared to immigration. Or certainly the tax policy [is] going to take a quite a bit of time for it to work out – even under the Republican sweep scenario.So, the sequencing of even the tariff policy, the effect of the tariffs really depends upon the sequencing of tariffs itself. Do we get to the 60 per cent China tariffs off the bat? Or will that be built over time? Are we looking at across the board, 10 per cent tariffs? Or are we looking at it in much more sequential terms? So, I would be careful not to jump into any knee-jerk reaction to any outcome.Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, the next question I wanted to ask you is – you've been obviously having a lot of conversations with investors around this topic. And so, is there a piece of kind of conventional wisdom around the election or how markets will react to the election that you find yourself disagreeing with the most?Mike Wilson: Well, I don't think there's any standard reaction function because, as Vishy said -- depending on when the election's occurring, it's a very different setup. And I will go back to what he was saying on 2016. I remember in 2016, thinking after Trump won, which was a surprise to the markets, that was a reflationary trade that we were very bullish on because there was so much slack in the economy.We had borrowing capabilities and we hadn't done any tax cuts yet. So, there was just; there was a lot of running room to kind of push that envelope.If we start pushing the envelope further on spending or reflationary type policies, all of a sudden the Fed probably can't cut. And that changes the dynamics in the bond market. It changes the dynamics in the stock market from a valuation standpoint, for sure. We've really priced in this like, kind of glide path now on, on Fed policy, which will be kind of turned upside down if we try to reflate things.Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, that's a great point because, you know, I imagine something that investors do ask a lot about towards the bond market is, you know, we see these yields rising. Are they rising for kind of good reasons because the economy is better? Are they rising for less good reasons, maybe because inflation's higher or the deficit's widening too much? How do you think about that issue of the rise in bond yields? At what point is it rising for kind of less healthy reasons?Vishy Tirupattur: So Andrew, if you look back to the last 30 days or so, the reaction the Treasury yields is mostly on account of stronger data. Not to say that the expectation changes about the presidential election outcomes haven't played a role. They have. But we've had really strong data. You know, we can ignore the data from last Friday – because the employment data that we got last Friday was affected by hurricanes and strikes, etc. But take that out of the picture. The data has been very strong. So, it's really a reflection of both of them. But we think stronger data have played a bigger role in yield rise than electoral outcome expectation changes.Andrew Sheets: Mike, maybe to take that question and throw it back to you, as you think about this issue of the rise in yields – and at what point they're a problem for the equity market. How are you thinking about that?Mike Wilson: Well, I think there's two ways to think about it. Number one, if it really is about the data getting better, then all of a sudden, you know, maybe the multiple expansion we've seen is right. And that, it's sort of foretelling of an earnings growth picture next year that's, you know, much faster than what, the consensus is modeling.However, I'd push back on that because the consensus already is modeling a pretty good growth trajectory of about 12 per cent earnings growth. And that's, you know, quite healthy. I think, you know, it's probably more mixed. I mean, the term premium has gone up by 50 basis points, so some of this is about fiscal sustainability – no matter who wins, by the way. I wouldn't say either party has done a very good stewardship of, you know, monitoring the fiscal deficits; and I think some of it is definitely part of that. And then, look, I mean, this is what happened last year where, you know, we get financial conditions loosened up so much that inflation comes back. And then the Fed can't cut.So to me, you know, we're right there and we've written about this extensively. We're right around the 200-day moving average for 10-year yields. Th]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/R-EsX9hersYdlfKUW2pOEKagl_h5bxv1cCKnzSTV7ZgTue, 05 Nov 2024 00:49:25 +0000gtyOn the eve of a competitive US election, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist joins our head of Corporate Credit Research and Chief Fixed Income Strategist to asses how investors are preparing for each possible outcome of the race. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.Andrew Sheets: I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Mike Wilson: Today on the show, the day before the US election, we're going to do a conversation with my colleagues about what we're watching out for in the markets.It's Monday, November 4th, at 1130am in New York.So let's get after it.Andrew Sheets: Well, Mike, like you said, it's the day before the US election. The campaign is going down to the wire and the polling looks very close. Which means both it could be a while before we know the results and a lot of different potential outcomes are still in play. So it would be great to just start with a high-level overview of how you're thinking about the different outcomes.So, first Mike, to you, as you think across some of the broad different scenarios that we could see post election, what do you think are some of the most important takeaways for how markets might react?Mike Wilson: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I mean, it's hard to, you know, consider oneself as an expert in these types of events, which are extremely hard to predict. And there's a lot of permutations, by the way. There's obviously the presidential election, but then of course there's congressional elections. And it's the combination of all those that then feed into policy, which could be immediate or longer lasting.So, the other thing to just keep in mind is that, you know, markets tend to pre-trade events like this. I mean, this is a known date, right? A known kind of event. It's not a surprise. And the outcome is a surprise. So people are making investments based on how they think the outcome is going to come. So that's the way we think about it now.Clearly, you know, treasury markets have sold off. Some of that's better economic data, as our strategists in fixed income have told us. But I think it's also this view that, you know, Trump presidency, particularly Republican sweep, may lead to more spending or bigger budget deficits. And so, term premium has widened out a bit, so that’s been an area; here I think you could get some reversion if Harris were to win.And that has impact on the equity markets -- whether that's some maybe small cap stocks or financials; some of the, you know, names that are levered to industrial spending that they want to do from a traditional energy standpoint.And then, of course, on the negative side, you know, a lot of consumer-oriented stocks have suffered because of fears about tariffs increasing along with renewables. Because of the view that, you know, the IRA would be pared back or even repealed.And I think there's still follow through particularly in financials. So, if Trump were to win, with a Republican Congress, I think, you know, financials could see some follow through. I think you could see some more strength in small caps because of perhaps animal spirits increasing a little further; a bit of a blow off move, perhaps, in the indices.And then, of course, if Harris wins, I would expect, perhaps, bonds to rally. I think you might see some of these, you know, micro trades like in financials give back some along with small caps. And then you'd see a big rally in the renewables. And some of the tariff losers that have suffered recently. So, there's a lot, there's a lot of opportunity, depending on the outcome tomorrow.Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, as you think about these outcomes for fixed income, what really stands out to you?Vishy Tirupattur: I think what is important, Andrew, is really to think about what's happening today in the...]]>859alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1249fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-young-people-think-about-money--75651228----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/PxRQpJuj-yT1tiNVXgpaWz5UvKhcgvSpqhc14fCUa_EFri, 01 Nov 2024 21:47:46 +0000gtyOur US Fintech and Payments analyst reviews a recent survey that reveals key trends on how Gen Z and Millennials handle their personal finances. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>245alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1248fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-global-credit-tour--75651029----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll go around the credit world in three short stories. It's Thursday, October 31st at 2pm in London.The US election next Tuesday continues to be a top issue on investor minds, and indeed is a top issue for us here at Thoughts on the Market, where it’s dominating your feed over this week. For credit, our positive view this year has been closely tied to the idea that the asset class likes moderation. For example, in data released yesterday the US economy grew a solid 2.8 per cent in the third quarter, while core inflation moderated to just 2.2 per cent, close to the Fed’s target. And Morgan Stanley’s forecasts for the rest of this year and next see that pattern continuing: Solid US Growth, falling inflation, driving steady further rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and all creating a better-than-expected backdrop for credit that should support tighter than average spreads. That idea that credit likes moderation is core to how we view the election. Outcomes that could drive larger changes in economic policy, domestic policy or foreign policy, are all larger risks. And outcomes that could drive more moderate outcomes across all of these factors are likely going to be better for credit, in our view. But you may also be tired of hearing about the election. And so for you, here is a quick tour of the credit world in three non-election stories. In Asia, Korea will be added to the FTSE World Government Bond Index, an important benchmark for global bond investors. This has significant implications across Korean assets, but for Credit, it may be most important for sparking more interest in Corporate Bonds denominated in local Korean Won.This is a larger market than investors may initially realize, totaling roughly $1 trillion US equivalent in size. And meanwhile, the exposure of foreign investors to this market is historically low. A large market with little global exposure is a potential opportunity. Moving to Europe, you could be forgiven for thinking the mood is pretty dour. Growth has been weaker than in the United States, while the US Election is raising questions around everything from disruptions to trans-Atlantic trade, to the future of NATO, to the war in Ukraine. But over the last month, flows into European credit have been extremely good. Per work by my colleagues, inflows into European credit have reached record levels over the last several months. The start of rate cuts leading investors to lock in still-attractive all-in yields in Europe is a big part of this story. Finally, in the US, we continue to see remarkable shifts in the ease with which investors can trade large volumes of corporate bonds. So-called portfolio trading, where investors buy or sell bonds as a group, continues to grow, with September seeing a new all-time high in activity. Year-to-date, through September, we estimate that roughly $760 billion – with a ‘b’ – has been traded this way. It’s never been easier to trade very large volumes of corporate bonds. The US election on November 5th will continue to dominate investor focus over the coming days. As it should. Credit has been an enormous beneficiary of the recent backdrop that’s seen solid growth, moderating inflation, and moderating policy rates. The vote will have an important bearing on whether that moderation continues, or if something new takes its place. But away from the election there are other important things happening. Korea’s Local Currency Corporate bond market is a large, underinvested market that may get more attention after index inclusion. European Credit is seeing record flows despite its macro uncertainties, an indicator of underlying investor demand. And in the US, the continued rise of portfolio trading is re-shaping market structure and improving the ability to trade ever larger volumes of corporate bonds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Oh, and Happy Halloween.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AVxObdgt30LhSNLsv0v1Q8Ffk1JV1Nk4uSKRxhZHNVUThu, 31 Oct 2024 21:31:46 +0000gtyWith the US election as a backdrop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets tells three stories that help encapsulate the state of global credit markets. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll go around the credit world in three short stories. It's Thursday, October 31st at 2pm in London.The US election next Tuesday continues to be a top issue on investor minds, and indeed is a top issue for us here at Thoughts on the Market, where it’s dominating your feed over this week. For credit, our positive view this year has been closely tied to the idea that the asset class likes moderation. For example, in data released yesterday the US economy grew a solid 2.8 per cent in the third quarter, while core inflation moderated to just 2.2 per cent, close to the Fed’s target. And Morgan Stanley’s forecasts for the rest of this year and next see that pattern continuing: Solid US Growth, falling inflation, driving steady further rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and all creating a better-than-expected backdrop for credit that should support tighter than average spreads. That idea that credit likes moderation is core to how we view the election. Outcomes that could drive larger changes in economic policy, domestic policy or foreign policy, are all larger risks. And outcomes that could drive more moderate outcomes across all of these factors are likely going to be better for credit, in our view. But you may also be tired of hearing about the election. And so for you, here is a quick tour of the credit world in three non-election stories. In Asia, Korea will be added to the FTSE World Government Bond Index, an important benchmark for global bond investors. This has significant implications across Korean assets, but for Credit, it may be most important for sparking more interest in Corporate Bonds denominated in local Korean Won.This is a larger market than investors may initially realize, totaling roughly $1 trillion US equivalent in size. And meanwhile, the exposure of foreign investors to this market is historically low. A large market with little global exposure is a potential opportunity. Moving to Europe, you could be forgiven for thinking the mood is pretty dour. Growth has been weaker than in the United States, while the US Election is raising questions around everything from disruptions to trans-Atlantic trade, to the future of NATO, to the war in Ukraine. But over the last month, flows into European credit have been extremely good. Per work by my colleagues, inflows into European credit have reached record levels over the last several months. The start of rate cuts leading investors to lock in still-attractive all-in yields in Europe is a big part of this story. Finally, in the US, we continue to see remarkable shifts in the ease with which investors can trade large volumes of corporate bonds. So-called portfolio trading, where investors buy or sell bonds as a group, continues to grow, with September seeing a new all-time high in activity. Year-to-date, through September, we estimate that roughly $760 billion – with a ‘b’ – has been traded this way. It’s never been easier to trade very large volumes of corporate bonds. The US election on November 5th will continue to dominate investor focus over the coming days. As it should. Credit has been an enormous beneficiary of the recent backdrop that’s seen solid growth, moderating inflation, and moderating policy rates. The vote will have an important bearing on whether that moderation continues, or if something new takes its place. But away from the election there are other important things happening. Korea’s Local Currency Corporate bond market is a large, underinvested market that may get more attention after index inclusion. European Credit is seeing record flows despite its macro uncertainties, an...]]>286alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1247fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-election-waiting-out-a-close-race--75651036----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today is going to be a little bit different. We’re exactly six days away from the US election. The race is neck-and-neck, and I want to sketch out what investors should expect in the next couple of weeks. It’s Wednesday, October 30, at 10 AM in New York.This is an historic election, and the outcome remains highly uncertain. What’s more, there’s a good chance we won’t know the winner on election night due to close vote counts. My colleagues and I have spent a lot of time on this show trying to give our listeners a sense of how the election might impact different economies around the word as well as markets, sectors, and specific industries. But today I want to take a step back and highlight a few things that investors should keep in mind right now. To sum up what we’ve covered so far: The key policies at stake are taxes, tariffs, and immigration. Congressional composition will be critical in determining the extent of tax cut extensions in either win outcome. Domestic, consumer-oriented sectors are most exposed to tax changes, while clean-tech is the most exposed to potential efforts at a repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. Macro impacts vary depending on the scope of policies and their sequencing, but we see downside risks to growth in a Republican win outcome. As our listeners know, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to win. Former President Trump’s most likely path to victory is through the Sun Belt – Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia; while Vice President Harris’ most likely path to victory is through the so-called Blue Wall – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In terms of the Senate, polling and prediction markets have consistently implied higher likelihood of Republicans winning control. Democrats are defending more seats in states that Trump won in 2020, as well as more seats in states Biden won by a small margin. As far as the House of Representatives, Republicans need 11 of the 25 toss-up seats to maintain control of the House, and Democrats need 15. The generic ballot is the most reliable House indicator, in our view. It’s a political poll which asks not which candidate you plan to vote for to represent you in Congress, but rather which political party – Democrat, Republican or Independent – that you would support. The generic ballot historically correlates with the House winner, and it currently favors Democrats. All this leaves us with two key takeaways: First, don’t expect conclusive results on election night. Early vote data from key states reflects our view that vote-by-mail levels are lower than in 2020 but still elevated versus historical levels. And it may take days to get all the mail-in votes counted. Second, full election results may differ from early returns. Why is that? A candidate may have a deficit in election night vote counts but still come back to win the race once all ballots are counted. This depends on two key variables: The share of the electorate who vote by mail; and the skew among those ballots toward Democrats – a blue shift – or Republicans – a red shift. So again, we need to be patient and wait for the final results. And when that happens, we will start digging deep into the post-election outlook for the economy and markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/SJKnW3efdsmb_8RIUkUsF5S4rtWoQyIskXLylybxFYUWed, 30 Oct 2024 20:14:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, outlines how investors should navigate the closing days of the presidential campaign -- including a vote-counting period that could extend past Election Day. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today is going to be a little bit different. We’re exactly six days away from the US election. The race is neck-and-neck, and I want to sketch out what investors should expect in the next couple of weeks. It’s Wednesday, October 30, at 10 AM in New York.This is an historic election, and the outcome remains highly uncertain. What’s more, there’s a good chance we won’t know the winner on election night due to close vote counts. My colleagues and I have spent a lot of time on this show trying to give our listeners a sense of how the election might impact different economies around the word as well as markets, sectors, and specific industries. But today I want to take a step back and highlight a few things that investors should keep in mind right now. To sum up what we’ve covered so far: The key policies at stake are taxes, tariffs, and immigration. Congressional composition will be critical in determining the extent of tax cut extensions in either win outcome. Domestic, consumer-oriented sectors are most exposed to tax changes, while clean-tech is the most exposed to potential efforts at a repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. Macro impacts vary depending on the scope of policies and their sequencing, but we see downside risks to growth in a Republican win outcome. As our listeners know, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to win. Former President Trump’s most likely path to victory is through the Sun Belt – Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia; while Vice President Harris’ most likely path to victory is through the so-called Blue Wall – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In terms of the Senate, polling and prediction markets have consistently implied higher likelihood of Republicans winning control. Democrats are defending more seats in states that Trump won in 2020, as well as more seats in states Biden won by a small margin. As far as the House of Representatives, Republicans need 11 of the 25 toss-up seats to maintain control of the House, and Democrats need 15. The generic ballot is the most reliable House indicator, in our view. It’s a political poll which asks not which candidate you plan to vote for to represent you in Congress, but rather which political party – Democrat, Republican or Independent – that you would support. The generic ballot historically correlates with the House winner, and it currently favors Democrats. All this leaves us with two key takeaways: First, don’t expect conclusive results on election night. Early vote data from key states reflects our view that vote-by-mail levels are lower than in 2020 but still elevated versus historical levels. And it may take days to get all the mail-in votes counted. Second, full election results may differ from early returns. Why is that? A candidate may have a deficit in election night vote counts but still come back to win the race once all ballots are counted. This depends on two key variables: The share of the electorate who vote by mail; and the skew among those ballots toward Democrats – a blue shift – or Republicans – a red shift. So again, we need to be patient and wait for the final results. And when that happens, we will start digging deep into the post-election outlook for the economy and markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>226alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1246fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-u-s-election-and-tax-policy--75651217----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Costagno, Head of Global Valuation, Accounting, and Tax Research at Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: With less than a week to go until the US election, the race is still neck and neck. Today, we dig into a key issue voters care about: Taxes.Todd Castagno: It's Tuesday, October 29th at 10am in New York.So, Ariana. Taxes are an issue that impact both businesses and individuals. It's a key component of both candidates plans and proposals. How have they evolved over the campaign?Ariana Salvatore: I'd say in general we do tend to see a lot of overlap between Harris' proposals and the ones that the Democrats were campaigning on before she took over the mantle from President Biden in July. That being said, in some instances, her plans go beyond what was requested in the president's fiscal year [20]25 budget request.For example, that $6,000 credit for newborns and the $25,000 homebuyer tax credit. These are areas where we've seen her campaign go beyond the scope of what Biden was campaigning on while he was still in the race. Of course, it's important to remember that any of these proposals would have to pass muster in a Democrat controlled or a split Congress – meaning that there will be some tempering of these plans at the margin.Todd Castagno: So former President Trump campaigned in his first election on tax policy. He's campaigning on tax policy in his current campaign. What are his plans and views?Ariana Salvatore: We've been talking about the Republican sweep outcome as the most deficit expansionary from tax policy changes because Republicans understandably have more fealty to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.That law is set to expire by the end of next year. So, in a Trump win scenario plus Republican Congress, we think you can get most of that 2017 law extended. While in a Trump win scenario with divided government, it's probably a little bit narrower. In general, as I said, deficits skew larger in Republican win outcomes for that reason, with an asymmetry across the other election scenarios. That being said, we do still expect to see deficit expansion in 2026, regardless of who's in power, because these tax cuts will be extended one way or another.But Todd, you've done a lot of work in this area and there are some substantial impacts from a potential corporate rate increase to think through. Can you give us a little bit of detail on what that kind of increase would mean for stocks and bonds?Todd Castagno: Yeah. So, investors have been very focused on the rate and where it matters and where it does not matter. So, if you really think about it, most companies that are exposed to a rate increase or decrease are domestic oriented, consumer companies, retail companies, you know, hospital facilities, industrials; those are the most exposed to a rate increase.Multinationals this time around are less exposed. So, if we go back to 2017, we think about it; that was a different story. We had $2 trillion of trapped cash on the sidelines that did come back – buybacks, dividends, corporate hiring. You know, this time around, that's a different story. So there is exposure but it's mainly consumer-oriented companies.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And you mentioned the 2017 almost as a blueprint for what we saw last time. You mentioned dividends and buybacks.Do you have any sense of how this time around could be different? What do we think companies would likely spend these tax cuts on?Todd Castagno: Well, there are tax cuts. I do think it's going to be different. I do think the $2 trillion does not exist. That's not going to happen. So, you're going to have fewer buybacks, fewer dividends. But you could see some changes in employment. You could see some changes in investment. Things like upfront expensing could help boost the economy, higher jobs, et cetera.One thing, Ariana. You know, tax cuts are expensive. I think that's what we've all contemplated for almost 10 years now. How are we going to pay for these in this new world?Ariana Salvatore: Well Republicans have proposed a few different pay forwards. But to your point, we're not in the same environment as 2017, and we don't expect to see the same ones that were part of the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act negotiations this time around. Specifically, former President Trump has talked about not extending the SALT cap, which was a revenue raiser that capped the amount of deductions some individuals could take between state and federal taxes. That provision raised about $900 billion over 10 years.Republicans in general are mainly focused on peeling back some parts of the IRA – or the Inflation Reduction Act – as a cost saving measure, as well as letting some of the tax cuts from the 2017 law roll off.We contrast that with the Democrat sweep outcome, where we could see a corporate rate increase to 25 per cent in our view, in spite of Harris’ pledge to bring it up to 28 per cent from the current 21 per cent.Todd Castagno: So, we could talk about the Inflation Reduction Act for a second. You know, that was a bill that was designed to bring energy, clean energy manufacturing back to the United States.It was a very large bill; it was partisan. But what do we think about in this next election outcome of actually repealing some of those items?Ariana Salvatore: It's a great question. And Republicans on the campaign trail have been talking a lot about peeling back the IRA. Importantly, in our view, we don't think a full-scale repeal is likely even in a Republican sweep outcome. There are a few reasons for that, but mainly because if you look at where these projects are being located, it's in Republican held states and districts. And Republicans in the house currently have said that they're not interested in rolling back the law. That being said, there are ways to potentially cap the amount of outstanding money that has not yet been allocated.And the president could work with the treasury or other federal agencies to tighten up some of the criteria or the guidance around accessing some of the tax credits that will limit the overall deployment.Todd Castagno: I think the recent Supreme Court decision also plays into that.With candidates’ tax plans – I’ve run a lot of numbers from a company perspective. You've run a lot of numbers top down from a deficit perspective. What did you come to view?Ariana Salvatore: We do see deficits expanding in 2026 and beyond. That's because, in our view, it's not really in lawmakers’ interest to allow all of the tax cuts – both individual and corporate – from 2017 to expire. We think the largest extension, as I mentioned before, comes in a Republican sweep. But in general, in some form or another, we think that at least a portion of these lower tax rates are going to stay around.That adds $2.8 trillion to the deficit over 10 years on the high end per our estimates; and $700 billion over 10 years in our smallest expansion scenario, a Democrat sweep.So finally, Todd, in either win outcome, what's the timeline of key tax-related events that investors should be paying attention to?Todd Castagno: So, this is the trillion-dollar question. So, most of the individual side of the tax cuts and jobs act expires at the end of 2025. There are certain business provisions that have already started to phase out. There are certain provisions that are permanent, like the corporate rate.When will Congress get to this? They will get to it at some point, but we just don't know when that is. Could it be early 2025? Could it be 2026? And I think investors should pay attention to that because Congress doesn't always act on time; and we also don't know what the extensions will look like. Some things could be extended three years, five years, 10 years. Some things could be permanent.So that's the jigsaw puzzle that we'll have to put together after the election.Ariana Salvatore: Great. Well, I guess three things in life are certain – death, taxes, and the fact that we will be following this issue very closely.Todd, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Todd Castagno: Great to speak with you.Ariana Salvatore: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jBCo5sZwzO3tXJifcfO2rHCt5g4HgQbtpTEIGIeFMu4Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:50:34 +0000gtyOur U.S. Public Policy and Valuation, Accounting & Tax strategists assess the possible scenarios in the upcoming elections, and what they could mean for both taxpayers and the market. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Costagno, Head of Global Valuation, Accounting, and Tax Research at Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: With less than a week to go until the US election, the race is still neck and neck. Today, we dig into a key issue voters care about: Taxes.Todd Castagno: It's Tuesday, October 29th at 10am in New York.So, Ariana. Taxes are an issue that impact both businesses and individuals. It's a key component of both candidates plans and proposals. How have they evolved over the campaign?Ariana Salvatore: I'd say in general we do tend to see a lot of overlap between Harris' proposals and the ones that the Democrats were campaigning on before she took over the mantle from President Biden in July. That being said, in some instances, her plans go beyond what was requested in the president's fiscal year [20]25 budget request.For example, that $6,000 credit for newborns and the $25,000 homebuyer tax credit. These are areas where we've seen her campaign go beyond the scope of what Biden was campaigning on while he was still in the race. Of course, it's important to remember that any of these proposals would have to pass muster in a Democrat controlled or a split Congress – meaning that there will be some tempering of these plans at the margin.Todd Castagno: So former President Trump campaigned in his first election on tax policy. He's campaigning on tax policy in his current campaign. What are his plans and views?Ariana Salvatore: We've been talking about the Republican sweep outcome as the most deficit expansionary from tax policy changes because Republicans understandably have more fealty to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.That law is set to expire by the end of next year. So, in a Trump win scenario plus Republican Congress, we think you can get most of that 2017 law extended. While in a Trump win scenario with divided government, it's probably a little bit narrower. In general, as I said, deficits skew larger in Republican win outcomes for that reason, with an asymmetry across the other election scenarios. That being said, we do still expect to see deficit expansion in 2026, regardless of who's in power, because these tax cuts will be extended one way or another.But Todd, you've done a lot of work in this area and there are some substantial impacts from a potential corporate rate increase to think through. Can you give us a little bit of detail on what that kind of increase would mean for stocks and bonds?Todd Castagno: Yeah. So, investors have been very focused on the rate and where it matters and where it does not matter. So, if you really think about it, most companies that are exposed to a rate increase or decrease are domestic oriented, consumer companies, retail companies, you know, hospital facilities, industrials; those are the most exposed to a rate increase.Multinationals this time around are less exposed. So, if we go back to 2017, we think about it; that was a different story. We had $2 trillion of trapped cash on the sidelines that did come back – buybacks, dividends, corporate hiring. You know, this time around, that's a different story. So there is exposure but it's mainly consumer-oriented companies.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And you mentioned the 2017 almost as a blueprint for what we saw last time. You mentioned dividends and buybacks.Do you have any sense of how this time around could be different? What do we think companies would likely spend these tax cuts on?Todd Castagno: Well, there are tax cuts. I do think it's going to be different. I do think the $2 trillion does not exist. That's not going to happen. So, you're going to have fewer buybacks,...]]>479alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1245fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/markets-uncertain-ahead-of-u-s-election--75651021----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about understanding market dynamics against the backdrop of U.S. elections. It's Monday, Oct 28th at 1 pm in New York.The outcome of the U.S. elections, now just over a week away, has been at the center of every discussion I have had in the last several days. There have been significant moves, not so much in the opinion polls – but in prediction markets. In the opinion polls, the presidential race remains tight and neck-to-neck in key swing states with poll numbers well within the margin of error. But some prediction markets have shifted meaningfully toward Republicans in the contests for both the presidency and control of Congress. Financial markets have also moved a lot. Stocks exposed to a Republican win outcome have risen a fair bit. To understand the potential policy changes that can have an impact on markets, I think it is crucial to understand the sequencing of those policy changes. Given the moves in the prediction markets, let us first frame a Trump win scenario. It seems reasonable to bucket the possible shifts into three categories – fiscal policy, immigration controls, and tariffs. Meaningful changes in fiscal policy require control of both houses of Congress; and even in a Republican sweep, scenario legislation would still be time-consuming and likely come last. We don’t really have many details on how changes to immigration policy would be implemented and so their timing remains very unclear. On the other hand, given broad presidential discretion on trade policy, Trump’s expressed intentions in his campaign messaging, and the precedent of his first term, tariff changes would likely come first.Our economists have looked at the potential impact of tariffs on the economy. They concluded that broad tariffs imply downside risks to growth through declines in consumption, investment spending, payrolls, and labor income, and upside risks to inflation. Their estimates suggest that imposing all the tariffs currently under discussion could result in a delayed drag of -1.4 per cent on real GDP growth and a more rapid boost of 0.9 per cent to inflation. How do we reconcile the equity market’s reaction to the increasing odds of a Trump win in some prediction markets with the idea that there will be a drag on GDP growth and boost to inflation that our economists assess? Two explanations. Markets could be counting on the prospect that all tariffs would not be imposed. Or at least would be sequenced over an extended period, with some coming much later than others. Also, markets could be putting greater emphasis on the revival of “animal spirits” driven by expectations of regulatory easing, which is hard to define or quantify.Let us look at other markets. In the bond markets, treasury yields have risen notably in the last month. Many investors see the Republican sweep outcome as most bearish for US Treasuries, based on the experience of the 2016 election. As Matt Hornbach, our global head of macro strategy has noted, there are meaningful differences between the Fed’s monetary policy today and the pre-election period in 2016, suggesting that any rise in Treasury yields would be more contained this time, even in a Republican sweep outcome. In 2016, markets were pricing in about 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. Contrast that to the current market expectation of about 135 basis points in rate cuts over the next 12 months. Also, in the year after the 2016 election, expectations for the Fed Funds Rate rose nearly 125 basis points. A similar rise in expectations for Fed policy now would require market participants to expect the Fed to stop cutting immediately; and refrain from further cuts through 2025. This seems like a remote possibility – even under a Republican sweep elections scenario. Given the recent moves across markets and the expectations they are pricing in, markets may now be somewhat offside should Harris win, as they would have to reverse the course. Elections are a known unknown. Based on opinion polls, this race remains extremely tight, and multiple combinations of presidential and congressional outcomes are very much in play. We must also contend with the prospect that determining the outcome may take much longer this time.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/psPLRRo_BF8xfzi9FMzrtd72SQXStNXPktutvGQsi3kMon, 28 Oct 2024 23:20:13 +0000gtyAs the U.S. presidential race continues to be neck and neck according to opinion polls, our Chief Fixed Income Strategist considers the possible market implications if some policies proposed during this campaign are implemented. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about understanding market dynamics against the backdrop of U.S. elections. It's Monday, Oct 28th at 1 pm in New York.The outcome of the U.S. elections, now just over a week away, has been at the center of every discussion I have had in the last several days. There have been significant moves, not so much in the opinion polls – but in prediction markets. In the opinion polls, the presidential race remains tight and neck-to-neck in key swing states with poll numbers well within the margin of error. But some prediction markets have shifted meaningfully toward Republicans in the contests for both the presidency and control of Congress. Financial markets have also moved a lot. Stocks exposed to a Republican win outcome have risen a fair bit. To understand the potential policy changes that can have an impact on markets, I think it is crucial to understand the sequencing of those policy changes. Given the moves in the prediction markets, let us first frame a Trump win scenario. It seems reasonable to bucket the possible shifts into three categories – fiscal policy, immigration controls, and tariffs. Meaningful changes in fiscal policy require control of both houses of Congress; and even in a Republican sweep, scenario legislation would still be time-consuming and likely come last. We don’t really have many details on how changes to immigration policy would be implemented and so their timing remains very unclear. On the other hand, given broad presidential discretion on trade policy, Trump’s expressed intentions in his campaign messaging, and the precedent of his first term, tariff changes would likely come first.Our economists have looked at the potential impact of tariffs on the economy. They concluded that broad tariffs imply downside risks to growth through declines in consumption, investment spending, payrolls, and labor income, and upside risks to inflation. Their estimates suggest that imposing all the tariffs currently under discussion could result in a delayed drag of -1.4 per cent on real GDP growth and a more rapid boost of 0.9 per cent to inflation. How do we reconcile the equity market’s reaction to the increasing odds of a Trump win in some prediction markets with the idea that there will be a drag on GDP growth and boost to inflation that our economists assess? Two explanations. Markets could be counting on the prospect that all tariffs would not be imposed. Or at least would be sequenced over an extended period, with some coming much later than others. Also, markets could be putting greater emphasis on the revival of “animal spirits” driven by expectations of regulatory easing, which is hard to define or quantify.Let us look at other markets. In the bond markets, treasury yields have risen notably in the last month. Many investors see the Republican sweep outcome as most bearish for US Treasuries, based on the experience of the 2016 election. As Matt Hornbach, our global head of macro strategy has noted, there are meaningful differences between the Fed’s monetary policy today and the pre-election period in 2016, suggesting that any rise in Treasury yields would be more contained this time, even in a Republican sweep outcome. In 2016, markets were pricing in about 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. Contrast that to the current market expectation of about 135 basis points in rate cuts over the next 12 months. Also, in the year after the 2016 election, expectations for the Fed Funds Rate rose nearly 125 basis points. A similar rise in expectations for...]]>314alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1244fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-10-trillion-opportunity-in-us-reshoring--75651046----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YNBhXC9kaaLx4SPRMFpdCsakyhj0RpWgDNPQbiVKQMYFri, 25 Oct 2024 20:16:21 +0000gtyAfter decades of offshoring, the pendulum for US manufacturing is swinging back toward domestic production. Our US Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder looks at what’s behind this trend. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>197alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1243fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/retirement-in-the-age-of-higher-life-expectancy--75651136----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product, and today we dig into a topic that really affects us all. Retirement.Life cycles are extending as people are living longer, healthier lives. Coupled with government pension funds that are increasingly under pressure, this means that consumers will need to build much more robust investment plans to substitute for salaries to carry them through a longer retirement. And to understand more about the changing financial needs and challenges of an aging population, I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, our European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst. It's Thursday, October the 24th at 3pm in London. Betsy Graseck: And it's 10 am in New York. Paul Walsh: Now Bruce, let's start with you. As people live longer, they will likely spend more time in retirement. Managing and ensuring retirement income over a longer duration could have a significant impact on asset management. What are the broad trends you're seeing in the industry right now?Bruce Hamilton: So, the asset management industry in large part has focused on the accumulation phase of investors journey. Whilst this remains critical as people build assets for retirement – and we see growing allocations from affluent investors to private markets as a trend which is likely to be reinforced by the aging theme – there's a significant need for decumulation products and solutions that can offer returns and income over a prolonged retirement.We see a lot of innovation as asset managers look to develop products to meet this need.Paul Walsh: So Betsy, people are living longer. How ready are consumers for retirement? Are most retirement plans or similar financial services ready to handle this challenge?Betsy Graseck: Some are ready. But given how rapidly the global population is aging, there is an increasing need to provide solutions to individuals. Just to put a number on it, the global population that is 65 years old or older in the year 2000 was only 7 per cent. This is set to hit 10 per cent next year in 2025 and 16 per cent in 2050. All groups need service and advice – with the affluent group needing the most increase in services especially if government pension funds come under more pressure. Paul Walsh: So, I think you set the scene really well there, Betsy, and I guess the obvious question is, how can wealth and financial planners best respond, do you think? Is it by creating new products? Or do we need a much deeper transformation?Betsy Graseck: We see individuals today having a wide range of retirement choices. What we feel they really need here is personalized, customized advice, delivering solutions that can address their unique needs. These span from affluent individuals needing salary replacement strategies to high-net-worth individuals looking for philanthropic and wealth transfer strategies. A focus on integrated, personalized advice, innovative products, and high-quality service that meets clients as they wish to connect effectively will be critical. Paul Walsh: It seems to me that it is – but is this a positive for the financial services sector? And if so, what do you think is the size of this revenue opportunity and over what time period do you think?Betsy Graseck: Well, the way we've looked at this is across the global asset manager and global wealth manager industry, as they will be the ones called upon to address these needs. And we do see a roughly 30 per cent uplift in global revenues by 2028, which equates to [$]400 billion in incremental revenues across the global industry.And that is driven by the expansion of individuals looking for advice, in particular from the affluent group, as well as an increase in fee-based products to address the income needs. Paul Walsh: And there's some big numbers that you've quoted there, Betsy. So let's dig into the financial subsector and industries. What are the biggest untapped opportunities there?Betsy Graseck: Well, the number one is the affluent customer base that we do see having the biggest need for advice, relative to advice seeking today. And as that group, reaches out and receives advice from wealth channels, that is one major driver here. The second driver is the increase in fee-based products to service the income replacement needs.Paul Walsh: And what are the biggest challenges do you think? Obviously, we've talked about the opportunity there, but the biggest challenges to financial services that you see along the way. Betsy Graseck: Well, the way I think about this is what is required to be a winner, and the winners need to be able to integrate their entire organizations to deliver for clients. And also leverage technology efficiently and effectively to be able not only to deliver the highest quality service in the way the client wants to be serviced; but also to optimize cost structures, which then can get reinvested – you know, higher pretext getting reinvested into the business. The challenges are the opposite of institutions that remain siloed and institutions that have, you know, maybe a tech strategy that is not set to respond to the needs of this client set. Paul Walsh: Thanks for that, Betsy; and Bruce, I just want to pivot back to you. Some asset managers are partnering with insurance companies to offer guaranteed income streams and wealth transfer solutions. What are some of the successful models that you've seen so far? Bruce Hamilton: So, asset managers are adopting a range of approaches. Some have acquired insurance subsidiaries, some have taken significant minority stakes, while others have looked to deepen partnerships with insurance. Trade offs include the degree of control versus the capital intensity that ownership of insurance brings. So, we see more than one route, but a continued push towards greater collaboration between asset managers and insurers.Given the potential for the asset managers to access stable, permanent capital, that can then be deployed in a range of investment strategies to offer diversified sources of income via private or structured credit to support returns for the end insurance clients. Theoretically, the best place models to deliver retirement solutions will have elements of wealth advice, plus a hybrid asset management insurance product approach. Given the importance of providing investors with regular and variable income, a guaranteed minimum level of income, plus an ability to generate a return to offer potential for legacy to pass to heirs.Paul Walsh: And of course, Bruce, it's very difficult to talk about product innovation, without bringing in the topic of AI. As asset managers are working to create ever more personalized retirement solutions as we've heard, how and to what extent do you think they are leveraging AI?Bruce Hamilton: So, our interviews with a range of management players confirmed that many of the potential use cases being worked on 12 months ago have now been put into production. It's still early days, and so far, most use cases are focused on areas that can drive efficiencies. So, for example, in RFP report writing, synthesis of research, and some of the middle and back-office processes for asset managers. But over time, AI can clearly feed more bespoke client service by wealth and asset managers with areas such as customized investment proposals and financial planning offering potential.Paul Walsh: Fascinating topic. Betsy and Bruce, thank you so much for taking the time to talk. It's clear that increasing lifespans are reshaping the financials sector by driving product innovation, influencing asset allocation strategies, and, of course, creating new market opportunities. And to our listeners, thanks as always for taking the time to listen in. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please do leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CoBvC-Bgi7AFHu1ZqlqTJ5UPEmi8t3V-TEkZ_4Ic6CYThu, 24 Oct 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s European Head of Research Product Paul Walsh speaks to Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst, about the implications of increasing life...----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product, and today we dig into a topic that really affects us all. Retirement.Life cycles are extending as people are living longer, healthier lives. Coupled with government pension funds that are increasingly under pressure, this means that consumers will need to build much more robust investment plans to substitute for salaries to carry them through a longer retirement. And to understand more about the changing financial needs and challenges of an aging population, I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, our European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst. It's Thursday, October the 24th at 3pm in London. Betsy Graseck: And it's 10 am in New York. Paul Walsh: Now Bruce, let's start with you. As people live longer, they will likely spend more time in retirement. Managing and ensuring retirement income over a longer duration could have a significant impact on asset management. What are the broad trends you're seeing in the industry right now?Bruce Hamilton: So, the asset management industry in large part has focused on the accumulation phase of investors journey. Whilst this remains critical as people build assets for retirement – and we see growing allocations from affluent investors to private markets as a trend which is likely to be reinforced by the aging theme – there's a significant need for decumulation products and solutions that can offer returns and income over a prolonged retirement.We see a lot of innovation as asset managers look to develop products to meet this need.Paul Walsh: So Betsy, people are living longer. How ready are consumers for retirement? Are most retirement plans or similar financial services ready to handle this challenge?Betsy Graseck: Some are ready. But given how rapidly the global population is aging, there is an increasing need to provide solutions to individuals. Just to put a number on it, the global population that is 65 years old or older in the year 2000 was only 7 per cent. This is set to hit 10 per cent next year in 2025 and 16 per cent in 2050. All groups need service and advice – with the affluent group needing the most increase in services especially if government pension funds come under more pressure. Paul Walsh: So, I think you set the scene really well there, Betsy, and I guess the obvious question is, how can wealth and financial planners best respond, do you think? Is it by creating new products? Or do we need a much deeper transformation?Betsy Graseck: We see individuals today having a wide range of retirement choices. What we feel they really need here is personalized, customized advice, delivering solutions that can address their unique needs. These span from affluent individuals needing salary replacement strategies to high-net-worth individuals looking for philanthropic and wealth transfer strategies. A focus on integrated, personalized advice, innovative products, and high-quality service that meets clients as they wish to connect effectively will be critical. Paul Walsh: It seems to me that it is – but is this a positive for the financial services sector? And if so, what do you think is the size of this revenue opportunity and over what time period do you think?Betsy Graseck: Well, the way we've looked at this is across the global asset manager and global wealth manager industry, as they will be the ones called upon to address these needs. And we do see a roughly 30 per cent uplift in global revenues by 2028, which equates to [$]400 billion in...]]>524alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1242fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/europe-s-demographic-dilemma--75651153----- Transcript -----
Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.Regiane Yamanari: And I’m Regiane Yamanari from the European Equity Strategy Team.Jens Eisenschmidt: Today we are discussing one of the most urgent challenges Europe is facing right now, a declining working age population – and its implication for Europe's economy and potential solutions.It’s Wednesday, October 23rd, at 3 pm in Frankfurt.Regiane Yamanari: And 2 pm in London.So Jens, people are getting older around the world, living longer. Although the rate of change is different from country to country, can you tell us what's the situation in Europe right now?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes, Europe faces a declining working age population, so much is sure. We have just put out a big report, where we come up with numbers around this issue. We think for the large four Euro area countries – Germany, France, Italy, and Spain – we see a decline in Euro area working population by 2040 by 6.4 per cent. People also get older, so that doesn't necessarily mean the overall population is declining by as much. It simply means that working age population, as a sort of most direct, relevant measure for the economy, is declining.Regiane Yamanari: Why does an aging population hamper economic growth?Jens Eisenschmidt: So, think about the economy producing, in a very stylized sense, with two factors. One is capital and the other one is labor. And typically, these two factors are connected. So, you can't really produce just with one factor. Typically, you need at least some labor to produce something or at least some machinery to produce something with labor.So we just; I mean, it's a very simple way of looking at the economy, but typically very powerful in explaining what's going on. So, if we take this approach and look at our economy through the lens of these two factors and we have one factor declining significantly, this will affect the amount the economy can produce.So, we are talking here about so-called potential growth or potential output. And we think the declining working age population will lead to a decline in potential output. For the Euro area economies I was just mentioning, we think it could be around 4 per cent over the period 2000, from now to 2040. And that amounts to on an annual basis around 25 basis points lower growth potential.Regiane Yamanari: Suppose policy makers want to boost Europe's working age population, which they do. What options do they have? Which European countries most benefit from these policies or options?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, the oldest policy measure, or if you want the most discussed one, typically has been birth rates.Now, many of the policies being implemented here – and they have been implemented for decades already – have been found to be not really changing [the] situation in a profound way. So, birth rates have either stopped increasing again or actually continued dropping. So, policy makers’ attention probably for this reason has turned to other measures.Other measures we think of here mostly in the current debate is increasing net migration, so you're basically getting your working age population replenished to some extent from the outside. Changing participation pattern in your own domestic labor market – typically, it's framed around the question, how much or how high is the share of one cohort versus the other.For instance, males versus females. We have countries where there is a large gap between these two groups, just to name an example here. And you know, closing that gap could help you increasing or offset; some of the projected decline in working age population.Another measure that's often discussed is increasing, retirement age. So essentially working age population is defined by those age between 15 and 64. And of course, if you work for longer, so you increase retirement age, that will also help, to stem against some of the projected decline in working age population.Now, if you look around for the countries that we are discussing in the report, um, then there are different ways these policies affect these countries.So, for instance, in Italy, closing the gap between male and female labor force participation would offset a large part of the projected fall in its working age population because that gap is so large. In France, in terms of our numbers, the most effective measure would be increasing the retirement age. And again, in Germany and Spain, it would probably be migration policies that are most effective.Okay now let's consider the alternative, Regiane. Suppose nothing changes. There are fewer and fewer working age people in Europe. How would this affect companies earning growth?Regiane Yamanari: So, if there are no policy action, and here assuming all else equal, I mean, no change in productivity, for example. Due to a lower GDP growth, we estimate the headwinds of European demographics could lower companies long term earnings growth by 90 basis points. So, from 5.1 to 4.2 per cent by the end of the decade. And this compares to an average growth of 6.4 per cent that we had in the past 10 years.Jens Eisenschmidt: And how would this be reflected in the stock market?Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so potential lower earnings growth is negative for European equities, right? But it's worth highlighting two points here. First, is that European companies have been diversifying their activities and revenues across the globe in the recent decades. And the revenue exposure of European companies to develop Europe, including the UK has reached a 30-year low. So, we estimate that just 38 per cent of European companies’ revenues are generated in develop Europe, on a free flow market cap weighted basis.And second, I think we see this impact being more idiosyncratic at sector at stock level. Just to give an example, so we have this factor analysis that we have done. We found that companies reducing headcount in Europe have been outperforming companies increasing. So in our view, this impact, it will be idiosyncratic, and it will depend by sector and the the stock.Jens Eisenschmidt: What sectors and industries then do you expect to be most affected by an aging population and the declining labor force?Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so first of all, I think one thing to mention is that it's very clear that the theme of, aging population is gaining traction in European C-suite commentary. So we found using AlphaSense Large Language Model, when we analyze companies transcripts, a notable rise in mentions of aging population – and in particular, if we compare to the US, to the US companies, we know that labor intensive industries like kept goods, construction and materials, business services are among those at the top of the list.And those mentions have been increasing in most cases when we compare to the average of the last five years.Jens Eisenschmidt: So how are companies adjusting their business models to account for these challenging demographic trends? Regiane Yamanari: So we see, for example, industrial automation, robotics, and software adoption accelerating in the face of declining working age population across Europe, which might surprise some people as some people is relatively under-penetrated by technology.Regiane Yamanari: For example, if we look at industrial robot density in Germany, that is less than half of South Korea. And there are some sectors, for example, like hospitality that our analyst has flagged that the companies have been changing and adopting initiatives related to recruitment, technology adoption, portfolio rationalization – just a few examples here – and adjusting their business models as well to navigate a scenario of reduced labor availability and higher costs. And well, not to mention AI, which we have seen a rapid development and pace of adoption as well.Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm glad you mentioned AI. It was on my mind. I was about to ask you. So, what do you think, uh, the role of AI could be in helping with the demographic challenge?Regiane Yamanari: Our view is mainly on productivity gains. So, we them to start materializing, but they are likely to be small and grow consistently over time. An important portion of AI adopter companies cost base are related to R&D, marketing, distribution costs – and these areas we still are to see broad based application of AI, if this is really to be meaningful at the corporate level or even a national level.So the way we see is that the productivity gains being reflected on margins, but still to be small at this level.Jens Eisenschmidt: So, this one remains to be seen. We will surely be watching closely whether AI can deliver what it seems to be promising to generate productivity gains to offset the demographic challenge.Regiane, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.Regiane Yamanari: Great speaking with you, Jens.Jens Eisenschmidt: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/QN8UPx5IJJWuYLef28xa-7fo3WIHeCYTR2cEUaxu8FwWed, 23 Oct 2024 21:17:59 +0000gtyOur Chief Europe Economist Jens Eisenschmidt and Europe Equity Strategist Regiane Yamanari discuss the strain of an aging population on the future of Europe’s economy and markets. ----- Transcript ----- Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.Regiane Yamanari: And I’m Regiane Yamanari from the European Equity Strategy Team.Jens Eisenschmidt: Today we are discussing one of the most urgent challenges Europe is facing right now, a declining working age population – and its implication for Europe's economy and potential solutions.It’s Wednesday, October 23rd, at 3 pm in Frankfurt.Regiane Yamanari: And 2 pm in London.So Jens, people are getting older around the world, living longer. Although the rate of change is different from country to country, can you tell us what's the situation in Europe right now?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes, Europe faces a declining working age population, so much is sure. We have just put out a big report, where we come up with numbers around this issue. We think for the large four Euro area countries – Germany, France, Italy, and Spain – we see a decline in Euro area working population by 2040 by 6.4 per cent. People also get older, so that doesn't necessarily mean the overall population is declining by as much. It simply means that working age population, as a sort of most direct, relevant measure for the economy, is declining.Regiane Yamanari: Why does an aging population hamper economic growth?Jens Eisenschmidt: So, think about the economy producing, in a very stylized sense, with two factors. One is capital and the other one is labor. And typically, these two factors are connected. So, you can't really produce just with one factor. Typically, you need at least some labor to produce something or at least some machinery to produce something with labor.So we just; I mean, it's a very simple way of looking at the economy, but typically very powerful in explaining what's going on. So, if we take this approach and look at our economy through the lens of these two factors and we have one factor declining significantly, this will affect the amount the economy can produce.So, we are talking here about so-called potential growth or potential output. And we think the declining working age population will lead to a decline in potential output. For the Euro area economies I was just mentioning, we think it could be around 4 per cent over the period 2000, from now to 2040. And that amounts to on an annual basis around 25 basis points lower growth potential.Regiane Yamanari: Suppose policy makers want to boost Europe's working age population, which they do. What options do they have? Which European countries most benefit from these policies or options?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, the oldest policy measure, or if you want the most discussed one, typically has been birth rates.Now, many of the policies being implemented here – and they have been implemented for decades already – have been found to be not really changing [the] situation in a profound way. So, birth rates have either stopped increasing again or actually continued dropping. So, policy makers’ attention probably for this reason has turned to other measures.Other measures we think of here mostly in the current debate is increasing net migration, so you're basically getting your working age population replenished to some extent from the outside. Changing participation pattern in your own domestic labor market – typically, it's framed around the question, how much or how high is the share of one cohort versus the other.For instance, males versus females. We have countries where there is a large gap between these two groups, just to name an example here. And you know, closing that gap could help you increasing or offset; some of the projected decline in working age population.Another measure that's often discussed is increasing, retirement age. So essentially working age...]]>584alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1241fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mind-meets-machine-in-brain-computer-interfaces--75650986----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kallum Titchmarsh, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Medical Technology Team. On today’s episode – a dive into a topic that sounds like it’s straight out of science fiction. Brain Computer Interfaces, or BCIs.It’s Tuesday, October 22, at 10 AM in New York.The latest version of Tony Stark – better known as his alter ego Iron Man – is a good example of a brain computer interface. When the billionaire businessman-inventor is critically wounded, he builds an armor suit that gives him superhuman abilities. Flying through air. Clearing out obstacles with repulsor blasts. Shooting enemies with guided missiles. All controlled by his brain. This, of course, is the stuff of science fiction. Real world examples of brain computer interfaces – or BCIs – aren’t fantastical. But they are fascinating. Translating thoughts into actions like generating text on a screen or moving a robotic limb.BCIs have been in development for more than a century, but recent advances have brought them much closer to becoming a reality. We expect to see BCIs in commercial medical use in about five years, at which point they can help treat a wide range of health disorders, from motor neuron disease – such as ALS – to depression. The market opportunity for BCIs looks enormous – $400 billion of total addressable market – or TAM – in the US alone. This figure includes two types of BCIs: enabling BCIs, which facilitate behaviors like moving a cursor on a screen, and preventive BCIs, which can prevent adverse events like depressive states or epileptic seizures. We divide the BCI healthcare opportunity into two segments: early TAM and intermediate TAM. The early TAM includes individuals with critical upper limb impairment and select variants of neurological conditions like epilepsy and depression. These patients will likely be the first to receive a BCI. The intermediate TAM includes patients with moderate upper limb impairment and severe lower limb impairment. As BCI technology develops, these patients will eventually become eligible for treatment. There are at least 2.8 million patients in the US forming the early TAM and an additional 6.8 million within the intermediate TAM. Together, these groups represent the $400 billion of potential revenue I already mentioned based on a single implant procedure. The opportunity may be significantly larger when factoring for potential replacement cycles and recurring revenues from software upgrades. But while the estimated TAM is indeed vast, we think penetration will remain limited through the first 20 years of launch. By 2035, we expect just under $1.5 billion of revenue to be generated from BCI implant procedures, hitting north of a $500 million annual run rate in 2036, and reaching the $1 billion annual run rate by 2041. It’s exciting to think BCIs will begin their healthcare application in the coming years, but we anticipate a number of regulatory hurdles on the way to widespread adoption in healthcare and beyond. Will BCIs push into fields like neurogaming, warfare, and even biological optimization of humans? The potential is certainly there, and with it the burden of the safe and responsible use of this cutting-edge technology. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ItaFUZZBA3TSSOYp5z8wz6zLv3rZDCVANUpvH-iI9oMTue, 22 Oct 2024 21:29:05 +0000gtyOur Medical Technology expert analyzes the medical potential and market opportunity in technology that allows direct communication between the human brain and an external device. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kallum...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kallum Titchmarsh, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Medical Technology Team. On today’s episode – a dive into a topic that sounds like it’s straight out of science fiction. Brain Computer Interfaces, or BCIs.It’s Tuesday, October 22, at 10 AM in New York.The latest version of Tony Stark – better known as his alter ego Iron Man – is a good example of a brain computer interface. When the billionaire businessman-inventor is critically wounded, he builds an armor suit that gives him superhuman abilities. Flying through air. Clearing out obstacles with repulsor blasts. Shooting enemies with guided missiles. All controlled by his brain. This, of course, is the stuff of science fiction. Real world examples of brain computer interfaces – or BCIs – aren’t fantastical. But they are fascinating. Translating thoughts into actions like generating text on a screen or moving a robotic limb.BCIs have been in development for more than a century, but recent advances have brought them much closer to becoming a reality. We expect to see BCIs in commercial medical use in about five years, at which point they can help treat a wide range of health disorders, from motor neuron disease – such as ALS – to depression. The market opportunity for BCIs looks enormous – $400 billion of total addressable market – or TAM – in the US alone. This figure includes two types of BCIs: enabling BCIs, which facilitate behaviors like moving a cursor on a screen, and preventive BCIs, which can prevent adverse events like depressive states or epileptic seizures. We divide the BCI healthcare opportunity into two segments: early TAM and intermediate TAM. The early TAM includes individuals with critical upper limb impairment and select variants of neurological conditions like epilepsy and depression. These patients will likely be the first to receive a BCI. The intermediate TAM includes patients with moderate upper limb impairment and severe lower limb impairment. As BCI technology develops, these patients will eventually become eligible for treatment. There are at least 2.8 million patients in the US forming the early TAM and an additional 6.8 million within the intermediate TAM. Together, these groups represent the $400 billion of potential revenue I already mentioned based on a single implant procedure. The opportunity may be significantly larger when factoring for potential replacement cycles and recurring revenues from software upgrades. But while the estimated TAM is indeed vast, we think penetration will remain limited through the first 20 years of launch. By 2035, we expect just under $1.5 billion of revenue to be generated from BCI implant procedures, hitting north of a $500 million annual run rate in 2036, and reaching the $1 billion annual run rate by 2041. It’s exciting to think BCIs will begin their healthcare application in the coming years, but we anticipate a number of regulatory hurdles on the way to widespread adoption in healthcare and beyond. Will BCIs push into fields like neurogaming, warfare, and even biological optimization of humans? The potential is certainly there, and with it the burden of the safe and responsible use of this cutting-edge technology. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>241alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1240fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-boosting-cyclical-stocks--75651152----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our recent upgrade of quality cyclicals and how it will be affected by the US election and liquidity.It's Monday, Oct 21st at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. We continue to have conviction in our recent cyclical shift and Financials upgrade. Indeed, cyclicals traded well last week as most economic data came in stronger than expected. It’s worth noting we recommend investors stay up the quality curve within the cyclical space, however. While Financials have been the best performing sector in the S&P 500 since our upgrade, institutional investors remain under-exposed to Financials based on our data suggesting the sector can run further. In addition to better economic data, there are other factors affecting pro-cyclical stocks. We are focused on two, in particular. The election and global liquidity. We believe a Trump win with a split Congress would provide a pro-cyclical bias with small caps keeping pace with large caps. The markets seem to agree, with the recent cyclicals outperformance led by financials. Meanwhile, consumer stocks negatively exposed to tariff risks under a Trump win have underperformed. Interestingly, there is some overlap between this recent leadership and the post Biden debate period in early July as well as the months surrounding the 2016 election. Finally, we've also witnessed higher interest rates and a stronger US Dollar more recently, which is something to watch closely as a possible headwind for liquidity post election and into 2025. While some argue a Trump win would be a headwind for growth and equity markets, due to tariff risks and slower immigration, we think there's an additional element from the 2016 experience that’s worth considering—rising animal spirits. More specifically, in 2016 Trump's pro-business approach led to the largest three-month positive impact on small business confidence in the past 40 years. It also translated into a spike in individual investor sentiment. It appears to me that markets may be trying to front-run a repeat of this outcome as Trump's win in 2016 came as a surprise to pundits and markets alike.This also means a Harris win could lead to some reversion in terms of overall equity market performance and leadership. Most notably, bonds could potentially rally with defensive and quality growth stocks doing better like earlier this year. Secondarily, even with a Trump win, certain areas of the market may be vulnerable to a ‘sell the news’ phenomena if the upside is already priced amid bullish positioning. On this front, we would also point out that the economic set-up today is very different than the 2016 period when the economy had much more slack and could absorb additional pro-cyclical policies like tax cuts or other forms of fiscal stimulus.Turning to liquidity, we note that global money supply in US dollars has surged at an 18 per cent annualized rate since the end of June. I believe this has also had a positive effect on equity prices, not to mention credit spreads, precious metals, cryptocurrencies and real estate. Bottom line, in the absence of a major swing in election probabilities or global liquidity between now and the election, equity markets are likely to trade with a bullish tilt both at the index level and from a style, sector, factor standpoint. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Km9dmp61w-RU_wo9nrG_zFe7r984l13GYBkfIhN9W0cTue, 22 Oct 2024 00:05:56 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains his preference for cyclical stocks amid a rise in global money supply and current US election dynamics. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our recent upgrade of quality cyclicals and how it will be affected by the US election and liquidity.It's Monday, Oct 21st at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. We continue to have conviction in our recent cyclical shift and Financials upgrade. Indeed, cyclicals traded well last week as most economic data came in stronger than expected. It’s worth noting we recommend investors stay up the quality curve within the cyclical space, however. While Financials have been the best performing sector in the S&P 500 since our upgrade, institutional investors remain under-exposed to Financials based on our data suggesting the sector can run further. In addition to better economic data, there are other factors affecting pro-cyclical stocks. We are focused on two, in particular. The election and global liquidity. We believe a Trump win with a split Congress would provide a pro-cyclical bias with small caps keeping pace with large caps. The markets seem to agree, with the recent cyclicals outperformance led by financials. Meanwhile, consumer stocks negatively exposed to tariff risks under a Trump win have underperformed. Interestingly, there is some overlap between this recent leadership and the post Biden debate period in early July as well as the months surrounding the 2016 election. Finally, we've also witnessed higher interest rates and a stronger US Dollar more recently, which is something to watch closely as a possible headwind for liquidity post election and into 2025. While some argue a Trump win would be a headwind for growth and equity markets, due to tariff risks and slower immigration, we think there's an additional element from the 2016 experience that’s worth considering—rising animal spirits. More specifically, in 2016 Trump's pro-business approach led to the largest three-month positive impact on small business confidence in the past 40 years. It also translated into a spike in individual investor sentiment. It appears to me that markets may be trying to front-run a repeat of this outcome as Trump's win in 2016 came as a surprise to pundits and markets alike.This also means a Harris win could lead to some reversion in terms of overall equity market performance and leadership. Most notably, bonds could potentially rally with defensive and quality growth stocks doing better like earlier this year. Secondarily, even with a Trump win, certain areas of the market may be vulnerable to a ‘sell the news’ phenomena if the upside is already priced amid bullish positioning. On this front, we would also point out that the economic set-up today is very different than the 2016 period when the economy had much more slack and could absorb additional pro-cyclical policies like tax cuts or other forms of fiscal stimulus.Turning to liquidity, we note that global money supply in US dollars has surged at an 18 per cent annualized rate since the end of June. I believe this has also had a positive effect on equity prices, not to mention credit spreads, precious metals, cryptocurrencies and real estate. Bottom line, in the absence of a major swing in election probabilities or global liquidity between now and the election, equity markets are likely to trade with a bullish tilt both at the index level and from a style, sector, factor standpoint. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>234alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1239fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-the-us-election-could-upset-credit-markets--75651163----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the US Election, and how it might matter for Credit. It's Friday, October 18th, at 4pm in London. Morgan Stanley’s positive view on credit this year has been anchored on a simplistic thesis. Credit is an asset class that hates extremes, as it faces losses if a company fails, but doesn’t earn extra if that company’s profits double or even triple. Credit, to an unusual degree, is an asset class that loves moderation. And here at Morgan Stanley, we’ve been forecasting … a lot of moderation. Moderate growth for the U.S. and Europe. Moderating inflation, that continues to fall into next year. And a moderation of central bank interest rates, rather than the type of sharp declines that you tend to see around recessions; as we think Fed funds will settle in a little bit below three-and-a-half per cent by the middle of next year. This moderate economy, coupled with moderate levels of corporate aggressiveness should be music to a credit investor’s ears, and support richer-than-average valuations, in our view. So how does the upcoming U.S. election on November 5th fit into this otherwise benign picture? Who runs a government matters, especially when it’s the government of the world’s largest and strongest economy. This election is also notable for the differences between the two candidates, who are presenting sharply contrasting visions of economic, domestic and foreign policy. Against this backdrop, we suggest credit investors try to keep a few things top of mind. First, and most broadly, the idea that “credit likes moderation” remains our north star. Outcomes that could drive larger changes of economic policy, or larger uncertainty in policy in general, are probably going to be a larger risk for credit.Second, of all the various policies under discussion, tariffs feel especially important as they can be largely implemented without congressional approval, and are thus far easier to see go into effect. Tariff proposals could create significant dispersion at the single-name level in credit, and pose significant risks for sectors like retail, which import a large share of their ultimate goods. For time-limited investors, tariffs are the policy area where we’d spend the most time – and where much of our Credit Research around the election has been focused. Third, it’s notable that as we head into this election, expected volatility, in equities or credit, is elevated even as the stock market sits near all time highs, and credit spreads are historically low. So this begs the question. Do these options markets know something that the rest of the market does not? We’re skeptical. Historically, when you’ve seen high volatility alongside all-time-highs in the market – and it’s not all that common – it’s tended to be a positive short-term indicator, rather than a negative one. And one way we could perhaps explain this is that it suggests that investors are still a little bit nervous, and not as positive as they otherwise could be. The U.S. election is close in time, uncertain in outcome, and has stakes for future policy. That high implied volatility we see at the moment, in our view, could reflect known unknowns, rather than some hidden factor. Tariff policy, being largely independent of congress and thus easier to implement, is probably the most relevant for single-name credit exposures. And most broadly, credit likes moderation, and should do best in outcomes that are more likely to achieve that.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/L-n31oov2LJYq97NQKxeu4burRjdDrmPCaJsMUGHtH4Fri, 18 Oct 2024 20:46:53 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why uncertainty around the election’s outcome could be detrimental for credit investors. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the US Election, and how it might matter for Credit. It's Friday, October 18th, at 4pm in London. Morgan Stanley’s positive view on credit this year has been anchored on a simplistic thesis. Credit is an asset class that hates extremes, as it faces losses if a company fails, but doesn’t earn extra if that company’s profits double or even triple. Credit, to an unusual degree, is an asset class that loves moderation. And here at Morgan Stanley, we’ve been forecasting … a lot of moderation. Moderate growth for the U.S. and Europe. Moderating inflation, that continues to fall into next year. And a moderation of central bank interest rates, rather than the type of sharp declines that you tend to see around recessions; as we think Fed funds will settle in a little bit below three-and-a-half per cent by the middle of next year. This moderate economy, coupled with moderate levels of corporate aggressiveness should be music to a credit investor’s ears, and support richer-than-average valuations, in our view. So how does the upcoming U.S. election on November 5th fit into this otherwise benign picture? Who runs a government matters, especially when it’s the government of the world’s largest and strongest economy. This election is also notable for the differences between the two candidates, who are presenting sharply contrasting visions of economic, domestic and foreign policy. Against this backdrop, we suggest credit investors try to keep a few things top of mind. First, and most broadly, the idea that “credit likes moderation” remains our north star. Outcomes that could drive larger changes of economic policy, or larger uncertainty in policy in general, are probably going to be a larger risk for credit.Second, of all the various policies under discussion, tariffs feel especially important as they can be largely implemented without congressional approval, and are thus far easier to see go into effect. Tariff proposals could create significant dispersion at the single-name level in credit, and pose significant risks for sectors like retail, which import a large share of their ultimate goods. For time-limited investors, tariffs are the policy area where we’d spend the most time – and where much of our Credit Research around the election has been focused. Third, it’s notable that as we head into this election, expected volatility, in equities or credit, is elevated even as the stock market sits near all time highs, and credit spreads are historically low. So this begs the question. Do these options markets know something that the rest of the market does not? We’re skeptical. Historically, when you’ve seen high volatility alongside all-time-highs in the market – and it’s not all that common – it’s tended to be a positive short-term indicator, rather than a negative one. And one way we could perhaps explain this is that it suggests that investors are still a little bit nervous, and not as positive as they otherwise could be. The U.S. election is close in time, uncertain in outcome, and has stakes for future policy. That high implied volatility we see at the moment, in our view, could reflect known unknowns, rather than some hidden factor. Tariff policy, being largely independent of congress and thus easier to implement, is probably the most relevant for single-name credit exposures. And most broadly, credit likes moderation, and should do best in outcomes that are more likely to achieve that.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>249alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1238fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/could-the-us-election-reshape-the-energy-sector--75651187----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.David Arcaro: I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's US Power and Utilities Analyst.Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, the North American Clean Tech Analyst here at Morgan Stanley.Michael Zezas: And today we're discussing another key election related topic that generates a lot of political and market debate: Energy policy.It's Thursday, October 17th at 10am in New York.The outcome of the 2024 election will likely determine the direction of U.S. climate policy for years to come. David, what are the key focus areas for investors as they evaluate the various election outcomes on the utilities and clean energy industries?David Arcaro: Yeah, Mike, investors are highly focused on the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, especially as it pertains to the election and the clean energy space. This was a law that was passed in 2022, and it really has supportive policies across the entire clean energy spectrum. It's got tax credits and incentives for solar, wind, offshore wind, green, hydrogen, nuclear, you name it. Battery storage. And some of those tax credits go all the way to 2032 and beyond in some cases.So, it's a very supportive policy when it comes to the clean energy industry and the growth outlook. So, the big question is what's going to happen to the Inflation Reduction Act – depending on which administration is in place following the election.Our core view is that the IRA stays in place; that the core wind, solar storage and nuclear tax credits all remain, regardless of the outcome of the election. And then separately, investors are focused on tariff policy as it pertains to clean energy. It is a global industry. A lot of the equipment and materials are imported around the world. And so, any changes to the tariff approach could have an impact on the space as well.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so how does the outlook for renewables change under different election outcomes?David Arcaro: Yeah, really, the outlook for renewables growth is not very different in our view, regardless of the outcome of the election.We think it's a strong growth outlook either way. And part of that is because we've got policies that we expect to stay in place that will be supportive regardless of the outcome, as I mentioned with the Inflation Reduction Act. And then we've also got demand. It's a very strong demand backdrop for the renewable space – and that's because in the electric industry, we're seeing an inflection in electricity usage across the US.It's been stagnant for years and years, but now with data center growth, with industrial production accelerating, and manufacturing and onshoring, we're seeing a big change in the growth outlook for electricity usage. And that means we need more power plants. We need more to be built, and renewables are going to be the predominant new resource for producing electricity in the US.Some of these companies like data centers, they want renewables to power their operations. And most utilities, electric companies that are building power plants, they're going to be using renewables more than anything else. There are impediments to building fossil plants, it's challenging to permit and there's supply chain delays and issues.So, we think there's a very strong growth outlook for renewables based on that demand and the policy support going forward, regardless of the outcome.Michael Zezas: And Andrew, how about corporate tax policy, including renewable energy tax credits?Andrew Percoco: I mean, as Dave mentioned, we think IRA repeal risk is very low, and I think the only scenario where IRA repeal is a relevant conversation is in a Republican sweep scenario. But even under this scenario, we would expect any repeal measures to be targeted in nature and not a wholesale repeal of the bill. So, the question then becomes, you know, what is safe and what's at risk of getting cut.So, to start off with what's safe; maybe three items that I'll highlight. One would be domestic manufacturing tax credits. There's been a lot of bipartisan support for the onshoring of manufacturing. So, the clean energy manufacturing tax credits within the IRA look like they are on solid footing, regardless of the election outcome.Now, why do domestic manufacturing tax credits have bipartisan support? One, there's a general view that we need to reduce our reliance on China for our energy infrastructure and, two, the job creation angle. The IRA has created over 150, 000 new jobs, and a lot of those jobs are in states where there is a large representation of Republican voters. So, the local pushback would be pretty severe if IRA was repealed in full.Number two, area of IRA that we think is safe would be nuclear tax credits. There's a general understanding across both sides of the aisle that nuclear is an important and reliable form of clean energy, and that we need to support the existing fleet of assets.And then third again, as Dave mentioned, solar storage and wind investment tax credits. These have been around for a while, well before the IRA was in place and they've had bipartisan support. They've been extended multiple times, even under past Republican administrations. So, we would not expect any changes to those core tax credits in a Republican sweep.On the flip side, you know what's potentially at risk in a Republican sweep? Number one would be consumer facing tax credits like the EV tax credits. This is something that the Republicans have definitely taken aim at on the campaign trail.Number two would be offshore wind. Former President Trump has definitely had [a] very candid view of offshore wind, and the issues that it poses on local communities. So, this could be another area where, they look for some targeted repeal. And then the third would just be delayed implementation of any unfinalized rules, by the time they take office.Michael Zezas: Makes sense. And finally, what other key election implications should investors focus on at this point when it comes to clean energy?Andrew Percoco: Yeah, I think the biggest would be around tariffs. It's frankly the hardest to predict but could have some pretty meaningful near-term implications for clean energy.Just to zoom out for a second, the clean energy supply chain is global with a heavy concentration in China and Southeast Asia. So, if there is higher tariffs put in place against these regions, it could create some disruption in supply chains and impact the pace at which we deploy renewables in the US. But frankly, at the same time, it should just accelerate a trend that we're already seeing in the US, which is the onshoring of manufacturing, thanks in part due to the IRA.So ultimately could create some near-term disruption but doesn't change the secular growth for the renewable space since developers in the US have already started to make the shift towards domestic supply.Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes sense, Andrew. And obviously tariffs have been top of mind for investors as we've talked about here. Well, David, Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bNctfMf5sH5dVZIo09rClxSnmWaPCr4Dup7vJ1H-xcEThu, 17 Oct 2024 20:00:00 +0000gtyOur expert panel explains whether the US election will impact energy policy, including how the Inflation Reduction Act’s possible fate and increased tariffs could transform the sector. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.David Arcaro: I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's US Power and Utilities Analyst.Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, the North American Clean Tech Analyst here at Morgan Stanley.Michael Zezas: And today we're discussing another key election related topic that generates a lot of political and market debate: Energy policy.It's Thursday, October 17th at 10am in New York.The outcome of the 2024 election will likely determine the direction of U.S. climate policy for years to come. David, what are the key focus areas for investors as they evaluate the various election outcomes on the utilities and clean energy industries?David Arcaro: Yeah, Mike, investors are highly focused on the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, especially as it pertains to the election and the clean energy space. This was a law that was passed in 2022, and it really has supportive policies across the entire clean energy spectrum. It's got tax credits and incentives for solar, wind, offshore wind, green, hydrogen, nuclear, you name it. Battery storage. And some of those tax credits go all the way to 2032 and beyond in some cases.So, it's a very supportive policy when it comes to the clean energy industry and the growth outlook. So, the big question is what's going to happen to the Inflation Reduction Act – depending on which administration is in place following the election.Our core view is that the IRA stays in place; that the core wind, solar storage and nuclear tax credits all remain, regardless of the outcome of the election. And then separately, investors are focused on tariff policy as it pertains to clean energy. It is a global industry. A lot of the equipment and materials are imported around the world. And so, any changes to the tariff approach could have an impact on the space as well.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so how does the outlook for renewables change under different election outcomes?David Arcaro: Yeah, really, the outlook for renewables growth is not very different in our view, regardless of the outcome of the election.We think it's a strong growth outlook either way. And part of that is because we've got policies that we expect to stay in place that will be supportive regardless of the outcome, as I mentioned with the Inflation Reduction Act. And then we've also got demand. It's a very strong demand backdrop for the renewable space – and that's because in the electric industry, we're seeing an inflection in electricity usage across the US.It's been stagnant for years and years, but now with data center growth, with industrial production accelerating, and manufacturing and onshoring, we're seeing a big change in the growth outlook for electricity usage. And that means we need more power plants. We need more to be built, and renewables are going to be the predominant new resource for producing electricity in the US.Some of these companies like data centers, they want renewables to power their operations. And most utilities, electric companies that are building power plants, they're going to be using renewables more than anything else. There are impediments to building fossil plants, it's challenging to permit and there's supply chain delays and issues.So, we think there's a very strong growth outlook for renewables based on that demand and the policy support going forward, regardless of the outcome.Michael Zezas: And Andrew, how about corporate tax policy, including renewable energy tax credits?Andrew Percoco: I mean, as Dave mentioned, we think IRA repeal risk is very low, and I think the only scenario where IRA repeal is a relevant conversation is in a Republican sweep scenario. But even...]]>428alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1237fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-does-the-fed-rate-cut-mean-for-mortgages--75651105----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And on this episode of the podcast, we're going to discuss the impacts of a 50-basis point cut from the Fed on the US housing and mortgage markets.It's Wednesday, October 16th at 1 pm in New York.Now, Jay, the Fed cut 50 basis points at its last meeting. What are your views on the mortgage market in the aftermath of that cut?Jay Bacow: We think that is constructive for mortgages and we recommended a long mortgage basis versus rates. The healthy economy and a Fed that doesn't want to fall behind the curve should be good for risk assets in general. We think there's a likelihood of vol possibly falling and that is constructive for agency mortgages in particular.Now it's a positive narrative. But, the valuations matter, and we have to admit that the valuations are not that compelling with spreads on agency mortgages trading near the tights since the regional bank crisis. However, if you look further back, mortgages start to look attractive, particularly relative to other high quality fixed-income assets.For instance, agency mortgages are basically trading at the average spread they've traded at since the GFC. Corporate credit, on the other hand, is trading within a few basis points of the tights since the GFC. If risk assets are going to do well, and we're certainly seeing that in corporate credit and in the stock market, we think mortgages are particularly priced attractively relative to most of them.James Egan: Alright, so relative value for mortgages makes sense, but can you talk a little bit about the technicals here?Jay Bacow: The technicals are where we feel more confident. One of the reasons why mortgage spreads have been wide for the past two years – it's an environment where the Fed and the domestic banks, the two largest holders of mortgages, have been reducing their holdings.Now, we still expect the Fed to reduce their holdings of mortgages, but we think the bank demand is going to turn positive. That's due to not just clarity around the Basel III Endgame that should be coming soon, but more directly related to this conversation – as the Fed cuts rates that directly impacts the amount of yield that banks earn of the cash sitting at the Fed.Now, that is projected to continue to go down as the Fed cuts rates. What's not projected to continually go down very much is the yield on the securities that they can be buying in mortgages. So, the incentive for them to move out of cash and into securities, and those securities likely to be mortgages, is picking up as the Fed cuts rates. And it's not just the banks that are going to be more active. It's also overseas investors. As the Fed cuts rates and the Bank of Japan hikes, the FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs, which is basically a function of the interest rate differential between the two banks is likely to decrease, which means that overseas investors will be more active.A steeper curve is going to be positive for REIT demand. And then over time, as the Fed cuts rates and money market yields go down, those retail investors are likely to be incentivized to move out of money market funds into core funds with higher yields, which will be supportive of money manager demand – although that's likely a 2025 story.James Egan: All right, Jay, thank you for that. But one of the questions that you and I have received a lot since the Fed's cut is: Okay, the Fed cut 50 basis points. Why haven't mortgage rates come down by 50 basis points on the follow?Jay Bacow: Well, so, mortgage rates, obviously in the US, the vast majority of them are 30-year fixed rate mortgages. And so, if you have one, the Fed actions don't impact that. If you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, it will reset – but typically those resets happen every six months. Although you're probably getting asked about the prevailing mortgage rate; and the prevailing mortgage rate – because it's the 30-year fixed rate, it's not a function of Fed funds – but it's more of a function of the yields further out the curve. Although maybe Jim, you can do a better job explaining this.James Egan: So, when it comes to interest rates and mortgages, Jay, as you mentioned, we're going to be more focused on the five- and 10-year part of the curve than we are on Fed funds.To provide a little bit of an example there, from the fourth quarter of 2023 until the Wednesday morning that the Fed cut, 30-year mortgage rates had decreased by 180 basis points. The Fed had yet to cut a single basis point. But, just taking a step back from that cut specifically, mortgage rates have come down significantly from the fourth quarter of 2023.Jay Bacow: Right, and those mortgage rates coming down significantly has improved affordability. But what's maybe a little surprising is that hasn't really led to a pickup in sales volumes. How should we think about that moving forward?James Egan: So as mortgage rates have come down, we have seen an increase in mortgage applications, but that's been driven almost entirely by refinance applications.Purchase applications, and that's going to be what's behind home sales, those have been more or less treading water for the past 12 months. This relationship makes sense, in our view. As mortgage rates have come down, housing remains unaffordable. It's just more affordable than it was in the second half of 2023.But, if you were one of the people who bought a home over the past 24 months, and, to put that into context, that was the lowest number of home sales over a 24-month period since the second quarter of 2013. But if you were one of those people, there's a good chance that you're in the money to refinance right now.Jay Bacow: And that's something that we're seeing in the data. We've talked about the truly refinance indicators on this podcast in the past, and it measures the share of mortgages that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for closing costs.Right now, only about one in six of the outstanding borrowers have incentive to refinance. Now, that's up from pretty close to zero at the end of 2023, but if you just look at borrowers that have taken out their mortgage in the past two years, almost two-thirds of them have incentive to refinance.Now, Jim, does that mean that purchase volumes are doomed to languish around these levels?James Egan: No, but the reaction might not be as strong as some people are hoping for. While affordability has improved, it remains challenged. And the lock in effect has become a very popular phrase in the US housing and mortgage markets. And that's still in play. 75 per cent of the conventional mortgage universe still has a mortgage rate below 5 per cent.Even with the prevailing rate at 6 per cent today, the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe is 200 basis points out of the money. That's better than 350 [basis points] out of the money like we saw last year. But that would still be the worst that it's been in 40 years.Jay Bacow: And presumably, that is why we have this continually tight inventory.James Egan: Exactly. Now, as rates come down, we are starting to see listings increase, but it's barely made a dent in the historically low nature of the existing housing supply. The existing home sales typically grow in the 12 to 24 months following affordability improvement, but not necessarily in that initial period while affordability is improving.So relative to history, we're actually not underperforming that much from a sales perspective. And we should be beginning that 12 to 24 months sweet spot in the fourth quarter of [20]24. We just started that two to three weeks ago. While we expect existing home sales to increase, we think the growth is going to be modest relative to history and we're calling for 5 per cent growth in the coming 12 months.On the home price side, a lot of this is in line with our current view. So, we think you're going to continue to see the pace of growth slow. It's already started to slow. We think we get from about 5 per cent today to 2 percent by the end.Jay Bacow: All right, so the Fed cutting rates is not likely to cause mortgage rates to drop materially. We expect a modest pickup in housing activity. We expect home price growth to slow, but still end the year positive; and it should be supportive for mortgage spreads versus treasuries.Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay.Jay Bacow: Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/X5cnd6XbpnhyEKw2Skhi5X5ofsJuz3CuKrJV51wUACwWed, 16 Oct 2024 20:43:13 +0000gtyMortgage rates aren’t directly influenced by Federal Reserve policy. However, the Fed’s recent cut likely will have a domino effect on the US housing market, say our Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And on this episode of the podcast, we're going to discuss the impacts of a 50-basis point cut from the Fed on the US housing and mortgage markets.It's Wednesday, October 16th at 1 pm in New York.Now, Jay, the Fed cut 50 basis points at its last meeting. What are your views on the mortgage market in the aftermath of that cut?Jay Bacow: We think that is constructive for mortgages and we recommended a long mortgage basis versus rates. The healthy economy and a Fed that doesn't want to fall behind the curve should be good for risk assets in general. We think there's a likelihood of vol possibly falling and that is constructive for agency mortgages in particular.Now it's a positive narrative. But, the valuations matter, and we have to admit that the valuations are not that compelling with spreads on agency mortgages trading near the tights since the regional bank crisis. However, if you look further back, mortgages start to look attractive, particularly relative to other high quality fixed-income assets.For instance, agency mortgages are basically trading at the average spread they've traded at since the GFC. Corporate credit, on the other hand, is trading within a few basis points of the tights since the GFC. If risk assets are going to do well, and we're certainly seeing that in corporate credit and in the stock market, we think mortgages are particularly priced attractively relative to most of them.James Egan: Alright, so relative value for mortgages makes sense, but can you talk a little bit about the technicals here?Jay Bacow: The technicals are where we feel more confident. One of the reasons why mortgage spreads have been wide for the past two years – it's an environment where the Fed and the domestic banks, the two largest holders of mortgages, have been reducing their holdings.Now, we still expect the Fed to reduce their holdings of mortgages, but we think the bank demand is going to turn positive. That's due to not just clarity around the Basel III Endgame that should be coming soon, but more directly related to this conversation – as the Fed cuts rates that directly impacts the amount of yield that banks earn of the cash sitting at the Fed.Now, that is projected to continue to go down as the Fed cuts rates. What's not projected to continually go down very much is the yield on the securities that they can be buying in mortgages. So, the incentive for them to move out of cash and into securities, and those securities likely to be mortgages, is picking up as the Fed cuts rates. And it's not just the banks that are going to be more active. It's also overseas investors. As the Fed cuts rates and the Bank of Japan hikes, the FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs, which is basically a function of the interest rate differential between the two banks is likely to decrease, which means that overseas investors will be more active.A steeper curve is going to be positive for REIT demand. And then over time, as the Fed cuts rates and money market yields go down, those retail investors are likely to be incentivized to move out of money market funds into core funds with higher yields, which will be supportive of money manager demand – although that's likely a 2025 story.James Egan: All right, Jay, thank you for that. But one of the questions that you and I have received a lot since the Fed's cut is: Okay, the Fed cut 50 basis points. Why haven't mortgage rates come down by 50 basis points on the follow?Jay Bacow: Well, so, mortgage rates, obviously in the...]]>494alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1236fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/south-korea-s-super-aging-challenge--75651198----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll discuss what’s needed to overcome Korea’s aging population crisis.It’s Tuesday, Oct 15th, at 4 PM in Hong Kong. South Korea faces some of the world's most challenging demographics and will officially become a super-aged society next year – that’s more than 20 percent of the population 65 or older. The implications of this are so significant that the Korean government recently declared a national emergency, and we don’t think this is overstating the case. Korea’s low fertility rate is the primary culprit. In 2023 it plummeted to the lowest level globally and currently sits at 0.72. For reference, the total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is what’s necessary to maintain a stable population in general. By next year, Korea’s population will start declining and is projected to shrink by a third over the next 40 years as the working population halves. At this pace, the Bank of Korea forecasts that Korea’s potential growth could enter negative territory by 2040, down from 2 per cent in [20]24-25. So why does Korea have such a record-low fertility rate? In the short term, there are two key drivers: First, the declining number of marriages during the pandemic drove a rapid drop in births; having children out of wedlock is taboo in Korea. Once weddings resumed in 2022, Korea saw a slight but insufficient rebound in births. Second, housing prices have gone up 80 per cent in the past decade, which has discouraged young couples from having families. Families with first children feeling extra financial burdens to have [a] second child. Beyond the short term, structural factors have also played a role. After a compressed period of rapid economic growth, Koreans feel uncertain about the employment conditions and housing outlook. Tackling the low fertility rate has been on Korean policymakers’ agenda for the past 20 years. The government has invested more than $320 billion into solving the demographic challenge. And while these efforts have certainly raised awareness, they have yet to overcome the crisis. And why? Because Korea has not addressed the root causes of the problem -- income uncertainty, high childcare and education costs. It’s clear what’s needed here are structural reforms and Korea is clearly taking important steps towards overcoming the issue by tackling the fundamental problems now. Policymakers are working to reshape the pension system for the first time in 15 years. They are focusing on measures around improving work-life balance, reducing the gender wage gap, and increasing support for working parents. They are also considering lowering barriers to immigration, which could help alleviate talent shortages. They are also working on reducing the cost of private education. And finally, the government is also focused on improving the country’s capital market infrastructure. They are aiming to attract foreign investment, as well as to help households secure [a] source of asset accumulation, and lower borrowing costs for domestic players. Of course, it’s impossible to quickly reverse the downtrend and positive change will require multiple years - even decades. Korea’s government has set a medium-term goal of returning the fertility rate to 1.0 by 2030, which would delay working population decline by five years. And if the fertility rate reaches 2.1, that would delay the decline in the workforce by 20 years. Conversely, if Korea’s fertility rate remains at the current rate of 0.72, the population will halve by 2065 and the economy will start contracting in 2040, a worst-case scenario that the government is determined to avoid.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uCGBEsEyvHBLRtDzB5ki4FwCrXtuF6060j5KUSgkEtETue, 15 Oct 2024 20:40:58 +0000gtyOur Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist discusses the reforms needed to overcome Korea’s urgent demographic crisis. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll discuss what’s needed to overcome Korea’s aging population crisis.It’s Tuesday, Oct 15th, at 4 PM in Hong Kong. South Korea faces some of the world's most challenging demographics and will officially become a super-aged society next year – that’s more than 20 percent of the population 65 or older. The implications of this are so significant that the Korean government recently declared a national emergency, and we don’t think this is overstating the case. Korea’s low fertility rate is the primary culprit. In 2023 it plummeted to the lowest level globally and currently sits at 0.72. For reference, the total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is what’s necessary to maintain a stable population in general. By next year, Korea’s population will start declining and is projected to shrink by a third over the next 40 years as the working population halves. At this pace, the Bank of Korea forecasts that Korea’s potential growth could enter negative territory by 2040, down from 2 per cent in [20]24-25. So why does Korea have such a record-low fertility rate? In the short term, there are two key drivers: First, the declining number of marriages during the pandemic drove a rapid drop in births; having children out of wedlock is taboo in Korea. Once weddings resumed in 2022, Korea saw a slight but insufficient rebound in births. Second, housing prices have gone up 80 per cent in the past decade, which has discouraged young couples from having families. Families with first children feeling extra financial burdens to have [a] second child. Beyond the short term, structural factors have also played a role. After a compressed period of rapid economic growth, Koreans feel uncertain about the employment conditions and housing outlook. Tackling the low fertility rate has been on Korean policymakers’ agenda for the past 20 years. The government has invested more than $320 billion into solving the demographic challenge. And while these efforts have certainly raised awareness, they have yet to overcome the crisis. And why? Because Korea has not addressed the root causes of the problem -- income uncertainty, high childcare and education costs. It’s clear what’s needed here are structural reforms and Korea is clearly taking important steps towards overcoming the issue by tackling the fundamental problems now. Policymakers are working to reshape the pension system for the first time in 15 years. They are focusing on measures around improving work-life balance, reducing the gender wage gap, and increasing support for working parents. They are also considering lowering barriers to immigration, which could help alleviate talent shortages. They are also working on reducing the cost of private education. And finally, the government is also focused on improving the country’s capital market infrastructure. They are aiming to attract foreign investment, as well as to help households secure [a] source of asset accumulation, and lower borrowing costs for domestic players. Of course, it’s impossible to quickly reverse the downtrend and positive change will require multiple years - even decades. Korea’s government has set a medium-term goal of returning the fertility rate to 1.0 by 2030, which would delay working population decline by five years. And if the fertility rate reaches 2.1, that would delay the decline in the workforce by 20 years. Conversely, if Korea’s fertility rate remains at the current rate of 0.72, the population will halve by 2065 and the economy will start contracting in 2040, a worst-case scenario that the government is determined to avoid.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or...]]>286alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1235fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/markets-spin-toward-cyclicals--75651229----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent rotation toward more cyclical parts of the equity market.It's Monday, Oct 14th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Last Monday, we upgraded cyclicals relative to defensives after taking profits in our defensive  overweight two weeks prior. These calls come on the back of September's strong jobs report and our economists' expectation for the Fed to still cut interest rates into next year. The resilient labor report effectively reverses the softness we saw in labor markets over the summer which had re-introduced hard landing risks into the markets, driving big outperformance in bonds and defensive stocks. In short, it was a good time to lock in profits after an historically good run. Indeed, cyclical stocks have delivered better performance with these improved macro data.  Importantly, the rates market is confirming this move. Oftentimes, the rates market tends to hold  onto growth risks longer than the equity market. Thus, the recent move higher in yields following resilient data suggests the bond market pricing is shedding some of its growth concerns, and giving us more confidence in our cyclicals upgrade. Furthermore, our cyclical overweights at the sector level in Industrials, Financials and Energy are all exhibiting a positive correlation to rates. Conversely, defensives are exhibiting a negative correlation to yields. In other words, good macro data is still good for many large cap cyclical stocks, while it's bad for defensives. Thus, further stabilization in the economic surprise index should continue to  support quality cyclicals' relative performance even if it comes amid higher yields.Meanwhile, positioning in cyclicals remains light amongst our institutional client base. This is  particularly true for Financials. In our view, this creates opportunity in a sector that we upgraded to overweight last week. This upgrade was based on rebounding capital markets activity, a better loan growth environment in 2025, an acceleration in buybacks post Basel Endgame re-proposal, and attractive relative valuation. Finally, we also factored in the notion that several large cap bank stocks had de-risked in mid-September with lowered guidance ahead of earnings season. Initial results from earnings season last week indicate that large cap banks are clearing that lowered hurdle. On the other side of the coin, positioning in defensives and quality growth remains extended. This is consistent with our conversations with clients who generally remain positioned for a soft macro growth regime.Given the significant influence of the Magnificent 7 stocks on the overall direction of the S&P 500, investors remain focused on how this group of stocks will trade into year-end. It's notable this cohort has underperformed since the second quarter earnings season, and relative performance just took another leg lower.  The breadth among this group has been somewhat narrow with only one of the seven making new highs since the summer in both absolute and relative terms. In our view, this may be one of the reasons for the better performance in other areas of the market and is a potential driver of further broadening into cyclicals. Of course, if the market reverts back to these stocks, it’s a risk to our  cyclical upgrade.Earnings season will be an important factor in terms of these rotations. The fundamental reason for the underperformance of the Magnificent 7 could simply be the deceleration in earnings growth from the very strong pace last year. If this underperformance continues, it could provide further fuel for the quality cyclicals to continue to do better as we expect. Conversely, if earnings revisions show relative strength for the Mag 7, these stocks will likely outperform once again and market leadership may narrow—like it did during [the] second quarter and all of 2023.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nKv5Xc5k0bm8kJ8XStuhFDcX-gFOnfqiQJcyx7SdPXkMon, 14 Oct 2024 20:00:00 +0000gtyA slump in tech stocks may explain the market rotation – but it’s the earnings season that investors need to watch, says CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist Mike Wilson. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent rotation toward more cyclical parts of the equity market.It's Monday, Oct 14th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Last Monday, we upgraded cyclicals relative to defensives after taking profits in our defensive  overweight two weeks prior. These calls come on the back of September's strong jobs report and our economists' expectation for the Fed to still cut interest rates into next year. The resilient labor report effectively reverses the softness we saw in labor markets over the summer which had re-introduced hard landing risks into the markets, driving big outperformance in bonds and defensive stocks. In short, it was a good time to lock in profits after an historically good run. Indeed, cyclical stocks have delivered better performance with these improved macro data.  Importantly, the rates market is confirming this move. Oftentimes, the rates market tends to hold  onto growth risks longer than the equity market. Thus, the recent move higher in yields following resilient data suggests the bond market pricing is shedding some of its growth concerns, and giving us more confidence in our cyclicals upgrade. Furthermore, our cyclical overweights at the sector level in Industrials, Financials and Energy are all exhibiting a positive correlation to rates. Conversely, defensives are exhibiting a negative correlation to yields. In other words, good macro data is still good for many large cap cyclical stocks, while it's bad for defensives. Thus, further stabilization in the economic surprise index should continue to  support quality cyclicals' relative performance even if it comes amid higher yields.Meanwhile, positioning in cyclicals remains light amongst our institutional client base. This is  particularly true for Financials. In our view, this creates opportunity in a sector that we upgraded to overweight last week. This upgrade was based on rebounding capital markets activity, a better loan growth environment in 2025, an acceleration in buybacks post Basel Endgame re-proposal, and attractive relative valuation. Finally, we also factored in the notion that several large cap bank stocks had de-risked in mid-September with lowered guidance ahead of earnings season. Initial results from earnings season last week indicate that large cap banks are clearing that lowered hurdle. On the other side of the coin, positioning in defensives and quality growth remains extended. This is consistent with our conversations with clients who generally remain positioned for a soft macro growth regime.Given the significant influence of the Magnificent 7 stocks on the overall direction of the S&P 500, investors remain focused on how this group of stocks will trade into year-end. It's notable this cohort has underperformed since the second quarter earnings season, and relative performance just took another leg lower.  The breadth among this group has been somewhat narrow with only one of the seven making new highs since the summer in both absolute and relative terms. In our view, this may be one of the reasons for the better performance in other areas of the market and is a potential driver of further broadening into cyclicals. Of course, if the market reverts back to these stocks, it’s a risk to our  cyclical upgrade.Earnings season will be an important factor in terms of these rotations. The fundamental reason for the underperformance of the Magnificent 7 could simply be the deceleration in earnings growth from the very strong pace last year. If this underperformance continues, it could provide further fuel for the quality cyclicals...]]>259alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1234fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-economy-what-could-go-wrong--75650945----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing what could cause our optimistic view on the economy and credit to go wrong.Andrew Sheets: It’s Friday, Oct 11th at 4pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And as it turns out, I'm in London with Andrew.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth you and your global economics team have been pretty optimistic on the economy this year. And have been firmly in the soft-landing camp. And I think we’ve seen some oscillation in the market's view around the economy over the course of the year, but more recently, we've started to see some better data and increasing confidence in that view.So, this is actually maybe the perfect opportunity to talk about – well, what could go wrong? And so, what are some of the factors that worry you most that could derail the story?Seth Carpenter: We have been pretty constructive all along the whole hiking cycle. In fact, we've been calling for a soft- landing. And if anything, where we were wrong with our forecast so far is that things have turned out even better than we dare hoped. But it's worth remembering part of the soft-landing call for us, especially for the US is that coming out of COVID; the economy rebounded employment rebounded, but not proportionally. And so, for a long time, up until basically now, US firms had been operating shorthanded. And so, we were pretty optimistic that even if there was something that caused a slowdown, you were not going to see a wave of layoffs. And that's usually what contributes to a recession. A slowdown, then people get laid off, laid off people spend less, the economy slows down more, and it snowballs.So, I have to say, there is gotta be just a little bit more risk because businesses basically backfilled most of their vacancies. And so, if we do get a big slowdown for some reason, maybe there's more risk than there was, say, a year ago. So, what could that something be is a real question. I think the first one is just -- there's just uncertainty.And maybe, just maybe, the restraint that monetary policy has imparted -- takes a little bit longer than we realized. It's a little bit bigger than we realized, and things are slowing down. We just haven't seen the full force of it, and we just slowed down a lot more.Not a whole lot I can do about that. I feel pretty good. Spending data is good. The last jobs report was good. So, I see that as a risk that just hangs over my head, like the sword of Damocles, at all times.Andrew Sheets: And, Seth, another thing I want to talk to you about is this analysis of the economy that we do with the data that's available. And yet we recently got some pretty major revisions to the US economic picture that have changed, you know, kind of our basic understanding of what the savings rate was, you know, what some of these indicators are.How have those revisions changed what you think the picture is?Seth Carpenter: So those benchmark revisions were important. But I will say it's not as though it was just a wholesale change in what we thought we understood. Instead, the key change that happened is we had information on GDP -- gross domestic product -- which comes from a lot of spending data. There's another bit of data that's gross domestic income that in some idealized economic model version of the world, those two things are the same -- but they had been really different. And the measured income had been much lower than the measured gross domestic product, the spending data. And so, it looked like the saving rate was very, very low.But it also raised a bit of a red flag, because if the savings rate is, is really low, and all of a sudden households go back to saving the normal amount, that necessarily means they'd slow their spending a lot, and that's what causes a downturn.So, it didn't change our view, baseline view, about where the economy was, but it helped resolve a sniggling, intellectual tension in the back of the head, and it did take away at least one of the downside risks, i.e. that the savings rate was overdone, and consumers might have to pull back.But I have to say, Andrew, another thing that could go wrong, could come from policy decisions that we don't know the answer to just yet. Let you in on a little secret. Don't tell anybody I told you this; but later this year, in fact, next month, there's an election in the United States.Andrew Sheets: Oh my goodness.Seth Carpenter: One of the policies that we have tried to model is tariffs. Tariffs are a tax. And so, the normal way I think a lot of people think about what tariffs might do is if you put a tax on consumer goods coming into the country, it could make them more expensive, could make people buy less, and so you'd get a little bit less activity, a little bit higher prices.In addition to consumer goods, though, we also import a lot of intermediate goods for production, so physical goods that are used in manufacturing in the United States to produce a final output. And so, if you're putting a tax on that, you'll get less manufacturing in the United States.We also import capital goods. So, things that go into business CapEx spending in the United States. And if you put a tax on that, well, businesses will do less investment spending. So, there's a disruption to actual US production, not just US consumption that goes on. And we actually think that could be material. And we've tried to model some of the policy proposals that are out there. 60 per cent tariff on China, 10 per cent tariff on the rest of the world.None of these answers are going to be exact, none of these are going to be precise, but you get something on the order of an extra nine-tenths of a percentage point of inflation, so a pretty big reversion in inflation. But maybe closing in on one and a half percentage points of a drag on GDP – if they were all implemented at the same time in full force.So that's another place where I think we could be wrong. It could be a big hit to the economy; but that's one place where there's just lots of uncertainty, so we have to flag it as a risk to our clients. But it's not in our baseline view.Seth Carpenter: But I have to say, you've been forcing me to question my optimism, which is entirely unfair. You, sir, have been pretty bullish on the credit market. Credit spreads are, dare I say it, really tight by historical standards.And yet, that doesn't cause you to want to call for mortgage spreads to widen appreciably. It doesn't call for you to want to go really short on credit. Why are you so optimistic? Isn't there really only one direction to go?Andrew Sheets: So, there are kind of a few factors the way that we're thinking about that. So, one is we do think that the fundamental backdrop, the economic forecast that you and your team have laid out are better than average for credit -- are almost kind of ideal for what a credit investor would like.Credit likes moderation. We're forecasting a lot of moderation. And, also kind of the supply and demand dynamics of the market. What we call the technicals are better than average. There's a lot of demand for bonds. And companies, while they're getting a little bit more optimistic, and a little bit more aggressive, they're not borrowing in the kind of hand over fist type of way that usually causes more problems. And so, you should have richer than average valuations. Now, in terms of, I think, what disrupts that story, it could be, well, what if the technicals or the fundamentals are no longer good? And, you know, I think you've highlighted some scenarios where the economic forecasts could change. And if those forecasts do change, we're probably going to need to think about changing our view. And that's also true bottom up. I think if we started to see Corporates get a lot more optimistic, a lot more aggressive. You know, hubris is often the enemy of the bond investor, the credit investor. I don't think we're there yet, but I think if we started to see that, that could present a larger problem. And both, you know, fundamentally it causes companies to take on more debt, but also kind of technically, because it means a lot more supply relative to demand.Seth Carpenter: I see. I see. But I wonder, you said, if our outlook, sort of, doesn't materialize, that's a clear path to a worse outcome for your market. And I think that makes sense.But the market hasn't always agreed with us. If we think back not that long ago to August, the market had real turmoil going on because we got a very weak Non Farm Payrolls print in the United States. And people started asking again. ‘Are you sure, Seth? Doesn't this mean we're heading for a recession?’ And asset markets responded. What happened to credit markets then, and what does it tell you about how credit markets might evolve going forward, even if, at the end of the day, we're still right?Andrew Sheets: Well, so I think there have been some good indications that there were parts of the market where maybe investors were pretty vulnerably positioned. Where there was more leverage, more kind of aggressiveness in how investors were leaning, and the fact that credit, yes, credit weakened, but it didn't weaken nearly as much -- I think does suggest that investors are going to this market eyes wide open. They're aware that spreads are tight. So, I think that's important.The other I think really fundamental tension that I think credit investors are dealing with -- but also I think equity investors are -- is there are certain indicators that suggest a recession is more likely than normal. Things like the yield curve being inverted or purchasing manager]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JQujb2XIoAiOVxz7nd-LFrAJxLkv4OuKDITslxpZs3oFri, 11 Oct 2024 20:21:13 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research and Global Chief Economist explain why they’re watching the consumer savings rate, tariffs and capital expenditures. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing what could cause our optimistic view on the economy and credit to go wrong.Andrew Sheets: It’s Friday, Oct 11th at 4pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And as it turns out, I'm in London with Andrew.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth you and your global economics team have been pretty optimistic on the economy this year. And have been firmly in the soft-landing camp. And I think we’ve seen some oscillation in the market's view around the economy over the course of the year, but more recently, we've started to see some better data and increasing confidence in that view.So, this is actually maybe the perfect opportunity to talk about – well, what could go wrong? And so, what are some of the factors that worry you most that could derail the story?Seth Carpenter: We have been pretty constructive all along the whole hiking cycle. In fact, we've been calling for a soft- landing. And if anything, where we were wrong with our forecast so far is that things have turned out even better than we dare hoped. But it's worth remembering part of the soft-landing call for us, especially for the US is that coming out of COVID; the economy rebounded employment rebounded, but not proportionally. And so, for a long time, up until basically now, US firms had been operating shorthanded. And so, we were pretty optimistic that even if there was something that caused a slowdown, you were not going to see a wave of layoffs. And that's usually what contributes to a recession. A slowdown, then people get laid off, laid off people spend less, the economy slows down more, and it snowballs.So, I have to say, there is gotta be just a little bit more risk because businesses basically backfilled most of their vacancies. And so, if we do get a big slowdown for some reason, maybe there's more risk than there was, say, a year ago. So, what could that something be is a real question. I think the first one is just -- there's just uncertainty.And maybe, just maybe, the restraint that monetary policy has imparted -- takes a little bit longer than we realized. It's a little bit bigger than we realized, and things are slowing down. We just haven't seen the full force of it, and we just slowed down a lot more.Not a whole lot I can do about that. I feel pretty good. Spending data is good. The last jobs report was good. So, I see that as a risk that just hangs over my head, like the sword of Damocles, at all times.Andrew Sheets: And, Seth, another thing I want to talk to you about is this analysis of the economy that we do with the data that's available. And yet we recently got some pretty major revisions to the US economic picture that have changed, you know, kind of our basic understanding of what the savings rate was, you know, what some of these indicators are.How have those revisions changed what you think the picture is?Seth Carpenter: So those benchmark revisions were important. But I will say it's not as though it was just a wholesale change in what we thought we understood. Instead, the key change that happened is we had information on GDP -- gross domestic product -- which comes from a lot of spending data. There's another bit of data that's gross domestic income that in some idealized economic model version of the world, those two things are the same -- but they had been really different. And the measured income had been much lower than the measured gross domestic product, the spending data. And so, it looked like the saving rate was very, very low.But it also raised a bit of a red flag, because if the savings...]]>751alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1233fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-safe-is-ai--75651175----- Transcript -----
Mike Canfield: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley's Europe, Middle East and Africa Head of Sustainability Research.Today I'll discuss a critical issue on a hot topic: How safe is AI?It's Thursday 10th of October at 2pm in London.AI is transforming the way that we live, work, and connect. It's really got the potential at every level and aspect of society, from personal decisions to global security. But as these systems become ever more integrated into our critical functions – whether that's healthcare, transportation, finance, or even defense – we do need to develop and deploy safe AI that keeps pace with the velocity of technological advances.Market leaders, academic think tanks, NGOs, industry bodies, intergovernmental organizations have all attempted to codify what safe or responsible AI should look like. But at the most fundamental level, the guidelines and standards we've seen so far share a number of clear similarities. Typically, they focus on fostering innovation in practical terms, as well as supporting economic prosperity – but also asserting the need for AI systems to respect fundamental human rights and values and to demonstrate trustworthiness.So where are we now in terms of regulations around the world?The EU's AI Act leads the way with its detailed risk-based approach. It really focuses on transparency as well as risks to people and fundamental rights. In the USA, while there's no comprehensive federal regulation or legislation, there are some federal laws that offer some sector specific guidance on AI applications. Things like the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 and the National AI Initiative Act of 2020. Alongside those, President Biden's published an executive order on AI, promoting safety, responsible innovation, and supporting Americans and their rights, including things like privacy. In Asia Pacific, meanwhile, countries are working to establish their own guidelines on consumer protection, privacy, and transparency and accountability.In general, it’s very clear that policymakers and regulators increasingly expect AI systems developers to adopt what we'd call the socio-technical approach, focused on the interaction between people and technology. Having examined numerous existing regulations and foundational standards from around the world, we think a successful policymaking approach requires the combination of four core conceptual pillars.We've called them STEP. That's Safety, Transparency, and Ethics and Privacy. With these core considerations, AI can take a step – pun intended – in the right direction. Within safety, the focus is on reliability of systems, avoiding harm to people and society, and preventing misuse or subversion. Transparency includes a component of explainability and accountability; so, systems allowing for future feedback and audits of outcomes. Ethically, the avoidance of bias, preventing discrimination, inclusion, and the respect for the rule of law are key components. Then finally, privacy considerations include elements like data protection, safeguards during operation, and allowing users consent in data used for training.Of course, policymakers contend with a variety of challenges in developing AI regulations. Issues like bias, like discrimination, implementing guardrails without stifling innovation, the sheer speed at which AI is evolving, legal responsibility, and much more beyond. At its most basic, though, arguably the most critical challenge of regulating AI systems is that the logic behind outcomes is often unknown, even to the creators of AI models, because these systems are intrinsically designed to learn.Ultimately, ensuring safety and responsibility in the use of AI is an essential step before we can really tap into ways AI could positively impact society. Some of these exciting opportunities include things like improving education outcomes, smart electric grid management, enhanced medical diagnostics, precision agriculture, and biodiversity monitoring and protection efforts. AI clearly has enormous potential to accelerate drug development, to advance material science research, to boost manufacturing efficiency, improve weather forecasting, and even deliver better natural disaster predictions.In many ways, we need guardrails around AI to maximize its potential growth.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/PgwH83KQreN3xBqcj_qdH0LrIXEmjg3katkQWpSrYpkThu, 10 Oct 2024 20:00:00 +0000gtyMike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Europe Sustainability Research, discusses why ensuring safe and responsible artificial intelligence is essential to the AI revolution. ----- Transcript ----- Mike Canfield: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Mike Canfield: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley's Europe, Middle East and Africa Head of Sustainability Research.Today I'll discuss a critical issue on a hot topic: How safe is AI?It's Thursday 10th of October at 2pm in London.AI is transforming the way that we live, work, and connect. It's really got the potential at every level and aspect of society, from personal decisions to global security. But as these systems become ever more integrated into our critical functions – whether that's healthcare, transportation, finance, or even defense – we do need to develop and deploy safe AI that keeps pace with the velocity of technological advances.Market leaders, academic think tanks, NGOs, industry bodies, intergovernmental organizations have all attempted to codify what safe or responsible AI should look like. But at the most fundamental level, the guidelines and standards we've seen so far share a number of clear similarities. Typically, they focus on fostering innovation in practical terms, as well as supporting economic prosperity – but also asserting the need for AI systems to respect fundamental human rights and values and to demonstrate trustworthiness.So where are we now in terms of regulations around the world?The EU's AI Act leads the way with its detailed risk-based approach. It really focuses on transparency as well as risks to people and fundamental rights. In the USA, while there's no comprehensive federal regulation or legislation, there are some federal laws that offer some sector specific guidance on AI applications. Things like the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 and the National AI Initiative Act of 2020. Alongside those, President Biden's published an executive order on AI, promoting safety, responsible innovation, and supporting Americans and their rights, including things like privacy. In Asia Pacific, meanwhile, countries are working to establish their own guidelines on consumer protection, privacy, and transparency and accountability.In general, it’s very clear that policymakers and regulators increasingly expect AI systems developers to adopt what we'd call the socio-technical approach, focused on the interaction between people and technology. Having examined numerous existing regulations and foundational standards from around the world, we think a successful policymaking approach requires the combination of four core conceptual pillars.We've called them STEP. That's Safety, Transparency, and Ethics and Privacy. With these core considerations, AI can take a step – pun intended – in the right direction. Within safety, the focus is on reliability of systems, avoiding harm to people and society, and preventing misuse or subversion. Transparency includes a component of explainability and accountability; so, systems allowing for future feedback and audits of outcomes. Ethically, the avoidance of bias, preventing discrimination, inclusion, and the respect for the rule of law are key components. Then finally, privacy considerations include elements like data protection, safeguards during operation, and allowing users consent in data used for training.Of course, policymakers contend with a variety of challenges in developing AI regulations. Issues like bias, like discrimination, implementing guardrails without stifling innovation, the sheer speed at which AI is evolving, legal responsibility, and much more beyond. At its most basic, though, arguably the most critical challenge of regulating AI systems is that the logic behind outcomes is often unknown, even to the creators of AI models, because these systems are intrinsically designed to learn.Ultimately, ensuring safety and responsibility in the use of AI is an essential step before we can really tap into ways...]]>275alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1232fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-elections-the-outlook-for-asia--75651210----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what the US election means for Asia's economy.It's Wednesday, October 9th at 10am in New York.Chetan, we're less than a month now from the US election, and when I think about what it means for Asia, perhaps the most immediate and direct impact would be via tariffs.Now, our colleagues have already addressed some of this on the podcast, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts. And in the case of a Trump win and a significant tariff increase on China, how big of an impact do you think this policy would have on China's economy, and what particular areas of the economy might be most affected?Chetan Ahya: Well, Mike, I think firstly the tariff numbers being floated, i.e. that if it is 60 per cent, it would mean an increase in tariff of about 35 percentage points over an existing number, which is at 25 per cent. So, the amount of tariffs that we're talking about this time are larger than what we saw in 2018-19. And in terms of implications, of course, it will depend upon exactly what is the magnitude of tariff that is being imposed, but we definitely think there will be a significant downside to China's growth; and we expect an increase in deflationary pressures.Just to give you a bit of perspective of what happened in 2018-19, tariff resulted into China's growth slowing by a full percentage point from 6.9 per cent to 5.9 per cent; and at the same time, we saw that there was downward pressure on China's inflation dynamic. And the timing of tariffs this time does not seem to be great. China is going through an existing challenge of debt deflation loop. And we've seen that China's GDP deflator, which is a broader measure of prices, has been in deflation already for about seven quarters now. And so, in this context, tariffs will further add to its deflationary pressures and make that macro situation much more complicated.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, how do you think China might respond if it becomes the target of higher tariffs?Chetan Ahya: So, we think China's policy makers could take up three sets of measures to mitigate the impact of tariffs.Number one, there will be, of course, depreciation in its exchange rate, which will be offsetting some part of the tariff increase effect. And so, for example, the weighted average tariff increase was about 18 percentage points during 2018-19, and the RMB depreciation was about 11 per cent. So, there was a significant offset of that tariff increase by currency depreciation.Number two, China could continue to take its effort to rewire trade flows and supply chain. So, for example, in 2018-19, we've seen a significant rewiring of exports from China to the US via Vietnam and Mexico, and we think this time that could be expanded to some more economies.And number three, China also resorted to focusing on new markets, i.e. some of the other emerging markets other than US. And at the same time, they focused on introducing new export products; like in the last cycle, they focused on solar panels, lithium batteries, EVs, and old generation chips. So, in effect, they will try to expand their market base from US into other emerging markets. And at the same time, they will be focusing on new products to ensure that their market share in global goods exports is maintained.So, Mike, we've been discussing the potential impact of a Trump win. But how would a Harris White House shape trade policy, vis-à-vis China and rest of Asia?Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think a Harris White House would represent a lot of continuity with the Biden White House's approach toward Asia and China, specifically when it comes to trade. That is to say, there's a lot of support for continued use and expansion of non-tariff barriers – things like export controls, and inbound and outbound investment restrictions. And there's less interest in using higher tariffs than what we already have as a tool.So, you can expect that. And I think you could also expect there to be kind of a broader reach out to develop economic relationships with Pan Asia as a means of enabling some of the transition that multinational companies would need to rewire their supply chains.But if we take as a given that that might be Harris's approach to trade policy, Chetan, what's your outlook for Asia if she wins in November?Chetan Ahya: Well, if Harris wins, that would eliminate the key risk to region's outlook in form of significant tariff implementation. And in this case, we expect status quo to our Asia forecast. And we would maintain our constructive outlook for the large economies in the region. And within the group, we think India and Japan are best positioned from a structural standpoint. While China, we were concerned about the debt deflation loop, but with the recent set of policy measures, we think that the risks are now more balanced as far as China macro-outlook is concerned.Michael Zezas: Got it. Well, Chetan, thanks for taking the time to talk. This is obviously a very important topic as we get closer to the US election.Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FK7aFKZTPOFzaVhvdJFS4g-2DQN5zLwGPFZxc2N61M4Wed, 09 Oct 2024 20:19:22 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas and Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discuss how the upcoming US elections might impact economic policies in Asia. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what the US election means for Asia's economy.It's Wednesday, October 9th at 10am in New York.Chetan, we're less than a month now from the US election, and when I think about what it means for Asia, perhaps the most immediate and direct impact would be via tariffs.Now, our colleagues have already addressed some of this on the podcast, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts. And in the case of a Trump win and a significant tariff increase on China, how big of an impact do you think this policy would have on China's economy, and what particular areas of the economy might be most affected?Chetan Ahya: Well, Mike, I think firstly the tariff numbers being floated, i.e. that if it is 60 per cent, it would mean an increase in tariff of about 35 percentage points over an existing number, which is at 25 per cent. So, the amount of tariffs that we're talking about this time are larger than what we saw in 2018-19. And in terms of implications, of course, it will depend upon exactly what is the magnitude of tariff that is being imposed, but we definitely think there will be a significant downside to China's growth; and we expect an increase in deflationary pressures.Just to give you a bit of perspective of what happened in 2018-19, tariff resulted into China's growth slowing by a full percentage point from 6.9 per cent to 5.9 per cent; and at the same time, we saw that there was downward pressure on China's inflation dynamic. And the timing of tariffs this time does not seem to be great. China is going through an existing challenge of debt deflation loop. And we've seen that China's GDP deflator, which is a broader measure of prices, has been in deflation already for about seven quarters now. And so, in this context, tariffs will further add to its deflationary pressures and make that macro situation much more complicated.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, how do you think China might respond if it becomes the target of higher tariffs?Chetan Ahya: So, we think China's policy makers could take up three sets of measures to mitigate the impact of tariffs.Number one, there will be, of course, depreciation in its exchange rate, which will be offsetting some part of the tariff increase effect. And so, for example, the weighted average tariff increase was about 18 percentage points during 2018-19, and the RMB depreciation was about 11 per cent. So, there was a significant offset of that tariff increase by currency depreciation.Number two, China could continue to take its effort to rewire trade flows and supply chain. So, for example, in 2018-19, we've seen a significant rewiring of exports from China to the US via Vietnam and Mexico, and we think this time that could be expanded to some more economies.And number three, China also resorted to focusing on new markets, i.e. some of the other emerging markets other than US. And at the same time, they focused on introducing new export products; like in the last cycle, they focused on solar panels, lithium batteries, EVs, and old generation chips. So, in effect, they will try to expand their market base from US into other emerging markets. And at the same time, they will be focusing on new products to ensure that their market share in global goods exports is maintained.So, Mike, we've been discussing the potential impact of a Trump win. But how would a Harris White House shape trade policy, vis-à-vis China and rest of Asia?Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think a Harris White House would represent a lot of continuity with the Biden White House's approach...]]>335alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1231fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economics-roundtable-us-election-and-tariffs--75651049----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.On this special episode of the podcast, we're going to continue our third roundtable discussion with Morgan Stanley's economists from around the world as we enter the fourth quarter of 2024.It's Tuesday, October 8th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London.Seth Carpenter: All right, so yesterday we covered topics about central banks, inflation, reflation, deflation, China's stimulus policies – a whole set of things. But today I really want to focus on the upcoming US elections and some of the possible implications around the world.As of this recording, the race between Vice President Harris and former President Trump is essentially in a dead heat and it has left policymakers and market participants with few clear signals about what policy is going to be going forward.One key policy lever is tariffs; and so Diego, I’m going to come to you. What has the US team said about tariffs and what it might mean for the economy?Diego Anzoategui: Yes, I think the three key policy levers to consider are tariffs, as you mentioned Seth, immigration policy, and fiscal policy. Tariffs, in particular, are basically a presidential authority, so the outcome of the election is going to be very important there.Fiscal policy will depend not only on the White House, but also on the Congress, which most polls suggest that it will be split between the two parties. So, we don't expect much there. And immigration policy is tricky because if you take a look at the data, immigration flows have been decreasing. And the key question here is whether the new policy is going to affect that already decreasing pathSeth Carpenter: For tariffs, I know that we've published -- that there's both a boost to inflation that can come, but also a hit to economic growth. And that boost to inflation likely comes first.The logic is tariffs are taxes, and so they should be seen as a tax on consumption spending -- but also, on domestic CapEx spending and domestic manufacturing because a lot of the imports that are under tariff are either capital goods or intermediate goods that go into manufacturing here in the US.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, that's right. Of course, the details will matter a lot. So, suffice it to say, there's a lot of uncertainty.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that's fair. Chetan, let me come back to you on this. This topic is particularly important for China's economy since the Trump campaign has pledged tariffs of up to 60 per cent on China, and then 10 per cent globally -- something that our public policy team believes could be a driver of a broader decoupling.You've written a lot about tariffs, tariff structure, what it means for China, the deflationary path. Could you just elaborate a little bit for us?Chetan Ahya: Yeah, absolutely. I think the timing of this tariff, if they do come up in November or sometime in 2025, couldn't have been coming at a worse time for China. As we've been discussing, China has already been going through this challenge of deflation, and tariffs essentially will mean additional deflationary pressures on China.So that is one source of impact that we would be watching. The other would be what is the impact on global corporate confidence and China's corporate confidence. That can have additional negative impact in form of slowdown in investment. And one other thing to keep in mind is that in 2018-2019, China could respond, in terms of fiscal and monetary easing and offset some of the downside that came from tariffs. But in this cycle, considering the state of the property market, it would be very difficult for China to reflate that property market demand and offset the downside from tariff.So essentially, we think the tariffs, if they come in this time, could be far more challenging for China, particularly for deflation management.Seth Carpenter: Of course, tariffs are global and the Trump campaign has talked about not just tariffs on China. So, Jens, let me come to you. Maybe there are some implications here for Europe as well.During former President Trump's administration, there were targeted tariffs that, met challenges of the WTO and retaliatory tariffs on American exports to Europe. Looking back on what happened in 2018 and 2019, what do you think could be ahead in the event that former President Trump wins the election again?Jens Eisenschmidt: So, the episode in 2018 could be actually a template, even though it's probably limited in scopes because tariffs were much more limited that were applied back then. We've talked about around 1 per cent of total American-EU imports that back then were targeted; while now we are really talking about, at least in terms of proposals, everything.So first to notice that when back then the impact was limited, it will be a little bit bigger now simply because more is targeted. And we think it could be around 30 basis points, shaping around 30 basis points, of European GDP.Again, that's a very crude measure that depends on many things in particular on also the retaliation. And here for instance, we think EU would, of course, like last time, file a complaint with the World Trade Organization, you know, as a basis for then following negotiations around these tariffs.Then, the EU would, of course, be looking into what type of tariffs it could put in terms of retaliation on US products entering the EU. And here we would observe first that a lot of that is actually oil, and it's unlikely that you would want to put tariffs on oil -- or more broadly energy goods. So also, natural gas.Then that means we would look for the next product categories. But here, I think it's not so clear; no single product category stands out. But what stands out is that the US has a surplus in services exports to the EU. And here the EU could, in theory at least, come up with a strategy to retaliate through services regulation. Again, that would need to be seen, once we see these tariffs being implemented. But that certainly would be a road for the EU to take.Seth Carpenter: Thanks Jens. It makes a lot of sense. And gentlemen, I want to thank you all for a terrific discussion today.And thanks to our listeners. If you like Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/E7KNMMGwjMuiTCh3bMvQ4elYdh-VfZgV0iHALBnwZScTue, 08 Oct 2024 22:01:13 +0000gtyThe rhetoric around the US elections is heating up, and tariffs have become a central theme – to rally for or against. In Part II of our roundtable discussion, our chief economists break down national and global implications of this policy lever....----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.On this special episode of the podcast, we're going to continue our third roundtable discussion with Morgan Stanley's economists from around the world as we enter the fourth quarter of 2024.It's Tuesday, October 8th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London.Seth Carpenter: All right, so yesterday we covered topics about central banks, inflation, reflation, deflation, China's stimulus policies – a whole set of things. But today I really want to focus on the upcoming US elections and some of the possible implications around the world.As of this recording, the race between Vice President Harris and former President Trump is essentially in a dead heat and it has left policymakers and market participants with few clear signals about what policy is going to be going forward.One key policy lever is tariffs; and so Diego, I’m going to come to you. What has the US team said about tariffs and what it might mean for the economy?Diego Anzoategui: Yes, I think the three key policy levers to consider are tariffs, as you mentioned Seth, immigration policy, and fiscal policy. Tariffs, in particular, are basically a presidential authority, so the outcome of the election is going to be very important there.Fiscal policy will depend not only on the White House, but also on the Congress, which most polls suggest that it will be split between the two parties. So, we don't expect much there. And immigration policy is tricky because if you take a look at the data, immigration flows have been decreasing. And the key question here is whether the new policy is going to affect that already decreasing pathSeth Carpenter: For tariffs, I know that we've published -- that there's both a boost to inflation that can come, but also a hit to economic growth. And that boost to inflation likely comes first.The logic is tariffs are taxes, and so they should be seen as a tax on consumption spending -- but also, on domestic CapEx spending and domestic manufacturing because a lot of the imports that are under tariff are either capital goods or intermediate goods that go into manufacturing here in the US.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, that's right. Of course, the details will matter a lot. So, suffice it to say, there's a lot of uncertainty.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that's fair. Chetan, let me come back to you on this. This topic is particularly important for China's economy since the Trump campaign has pledged tariffs of up to 60 per cent on China, and then 10 per cent globally -- something that our public policy team believes could be a driver of a broader decoupling.You've written a lot about tariffs, tariff structure, what it means for China, the deflationary path. Could you just elaborate a little bit for us?Chetan Ahya: Yeah, absolutely. I think the timing of this tariff, if they do come up in November or sometime in 2025, couldn't have been coming at a worse time for China. As we've been discussing, China has already been going through this challenge of deflation, and tariffs essentially will mean additional deflationary pressures on China.So that is one source of impact that we would be watching. The other would be what is the impact on global corporate confidence and China's corporate confidence. That can have additional negative impact in form of slowdown in investment. And one other thing to keep in mind is that in 2018-2019, China could respond, in terms of fiscal and monetary easing and offset some of the downside that came from tariffs. But in this cycle, considering the state of the property market, it would be very difficult for China to reflate that property...]]>396alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1230fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economics-roundtable-central-banks-turn-the-corner--75651050----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll hold our third roundtable discussion focusing on Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we enter the final quarter of 2024.I am joined today by our economics team from three regions.Chetan Ahya: I’m Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Jens Eisenschmidt: I’m Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist.Diego Anzoategui: I’m Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.It's Monday, October 7th at 10 am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3 pm in London.Seth Carpenter: I have to say, a lot has happened since the last time we held this roundtable. To say the very least, we've had volatility in financial markets. But on balance, I kind of have to say the global economy has more or less performed the way we expected.The US economy is cruising towards a soft landing. The labor market maybe is a touch softer than we expected, but consumer spending has remained resilient. In Asia, Japan's reflation story is largely intact, while China is still confronting that debt deflation cycle that we've talked about. And in Europe, the tepid growth we had envisioned -- well, it's continuing. Inflation is falling, but the ECB seems to be accelerating its rate cuts. So, let's get into the details.Diego, I'm going to start with you and the US. The Fed cut interest rates in September for the first time this cycle, and they cut by 50 basis points instead of the 25 basis points that some people -- including us -- were expecting. So, the big question for you is, where does the Fed go from here?Diego Anzoategui: So, we are looking for a string of 25 basis point cuts from the Fed as long as labor markets hold up. Inflation has come down notably and we expect a normalization of interest rates ahead. But, of course, we might be wrong again. Labor markets might cool too much, and in that case, one or two additional 50 basis point cuts might happen again.Seth Carpenter: So, either the Fed glides into the soft landing or they pick up the pace and they cut faster.So, Jens, let me turn to you and pivot to Europe. You recently changed your forecast for the ECB, and you're now looking for a rate cut in October. And that's following two cuts already that the ECB has done. So, what prompted your change? Is it like what Diego said about a softer outcome prompting a faster pace of cuts. What's likely to happen next for the ECB?Jens Eisenschmidt: That's right. We changed our ECB call. And to understand why we have to go back to September. So already at the September meeting the ECB president, Lagarde, made clear in the press conference that the bank was a little bit less concerned about structurally high services inflation that is forecast to be persistently high still for some time to come -- mainly because there was more conviction that wages would come down eventually.And so, they could really focus a little bit more, give a bit more attention to the growth side of things. Just as a reminder, the Fed has a dual mandate. So, it's growth and inflation. The ECB only has inflation. So basically, if the ECB wants to act on growth, it needs to be sure that inflation is under control. And then since September what happened is that literally every single indicator, leading indicator, for inflation was negative. We had lower oil prices, we had a stronger euro, and of course, also weaker activity in terms of the PMIs pointing to a cooling of the ongoing recovery.So, all of that led us to revise our inflation forecast, and that means that ECB will very likely already be a target mid next year. That should lead to an acceleration of the rate cut cycle. And then it's only a question, will it be already in October or in December? And here comes the September inflation print in, which was softer in particular on the core or on the services component than expected. And we think that has tilted the balance; or will tilt the balance in favor of an October rate cut.So, what we see now is October, December, January, March -- 25 basis points rate cuts by the ECB leading to a rate of 250. Then this being close to neutral, they will slow down again, quarterly rate cut pace. So, June, September, December, 25 basis points each -- leading to a final rate end of next year at 175.Seth Carpenter: Okay, got it. So, inflation has come down in most developed market economies. Central banks are starting to cut. For the Fed, there's an open question about how much strength the labor market still has and whether or not they need to do 50 basis points or 25.But I have to say, Chetan -- and I'm going to come to you because -- in Asia, we saw a lot of market turmoil in August, and that was partly prompted by the rate hike of the BoJ. So, here's a developed market economy central bank that's not cutting. In fact, they're starting to raise interest rates. So, what happened there? And what do you think happens with the BoJ going forward?Chetan Ahya: Well, Seth, in our base case, we do expect BoJ to hike by another 25 basis points in January next year. And as regards to your question on what happened in terms of the volatility that we saw in the month of August? Essentially, as the BoJ took up its first rate hike, there was a lot of concern that BoJ will go in a consecutive manner, taking up successive rate hikes. But at the end of the day, what we saw was, BoJ realizing that there is a clear endogeneity between financial conditions and their reaction function. And as that communication was clearly laid out, we saw markets calming down. And now going forward, what we think BoJ will be watching will be the data on inflation and wages.We think they would be waiting to see what happens to the inflation data in the month of November and October, i.e., whether there is a clear, rise in services inflation, which has been running at around 1.3 per cent. And they would want to see that wage pass through to services inflation is continuing.And then secondly, they will want to see what is happening to the wage expectations from the workers in the next round of spring wage negotiations. The demand from workers will be clear by the end of this year, so sometime in December. And therefore, we think BoJ will look at that information and then take up a rate hike in the month of January next year.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so if I step back for a second, even if there are a few parts of the puzzle that still need to fall into place, it sounds to me like you're saying the Japan reflation story is still intact. Is that fair?Chetan Ahya: That's right. We think that, you know, the comment from the prime minister that came out a few days back; he's very clear that he wants to see a situation where Japan gets rid of deflation. So, we think that the policymakers are fully lined up to ensure that the reflation story remains intact.Seth Carpenter: That's super helpful and it just absolutely contrasts with what we've been saying about China, where they have sort of the opposite story. There's been a debt deflation cycle that you and the Chinese team have really been highlighting for a long time now, talking about the challenges for policy.We did get some news out of Beijing in terms of policy stimulus. Could you and break down for us what happened there and whether or not you think that's enough to really shift China's trajectory away from this debt deflation cycle?Chetan Ahya: Yes, Seth, so essentially, we got three things from Chinese policy makers. Number one, they took up big monetary policy easing. Number two, they announced a package to support the equity markets. And number three, they announced some measures to support the property market.Now we think that these measures are a positive and particularly the property market measures will be helpful. But in terms of real impediment for China's reflation story, we think that the key need of the hour is to take up aggressive fiscal easing to boost consumption. Monetary policy easing is helpful, but it's not really the key impediment to the reflation path.Seth Carpenter: All right, so if I wanted to see the glass as half full, I would say, look at this! Beijing policymakers have turned the corners. They're acknowledging that there's some policy impetus that needs to be put into place. But if I wanted to see the glass as half empty, I could take away from what you just said, that there just needs to be more, maybe fiscal stimulus to directly promote household spending.Is that that fair?Chetan Ahya: That's absolutely right. What's happening in China is that there has been a big structural adjustment in the property sector because now the total population is declining. And so therefore there is a big demand hole that is being left by the weakness in housing sector.Ideally, what they should be doing, as I was mentioning earlier, [is] that they should be taking a big fiscal easing to support consumption spending. But so far what we've been seeing is that they've been trying to fill that demand hole with more supply in form of investment in manufacturing and infrastructure sector.And unfortunately, that's been actually making the deflation challenge more complex. So going forward, we think that, you know, we should be watching out what they do in terms of fiscal stimulus. There was a comment in the Politburo statement that they will take up fiscal easing. We suspect that the timing of that fiscal policy announcement could be by end of this month alongside National People's Congress meeting. And so, what will be the size of fiscal stimulus will be important to watch as well.Currently, we think it could be one to two trillion RMB. But in our work that we did in terms of what is the scale of fiscal stimulus that is needed]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2EkaAtmqxkZkAbWfj-el_Vq1wIalrnIttD5xNk6-oRoMon, 07 Oct 2024 21:03:38 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s chief economists take stock of a resilient global economy that has weathered a recent period of market volatility, in Part I of our two-part roundtable. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll hold our third roundtable discussion focusing on Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we enter the final quarter of 2024.I am joined today by our economics team from three regions.Chetan Ahya: I’m Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Jens Eisenschmidt: I’m Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist.Diego Anzoategui: I’m Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.It's Monday, October 7th at 10 am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3 pm in London.Seth Carpenter: I have to say, a lot has happened since the last time we held this roundtable. To say the very least, we've had volatility in financial markets. But on balance, I kind of have to say the global economy has more or less performed the way we expected.The US economy is cruising towards a soft landing. The labor market maybe is a touch softer than we expected, but consumer spending has remained resilient. In Asia, Japan's reflation story is largely intact, while China is still confronting that debt deflation cycle that we've talked about. And in Europe, the tepid growth we had envisioned -- well, it's continuing. Inflation is falling, but the ECB seems to be accelerating its rate cuts. So, let's get into the details.Diego, I'm going to start with you and the US. The Fed cut interest rates in September for the first time this cycle, and they cut by 50 basis points instead of the 25 basis points that some people -- including us -- were expecting. So, the big question for you is, where does the Fed go from here?Diego Anzoategui: So, we are looking for a string of 25 basis point cuts from the Fed as long as labor markets hold up. Inflation has come down notably and we expect a normalization of interest rates ahead. But, of course, we might be wrong again. Labor markets might cool too much, and in that case, one or two additional 50 basis point cuts might happen again.Seth Carpenter: So, either the Fed glides into the soft landing or they pick up the pace and they cut faster.So, Jens, let me turn to you and pivot to Europe. You recently changed your forecast for the ECB, and you're now looking for a rate cut in October. And that's following two cuts already that the ECB has done. So, what prompted your change? Is it like what Diego said about a softer outcome prompting a faster pace of cuts. What's likely to happen next for the ECB?Jens Eisenschmidt: That's right. We changed our ECB call. And to understand why we have to go back to September. So already at the September meeting the ECB president, Lagarde, made clear in the press conference that the bank was a little bit less concerned about structurally high services inflation that is forecast to be persistently high still for some time to come -- mainly because there was more conviction that wages would come down eventually.And so, they could really focus a little bit more, give a bit more attention to the growth side of things. Just as a reminder, the Fed has a dual mandate. So, it's growth and inflation. The ECB only has inflation. So basically, if the ECB wants to act on growth, it needs to be sure that inflation is under control. And then since September what happened is that literally every single indicator, leading indicator, for inflation was negative. We had lower oil prices, we had a stronger euro, and of course, also weaker activity in terms of the PMIs pointing to a cooling of the ongoing recovery.So, all of that led us to revise our inflation forecast, and that means that ECB will very likely already be a target mid next year. That should lead to an acceleration of the rate cut cycle. And then it's only a question, will it be already in October or in...]]>604alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1229fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-fed-s-next-move-may-matter-less--75650839----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why what the Fed does next might not matter all that much. It’s Friday, October 4th, at 2 pm in London. Over recent months the Federal Reserve has been at the center of the global market debate. After keeping policy rates unchanged at the end of July, a decision the markets initially cheered, a string of weak data in early August drove concerns that Fed policy was behind schedule. The Fed then responded with a larger-than-expected half-percent interest rate cut in September. And so, given these swings, a common question for investors is, understandably: What will the Fed do next? But what if the Fed’s next move doesn’t matter all that much? Monetary policy is both powerful and weak. Powerful, because interest rates impact so many decisions across the economy, from buying a home, to financing equipment, to acquiring a competitor. And it’s also weak, because how interest rates impact these decisions can have a long and variable lag. It can be six to twelve months before the full impact of an interest rate cut is felt in the economy. And so that half percentage point cut by the Fed last month might not be fully felt in the US economy until June of 2025. That lag is one reason why the Fed’s next move may matter less. The second reason is what we think the market is worried about. We think a lot of the market’s volatility over the last two months has been driven by concerns that the US economy, particularly the labor market, is weakening right now. If interest rates are too high and the labor market is weakening, then cutting more rapidly in the coming months might not make a difference. Because of that lag, the help from lower rates simply wouldn’t arrive in time.Meanwhile, there’s also a view that interest rates might need to fall quite a long ways to have the sort of impact that would be needed if the economy is really slowing down rapidly: by the Fed’s own Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), the policy rate that neither helps or hinders the economy could still be about 2 per cent lower than the current rate – even after that half a percentage point cut in September. Interest rates are well above what could be neutral. In short, if the data weaken materially over the coming months, more Fed cuts may not necessarily help in time. And if the data remain solid, Fed policy will have lots of time to adjust. It’s the data, not the Fed’s next action, that are most important at the moment. We also see support for this idea in history. It’s notable that some of the most aggressive US interest rate-cutting cycles – 2001, 2008, February of 2020 – overlapped with weak equity and credit markets. And it was smaller rate cutting cycles – in 1995-96, 1998 or 2019 – that overlapped with much better markets. And that makes sense; if one assumes that it’s the data rather than exactly how much the Fed is cutting rates that matter most to the market. All of this especially feels topical today. Today’s better than expected report on the US jobs market should support the case that Fed policy is on schedule, and larger adjustments aren’t needed. It’s good news. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CNdUxXijswoQsjGD62-CdcJxXHxgK0vG1X3wPkl5o24Fri, 04 Oct 2024 18:39:10 +0000gtyFollowing the US Federal Reserve’s September rate cut, labor data may have more impact on markets than further cuts. Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research, explains why. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why what the Fed does next might not matter all that much. It’s Friday, October 4th, at 2 pm in London. Over recent months the Federal Reserve has been at the center of the global market debate. After keeping policy rates unchanged at the end of July, a decision the markets initially cheered, a string of weak data in early August drove concerns that Fed policy was behind schedule. The Fed then responded with a larger-than-expected half-percent interest rate cut in September. And so, given these swings, a common question for investors is, understandably: What will the Fed do next? But what if the Fed’s next move doesn’t matter all that much? Monetary policy is both powerful and weak. Powerful, because interest rates impact so many decisions across the economy, from buying a home, to financing equipment, to acquiring a competitor. And it’s also weak, because how interest rates impact these decisions can have a long and variable lag. It can be six to twelve months before the full impact of an interest rate cut is felt in the economy. And so that half percentage point cut by the Fed last month might not be fully felt in the US economy until June of 2025. That lag is one reason why the Fed’s next move may matter less. The second reason is what we think the market is worried about. We think a lot of the market’s volatility over the last two months has been driven by concerns that the US economy, particularly the labor market, is weakening right now. If interest rates are too high and the labor market is weakening, then cutting more rapidly in the coming months might not make a difference. Because of that lag, the help from lower rates simply wouldn’t arrive in time.Meanwhile, there’s also a view that interest rates might need to fall quite a long ways to have the sort of impact that would be needed if the economy is really slowing down rapidly: by the Fed’s own Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), the policy rate that neither helps or hinders the economy could still be about 2 per cent lower than the current rate – even after that half a percentage point cut in September. Interest rates are well above what could be neutral. In short, if the data weaken materially over the coming months, more Fed cuts may not necessarily help in time. And if the data remain solid, Fed policy will have lots of time to adjust. It’s the data, not the Fed’s next action, that are most important at the moment. We also see support for this idea in history. It’s notable that some of the most aggressive US interest rate-cutting cycles – 2001, 2008, February of 2020 – overlapped with weak equity and credit markets. And it was smaller rate cutting cycles – in 1995-96, 1998 or 2019 – that overlapped with much better markets. And that makes sense; if one assumes that it’s the data rather than exactly how much the Fed is cutting rates that matter most to the market. All of this especially feels topical today. Today’s better than expected report on the US jobs market should support the case that Fed policy is on schedule, and larger adjustments aren’t needed. It’s good news. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>232alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1228fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-china-s-stimulus-shift-its-economy--75651222----- Transcript -----
Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. Robin Xing: And I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist.Laura Wang: All eyes have been on China this past week, and today we'll discuss why recent news from China's policymakers have commanded the attention of global markets.It's Thursday, October the 3rd, at 4pm in Hong Kong.So, Robin, China has been wrestling with the triple macro challenge of debt deflation and demographics -- what we call the three Ds -- for some time now. Last week, China's central bank, PBOC, announced a stimulus package that exceeded market expectations. And then later in the week, top China Communist Party officials, known as the Politburo, focused their monthly meeting on economics, which is not their usual practice.This meeting was a positive surprise to both us and the market. Let's start with the PBOCs easing package. For listeners who haven't been following China's economy closely, what's our current view on China's economy and can you walk us through the policy measures that the central bank introduced?Robin Xing: China's economy has been struggling lately and that's pushed the Beijing to pivot approach. Over the last 18 months, they have tried smaller, reactive measures. But now, they are doing something much bigger. On September 24, the People's Bank of China, PBOC, made a bold move, cutting interest rates and introducing new tools to support the stock market.Now, these cuts might sound small, just 20 basis points, but they are pretty rare in China. They also cut the reserve requirement ratio, which is a fancy way of saying banks can lend more money by 50 basis points. And for the first time, the central bank gave forward guidance, signaling even more cuts could come by year end.On top of that, the PBOC launched two big programs, a 500 billion yuan fund to help investors buy stocks, and a 300 billion yuan program to help companies buy back their own shares. These moves gave a much-needed boost to both the markets and consumer confidence.Laura Wang: And how about the Politburo meeting that came on the heels of the PBOC announcement? What exactly did it focus on?Robin Xing: The Politburo meeting was a rather critical moment. Normally, they don't even talk about the economy in September. But this year was different. It really signaled how urgent things have become.They made it clear they are ready to spend more. The government is pledging to increase public spending because other parts of the economy, like corporates and consumers, are holding back. There is also a big focus on the housing market, which has been in decline since 2021. They are promising to stop that slide, and it's the strongest commitment we have seen so far.Laura Wang: So, given everything we've seen from the PBOC and the Politburo, do you think this is a ‘whatever it takes moment’ to address the macro challenges facing China's economy?Robin Xing: Not quite, but it's close. We are seeing the start of what's going to be a bumpy recovery. The deflation problem, where prices are falling and people are not spending, is complicated.Beijing seems open to trying different approaches, but fixing the deeper issues -- like the struggling housing market and the local government debt -- it’s going to take a lot. In fact, we think China might need to spend about 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next two years to really turn things around.Right now, the measures they have announced are smaller than that. That's because these are new policies. And they still need to build consensus and work out the details. So, while this isn't a ‘whatever it takes moment’ yet the mindset has definitely shifted in that direction.Laura Wang: In this case, what are the next steps you are monitoring for China's policymaker and how long will the various measures take to implement?Robin Xing: We expect to see a supplementary budget of 1-2 trillion yuan announced at the upcoming NPC Standing Committee meeting in late October. This budget should focus on boosting consumer spending, increasing social welfare, and helping local governments managing their debt. We will likely see more monetary easing too.As well as tweaks to the Housing Inventory Buy Back program. These steps should help the economy grow slightly faster, possibly hitting a 5 per cent quarter on quarter growth over the next two quarters, compared to the 3 per cent we have seen recently.Looking ahead, we will get more clues at the December Central Economic Work Conference. That's when we might see the first signs of plans to use central government funds to tackle housing and local government debt issues. The full details could come in March 2025. If things don't improve quickly, and especially if social unrest starts to rise, Beijing may have to act even more aggressively.We are keeping an eye on our social dynamics indicator, which tracks how people feel about jobs, welfare and income. If that dips further, it could push the government to ramp up stimulus measures.Laura, turning it over to you. How are stock markets reacting to all this policy signaling from China?Laura Wang: I would say to say that the market has responded very enthusiastically is an understatement. I'll give you some numbers.On the first day of the PBOC announcement, the Shanghai Composite Index, as well as the Hong Kong Market Hang Seng Index, were both up by more than 4 per cent in one single day. Then with the further boost from the surprise Politburo meeting -- by now, both the Shanghai Composite Index and the Hang Seng Index have already been up by more than 21 per cent in just one week's time.Robin Xing: Within the China stock market, which sectors and industries do you think will most benefit from the shift in policy?Laura Wang: There are a few ways to position to benefit from this major market condition change. We have a list of companies that we believe will directly benefit from the PBOC market stabilization funding, given the funding's low cost compared to these companies implied re-rating opportunity, just by tapping into the funding and enhancing their shareholder returns.For the potential reflationary fiscal efforts suggested by the Politburo meeting, as more details come out, I think sectors with good exposure to reflation, particularly the private consumption, will benefit the most -- given their still relatively low valuation, large market cap and high liquidity.Robin Xing: Finally, Laura, what are your expectations for the markets in China and outside of China for the next few weeks and months?Laura Wang: Clearly this rally so far is reflecting significant sentiment improvement and capitals that are willing to take a leap of faith and preposition for physical reflationary efforts ramp up. If the government can deliver these measures in a timely fashion, and more importantly, on top of that, communicate their commitment to winning this uphill battle against deflation, I think further valuation re-rating is quite possible for both the Asia market and the Hong Kong market by another 10 to 20 per cent.To go beyond that level, we need to see clear signs of a corporate earnings growth reacceleration, which would require incrementally more easing to come along in the next few months. We should also monitor the housing market inventory level very closely because any earlier completion of this inventory digestion could suggest less drag on demand investment.Obviously, there are still a lot of moving parts and it's still a very much evolving story from here. Robin, thanks for taking the time to talk.Robin Xing: Great speaking with you, Laura.Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gRjZLQIwIraeFDfDupQ8ZMr25r-jrNB2lGGiQ99ZUdoThu, 03 Oct 2024 20:19:45 +0000gtyOur Chief China Economist Robin Xing and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discuss how markets have responded to rate cuts and commitments to government spending, and what they could mean over the long term. ----- Transcript ----- Laura Wang:...----- Transcript -----
Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. Robin Xing: And I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist.Laura Wang: All eyes have been on China this past week, and today we'll discuss why recent news from China's policymakers have commanded the attention of global markets.It's Thursday, October the 3rd, at 4pm in Hong Kong.So, Robin, China has been wrestling with the triple macro challenge of debt deflation and demographics -- what we call the three Ds -- for some time now. Last week, China's central bank, PBOC, announced a stimulus package that exceeded market expectations. And then later in the week, top China Communist Party officials, known as the Politburo, focused their monthly meeting on economics, which is not their usual practice.This meeting was a positive surprise to both us and the market. Let's start with the PBOCs easing package. For listeners who haven't been following China's economy closely, what's our current view on China's economy and can you walk us through the policy measures that the central bank introduced?Robin Xing: China's economy has been struggling lately and that's pushed the Beijing to pivot approach. Over the last 18 months, they have tried smaller, reactive measures. But now, they are doing something much bigger. On September 24, the People's Bank of China, PBOC, made a bold move, cutting interest rates and introducing new tools to support the stock market.Now, these cuts might sound small, just 20 basis points, but they are pretty rare in China. They also cut the reserve requirement ratio, which is a fancy way of saying banks can lend more money by 50 basis points. And for the first time, the central bank gave forward guidance, signaling even more cuts could come by year end.On top of that, the PBOC launched two big programs, a 500 billion yuan fund to help investors buy stocks, and a 300 billion yuan program to help companies buy back their own shares. These moves gave a much-needed boost to both the markets and consumer confidence.Laura Wang: And how about the Politburo meeting that came on the heels of the PBOC announcement? What exactly did it focus on?Robin Xing: The Politburo meeting was a rather critical moment. Normally, they don't even talk about the economy in September. But this year was different. It really signaled how urgent things have become.They made it clear they are ready to spend more. The government is pledging to increase public spending because other parts of the economy, like corporates and consumers, are holding back. There is also a big focus on the housing market, which has been in decline since 2021. They are promising to stop that slide, and it's the strongest commitment we have seen so far.Laura Wang: So, given everything we've seen from the PBOC and the Politburo, do you think this is a ‘whatever it takes moment’ to address the macro challenges facing China's economy?Robin Xing: Not quite, but it's close. We are seeing the start of what's going to be a bumpy recovery. The deflation problem, where prices are falling and people are not spending, is complicated.Beijing seems open to trying different approaches, but fixing the deeper issues -- like the struggling housing market and the local government debt -- it’s going to take a lot. In fact, we think China might need to spend about 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next two years to really turn things around.Right now, the measures they have announced are smaller than that. That's because these are new policies. And they still need to build consensus and work out the details. So, while this isn't a ‘whatever it takes moment’ yet the mindset has definitely shifted in that direction.Laura...]]>508alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1227fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-could-the-dockworkers-strike-mean-for-growth-and-inflation--75651126----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the implications of this week's US dockworker strike on the US economy.It's Wednesday, October 2nd, at 11am in New York.Diego, as most of our listeners likely know, yesterday roughly 45,000 US dockworkers went on strike for the first time in perhaps decades at 36 US ports from Maine to Texas. And so, I wanted to get your initial read on the situation because we're obviously getting a lot of questions from clients concerned about what this could mean for growth and inflation.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, of course, there's a lot of uncertainty about this situation because we don't know how long the strike is going to last. But the strike can in principle hit economic growth and boost inflation -- but only if it is long lasting, right. Local producers and retailers, they typically have inventories of final and intermediate goods, so the disruption needs to be long enough so that those inventories go down to critical levels in order to see a meaningful macroeconomic impact.But if the strike is long enough, we might see an important impact on economic activity and inflation. If we look at trade flows data, roughly 30 per cent of all goods imports and exports are handled by the East and Gulf ports.Michael Zezas: So then let's drill down on that a bit. If the strike continues long enough and inventories decline, what are the shocks to economic growth that you're considering?Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, I would think that there are two main channels through which the strike might hit economic activity. The first one is a hit to local production because of disruptions in the supply of capital goods and intermediate goods used for domestic production. We not only use the ports to bring final goods, but also intermediate and capital goods like machinery, basic metals, plastic, to name a few.And the second channel is directly through exports. The East Coast and Gulf ports channel 84 per cent of exports by water. Industries producing energy, chemicals, machinery, cars, might be affected by these bottlenecks.Michael Zezas: Right, so fewer potential imports of goods, and fewer potential productive capacity as a consequence. Does that have an impact on inflation from your perspective?Diego Anzoategui: Yes, it can have an impact on inflation. Again, assuming that the strike is long lasting, right? I would expect acceleration in goods prices, in particular key inputs coming from the Eastern Gulf ports. And these are cars, electronics, clothes, furniture and apparel. All these categories roughly represent 13 per cent of the core PCE basket, the price index.Also, you know, a meaningful share of food and beverages imports come through water. So, I would also expect an impact there in those prices. And in terms of what prices might react faster, I think the main candidate is food and beverages -- and especially perishable food that typically have lower inventory to sales ratios.And if we start seeing an increase in those prices, I think that would be a good early signal that the disruptions are starting to bite.Michael Zezas: That makes sense. And last question, what about the impact to the US workforce? What would be the impact, if any, on payroll data and unemployment data, reflecting workforce impact -- the types of data that investors really pay close attention to.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah. So, we will likely see an impact on nonfarm payrolls, NFP, and the unemployment rate if the strike is long lasting. But even if there are not important disruptions, the strike itself can mechanically affect October's nonfarm payrolls print. They want to be released in November. Remember that strikers don't get paid, and they are not on the payroll; so they are not be[ing] counted by the establishment survey.But a necessary condition to see this downward bias in the NFP reading is that the strike needs to continue next week, that is the second week of October, right. But know that The Fed tends to look through these short run fluctuations in NFP due to strikes -- because any drag we see in the October sprint will likely be followed by payback in November if the strike is short lived.Michael Zezas: Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Diego, thanks for making the time to talk with us as this unfolds. Let's hope for a quick resolution here.Diego Anzoategui: Thanks, Michael. Great speaking with you.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JkVebke9_T4JRfGLJFvRJcPf_HOytRV8uD1GldSv_EUWed, 02 Oct 2024 21:14:44 +0000gtyThousands of U.S. dockworkers have gone on strike along the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas joins U.S. economist Diego Anzoategui to discuss the potential consequences of a drawn-out work...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the implications of this week's US dockworker strike on the US economy.It's Wednesday, October 2nd, at 11am in New York.Diego, as most of our listeners likely know, yesterday roughly 45,000 US dockworkers went on strike for the first time in perhaps decades at 36 US ports from Maine to Texas. And so, I wanted to get your initial read on the situation because we're obviously getting a lot of questions from clients concerned about what this could mean for growth and inflation.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, of course, there's a lot of uncertainty about this situation because we don't know how long the strike is going to last. But the strike can in principle hit economic growth and boost inflation -- but only if it is long lasting, right. Local producers and retailers, they typically have inventories of final and intermediate goods, so the disruption needs to be long enough so that those inventories go down to critical levels in order to see a meaningful macroeconomic impact.But if the strike is long enough, we might see an important impact on economic activity and inflation. If we look at trade flows data, roughly 30 per cent of all goods imports and exports are handled by the East and Gulf ports.Michael Zezas: So then let's drill down on that a bit. If the strike continues long enough and inventories decline, what are the shocks to economic growth that you're considering?Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, I would think that there are two main channels through which the strike might hit economic activity. The first one is a hit to local production because of disruptions in the supply of capital goods and intermediate goods used for domestic production. We not only use the ports to bring final goods, but also intermediate and capital goods like machinery, basic metals, plastic, to name a few.And the second channel is directly through exports. The East Coast and Gulf ports channel 84 per cent of exports by water. Industries producing energy, chemicals, machinery, cars, might be affected by these bottlenecks.Michael Zezas: Right, so fewer potential imports of goods, and fewer potential productive capacity as a consequence. Does that have an impact on inflation from your perspective?Diego Anzoategui: Yes, it can have an impact on inflation. Again, assuming that the strike is long lasting, right? I would expect acceleration in goods prices, in particular key inputs coming from the Eastern Gulf ports. And these are cars, electronics, clothes, furniture and apparel. All these categories roughly represent 13 per cent of the core PCE basket, the price index.Also, you know, a meaningful share of food and beverages imports come through water. So, I would also expect an impact there in those prices. And in terms of what prices might react faster, I think the main candidate is food and beverages -- and especially perishable food that typically have lower inventory to sales ratios.And if we start seeing an increase in those prices, I think that would be a good early signal that the disruptions are starting to bite.Michael Zezas: That makes sense. And last question, what about the impact to the US workforce? What would be the impact, if any, on payroll data and unemployment data, reflecting workforce impact -- the types of data that investors really pay close attention to.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah. So, we will likely see an impact on nonfarm payrolls, NFP, and the unemployment rate if the strike is long lasting. But even...]]>326alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1226fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-potential-domino-effect-of-us-tariffs--75651239----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist. Arunima Sinha: And I’m Arunima Sinha, from the Global Economics team. Ariana Salvatore: Today we're talking tariffs, a major policy issue at stake in the US presidential election. We'll dig into the domestic and international implications of these proposed policies. It's Tuesday, October 1st at 10am in New York. In a little over four weeks, Americans will be going to the polls. And as we've noted on this podcast, it's still a close race between the two presidential candidates. Former president Donald Trump's main pitch to voters has to do with the economy. And tariffs and tax cuts are central to many of his campaign speeches. Arunima Sinha: You're right, Ariana. In fact, I would say that tariffs have been the key theme he keeps on coming back to. You've recently written a note about why we should take the Republicans proposed policies on tariffs seriously. What's your broad outlook in a Trump win scenario? Ariana Salvatore: Well, first and foremost, I think it's important to note that the President has quite a bit of discretion when it comes to trade policy. That's why we recommend that investors should take seriously a number of these proposals. Many of the authorities are already in place and could be easily leveraged if Trump were to win in November and follow through on those campaign promises. He did it with China in 2018 to 2019, leveraging Section 301 Authority, and many of that could be done easily if he were to win again.Arunima Sinha: And could you just walk us through some of the specifics of Trump's tariff proposals? What are the options at the President's disposal? Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, he's floated a number of tariff proposals -- whether it be 10 per cent tariffs across the board on all of our imports, 60 per cent specifically on China or targeted tariffs on certain goods coming from partners like Mexico, for example. Targeted tariffs are likely the easiest place to start, especially if we see an incrementalist approach like we saw during the first Trump term over the course of 2018 to 2019. Arunima Sinha: And how quickly would these tariffs be implemented if Trump were to win? Ariana Salvatore: The answer to that really depends on the type of authorities being leveraged here. There are a few different procedures associated with each of the tariffs that I mentioned just now. For example, if the president is using Section 301 authorities, that usually requires a period of investigation by the USTR -- or the US Trade Representative --before the formal recommendation for tariffs.However, given that many of these authorities are already in place, to the extent that the former president wants to levy tariffs on China, for example, it can be done pretty seamlessly. Conversely, if you were to ask his cabinet to initiate a new tariff investigation, depending on the authority used, that could take anywhere from weeks to months. Section 232 investigations have a maximum timeline of 270 days. There's also a chance that he uses something called IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to justify quicker tariff imposition, though the legality of that authority hasn't been fully tested yet. Back in 2019, when Trump said he would use IEEPA to impose 5 per cent tariffs on all Mexican imports, he called off those plans before the tariffs actually came into effect. Arunima Sinha: And could you give us a little more specific[s] about which countries would be impacted in this potential next round of tariffs -- and to what extent? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, in our analysis, which you'll get into in a moment, we focus on the potential for a 10 per cent across the board tariff that I mentioned, in conjunction with the 60 per cent tariff on Chinese goods. Obviously, when you map that to who our largest trading partners are, it's clear that Mexico and China would be impacted most directly, followed by Canada and the EU.Specifically on the EU, we have those section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs coming up for review in early 2025, and the US-MCA or the agreement that replaced NAFTA is set for review later in 2026. So, we see plenty of trade catalysts on the horizon. We also see an underappreciated risk of tariffs on Mexico using precedent from Trump's first term, especially if immigration continues to be such a politically salient issue for voters. Given all of this, it seems that tariffs will create a lot of friction in global trade. What's your outlook, Arunima? Arunima Sinha: Well, Arianna, we do expect a hit to growth, and a near term rise in inflation in the US. In the EU, our economists also expect a negative impact on growth. And in other economies, there are several considerations. How would tariffs impact the ongoing supply chain diversification? The extent of foreign exchange moves? Are bilateral negotiations being pursued by the other countries? And so on.Ariana Salvatore: So, a natural follow up question here is not only the impact to the countries that would be affected by US tariffs, but how they might respond. What do you see happening there? Arunima Sinha: In the note, we talked with our China economists, and they expect that if the US were to impose 60 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing may impose retaliatory tariffs and some non-tariff measures like it did back in 2018-19. But they don't expect meaningful sanctions or restrictions on US enterprises that are already well embedded in China's supply chain. On the policy side, Beijing would likely resort less to Chinese currency depreciation but focus more on supply chain diversifications to mitigate the tariff shock this time round. Our economists think that the risk of more entrenched deflationary pressures from potential tariff disruptions may increase the urgency for Beijing to shift its policy framework towards economic rebalancing to consumption.In Europe, our economists expect that targeted tariffs will be met with challenges at the WTO and retaliatory tariffs on American exports to Europe, following the pattern from 2018-19, along with bilateral trade negotiations. In Mexico, our economists think that there could be a response with tariffs on agricultural products, mainly corn and soybeans.Ariana Salvatore: So, bringing it back to the US, what do you see the macro impact from tariffs being in terms of economic growth or inflation? Arunima Sinha: We did a fairly extensive analysis where we both looked at the aggregate impacts on the US as well as sectoral impacts that we'll get into. We think that a pretty reasonable estimate of the effect of both a 60 per cent tariff on China and a 10 per cent blanket tariff on the rest of the world is an increase of 0.9 per cent in the headline PCE prices that takes into effect over 2025, and a decline of 1.4 percentage points in real GDP growth that plays out over a longer period going into 2026. Ariana Salvatore: So, your team is expecting two more Fed cuts this year and four by the first half of 2025. Thinking about how tariffs might play into that dynamic, do you see them influencing Fed policy at all? Arunima Sinha: Well, under the tariff scenario, we think that it's possible that the Fed decides to delay cuts first and then speed up the pace of easing. So, in theory, the effect of a tariff shock is really just a level shift in prices. And in other words, it's a transitory boost to inflation that should fade over time.Because it's a temporary shock. The Fed can, in principle look through it as long as inflation expectations remain anchored. And this is what we saw in the FOMC minutes from the 2018 meetings. In a scenario of increased tariffs, we think that the uncertainty about the length of the inflationary push may slow down the pace of cuts in the first half of 2025. And then once GDP deceleration becomes more pronounced, the Fed might then cut faster in the second half of [20]25 to avoid that big, outsized deceleration and economic activity.Ariana Salvatore: And what about second order effects on things like business investment or employment? We talked about agriculture as a potential target for retaliatory tariffs, but what other US sectors and industries would be most affected by these type of plans? Arunima Sinha: That's something that we have leaned in on, and we do expect some important second round effects. So, if you have lower economic activity, that would lower employment, that lowers income, that lowers consumption further -- so that standard multiplier effect. So overall, in that scenario, with the 60 per cent tariffs on China, 10 per cent on the rest of the world that are imposed fully and swiftly, we model that real consumption would decline by 3 per cent, business investment would fall by 3.1 per cent, and monthly job gains would fall by between 50- and 70, 000. At the sectoral level, this combination of tariffs have potential to increase average tariffs to the 25 to 35 per cent range for almost 50 per cent of the NAICS industries in the United States when first put into place. And we expect the biggest impacts on computers and electronics, apparel, and the furniture sectors; but this does not take into account any potential exclusion lists that might be put into place. Ariana Salvatore: Finally, what does all this boil down to in terms of a direct impact to the US consumer wallet? Arunima Sinha: So, the impact of higher tariffs on consumer spending would depend on many factors, and one of the most important ones is the price elasticity of demand. So how willing would consumers be to take on those higher prices from tariffs, or do we see a pullback in real demand? What we think will happen is that higher prices could reduce real consumption by as much as 2. 5 pe]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Y9JlOA8meu2DPyfus5iDbqxSW50bwnqFN5isTckcLrcTue, 01 Oct 2024 21:02:34 +0000gtyOur US public policy and global economics experts discuss how an escalation of US tariffs could have major domestic and international economic implications. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist. Arunima Sinha: And I’m Arunima Sinha, from the Global Economics team. Ariana Salvatore: Today we're talking tariffs, a major policy issue at stake in the US presidential election. We'll dig into the domestic and international implications of these proposed policies. It's Tuesday, October 1st at 10am in New York. In a little over four weeks, Americans will be going to the polls. And as we've noted on this podcast, it's still a close race between the two presidential candidates. Former president Donald Trump's main pitch to voters has to do with the economy. And tariffs and tax cuts are central to many of his campaign speeches. Arunima Sinha: You're right, Ariana. In fact, I would say that tariffs have been the key theme he keeps on coming back to. You've recently written a note about why we should take the Republicans proposed policies on tariffs seriously. What's your broad outlook in a Trump win scenario? Ariana Salvatore: Well, first and foremost, I think it's important to note that the President has quite a bit of discretion when it comes to trade policy. That's why we recommend that investors should take seriously a number of these proposals. Many of the authorities are already in place and could be easily leveraged if Trump were to win in November and follow through on those campaign promises. He did it with China in 2018 to 2019, leveraging Section 301 Authority, and many of that could be done easily if he were to win again.Arunima Sinha: And could you just walk us through some of the specifics of Trump's tariff proposals? What are the options at the President's disposal? Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, he's floated a number of tariff proposals -- whether it be 10 per cent tariffs across the board on all of our imports, 60 per cent specifically on China or targeted tariffs on certain goods coming from partners like Mexico, for example. Targeted tariffs are likely the easiest place to start, especially if we see an incrementalist approach like we saw during the first Trump term over the course of 2018 to 2019. Arunima Sinha: And how quickly would these tariffs be implemented if Trump were to win? Ariana Salvatore: The answer to that really depends on the type of authorities being leveraged here. There are a few different procedures associated with each of the tariffs that I mentioned just now. For example, if the president is using Section 301 authorities, that usually requires a period of investigation by the USTR -- or the US Trade Representative --before the formal recommendation for tariffs.However, given that many of these authorities are already in place, to the extent that the former president wants to levy tariffs on China, for example, it can be done pretty seamlessly. Conversely, if you were to ask his cabinet to initiate a new tariff investigation, depending on the authority used, that could take anywhere from weeks to months. Section 232 investigations have a maximum timeline of 270 days. There's also a chance that he uses something called IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to justify quicker tariff imposition, though the legality of that authority hasn't been fully tested yet. Back in 2019, when Trump said he would use IEEPA to impose 5 per cent tariffs on all Mexican imports, he called off those plans before the tariffs actually came into effect. Arunima Sinha: And could you give us a little more specific[s] about which countries would be impacted in this potential next round of tariffs -- and to what extent? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, in our analysis, which you'll get into in a moment, we focus on the potential for a 10 per cent across the board tariff that I mentioned, in conjunction...]]>649alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1225fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-impact-of-central-bank-pivots--75651270----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect from the sharp pivot in global monetary and fiscal policy.  It's Monday, Sept 30th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Over the past few months, Fed policy has taken on a more dovish turn. To be fair, bond markets have been telling the Fed that they are too tight and in many respects this pivot was simply the Fed getting more in line with market pricing. However, in addition to the 50 basis point cut from the Fed, budget deficits are providing heavy support; with August’s deficit nearly $90b higher than expected. Meanwhile, financial conditions continue to loosen and are now at some of the most stimulative levels seen over the past 25 years. Other central banks are also cutting interest rates and even the Bank of Japan, which recently raised rates for the first time in years, has backed off that stance – and indicated they are in no hurry to raise rates again. Finally, this past week the People’s Bank of China announced new programs specifically targeting equity and housing prices. After a muted response from markets and commentators, the Chinese government then followed up with an aggressive fiscal policy stimulus. Why now?  Like the US, China is highly indebted but it has entered full blown deflation with both credit and equity markets trading terribly for the past several years. There is an old adage that markets stop panicking when policy makers start panicking. On that score, it makes perfect sense why China equity and credit markets have responded the most favorably to the changes made last week. European equity markets were also stronger than the US given European economies and companies have greater exposure to China demand. On the other hand, Japan and India traded poorly which also makes sense in my view since they were the two largest beneficiaries of investor outflows from China over the past several years. Such trends are likely to continue in the near term.  For US equity investors, the real question is whether China’s pivot on policy will have a material impact on US growth. We think it’s fairly limited to areas like Industrial spending and Materials pricing and it’s unlikely to have any impact on US consumers or corporate investment demand. In fact, if commodities rally due to greater China demand, it may hurt US consumer spending. As usual, oil prices will be the most important commodity to watch in this regard. The good news is that oil prices were down last week due to an unrelated move by Saudi Arabia to no longer cap production in its efforts to get oil prices back to its $100 target. If prices reverse higher again and move toward $80/bbl due to either China stimulus or the escalation of tensions in the Middle East, it would be viewed as a net negative in my view for US equities.  As discussed last week the most important variables for the direction of US equities is the upcoming labor market data and third quarter earnings season. Weaker than expected data is likely to be viewed negatively by stocks at this point and good news will be taken positively. In other words, investors should not be hoping for worse news so the Fed can cut more aggressively. At this point, steady 25 basis point cuts for the next several quarters in the context of growth holding up is the best outcome for stocks broadly. Meanwhile individual stocks will likely trade as much on idiosyncratic earnings and company news rather than macro data in the absence of either a hard landing or a large growth acceleration; both of which look unlikely in the near term. In such a scenario, we think large cap quality growth is likely to perform the best while there could be some pockets of cyclical strength in companies that can benefit from greater China demand. The best areas for cyclical outperformance in that regard remain in the Industrial and materials sectors.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eVq2NTVdA61xslV8ObRrnLEH9zOZGSswcHe6ekp1JPYMon, 30 Sep 2024 22:38:17 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist Mike Wilson takes a closer look at the potential ramifications of the sharp central bank policy shifts in the U.S., Japan and China. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect from the sharp pivot in global monetary and fiscal policy.  It's Monday, Sept 30th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Over the past few months, Fed policy has taken on a more dovish turn. To be fair, bond markets have been telling the Fed that they are too tight and in many respects this pivot was simply the Fed getting more in line with market pricing. However, in addition to the 50 basis point cut from the Fed, budget deficits are providing heavy support; with August’s deficit nearly $90b higher than expected. Meanwhile, financial conditions continue to loosen and are now at some of the most stimulative levels seen over the past 25 years. Other central banks are also cutting interest rates and even the Bank of Japan, which recently raised rates for the first time in years, has backed off that stance – and indicated they are in no hurry to raise rates again. Finally, this past week the People’s Bank of China announced new programs specifically targeting equity and housing prices. After a muted response from markets and commentators, the Chinese government then followed up with an aggressive fiscal policy stimulus. Why now?  Like the US, China is highly indebted but it has entered full blown deflation with both credit and equity markets trading terribly for the past several years. There is an old adage that markets stop panicking when policy makers start panicking. On that score, it makes perfect sense why China equity and credit markets have responded the most favorably to the changes made last week. European equity markets were also stronger than the US given European economies and companies have greater exposure to China demand. On the other hand, Japan and India traded poorly which also makes sense in my view since they were the two largest beneficiaries of investor outflows from China over the past several years. Such trends are likely to continue in the near term.  For US equity investors, the real question is whether China’s pivot on policy will have a material impact on US growth. We think it’s fairly limited to areas like Industrial spending and Materials pricing and it’s unlikely to have any impact on US consumers or corporate investment demand. In fact, if commodities rally due to greater China demand, it may hurt US consumer spending. As usual, oil prices will be the most important commodity to watch in this regard. The good news is that oil prices were down last week due to an unrelated move by Saudi Arabia to no longer cap production in its efforts to get oil prices back to its $100 target. If prices reverse higher again and move toward $80/bbl due to either China stimulus or the escalation of tensions in the Middle East, it would be viewed as a net negative in my view for US equities.  As discussed last week the most important variables for the direction of US equities is the upcoming labor market data and third quarter earnings season. Weaker than expected data is likely to be viewed negatively by stocks at this point and good news will be taken positively. In other words, investors should not be hoping for worse news so the Fed can cut more aggressively. At this point, steady 25 basis point cuts for the next several quarters in the context of growth holding up is the best outcome for stocks broadly. Meanwhile individual stocks will likely trade as much on idiosyncratic earnings and company news rather than macro data in the absence of either a hard landing or a large growth acceleration; both of which look unlikely in the near term. In such a scenario, we think large cap quality...]]>257alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1224fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/keeping-the-faith-for-a-soft-landing--75651043----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the implications of the Fed’s 50 basis points interest rate cut for corporate credit markets. It's Friday, Sep 27th at 10 am in New York. For credit markets, understanding why the Fed is cutting is actually very critical. Unlike typical rate cutting cycles, these cuts are coming when the economic growth is still decelerating but not falling off the cliff. Typically, rate cuts have come in when the economy is already in a recession or approaching recession. Neither is the case this time. So the US expanded by 3 per cent in the second quarter; and the third quarter, it is tracking well over 2 per cent. So, these cuts do not aim to stimulate the economy but really to acknowledge that there’s been significant progress on inflation, and move the policy towards a much more normalized policy stance. In some way, this really reflects the Fed’s confidence in the inflation path. So that means, not cutting now would mean restraining the economy further through high real interest rates. So, this cut really reflects a growing faith by the Fed in achieving a soft landing. Also, the size of the cut, the 50 basis point cut as opposed to 25 basis points, shows the Fed’s willingness to go big in response to weaker data, especially in labor markets. So since the beginning of the year, we have been pretty constructive on spread products across the board, particularly corporate credit and securitized credit, even though valuations have been tightening. Our stance is based on the idea that credit fundamentals will stay reasonably healthy even if economic growth decelerates, as long as it doesn’t fall off the cliff. Further, we also believe that credit fundamentals will improve with rate cuts because stress in this cycle has mainly come from higher interest expenses weighing on both corporations and households. This is in stark contrast to other recent periods of stress in credit markets – such as 2008/09 when we had the financial crisis, 2015/16 we had the challenges in the energy sector and then 2020, of course, we faced COVID. So the best point of illustrating this would be through leveraged loans, which are floating-rate instruments. As the Fed started tightening in 2022, we saw increasing pressures on interest coverage ratios for leveraged loan borrowers. That led to a pick-up in downgrades and defaults in loans. As rate hikes ended, we started seeing stabilization of these coverage ratios, and the pace of downgrades and defaults slowed. And now, with rate cutting ahead of us and the dot plot implying 150 basis points more of cuts for the rest of this year and the next year to come, the pressure on interest coverage ratios are going to be easing, especially if the economy stays in soft landing mode. This suggests that while spreads are today tight, the fundamentals could even improve with rate cuts – that means the spreads could remain around these levels, or even tighten a bit further. After all, if you remember the mid-1990s, which was the the last time that the Fed achieved a soft landing, investment grade corporate credit spreads were about 30 basis points tighter relative to where we are today. That 'if' is a big if. If we are wrong on the soft landing thesis, our conviction about the spread products being valuable will prove to have been misplaced. Really the challenge with any landing is that we can’t be certain of the prospect until we actually land. Till then, we are really looking at incoming data and hypothesizing: are we heading into a soft or hard landing? So this means incoming data pose two-sided risks to the path ahead for credit spreads. If incoming data are weak – particularly employment data are weak – it is likely that faith in this soft landing construct will dim and spreads could widen. But if they are robust, we can see spreads tightening even further from the current tight levels. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/574T_Oo-Bye7El3MqnQcKf2GZ6lrCXJ33N-rWYnzjWEFri, 27 Sep 2024 20:39:06 +0000gtyCredit likes moderation, and the Fed’s rate cut indicates its belief that the economy is heading for a soft landing. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist warns that markets still need to keep an eye on incoming data. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the implications of the Fed’s 50 basis points interest rate cut for corporate credit markets. It's Friday, Sep 27th at 10 am in New York. For credit markets, understanding why the Fed is cutting is actually very critical. Unlike typical rate cutting cycles, these cuts are coming when the economic growth is still decelerating but not falling off the cliff. Typically, rate cuts have come in when the economy is already in a recession or approaching recession. Neither is the case this time. So the US expanded by 3 per cent in the second quarter; and the third quarter, it is tracking well over 2 per cent. So, these cuts do not aim to stimulate the economy but really to acknowledge that there’s been significant progress on inflation, and move the policy towards a much more normalized policy stance. In some way, this really reflects the Fed’s confidence in the inflation path. So that means, not cutting now would mean restraining the economy further through high real interest rates. So, this cut really reflects a growing faith by the Fed in achieving a soft landing. Also, the size of the cut, the 50 basis point cut as opposed to 25 basis points, shows the Fed’s willingness to go big in response to weaker data, especially in labor markets. So since the beginning of the year, we have been pretty constructive on spread products across the board, particularly corporate credit and securitized credit, even though valuations have been tightening. Our stance is based on the idea that credit fundamentals will stay reasonably healthy even if economic growth decelerates, as long as it doesn’t fall off the cliff. Further, we also believe that credit fundamentals will improve with rate cuts because stress in this cycle has mainly come from higher interest expenses weighing on both corporations and households. This is in stark contrast to other recent periods of stress in credit markets – such as 2008/09 when we had the financial crisis, 2015/16 we had the challenges in the energy sector and then 2020, of course, we faced COVID. So the best point of illustrating this would be through leveraged loans, which are floating-rate instruments. As the Fed started tightening in 2022, we saw increasing pressures on interest coverage ratios for leveraged loan borrowers. That led to a pick-up in downgrades and defaults in loans. As rate hikes ended, we started seeing stabilization of these coverage ratios, and the pace of downgrades and defaults slowed. And now, with rate cutting ahead of us and the dot plot implying 150 basis points more of cuts for the rest of this year and the next year to come, the pressure on interest coverage ratios are going to be easing, especially if the economy stays in soft landing mode. This suggests that while spreads are today tight, the fundamentals could even improve with rate cuts – that means the spreads could remain around these levels, or even tighten a bit further. After all, if you remember the mid-1990s, which was the the last time that the Fed achieved a soft landing, investment grade corporate credit spreads were about 30 basis points tighter relative to where we are today. That 'if' is a big if. If we are wrong on the soft landing thesis, our conviction about the spread products being valuable will prove to have been misplaced. Really the challenge with any landing is that we can’t be certain of the prospect until we actually land. Till then, we are really looking at incoming data and hypothesizing: are we heading into a soft or hard landing? So this means incoming data pose...]]>285alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1223fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-long-until-consumers-feel-rate-cut-benefits--75651162----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team. Today, a look at what the Fed cut means for US consumers. It’s Thursday, September 26, at 2 PM in Slovenia. Earlier this week, you heard Mike Wilson and Seth Carpenter talk about the Fed cut and its impact on markets and central banks around the world. But what does it actually mean for US consumers and their wallets? Will it make it easier to pay off credit card debt and secure mortgages? We explore these questions in this episode. Looking back to last week, the FOMC cut rates by a larger chunk than many anticipated as risks from inflation have come down significantly while labor market risks have risen. Now, with inflation wrangled in, it’s time to start reducing the restrictiveness of policy to prevent a rise in the unemployment rate and a slump in economic growth. In fact, my colleague Mike Wilson believes the US labor data will be the most important factor driving US equities for the next three to six months. Despite potential risks, the current state of the U.S. labor market is still solid and that’s where the Fed wants it to stay. The health of the labor market, in my opinion, is best reflected in the health of consumer spending. If we look at this quarter, we’re tracking over 3 per cent growth in real consumption, which is a strong run rate for consumption by all measures. And if we look at how the whole year has been tracking, we’ve only seen a very modest slowdown in real consumer spending from 2.7 per cent last year to 2.5 per cent today. For a bit of perspective, if we go back to 2018 and 2019, when rates were much lower than they are today, and we had a tight labor market, consumption was running closer to 2 to 2.3 per cent. So we can definitively say, consumption is pretty solid today. What is most notable, however, is the slowdown in nominal consumption which takes into account unit growth and pricing. This has slowed much more notably this year from 5.6 per cent last year to 4.9 per cent today. It’s reflected by the significant progress we’ve seen in inflation this year across goods and services, despite solid unit growth – as reflected by stronger real consumer spending. Our US Economics team has been stressing that the fundamentals that drive consumption – which are labor income, wealth, and credit – would be cooler this year but still support healthy spending. When it comes to consumption, in my opinion, I think what matters most is labor income. A slowdown in job growth has stoked fears of slower consumer spending, but if you look at aggregate labor income growth and household wealth, across both equities and real estate, those factors remain solid. So, then we ask ourselves, what has driven more of the slowdown in consumer spending this past year?And with that, let’s go back to interest rates. Rates have been high, and credit conditions have been tight – undeniably restraining consumer spending. Elevated interest rates have pushed banks to pull back on lending and have curbed household demand for credit. As a result, if you look at consumer loan growth from banks, it’s fallen from about 12 per cent in 2022 to 7 per cent last year, and just 3 per cent in the first half of this year. Tight credit is dampening consumption. When interest rates are high, people buy less -- especially on credit. And this is a key principle of monetary policy and it's used to lower inflation. But it can have adverse effects. The brunt of the pain has been borne by the lowest-income households which rely heavily on revolving credit for basic spending needs and more easily max out on their credit limits and fall delinquent. As such, as the Fed begins to lower interest rates, the rates charged on consumer loan products have started to moderate. And with a lag, we expect credit conditions to ease up as well, allowing households across the income distribution to begin to access more credit. We should first see a rebound in durable goods spending – like home furnishing, electronics, appliances, and autos. And then that should all be further supported by more activity in the housing market.  While interest rates are on their way down, they are still relatively elevated, which means the rebound in consumption will take time. The good news, however, is that we do think we are moving through the bottom for durable goods consumption – with pricing for goods likely to stabilize next year and unit growth to pick back up.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/clrQVZfejV3nLRvErG8VGhSu5sbmn87exujWfyjj89AThu, 26 Sep 2024 20:50:25 +0000gtyOur US Consumer Economist Sarah Wolfe lays out the impact of the Federal Reserve’s rate cut on labor market and consumers, including which goods could see a rise in spending over the next year. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team. Today, a look at what the Fed cut means for US consumers. It’s Thursday, September 26, at 2 PM in Slovenia. Earlier this week, you heard Mike Wilson and Seth Carpenter talk about the Fed cut and its impact on markets and central banks around the world. But what does it actually mean for US consumers and their wallets? Will it make it easier to pay off credit card debt and secure mortgages? We explore these questions in this episode. Looking back to last week, the FOMC cut rates by a larger chunk than many anticipated as risks from inflation have come down significantly while labor market risks have risen. Now, with inflation wrangled in, it’s time to start reducing the restrictiveness of policy to prevent a rise in the unemployment rate and a slump in economic growth. In fact, my colleague Mike Wilson believes the US labor data will be the most important factor driving US equities for the next three to six months. Despite potential risks, the current state of the U.S. labor market is still solid and that’s where the Fed wants it to stay. The health of the labor market, in my opinion, is best reflected in the health of consumer spending. If we look at this quarter, we’re tracking over 3 per cent growth in real consumption, which is a strong run rate for consumption by all measures. And if we look at how the whole year has been tracking, we’ve only seen a very modest slowdown in real consumer spending from 2.7 per cent last year to 2.5 per cent today. For a bit of perspective, if we go back to 2018 and 2019, when rates were much lower than they are today, and we had a tight labor market, consumption was running closer to 2 to 2.3 per cent. So we can definitively say, consumption is pretty solid today. What is most notable, however, is the slowdown in nominal consumption which takes into account unit growth and pricing. This has slowed much more notably this year from 5.6 per cent last year to 4.9 per cent today. It’s reflected by the significant progress we’ve seen in inflation this year across goods and services, despite solid unit growth – as reflected by stronger real consumer spending. Our US Economics team has been stressing that the fundamentals that drive consumption – which are labor income, wealth, and credit – would be cooler this year but still support healthy spending. When it comes to consumption, in my opinion, I think what matters most is labor income. A slowdown in job growth has stoked fears of slower consumer spending, but if you look at aggregate labor income growth and household wealth, across both equities and real estate, those factors remain solid. So, then we ask ourselves, what has driven more of the slowdown in consumer spending this past year?And with that, let’s go back to interest rates. Rates have been high, and credit conditions have been tight – undeniably restraining consumer spending. Elevated interest rates have pushed banks to pull back on lending and have curbed household demand for credit. As a result, if you look at consumer loan growth from banks, it’s fallen from about 12 per cent in 2022 to 7 per cent last year, and just 3 per cent in the first half of this year. Tight credit is dampening consumption. When interest rates are high, people buy less -- especially on credit. And this is a key principle of monetary policy and it's used to lower inflation. But it can have adverse effects. The brunt of the pain has been borne by the lowest-income households which rely heavily on revolving credit for basic spending needs and more easily max out on their credit limits and fall delinquent. As such, as the Fed begins to lower interest rates, the rates charged on consumer loan...]]>290alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1222fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-elections-the-wait-for-clarity--75651067----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why investors should prepare to wait to get clarity on the US election result. It's Wednesday, September 25th at 10:30am in New York. As we all know, markets dislike uncertainty; and one of the biggest potential catalysts between now and the end of the year is the results of the US presidential election. So it’s important for investors to know that the timing of knowing the outcome may not be what you expect. On most U.S. presidential election days, the outcome is known within hours of polls closing in the evening. That’s because while all votes may not yet have been counted, enough have to make a reasonable projection about the winner. But that’s not what happened in 2020. Vote counts were tight across many states. A condition that was compounded by the slowness of counting mail in ballots, which was a style of voting more widely adopted during the pandemic. As a result, news networks didn’t make a formal outcome projection until about four days after election day.Rather than a reversion to the norm of quickly knowing the result for the 2024 election, we expect an outcome similar to 2020. It could be days before we reliably know a result.The same dynamics as 2020 are in play. Polls show a very close race. And while more voters are likely to show up in person this year, voting by mail is still expected to represent a substantial chunk of ballots cast this cycle. That’s because many states' rules automatically send mail-in ballots to those who voted by that method in the last election. And some recent news out of Georgia underscores the potential for a slower result. The state just adopted a rule requiring all its votes to be hand-counted.Now, this may not matter if either candidate has enough votes without Georgia to win the electoral college. But if Georgia is the deciding or tipping point state then a longer wait becomes possible. Per the 538 election forecast model, there’s about an 11 per cent chance that Georgia plays this role.So, bottom line, investors may have to be patient this November. It could take days, or weeks, to reliably project an election outcome, and therefore start seeing its market effects.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/t6JlNaLa1kHzjEq7XIF0leObxFhPg0v9WSTcIVwfBrAWed, 25 Sep 2024 20:42:35 +0000gtyWith the US presidential race being as closely contested as it is, Michael Zezas explains why patience may be a virtue for investors following Election Day.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why investors should prepare to wait to get clarity on the US election result. It's Wednesday, September 25th at 10:30am in New York. As we all know, markets dislike uncertainty; and one of the biggest potential catalysts between now and the end of the year is the results of the US presidential election. So it’s important for investors to know that the timing of knowing the outcome may not be what you expect. On most U.S. presidential election days, the outcome is known within hours of polls closing in the evening. That’s because while all votes may not yet have been counted, enough have to make a reasonable projection about the winner. But that’s not what happened in 2020. Vote counts were tight across many states. A condition that was compounded by the slowness of counting mail in ballots, which was a style of voting more widely adopted during the pandemic. As a result, news networks didn’t make a formal outcome projection until about four days after election day.Rather than a reversion to the norm of quickly knowing the result for the 2024 election, we expect an outcome similar to 2020. It could be days before we reliably know a result.The same dynamics as 2020 are in play. Polls show a very close race. And while more voters are likely to show up in person this year, voting by mail is still expected to represent a substantial chunk of ballots cast this cycle. That’s because many states' rules automatically send mail-in ballots to those who voted by that method in the last election. And some recent news out of Georgia underscores the potential for a slower result. The state just adopted a rule requiring all its votes to be hand-counted.Now, this may not matter if either candidate has enough votes without Georgia to win the electoral college. But if Georgia is the deciding or tipping point state then a longer wait becomes possible. Per the 538 election forecast model, there’s about an 11 per cent chance that Georgia plays this role.So, bottom line, investors may have to be patient this November. It could take days, or weeks, to reliably project an election outcome, and therefore start seeing its market effects.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>158alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1221fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/one-rate-cut-many-effects--75651146----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the Fed’s 50 basis point rate cut last week, and the impact on markets.It's Tuesday, Sept 24th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. As discussed last week, I thought that the best short-term case for equities was that the Fed could deliver a 50 basis point cut without prompting growth concerns. Chair Powell was able to thread the needle in this respect, and equities ultimately responded favorably. However, I also believe the labor data will be the most important factor in terms of how equities trade over the next three to six months. On that score, the next round of data will be forthcoming at the end of next week. In my view, that data will need to surprise on the upside to keep equity valuations at their currently elevated level. More specifically, the unemployment rate will need to decline and the payrolls above 140,000 with no negative revisions to prior months.  Meanwhile, I am also watching several other variables closely to determine the trajectory of growth. Earnings revision breadth, the best proxy for company guidance, continues to trend sideways for the overall S&P 500 and negatively for the Russell 2000 small cap index. Due to seasonal patterns, this variable is likely to face negative headwinds over the next month.Second, the ISM Purchasing Managers Index has yet to reaccelerate after almost two years of languishing. And finally, the Conference Board Leading Economic Indicator and Employment Trends remain in downward trends; this is typical of a later cycle environment.Bottom line, the Fed's larger than expected rate cut can buy more time for high quality stocks to remain expensive and even help lower quality cyclical stocks to find some support. The labor and other data now need to improve in order to justify these conditions though, through year end.It's also important to point out that the August budget deficit came in nearly $90 billion above forecasts, bringing the year-to-date deficit above $1.8 trillion. We think this fiscal policy has been positive for growth but has resulted in a crowding out within the private economy and financial markets. This is another reason why a recession is the worst-case scenario even though some argue a recession is better than high price levels or inflation for 80-90 per cent of Americans. A recession will undoubtedly bring debt deflation concerns to light, and once those begin, they are hard to reverse. The Fed understands this dynamic better than anyone as first illustrated in Ben Bernanke's famous speech in 2002 entitled “Deflation, Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here.” In that speech, he highlighted the tools the Fed could use to avoid deflation including coordinated monetary and fiscal policy.We note that gold continues to outperform most stocks including the high-quality S&P 500. Specifically, gold has rallied from just $300 at the time of Bernanke’s speech in 2002 to $2600 today. The purchasing power of US dollars has fallen much more than what conventional measures of inflation would suggest.As a result, gold, high-quality real estate, stocks and other inflation hedges have done very well. In fact, the newest fiat currency hedge, crypto, has done the best over the past decade. Meanwhile, lower quality cyclical assets like commodities, small cap stocks and commercial real estate have done poorly in both absolute and relative terms; and are losing serious value when adjusted for purchasing power.The bottom line, we expect this to continue in the short term until something happens to change investors' view about the sustainability of these policies. In order to reverse these trends, either organic growth in the private economy needs to reaccelerate and we’ll see a rotation back to the lower quality cyclical assets; or recession arrives, and we finish the cycle and reset all asset prices to levels from which a true broadening out can occur.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hvsgvv_V-bS4ICU3FYq4smhqnOaxUIu5PB5F_B6HSNwTue, 24 Sep 2024 21:45:25 +0000gtyFrom stock price fluctuations to concerns about deflation, the reactions to the Fed rate cut have been varied. But we still need to keep an eye on labor data, says Mike Wilson, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the Fed’s 50 basis point rate cut last week, and the impact on markets.It's Tuesday, Sept 24th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. As discussed last week, I thought that the best short-term case for equities was that the Fed could deliver a 50 basis point cut without prompting growth concerns. Chair Powell was able to thread the needle in this respect, and equities ultimately responded favorably. However, I also believe the labor data will be the most important factor in terms of how equities trade over the next three to six months. On that score, the next round of data will be forthcoming at the end of next week. In my view, that data will need to surprise on the upside to keep equity valuations at their currently elevated level. More specifically, the unemployment rate will need to decline and the payrolls above 140,000 with no negative revisions to prior months.  Meanwhile, I am also watching several other variables closely to determine the trajectory of growth. Earnings revision breadth, the best proxy for company guidance, continues to trend sideways for the overall S&P 500 and negatively for the Russell 2000 small cap index. Due to seasonal patterns, this variable is likely to face negative headwinds over the next month.Second, the ISM Purchasing Managers Index has yet to reaccelerate after almost two years of languishing. And finally, the Conference Board Leading Economic Indicator and Employment Trends remain in downward trends; this is typical of a later cycle environment.Bottom line, the Fed's larger than expected rate cut can buy more time for high quality stocks to remain expensive and even help lower quality cyclical stocks to find some support. The labor and other data now need to improve in order to justify these conditions though, through year end.It's also important to point out that the August budget deficit came in nearly $90 billion above forecasts, bringing the year-to-date deficit above $1.8 trillion. We think this fiscal policy has been positive for growth but has resulted in a crowding out within the private economy and financial markets. This is another reason why a recession is the worst-case scenario even though some argue a recession is better than high price levels or inflation for 80-90 per cent of Americans. A recession will undoubtedly bring debt deflation concerns to light, and once those begin, they are hard to reverse. The Fed understands this dynamic better than anyone as first illustrated in Ben Bernanke's famous speech in 2002 entitled “Deflation, Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here.” In that speech, he highlighted the tools the Fed could use to avoid deflation including coordinated monetary and fiscal policy.We note that gold continues to outperform most stocks including the high-quality S&P 500. Specifically, gold has rallied from just $300 at the time of Bernanke’s speech in 2002 to $2600 today. The purchasing power of US dollars has fallen much more than what conventional measures of inflation would suggest.As a result, gold, high-quality real estate, stocks and other inflation hedges have done very well. In fact, the newest fiat currency hedge, crypto, has done the best over the past decade. Meanwhile, lower quality cyclical assets like commodities, small cap stocks and commercial real estate have done poorly in both absolute and relative terms; and are losing serious value when adjusted for purchasing power.The bottom line, we expect this to continue in the short term until something happens to change investors' view about...]]>268alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1220fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/as-the-fed-recalibrates-what-s-ahead-for-central-banks--75651184----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Today, I'll be talking about the Fed meeting, where they cut rates for the first time in this cycle, and what it means for the economy around the world.It's Monday, September 23rd at 10am in New York.The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points; but we did not see a huge shift in its reaction function. Rather, the 50 basis points was to show a commitment to not falling behind the curve -- to use Chair Powell's words. From here, the most likely path, from my perspective, is a string of 25 basis point cuts. Powell has again demonstrated that the Fed can move gradually, or quickly, depending on perceptions of risk.But for now, judging from Powell, or other policy makers comments, the Fed still sees the economy as healthy in the labor market; as solid. But another payroll print of 100, 000 or softening in consumer spending, well, that would tip the balance. So, the market debate will continue to focus on the pace of rate cuts and the ultimate landing zone.Our baseline is a touch more front loaded than the dot plot would imply; with us expecting the funds rate to reach just below 3.5 per cent in the middle of next year, rather than the end of next year. The Fed's projections have declines in the target rate into 2026 and beyond, but I have to say the dispersion in the dots that they put up shows just how much consensus is yet to be built within the committee. And, as a result, the phrase data dependency, well, that's not a term that we want to drop from the lexicon anytime soon.The magnitudes of the changes differ, but a comparison that we have made often here is to the 1990s, and that cutting cycle eventually it paused as the economy stabilized and continued to grow. So, there are lots of options for where we go next.Globally, central banks will be adapting and reacting both to global financial conditions like this Fed rate cut, as well as their domestic outlook. Among emerging market economies, Brazil and Indonesia make for useful case studies. With an eye on defending its policy credibility and on market expectations, the central bank in Brazil hiked rates to 10-and-three-quarters per cent this week after a cutting cycle and then a long pause. A weaker currency is the external push, but strong domestic growth is the internal consideration and both of those imply some inflation risks.The Bank of Indonesia cut rates after a strong appreciation in the currency, which lowered the risk from inflations, and it really enabled them to change their footing.Now, for DM central banks, the 50 basis point cut really doesn't materially shift our expectations for what's going to happen. If we are right, and ultimately we get a string of 25 basis point cuts, there's little reason for other developed market central banks to really adjust what they're doing. In Europe, we're waiting for inflation data to confirm the slowdown after the softening of wages that we've seen. So, we have high conviction that there's a cut in September, and we expect another cut in December.Now, more cutting by the Fed might lead to a stronger Euro, which would reinforce that inflation trend, but I don't think it would be enough to really change the path and prompt more aggressive cutting from the ECB. After skipping a rate move in September, given all the question marks they still see about inflation in the UK, we think the Bank of England restarts their cuts in November.The split decision at this most recent meeting shows that the MPC is not making frequent adjustments to its plan based on small tweaks to the incoming data. And finally, for the Bank of Japan, we expect them to stay on hold until January. The meeting for the Bank of Japan was primarily about communication, and indeed, Governor Ueda's comments did not prompt the type of reaction that we saw at the July meeting. So, if we're right, and the Fed's path is mostly, like we think it will be, these other developed market central banks don't have to make big changes.So, the Fed didn't really fully recalibrate its outlook. Instead, what it did was signal a willingness, but just a willingness, to make large shifts; with no clear indication that the fundamental strategy has changed.The market implications seem like they could be clear. With the Fed easing, amid economic conditions that remain resilient, that should be positive for risk assets. But the Fed is also trying to prevent complacency, and I have to say, uncertainty is plentiful. If for no other reason, we've got an election coming up, and that makes forecasting what happens in 2025 very difficult.Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/V6JblxMDTdc6MvTnAb-zY4tI9KUeplmn4_6jtlQ0ggIMon, 23 Sep 2024 20:52:12 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist, Seth Carpenter, explains why, despite last week’s big Fed move, there’s still plenty of uncertainty in global markets and questions about how other central banks will respond.  ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Today, I'll be talking about the Fed meeting, where they cut rates for the first time in this cycle, and what it means for the economy around the world.It's Monday, September 23rd at 10am in New York.The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points; but we did not see a huge shift in its reaction function. Rather, the 50 basis points was to show a commitment to not falling behind the curve -- to use Chair Powell's words. From here, the most likely path, from my perspective, is a string of 25 basis point cuts. Powell has again demonstrated that the Fed can move gradually, or quickly, depending on perceptions of risk.But for now, judging from Powell, or other policy makers comments, the Fed still sees the economy as healthy in the labor market; as solid. But another payroll print of 100, 000 or softening in consumer spending, well, that would tip the balance. So, the market debate will continue to focus on the pace of rate cuts and the ultimate landing zone.Our baseline is a touch more front loaded than the dot plot would imply; with us expecting the funds rate to reach just below 3.5 per cent in the middle of next year, rather than the end of next year. The Fed's projections have declines in the target rate into 2026 and beyond, but I have to say the dispersion in the dots that they put up shows just how much consensus is yet to be built within the committee. And, as a result, the phrase data dependency, well, that's not a term that we want to drop from the lexicon anytime soon.The magnitudes of the changes differ, but a comparison that we have made often here is to the 1990s, and that cutting cycle eventually it paused as the economy stabilized and continued to grow. So, there are lots of options for where we go next.Globally, central banks will be adapting and reacting both to global financial conditions like this Fed rate cut, as well as their domestic outlook. Among emerging market economies, Brazil and Indonesia make for useful case studies. With an eye on defending its policy credibility and on market expectations, the central bank in Brazil hiked rates to 10-and-three-quarters per cent this week after a cutting cycle and then a long pause. A weaker currency is the external push, but strong domestic growth is the internal consideration and both of those imply some inflation risks.The Bank of Indonesia cut rates after a strong appreciation in the currency, which lowered the risk from inflations, and it really enabled them to change their footing.Now, for DM central banks, the 50 basis point cut really doesn't materially shift our expectations for what's going to happen. If we are right, and ultimately we get a string of 25 basis point cuts, there's little reason for other developed market central banks to really adjust what they're doing. In Europe, we're waiting for inflation data to confirm the slowdown after the softening of wages that we've seen. So, we have high conviction that there's a cut in September, and we expect another cut in December.Now, more cutting by the Fed might lead to a stronger Euro, which would reinforce that inflation trend, but I don't think it would be enough to really change the path and prompt more aggressive cutting from the ECB. After skipping a rate move in September, given all the question marks they still see about inflation in the UK, we think the Bank of England restarts their cuts in November.The split decision at this most recent meeting shows that the MPC is not making frequent adjustments to its plan based on small tweaks to the incoming data. And finally, for the Bank of Japan, we expect them to stay on hold until January. The meeting for the Bank...]]>301alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1219fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mexico-judicial-reforms-spark-investor-concern--75651062----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin American Equity Strategist. Today I’ll talk about Mexico’s recent judicial reform and its potential impact on equities market.It’s Friday, September 20, at 10am in Mexico City.Mexico has made significant changes to its judicial system. After winning two-thirds majority in both houses – enough to allow for constitutional changes – Mexico policymakers have embarked on a robust reform agenda. Their first stop is a comprehensive reform of the judicial branch, which aims at replacing roughly 2,000 senior judges including the entire Supreme Court. New judges will no longer be appointed but will now be elected by popular vote. This is practically unprecedented in a global context, and while the executive branch might still try to filter future candidates, this new system will likely create a real risk to checks and balances on the judicial branch as well as to expertise and procedure. Additional reforms, including the elimination of independent regulatory bodies, would likely compound these risks. The judicial reform could have a material impact on Mexican equities. So much so, that we think Mexico goes from being an investor favorite to a ‘show me’ story where investors are less likely to give the market the benefit of the doubt. This is likely to result in a derailing or lower set of multiples being paid by investors in Mexican equities or higher risk premium required to invest. Essentially, the judicial reforms could add fiscal, labor and concession/regulatory risk for Mexican companies, even though Mexico has deep manufacturing ecosystems, and has been well-positioned from the transition to [a] multipolar world. Just to give you a sense. Mexico has already sailed past China in terms of manufacturing exports to the United States, and are now approaching the levels of the entire European Union in terms of manufacturing export to the US. These new reforms will raise significant investor concerns, so much so that we’ve downgraded Mexican equities to underweight, a second downgrade since June. Mexican equities have sold off roughly 20 per cent in the past three months, in dollar terms. And we think the judicial reform may contribute to further decline. All in, we see significantly greater potential for negative outcomes than positive outcomes going forward.Looking ahead, we see three key challenges for Mexico: First, the new judicial structure would raise concerns about the independence of the judicial branch. Second, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA, is up for review in 2026, and Mexico's judicial reform could mean a much deeper revision. Mexico has committed to maintaining independent regulatory bodies for a number of areas, such as telecom, electricity, in competition. The judicial reform could complicate this commitment. Electricity is a key challenge for Mexico, and it requires immediate investments. Our nearshoring investment thesis stands, but the electricity-related challenges are becoming more pronounced, and they won’t be helped by investor concerns around the judicial reform. So all in, some businesses will be at greater risk from these developments. We expect technology, digitalization, real estate companies to be at the least level of risk, or the lowest level of risk. Domestic concessions could be at more risk. We will continue to bring you relevant updates as Mexico reforms unfold. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_QIMhFLVtcnWvHZO898ihH2oLQ_mvoJu3LsGvyU6xuIFri, 20 Sep 2024 19:00:00 +0000gtyOur Chief Latin American Equity Strategist explains how potential changes in Mexico’s regulatory approach could have implications for the country’s equity markets. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin American Equity Strategist. Today I’ll talk about Mexico’s recent judicial reform and its potential impact on equities market.It’s Friday, September 20, at 10am in Mexico City.Mexico has made significant changes to its judicial system. After winning two-thirds majority in both houses – enough to allow for constitutional changes – Mexico policymakers have embarked on a robust reform agenda. Their first stop is a comprehensive reform of the judicial branch, which aims at replacing roughly 2,000 senior judges including the entire Supreme Court. New judges will no longer be appointed but will now be elected by popular vote. This is practically unprecedented in a global context, and while the executive branch might still try to filter future candidates, this new system will likely create a real risk to checks and balances on the judicial branch as well as to expertise and procedure. Additional reforms, including the elimination of independent regulatory bodies, would likely compound these risks. The judicial reform could have a material impact on Mexican equities. So much so, that we think Mexico goes from being an investor favorite to a ‘show me’ story where investors are less likely to give the market the benefit of the doubt. This is likely to result in a derailing or lower set of multiples being paid by investors in Mexican equities or higher risk premium required to invest. Essentially, the judicial reforms could add fiscal, labor and concession/regulatory risk for Mexican companies, even though Mexico has deep manufacturing ecosystems, and has been well-positioned from the transition to [a] multipolar world. Just to give you a sense. Mexico has already sailed past China in terms of manufacturing exports to the United States, and are now approaching the levels of the entire European Union in terms of manufacturing export to the US. These new reforms will raise significant investor concerns, so much so that we’ve downgraded Mexican equities to underweight, a second downgrade since June. Mexican equities have sold off roughly 20 per cent in the past three months, in dollar terms. And we think the judicial reform may contribute to further decline. All in, we see significantly greater potential for negative outcomes than positive outcomes going forward.Looking ahead, we see three key challenges for Mexico: First, the new judicial structure would raise concerns about the independence of the judicial branch. Second, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA, is up for review in 2026, and Mexico's judicial reform could mean a much deeper revision. Mexico has committed to maintaining independent regulatory bodies for a number of areas, such as telecom, electricity, in competition. The judicial reform could complicate this commitment. Electricity is a key challenge for Mexico, and it requires immediate investments. Our nearshoring investment thesis stands, but the electricity-related challenges are becoming more pronounced, and they won’t be helped by investor concerns around the judicial reform. So all in, some businesses will be at greater risk from these developments. We expect technology, digitalization, real estate companies to be at the least level of risk, or the lowest level of risk. Domestic concessions could be at more risk. We will continue to bring you relevant updates as Mexico reforms unfold. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.]]>234alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1218fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/industrials-outlook-better-than-feared--75651134----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley Research's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Ravi Shanker: I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Chris Snyder: And I'm Chris Snyder, the U.S. Industrial Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, we'll talk about key themes for Morgan Stanley's recently concluded industrials conference in Laguna Beach.It's Thursday, September 19th at 10am in New York.Last week, we were all out in Laguna Beach at the industrials conference. There were about 500 different industrials investors, along with 156 corporates, which gave us a pretty comprehensive read on what's going on in the industrial sector.Investor sentiment around industrials was pretty poor heading into the conference, and the overall tone of management, though, seemed better than feared in presentations.Chris, your coverage includes companies with exposure to a wide range of end markets. What did you learn about the cycle from your discussions with company management?Chris Snyder: Yeah, I think you categorized it well: consistent, largely unchanged, but better than feared. Morgan Stanley did a poll ahead of the conference. And only 5 percent of investors thought that the conference would be bullish for industrial risk sentiment. Coming out of the conference, 60 percent of industrial investors are bullish on risk sentiment into the end of the year. So, I think it kind of shows that sentiment was in a very bad place and ‘better than feared’ is the right way to categorize it.We've generally been surprised at the lack of optimism around the industrial cycle in the market. The industrial economy has been in contraction for almost two years now, and it seems like we're on the verge of a rate cut cycle, which has historically been a tailwind for the cycle.You know, in our coverage, business is driven by a combination of investments and then production of goods; and the companies we’re seeing real bifurcation on that. On the investment side -- and that's things like data center, new manufacturing facilities with all the US reshoring momentum -- that business remains strong. And on the production side of the house, that business remains soft. And that's generally in line with our call. We prefer CapEx exposure, particularly those that are tied into energy efficiency.Michelle Weaver: Great. That's really positive to hear that the investment side is still doing well. Ravi, your freight coverage is very macro as well -- in that the freight companies move all the stuff that other companies are making. How does demand from shippers look? And what are freight companies saying about the cycle?Ravi Shanker: Yeah, from a freight transportation perspective, I guess, no news was good news out in Laguna; largely because we have already started to see an improvement in the freight cycle, at the end of 1Q going into 2Q. And I think the market was just waiting to see if that would sustain through 3Q. The data has been supportive so far, and the good news was most of the trucking companies did validate the fact that we have seen a continuation of seasonality from 2Q into 3Q.And looking forward, they're also anticipating a fairly decent peak season, probably the most robust peak season we have had in two or three years. And I use the word robust on a relative basis because it's not going to be the greatest peak season ever. But certainly, better than we've had the last couple of years. But that momentum should continue into 2025.So, nobody really was high fiving out there. But certainly, noted the fact that we are seeing a continued improvement in the cycle; and that momentum should continue into next year.Michelle Weaver: One of Morgan Stanley Research's three key themes for the year is technology, diffusion and AI; and this theme came up repeatedly throughout the conference.Chris, some of your companies have significant exposure to data centers, which have seen a huge boost in demand from AI. What does the growth opportunity look like for Multi's names with exposure to data centers?Chris Snyder: Yeah, data center is a growth opportunity for my industrials’ coverage. And they primarily are driven by the investment side. How much data centers are we building? And they sell a lot of the equipment that goes into the data centers. And what we're seeing now is that there's a huge focus on energy efficiency within the data center. You know, obviously it helps improve their cost profile, but also as there's growing concerns around load growth and electricity allotment.And what that's doing is it's driving demand towards the high end of the spectrum, which is where our big public companies compete. You know, they're the ones that are always spending R&D and innovating and driving energy efficiency for the customer. So, we think there's a mix up opportunity behind it.In terms of growth rates, you know, most of the companies are talking to about 15 percent kind of plus as the growth rate going forward or where they are exposed. And the conference brought, you know, really positive updates. There was no talk of slowdown. And generally, it sounds like momentum remains firm and growth will continue.Michelle, what were some of the other ways companies discussed AI or how they're leveraging the technology?Michelle Weaver: Yeah. So, when I think about how companies have been adopting AI so far, not just within industrials, but within the broader market, it's largely been about things that are plug and play solutions; something like taking a chat bot, putting that on your website, and then you don't need as many customer service representatives.So, when I'm at these kind of events, I always like to listen for more unique or differentiated ways of adopting AI. And I heard about a really interesting case from a company that holds about half of the global market for luxury seating. Processing leather is a super important part of manufacturing seats and has typically been really labor intensive and skilled labor at that. But this company is using AI to scan cow hides to determine what the optimal use for them is, and then inventory them.Before that, a worker had to individually mark the leather for imperfections and then determine how to cut around that. So, I thought that was a pretty interesting use of AI.But now I want to turn over to the consumer exposed pockets of industrials. Discretionary spending has been slowing as multiple years of high prices have been weighing on consumers. But overall, I thought the commentary around the consumer at the conference seemed pretty mixed, and we saw a big divide between the high-end and low-end consumers.Ravi, what did you hear from the airlines around travel demand?Ravi Shanker: Unlike the transportation side where what we heard was fairly consistent with expectations, I think things were much better than expected on the airline side largely because the airlines came out and validated the fact that demand continues to remain very robust -- pretty much across the board. But as you mentioned, definitely at the high end, the premium traveler continues to travel.International is rebounding post Olympics. Corporate is normalizing as well, and some of the low-cost carriers did mention that they were seeing some weakness on the low-end consumer side. Although it was unclear to them if that was actual demand weakness or a function of too much capacity in the marketplace.But they did come out and validate that demand continues to remain very robust; and with capacity continuing to come out of the marketplace and be more balanced with demand, you have seen pricing inflect positive for all the airlines for the first time in several quarters. So definitely, a pretty supportive backdrop for airline demand. And that is going to show up in airline numbers in the third and fourth quarters as well, we think.Michelle Weaver: As someone who's been in the airports a lot recently, I can definitely feel that demand has held up well. Chris, some of your companies also sell consumer products. What does consumer demand look like in your space?Chris Snyder: I would say stable, but at soft levels. And I think a lot of the tailwinds that Ravi is seeing on the service side of the house in airlines is actually coming at the expense of my companies who sell consumer goods. You know, if you look at the consumer wallet share, service mix has not gotten back to the levels that we saw in 2019 and we think that will remain a headwind for goods purchasing going forward.Michelle Weaver: Ravi, Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk.Ravi Shanker: Thanks so much for having me.Chris Snyder: Thank you.Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for tuning in. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/aLH5aR6LkHLL8bZRKK_OSgbSIi5r1oNk791ebry9zYIThu, 19 Sep 2024 20:23:44 +0000gtyInvestors came away from Morgan Stanley’s recent Industrials Conference with a more optimistic outlook than they expected, based on perspectives including freight transportation’s momentum and AI’s impact on the growth of data centers. -----...----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley Research's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Ravi Shanker: I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Chris Snyder: And I'm Chris Snyder, the U.S. Industrial Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, we'll talk about key themes for Morgan Stanley's recently concluded industrials conference in Laguna Beach.It's Thursday, September 19th at 10am in New York.Last week, we were all out in Laguna Beach at the industrials conference. There were about 500 different industrials investors, along with 156 corporates, which gave us a pretty comprehensive read on what's going on in the industrial sector.Investor sentiment around industrials was pretty poor heading into the conference, and the overall tone of management, though, seemed better than feared in presentations.Chris, your coverage includes companies with exposure to a wide range of end markets. What did you learn about the cycle from your discussions with company management?Chris Snyder: Yeah, I think you categorized it well: consistent, largely unchanged, but better than feared. Morgan Stanley did a poll ahead of the conference. And only 5 percent of investors thought that the conference would be bullish for industrial risk sentiment. Coming out of the conference, 60 percent of industrial investors are bullish on risk sentiment into the end of the year. So, I think it kind of shows that sentiment was in a very bad place and ‘better than feared’ is the right way to categorize it.We've generally been surprised at the lack of optimism around the industrial cycle in the market. The industrial economy has been in contraction for almost two years now, and it seems like we're on the verge of a rate cut cycle, which has historically been a tailwind for the cycle.You know, in our coverage, business is driven by a combination of investments and then production of goods; and the companies we’re seeing real bifurcation on that. On the investment side -- and that's things like data center, new manufacturing facilities with all the US reshoring momentum -- that business remains strong. And on the production side of the house, that business remains soft. And that's generally in line with our call. We prefer CapEx exposure, particularly those that are tied into energy efficiency.Michelle Weaver: Great. That's really positive to hear that the investment side is still doing well. Ravi, your freight coverage is very macro as well -- in that the freight companies move all the stuff that other companies are making. How does demand from shippers look? And what are freight companies saying about the cycle?Ravi Shanker: Yeah, from a freight transportation perspective, I guess, no news was good news out in Laguna; largely because we have already started to see an improvement in the freight cycle, at the end of 1Q going into 2Q. And I think the market was just waiting to see if that would sustain through 3Q. The data has been supportive so far, and the good news was most of the trucking companies did validate the fact that we have seen a continuation of seasonality from 2Q into 3Q.And looking forward, they're also anticipating a fairly decent peak season, probably the most robust peak season we have had in two or three years. And I use the word robust on a relative basis because it's not going to be the greatest peak season ever. But certainly, better than we've had the last couple of years. But that momentum should continue into 2025.So, nobody really was high fiving out there. But certainly, noted the fact that we are seeing a continued improvement in the cycle; and that momentum should continue into next year.Michelle Weaver: One...]]>488alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1217fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/presidential-debate-targets-perceptions-over-policy--75651095----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about takeaways from the US presidential campaign debate. It's Wednesday, September 18th at 10:30am in New York. Last week, Vice President Harris and Former President Trump met in Philadelphia for debate. Investor interest was high, and understandably so. As our Chief Economist Seth Carpenter has previously highlighted in his research, visibility remains low when it comes to the outlook for the US in 2025. That’s because the election could put the country on policy paths that take economic growth in different directions. And of course, the last presidential debate in June led to President Biden’s withdrawal, changing the race dramatically. So, any election-related event that could provide new information about the probability of different outcomes and the resulting policies is worth watching. But, as investors well know from tracking data releases, earnings, Fedspeak, and more, potential catalysts often remain just that – potential. For the moment, we’re putting last week’s debate in that category. Take its impact on outcome probabilities. It could move polls, but perhaps not enough for investors to view one candidate as the clear favorite. For weeks, the polls have been signaling an extremely tight race, with only a small pool of undecided voters. While debates in past campaigns have modestly strengthened a candidate’s standing in the polls, in this race any lead would likely remain within the margin of error. On policy, again we don’t think the debate taught us anything new. Candidates typically use these widely watched events to influence voters’ perceptions. The details of policies and their impact tend to take a back seat to assertions of principles and critiques of their opponents. This is what we saw last week. So if the debate provided little new information about the impact of the election on markets, what guidance can we offer? Here again we repeat two of our guiding principles for this election cycle. First, between now and Election Day, expect the economic cycle to drive markets. The high level of uncertainty and the lack of precedent for market behavior in the run-up to past elections suggest sticking to the cross-asset playbook in our mid-year outlook. In general, we prefer bonds to equities. While our economists continue to expect the US to avoid a recession, growth is slowing. That bodes better for bonds, where yields may track lower as the Fed eases, as opposed to equities, where earnings may be challenged as growth slows. Second, lean into market moves that election outcomes could accelerate. For several months, Matt Hornbach and our interest rate strategy team have been calling for a steeper yield curve, driven by lower yields in shorter-maturity bonds. They have been guided by our economists’ steadfast view that the Fed would start cutting rates this year as inflation eases. We doubt that policies in Democratic win scenarios would change this trend, and a Republican win could accelerate it in the near term, as higher tariffs would imply pressure on growth and possibly further Fed dovishness. Pricing that path could steepen the yield curve further. And of course, there’s still several weeks before the election to get smart on the economic and market impacts of a range of election outcomes. We’ll keep you updated here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bRGCjxFy_JwkWnbqWOuiiX5DhPs3ga9y0u9_wFHiDPoWed, 18 Sep 2024 20:27:19 +0000gtyWhile the electoral impact of last week’s US presidential debate is unclear, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research offers two guiding principles to navigate the markets during the election cycle. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about takeaways from the US presidential campaign debate. It's Wednesday, September 18th at 10:30am in New York. Last week, Vice President Harris and Former President Trump met in Philadelphia for debate. Investor interest was high, and understandably so. As our Chief Economist Seth Carpenter has previously highlighted in his research, visibility remains low when it comes to the outlook for the US in 2025. That’s because the election could put the country on policy paths that take economic growth in different directions. And of course, the last presidential debate in June led to President Biden’s withdrawal, changing the race dramatically. So, any election-related event that could provide new information about the probability of different outcomes and the resulting policies is worth watching. But, as investors well know from tracking data releases, earnings, Fedspeak, and more, potential catalysts often remain just that – potential. For the moment, we’re putting last week’s debate in that category. Take its impact on outcome probabilities. It could move polls, but perhaps not enough for investors to view one candidate as the clear favorite. For weeks, the polls have been signaling an extremely tight race, with only a small pool of undecided voters. While debates in past campaigns have modestly strengthened a candidate’s standing in the polls, in this race any lead would likely remain within the margin of error. On policy, again we don’t think the debate taught us anything new. Candidates typically use these widely watched events to influence voters’ perceptions. The details of policies and their impact tend to take a back seat to assertions of principles and critiques of their opponents. This is what we saw last week. So if the debate provided little new information about the impact of the election on markets, what guidance can we offer? Here again we repeat two of our guiding principles for this election cycle. First, between now and Election Day, expect the economic cycle to drive markets. The high level of uncertainty and the lack of precedent for market behavior in the run-up to past elections suggest sticking to the cross-asset playbook in our mid-year outlook. In general, we prefer bonds to equities. While our economists continue to expect the US to avoid a recession, growth is slowing. That bodes better for bonds, where yields may track lower as the Fed eases, as opposed to equities, where earnings may be challenged as growth slows. Second, lean into market moves that election outcomes could accelerate. For several months, Matt Hornbach and our interest rate strategy team have been calling for a steeper yield curve, driven by lower yields in shorter-maturity bonds. They have been guided by our economists’ steadfast view that the Fed would start cutting rates this year as inflation eases. We doubt that policies in Democratic win scenarios would change this trend, and a Republican win could accelerate it in the near term, as higher tariffs would imply pressure on growth and possibly further Fed dovishness. Pricing that path could steepen the yield curve further. And of course, there’s still several weeks before the election to get smart on the economic and market impacts of a range of election outcomes. We’ll keep you updated here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>216alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1216fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-elections-the-politics-of-healthcare--75651230----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll focus on what the US election means for healthcare. It’s Tuesday, September 17th at 10am in New York. Around elections what we tend to see is voters rank healthcare pretty high among their priority list. And for that reason it’s not surprising that it generates significant debate as well as investor concern – about everything from drug pricing to potential sweeping reforms. We think that the 2024 election is unlikely to transform the US healthcare system. But there are still policies to watch that could change depending on the outcome. We outlined these in a recent note led by our equity research colleagues Erin Wright and Terence Flynn. To start, we think bipartisan policies should continue uninterrupted, regardless of the election outcome. Certain regulations requiring drug price and procedural transparency, for example, which affect hospitals and health plans, are unlikely to change if there is a shift of power next year. We’ve seen some regulations from the Trump era kept in place by the Biden administration; and similarly during the former president’s term there were attempts at bipartisan legislation to modify the Pharmacy Benefit Management model. There are some healthcare policies that could be changed through the tax code, including the extension of the COVID-era ACA subsidies. In President Biden’s fiscal year [20]25 budget request, he called for an extension of those enhanced subsidies; and Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed a similar measure. As we’ve said before on this podcast, we think tax policy will feature heavily in the next Congress as lawmakers contend with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So many of these policies could come into the fold in negotiations. Aside from these smaller potential policy changes, we think material differences to the healthcare system as we know it right now are a lower probability outcome. That’s because the creation of a new system - like Medicare for All or a Public Option - would require unified Democratic control of Congress, as well as party unanimity on these topics. Right now we see a dispersion among Democrats in terms of their views on this topic, and the presence of other more motivating issues for voters; mean[ing] that an overhaul of the current system is probably less likely. Similarly, in a Republican sweep scenario, we don't expect a successful repeal of the Affordable Care Act as was attempted in Trump’s first administration. The makeup of Congress certainly is important, but there are some actions that the President can leverage unilaterally to affect policy here. For example, former President Trump issued several executive orders addressing transparency and the PBM model. If we look at some key industries within Healthcare, our equity colleagues think Managed Care is well positioned heading into this relatively more benign election cycle. Businesses and investors are focusing on candidates' approaches to the Medicare Advantage program and the ACA Exchange, which has subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025. Relative to prior elections, Biopharma should see a lower level of uncertainty from a policy perspective given that the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, in 2022 included meaningful drug pricing provisions. We also think a full-scale repeal of the IRA is unlikely, even in a Republican sweep scenario. So, expect some policy continuity there. Within Biotech, the path to rate cuts is likely a more significant driver of near-term Small and Mid-Cap sentiment rather than the 2024 election cycle. Our colleagues think that investors should keep an eye on two election-related factors that could possibly impact Biotech including potential changes to the IRA that may impact the sector and changes at the FTC, or the Federal Trade Commission, that could make the M&A environment more challenging. As always, we will continue to keep you abreast of new developments as the election gets closer. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZoqJCGar2jnpKh3ZdMER1Y5umGl-frirxWY8BYdxn0UTue, 17 Sep 2024 21:02:22 +0000gtyOur US Public Policy Strategist explains the potential impact of the upcoming presidential election on the healthcare sector, including whether the outcome is likely to drive a major policy shift. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll focus on what the US election means for healthcare. It’s Tuesday, September 17th at 10am in New York. Around elections what we tend to see is voters rank healthcare pretty high among their priority list. And for that reason it’s not surprising that it generates significant debate as well as investor concern – about everything from drug pricing to potential sweeping reforms. We think that the 2024 election is unlikely to transform the US healthcare system. But there are still policies to watch that could change depending on the outcome. We outlined these in a recent note led by our equity research colleagues Erin Wright and Terence Flynn. To start, we think bipartisan policies should continue uninterrupted, regardless of the election outcome. Certain regulations requiring drug price and procedural transparency, for example, which affect hospitals and health plans, are unlikely to change if there is a shift of power next year. We’ve seen some regulations from the Trump era kept in place by the Biden administration; and similarly during the former president’s term there were attempts at bipartisan legislation to modify the Pharmacy Benefit Management model. There are some healthcare policies that could be changed through the tax code, including the extension of the COVID-era ACA subsidies. In President Biden’s fiscal year [20]25 budget request, he called for an extension of those enhanced subsidies; and Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed a similar measure. As we’ve said before on this podcast, we think tax policy will feature heavily in the next Congress as lawmakers contend with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So many of these policies could come into the fold in negotiations. Aside from these smaller potential policy changes, we think material differences to the healthcare system as we know it right now are a lower probability outcome. That’s because the creation of a new system - like Medicare for All or a Public Option - would require unified Democratic control of Congress, as well as party unanimity on these topics. Right now we see a dispersion among Democrats in terms of their views on this topic, and the presence of other more motivating issues for voters; mean[ing] that an overhaul of the current system is probably less likely. Similarly, in a Republican sweep scenario, we don't expect a successful repeal of the Affordable Care Act as was attempted in Trump’s first administration. The makeup of Congress certainly is important, but there are some actions that the President can leverage unilaterally to affect policy here. For example, former President Trump issued several executive orders addressing transparency and the PBM model. If we look at some key industries within Healthcare, our equity colleagues think Managed Care is well positioned heading into this relatively more benign election cycle. Businesses and investors are focusing on candidates' approaches to the Medicare Advantage program and the ACA Exchange, which has subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025. Relative to prior elections, Biopharma should see a lower level of uncertainty from a policy perspective given that the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, in 2022 included meaningful drug pricing provisions. We also think a full-scale repeal of the IRA is unlikely, even in a Republican sweep scenario. So, expect some policy continuity there. Within Biotech, the path to rate cuts is likely a more significant driver of near-term Small and Mid-Cap sentiment rather than the 2024 election cycle. Our colleagues think that investors should keep an...]]>256alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1215fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/markets-readying-for-a-rate-cut--75651069----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect as the Fed likely begins its long-awaited rate cutting cycle this week.  It's Monday, Sept 16th at 10:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.After nearly 12 months of great anticipation, the Fed is very likely to start its rate  cutting cycle this week. The old adage that it is often easier to travel than arrive may apply as markets appear to have priced an aggressive Fed cutting cycle into the  middle of next year while assuming a soft-landing outcome for the economy.More specifically, the two-year US Treasury yield is now 180 basis points below the Fed Funds Rate which is in line with the widest spread in 40 years, a level associated with a hard landing. This is the bond market's way of messaging to the Fed that they are late in getting started with rate cuts. This doesn't mean the Fed can't get ahead of it, but they may need to move faster to keep investors' hopes alive.As a result, the odds of a 50 basis point cut have increased over the past week but it’s still well below a certainty. This is unusual going into an FOMC meeting and is setting markets up for a greater surprise either way. How the markets react to what the Fed does this week will have an even greater influence on investor sentiment than usual, in my view. Ideally, rates should rise at both the front and back end if the bond market likes the Fed’s actions because it signals they aren’t as far behind in trying to orchestrate a soft landing. Conversely, a fall in rates will be a vote of lower confidence. On the other side of the ledger, we have the equity market which appears to be highly convicted that the Fed has already secured the soft landing, at least at the index level. Today, the S&P 500 trades at 21x forward earnings, which also assumes a healthy path of 10 percent earnings growth in 2024 and 15 percent growth in 2025.  Under the surface, the market has skewed much more defensively as it worries more about growth and less about high inflation. I have commented extensively in this podcast about this shift that started in April and why we have been persistently recommending defensive quality for months. With the significant outperformance of defensive sectors since April, the internals of the equity market may not be betting on a soft landing and reacceleration in growth as the S&P 500 index suggests.Keep in mind that the S&P 500 is a defensive, high-quality index of stocks and so it typically  holds up better than most stocks as growth slows in a late cycle environment like  today. These growth concerns will likely persist unless the data turn around, irrespective of what the Fed does this week.In the 11 Fed rate cutting cycles since 1973, eight were associated with recessions while only three were not. The performance over the following year was very mixed with half negative and half positive with a very wide but equal skew. Specifically, the average performance over the 12 months following the start of a Fed rate cutting cycle is 3.5 percent – or about half of the longer-term average returns. The best 12-month returns were 33 percent, while the worst was a negative 31 percent. Bottom line, it’s generally a toss-up at the index level. The analysis around style and sectors is clearer. Value tends to outperform growth into the first cut and underperform growth thereafter. Defensives tend to outperform cyclicals both before and after the cut. Large caps also tend to outperform small caps both before and after the first rate cut. These last two factor dynamics are supportive of our defensive and large cap bias as Fed cuts often come in a later cycle environment. It’s also why we are sticking with it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/It8TvMll4dX4va_ND3bMtM5XUTC99Ew7QQxNlN-eaVEMon, 16 Sep 2024 22:39:49 +0000gtyWith the Federal Reserve poised to make its long-awaited rate cut this week, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist tells us why investors have pivoted their concerns from high inflation to slowing growth.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect as the Fed likely begins its long-awaited rate cutting cycle this week.  It's Monday, Sept 16th at 10:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.After nearly 12 months of great anticipation, the Fed is very likely to start its rate  cutting cycle this week. The old adage that it is often easier to travel than arrive may apply as markets appear to have priced an aggressive Fed cutting cycle into the  middle of next year while assuming a soft-landing outcome for the economy.More specifically, the two-year US Treasury yield is now 180 basis points below the Fed Funds Rate which is in line with the widest spread in 40 years, a level associated with a hard landing. This is the bond market's way of messaging to the Fed that they are late in getting started with rate cuts. This doesn't mean the Fed can't get ahead of it, but they may need to move faster to keep investors' hopes alive.As a result, the odds of a 50 basis point cut have increased over the past week but it’s still well below a certainty. This is unusual going into an FOMC meeting and is setting markets up for a greater surprise either way. How the markets react to what the Fed does this week will have an even greater influence on investor sentiment than usual, in my view. Ideally, rates should rise at both the front and back end if the bond market likes the Fed’s actions because it signals they aren’t as far behind in trying to orchestrate a soft landing. Conversely, a fall in rates will be a vote of lower confidence. On the other side of the ledger, we have the equity market which appears to be highly convicted that the Fed has already secured the soft landing, at least at the index level. Today, the S&P 500 trades at 21x forward earnings, which also assumes a healthy path of 10 percent earnings growth in 2024 and 15 percent growth in 2025.  Under the surface, the market has skewed much more defensively as it worries more about growth and less about high inflation. I have commented extensively in this podcast about this shift that started in April and why we have been persistently recommending defensive quality for months. With the significant outperformance of defensive sectors since April, the internals of the equity market may not be betting on a soft landing and reacceleration in growth as the S&P 500 index suggests.Keep in mind that the S&P 500 is a defensive, high-quality index of stocks and so it typically  holds up better than most stocks as growth slows in a late cycle environment like  today. These growth concerns will likely persist unless the data turn around, irrespective of what the Fed does this week.In the 11 Fed rate cutting cycles since 1973, eight were associated with recessions while only three were not. The performance over the following year was very mixed with half negative and half positive with a very wide but equal skew. Specifically, the average performance over the 12 months following the start of a Fed rate cutting cycle is 3.5 percent – or about half of the longer-term average returns. The best 12-month returns were 33 percent, while the worst was a negative 31 percent. Bottom line, it’s generally a toss-up at the index level. The analysis around style and sectors is clearer. Value tends to outperform growth into the first cut and underperform growth thereafter. Defensives tend to outperform cyclicals both before and after the cut. Large caps also tend to outperform small caps both before and after the first rate cut. These last two factor dynamics are supportive of our defensive and...]]>266alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1214fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bank-of-japan-s-role-in-market-volatility--75651215----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Seth Carpenter: And on today's episode, Chetan and I are going to be discussing the Bank of Japan and the role it has been playing in recent market turmoil.It's Friday, September 13th at 12.30pm in New York.Chetan Ahya: And it's 5.30pm in London.Seth Carpenter: Financial markets have been going back and forth for the past month or so, and a lot of what's been driving the market movements have been evolving expectations of what's going on at central banks. And right at the center of it has been the Bank of Japan, especially going back to their meeting at the very end of July.So, Chetan, maybe you can just level set us about where things stand with the Bank of Japan right now? And how they've been communicating with markets?Chetan Ahya: Well, I think what happened, Seth, is that Bank of Japan (BoJ) saw that there was a significant progress in inflation and wage growth dynamic. And with that they went out and told the markets that they wanted to start now increasing rate hikes. And at the same time, the end was weakening.And to ensure that they kind of convey to the markets that they want to be now taking rates higher, the governor of the central bank came out and indicated that they are far away from neutral.Now while that was having the desired effect of bringing the yen down, i.e. appreciated. But at the same time, it caused a significant volatility in the equity markets and make it more challenging for the BoJ.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so I get that. But I would say the market knew for a long time that the Bank of Japan would be hiking. We've had that in our forecast for a while. So, do you think that Governor Ueda really meant to be quite so aggressive? That meeting and his comments subsequently really were part of the contribution to all of this market turmoil that we saw in August. So, do you think he meant to be so aggressive?Chetan Ahya: Well, not really. I think that's the reason why what we saw is that a few days later, when the deputy governor Uchida was supposed to speak, he tried to walk back that hawkishness of the governor. And what was very interesting is that the deputy governor came out and indicated that they do care for financial conditions. And if the financial conditions move a lot, it will have an impact on growth and inflation; and therefore, conduct of monetary policy.In that sense, they conveyed the endogeneity of financial conditions and their reaction function. So, I think since that point of time, the markets have had a little bit of reprieve that BoJ will not take up successive rate hikes, ignoring what happens to the financial conditions.Seth Carpenter: But this does feel a little bit like some back and forth, and we've seen in the market that the yen is getting a little bit whipsawed; so the Bank of Japan wants to hike, and markets react strongly. And then the Bank of Japan comes out and says, ‘No, no, no, we're not going to hike that much,’ and markets relax a little bit. But maybe that relaxation allows them to hike more.It kind of reminds me, I have to say, of the 2014 to 2015 period when the Federal Reserve was getting ready to raise interest rates for the first time off of the zero lower bound after the financial crisis. And, you know, markets reacted strongly -- when then chair Yellen started talking about hiking and because of the tightening of financial conditions, the Fed backed down.But then because markets relaxed, the Fed started talking about hiking again. Do you think that's an apt comparison for what's going on now?Chetan Ahya: Absolutely, Seth. I think it is exactly something similar that is going on with Bank of Japan.Seth Carpenter: So, I guess the question then becomes, what happens next? We know with the Fed, they eventually did hike rates at the end of 2015. What do you think we're in line for with the Bank of Japan, and is it likely to be a bumpy ride in the future like it has been over the past couple months?Chetan Ahya: Well, so I think as far as the market’s volatility is concerned, we do think that the fact that the BoJ has come out and indicated that their reaction function is such that they do care about financial conditions. Hopefully we should not see the same kind of volatility that we saw at the start of the month of August.But as far as the next steps are concerned, we do see BoJ taking up one more rate hike in January 2025. And there is a risk that they might take up that rate hike in December.But the reason why we think that they will be able to take up one more rate hike is the fact that there is continued progress on wage growth and inflation; and wage growth is the most important variable that BoJ is tracking.We just got the last month's wage growth number. It has risen up to 3 percent. And going forward, we think that as the BoJ gets comfort that next year's wage negotiations are also heading in the right direction, they will be able to take one more rate hike in January 2025.Well, Seth, I think, you know, when we are talking about this volatility that we saw in the financial markets and particularly yen, the other side of this story is what the Fed has to do, and what is Fed indicating in terms of its policy path. And we saw that, after the nonfarm payrolls data, Governor Waller was indicating that the Fed could consider front-loading its rate cuts. What are your thoughts on that?Seth Carpenter: So, we do think the Fed's getting ready to start cutting rates. Our baseline is that they move at 25 increments per meeting, from now through the middle of next year. I would take Governor Waller's comments though about front-loading cuts -- which I took to mean, you know, the possibility of 50 basis point rate moves -- very much in context, and with a grain of salt.When he gave that speech, I think what he was trying to do, and I think the last paragraph of that speech really bears it out. He was saying there's a lot of uncertainty here. He said, if the data suggests that they need to front load rates, then he would advocate for it. But he also said that, if the data implied that they need to cut at consecutive meetings, he'd be in favor of that as well. So, he was saying that the data are going to be the thing that drives the policy decisions.But thanks for asking that question. And thanks to the listeners. If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7lDgrdwQQ0C0tym6pRHsxFoKh8vQIgVsKS69TgkZxF8Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:35:39 +0000gtyAfter sending global markets in a brief tailspin in early August, the Bank of Japan is once again the center of attention. Our Global Chief Economist and Chief Asia Economist discuss the central bank’s next steps to help ease volatility and inflation....----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Seth Carpenter: And on today's episode, Chetan and I are going to be discussing the Bank of Japan and the role it has been playing in recent market turmoil.It's Friday, September 13th at 12.30pm in New York.Chetan Ahya: And it's 5.30pm in London.Seth Carpenter: Financial markets have been going back and forth for the past month or so, and a lot of what's been driving the market movements have been evolving expectations of what's going on at central banks. And right at the center of it has been the Bank of Japan, especially going back to their meeting at the very end of July.So, Chetan, maybe you can just level set us about where things stand with the Bank of Japan right now? And how they've been communicating with markets?Chetan Ahya: Well, I think what happened, Seth, is that Bank of Japan (BoJ) saw that there was a significant progress in inflation and wage growth dynamic. And with that they went out and told the markets that they wanted to start now increasing rate hikes. And at the same time, the end was weakening.And to ensure that they kind of convey to the markets that they want to be now taking rates higher, the governor of the central bank came out and indicated that they are far away from neutral.Now while that was having the desired effect of bringing the yen down, i.e. appreciated. But at the same time, it caused a significant volatility in the equity markets and make it more challenging for the BoJ.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so I get that. But I would say the market knew for a long time that the Bank of Japan would be hiking. We've had that in our forecast for a while. So, do you think that Governor Ueda really meant to be quite so aggressive? That meeting and his comments subsequently really were part of the contribution to all of this market turmoil that we saw in August. So, do you think he meant to be so aggressive?Chetan Ahya: Well, not really. I think that's the reason why what we saw is that a few days later, when the deputy governor Uchida was supposed to speak, he tried to walk back that hawkishness of the governor. And what was very interesting is that the deputy governor came out and indicated that they do care for financial conditions. And if the financial conditions move a lot, it will have an impact on growth and inflation; and therefore, conduct of monetary policy.In that sense, they conveyed the endogeneity of financial conditions and their reaction function. So, I think since that point of time, the markets have had a little bit of reprieve that BoJ will not take up successive rate hikes, ignoring what happens to the financial conditions.Seth Carpenter: But this does feel a little bit like some back and forth, and we've seen in the market that the yen is getting a little bit whipsawed; so the Bank of Japan wants to hike, and markets react strongly. And then the Bank of Japan comes out and says, ‘No, no, no, we're not going to hike that much,’ and markets relax a little bit. But maybe that relaxation allows them to hike more.It kind of reminds me, I have to say, of the 2014 to 2015 period when the Federal Reserve was getting ready to raise interest rates for the first time off of the zero lower bound after the financial crisis. And, you know, markets reacted strongly -- when then chair Yellen started talking about hiking and because of the tightening of financial conditions, the Fed backed down.But then because markets relaxed, the Fed started talking about hiking again. Do you think that's an apt comparison for what's going on now?Chetan Ahya: Absolutely,...]]>382alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1213fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/corporate-credit-at-a-crossroads--75651262----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why the next month is a critical window for credit.It's Thursday, September 12th at 9am in New York. We’ve liked corporate credit as an asset class this year and think the outlook over the next 6-12 months remains promising. At a high level, credit likes moderation, and that continues to be exactly what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting; with moderate growth, moderate inflation, and moderating policy in the US and Europe. Meanwhile, at the ground level, corporate balance sheets are in good shape, and demand for fixed income remains strong, dynamics that we think are unlikely to shift quickly. But this good credit story is now facing a critical window. As we’ve discussed recently on this program, the Fed has taken a risk with monetary policy, continuing to keep interest rates elevated despite increasing indications that they should be lower. U.S. inflation has been coming down rapidly, to the point where the market now thinks the rate of inflation over the next two years will be below what the Fed is targeting. The labor market is slowing, and government bond markets are now assuming that the Fed will have to make much more significant adjustments to policy. And so, this becomes a race. If the economic data can hold up for the next few months, while the Fed does make those first gradual rate cuts, it will help reassure markets that monetary policy is reasonable and in-line with the underlying economy. But if the data weakens more now, the market is vulnerable. Monetary policy works with a lag, meaning rate cuts are not going to help anytime soon. And so, it becomes easier for the market to worry that growth is slowing too much, and that the cavalry of rate cuts will be too late to arrive. The second immediate challenge is so-called seasonality. Over almost a century, September has seen significantly weaker performance relative to any other month. Seasonality always has an element of mysticism to it, but in terms of specific reasons why markets tend to struggle around this time of year, we’d point to two factors. First, after a summer lull, you tend to see a lot of issuance, including corporate bonds issuance. And for Equities, September often sees more negative earnings revisions, as companies aim to bring full-year estimates in line with reality. Lots of supply and weaker earnings revisions are often a tough combination. A final element of this critical window is the approaching US election. This appears to be an extremely close race between candidates with very different policy priorities. If investors get more nervous that monetary policy is mis-calibrated, or seasonality is unhelpful, the approaching election provides yet another reason for investors to hold back. All of this is why we think the next month is a critical window for credit, and why we’d exercise a little bit more caution than we have so far this year. But we also think any weakness is going to be temporary. By early November, the US election will be over, and we think growth will be holding up, inflation will keep coming down, and interest rate cuts will be well underway. And while September is historically a bad month for stocks and credit, late-October onward is a different and much better story. Any near-term softness could still give way to a stronger finish to the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6IrStPaNjsd-zuGwM52FHbPQh4n6SbkVheuBW7tCa4wThu, 12 Sep 2024 22:13:46 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research looks at the Fed’s approach to rate cuts, seasonal trends and the US election to explain why the next month represents a crucial window for credit’s future.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why the next month is a critical window for credit.It's Thursday, September 12th at 9am in New York. We’ve liked corporate credit as an asset class this year and think the outlook over the next 6-12 months remains promising. At a high level, credit likes moderation, and that continues to be exactly what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting; with moderate growth, moderate inflation, and moderating policy in the US and Europe. Meanwhile, at the ground level, corporate balance sheets are in good shape, and demand for fixed income remains strong, dynamics that we think are unlikely to shift quickly. But this good credit story is now facing a critical window. As we’ve discussed recently on this program, the Fed has taken a risk with monetary policy, continuing to keep interest rates elevated despite increasing indications that they should be lower. U.S. inflation has been coming down rapidly, to the point where the market now thinks the rate of inflation over the next two years will be below what the Fed is targeting. The labor market is slowing, and government bond markets are now assuming that the Fed will have to make much more significant adjustments to policy. And so, this becomes a race. If the economic data can hold up for the next few months, while the Fed does make those first gradual rate cuts, it will help reassure markets that monetary policy is reasonable and in-line with the underlying economy. But if the data weakens more now, the market is vulnerable. Monetary policy works with a lag, meaning rate cuts are not going to help anytime soon. And so, it becomes easier for the market to worry that growth is slowing too much, and that the cavalry of rate cuts will be too late to arrive. The second immediate challenge is so-called seasonality. Over almost a century, September has seen significantly weaker performance relative to any other month. Seasonality always has an element of mysticism to it, but in terms of specific reasons why markets tend to struggle around this time of year, we’d point to two factors. First, after a summer lull, you tend to see a lot of issuance, including corporate bonds issuance. And for Equities, September often sees more negative earnings revisions, as companies aim to bring full-year estimates in line with reality. Lots of supply and weaker earnings revisions are often a tough combination. A final element of this critical window is the approaching US election. This appears to be an extremely close race between candidates with very different policy priorities. If investors get more nervous that monetary policy is mis-calibrated, or seasonality is unhelpful, the approaching election provides yet another reason for investors to hold back. All of this is why we think the next month is a critical window for credit, and why we’d exercise a little bit more caution than we have so far this year. But we also think any weakness is going to be temporary. By early November, the US election will be over, and we think growth will be holding up, inflation will keep coming down, and interest rate cuts will be well underway. And while September is historically a bad month for stocks and credit, late-October onward is a different and much better story. Any near-term softness could still give way to a stronger finish to the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>239alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1212fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/uneven-recovery-in-commercial-real-estate--75651070----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about how the challenges facing the US commercial real estate markets have evolved and talk about where they are headed next.It's Wednesday, Sep 11th at 10 am in New York.Over the last year and half, the challenges of commercial real estate, or CRE in short, have been periodically in the spotlight. The last time we discussed this issue here was in the first quarter of this year. That was in the aftermath of loan losses announced by a regional bank that primarily focused on rent-stabilized multifamily and CRE lending in the New York metropolitan area. At the same time, lenders and investors in Japan, Germany and Canada also reported sizable credit losses and write-down related to US commercial real estate.At that time, we had said that CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of lenders and property types; and that saw meaningful challenges in both – in particular, regional banks as lenders and office as a property type.Rolling the calendar forward, where do things stand now?Focusing on the lenders first, there is some good news. While regional bank challenges from their CRE exposures have not gone away, they are not getting any worse. That means incremental reserves for CRE losses have been below what we had feared. Our economists’ expectations of Fed’s rate cuts on the back of their soft-landing thesis, gives us the conviction that lower rates should be an incremental benefit from a credit quality perspective for banks because it alleviates pressure on debt service coverage ratios for borrowers. Lower rates also give banks more room to work with their borrowers for longer by providing extensions. For banks, this means while CRE net charge-offs could rise in the near term, they are likely to stabilize in 2025.In other words, even though the fundamental deterioration in terms of the level of delinquencies and losses may be ahead, the rate of change seems to have clearly turned. In that sense, as long as the rate cuts that we anticipate materialize, the worst of the CRE issues for regional banks may now be behind us.From the lens of property types, it is important not to paint all property types with the same brushstroke of negativity. Office lots remain the pain point. Looking at the payoff rates in CMBS pools gives us a granular look at the performance across different property types.Overall, 76 per cent of the CRE loans that matured over the past 12 months paid off, which is a pretty healthy rate. However, in office loans, the payoff rate was just 43 per cent. Other property types were clearly much better. For example, 100 per cent of industrial property loans, 96 per cent of multi-family loans, 89 per cent of hotel loans that matured in the last 12 months paid off. The payoff rates in retail property loans were a bit lower but still pretty healthy at 76 per cent, in clear contrast to office properties. Delinquency rates across property types also show a similar trend with office loans driving the lion’s share of the overall increase in delinquencies.In short, the secular headwinds facing the office market have not dissipated. Office property valuations, leasing arrangements and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. While this shift has begun, more is needed. So, there is really no quick resolution for these challenges which we think are likely to persist. This is especially true in central business district offices that require significant capex for upgrades or repurposing for use as residential housing.Overall, we stick to our contention that commercial real estate risks present a persistent challenge but are unlikely to become systemic for the economy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen to this and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wYcQmCnk4GU66teKjOJBuNz09q5BRTAKlfGTi-tXKYsWed, 11 Sep 2024 22:53:15 +0000gtyOffice buildings continue to struggle in the post-pandemic era, but our Chief Fixed Income Strategist notes that other properties have turned a corner.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about how the challenges facing the US commercial real estate markets have evolved and talk about where they are headed next.It's Wednesday, Sep 11th at 10 am in New York.Over the last year and half, the challenges of commercial real estate, or CRE in short, have been periodically in the spotlight. The last time we discussed this issue here was in the first quarter of this year. That was in the aftermath of loan losses announced by a regional bank that primarily focused on rent-stabilized multifamily and CRE lending in the New York metropolitan area. At the same time, lenders and investors in Japan, Germany and Canada also reported sizable credit losses and write-down related to US commercial real estate.At that time, we had said that CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of lenders and property types; and that saw meaningful challenges in both – in particular, regional banks as lenders and office as a property type.Rolling the calendar forward, where do things stand now?Focusing on the lenders first, there is some good news. While regional bank challenges from their CRE exposures have not gone away, they are not getting any worse. That means incremental reserves for CRE losses have been below what we had feared. Our economists’ expectations of Fed’s rate cuts on the back of their soft-landing thesis, gives us the conviction that lower rates should be an incremental benefit from a credit quality perspective for banks because it alleviates pressure on debt service coverage ratios for borrowers. Lower rates also give banks more room to work with their borrowers for longer by providing extensions. For banks, this means while CRE net charge-offs could rise in the near term, they are likely to stabilize in 2025.In other words, even though the fundamental deterioration in terms of the level of delinquencies and losses may be ahead, the rate of change seems to have clearly turned. In that sense, as long as the rate cuts that we anticipate materialize, the worst of the CRE issues for regional banks may now be behind us.From the lens of property types, it is important not to paint all property types with the same brushstroke of negativity. Office lots remain the pain point. Looking at the payoff rates in CMBS pools gives us a granular look at the performance across different property types.Overall, 76 per cent of the CRE loans that matured over the past 12 months paid off, which is a pretty healthy rate. However, in office loans, the payoff rate was just 43 per cent. Other property types were clearly much better. For example, 100 per cent of industrial property loans, 96 per cent of multi-family loans, 89 per cent of hotel loans that matured in the last 12 months paid off. The payoff rates in retail property loans were a bit lower but still pretty healthy at 76 per cent, in clear contrast to office properties. Delinquency rates across property types also show a similar trend with office loans driving the lion’s share of the overall increase in delinquencies.In short, the secular headwinds facing the office market have not dissipated. Office property valuations, leasing arrangements and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. While this shift has begun, more is needed. So, there is really no quick resolution for these challenges which we think are likely to persist. This is especially true in central business district offices that require significant capex for upgrades or repurposing for use as residential housing.Overall, we stick to our contention that commercial real estate risks present a persistent...]]>278alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1211fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trading-spaces-millennials-vs-boomers--75651189----- Transcript -----
Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, head of Commercial Real Estate Research and the US Real Estate Investment Trust team within Morgan Stanley Research.Lauren Hochfelder: And I'm Lauren Hochfelder, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing, the global private real estate investment arm of the firm.Ron Kamdem: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we’ll discuss the tangible impact of shifting demographics on the residential real estate investing space.It's Tuesday, September 10th at 10 am in New York.So, Lauren, for several years now, we've been hearing about millennials overtaking the baby boomers. As a reminder, millennials are people between the age of 28 and 43. So someone like me. And there’s about 72 million millennials right now. Baby boomers are around 59 to 78; and there's about 69 million at the moment. This demographic shift will have a profound impact on all sectors of the economy, including residential housing. So, let's lay the foundation first. What are the current needs of baby boomers and millennials when it comes to their homes?Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this is such an interesting moment, Ron, because as you say, their needs are shifting. Over the last 15 years, what have millennials wanted? They have wanted multifamily. They have wanted rental apartment units. And by the way, they've wanted, generally speaking, small ones in cities.Ron Kamdem: Yup.Boomers? They have been disproportionately residing in single family homes that they own, and that they've owned for a long time. But here we are, as millennials reach peak household formation years and boomers approach their 80-year-old mark. There's a real shift.We have millennials growing up and growing out, and boomers growing older. And that means millennials need more space; boomers need more services. Housing with increased care options. And that really leads to three things.One, pockets of oversupply of multifamily. Developers develop to the rearview mirror; and we have way too much of what they wanted yesterday and too little of what they wanted to what they want tomorrow. The second is increased demand for single family rental in more suburban locations to meet the needs of those millennials. And the third is increased demand for senior housing for the boomers.Ron Kamdem: Excellent. So, when we look at the next five to ten years, let's consider each of these generations. Demand for senior housing is increasing significantly. Where are we in this process, and what's your expectation for the next decade?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, we think this is the golden age for senior housing. The demand wave is upon us, supply is way down. And by the way, labor costs, which have been a real headwind, are finally abating. New construction of senior housing has basically fallen off a cliff. It is down 75 per cent from its peak; if you look at the first quarter of this year, it's basically at GFC levels. And third, the senior wealth effect. Not only do seniors need this product, they can afford it.They have been in those homes, they've owned those homes for a very long time, and over that period, home prices have appreciated. So, seniors are in a position where they can really afford to move into these senior living facilities.Ron Kamdem: And what about millennials? As they get older, how are their housing needs evolving?Lauren Hochfelder: I'd say three things. It's they need more space. So single family rental versus multifamily. The second is migratory shifts, right? It's no longer -- I have to live in San Francisco or New York. You're seeing real growth in the southeast and Texas. And the third is this preference to rent. Now, a lot of that's affordability driven.Ron Kamdem: Right.Lauren Hochfelder: But I think there's also mobility. There's just general preference. I mean, this is a generation that doesn't own a landline, right? So, they want to rent. They don't want to buy.Ron Kamdem: So, given these trends as an actual real estate investor, how do you view the supply and demand dynamics within residential investing? And where do you see the biggest opportunities?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, I think housing in general is attractive to invest in. There's simply too little of it. But you really can't paint a broad brush. You need to invest in the type of housing with the best outlook. And you and I can sit here and debate what's going to happen with interest rates. But what is not debatable is that these two large age groups are going to drive demand disproportionately.And so rather than speculating on interest rates, let's calculate the number of people in these generations. And so that means that we want to invest in single family. We want to invest in seniors housing, and we want to invest in the markets where these groups want to live.So, let's turn it around. We've been talking about this growing senior population and, you know, we and my side of the business. We've been investing in a lot of senior housing communities. But how does this affect your world? You cover the entire US public real estate investment trust universe. How are you thinking about these things?Ron Kamdem: So, our investors are really focused on secular trends that they can invest over a long period of time. And there's really two that I would like to call out. So, the first is the rise of senior housing communities.As you mentioned earlier, if you think about the US population, the population that's 65 and over is really the addressable market. And we do expect that number to rise to about 21 per cent of the population or 71 million people.Lauren Hochfelder: So, think about one in four people being eligible or appropriate for senior housing. It's amazing.Ron Kamdem: That’s an incredible demand function.Now, the second piece of it is historically these seniors have actually shied away from senior housing. So, the first sort of trend and inflection point that I want to call out is we do think there's an opportunity for penetration race -- not only to flatten out, but to start increasing. And that's driven exactly by your earlier comment, which is affordability. Remember, about 75 per cent of seniors actually own their own homes, and they've seen a significant amount of price appreciation. Since 2010, their home prices have gone up 80 per cent, which is about two times the rate of inflation.Second investable trend is the move of outpatient services outside of the hospital setting. So, if you go back to the eighties, only about 16 per cent of services were being done outside of the hospital. In 2020, that number was close to 68 per cent and we think that's going to keep rising. The reason being because of surgical advances, there's a lot of projects that can be done outside of the hospital. Whether it's, you know, knee replacements, trigger finger surgery, cataract surgeries, and so forth. In addition to that, the expansion of Medicare coverage has allowed for reimbursement of these services, again, outside of the hospital.So, we think these are trends that are in place that should continue over the next sort of decade and drive more demand to the healthcare real estate space.Lauren Hochfelder: So, what should we be nervous about? What concerns you?Ron Kamdem: Look, I think on the senior housing side, there's always two factors that we focus on. So, the first is labor. This remains a very labor-intensive industry. But in the US, historically, people coming out of college, they're not necessarily going into the health care space. So, there's been moments of labor shortages. This happened exactly after the pandemic. Luckily, today, the labor situation has abated and you're seeing sort of labor costs back to inflationary type levels.The second piece of it is just the age of the facilities. Now, keep in mind, there's still a lot of facilities with the average age of about 41, right. And everybody has in the back of their mind, these older facilities with older carpets and so forth. So, when we're thinking about investing in the space, we're always focused on the newer assets, the better quality that are going to provide a better experience for the tenant.Lauren Hochfelder: So, given these shifts, what segments of your world are poised to benefit the most?Ron Kamdem: The real estate public market, there's about 160 REITs across 16 different subsectors; and the senior housing subsector is by far the most compelling in our minds. If you think about the REIT market, the average sort of earnings growth is 3 to 4 per cent. However, the senior housing sector, we think you can get 10 per cent or more growth over the next three to five years. The reason being when the pandemic hit, this was an industry that saw occupancy go from 90 per cent to 75 per cent.There was a moment in time where people thought you'd never put any seniors in the facility again. Well, the exact opposite has happened, and now we're seeing occupancy gains of about 300 basis points of about 3 per cent every year. On top of some pricing power, call it 5, 6 or 7 per cent. So, we're looking at a sector where we think organically you can grow sort of high single digits. With a little bit of operating leverage, you can get to a total earning growth of double digits, which is very compelling relative to the rest of the REIT market.Lauren Hochfelder: Let's go back to your generation, as you said. Let's go back to the millennials. How do those shifting needs affect which part of the universe you would invest in?Ron Kamdem: One of the things that I think every real estate owner’s thinking about is how to integrate their platform so that they're more millennial friendly. They're going online. They're using their phones, and I think we're seeing a much bigger investment in marketing dollar]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MmBgix-heANkMlEoB3uQxuGd9HI2sLCIcLnn504dQ7kTue, 10 Sep 2024 20:10:04 +0000gtyWith the generational shift in the US housing market underway, our analysts discuss the impact this trend will have on residential real estate investing. ----- Transcript ----- Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, head of...----- Transcript -----
Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, head of Commercial Real Estate Research and the US Real Estate Investment Trust team within Morgan Stanley Research.Lauren Hochfelder: And I'm Lauren Hochfelder, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing, the global private real estate investment arm of the firm.Ron Kamdem: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we’ll discuss the tangible impact of shifting demographics on the residential real estate investing space.It's Tuesday, September 10th at 10 am in New York.So, Lauren, for several years now, we've been hearing about millennials overtaking the baby boomers. As a reminder, millennials are people between the age of 28 and 43. So someone like me. And there’s about 72 million millennials right now. Baby boomers are around 59 to 78; and there's about 69 million at the moment. This demographic shift will have a profound impact on all sectors of the economy, including residential housing. So, let's lay the foundation first. What are the current needs of baby boomers and millennials when it comes to their homes?Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this is such an interesting moment, Ron, because as you say, their needs are shifting. Over the last 15 years, what have millennials wanted? They have wanted multifamily. They have wanted rental apartment units. And by the way, they've wanted, generally speaking, small ones in cities.Ron Kamdem: Yup.Boomers? They have been disproportionately residing in single family homes that they own, and that they've owned for a long time. But here we are, as millennials reach peak household formation years and boomers approach their 80-year-old mark. There's a real shift.We have millennials growing up and growing out, and boomers growing older. And that means millennials need more space; boomers need more services. Housing with increased care options. And that really leads to three things.One, pockets of oversupply of multifamily. Developers develop to the rearview mirror; and we have way too much of what they wanted yesterday and too little of what they wanted to what they want tomorrow. The second is increased demand for single family rental in more suburban locations to meet the needs of those millennials. And the third is increased demand for senior housing for the boomers.Ron Kamdem: Excellent. So, when we look at the next five to ten years, let's consider each of these generations. Demand for senior housing is increasing significantly. Where are we in this process, and what's your expectation for the next decade?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, we think this is the golden age for senior housing. The demand wave is upon us, supply is way down. And by the way, labor costs, which have been a real headwind, are finally abating. New construction of senior housing has basically fallen off a cliff. It is down 75 per cent from its peak; if you look at the first quarter of this year, it's basically at GFC levels. And third, the senior wealth effect. Not only do seniors need this product, they can afford it.They have been in those homes, they've owned those homes for a very long time, and over that period, home prices have appreciated. So, seniors are in a position where they can really afford to move into these senior living facilities.Ron Kamdem: And what about millennials? As they get older, how are their housing needs evolving?Lauren Hochfelder: I'd say three things. It's they need more space. So single family rental versus multifamily. The second is migratory shifts, right? It's no longer -- I have to live in San Francisco or New York. You're seeing real growth in the southeast and Texas. And the third is this preference to rent. Now, a lot of that's affordability driven.Ron Kamdem: Right.Lauren Hochfelder: But I think...]]>651alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1210fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/shaky-labor-data-pressures-equity-markets--75651053----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the labor market’s impact on equity markets.It's Monday, Sept 9th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Last week, I wrote a detailed note discussing the importance of the labor data for equity markets. Importantly, I pointed out that since the materially weaker than expected July labor report, the S&P 500 has bounced more than other "macro" markets like rates, currencies and commodities. In the absence of a reacceleration in the labor data, we concluded the S&P 500 was trading out of sync with the fundamentals. Over the past week, we received several labor market data points, which were weaker than expected. First, the Job Openings data for July was softer than expected coming in at 7.7mm versus the consensus expectation of 8.1mm. In addition, June's initial result was revised lower by 274k. This essentially supported the view that the weak payrolls data in July may, in fact, not be related to weather or other temporary issues. Second, the job openings rate fell to 4.6%, which is very close to the 4.5% level Fed Governor Waller has cited as a threshold below which the unemployment rate could rise much faster. Third, the Fed's Beige Book came out last week. It indicated that activity remains sluggish with 9 of the 12 Federal Reserve districts reporting flat or declining activity in August, though commentary on labor markets was more neutral, rather than negative. These data sync nicely with the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index, which I find to be a very objective aggregate measure of the labor market's direction. This morning, we received the latest release for August Conference Board labor market trends and the trend remains down, but not necessarily recessionary. Of course, the main event last week was Friday's monthly jobs and unemployment reports, where the payroll survey number came in below consensus at 142k. In addition, last month's result was revised lower from 114k to 89k. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell by only a couple of basis points leaving investors unconvinced that July’s labor weakness was overstated. Given much of these labor and other growth data have continued to skew to the downside, the macro markets (like rates, currencies, and Commodities) have been trading with more concern about potential hard landing risks. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than with 2-year US Treasuries. As of Friday, the spread between the 2-year Treasury yields and the Fed Funds Rate matched the widest levels in the past 40 years. This pricing suggests the bond market believes the Fed is behind the curve from an easing standpoint. On Friday, the equity market started to get in sync with this view and questioned whether a 25bp cut in September would be an adequate policy response to the labor data. In the context of an equity market that is still quite rich and based on well above average earnings growth assumptions, the correction on Friday seems quite appropriate. In my view, until the bond market starts to believe the Fed is no longer behind the curve, labor data reverses course and improves materially or additional policy stimulus is introduced, it will be difficult for equity markets to trade with a more risk on tone. This means valuations are likely to remain challenged for the overall index, while the leadership remains more defensive and in line with our sector and stock recommendations. We see two ways in which the Fed can get ahead of the curve—either faster cutting than expected which is unlikely in the absence of recessionary data; or the labor data starts to improve in a convincing manner and 2-year yields rise. Given the Fed is in the blackout period until next week’s FOMC meeting, and there are not any major labor data reports due for almost a month, volatility will likely remain elevated and valuations under pressure overall. This all brings our previously discussed fair value range for the S&P 500 of 5000-5400 back into view.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pXHBw5GyI6xlcxXXOAs1zf42oNTLAdyVx_wAMsY8tsMMon, 09 Sep 2024 22:31:38 +0000gtyFollowing weaker-than-expected August jobs data, our CIO and Chief U.S Equity Strategist lays out how the Federal Reserve can ease concerns about a possible hard landing. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the labor market’s impact on equity markets.It's Monday, Sept 9th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Last week, I wrote a detailed note discussing the importance of the labor data for equity markets. Importantly, I pointed out that since the materially weaker than expected July labor report, the S&P 500 has bounced more than other "macro" markets like rates, currencies and commodities. In the absence of a reacceleration in the labor data, we concluded the S&P 500 was trading out of sync with the fundamentals. Over the past week, we received several labor market data points, which were weaker than expected. First, the Job Openings data for July was softer than expected coming in at 7.7mm versus the consensus expectation of 8.1mm. In addition, June's initial result was revised lower by 274k. This essentially supported the view that the weak payrolls data in July may, in fact, not be related to weather or other temporary issues. Second, the job openings rate fell to 4.6%, which is very close to the 4.5% level Fed Governor Waller has cited as a threshold below which the unemployment rate could rise much faster. Third, the Fed's Beige Book came out last week. It indicated that activity remains sluggish with 9 of the 12 Federal Reserve districts reporting flat or declining activity in August, though commentary on labor markets was more neutral, rather than negative. These data sync nicely with the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index, which I find to be a very objective aggregate measure of the labor market's direction. This morning, we received the latest release for August Conference Board labor market trends and the trend remains down, but not necessarily recessionary. Of course, the main event last week was Friday's monthly jobs and unemployment reports, where the payroll survey number came in below consensus at 142k. In addition, last month's result was revised lower from 114k to 89k. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell by only a couple of basis points leaving investors unconvinced that July’s labor weakness was overstated. Given much of these labor and other growth data have continued to skew to the downside, the macro markets (like rates, currencies, and Commodities) have been trading with more concern about potential hard landing risks. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than with 2-year US Treasuries. As of Friday, the spread between the 2-year Treasury yields and the Fed Funds Rate matched the widest levels in the past 40 years. This pricing suggests the bond market believes the Fed is behind the curve from an easing standpoint. On Friday, the equity market started to get in sync with this view and questioned whether a 25bp cut in September would be an adequate policy response to the labor data. In the context of an equity market that is still quite rich and based on well above average earnings growth assumptions, the correction on Friday seems quite appropriate. In my view, until the bond market starts to believe the Fed is no longer behind the curve, labor data reverses course and improves materially or additional policy stimulus is introduced, it will be difficult for equity markets to trade with a more risk on tone. This means valuations are likely to remain challenged for the overall index, while the leadership remains more defensive and in line with our sector and stock recommendations. We see two ways in which the Fed can get ahead of the curve—either faster cutting than expected which is unlikely in the absence of recessionary data; or the labor data starts to improve in a convincing...]]>279alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1209fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/balance-sheets-remain-resilient-despite-slowing-us-growth--75651156----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some longer-term thoughts on the credit market and the economic cycle.It's Friday, September 6th at 2pm in London.Concerns around US growth have risen, an issue that will probably persist even after today’s US Payrolls report came roughly inline with expectations. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to expect moderate slowing in growth, not a slump. By the middle of next year, our economists see growth slowing to a still respectable 2% growth rate, and a total of seven rate cuts.While growth is set to slow, we think corporate balance sheet metrics are unusually good in the face of this slowing. Indeed, the credit quality of the US investment grade and BB credit markets, which represent the vast majority of corporate credit outstanding, have actually improved since the Fed started hiking rates.Now, looking ahead, there's understandable concern that these currently good credit metrics won't be sustainable as companies will have to refinance the very cheap borrowing that they received immediately after COVID, with the more expensive costs of today's currently higher yields. But we actually think balance sheets will be reasonably robust in light of this reset, and so their ultimate rate sensitivity could be relatively low.One reason is that a wave of refinancing means companies have already tackled a significant portion of their upcoming debt, reducing the so-called rollover or refinancing risk. Interest coverage for floating rate borrowers has stabilized and should actually improve as the Fed starts to lower rates.The debt service costs for higher rated companies will increase as cheaper debt matures and has to be replaced with more expensive borrowing; but we stressed this is a pretty slow process given the long-term nature of a lot of this borrowing. And so, overall, we think the headwinds from higher debt costs are going to be manageable, with the problems largely confined to a smaller cohort of the lowest quality issuers.We think all of that will drive a so-called sticky but shallow default cycle, with defaults driven by higher borrowing costs at select issuers rather than a single problem sector or particularly poor corporate earnings. And there are also some important offsets. Morgan Stanley's forecast suggests that the Fed will be cutting rates, which will reduce overall borrowing costs over the medium term. And another notable theme over the last two years is that more defaults have been becoming so-called restructurings rather than bankruptcies. These restructurings are more likely to leave a company operating -- just under new ownership -- and create less negative feedback into the real economy.Now, against all this, we're mindful that credit spreads are tight, i.e. lower than average. But importantly, we don't think this reflects some sort of euphoria from either the lenders or the borrowers.All-in borrowing costs for corporates remain high, and that's made corporates less likely to be aggressive or increase their leverage. Indeed, since COVID, the overall high yield bond and loan markets have actually shrunk. Leverage buyout activity has been muted and corporate leverage has gone sideways.These are not the types of things you see when corporates are being particularly aggressive and credit unfriendly. Credit markets love moderation and that's very much what Morgan Stanley's economic forecasts over the medium term expect. Spreads may be tight. But we think they're currently supported by strong fundamentals, modest supply, and improving technicals.Today's roughly inline payroll number won’t resolve the uncertainty around growth, but longer term, we think the picture remains encouraging.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4d3W9M1A-zztl6tH1761nevIm9X5oX45MqcCnYSG-IMFri, 06 Sep 2024 19:27:05 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, expects a sticky but shallow cycle for defaults on loans, with solid quality overall in high-grade credit. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some longer-term thoughts on the credit market and the economic cycle.It's Friday, September 6th at 2pm in London.Concerns around US growth have risen, an issue that will probably persist even after today’s US Payrolls report came roughly inline with expectations. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to expect moderate slowing in growth, not a slump. By the middle of next year, our economists see growth slowing to a still respectable 2% growth rate, and a total of seven rate cuts.While growth is set to slow, we think corporate balance sheet metrics are unusually good in the face of this slowing. Indeed, the credit quality of the US investment grade and BB credit markets, which represent the vast majority of corporate credit outstanding, have actually improved since the Fed started hiking rates.Now, looking ahead, there's understandable concern that these currently good credit metrics won't be sustainable as companies will have to refinance the very cheap borrowing that they received immediately after COVID, with the more expensive costs of today's currently higher yields. But we actually think balance sheets will be reasonably robust in light of this reset, and so their ultimate rate sensitivity could be relatively low.One reason is that a wave of refinancing means companies have already tackled a significant portion of their upcoming debt, reducing the so-called rollover or refinancing risk. Interest coverage for floating rate borrowers has stabilized and should actually improve as the Fed starts to lower rates.The debt service costs for higher rated companies will increase as cheaper debt matures and has to be replaced with more expensive borrowing; but we stressed this is a pretty slow process given the long-term nature of a lot of this borrowing. And so, overall, we think the headwinds from higher debt costs are going to be manageable, with the problems largely confined to a smaller cohort of the lowest quality issuers.We think all of that will drive a so-called sticky but shallow default cycle, with defaults driven by higher borrowing costs at select issuers rather than a single problem sector or particularly poor corporate earnings. And there are also some important offsets. Morgan Stanley's forecast suggests that the Fed will be cutting rates, which will reduce overall borrowing costs over the medium term. And another notable theme over the last two years is that more defaults have been becoming so-called restructurings rather than bankruptcies. These restructurings are more likely to leave a company operating -- just under new ownership -- and create less negative feedback into the real economy.Now, against all this, we're mindful that credit spreads are tight, i.e. lower than average. But importantly, we don't think this reflects some sort of euphoria from either the lenders or the borrowers.All-in borrowing costs for corporates remain high, and that's made corporates less likely to be aggressive or increase their leverage. Indeed, since COVID, the overall high yield bond and loan markets have actually shrunk. Leverage buyout activity has been muted and corporate leverage has gone sideways.These are not the types of things you see when corporates are being particularly aggressive and credit unfriendly. Credit markets love moderation and that's very much what Morgan Stanley's economic forecasts over the medium term expect. Spreads may be tight. But we think they're currently supported by strong fundamentals, modest supply, and improving technicals.Today's roughly inline payroll number won’t resolve the uncertainty around...]]>255alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1208fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-energy-markets-and-the-us-election--75651151----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Global Commodity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about a topic that's coming into sharper focus this fall. How will the US presidential election shape energy policy and global energy markets?It's Thursday, September 5th at 10am in New York.Martijn Rats: And 3pm in London.Ariana Salvatore: As we enter the final leg of the US presidential campaign, Harris and Trump are getting ready to go head-to-head on a number of key topics. Healthcare, housing, the state of the economy, foreign policy; and also high on the agenda -- energy policy.So, Martijn, let's set the stage here. Prices at the gas pump in the US have been falling over recent weeks, which is atypical in the summer. What's happening in energy markets right now? And what's your expectation for the rest of the year?Martijn Rats: Yeah, it's a relevant question. Oil prices have been quite volatile recently. I would say that objectively, if you look at the market for crude oil, the crude oil market is tight right now. We can see that in inventories, for example, they are buying large drawing, which tell[s] you, the demand is outstripping supply.But there are two things to say about the tightness in the crude oil market. First of all, we're not quite seeing that tightness merit in the markets for refined products. So, get the market for gasoline, the market for diesel, et cetera. At the moment, the global refining system is running quite hard.But they're also producing a lot of refined product. A lot of gasoline, a lot of diesel. They're pushing that to their customers. Demand is absorbing that, but not quite in a convincing manner. And you can see that in refining margins. They have been steadily trending down all summer.The second thing to say about the tightness and crude is that it's largely driven by a set of factors that will likely to be somewhat temporary. Seasonally demand is at its strongest -- that helps. The OPEC deal is still in place. And as far as we can see in high frequency data, OPEC is still constraining production.And then thirdly, production has been growing in a number of non-OPEC countries. But that absent flows and the last couple of months have seen somewhat of a flat spot in non-OPEC supply growth.Now, those factors have created the tightness that we're seeing currently in the third quarter. But if you start to think about the oil market rolling into the fourth quarter and eventually 2025, a lot of these things going to reverse. The seasonal demand tailwinds that we are currently enjoying; they turn into seasonal demand headwinds in four q[uarter]and one q[uarter] -- seasonally weaker quarters of the year. Non-OPEC production will likely resume its upward trajectory based on the modeling of projects that we've done. That seems likely. And then OPEC has also said that they will start growing production again with the start of the fourth quarter.Now, when you put that all together, the market is in deficit now. It will return to a broadly balanced state in the fourth quarter, but then into a surplus in 2025. Prices look a little into the future. They discount the future a little bitNow, as the US election approaches, investors are increasingly concerned how a Trump versus Harris win would affect energy policy and markets going forward. Ariana, how much and what kind of authority does the US president actually have in terms of energy policy? Can you run us through that?Ariana Salvatore: Presidential authorities with respect to energy policy are actually relatively limited. But they can be impactful at the margin over time. What we tend to see actually is that production and investment levels are reasonably insulated from federal politics.Only about 25 per cent of oil and 10 per cent of natural gas is produced on federal land and waters in the US. You also have this timing factor. So, a lot of these changes are really only incremental; and while they can affect levels at the margin, there's a lag between when that policy is announced and when it could actually flow through in terms of actual changes to supply levels. For example, when we think of things like permitting reform, deregulation and environmental review periods and leasing of federal lands, these are all policy options that do not have immediate impacts; and many times will span across different presidential administrations.So, you might expect that if a new president comes into office, he or she could reverse many of the executive actions taken by his or her predecessor with respect to this policy area.Martijn Rats: And what have Trump and Harris each said so far about energy policy?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say this topic has been less prevalent in Harris's campaign, unless we're talking about it in the context of the energy transition overall. She hasn't laid out yet specific policy plans when it comes to energy; but we think it's safe to assume that you could see her maintain a lot of the Biden administration's clean energy goals and the continued rollout of bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which contained a whole host of energy tax credits toward those ends.Now, conversely, Trump has focused on this a lot because he's been tying energy supply to inflation, making the case that we can lower inflation and everyday costs by drilling more. His policy platform, and that of the GOP has been to increase energy production across the board. Mainly done by streamlining, permitting and loosening restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal.Now, to what I said before, some of that can be accomplished unilaterally through the executive branch. But other times it might require the consent of Congress, and consent from states -- because sometimes these permitting lines cross state borders.So, Martijn, from your side, how quickly can US policy, whether it's driven by Trump or Harris, affect energy markets and change production levels and therefore supply?Martijn Rats: Yeah, like you just outlined, the answer to that question is only gradually. Regulation is important, but economics are more important. If you roll the clock back to, say, early 2021, when President Biden has just took office; on day one, he famously canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.But if you now look back, at the last four years, start to finish; American oil production, grew more under Biden, than any other president in the history of the United States. With the exception of Obama, who, of course, enjoyed the start of the shale revolution.Production is close, to record levels, which were set just before COVID, of course. So, in the end, the measures that President Biden put in place, have had only a very limited impact on oil production. The impact that the American president can have is only -- it's only gradual.Ariana Salvatore: So, as we've mentioned, expanding energy development has been a massive plank of Trump's campaign platform. And listeners will also remember that during his term in office, he supported energy development on federal land. If Trump wins in November, what would it mean for oil supply and demand both in the US and globally?Martijn Rats: Admittedly, it's somewhat of a confusing picture. So, if you look at oil supply, you have to split it in perhaps a domestic impact and an international impact. Domestically, Donald Trump has famously said recently that he would return the oil industry to “Drill baby drill,” which is this, this shorthand metaphor for, abundant drilling in an effort to significantly accelerate oil production.But as just mentioned, there is little to be unleashed because during President Biden, the American oil industry hasn't really been constrained in the first place.A lot of American EMP companies are focused on capital discipline. They're focused on returns on free cashflow on shareholder distributions. With that come constraints to capital expenditure budgets that probably were not in place several years ago with those CapEx constraints, production can only grow so fast.That is a matter of shareholder preference. That is a matter of returns. And regulation can change that a little bit, but not so much.If you look at the perspective outside the United States, it is also worth mentioning that in the first Trump presidency, President Trump famously put secondary sanctions on the export of crude oil from Iran. At the time that significantly constrained crude oil supply from Iran, which in 2018 played a key role in driving oil prices higher.Now, it's an open question, whether that policy can be repeated. The flow of oil around the world has changed since then. Iranian oil isn't quite going to the same customers as it did back then. So, whether that policy can be replicated, remains to be seen. But whilst the domestic perspective -- i.e. an attempt to grow production -- could be interpreted as a potential bearish factor for the price of oil, the risk of sanctions outside the United States could be interpreted as a potential bullish risk for oil.And this is, I think, also why the oil market struggles to incorporate the risks around the presidential election so much. At the moment, we're simply confronted with a set of factors. Some of them bearish, some of them bullish, but it remains hard to see exactly which one of them played out. And, at the moment they don't have a particular skew in one direction.So, we're just confronted with options, but little direction.Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. So, I think that makes this definitely a policy area that we'll be paying very close attention to this fall. I suppose we'll also both be tuning into the upcoming debate, where we might get a better sense of both sid]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lA197MhWPpFySH_Oy-NuDTHKdF3vz3J2_NjGu0ibAcAThu, 05 Sep 2024 23:25:00 +0000gtyOur US Public Policy and Global Commodities strategists discuss how the outcome of the election could affect energy markets in the US and around the world. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Global Commodity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about a topic that's coming into sharper focus this fall. How will the US presidential election shape energy policy and global energy markets?It's Thursday, September 5th at 10am in New York.Martijn Rats: And 3pm in London.Ariana Salvatore: As we enter the final leg of the US presidential campaign, Harris and Trump are getting ready to go head-to-head on a number of key topics. Healthcare, housing, the state of the economy, foreign policy; and also high on the agenda -- energy policy.So, Martijn, let's set the stage here. Prices at the gas pump in the US have been falling over recent weeks, which is atypical in the summer. What's happening in energy markets right now? And what's your expectation for the rest of the year?Martijn Rats: Yeah, it's a relevant question. Oil prices have been quite volatile recently. I would say that objectively, if you look at the market for crude oil, the crude oil market is tight right now. We can see that in inventories, for example, they are buying large drawing, which tell[s] you, the demand is outstripping supply.But there are two things to say about the tightness in the crude oil market. First of all, we're not quite seeing that tightness merit in the markets for refined products. So, get the market for gasoline, the market for diesel, et cetera. At the moment, the global refining system is running quite hard.But they're also producing a lot of refined product. A lot of gasoline, a lot of diesel. They're pushing that to their customers. Demand is absorbing that, but not quite in a convincing manner. And you can see that in refining margins. They have been steadily trending down all summer.The second thing to say about the tightness and crude is that it's largely driven by a set of factors that will likely to be somewhat temporary. Seasonally demand is at its strongest -- that helps. The OPEC deal is still in place. And as far as we can see in high frequency data, OPEC is still constraining production.And then thirdly, production has been growing in a number of non-OPEC countries. But that absent flows and the last couple of months have seen somewhat of a flat spot in non-OPEC supply growth.Now, those factors have created the tightness that we're seeing currently in the third quarter. But if you start to think about the oil market rolling into the fourth quarter and eventually 2025, a lot of these things going to reverse. The seasonal demand tailwinds that we are currently enjoying; they turn into seasonal demand headwinds in four q[uarter]and one q[uarter] -- seasonally weaker quarters of the year. Non-OPEC production will likely resume its upward trajectory based on the modeling of projects that we've done. That seems likely. And then OPEC has also said that they will start growing production again with the start of the fourth quarter.Now, when you put that all together, the market is in deficit now. It will return to a broadly balanced state in the fourth quarter, but then into a surplus in 2025. Prices look a little into the future. They discount the future a little bitNow, as the US election approaches, investors are increasingly concerned how a Trump versus Harris win would affect energy policy and markets going forward. Ariana, how much and what kind of authority does the US president actually have in terms of energy policy? Can you run us through that?Ariana Salvatore: Presidential authorities with respect to energy policy are actually relatively limited. But they can be impactful at the margin over time. What we tend to see actually is that production and investment levels...]]>574alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1207fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-election-a-game-of-inches--75651101----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent developments in the US election.It's Wednesday, September 4th at 10:30am in New York. While news headlines might make it seem a lot has changed in recent weeks around the US election, in our view not much has changed at all. And that’s important for investors to understand as they navigate markets between now and Election Day on November 5th. Let me explain. In recent weeks, we've had the Democratic convention, fresh polls, and a third party candidate withdraw from the race and endorse former President Trump. But all appear to reflect only marginal impacts on the probabilities of different electoral outcomes. Take the withdrawal of independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Junior, which does not appear to be a game changer. Historical precedent is that third party candidates rarely have a path to even winning one state's electoral votes. Further, in polls voters tend to overstate their willingness to support third parties ahead of election day. And it's also not clear that Kennedy withdrawing clearly benefits Democrats or Republicans.  Kennedy originally ran for President as a Democrat, and so was thought to be pulling from likely Democratic voters. However, polls suggest his supporter’s next most likely choice was nearly split between Trump and Harris.  So while it’s possible that Kennedy’s decision to endorse Trump upon dropping out could be meaningful, given how close the race is, we’re unlikely to be able to observe that potentially marginal but meaningful effect until after the election has passed. And such effects could easily be offset by small shifts favoring Democrats, who are showing some polling resiliency in states where just a couple months ago the election was not assumed by experts to be close.  For example, Cook Political Report, a site providing non-partisan election analysis, shifted its assessment of the Presidential election outcome in North Carolina from “lean Republican” to a “toss-up.” Similarly, in recent weeks the site has shifted states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia into that same category from “lean Republican.” These shifts are mirrored in several other polls released last week showing a close race in the battleground states. So, for all the changes and developments in the last week, we think we’re left with a Presidential race that’s difficult to view as anything other than a tossup. To borrow a term from the world of sport – it’s a game of inches. Small improvements for either side can be decisive, but as observers we may not be able to see them ahead of time.  And so that brings us back to our guidance for investors navigating the run up to the election. Let the democratic process unfold and don’t make any major portfolio shifts until more is known about the outcome. That means the economic cycle will drive markets more than the election cycle in the next couple months. In our view, that favors bonds over stocks. Lower inflation enables easier monetary policy and lower interest rates, good for bond prices; but growth concerns should weigh on equities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LUkkGosEKEk1ver38zbd4UUw7nOnvF1hBiHQDVCqFWEWed, 04 Sep 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyDespite a flurry of election news, little may have changed for investors weighing the possible outcomes. Our Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, explains why this is the case as we move closer to Election Day. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent developments in the US election.It's Wednesday, September 4th at 10:30am in New York. While news headlines might make it seem a lot has changed in recent weeks around the US election, in our view not much has changed at all. And that’s important for investors to understand as they navigate markets between now and Election Day on November 5th. Let me explain. In recent weeks, we've had the Democratic convention, fresh polls, and a third party candidate withdraw from the race and endorse former President Trump. But all appear to reflect only marginal impacts on the probabilities of different electoral outcomes. Take the withdrawal of independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Junior, which does not appear to be a game changer. Historical precedent is that third party candidates rarely have a path to even winning one state's electoral votes. Further, in polls voters tend to overstate their willingness to support third parties ahead of election day. And it's also not clear that Kennedy withdrawing clearly benefits Democrats or Republicans.  Kennedy originally ran for President as a Democrat, and so was thought to be pulling from likely Democratic voters. However, polls suggest his supporter’s next most likely choice was nearly split between Trump and Harris.  So while it’s possible that Kennedy’s decision to endorse Trump upon dropping out could be meaningful, given how close the race is, we’re unlikely to be able to observe that potentially marginal but meaningful effect until after the election has passed. And such effects could easily be offset by small shifts favoring Democrats, who are showing some polling resiliency in states where just a couple months ago the election was not assumed by experts to be close.  For example, Cook Political Report, a site providing non-partisan election analysis, shifted its assessment of the Presidential election outcome in North Carolina from “lean Republican” to a “toss-up.” Similarly, in recent weeks the site has shifted states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia into that same category from “lean Republican.” These shifts are mirrored in several other polls released last week showing a close race in the battleground states. So, for all the changes and developments in the last week, we think we’re left with a Presidential race that’s difficult to view as anything other than a tossup. To borrow a term from the world of sport – it’s a game of inches. Small improvements for either side can be decisive, but as observers we may not be able to see them ahead of time.  And so that brings us back to our guidance for investors navigating the run up to the election. Let the democratic process unfold and don’t make any major portfolio shifts until more is known about the outcome. That means the economic cycle will drive markets more than the election cycle in the next couple months. In our view, that favors bonds over stocks. Lower inflation enables easier monetary policy and lower interest rates, good for bond prices; but growth concerns should weigh on equities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>211alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1204fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/wallets-wide-open-for-genai--75651137----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what private markets can tell us about the viability and investability of disruptive technologies. It’s Tuesday, the 3rd of September, at 2pm in London. For the past three years we have been tracking venture capital funding to help stay one step ahead of emerging technologies and the companies that are aiming to disrupt incumbent public leaders. Private growth equity markets are -- by their very definition – long-duration, and therefore highly susceptible to interest rate cycles. The easy-money bubble of 2021 and [20]22 saw venture funding reach nearly $1.2trillion dollars – more than the previous decade of funding combined. However, what goes up often comes down; and since their peak, venture growth equity capital deployment has fallen by over 60 percent, as interest rates have ratcheted ever higher beyond 5 percent. So as interest rates fall back towards 3.5 percent, which our economists expect to happen over the coming 12 months, we expect M&A and IPO exit bottlenecks to ease. And so too the capital deployment and fundraising environment to improve. However, the current funding market and its recovery over the coming months and years looks more imbalanced, in our view, than at any point since the Internet era. Having seen tens- and hundreds of billions of dollars poured into CleanTech and health innovations and battery start-ups when capital was free; that has all but turned to a trickle now. On the other end of the spectrum, AI start-ups are now receiving nearly half of all venture capital funding in 2024 year-to-date. Nowhere is that shift in investment priorities more pronounced than in the divergence between AI and crypto startups. Over the last decade, $79billion has been spent by venture capitalists trying to find the killer app in crypto – from NFTs to gaming; decentralized finance. As little as three years ago, start-ups building blockchain applications could depend on a near 1-for-1 correlation of funding for their projects with crypto prices. Now though, despite leading crypto prices only around 10 percent below their 2021 peak, funding for blockchain start-ups has fallen by 75 percent. Blockchain has a product-market-fit and a repeat-user problem. GenerativeAI, on the other hand, does not. Both consumer and enterprise adoption levels are high and rising. Generative AI has leap-frogged crypto in all user metrics we track and in a fraction of the time. And capital providers are responding accordingly. Investors have pivoted en-masse towards funding AI start-ups – and we see no reason why that would stop. The same effect is also happening in physical assets and in the publicly traded space. Our colleague Stephen Byrd, for example, has been advocating for some time that it makes increasing financial sense for crypto miners to repurpose their infrastructure into AI training facilities. Many of the publicly listed crypto miners are doing similar maths and coming to the same outcome. For now though, just as questions are being asked of the listed companies, and what the return on invested capital is for all this AI infrastructure spend; so too in private markets, one must ask the difficult question of whether this unprecedented concentration around finding and funding AI killer apps will be money well spent or simply a replay of recent crypto euphoria. It is still not clear where most value is likely to accrue to – across the 3000 odd GenerativeAI start-ups vying for funding. But history tells us the application layer should be the winner. For now though, from our work, we see three likely power-law candidates. The first is breakthroughs in semiconductors and data centre efficiency technologies. The second is in funding foundational model builders. And the third, specifically in that application layer, we think the greatest chance is in the healthcare application space. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.*****Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/c7AGy9quTjTl-a0XxJzJNxcYoqglvknM6m5mvXINIx8Tue, 03 Sep 2024 22:36:37 +0000gtyWhile venture capital is taking a more cautionary approach with crypto startups, the buzz around GenAI is only increasing. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what private markets can tell us about the viability and investability of disruptive technologies. It’s Tuesday, the 3rd of September, at 2pm in London. For the past three years we have been tracking venture capital funding to help stay one step ahead of emerging technologies and the companies that are aiming to disrupt incumbent public leaders. Private growth equity markets are -- by their very definition – long-duration, and therefore highly susceptible to interest rate cycles. The easy-money bubble of 2021 and [20]22 saw venture funding reach nearly $1.2trillion dollars – more than the previous decade of funding combined. However, what goes up often comes down; and since their peak, venture growth equity capital deployment has fallen by over 60 percent, as interest rates have ratcheted ever higher beyond 5 percent. So as interest rates fall back towards 3.5 percent, which our economists expect to happen over the coming 12 months, we expect M&A and IPO exit bottlenecks to ease. And so too the capital deployment and fundraising environment to improve. However, the current funding market and its recovery over the coming months and years looks more imbalanced, in our view, than at any point since the Internet era. Having seen tens- and hundreds of billions of dollars poured into CleanTech and health innovations and battery start-ups when capital was free; that has all but turned to a trickle now. On the other end of the spectrum, AI start-ups are now receiving nearly half of all venture capital funding in 2024 year-to-date. Nowhere is that shift in investment priorities more pronounced than in the divergence between AI and crypto startups. Over the last decade, $79billion has been spent by venture capitalists trying to find the killer app in crypto – from NFTs to gaming; decentralized finance. As little as three years ago, start-ups building blockchain applications could depend on a near 1-for-1 correlation of funding for their projects with crypto prices. Now though, despite leading crypto prices only around 10 percent below their 2021 peak, funding for blockchain start-ups has fallen by 75 percent. Blockchain has a product-market-fit and a repeat-user problem. GenerativeAI, on the other hand, does not. Both consumer and enterprise adoption levels are high and rising. Generative AI has leap-frogged crypto in all user metrics we track and in a fraction of the time. And capital providers are responding accordingly. Investors have pivoted en-masse towards funding AI start-ups – and we see no reason why that would stop. The same effect is also happening in physical assets and in the publicly traded space. Our colleague Stephen Byrd, for example, has been advocating for some time that it makes increasing financial sense for crypto miners to repurpose their infrastructure into AI training facilities. Many of the publicly listed crypto miners are doing similar maths and coming to the same outcome. For now though, just as questions are being asked of the listed companies, and what the return on invested capital is for all this AI infrastructure spend; so too in private markets, one must ask the difficult question of whether this unprecedented concentration around finding and funding AI killer apps will be money well spent or simply a replay of recent crypto euphoria. It is still not clear where most value is likely to accrue to – across the 3000 odd GenerativeAI start-ups vying for funding. But history tells us the application layer should be the winner. For now though, from our work, we see three likely power-law candidates. The first is breakthroughs in semiconductors and data centre...]]>287alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1203fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-health-care-for-longer-healthier-lives--75651143----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DqD02ags5IQTD3BJfPToOFt9vo4MLMv7BP4SkMy9LJIFri, 30 Aug 2024 22:26:25 +0000gtyOriginal Release Date August 8, 2024: Our Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of...]]>245alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1202fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-fed-behind-the-curve--75651131----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the Federal Reserve, whether its policy is behind the curve and what's next.It's Thursday, August 29th at 2pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And it's 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's always great to talk to you. But that's especially true right now. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in the markets debate over the last month; and I think investors have honestly really gone back and forth about whether interest rates are in line or out of line with the economy. And I was hoping to cover a few big questions about Fed policy that have been coming up with our clients and how you think the Fed thinks about them.And I think this timing is also great because the Federal Reserve has recently had a major policy conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming where you often see the Fed talking about some of its longer-term views and we can get your latest takeaways from that.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that sounds great, Andrew. Clearly these are some of the key topics in markets right now.Andrew Sheets: Perfect. So, let's dive right into it. I think one of the debates investors have been having -- one of the uncertainties -- is that the Fed has been describing the risk to their outlook as balanced between the risk to growth and risk to inflation. And yet, I think for investors, the view over the last month or two is these risks aren't balanced; that inflation seems well under control and is coming down rapidly. And yet growth looks kind of weak and might be more of a risk going forward.So why do you think the Fed has had this framing? And do you think this framing is still correct in the aftermath of Jackson Hole?Seth Carpenter: My personal view is that what we got out of Jackson hole was not a watershed moment. It was not a change in view. It was an evolution, a continuation in how the Fed's been thinking about things. But let me unpack a few things here.First, markets tend to look at recent data and try to look forward, try to look around the corner, try to extrapolate what's going on. You know as well as I do that just a couple weeks ago, everyone in markets was wondering are we already in recession or not -- and now that view has come back. The Fed, in contrast, tends to be a bit more inertial in their thinking. Their thoughts evolve more slowly, they wait to collect more data before they have a view. So, part of the difference in mindset between the Fed and markets is that difference in frequency with which updates are made.I'd say the other point that's critical here is the starting point. So, the two risks: risks to inflation, risks to growth. We remember the inflation data we're getting in Q1. That surprised us, surprised the market, and it surprised the Fed to the upside. And the question really did have to come into the Fed's mind -- have we hit a patch where inflation is just stubbornly sticky to the upside, and it's going to take a lot more cost to bring that inflation down. So those risks were clearly much bigger in the Fed’s mind than what was going on with growth.Because coming out of last year and for the first half of this year, not only would the Fed have said that the US economy is doing just fine; they would have said growth is actually too fast to be consistent with the long run, potential growth of the US economy. Or reaching their 2 per cent inflation target on a sustained basis. So, as we got through this year, inflation data got better and better and better, and that risk diminished.Now, as you pointed out, the risk on growth started to rise a little bit. We went from clearly growing too fast by some metrics to now some questions -- are we softened so much that we're now in the sweet spot? Or is there a risk that we're slowing too much and going into recession?But that's the sense in which there's balance. We went from far higher risks on inflation. Those have come down to, you know, much more nuanced risks on inflation and some rising risk from a really strong starting point on growth.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, that kind of leads to my second question that we've been getting from investors, which is, you know, some form of the following. Even if these risks between inflation and growth are balanced, isn't Fed policy very restrictive? The Fed funds rate is still relatively high, relative to where the Fed thinks the rate will average over the long run. How do you think the Fed thinks about the restrictiveness of current policy? And how does that relate to what you expect going forward?Seth Carpenter: So first, and we've heard this from some of the Fed speakers, there's a range of views on how restrictive policy is. But I think all of them would say policy is at least to some degree restrictive right now. Some thinking it's very restrictive. Some thinking only modestly.But when they talk about the restrictiveness of policy in the context of the balance of these risks, they're thinking about the risks -- not just where we are right now and where policy is right now; but given how they're thinking about the evolution of policy over the next year or two. And remember, they all think they're going to be cutting rates this year and all through next year.Then the question is, over that time horizon with policy easing, do we think the risks are still balanced? And I think that's the sense in which they're using the balance of risks. And so, they do think policy is restrictive.They would also say that if policy weren't restrictive, [there would] probably be higher risks to inflation because that's part of what's bringing inflation out of the system is the restrictive stance of policy. But as they ease policy over time, that is part of what is balancing the risks between the two.Andrew Sheets: And that actually leads nicely to the third question that we've been getting a lot of, which is again related to investor concerns -- that maybe policy is moving out of line with the economy. And that's some form of the following: that by even just staying on hold, by not doing anything, keeping the Fed funds rate constant, as inflation comes down, that rate becomes higher relative to inflation. The real policy rate rises. And so that represents more restrictive monetary policy at the very moment, when some of the growth data seems to be decelerating, which would seem to be suboptimal.So, do you think that's the Fed's intention? Do you think that's a fair framing of kind of the real policy rate and that it's getting more restrictive? And again, how do you think the Fed is thinking about those dynamics as they unfold?Seth Carpenter: I do think that's an important framing to think -- not just about the nominal level of interest rates; you know where the policy rate is itself, but that inflation adjusted rate. As you said, the real rate matters a lot. And inside the Fed as an institution there, that's basically how most of the people there think about it as well. And further, I would say that very framing you put out about -- as inflation falls, will policy become more restrictive if no adjustment is made? We've heard over the past couple of years, Federal Reserve policymakers make exactly that same framing.So, it's clearly a relevant question. It's clearly on point right now. My view though, as an economist, is that what's more important than realized inflation, what prices have done over the past 12 months. What really matters is inflation expectations, right? Because if what we're trying to think about is -- how are businesses thinking about their cost of capital relative to the revenues are going to get in the future; it's not about what policy, it's not about what inflation did in the past. It's what they expect in the future.And I have to say, from my perspective, inflation expectations have already fallen. So, all of this passive tightening that you're describing, it's already baked in. It's already part of why, in my view, you know, the economy is starting to slow down. So, it's a relevant question; but I'm personally less convinced that the fall in inflation we've seen over the past couple of months is really doing that much to tighten the stance of policy.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, you know, bringing this all together, both your answers to these questions that are at the forefront of investors' minds, what we heard at the Jackson Hole Policy Conference and what we've heard from the latest FOMC minutes -- what does Morgan Stanley Economics think the Fed's policy path going forward is going to be?Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So, you know, it's funny. I always have to separate in my brain what I think should happen with policy -- and that used to be my job. But now we're talking about what I think will happen with policy. And our view is the Fed's about to start cutting interest rates.The market believes that now. The Fed seems from their communication to believe that. We've got written down a path of 25 basis point reduction in the policy rate in September, in November, in December. So, a string of these going all the way through to the middle of next year to really ease the stance of policy, to get away from being extremely restrictive, to being at best only moderately restrictive -- to try to extend this cycle.I will say though, that if we're wrong, and if the economy is a bit slower than we think, a 50 basis point cut has to be possible.And so let me turn the tables on you, Andrew, because we're expecting that string of 25 basis point cuts, but the market is pricing in about 100 basis points of cuts this year with only three meetings l]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-OCd8UcaqKv_pbLpSPUytenq_bPgGKj__UaBz2J4VTUThu, 29 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyAs the US Federal Reserve mulls a forthcoming interest rate cut, our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Global Chief Economist discuss how it is balancing inflationary risks with risks to growth. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the Federal Reserve, whether its policy is behind the curve and what's next.It's Thursday, August 29th at 2pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And it's 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's always great to talk to you. But that's especially true right now. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in the markets debate over the last month; and I think investors have honestly really gone back and forth about whether interest rates are in line or out of line with the economy. And I was hoping to cover a few big questions about Fed policy that have been coming up with our clients and how you think the Fed thinks about them.And I think this timing is also great because the Federal Reserve has recently had a major policy conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming where you often see the Fed talking about some of its longer-term views and we can get your latest takeaways from that.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that sounds great, Andrew. Clearly these are some of the key topics in markets right now.Andrew Sheets: Perfect. So, let's dive right into it. I think one of the debates investors have been having -- one of the uncertainties -- is that the Fed has been describing the risk to their outlook as balanced between the risk to growth and risk to inflation. And yet, I think for investors, the view over the last month or two is these risks aren't balanced; that inflation seems well under control and is coming down rapidly. And yet growth looks kind of weak and might be more of a risk going forward.So why do you think the Fed has had this framing? And do you think this framing is still correct in the aftermath of Jackson Hole?Seth Carpenter: My personal view is that what we got out of Jackson hole was not a watershed moment. It was not a change in view. It was an evolution, a continuation in how the Fed's been thinking about things. But let me unpack a few things here.First, markets tend to look at recent data and try to look forward, try to look around the corner, try to extrapolate what's going on. You know as well as I do that just a couple weeks ago, everyone in markets was wondering are we already in recession or not -- and now that view has come back. The Fed, in contrast, tends to be a bit more inertial in their thinking. Their thoughts evolve more slowly, they wait to collect more data before they have a view. So, part of the difference in mindset between the Fed and markets is that difference in frequency with which updates are made.I'd say the other point that's critical here is the starting point. So, the two risks: risks to inflation, risks to growth. We remember the inflation data we're getting in Q1. That surprised us, surprised the market, and it surprised the Fed to the upside. And the question really did have to come into the Fed's mind -- have we hit a patch where inflation is just stubbornly sticky to the upside, and it's going to take a lot more cost to bring that inflation down. So those risks were clearly much bigger in the Fed’s mind than what was going on with growth.Because coming out of last year and for the first half of this year, not only would the Fed have said that the US economy is doing just fine; they would have said growth is actually too fast to be consistent with the long run, potential growth of the US economy. Or reaching their 2 per cent inflation target on a sustained basis. So, as we got through this year, inflation data got better and better and better, and that risk diminished.Now, as you pointed out, the risk on...]]>717alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1200fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/bumpy-road-back-for-us-housing-market--75650980----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I’m Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitize Products Research.Jim Egan: Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today Jay and I are here to talk about the US housing and mortgage markets.It's Wednesday, August 28th, at 10 am in New York.Now, Jay, mortgage rates declined pretty sharply in the beginning of August. And if I take a little bit of a step back here; while rates have been volatile, to say the least, we're about 50 basis points lower than we were at the beginning of July, 80 basis points lower than the 2024 peak in April, and 135 basis points below cycle peaks back in October of 2023.Big picture. Declining mortgage rates -- what does that mean for mortgages?Jay Bacow: It means that more people are going to have the ability to refinance given the rally in mortgage rates that you described. But we have to be careful when we think about how many more people. We track the percentage of homeowners that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for things like low level pricing adjustments. That number is still less than 10 percent of the outstanding homeowners. So broadly speaking, most people are not going to refinance.Now, however, because of the rally that we've seen from the highs, if we look at the percentage of borrowers that took out a mortgage between six and 24 months ago -- which is really where the peak refinance activity happens -- over 30 percent of those borrowers have incentive to refinance.So recent homeowners, if you took your mortgage out not that long ago, you should take a look. You might have an opportunity to refinance. But, for most of the universe of homeowners in America that have much lower mortgage rates, they're not going to be refinancing.Jim Egan: Okay, what about convexity hedging? That's a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in periods of quick and sizable rate moves. What is convexity hedging and should we be concerned?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, because the homeowner in America has the option to refinance their mortgage whenever they want, the investor that owns that security is effectively short that option to the homeowner. And so, as rates rally, the homeowner is more likely to refinance. And what that means is that the duration -- the average life of that mortgage is outstanding -- is going to shorten up. And so, what that means is that if the investor wants to have the same amount of duration, as rates rally, they're going to need to add duration -- which isn't necessarily a good thing because they're going to be buying duration at lower yields and higher prices. And often when rates rally a lot, you will get the explanation that this is happening because of mortgage convexity hedging.Now, convexity hedging will happen more into a rally. But because so much of the universe has mortgages that were taken out in 2020 and 2021, we think realistically the real convexity risks are likely 150 basis points or so lower in rates.But Jim, we have had this rally in rates. We do have lower mortgage rates than we saw over the summer. What does that mean for affordability?Jim Egan: So, affordability is improving. Let's put numbers around what we're talking about. Mortgage rates are at approximately 6.5 percent today at the peak in the fourth quarter of last year, they were closer to 8 percent.Now, over the past few years, we've gotten to use the word unprecedented in the housing market, what feels like an unprecedented number of times. Well, the improvement in affordability that we'd experience if mortgage rates were to hold at these current levels has only happened a handful of times over the past 35 to 40 years. This part of it is by no means unprecedented.Jay Bacow: Alright, now we talked about mortgage rates coming down and that means more refi[nance] activity. But what does the improvement in mortgage rates do to purchase activity?Jim Egan: So that's a question that's coming up a lot in our investor discussions recently. And to begin to answer that question, we looked at those past handful of episodes. In the past, existing home sales almost always climb in the subsequent year and the subsequent two years following an improvement in affordability at the scale that we're witnessing right now.Jay Bacow: So, there's precedent for this unprecedented experienceJim Egan: There is. But there are also a number of differences between our current predicament and these historical examples that I'd say warrant examination. The first is inventory. We simply have never had so few homes for sale as we do right now. Especially when we're looking at those other periods of affordability improvement.And on the affordability front itself, despite the improvement that we've seen, affordability remains significantly more challenged than almost every other historical episode of the past 40 years, with the exception of 1985. Both of these facts are apparent in the lock in effect that you and I have discussed several times on this podcast in the past.Jay Bacow: All right. So just like we think we are a 150 basis points away from convexity hedging being an issue, we're still pretty far away from rates unlocking significant inventory. What does that mean for home sales?Jim Egan: So, the US housing market has a supply problem, not a demand problem. I want to caveat that. Everything is related in the US housing market. For instance, high mortgage rates that put pressure on affordability -- but they've also contributed to this lock-in effect that has led to historically low inventory.This lack of supply has kept home prices climbing, despite high mortgage rates, which is keeping affordability under pressure. So, when we say that housing has a supply problem, we're not dismissing the demand side of the equation; just acknowledging that the binding constraint in the current environment is supply.Jay Bacow: Alright, so if supply is the binding constraint, then what does that mean for sales?Jim Egan: As rates come down, inventory has been increasing. When combined with improvements in affordability, this should catalyze increased sales volumes in the coming year. But the confluence of inputs in the housing market today render the current environment unique from anything that we've experienced over the past few decades.Sales volumes should climb, but the path is unlikely to be linear and the total increase should be limited to call it the mid-single digit percentage point of over the coming year.Jay Bacow: Alright, and now lastly, Jim, home prices continue to set an all time high but there's the absolute level of prices and the pace of home price appreciation. What do you think is going to happen?Jim Egan: We're on the record that this increased supply, even if it's only at the margins, and even if we're close to historic lows, should slow down the pace of home price appreciation. We've begun to see that year-over-year home price growth has come down from 6.5 percent to 5.9 percent over the past three months. We think it will continue to come down, finishing the year at +2 percent.Jay Bacow: Alright, Jim, thanks for those thoughts. And to our listeners, thank you for listening.If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VTz8Svj-fh0u_rDBlyVEQvtq5-Zw06L8dhy02nJ7OEUWed, 28 Aug 2024 22:03:22 +0000gtyWhile mortgage rates have come down, our Co-heads of Securitized Products Research say the US housing market still must solve its supply problem. ----- Transcript ----- Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized...----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I’m Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitize Products Research.Jim Egan: Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today Jay and I are here to talk about the US housing and mortgage markets.It's Wednesday, August 28th, at 10 am in New York.Now, Jay, mortgage rates declined pretty sharply in the beginning of August. And if I take a little bit of a step back here; while rates have been volatile, to say the least, we're about 50 basis points lower than we were at the beginning of July, 80 basis points lower than the 2024 peak in April, and 135 basis points below cycle peaks back in October of 2023.Big picture. Declining mortgage rates -- what does that mean for mortgages?Jay Bacow: It means that more people are going to have the ability to refinance given the rally in mortgage rates that you described. But we have to be careful when we think about how many more people. We track the percentage of homeowners that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for things like low level pricing adjustments. That number is still less than 10 percent of the outstanding homeowners. So broadly speaking, most people are not going to refinance.Now, however, because of the rally that we've seen from the highs, if we look at the percentage of borrowers that took out a mortgage between six and 24 months ago -- which is really where the peak refinance activity happens -- over 30 percent of those borrowers have incentive to refinance.So recent homeowners, if you took your mortgage out not that long ago, you should take a look. You might have an opportunity to refinance. But, for most of the universe of homeowners in America that have much lower mortgage rates, they're not going to be refinancing.Jim Egan: Okay, what about convexity hedging? That's a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in periods of quick and sizable rate moves. What is convexity hedging and should we be concerned?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, because the homeowner in America has the option to refinance their mortgage whenever they want, the investor that owns that security is effectively short that option to the homeowner. And so, as rates rally, the homeowner is more likely to refinance. And what that means is that the duration -- the average life of that mortgage is outstanding -- is going to shorten up. And so, what that means is that if the investor wants to have the same amount of duration, as rates rally, they're going to need to add duration -- which isn't necessarily a good thing because they're going to be buying duration at lower yields and higher prices. And often when rates rally a lot, you will get the explanation that this is happening because of mortgage convexity hedging.Now, convexity hedging will happen more into a rally. But because so much of the universe has mortgages that were taken out in 2020 and 2021, we think realistically the real convexity risks are likely 150 basis points or so lower in rates.But Jim, we have had this rally in rates. We do have lower mortgage rates than we saw over the summer. What does that mean for affordability?Jim Egan: So, affordability is improving. Let's put numbers around what we're talking about. Mortgage rates are at approximately 6.5 percent today at the peak in the fourth quarter of last year, they were closer to 8 percent.Now, over the past few years, we've gotten to use the word unprecedented in the housing market, what feels like an unprecedented number of times. Well, the improvement in affordability that we'd experience if mortgage rates were to hold at these current levels has only happened a handful of times over the past 35 to 40 years. This part of it is...]]>432alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1199fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/all-eyes-on-jobs-data--75651245----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the importance of economic data on asset prices in the near term.It's Tuesday, Aug 27th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. The stock rally off the August 5th lows has coincided with some better-than-expected economic data led by jobless claims and the ISM services purchasing manager survey. This price action supports the idea that risk assets should continue to trade with the high frequency growth data in the near term. Should the growth data continue to improve, the market can stay above the fair value range we had previously identified of 5,000-5,400 on the S&P 500. In my view, the true test for the market though will be the August jobs report on September 6th. A stronger than expected payroll number and lower unemployment rate will provide confidence to the market that growth risks have subsided for now. Another weak report that leads to a further rise in the unemployment rate would likely lead to growth concerns quickly resurfacing and another correction like last month. On a concerning note, last week we got a larger than expected negative revision to the payroll data for the 12 months ended in March of this year. These revisions put even more pressure on the jobs report to come in stronger. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index has yet to reverse its downturn that began in April and cyclical stocks versus defensive ones remain in a downtrend. We think this supports the idea that until there is more evidence that growth is actually improving, it makes sense to favor defensive sectors in one's portfolio. Finally, while inflation data came in softer last week, we don't view that as a clear positive for lower quality cyclical stocks as it means pricing power is falling. However, the good news on inflation did effectively confirm the Fed is going to begin cutting interest rates in September. At this point, the only debate is how much?Over the last year, market expectations around the Fed's rate path have been volatile. At the beginning of the year, there were seven 25 basis points cuts priced into the curve for 2024 which were then almost completely priced out of the market by April. Currently, we have close to four cuts priced into the curve for the rest of this year followed by another five in 2025. There has been quite a bit of movement in bond market pricing this month as to whether it will be a 25 or 50 basis points cut when the Fed begins. More recently, the rates market has sided with a 25 basis points cut post the better-than-expected growth and inflation data points last week.As we learned a couple of weeks ago, a 50 basis points cut may not be viewed favorably by the equity market if it comes alongside labor market weakness. Under such a scenario, cuts may no longer be viewed as insurance, but necessary to stave off hard landing risks. As a result, a series of 25 basis points cuts from here may be the sweet spot for equity multiples if it comes alongside stable growth.The challenge is that at 21x earnings and consensus already expecting 10 percent earnings growth this year and 15 percent growth next year, a soft-landing outcome with very healthy earnings growth is priced. Furthermore, longer term rates have already been coming down since April in anticipation of this cutting cycle. Yet economic surprises have fallen and interest rate sensitive cyclical equities have underperformed. In my view this calls into question if rate cuts will change anything fundamentally.The other side of the coin is that defensive equities remain in an uptrend on a relative basis, a dynamic that has coincided with normalization in the equity risk premium. In our view, we continue to see more opportunities under the surface of the market. As such, we continue to favor quality and defensive equities until we get more evidence that growth is clearly reaccelerating in a way that earnings forecasts can once again rise and surpass the lofty expectations already priced into valuations.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YZ_EtDQetHCmKP6HwtF0c6T2kNkilQfBMMVU18I1AGYTue, 27 Aug 2024 21:06:55 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains why there’s pressure for the August jobs report to come in strong -- and what may happen to the market if it doesn’t.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the importance of economic data on asset prices in the near term.It's Tuesday, Aug 27th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. The stock rally off the August 5th lows has coincided with some better-than-expected economic data led by jobless claims and the ISM services purchasing manager survey. This price action supports the idea that risk assets should continue to trade with the high frequency growth data in the near term. Should the growth data continue to improve, the market can stay above the fair value range we had previously identified of 5,000-5,400 on the S&P 500. In my view, the true test for the market though will be the August jobs report on September 6th. A stronger than expected payroll number and lower unemployment rate will provide confidence to the market that growth risks have subsided for now. Another weak report that leads to a further rise in the unemployment rate would likely lead to growth concerns quickly resurfacing and another correction like last month. On a concerning note, last week we got a larger than expected negative revision to the payroll data for the 12 months ended in March of this year. These revisions put even more pressure on the jobs report to come in stronger. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index has yet to reverse its downturn that began in April and cyclical stocks versus defensive ones remain in a downtrend. We think this supports the idea that until there is more evidence that growth is actually improving, it makes sense to favor defensive sectors in one's portfolio. Finally, while inflation data came in softer last week, we don't view that as a clear positive for lower quality cyclical stocks as it means pricing power is falling. However, the good news on inflation did effectively confirm the Fed is going to begin cutting interest rates in September. At this point, the only debate is how much?Over the last year, market expectations around the Fed's rate path have been volatile. At the beginning of the year, there were seven 25 basis points cuts priced into the curve for 2024 which were then almost completely priced out of the market by April. Currently, we have close to four cuts priced into the curve for the rest of this year followed by another five in 2025. There has been quite a bit of movement in bond market pricing this month as to whether it will be a 25 or 50 basis points cut when the Fed begins. More recently, the rates market has sided with a 25 basis points cut post the better-than-expected growth and inflation data points last week.As we learned a couple of weeks ago, a 50 basis points cut may not be viewed favorably by the equity market if it comes alongside labor market weakness. Under such a scenario, cuts may no longer be viewed as insurance, but necessary to stave off hard landing risks. As a result, a series of 25 basis points cuts from here may be the sweet spot for equity multiples if it comes alongside stable growth.The challenge is that at 21x earnings and consensus already expecting 10 percent earnings growth this year and 15 percent growth next year, a soft-landing outcome with very healthy earnings growth is priced. Furthermore, longer term rates have already been coming down since April in anticipation of this cutting cycle. Yet economic surprises have fallen and interest rate sensitive cyclical equities have underperformed. In my view this calls into question if rate cuts will change anything fundamentally.The other side of the coin is that defensive equities remain in an uptrend on a relative basis, a dynamic that has coincided with...]]>263alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1198fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-boosting-consumer-confidence--75650991----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's US thematic strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on how recent market volatility and the upcoming US election are affecting the US consumer.It's Monday, August 26th at 10am in New York.A few weeks ago, we saw really sharp volatility. It was partially sparked by the unwind of the yen carry trade. But there are also renewed fears about a growth slowdown for the US or a possible US recession. Our economists do not think we are going into a recession though, and they have reaffirmed their longstanding view of a soft landing for the economy as a base case. And they think there's a slowdown, but not a slump.From the more company side, this earning season showed that the US consumer is softening incrementally; but they're not falling off a cliff. Spending is slowing this year, but it's on the heels of what was really high spending over the last couple of years.We did see some softness during second quarter results around the consumer. Consumer confidence is still intact, and our most recent survey in July showed a pretty strong improvement in sentiment. We think that this is partially a function of the political environment. We ran the survey from July 25th to 29th, shortly after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. And we saw the biggest improvement in sentiment was for those who consider themselves middle of the road politically.Their net sentiment toward the economy improved from negative -23 percent to -1 percent. Net expectations are also really positive for those who identify as liberal. Net sentiment for very liberal respondents is +34 percent, while it's +20 percent for more somewhat liberal ones. Expectations for conservatives are still negative though, but they have improved since the prior wave of our survey.So, we do think that some of this increase in excitement and increase in confidence has been around the renewed political environment, renewed interest in the race.As we get close to the end of summer, we note two other key trends. Back to school shopping and travel. So, for back-to-school shopping, we're seeing pretty positive results from our survey. Consumers are reporting they're planning to spend more this back-to-school season versus last year. We saw an increase of 35 percent in spending intentions. And then when we think about the different back to school categories people are spending on, apparel saw the biggest net increase in spending plans versus last year. But we also saw an increase for school supplies and electronics. So, all things very important as the kids go back to school or people go off to college.Travel's been one part of the market that's held up super well post pandemic. People were very excited to get out there and go on vacations. And we saw, frankly, an unexpected positive level of demand for the past few years, and we didn't see that faster catch up in demand that a lot of people were expecting post pandemic. I know myself; I've been very excited to travel the last few summers. But this earning season we're starting to see more of a mixed bag within the travel space.Hotels across the board flag softening demand for leisure stays, but business travel has held up well. We saw a different story among the airlines though; several management teams were really emphasizing continued strong demands for air travel. And our survey is supportive of these comments and show that travel intentions remain stable and strong, and plans to follow through on travel that involve a flight also remain robust.The next three months leading up to the US election will certainly be interesting though, and we'll continue to bring you updates.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1gDweLolVxPy7AGPulcGzcH9PzlcftrG_ISLUgxm1RkMon, 26 Aug 2024 21:28:08 +0000gtyOur US Thematic Strategist discusses surging confidence as the political landscape evolves, back-to-school spending starts strong and travel providers enjoy post-COVID demand.  ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's US thematic strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on how recent market volatility and the upcoming US election are affecting the US consumer.It's Monday, August 26th at 10am in New York.A few weeks ago, we saw really sharp volatility. It was partially sparked by the unwind of the yen carry trade. But there are also renewed fears about a growth slowdown for the US or a possible US recession. Our economists do not think we are going into a recession though, and they have reaffirmed their longstanding view of a soft landing for the economy as a base case. And they think there's a slowdown, but not a slump.From the more company side, this earning season showed that the US consumer is softening incrementally; but they're not falling off a cliff. Spending is slowing this year, but it's on the heels of what was really high spending over the last couple of years.We did see some softness during second quarter results around the consumer. Consumer confidence is still intact, and our most recent survey in July showed a pretty strong improvement in sentiment. We think that this is partially a function of the political environment. We ran the survey from July 25th to 29th, shortly after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. And we saw the biggest improvement in sentiment was for those who consider themselves middle of the road politically.Their net sentiment toward the economy improved from negative -23 percent to -1 percent. Net expectations are also really positive for those who identify as liberal. Net sentiment for very liberal respondents is +34 percent, while it's +20 percent for more somewhat liberal ones. Expectations for conservatives are still negative though, but they have improved since the prior wave of our survey.So, we do think that some of this increase in excitement and increase in confidence has been around the renewed political environment, renewed interest in the race.As we get close to the end of summer, we note two other key trends. Back to school shopping and travel. So, for back-to-school shopping, we're seeing pretty positive results from our survey. Consumers are reporting they're planning to spend more this back-to-school season versus last year. We saw an increase of 35 percent in spending intentions. And then when we think about the different back to school categories people are spending on, apparel saw the biggest net increase in spending plans versus last year. But we also saw an increase for school supplies and electronics. So, all things very important as the kids go back to school or people go off to college.Travel's been one part of the market that's held up super well post pandemic. People were very excited to get out there and go on vacations. And we saw, frankly, an unexpected positive level of demand for the past few years, and we didn't see that faster catch up in demand that a lot of people were expecting post pandemic. I know myself; I've been very excited to travel the last few summers. But this earning season we're starting to see more of a mixed bag within the travel space.Hotels across the board flag softening demand for leisure stays, but business travel has held up well. We saw a different story among the airlines though; several management teams were really emphasizing continued strong demands for air travel. And our survey is supportive of these comments and show that travel intentions remain stable and strong, and plans to follow through on travel that involve a flight also remain robust.The next three months leading up to the US election will certainly be interesting though,...]]>243alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1197fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/market-rebounds-but-growth-is-uncertain--75651165----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we’ll discuss the big round trip for markets and why we’re not out of the woods.It's Friday, August 23rd at 2pm in London.The last few weeks have been a rollercoaster. July ended on a high with markets rallying as the Federal Reserve kept interest rates unchanged. Things turned almost immediately thereafter as weak data releases fanned fears that maybe the Fed was being just a little too nonchalant on the economy, making its patience withholding rates high look like a vice, rather than a virtue. A late summer period where many investors were out probably amplified the moves that followed. And so at the morning lows on August 5th, the S&P 500 had fallen more than 8 percent in just 3 trading days, and expected volatility had jumped to one of its highest readings in a decade. But since those volatile lows, markets have come back. Really come back. Stock prices, credit spreads, and those levels of expected volatility are all now more or less where they ended July. It was an almost complete round-trip. We have a colleague who got back from a two-week vacation on Monday. The prices on their screen had barely changed. The reason for that snapback was the data. Just as weak data in the aftermath of the Fed’s meeting drove fears of a policy mistake, better data in the days since have improved confidence. This has been especially true for data related to the US consumer, as both retail sales and the number of new jobless claims have been better than expected. This round-trip in markets has been welcome, especially for those, like ourselves, who are optimistic on credit, and see it well-positioned for the economic soft-landing that Morgan Stanley expects. But it is also a reminder that we’re not out of the woods. The last few weeks couldn’t be clearer about the importance of growth for the market outlook. This is a crucial moment for the economy, where U.S. growth is slowing, the Fed’s rates are still highly restrictive, and any help from cutting those rates may not be felt for several quarters. At Morgan Stanley we think that growth won’t slow too much, and so this will ultimately be fine for the credit market. But incoming data will remain important, and recent events show that the market’s confidence can be quickly shaken. Even with the sharp snapback, for example, cyclical stocks, which tend to be more economically sensitive, have badly lagged more defensive shares – a sign that healthy skepticism around growth from investors still remains. The quick recovery is welcome, but we’re not out of the woods, and investors should continue to hope for solid data. Good is good. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8J2hAfHcqr-Ik46RcOWWs1_Kt9w7dMJ7v3Q5Cjij9a4Fri, 23 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyAlthough markets have recovered over the last few weeks after a sudden drop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research warns that investors are still skeptical about the growth outlook. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we’ll discuss the big round trip for markets and why we’re not out of the woods.It's Friday, August 23rd at 2pm in London.The last few weeks have been a rollercoaster. July ended on a high with markets rallying as the Federal Reserve kept interest rates unchanged. Things turned almost immediately thereafter as weak data releases fanned fears that maybe the Fed was being just a little too nonchalant on the economy, making its patience withholding rates high look like a vice, rather than a virtue. A late summer period where many investors were out probably amplified the moves that followed. And so at the morning lows on August 5th, the S&P 500 had fallen more than 8 percent in just 3 trading days, and expected volatility had jumped to one of its highest readings in a decade. But since those volatile lows, markets have come back. Really come back. Stock prices, credit spreads, and those levels of expected volatility are all now more or less where they ended July. It was an almost complete round-trip. We have a colleague who got back from a two-week vacation on Monday. The prices on their screen had barely changed. The reason for that snapback was the data. Just as weak data in the aftermath of the Fed’s meeting drove fears of a policy mistake, better data in the days since have improved confidence. This has been especially true for data related to the US consumer, as both retail sales and the number of new jobless claims have been better than expected. This round-trip in markets has been welcome, especially for those, like ourselves, who are optimistic on credit, and see it well-positioned for the economic soft-landing that Morgan Stanley expects. But it is also a reminder that we’re not out of the woods. The last few weeks couldn’t be clearer about the importance of growth for the market outlook. This is a crucial moment for the economy, where U.S. growth is slowing, the Fed’s rates are still highly restrictive, and any help from cutting those rates may not be felt for several quarters. At Morgan Stanley we think that growth won’t slow too much, and so this will ultimately be fine for the credit market. But incoming data will remain important, and recent events show that the market’s confidence can be quickly shaken. Even with the sharp snapback, for example, cyclical stocks, which tend to be more economically sensitive, have badly lagged more defensive shares – a sign that healthy skepticism around growth from investors still remains. The quick recovery is welcome, but we’re not out of the woods, and investors should continue to hope for solid data. Good is good. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>198alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1196fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-next-for-japan-after-rate-hike--75651312----- Transcript -----
Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, from the Asia Pacific and Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team.Chetan Ahya: On this episode of the podcast, we will cover a topic that has been a big concern for global investors: Japan's rate hike and its effect on markets.It's Thursday, August 22nd at 6pm in Hong Kong.On July 31st, Japan's central bank made a bold move. For only the second time in 17 years, it raised interest rates. It lifted its benchmark rates to around 0.25 percent from its previous range of 0 to 0.1 percent. And at the press conference, BOJ Governor Ueda struck a more hawkish tone on the BOJ rate path than markets anticipated. Compounded with investors concern about US growth, this move jolted global equity markets and bond markets. The Japan equity market entered the quickest bear market in history. It lost 20 percent over three days.Well, a lot has happened since early August. So, I'm here with Daniel to give you an update.Daniel Blake: Chetan, before I can give you an update on what the market implications are of all this, let's make sense of what the macro-outlook is for Japan and what the Bank of Japan is really looking to achieve.I know that following that July monetary policy meeting, we heard from Deputy Governor Uchida san, who said that the bank would not raise its policy rates while financial and capital markets remain unstable.What is your view on the Bank of Japan policy outlook and the key macro-outlook for Japan more broadly?Chetan Ahya: Well, firstly, I think the governor's comments in the July policy meeting were more hawkish than expected and after the market's volatility, deputy governor did come out and explain the BOJ's thought process more clearly. The most important point explained there was that they will not hike policy rates in an environment where markets are volatile -- and that has given the comfort to market that BOJ will not be taking up successive rate hikes in an early manner.But ultimately when you're thinking about the outlook of BOJ's policy path, it will be determined by what happens to underlying wage growth and inflation trend. And on that front, wage growth has been accelerating. And we also think that inflation will be remaining at a moderate level and that will keep BOJ on the rate hike path, but those rate hikes will be taken up in a measured manner.In our base case, we are expecting the BOJ to hike by 25 basis points in January policy meeting next year, with a risk that they could possibly hike early in December of this year.Daniel Blake: And after an extended period of weakness, the Japanese yen appreciated sharply after the remarks. What drove this and what are the macro repercussions for the broader outlook?Chetan Ahya: We think that the US growth scare from the weaker July nonfarm payroll data, alongside a hawkish BOJ Governor Ueda's comments, led markets to begin pricing in more policy rate convergence between the US and Japan. This resulted in unwinding of the yen carry trade and a rapid appreciation of yen against the dollar.For now, our strategists believe that the near-term risk of further yen carry trade unwinding has lessened. We will closely watch the incoming US growth and labor market data for signs of the US slowdown and its impact on the yen. In the base case, our US Economics team continues to see a soft landing in the US and for the Fed to cut rates by three times this year from September, reaching a terminal of 3.625 by June 2025.Based on our US and BOJ rate path, our macro strategists see USD/JPY at 146 by year end. As it stands, our Japan inflation forecast already incorporates these yen forecasts, but if yen does appreciate beyond these levels on a sustainable basis, this would impart some further downside to our inflation forecast.Daniel Blake: And there's another key event to consider. Prime Minister Kishida san announced on August 14th that he will not seek re-election as President of The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in late September, and hence will have a new leader of Japan. Will this development have any impact on economic policy or the markets in your view?Chetan Ahya: The number of potential candidates means it's too early to tell. We think a major reversal in macro policies will be unlikely, though the timing of elections will likely have a bearing on BOJ.For example, after the September party leadership election, the new premier could then call for an early election in October; and in this scenario, we think likelihood of a BOJ move at its September and October policy meeting would be further diminished.So, Daniel, keeping in mind the macro backdrop that we just discussed, how are you interpreting the recent equity market volatility? And what do you expect for the rest of 2024 and into 2025?Daniel Blake: We do see that volatility in Japan, as extreme as it was, being primarily technically driven. It does reflect some crowding of various investor types into pockets of the equity market and levered strategies, as we see come through with high frequency trading, as well as carry trades that were exacerbated by dollar yen positions being unwound very quickly.But with the market resetting, and as we look into the rest of 2024 and 2025, we see the two key engines of nominal GDP reflation in Japan and corporate reform still firing. As you lay out, the BOJ is trying to find its way back towards neutral; it's not trying to end the cycle. And corporate governance is driving better capital allocation from the corporate sector.As a result, we see almost 10 percent earnings growth this year and next year, and the market stands cheap versus its historical valuation ranges.So, as we look ahead, we think into 2025, we should see the Japanese equity benchmark, the TOPIX index, setting fresh all-time highs. As a result, we continue to prefer Japan equities versus emerging markets. And we recommend that US dollar-based investors leave their foreign exchange exposure unhedged, which will position them to benefit from further strengthening in the Japanese yen.Chetan Ahya: So, which parts of the market look most attractive following the BOJ's rate hike and market disruptions to you?Daniel Blake: Yes, we do prefer domestic exposures relative to exporters. They'll be better protected from any further strengthening in the Japanese yen, and we also see a broad-based corporate governance reform agenda supporting shareholder returns coming out of these domestic sectors. They'll benefit from that stronger, price and wage outlook with an improved margin outlook.And we also see that capex beneficiaries with a corporate reform angle are likely to do well in this overall agenda of pursuing greater economic security and digitalization. So that includes key sectors like defense, real estate, and construction.And Chetan, what would you say are the key risks to your view?Chetan Ahya: We think the key risk would be if the US faces a deeper slowdown or an outright recession. While Japan is better placed today than in the past cycles, it would nonetheless be a setback for Japan's economy. In this scenario, Japan’s export growth would face downward pressures given weakening external demand.The Japanese corporate sector has also around 17 percent of its revenue coming from North America. Besides a deeper Fed rate cut cycle, will mean that the policy rate differentials between the US and Japan will narrow significantly. This will pose further appreciation pressures on the yen, which will weigh on inflation, corporate profits, and the growth outlook.And from your perspective, Daniel, what should investors watch closely?Daniel Blake: We would agree that the first order risk for Japan equities is if the US slips into a hard landing, and we do see that the dollar yen in that outlook is likely to fall even further. Now we shouldn't see any FX (foreign exchange) driven downgrades until we start bringing the yen down below 140, but we would also see the operating environment turning negative for Japan in that outlook.So, putting that aside, given our house view of the soft landing in the US economy, we think the second thing investors should watch is certainly the LDP leadership election contest, and the reform agenda of the incoming cabinet.Prime Minister Kishida san's tenure has been focused on economic security and has fostered further corporate governance reform alongside the Japan Stock Exchange. And this emphasis on getting household savings into investment has been another key pillar of the new capitalism strategy. So, these focus areas have been very positive for Japan equities, and we should trust -- but verify -- the commitment of a new leadership team to these policy initiatives.Chetan Ahya: Daniel, it was great to hear your perspective. This is an evolving story. We'll keep our eye on it. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Daniel Blake: Great speaking with you, Chetan.Chetan Ahya: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TeIXDtV3qHPS-16FpBqvh066nDq16wZhabnLMKSYpGYThu, 22 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyThe Bank of Japan jolted global markets after its recent decision to raise interest rates. Our experts break down the effects the move could have on the country’s economy, currency and stock market. ----- Transcript ----- Chetan Ahya: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, from the Asia Pacific and Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team.Chetan Ahya: On this episode of the podcast, we will cover a topic that has been a big concern for global investors: Japan's rate hike and its effect on markets.It's Thursday, August 22nd at 6pm in Hong Kong.On July 31st, Japan's central bank made a bold move. For only the second time in 17 years, it raised interest rates. It lifted its benchmark rates to around 0.25 percent from its previous range of 0 to 0.1 percent. And at the press conference, BOJ Governor Ueda struck a more hawkish tone on the BOJ rate path than markets anticipated. Compounded with investors concern about US growth, this move jolted global equity markets and bond markets. The Japan equity market entered the quickest bear market in history. It lost 20 percent over three days.Well, a lot has happened since early August. So, I'm here with Daniel to give you an update.Daniel Blake: Chetan, before I can give you an update on what the market implications are of all this, let's make sense of what the macro-outlook is for Japan and what the Bank of Japan is really looking to achieve.I know that following that July monetary policy meeting, we heard from Deputy Governor Uchida san, who said that the bank would not raise its policy rates while financial and capital markets remain unstable.What is your view on the Bank of Japan policy outlook and the key macro-outlook for Japan more broadly?Chetan Ahya: Well, firstly, I think the governor's comments in the July policy meeting were more hawkish than expected and after the market's volatility, deputy governor did come out and explain the BOJ's thought process more clearly. The most important point explained there was that they will not hike policy rates in an environment where markets are volatile -- and that has given the comfort to market that BOJ will not be taking up successive rate hikes in an early manner.But ultimately when you're thinking about the outlook of BOJ's policy path, it will be determined by what happens to underlying wage growth and inflation trend. And on that front, wage growth has been accelerating. And we also think that inflation will be remaining at a moderate level and that will keep BOJ on the rate hike path, but those rate hikes will be taken up in a measured manner.In our base case, we are expecting the BOJ to hike by 25 basis points in January policy meeting next year, with a risk that they could possibly hike early in December of this year.Daniel Blake: And after an extended period of weakness, the Japanese yen appreciated sharply after the remarks. What drove this and what are the macro repercussions for the broader outlook?Chetan Ahya: We think that the US growth scare from the weaker July nonfarm payroll data, alongside a hawkish BOJ Governor Ueda's comments, led markets to begin pricing in more policy rate convergence between the US and Japan. This resulted in unwinding of the yen carry trade and a rapid appreciation of yen against the dollar.For now, our strategists believe that the near-term risk of further yen carry trade unwinding has lessened. We will closely watch the incoming US growth and labor market data for signs of the US slowdown and its impact on the yen. In the base case, our US Economics team continues to see a soft landing in the US and for the Fed to cut rates by three times this year from September, reaching a terminal of 3.625 by June 2025.Based on our US and BOJ rate path, our macro strategists see USD/JPY at 146 by year end. As it stands, our Japan inflation forecast already incorporates these yen forecasts, but if yen does...]]>554alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1195fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/at-political-conventions-policy-waits-in-the-wings--75651287----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what investors need to know about U.S. political party conventions.It's Wednesday, Aug 21st at 10:30am in New York. This week, the Democratic Party is meeting in Chicago for its National Convention. Conventions for major political parties typically feature speeches from key policymakers, both past and present. So it would seem to be a forum where someone could learn what policies the party plans to implement if it takes control of the government following the November election. But you should expect more political messaging than policy signal.That’s because the focus of these conventions tends to be more about persuading voters – and that means key policy details typically take a back seat to statements of political values widely shared by the party in order to send a consistent public message. In that sense, an observer may not learn much new about where there’s party consensus on key policy details that markets care about, including specific new taxes that might be implemented, which tax breaks might be extended, how these choices might affect the deficit, and more. That in turn means we may not learn much about what policies could plausibly be implemented if Democrats win the White House and Congress in the November election. The good news is that we don’t think a convention is required to have a good sense about this. We’ve previously done the work on the plausible policy path resulting from a Democratic victory by examining statements of elected officials and filtering for areas of consensus among Democratic lawmakers. And we’ve also looked at expected legislative catalysts in 2025 and 2026, such as the expiry of key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In short, we think the plausible policy path resulting from Democrats sweeping the election would mean relative stability on trade and energy policy; and some deficit expansion driven by tax cut extensions only partially offset by new taxes on corporations and high income earners. Net-net, our economists think this outcome would create less uncertainty for the U.S. growth outlook than a Republican sweep, where potential for substantial new tariffs would interact with greater tax cut extensions and deficit expansion. And while we don’t expect the convention will challenge our thinking here, we’ll of course be tracking it and report back if it does. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/W2WWCgAcFopBbb2y7UWTUHXrQECz6GdMp1VuRV3X9K4Wed, 21 Aug 2024 21:33:12 +0000gtyThis week’s Democratic National Convention in the US may be light on policy details, but our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains that the party’s economic agenda is fairly clear as the elections draw closer. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what investors need to know about U.S. political party conventions.It's Wednesday, Aug 21st at 10:30am in New York. This week, the Democratic Party is meeting in Chicago for its National Convention. Conventions for major political parties typically feature speeches from key policymakers, both past and present. So it would seem to be a forum where someone could learn what policies the party plans to implement if it takes control of the government following the November election. But you should expect more political messaging than policy signal.That’s because the focus of these conventions tends to be more about persuading voters – and that means key policy details typically take a back seat to statements of political values widely shared by the party in order to send a consistent public message. In that sense, an observer may not learn much new about where there’s party consensus on key policy details that markets care about, including specific new taxes that might be implemented, which tax breaks might be extended, how these choices might affect the deficit, and more. That in turn means we may not learn much about what policies could plausibly be implemented if Democrats win the White House and Congress in the November election. The good news is that we don’t think a convention is required to have a good sense about this. We’ve previously done the work on the plausible policy path resulting from a Democratic victory by examining statements of elected officials and filtering for areas of consensus among Democratic lawmakers. And we’ve also looked at expected legislative catalysts in 2025 and 2026, such as the expiry of key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In short, we think the plausible policy path resulting from Democrats sweeping the election would mean relative stability on trade and energy policy; and some deficit expansion driven by tax cut extensions only partially offset by new taxes on corporations and high income earners. Net-net, our economists think this outcome would create less uncertainty for the U.S. growth outlook than a Republican sweep, where potential for substantial new tariffs would interact with greater tax cut extensions and deficit expansion. And while we don’t expect the convention will challenge our thinking here, we’ll of course be tracking it and report back if it does. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>171alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1194fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-almost-human-robots-in-our-near-future--75651219----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility. Today I’ll be talking about an unusual but hotly debated topic: humanoid robots. It’s Tuesday, July 23rd, at 10am in New York.We've seen robots on factory floors, in displays at airports and at trade shows – doing work, performing tasks, even smiling. But over the last eighteen months, we seem to have hit a major inflection point. What's changed? Large Language Models and Generative AI. The current AI movement is drawing comparisons to the dawn of the Internet. It’s begging big, existential questions about the future of the human species and consciousness itself. But let’s look at this in more practical terms and consider why robots are taking on a human shape. The simplest answer is that we live in a world built for humans. And we’re getting to the point where – thanks to GenAI – robots are learning through observation. Not just through rudimentary instruction and rules based heuristic models. GenAI means robots can observe humans in action doing boring, dangerous and repetitive tasks in warehouses, in restaurants or in factories. And in order for these robots to learn and function most effectively, their design needs to be anthropomorphic. Another reason we're bullish on humanoid robots is because developers can have these robots experiment and learn from both simulation and physically in areas where they’re not a serious threat to other humans. You see, many of the enabling technologies driving humanoid robots have come from developments in autonomous cars. The problem with autonomous cars is that you can't train them on public roads without directly involving innocent civilians – pedestrians, children and cyclists -- into that experiment. Add to all of this the issue of critical labor shortages and challenging demographic trends. The global labor total addressable market is around $30 trillion (USD) or about one-third of global GDP. We’ve built a proprietary US total addressable market model examining labor dynamics and humanoid optionality across 831 job classifications, working with our economics team; and built a comprehensive survey across 40 sectors to understand labor intensity and humanoid ability of the workforce over time. 
In the United States, we forecast 40,000 humanoid units by 2030, 8 million by 2040 and 63 million by 2050 – equivalent to around $3 trillion (USD) of salary equivalent. But as early as 2028 we think you're going to see significant adoption beginning in industries like manufacturing, production, warehousing, and logistics, installation, healthcare and food prep. Then in the 2030s, you’re going to start adding more in healthcare, recreational and transportation. And then after 2040, you may see the adoption of humanoid robots go vertical. Now you might say –  that’s 15 years from now. But just like autonomous car – the end state might be 20 years away, but the capital formation is happening right now. And investors should pay close attention because we think the technological advances will only accelerate from here. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/f-zJdTbQA6dXSrvIfswYPbBaVsvYeOKxc0qn9yq7zxcTue, 20 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal release date July 23, 2024: Our Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility discusses what makes humanoid robots a pivotal trend with implications for the global economy. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility. Today I’ll be talking about an unusual but hotly debated topic: humanoid robots. It’s Tuesday, July 23rd, at 10am in New York.We've seen robots on factory floors, in displays at airports and at trade shows – doing work, performing tasks, even smiling. But over the last eighteen months, we seem to have hit a major inflection point. What's changed? Large Language Models and Generative AI. The current AI movement is drawing comparisons to the dawn of the Internet. It’s begging big, existential questions about the future of the human species and consciousness itself. But let’s look at this in more practical terms and consider why robots are taking on a human shape. The simplest answer is that we live in a world built for humans. And we’re getting to the point where – thanks to GenAI – robots are learning through observation. Not just through rudimentary instruction and rules based heuristic models. GenAI means robots can observe humans in action doing boring, dangerous and repetitive tasks in warehouses, in restaurants or in factories. And in order for these robots to learn and function most effectively, their design needs to be anthropomorphic. Another reason we're bullish on humanoid robots is because developers can have these robots experiment and learn from both simulation and physically in areas where they’re not a serious threat to other humans. You see, many of the enabling technologies driving humanoid robots have come from developments in autonomous cars. The problem with autonomous cars is that you can't train them on public roads without directly involving innocent civilians – pedestrians, children and cyclists -- into that experiment. Add to all of this the issue of critical labor shortages and challenging demographic trends. The global labor total addressable market is around $30 trillion (USD) or about one-third of global GDP. We’ve built a proprietary US total addressable market model examining labor dynamics and humanoid optionality across 831 job classifications, working with our economics team; and built a comprehensive survey across 40 sectors to understand labor intensity and humanoid ability of the workforce over time. 
In the United States, we forecast 40,000 humanoid units by 2030, 8 million by 2040 and 63 million by 2050 – equivalent to around $3 trillion (USD) of salary equivalent. But as early as 2028 we think you're going to see significant adoption beginning in industries like manufacturing, production, warehousing, and logistics, installation, healthcare and food prep. Then in the 2030s, you’re going to start adding more in healthcare, recreational and transportation. And then after 2040, you may see the adoption of humanoid robots go vertical. Now you might say –  that’s 15 years from now. But just like autonomous car – the end state might be 20 years away, but the capital formation is happening right now. And investors should pay close attention because we think the technological advances will only accelerate from here. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>232alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1193fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-immigration-matters-for-global-economies--75651065----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss a key driver of the global economy, migration.It's Monday, August 19th at 10am in New York.Migration has always been an important feature of the global economy.Not surprisingly, migrants typically move from lower income countries to higher income countries and for more than 50 years, it has added something like three-tenths of a percent per year to the growth of high-income economies. But in recent years, migration trends have been hit by a couple of major events.One was COVID. International travel restrictions during the pandemic slowed, or stopped, migration for a while. Despite a strong rebound over the past two years, many economies still have not fully recovered to pre-COVID migration trends. Another is geopolitical unrest. The Ukrainian refugee crisis, for example, is the largest population displacement in Europe since WWII with increasingly global repercussions.But how does immigration affect economies? One way that I frame the discussion is that immigration can boost both aggregate supply and aggregate demand. It's likely some of each -- and the relative importance of those two affects how inflationary or disinflationary the phenomenon is.In 2023, with a very large influx of immigrants into the US labor market, the economy was able to grow rapidly while still seeing inflation fall. The supply effect dominated the demand effect. In Australia, by contrast, with more of the immigrants in school or otherwise not in the labor market, prices -- especially for housing -- have gone up because demand was relatively more important.But some of the effects will only play out over time. Across many developed market economies, economic activity has risen less than population, meaning that measured productivity is lower. But we think that is just a lagged effect of the response of capital investment to the rise in labor. Over a longer time horizon, immigration can also offset demographic declines. Since 2021 population growth in many high-income economies has turned negative, if you exclude immigrants. Sustaining economic growth and managing government debt loads are made much more difficult with an aging, and then declining population, as a baseline.We assume that immigration will revert to pre-COVID trends in 2024 and [20]25 for most economies. This delta is largest for the economies with the highest immigration rates, like Canada or Australia; but for other economies, policies, cultural norms, those will determine the path for immigration.The key, however, is that immigration can be a critical component of demographic trends. In the US, the best estimate of net immigration was about 3.3 million people in 2023, and we assume it will taper from there to something closer to 2.5 million in 2025. That addition to the labor market created what Fed Chair Powell called “a bigger, but not tighter economy.”For people following the economy in real time, the extra availability of labor is also why we have argued that the rise in the unemployment rate over the past year or so is not the harbinger of recession that it has been in past cycles.Now, looking ahead, one key risk to our forecasts -- well everywhere around the world -- would be an abrupt tightening in immigration policy that causes the flow of workers to fall quickly or even end. Such a scenario would imply a much sharper economic slowdown and possibly higher inflation in the economies where the supply boost has dominated. That's yet another reason why elections and government policy remain key to the economic outlook.Well, thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RbUC0SvoEl5SThnPcOsW1RLZQjUEv3woIeHffKIyh7MMon, 19 Aug 2024 21:59:51 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist explains what stricter immigration policy in key markets around the world could mean for economic growth and inflation. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss a key driver of the global economy, migration.It's Monday, August 19th at 10am in New York.Migration has always been an important feature of the global economy.Not surprisingly, migrants typically move from lower income countries to higher income countries and for more than 50 years, it has added something like three-tenths of a percent per year to the growth of high-income economies. But in recent years, migration trends have been hit by a couple of major events.One was COVID. International travel restrictions during the pandemic slowed, or stopped, migration for a while. Despite a strong rebound over the past two years, many economies still have not fully recovered to pre-COVID migration trends. Another is geopolitical unrest. The Ukrainian refugee crisis, for example, is the largest population displacement in Europe since WWII with increasingly global repercussions.But how does immigration affect economies? One way that I frame the discussion is that immigration can boost both aggregate supply and aggregate demand. It's likely some of each -- and the relative importance of those two affects how inflationary or disinflationary the phenomenon is.In 2023, with a very large influx of immigrants into the US labor market, the economy was able to grow rapidly while still seeing inflation fall. The supply effect dominated the demand effect. In Australia, by contrast, with more of the immigrants in school or otherwise not in the labor market, prices -- especially for housing -- have gone up because demand was relatively more important.But some of the effects will only play out over time. Across many developed market economies, economic activity has risen less than population, meaning that measured productivity is lower. But we think that is just a lagged effect of the response of capital investment to the rise in labor. Over a longer time horizon, immigration can also offset demographic declines. Since 2021 population growth in many high-income economies has turned negative, if you exclude immigrants. Sustaining economic growth and managing government debt loads are made much more difficult with an aging, and then declining population, as a baseline.We assume that immigration will revert to pre-COVID trends in 2024 and [20]25 for most economies. This delta is largest for the economies with the highest immigration rates, like Canada or Australia; but for other economies, policies, cultural norms, those will determine the path for immigration.The key, however, is that immigration can be a critical component of demographic trends. In the US, the best estimate of net immigration was about 3.3 million people in 2023, and we assume it will taper from there to something closer to 2.5 million in 2025. That addition to the labor market created what Fed Chair Powell called “a bigger, but not tighter economy.”For people following the economy in real time, the extra availability of labor is also why we have argued that the rise in the unemployment rate over the past year or so is not the harbinger of recession that it has been in past cycles.Now, looking ahead, one key risk to our forecasts -- well everywhere around the world -- would be an abrupt tightening in immigration policy that causes the flow of workers to fall quickly or even end. Such a scenario would imply a much sharper economic slowdown and possibly higher inflation in the economies where the supply boost has dominated. That's yet another reason why elections and government policy remain key to the economic outlook.Well, thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you...]]>268alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1192fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/strong-balance-sheets-cautious-boardrooms--75651207----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how corporate balance sheets are in a better place to handle a potential growth slowdown. It's Friday, August 16th at 2pm in London. Much of the volatility over the last several weeks has been centered around fears that excessively high interest rates from the Federal Reserve will now cause the US economy to slow too quickly. Morgan Stanley’s economists are more optimistic and believe that the data will hold up, leading the Fed to start a gradual rate cutting cycle in September, rather than a more radical course-correction. Against this backdrop, good economic data is good for markets and vice versa. But even though we remain optimistic at Morgan Stanley about a soft landing in the US economy, our economists still expect growth to slow. How prepared are corporate balance sheets for that slowing, and how worried should we be that this could lead to higher rates of default? A good place to start is thinking about how optimistic companies were heading into any slowdown of the economy. Overconfidence is often the enemy of credit investors, as rose-tinted glasses can lead companies to make too many unwise acquisitions or investments, funded with too much debt. Yet across a variety of metrics, this isn’t what we see. Despite some of the lowest interest rates in human history, the level of debt to cash-flow for US and European companies has been pretty stable over the last five years. Excess capital held by banks remains historically high. And Merger and Acquisition activity, another key measure of corporate confidence, remains well below the long run trend – even after a pick up this year, as my colleague Ariana Salvatore discussed on this program earlier in the week. So, despite the strong recovery in the US economy and the stock market over the last four years, many corporate boardrooms have remained cautious, a good thing when considering their financial risk. Where Corporate debt did increase, it was often in places that we think could withstand it. Large-cap Technology and Pharmaceuticals issuers have taken out more debt over the last several years, relative to history, but it's been a pretty modest amount from a pretty low historical starting point. The Utility sector has also taken on more debt recently, but the stable nature of its business may make this easier to handle. While companies across the ratings spectrum generally didn’t increase their leverage over the last several years, they did take advantage of refinancing the debt they already had at historically low rates. And this is important for thinking about the stress that higher interest rates could eventually produce. The average maturity in the US Investment Grade index is about 11 years, and that means that, for many companies, potentially less than one-tenth of their overall debt resets to the current interest rate every year. That means companies may still have many years of enjoying the low interest rates of the past, and that helps smooth the adjustment to higher interest rates in the future. The lack of corporate confidence since COVID means that corporate balance sheets are generally in a better place if the economy potentially slows. But while this is helpful overall, it’s important to note that it doesn’t apply in all cases. We still see plenty of dispersion between winners and losers, driving divergence under the hood of the credit market. Even if balance sheets are stronger overall, there is plenty of opportunity to pick your spots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wXOeDetb5n7OUcaznItdadNcoXhamNud-YRzSBLNf6kFri, 16 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research explains how corporate balance sheets have remained resilient post-COVID, and why that could continue in the face of a potential economic slowdown. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how corporate balance sheets are in a better place to handle a potential growth slowdown. It's Friday, August 16th at 2pm in London. Much of the volatility over the last several weeks has been centered around fears that excessively high interest rates from the Federal Reserve will now cause the US economy to slow too quickly. Morgan Stanley’s economists are more optimistic and believe that the data will hold up, leading the Fed to start a gradual rate cutting cycle in September, rather than a more radical course-correction. Against this backdrop, good economic data is good for markets and vice versa. But even though we remain optimistic at Morgan Stanley about a soft landing in the US economy, our economists still expect growth to slow. How prepared are corporate balance sheets for that slowing, and how worried should we be that this could lead to higher rates of default? A good place to start is thinking about how optimistic companies were heading into any slowdown of the economy. Overconfidence is often the enemy of credit investors, as rose-tinted glasses can lead companies to make too many unwise acquisitions or investments, funded with too much debt. Yet across a variety of metrics, this isn’t what we see. Despite some of the lowest interest rates in human history, the level of debt to cash-flow for US and European companies has been pretty stable over the last five years. Excess capital held by banks remains historically high. And Merger and Acquisition activity, another key measure of corporate confidence, remains well below the long run trend – even after a pick up this year, as my colleague Ariana Salvatore discussed on this program earlier in the week. So, despite the strong recovery in the US economy and the stock market over the last four years, many corporate boardrooms have remained cautious, a good thing when considering their financial risk. Where Corporate debt did increase, it was often in places that we think could withstand it. Large-cap Technology and Pharmaceuticals issuers have taken out more debt over the last several years, relative to history, but it's been a pretty modest amount from a pretty low historical starting point. The Utility sector has also taken on more debt recently, but the stable nature of its business may make this easier to handle. While companies across the ratings spectrum generally didn’t increase their leverage over the last several years, they did take advantage of refinancing the debt they already had at historically low rates. And this is important for thinking about the stress that higher interest rates could eventually produce. The average maturity in the US Investment Grade index is about 11 years, and that means that, for many companies, potentially less than one-tenth of their overall debt resets to the current interest rate every year. That means companies may still have many years of enjoying the low interest rates of the past, and that helps smooth the adjustment to higher interest rates in the future. The lack of corporate confidence since COVID means that corporate balance sheets are generally in a better place if the economy potentially slows. But while this is helpful overall, it’s important to note that it doesn’t apply in all cases. We still see plenty of dispersion between winners and losers, driving divergence under the hood of the credit market. Even if balance sheets are stronger overall, there is plenty of opportunity to pick your spots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market...]]>233alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1191fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-the-us-dollar-remain-strong-post-election--75651193----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. And I'mAndrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 Currency Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss an issue that's drawing increasing attention from investors leading up to the U.S. election -- and that is the U.S. dollar and how a Harris or Trump administration could impact it.It's Thursday, August 15th at 10am in New York.Earlier this year, Morgan Stanley experts came on this show to discuss the current strength of the US dollar, which has had quite a historic run.Now we all know there are numerous ways in which politics could affect the currency. But before we get into the details there, Andrew, can you just set the stage here a little bit and give some context to listeners on where the dollar is right now and what's been driving that performance?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, the dollar's been rising this year. So, if you look at a trade weighted gauge of the US dollar, it's up about 3 percent, so far. And part of that US dollar strength is because growth expectations for the US have risen since January. There's a survey of Wall Street economists, and if you look at their median forecast for the US growth, it's moved up about one percentage point since January.And as a result of that strong US growth, we've seen Fed policy expectations move higher. We started this year with the market pricing the Fed to be below 4 percent by December. And that expectation for where the Fed is going to be in December has moved up about 1 percentage point since January.So, robust US growth and a higher near-term Fed policy rate expectation have made the US more attractive as an investment destination. And that's boosted the US dollar broadly as capital flows to the US.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. Now, thinking about the balance of the year, it's impossible to look ahead and not consider how the US election could impact or change this trend that you've been talking about. As we get closer to November, investors are also starting to question just what will happen to the dollar in a Republican or Democratic win. What's been our approach to thinking through that question?Andrew Watrous: So, if you look at policies proposed by the Republican presidential campaign, a number of those policies, if implemented, would probably boost the US dollar.First, higher tariffs on goods imported from our trading partners could weigh on expectations for growth abroad. That would make the US more attractive in comparison, maybe send capital to the US as a safe haven due to policy uncertainty. And of all the scenarios we look at, we think that one where the Republicans control both Congress and the White House would be the scenario in which the federal government spends the most and issues the most debt.More spending would likely make US growth expectations and bond yields higher in comparison to what we'd see in the rest of the world. So, a Republican presidential administration could attempt to offset some of that US dollar strength; but in the near term we think that the US dollar should go up if a Republican White House looks increasingly likely. And on the other side, the dollar could go down if the likelihood of a Democratic White House looks increasingly likely -- as some positive risk premium around trade and fiscal policy is reduced.Ariana Salvatore: Okay, so you mentioned quite a few policy variables there. Let's take those issue areas one by one. On trade policy and geopolitical risk, it wouldn't surprise us from the policy side to see a potential Trump administration introduce tariffs, just given the rhetoric we've seen on the campaign trail. We've talked about the potential impact from 10 per cent universal -- targeted or one-for-one tariffs -- which all come with varying degrees of economic impacts.On the currency side, Andrew, walk us through your thought process on how the risks to growth expectations from tariffs could factor into dollar positive or negative outcomes.Andrew Watrous: So, a lot of our thinking on this is shaped by what we saw in 2018 and 2019, when there were trade tensions. During that period, the dollar moved higher, starting in spring 2018 until the end of 2019, and a big part of that dollar strength was probably due to trade tensions between the US and China. Those tensions meant that investors were probably more hesitant to take on risk outside the US than they otherwise may have been. That's why the US dollar kept rising during that period, despite the Fed cutting rates three times in 2019. And in 2018 and 2019, we saw expectations for growth in countries outside the US moving lower -- in part because of trade tensions during that period.So, from speaking to my colleagues in the economics department here at Morgan Stanley, it seems pretty plausible that something similar happens to expectations for growth outside the US, again, if another trade war looks increasingly likely. And that drop in what people expect for growth outside the US would probably boost the US dollar as the US looks more attractive in comparison.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. Now, shifting gears slightly to the fiscal policy outlook. We've said that the Republican sweep outcome is the most likely to lead to the greatest degree of fiscal expansion, and that's because we think lawmakers are going to have to contend with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think that in a divided government outcome, or a Democratic sweep, some of those tax measures are still on the table, but it'll probably be a narrower extension from a deficit standpoint.So, Andrew, what would a fiscally expansionary regime mean for the dollar?Andrew Watrous: So, as you mentioned, the most fiscally expansionary scenario would be a Republican sweep scenario. And we did some research into capital flows; and the Treasury data show that historically, higher US spending is associated with net inflows of private capital into the US. And if you look at the pace of US spending versus the pace of spending in Europe, if you look at that differential -- that differential is positively correlated to movements in Euro. So faster US spending means lower Euro relative to spending in Europe.Ariana Salvatore: So, we expect that a Republican administration's policies might strengthen the dollar in summary. But it's possible that they don't like that dollar strength. We've heard Trump talk about the benefits of a weaker currency for exports, for example. So, what might a Republican presidential administration try to do to maybe offset some of the strength?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so if we’re right and the Republican policies do strengthen the dollar, that Republican administration could try to offset that dollar strength with a number of policy tools. And those might be effective in weakening the US dollar against one or more of our trading partners. But we don't think that the market expectation of those dollar negative policy options would fully offset the effect of other Republican policies, which would boost the dollar.There are legal, logistical, and political challenges associated with a lot of those dollar negative policy options. So, for example, former US Trade Representative Lighthizer has reportedly expressed doubt about the viability of broad international coordinated intervention against the US dollar. He said that no policy advisor that he knows of is working on a plan to weaken the dollar. And former President Trump reportedly rejected a 2019 proposal to intervene against the dollar from former White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So, sounds like we have a lot of moving pieces here and we will keep refining our views as we get some more policy clarity in the coming months. Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.Andrew Watrous: Great speaking with you Ariana.Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JdAxeu1ysA-tDuq8qXD2I4jOrZeqH-OXmdf05Wr6nOwThu, 15 Aug 2024 21:19:32 +0000gtyOur US Public Policy and Currency experts discuss how different outcomes in the upcoming U.S. elections could have varying effects on the strength of the dollar. ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. And I'mAndrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 Currency Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss an issue that's drawing increasing attention from investors leading up to the U.S. election -- and that is the U.S. dollar and how a Harris or Trump administration could impact it.It's Thursday, August 15th at 10am in New York.Earlier this year, Morgan Stanley experts came on this show to discuss the current strength of the US dollar, which has had quite a historic run.Now we all know there are numerous ways in which politics could affect the currency. But before we get into the details there, Andrew, can you just set the stage here a little bit and give some context to listeners on where the dollar is right now and what's been driving that performance?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, the dollar's been rising this year. So, if you look at a trade weighted gauge of the US dollar, it's up about 3 percent, so far. And part of that US dollar strength is because growth expectations for the US have risen since January. There's a survey of Wall Street economists, and if you look at their median forecast for the US growth, it's moved up about one percentage point since January.And as a result of that strong US growth, we've seen Fed policy expectations move higher. We started this year with the market pricing the Fed to be below 4 percent by December. And that expectation for where the Fed is going to be in December has moved up about 1 percentage point since January.So, robust US growth and a higher near-term Fed policy rate expectation have made the US more attractive as an investment destination. And that's boosted the US dollar broadly as capital flows to the US.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. Now, thinking about the balance of the year, it's impossible to look ahead and not consider how the US election could impact or change this trend that you've been talking about. As we get closer to November, investors are also starting to question just what will happen to the dollar in a Republican or Democratic win. What's been our approach to thinking through that question?Andrew Watrous: So, if you look at policies proposed by the Republican presidential campaign, a number of those policies, if implemented, would probably boost the US dollar.First, higher tariffs on goods imported from our trading partners could weigh on expectations for growth abroad. That would make the US more attractive in comparison, maybe send capital to the US as a safe haven due to policy uncertainty. And of all the scenarios we look at, we think that one where the Republicans control both Congress and the White House would be the scenario in which the federal government spends the most and issues the most debt.More spending would likely make US growth expectations and bond yields higher in comparison to what we'd see in the rest of the world. So, a Republican presidential administration could attempt to offset some of that US dollar strength; but in the near term we think that the US dollar should go up if a Republican White House looks increasingly likely. And on the other side, the dollar could go down if the likelihood of a Democratic White House looks increasingly likely -- as some positive risk premium around trade and fiscal policy is reduced.Ariana Salvatore: Okay, so you mentioned quite a few policy variables there. Let's take those issue areas one by one. On trade policy and geopolitical risk, it wouldn't surprise us from the policy side to see a potential Trump administration introduce tariffs, just given the rhetoric we've seen on the campaign trail. We've talked about the potential impact from 10 per...]]>474alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1190fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-vacant-offices-help-solve-the-us-housing-crisis--75651133----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Kramer, from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Real Estate Research team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a hot real estate topic. Whether the surplus of vacant office space offers a logical solution to the national housing shortage.It’s Wednesday, August 14, at 10am in New York.Sitting here in Morgan Stanley’s office at 1585 Broadway, Times Square is bustling and New York seems to have recovered from COVID and then some. But the reality inside buildings is a little bit different. On the one hand, 14 percent of U.S. office space is sitting unused. Our analysis shows a permanent impairment in office demand of roughly 25 percent compared to pre-COVID. And on the other hand, we have a national housing shortage of up to 6 million units. So why not simply remove obsolete lower-quality office stock and replace it with much-needed housing? On the surface, the idea of office-to-residential conversion sounds compelling. It could revitalize struggling downtown areas, creating a virtuous cycle that can lead to increased local tax revenues, foot traffic, retail demand and tourism.But is it feasible?We think conversions face at least three significant challenges. First, are the economics of conversion. In order for conversions to make sense, we would need to see office rents decline or apartment rents rise materially – which is unlikely in the next 1-2 years given the supply dynamics — and office values and conversion costs would need to decline materially. Investors can acquire or develop a multifamily property at roughly $600 per square foot. Alternatively, they can acquire and convert an existing office building for a total cost of nearly $700 per square foot, on average. The bottom line is that total conversion costs are higher than acquisition or ground-up development, with more complexity involved as well. The second big challenge is the quality of the buildings themselves. Numerous elements of the physical building impact conversion feasibility. For example, location relative to transit and amenities. Buildings in suboptimal locations are unlikely to be considered. Whether the office asset is vacant or not is also a factor. Office leases are typically longer duration, and a building needs to be close to or fully vacant for a full conversion. And lastly, physical attributes such as architecture, floor-plate depth, windows placement, among others. And finally, regulation presents a third major hurdle. Zoning and building code requirements differ from city to city and can add substantive time, cost, complexity, and limitations to any conversion project. That said, governments are in a unique position to encourage conversions — for example, via tax incentives – and literally remake cities short on affordable housing but with excess, underutilized office space.We have looked at conversion opportunities in three key markets: New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. In Manhattan, active office to residential conversions have been concentrated in the Financial District, and we think this trend will continue. We also see the East Side of Manhattan as a uniquely untapped opportunity for future conversions, given higher vacancy today. This would shift existing East Side office tenants to other locations, boosting demand in higher-quality office neighborhoods like Park Avenue and Grand Central.In San Francisco, we are concerned about other types of real estate properties beyond just office. Retail, multifamily, and lodging in the downtown area are taking longer to recover post-COVID, and we think this will limit conversions in the market. And finally, in Washington, D.C. we think conversion would work best for older, Class B/C office buildings on the edges of pre-existing residential areas. In these three markets, and others, conversions could work in specific instances, with specific buildings in specific sub-markets. But on a national basis, the economic and logistic challenges of wide-scale conversions make this an unlikely solution.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EvQwkKBcWYWmwXjkHLdzsXq0SH_664mZ7IGRPd8iq90Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:20:31 +0000gtyThe rise in unused office space has triggered suggestions about converting commercial real estate into residential buildings. But our US Real Estate Research analyst lists three major challenges. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Kramer, from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Real Estate Research team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a hot real estate topic. Whether the surplus of vacant office space offers a logical solution to the national housing shortage.It’s Wednesday, August 14, at 10am in New York.Sitting here in Morgan Stanley’s office at 1585 Broadway, Times Square is bustling and New York seems to have recovered from COVID and then some. But the reality inside buildings is a little bit different. On the one hand, 14 percent of U.S. office space is sitting unused. Our analysis shows a permanent impairment in office demand of roughly 25 percent compared to pre-COVID. And on the other hand, we have a national housing shortage of up to 6 million units. So why not simply remove obsolete lower-quality office stock and replace it with much-needed housing? On the surface, the idea of office-to-residential conversion sounds compelling. It could revitalize struggling downtown areas, creating a virtuous cycle that can lead to increased local tax revenues, foot traffic, retail demand and tourism.But is it feasible?We think conversions face at least three significant challenges. First, are the economics of conversion. In order for conversions to make sense, we would need to see office rents decline or apartment rents rise materially – which is unlikely in the next 1-2 years given the supply dynamics — and office values and conversion costs would need to decline materially. Investors can acquire or develop a multifamily property at roughly $600 per square foot. Alternatively, they can acquire and convert an existing office building for a total cost of nearly $700 per square foot, on average. The bottom line is that total conversion costs are higher than acquisition or ground-up development, with more complexity involved as well. The second big challenge is the quality of the buildings themselves. Numerous elements of the physical building impact conversion feasibility. For example, location relative to transit and amenities. Buildings in suboptimal locations are unlikely to be considered. Whether the office asset is vacant or not is also a factor. Office leases are typically longer duration, and a building needs to be close to or fully vacant for a full conversion. And lastly, physical attributes such as architecture, floor-plate depth, windows placement, among others. And finally, regulation presents a third major hurdle. Zoning and building code requirements differ from city to city and can add substantive time, cost, complexity, and limitations to any conversion project. That said, governments are in a unique position to encourage conversions — for example, via tax incentives – and literally remake cities short on affordable housing but with excess, underutilized office space.We have looked at conversion opportunities in three key markets: New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. In Manhattan, active office to residential conversions have been concentrated in the Financial District, and we think this trend will continue. We also see the East Side of Manhattan as a uniquely untapped opportunity for future conversions, given higher vacancy today. This would shift existing East Side office tenants to other locations, boosting demand in higher-quality office neighborhoods like Park Avenue and Grand Central.In San Francisco, we are concerned about other types of real estate properties beyond just office. Retail, multifamily, and lodging in the downtown area are taking longer to recover post-COVID, and we think this will limit conversions in the market. And finally, in Washington, D.C. we think conversion would work best for older, Class B/C...]]>262alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1189fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-election-should-not-dim-m-a-resurgence--75651273----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, from Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the impact of the US election on M&A. It’s Tuesday, August 13th, at 10am in New York.2023 saw the lowest level of global mergers and acquisitions – or M&A – in more than 30 years, relative to the overall size of the economy. But we believe that the cycle is currently reversing in a significant way and that politics won't halt the "Return of M&A." Why? Because M&A cycles are primarily driven by broader factors. Those include macroeconomics, the business cycle, CEO confidence and financing conditions. More specifically, unusually depressed volumes, open new issue markets, incoming rate cuts and the bottom-up industry trends are powerful tailwinds to an M&A recovery and can offset the political headwinds. So far this year we’ve seen an increase in deal activity. Announced M&A volume was up 20 per cent year-over-year in the first half of [20]24 versus [20]23, and we continue to expect M&A volumes to rise in 2024 as part of this broader, multi-year recovery. That being said, one factor that can impact M&A is antitrust regulation. Investors are reasonably concerned about the ways in which the election outcome could impact antitrust enforcement – and whether or not it would even be a tailwind or a headwind. If you think about traditional Republican attitudes toward deregulation, you might think that antitrust enforcement could be weaker in a potential Trump win scenario; but when we look back at the first Trump administration, we did see various antitrust cases pursued across a number of sectors. Further, we’ve seen this convergence between Republicans and Democrats on antitrust enforcement, specifically the vice presidential pick JD Vance has praised Lina Khan, the current FTC chair, for some of her efforts on antitrust in the Biden administration. In that vein, we do think there are certain circumstances that could cause a deal to come under scrutiny regardless of who wins the election. First, on a sector basis, we think both parties share a similar approach toward antitrust for tech companies. Voters across the ideological spectrum seem to want their representatives to focus on objectives like 'breaking up big tech' and targeting companies that are perceived to have outsized control. We also think geopolitics is really important here. National security concerns are increasingly being invoked as a consideration for M&A involving foreign actors, in particular if the deal involves a geopolitical adversary like China. We’ve seen lawmakers invoke these kind of concerns when justifying increased scrutiny for proposed deals. Finally, key constituencies' positions on proposed deals could also matter. The way that a deal might impact key voter cohorts – think labor unions, for example – could also play a role in determining whether or not that deal comes under extra scrutiny. We will of course keep you updated on any changes to our M&A outlook. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/oCFZhGwhYFfvstOLrAwgFDQ3EEYAx6zUpqrYEVoDyqYTue, 13 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur US Public Policy Strategist expects a robust M&A cycle, regardless of the outcome of the US election. But rising antitrust concerns could create additional scrutiny on possible future deals.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, from Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the impact of the US election on M&A. It’s Tuesday, August 13th, at 10am in New York.2023 saw the lowest level of global mergers and acquisitions – or M&A – in more than 30 years, relative to the overall size of the economy. But we believe that the cycle is currently reversing in a significant way and that politics won't halt the "Return of M&A." Why? Because M&A cycles are primarily driven by broader factors. Those include macroeconomics, the business cycle, CEO confidence and financing conditions. More specifically, unusually depressed volumes, open new issue markets, incoming rate cuts and the bottom-up industry trends are powerful tailwinds to an M&A recovery and can offset the political headwinds. So far this year we’ve seen an increase in deal activity. Announced M&A volume was up 20 per cent year-over-year in the first half of [20]24 versus [20]23, and we continue to expect M&A volumes to rise in 2024 as part of this broader, multi-year recovery. That being said, one factor that can impact M&A is antitrust regulation. Investors are reasonably concerned about the ways in which the election outcome could impact antitrust enforcement – and whether or not it would even be a tailwind or a headwind. If you think about traditional Republican attitudes toward deregulation, you might think that antitrust enforcement could be weaker in a potential Trump win scenario; but when we look back at the first Trump administration, we did see various antitrust cases pursued across a number of sectors. Further, we’ve seen this convergence between Republicans and Democrats on antitrust enforcement, specifically the vice presidential pick JD Vance has praised Lina Khan, the current FTC chair, for some of her efforts on antitrust in the Biden administration. In that vein, we do think there are certain circumstances that could cause a deal to come under scrutiny regardless of who wins the election. First, on a sector basis, we think both parties share a similar approach toward antitrust for tech companies. Voters across the ideological spectrum seem to want their representatives to focus on objectives like 'breaking up big tech' and targeting companies that are perceived to have outsized control. We also think geopolitics is really important here. National security concerns are increasingly being invoked as a consideration for M&A involving foreign actors, in particular if the deal involves a geopolitical adversary like China. We’ve seen lawmakers invoke these kind of concerns when justifying increased scrutiny for proposed deals. Finally, key constituencies' positions on proposed deals could also matter. The way that a deal might impact key voter cohorts – think labor unions, for example – could also play a role in determining whether or not that deal comes under extra scrutiny. We will of course keep you updated on any changes to our M&A outlook. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>199alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1188fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/pay-attention-to-data-not-market-drama--75651204----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about central banks, the Bank of Japan, Federal Reserve, data and how it drove market volatility.It's Monday, August 12th at 10am in New York.You know, if life were a Greek tragedy, we might call it foreshadowing. But in reality, it was probably just an unfortunate coincidence. The BOJ's website temporarily went down when the policy announcement came out. As it turns out, expectations for the BOJ and the Fed drove the market last week. Going into the BOJ meeting consensus was for a September hike, but July was clearly in play.The market's initial reaction to the decision itself was relatively calm; but in the press conference following the decision, Governor Ueda surprised the markets by talking about future hikes. Some hiking was already priced in, and Ueda san's comments pushed the amount priced in up by another, call it 8 basis points, and it increased volatility.In the aftermath of that market volatility, Deputy Governor Yoshida shifted the narrative again, by stressing that the BOJ was attuned to market conditions and that there was no fundamental change in the BOJ's strategy. But this heightened attention on the BOJ's hiking cycle was a critical backdrop for the US non farm payrolls two days later.The market knew the BOJ would hike, and knew the Fed would cut, but Ueda san's tone and the downside surprise to payrolls ignited two separate but related market risks: A US growth slowdown and the yen carry trade.The Fed's July meeting was the same day as the BOJ decision, and Chair Powell guided markets to a September rate cut. Prior to July, the FOMC was much more focused on inflation after the upside surprises in the first quarter. But as inflation softened, the dual mandate came into a finer balance. The shift in focus to both growth and inflation was not missed by markets; and then payrolls at about 114, 000 in July. Well, that was far from disastrous; but because the print was a miss relative to expectations on the heel of a shift in that focus, the market reaction was outsized.Our baseline view remains a soft landing in the United States; and those details we discussed extensively in our monthly periodical. Now, markets usually trade inflections, but with this cycle, we have tried to stress that you have to look at not just changes, but also the level of the economy. Q2 GDP was at 2.6 per cent. Consumer spending grew at 2.3 per cent. And the three-month average for payrolls was at 170, 000 -- even after the disappointing July print.Those are not terribly frightening numbers. The unemployment rate at 4.3 per cent is still low for the United States. And 17 basis points of that two-tenths rise last month; well, that was an increase in labor force participation. That's hardly the stuff of a failing labor market.So, while these data are backward looking, they are far from recessionary. Markets will always be forward looking, of course; but the recent hard data cannot be ignored. We think the economy is on its way to a soft landing, but the market is on alert for any and all signs for more dramatic weakness.The data just don't indicate any accelerated deterioration in the economy, though. Our FX Strategy colleagues have long said that Fed cuts and BOJ hikes would lead to yen appreciation. But this recent move? It was rapid, to say the least. But if we think about it, the pair really has only come into rough alignment with the Morgan Stanley targets based on just interest rate differentials alone.We also want to stress the fundamentals here for the Bank of Japan as well. We retain our view for cautious rate hikes by the BOJ with the next one coming in January. That's not anything dramatic because over the whole forecast that means that real rates will stay negative all the way through the end of 2025.These themes -- the deterioration in the US growth situation and the appreciation of the yen -- they're not going away anytime soon. We're entering a few weeks of sparse US data, though, where second tier indicators like unemployment insurance claims, which are subject to lots of seasonality, and retail sales data, which tend to be volatile month to month and have had less correlation recently with aggregate spending, well, they're going to take center stage in the absence of other harder indicators.The normalization of inflation and rates in Japan will probably take years, not just months, to sort out. The pace of convergence between the Fed and the BOJ? It's going to continue to ebb and flow. But for now, and despite all the market volatility, we retain our outlook for both economies and both central banks. We see the economic fundamentals still in line with our baseline views.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zdQ_XN4OPKe73w1JMLCo8ps9O3NOO-GI38RIoNaPKPUMon, 12 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyRecent market volatility has made headlines, but our Global Chief Economist explains why the numbers aren’t as dire as they seem. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about central banks, the Bank of Japan, Federal Reserve, data and how it drove market volatility.It's Monday, August 12th at 10am in New York.You know, if life were a Greek tragedy, we might call it foreshadowing. But in reality, it was probably just an unfortunate coincidence. The BOJ's website temporarily went down when the policy announcement came out. As it turns out, expectations for the BOJ and the Fed drove the market last week. Going into the BOJ meeting consensus was for a September hike, but July was clearly in play.The market's initial reaction to the decision itself was relatively calm; but in the press conference following the decision, Governor Ueda surprised the markets by talking about future hikes. Some hiking was already priced in, and Ueda san's comments pushed the amount priced in up by another, call it 8 basis points, and it increased volatility.In the aftermath of that market volatility, Deputy Governor Yoshida shifted the narrative again, by stressing that the BOJ was attuned to market conditions and that there was no fundamental change in the BOJ's strategy. But this heightened attention on the BOJ's hiking cycle was a critical backdrop for the US non farm payrolls two days later.The market knew the BOJ would hike, and knew the Fed would cut, but Ueda san's tone and the downside surprise to payrolls ignited two separate but related market risks: A US growth slowdown and the yen carry trade.The Fed's July meeting was the same day as the BOJ decision, and Chair Powell guided markets to a September rate cut. Prior to July, the FOMC was much more focused on inflation after the upside surprises in the first quarter. But as inflation softened, the dual mandate came into a finer balance. The shift in focus to both growth and inflation was not missed by markets; and then payrolls at about 114, 000 in July. Well, that was far from disastrous; but because the print was a miss relative to expectations on the heel of a shift in that focus, the market reaction was outsized.Our baseline view remains a soft landing in the United States; and those details we discussed extensively in our monthly periodical. Now, markets usually trade inflections, but with this cycle, we have tried to stress that you have to look at not just changes, but also the level of the economy. Q2 GDP was at 2.6 per cent. Consumer spending grew at 2.3 per cent. And the three-month average for payrolls was at 170, 000 -- even after the disappointing July print.Those are not terribly frightening numbers. The unemployment rate at 4.3 per cent is still low for the United States. And 17 basis points of that two-tenths rise last month; well, that was an increase in labor force participation. That's hardly the stuff of a failing labor market.So, while these data are backward looking, they are far from recessionary. Markets will always be forward looking, of course; but the recent hard data cannot be ignored. We think the economy is on its way to a soft landing, but the market is on alert for any and all signs for more dramatic weakness.The data just don't indicate any accelerated deterioration in the economy, though. Our FX Strategy colleagues have long said that Fed cuts and BOJ hikes would lead to yen appreciation. But this recent move? It was rapid, to say the least. But if we think about it, the pair really has only come into rough alignment with the Morgan Stanley targets based on just interest rate differentials alone.We also want to stress the fundamentals here for the Bank of Japan as well. We retain our view for cautious rate hikes by the BOJ with the next one coming in January. That's...]]>313alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1187fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rate-cut-ripple--75651038----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the market’s expectation for much larger rate cuts from the Federal Reserve, and how much that actually matters.It's Friday, August 9th at 2pm in London.Markets have been volatile of late. One of the drivers has been rising concern that the Fed may have left interest rates too high for too long, and now needs to more dramatically course-correct. From July 1st through August 2nd, the market’s expectation for where the Fed’s target interest rate will be in one year’s time has fallen by more than 1 percent. But…wait a second. We’re talking about interest rates here. Isn’t a shift towards expecting lower interest rates, you know, a good thing? And that seems especially relevant in the recent era, where strong markets often overlapped with fairly low interest rates. Zoom out over a longer span of history, however, and that’s not always the case.Interest rates, especially the rates from the Federal Reserve, are often a reflection of economic strength. And so high interest rates often overlap with strong growth, while a weak economy needs the support that lower rates provide. And so if interest rates are falling based on concern that the economy is weakening, which we think describes much of the last two weeks, it’s easier to argue why credit or equity markets wouldn’t like that outcome at all.That’s especially true because of the so-called lag in monetary policy. If the Fed lowered interest rates tomorrow, the full impact of that cut may not be felt in the economy for 6 to 12 months. And so if people are worried that conditions are weakening right now, they’re going to worry that the help from lower rates won’t arrive in time.The upshot is that for Credit, and I would say for other asset classes as well, rate cuts have only tended to be helpful if growth remained solid. Rate cuts and weaker growth were bad, and that was more true the larger those rate cuts were. In 2001, 2008 and February of 2020, large rate cuts as the economy weakened led to significant credit losses. Concern about what those lower rates signalled outweighed the direct benefit that a lower rate provided.We think that dynamic remains in play today, with the market over the last two weeks suggesting that a combination of weaker growth and lower rates may be taken poorly, not taken well.But there’s also some good news: Our economists think that the market's views on growth, and interest rates, may both be a little overstated. They think the US economy is still on track for a soft-landing, and that last week’s jobs report wasn’t quite as weak as it was made out to be.Because of all that, they also don’t think that the Fed will reduce interest rates as quickly as the market now expects. And so, if that’s now right, we think a stronger economy and somewhat higher rates is going to be a trade-off that credit is happy to take.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XJH1cQXt9KFkIviO26yHQrdckK2biHnXKF_ey-yO-PMFri, 09 Aug 2024 20:00:00 +0000gtyAs markets adjust to global volatility, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers when the Fed might choose to cut interest rates and how long the impacts may take to play out. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the market’s expectation for much larger rate cuts from the Federal Reserve, and how much that actually matters.It's Friday, August 9th at 2pm in London.Markets have been volatile of late. One of the drivers has been rising concern that the Fed may have left interest rates too high for too long, and now needs to more dramatically course-correct. From July 1st through August 2nd, the market’s expectation for where the Fed’s target interest rate will be in one year’s time has fallen by more than 1 percent. But…wait a second. We’re talking about interest rates here. Isn’t a shift towards expecting lower interest rates, you know, a good thing? And that seems especially relevant in the recent era, where strong markets often overlapped with fairly low interest rates. Zoom out over a longer span of history, however, and that’s not always the case.Interest rates, especially the rates from the Federal Reserve, are often a reflection of economic strength. And so high interest rates often overlap with strong growth, while a weak economy needs the support that lower rates provide. And so if interest rates are falling based on concern that the economy is weakening, which we think describes much of the last two weeks, it’s easier to argue why credit or equity markets wouldn’t like that outcome at all.That’s especially true because of the so-called lag in monetary policy. If the Fed lowered interest rates tomorrow, the full impact of that cut may not be felt in the economy for 6 to 12 months. And so if people are worried that conditions are weakening right now, they’re going to worry that the help from lower rates won’t arrive in time.The upshot is that for Credit, and I would say for other asset classes as well, rate cuts have only tended to be helpful if growth remained solid. Rate cuts and weaker growth were bad, and that was more true the larger those rate cuts were. In 2001, 2008 and February of 2020, large rate cuts as the economy weakened led to significant credit losses. Concern about what those lower rates signalled outweighed the direct benefit that a lower rate provided.We think that dynamic remains in play today, with the market over the last two weeks suggesting that a combination of weaker growth and lower rates may be taken poorly, not taken well.But there’s also some good news: Our economists think that the market's views on growth, and interest rates, may both be a little overstated. They think the US economy is still on track for a soft-landing, and that last week’s jobs report wasn’t quite as weak as it was made out to be.Because of all that, they also don’t think that the Fed will reduce interest rates as quickly as the market now expects. And so, if that’s now right, we think a stronger economy and somewhat higher rates is going to be a trade-off that credit is happy to take.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>211alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1186fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/health-care-for-longer-healthier-lives--75651148----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/M9A4mI1JRsHVd3Mnr1FFL0LmzhM6P9DCYCK0jkqTnlkThu, 08 Aug 2024 21:32:29 +0000gtyOur Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy...]]>240alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1185fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-this-roller-coaster-week-means-for-bonds--75651142----- Transcript -----
Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Vishy: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about the recent market volatility and what it means for fixed income investors.It's Wednesday, August 7th at 10am in New York.Vishy, on yesterday's show, you discussed the recent growth of money market funds. But today I want to talk about a topic that's top of mind for investors trying to make sense of recent market volatility. For starters, what do you think tipped off these big moves across global markets?Vishy: Mike, a confluence of factors contributed to the volatility that we've seen in the last six or seven trading sessions. To be clear, in the last few weeks, there have been some downside surprises in incoming data. They were capped off by last Friday's US employment report that came in soft across the board. In combination, that raised questions on the soft-landing thesis that had been baked into market prices, where valuations were already pretty stretched. And this one came after a hawkish hike by Bank of Japan just two days prior.While Morgan Stanley economists were expecting it, this hike was far from consensus going in. So, what this means is that this could lead to a greater divergence of monetary policy between the Fed and the Bank of Japan. That is, investors perceiving that the Fed may need to cut more and sooner, and that Bank of Japan may need to hike more; in both cases, more than expected.As you know, when negative surprises show up together, volatility follows.Zezas: Got it. And so last week's soft US employment data raises the question of whether the Fed's overtightened and the US economy might be weaker than expected. So, from where you sit, how does this concern impact fixed income assets?Vishy: To be clear, this is really not our base case. Our economists expect US economy to slow, but not fall off the cliff. Last Friday's data do point to some slowing, on the margin more slowing than market consensus as well as our economists expected. And really what this means is the markets are likely to challenge our soft-landing hypothesis until some good data emerge. And that could take some time. This means recent weakness in spread products is warranted, and especially given tight starting levels.Zezas: So, it seems in the coming days and maybe even weeks, the path for total fixed income market returns is likely to be lower as the market adjusts to a weaker growth outlook. What areas of fixed income do you think are best positioned to weather this transition and why?Vishy: We really need more data to confirm or push back on the soft-landing hypothesis. That said, fears of growth challenges will likely build in expectations for more Fed cuts. And that is good for duration through government bonds.Zezas: And conversely, what segments of fixed income are most exposed to risk?Vishy: In one way or the other, all spread products are exposed. In my mind, the US corporate credit market recession risks are least priced into high yield single B bonds, where valuations are rich, and positioning is stretched.Zezas: So clearly the recent market volatility has affected global markets, not just the US and Japan. So, what are you seeing in other markets? And are there any surprises there?Vishy: Emerging market credit. In emerging market credit, investment grade sovereign bonds will likely outperform high yield bonds, causing us to close our preference for high yield versus investment grade. It is too soon to completely flip our view and turn bearish on the overall emerging market credit index.We do see a combination of emerging market single name CDSs as an attractive hedge. South Africa, Colombia, Mexico, for example.Zezas: So finally, where do we go from here? Do you think it's worth buying the dip?Vishy: Our message overall is that while there have been significant moves, it is not yet the time to buy on dips.Zezas: Well, Vishy, thanks for taking the time to talk.Vishy: Great speaking with you, Mike.Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/vCCEaGKXn--ItdiX3J-PHvBp-pozbVkZrWsil9sj088Wed, 07 Aug 2024 23:42:39 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Thematic and Fixed Income Research joins our Chief Fixed Income Strategist to discuss the recent market volatility and how it impacts investor positioning within fixed income.  ----- Transcript ----- Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Vishy: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about the recent market volatility and what it means for fixed income investors.It's Wednesday, August 7th at 10am in New York.Vishy, on yesterday's show, you discussed the recent growth of money market funds. But today I want to talk about a topic that's top of mind for investors trying to make sense of recent market volatility. For starters, what do you think tipped off these big moves across global markets?Vishy: Mike, a confluence of factors contributed to the volatility that we've seen in the last six or seven trading sessions. To be clear, in the last few weeks, there have been some downside surprises in incoming data. They were capped off by last Friday's US employment report that came in soft across the board. In combination, that raised questions on the soft-landing thesis that had been baked into market prices, where valuations were already pretty stretched. And this one came after a hawkish hike by Bank of Japan just two days prior.While Morgan Stanley economists were expecting it, this hike was far from consensus going in. So, what this means is that this could lead to a greater divergence of monetary policy between the Fed and the Bank of Japan. That is, investors perceiving that the Fed may need to cut more and sooner, and that Bank of Japan may need to hike more; in both cases, more than expected.As you know, when negative surprises show up together, volatility follows.Zezas: Got it. And so last week's soft US employment data raises the question of whether the Fed's overtightened and the US economy might be weaker than expected. So, from where you sit, how does this concern impact fixed income assets?Vishy: To be clear, this is really not our base case. Our economists expect US economy to slow, but not fall off the cliff. Last Friday's data do point to some slowing, on the margin more slowing than market consensus as well as our economists expected. And really what this means is the markets are likely to challenge our soft-landing hypothesis until some good data emerge. And that could take some time. This means recent weakness in spread products is warranted, and especially given tight starting levels.Zezas: So, it seems in the coming days and maybe even weeks, the path for total fixed income market returns is likely to be lower as the market adjusts to a weaker growth outlook. What areas of fixed income do you think are best positioned to weather this transition and why?Vishy: We really need more data to confirm or push back on the soft-landing hypothesis. That said, fears of growth challenges will likely build in expectations for more Fed cuts. And that is good for duration through government bonds.Zezas: And conversely, what segments of fixed income are most exposed to risk?Vishy: In one way or the other, all spread products are exposed. In my mind, the US corporate credit market recession risks are least priced into high yield single B bonds, where valuations are rich, and positioning is stretched.Zezas: So clearly the recent market volatility has affected global markets, not just the US and Japan. So, what are you seeing in other markets? And are there any surprises there?Vishy: Emerging market credit. In emerging market credit, investment grade sovereign bonds will likely outperform high yield bonds, causing us to close our preference for high yield versus investment grade. It is too soon to completely flip our view and turn bearish on the overall emerging market credit index.We do see a combination of...]]>277alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1184fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-money-market-funds-aren-t-cash-on-the-sidelines--75651243----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about money market funds. It's Tuesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York. Well over $6.5 trillion sit in US money market funds. A popular view in the financial media is that the assets under management in money market funds represent money on sidelines, waiting to be allocated to risk assets, especially stocks. The underlying thesis is that the current level of interest rates and the consequent high money market yields have resulted in accumulation of assets in money market funds; and, when policy easing gets under way and money market yields decline, these funds will be allocated towards risk assets, especially stocks. To that I would say, curb your enthusiasm. Recent history provides helpful context. Since the end of 2019, money market funds have seen net inflows of about $2.6 trillion, occurring broadly in three phases. The first phase followed the outbreak of COVID, as the global economy suddenly faced a wide array of uncertainties. The second leg mainly comprised retail inflows, starting when the Fed began raising rates in 2022.The third stage came during the regional bank crisis in March-April 2023, with both retail and institutional flows fleeing regional bank deposits into money market funds. Where do we go from here? We think money market funds are unlikely to return to their pre-COVID levels of about $4 trillion, even if policy easing begins in September as our economists expect. They see three 25 basis point rate cuts in 2024 and four in 2025 as the economy achieves a soft landing; and they anticipate a shallow rate-cutting cycle, with the Fed stopping around 3.75 per cent. This means money market yields will likely stabilize around that level, albeit with a lag – but still be attractive versus cash alternatives. In a hard landing scenario, the Fed will likely deliver significantly more cuts over a shorter period of time, but we think investors would be more inclined to seek liquidity and safety, allocating more assets to money market funds than to alternative assets. Further, money market funds can delay the decline in their yields by simply extending the weighted average maturities of their portfolios and locking in current yields in the run-up to the cutting cycle. This makes money market funds more attractive than both short-term CDs and Treasury bills, whose yields reprice lower in sync with rate cuts. This relative appeal explains much of the lag between rate cuts and the peak in assets under management in money market funds. These have lagged historically, but average lag is around 12 months. Finally, it is important to distinguish between institutional and retail flows into and out of money market funds, as their motivations are likely to be very different. Institutional funds account for 61 per cent of money market funds, while funds from retail sources amount to about 37 per cent. When they reallocate from money market funds, we think institutional investors are more likely to allocate to high-quality, short-duration fixed income assets rather than riskier assets such as stocks, motivated by safety rather than level of yield. Retail investors, the smaller segment, may have greater inclination to reallocate towards risk assets such as stocks. The bottom line: While money market fund assets under management have grown meaningfully in the last few years, it is likely to stay high even as policy easing takes hold. Allocation toward risk assets looks to be both lagged and limited. Thus, this 'money on the sidelines' may not be as positive and as imminent a technical for risk assets as some people expect. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/skpyGm6OSHSvPC9yDiJCmaUnKmXQ81PoATzU3yZO29QTue, 06 Aug 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyRisk-averse investors have poured trillions into money-market funds since 2019. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why investors shouldn’t expect this money to pivot to equities and other risk assets as rates fall.  ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about money market funds. It's Tuesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York. Well over $6.5 trillion sit in US money market funds. A popular view in the financial media is that the assets under management in money market funds represent money on sidelines, waiting to be allocated to risk assets, especially stocks. The underlying thesis is that the current level of interest rates and the consequent high money market yields have resulted in accumulation of assets in money market funds; and, when policy easing gets under way and money market yields decline, these funds will be allocated towards risk assets, especially stocks. To that I would say, curb your enthusiasm. Recent history provides helpful context. Since the end of 2019, money market funds have seen net inflows of about $2.6 trillion, occurring broadly in three phases. The first phase followed the outbreak of COVID, as the global economy suddenly faced a wide array of uncertainties. The second leg mainly comprised retail inflows, starting when the Fed began raising rates in 2022.The third stage came during the regional bank crisis in March-April 2023, with both retail and institutional flows fleeing regional bank deposits into money market funds. Where do we go from here? We think money market funds are unlikely to return to their pre-COVID levels of about $4 trillion, even if policy easing begins in September as our economists expect. They see three 25 basis point rate cuts in 2024 and four in 2025 as the economy achieves a soft landing; and they anticipate a shallow rate-cutting cycle, with the Fed stopping around 3.75 per cent. This means money market yields will likely stabilize around that level, albeit with a lag – but still be attractive versus cash alternatives. In a hard landing scenario, the Fed will likely deliver significantly more cuts over a shorter period of time, but we think investors would be more inclined to seek liquidity and safety, allocating more assets to money market funds than to alternative assets. Further, money market funds can delay the decline in their yields by simply extending the weighted average maturities of their portfolios and locking in current yields in the run-up to the cutting cycle. This makes money market funds more attractive than both short-term CDs and Treasury bills, whose yields reprice lower in sync with rate cuts. This relative appeal explains much of the lag between rate cuts and the peak in assets under management in money market funds. These have lagged historically, but average lag is around 12 months. Finally, it is important to distinguish between institutional and retail flows into and out of money market funds, as their motivations are likely to be very different. Institutional funds account for 61 per cent of money market funds, while funds from retail sources amount to about 37 per cent. When they reallocate from money market funds, we think institutional investors are more likely to allocate to high-quality, short-duration fixed income assets rather than riskier assets such as stocks, motivated by safety rather than level of yield. Retail investors, the smaller segment, may have greater inclination to reallocate towards risk assets such as stocks. The bottom line: While money market fund assets under management have grown meaningfully in the last few years, it is likely to stay high even as policy easing takes hold. Allocation toward risk assets looks to be both lagged and limited. Thus, this 'money on the sidelines' may not be as positive and as imminent a technical...]]>274alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1183fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/making-sense-of-the-correction--75651339----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent equity market correction and whether it’s time to step in.It's Monday, Aug 5th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Over the past several weeks, global equity markets have taken on a completely different tone with most major averages definitively breaking strong uptrends from last fall. Many are blaming the Fed’s decision last week to hold interest rates steady in the face of weaker jobs data while others have highlighted the technical unwind of the Japanese yen carry trade.However, if we take a step back, this topping process began in April with the first meaningful sell off since last October’s lows. Even as many stocks and indices rallied back to new highs this summer, the leadership took on a more defensive posture with sectors like Utilities, Staples and even Real Estate doing better than they have in years. As I have been discussing on this podcast this shift in leadership has coincided with softer economic data during the second quarter. This softness has continued into the summer with the all-important labor market data joining in as already noted.This rotation was an early warning sign that stocks were likely vulnerable to a correction as we highlighted in early July. After all, the third quarter is when such corrections tend to happen seasonally for several reasons. This year has turned out to be no different. The real question now is what’s next and when will this correction become a buying opportunity?Lost in the blame game is the simple fact that valuations reached very rich levels this year, something we have consistently discussed in our research. In fact, this is the main reason we have no upside to our US major averages over the next year even assuming our economists’ soft landing base case outcome for the economy. In other words, stocks were priced for perfection.Now, with the deterioration in the growth data, and a Fed that is in no rush to cut rates proactively, markets have started to get nervous. Furthermore, the Fed tends to follow 2-year yields and over the last month 2-year treasury yields have fallen by 100 basis points and is almost 170 basis points below the Fed Funds rate. What this means is that the market is telling the Fed they are way too tight and they need to cut much more aggressively than what they have guided.The dilemma for the Fed is that the next meeting is six weeks away and that’s a lifetime when markets are trading like they are today. Markets tend to be impatient and so I expect they will continue to trade with high volatility until the Fed appeases the market’s wishes. The flip side, of course, is that the Fed does an intra meeting rate cut; but that may make the markets even more nervous about growth in my view.Bottom line, markets are likely to remain vulnerable in the near term until we get better growth data or more comfort from Fed on policy support, neither of which we think is forthcoming soon.Finally, support can also come from cheap valuations, but we don’t have that yet at current prices. As of this recording the S&P 500 is still trading 20x forward 12-month earnings estimates. Our fair value multiple assuming a soft-landing outcome on the economy is closer to 19x, which means things aren’t actually cheap until we reach 17-18x, which is more than 10 per cent away from where we are trading.In the meantime, we continue to recommend more defensive stocks in sectors like Utilities, Healthcare, Consumer Staples and some Real Estate. Conversely, we continue to dislike smaller cap cyclical stocks that are most vulnerable to the current growth slowdown and tight rate policy.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2rxelcvFykplbJoiDSWxv5B35ywgLdp6UEXXfLRH9QkMon, 05 Aug 2024 18:58:34 +0000gtyAlthough Monday’s correction springs from multiple causes, the real questions may be what’s next and when will the correction become a buying opportunity? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent equity market correction and whether it’s time to step in.It's Monday, Aug 5th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Over the past several weeks, global equity markets have taken on a completely different tone with most major averages definitively breaking strong uptrends from last fall. Many are blaming the Fed’s decision last week to hold interest rates steady in the face of weaker jobs data while others have highlighted the technical unwind of the Japanese yen carry trade.However, if we take a step back, this topping process began in April with the first meaningful sell off since last October’s lows. Even as many stocks and indices rallied back to new highs this summer, the leadership took on a more defensive posture with sectors like Utilities, Staples and even Real Estate doing better than they have in years. As I have been discussing on this podcast this shift in leadership has coincided with softer economic data during the second quarter. This softness has continued into the summer with the all-important labor market data joining in as already noted.This rotation was an early warning sign that stocks were likely vulnerable to a correction as we highlighted in early July. After all, the third quarter is when such corrections tend to happen seasonally for several reasons. This year has turned out to be no different. The real question now is what’s next and when will this correction become a buying opportunity?Lost in the blame game is the simple fact that valuations reached very rich levels this year, something we have consistently discussed in our research. In fact, this is the main reason we have no upside to our US major averages over the next year even assuming our economists’ soft landing base case outcome for the economy. In other words, stocks were priced for perfection.Now, with the deterioration in the growth data, and a Fed that is in no rush to cut rates proactively, markets have started to get nervous. Furthermore, the Fed tends to follow 2-year yields and over the last month 2-year treasury yields have fallen by 100 basis points and is almost 170 basis points below the Fed Funds rate. What this means is that the market is telling the Fed they are way too tight and they need to cut much more aggressively than what they have guided.The dilemma for the Fed is that the next meeting is six weeks away and that’s a lifetime when markets are trading like they are today. Markets tend to be impatient and so I expect they will continue to trade with high volatility until the Fed appeases the market’s wishes. The flip side, of course, is that the Fed does an intra meeting rate cut; but that may make the markets even more nervous about growth in my view.Bottom line, markets are likely to remain vulnerable in the near term until we get better growth data or more comfort from Fed on policy support, neither of which we think is forthcoming soon.Finally, support can also come from cheap valuations, but we don’t have that yet at current prices. As of this recording the S&P 500 is still trading 20x forward 12-month earnings estimates. Our fair value multiple assuming a soft-landing outcome on the economy is closer to 19x, which means things aren’t actually cheap until we reach 17-18x, which is more than 10 per cent away from where we are trading.In the meantime, we continue to recommend more defensive stocks in sectors like Utilities, Healthcare, Consumer Staples and some Real Estate. Conversely, we continue to dislike smaller cap cyclical stocks that are most vulnerable to the current growth slowdown and tight rate...]]>242alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1182fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/looking-back-at-a-whirlwind-week--75650978----- Transcript -----
It’s been a whirlwind week of economic activity in the markets as we enter the dog days of summer. Our Head of Corporate Credits Research breaks down three top stories.Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing what we’ve taken away from this eventful week.It's Friday, August 2nd at 2pm in London.For all its sophistication, financial activity is still seasonal. This is a business driven by people, and people like to take time off in the summer to rest and recharge. There’s a reason that volumes in August tend to be low.And so this week felt like that pre-vacation rush to pack, find your keys, and remember your ticket before running out the door. Important earnings releases, central bank meetings and employment numbers all hit with quick succession. Some thoughts on all that whirlwind.The first story was earnings and continued equity rotation. Equity markets are seeing big shifts between which stocks are doing well and poorly, particularly in larger technology names. These shifts are a big deal for equity investors, but we think they remain much less material for credit.Technology is a much smaller sector of the bond market than the stock market, as these tech companies have generally issued relatively little debt – relative to their size. Credit actually tends to overlap much more with the average stock, which at the moment continues to do well. And while the Technology sector has been volatile, stocks in the US financial sector – the largest segment for credit – have been seeing much better, steadier gains.Next up this week was the Bank of Japan, which raised policy rates, a notable shift from many other central banks, which are starting to lower them. For credit, the worry from such a move was somewhat roundabout: that higher rates in Japan would strengthen its currency, the yen. That such strength would be painful for foreign exchange investors, who had positioned themselves the other way around – for yen weakness. And that losses from these investors in foreign exchange could lead them to lower exposure in other areas, potentially credit. But so far, things look manageable. While the yen did strengthen this week, it hasn’t had the sort of knock-on impact to other markets that some had feared. We think that might be evidence that investor positioning in credit was not nearly as concentrated, or as large, as in certain foreign exchange strategies, and we think that remains the case.But the biggest story this week was the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, followed by the US Jobs number today. These two events need to be taken together.On Wednesday, the Fed chose to maintain its high current policy rate, while also hinting it’s open to a cut. But with inflation falling rapidly in recent months, and already at the Fed’s target on market-based measures, the question is whether the Fed should already be cutting rates to even out that policy. After all, lowering rates too late has often been a problem for the Fed in the past.Today’s weak jobs report brings these fears front-and-center, as highly restrictive monetary policy may start to look out-of-line with labor market weakness. And not cutting this week makes it more awkward for the Fed to now adjust. If they move at the next meeting, later in September; well, that means waiting more than a month and a half. But acting before that time, in an unusual intra-bank meeting cut; well, that could look reactive. The market will understandably worry that the Fed, once again, may be reacting too late. That is a bad outcome for the balance of economic risks and for credit.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/cycFGp1RHl63dZqhvkfdm2pKaw7bPSb02WXv3zy52doFri, 02 Aug 2024 22:03:55 +0000gtyAfter a dizzying week of economic and market activity, our Head of Corporate Credit Research breaks down the three top stories. ----- Transcript ----- It’s been a whirlwind week of economic activity in the markets as we enter the dog days of summer....----- Transcript -----
It’s been a whirlwind week of economic activity in the markets as we enter the dog days of summer. Our Head of Corporate Credits Research breaks down three top stories.Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing what we’ve taken away from this eventful week.It's Friday, August 2nd at 2pm in London.For all its sophistication, financial activity is still seasonal. This is a business driven by people, and people like to take time off in the summer to rest and recharge. There’s a reason that volumes in August tend to be low.And so this week felt like that pre-vacation rush to pack, find your keys, and remember your ticket before running out the door. Important earnings releases, central bank meetings and employment numbers all hit with quick succession. Some thoughts on all that whirlwind.The first story was earnings and continued equity rotation. Equity markets are seeing big shifts between which stocks are doing well and poorly, particularly in larger technology names. These shifts are a big deal for equity investors, but we think they remain much less material for credit.Technology is a much smaller sector of the bond market than the stock market, as these tech companies have generally issued relatively little debt – relative to their size. Credit actually tends to overlap much more with the average stock, which at the moment continues to do well. And while the Technology sector has been volatile, stocks in the US financial sector – the largest segment for credit – have been seeing much better, steadier gains.Next up this week was the Bank of Japan, which raised policy rates, a notable shift from many other central banks, which are starting to lower them. For credit, the worry from such a move was somewhat roundabout: that higher rates in Japan would strengthen its currency, the yen. That such strength would be painful for foreign exchange investors, who had positioned themselves the other way around – for yen weakness. And that losses from these investors in foreign exchange could lead them to lower exposure in other areas, potentially credit. But so far, things look manageable. While the yen did strengthen this week, it hasn’t had the sort of knock-on impact to other markets that some had feared. We think that might be evidence that investor positioning in credit was not nearly as concentrated, or as large, as in certain foreign exchange strategies, and we think that remains the case.But the biggest story this week was the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, followed by the US Jobs number today. These two events need to be taken together.On Wednesday, the Fed chose to maintain its high current policy rate, while also hinting it’s open to a cut. But with inflation falling rapidly in recent months, and already at the Fed’s target on market-based measures, the question is whether the Fed should already be cutting rates to even out that policy. After all, lowering rates too late has often been a problem for the Fed in the past.Today’s weak jobs report brings these fears front-and-center, as highly restrictive monetary policy may start to look out-of-line with labor market weakness. And not cutting this week makes it more awkward for the Fed to now adjust. If they move at the next meeting, later in September; well, that means waiting more than a month and a half. But acting before that time, in an unusual intra-bank meeting cut; well, that could look reactive. The market will understandably worry that the Fed, once again, may be reacting too late. That is a bad outcome for the balance of economic risks and for credit.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts...]]>227alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1181fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/following-the-flows--75651034----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll dig into the concept of fund flows, how they shape global markets and why they matter to investors. It’s Thursday, August 1, at 10am in New York. Finance industry professionals often use the term “flows” when looking at where investors are, in the aggregate, moving their money. It refers to net movements of cash in and out of investment vehicles such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or in and out of whole markets. By looking at flows, investors can get a good sense of where market winds are blowing and, essentially, where demand is at any given moment. Now, whether you’re a retail or institutional investor, having a perspective on market sentiment and demand are powerful tools. So today I’m going to give you a snapshot of some key flows, which should give a sense of demand and the mood right now; and what it means for investors.First of all, despite the recent rally in global equities year-to-date, we've yet to see an investor rotation, or portfolio realignment, from bonds to stocks. Flows into bonds are still leading flows into stocks by a pretty large margin. And unless stocks cheapen materially, we don’t expect this trend to reverse anytime soon. In addition, fund flows into large-cap equities still dwarf those into small-caps year-to-date. Although we saw a brief reversal of this trend in June, large caps flows have swung back to prominence. We do see hints of sector rotation within equities, as investors shift to what they see as more promising stocks; but it’s not a clean or entirely unambiguous story. The Science & Tech sectors – which saw a notable drop-off in flows from the first to the second quarter of this year – still lead year-to-date; and flows represent nearly a third into all flows into equities. More cyclical sectors like Basic Materials and Financials attracted more capital than in the first and second quarter, while defensive sectors such as Consumer Goods saw a softening of outflows compared to the same period. From a global perspective, we also look at flows in and out of particular regions or markets. So, year-to-date, US stocks received about US$43 billion in net inflows while rest-of-world stocks saw about US$15 billion in net outflows. Now, there were some exceptions – with India, Korea, and Taiwan leading – seeing significant inflows year-to-date. We look at flows within categories too, so within fixed income, for example, we are seeing flows toward less risky assets; revealing what we call a risk-off preference. Higher quality, Investment Grade funds – raked in about US$92 billion in net inflows year-to-date, while US treasuries saw only at US$25 billion. That Treasury number is actually significantly higher than what we saw from the first quarter to the second quarter, while inflows to High Yield and low-quality Investment Grade corporates have slowed compared to the start of the year. Finally, money market funds – that is mutual funds that invest in short-term higher quality securities – have not yet really seen sustained outflows, as one would expect when investors believe shorter term yields would come down, as central banks start to ease. Rather there’s been some $70 billion in net inflows through the first half of this year. Although we’re sympathetic to the view that money market outflows should begin when the Fed starts cutting rates, there’s actually a considerable lag between first cut and those outflows, as we have seen in the last two rate cutting cycles. But what does all of this mean for investors? Well, it suggests they still have a defensive tilt, and they shouldn’t really be jumping on the rotational story. The current yield environment means rotation from fixed income and money market funds into riskier assets is still some way away. Investors also shouldn’t look at the dry powder/cash on the sidelines narrative as the big tailwind for riskier assets -- because it’s not coming any time soon. That said, we still like non-government bonds because this is where cash would go first if and when those flows begin. We also like global equities, but more so because the benign macro backdrop we are forecasting supports this. We’ll keep you up to date if there’s any change in the direction of market winds and fund flows.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YfNKF0mN9C010WmvreasmQA05Rca6aAtzwXDcgqyndgFri, 02 Aug 2024 01:50:12 +0000gtyOur Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist, Serena Tang, explains where funds are moving across global markets currently, and why it matters to investors. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll dig into the concept of fund flows, how they shape global markets and why they matter to investors. It’s Thursday, August 1, at 10am in New York. Finance industry professionals often use the term “flows” when looking at where investors are, in the aggregate, moving their money. It refers to net movements of cash in and out of investment vehicles such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or in and out of whole markets. By looking at flows, investors can get a good sense of where market winds are blowing and, essentially, where demand is at any given moment. Now, whether you’re a retail or institutional investor, having a perspective on market sentiment and demand are powerful tools. So today I’m going to give you a snapshot of some key flows, which should give a sense of demand and the mood right now; and what it means for investors.First of all, despite the recent rally in global equities year-to-date, we've yet to see an investor rotation, or portfolio realignment, from bonds to stocks. Flows into bonds are still leading flows into stocks by a pretty large margin. And unless stocks cheapen materially, we don’t expect this trend to reverse anytime soon. In addition, fund flows into large-cap equities still dwarf those into small-caps year-to-date. Although we saw a brief reversal of this trend in June, large caps flows have swung back to prominence. We do see hints of sector rotation within equities, as investors shift to what they see as more promising stocks; but it’s not a clean or entirely unambiguous story. The Science & Tech sectors – which saw a notable drop-off in flows from the first to the second quarter of this year – still lead year-to-date; and flows represent nearly a third into all flows into equities. More cyclical sectors like Basic Materials and Financials attracted more capital than in the first and second quarter, while defensive sectors such as Consumer Goods saw a softening of outflows compared to the same period. From a global perspective, we also look at flows in and out of particular regions or markets. So, year-to-date, US stocks received about US$43 billion in net inflows while rest-of-world stocks saw about US$15 billion in net outflows. Now, there were some exceptions – with India, Korea, and Taiwan leading – seeing significant inflows year-to-date. We look at flows within categories too, so within fixed income, for example, we are seeing flows toward less risky assets; revealing what we call a risk-off preference. Higher quality, Investment Grade funds – raked in about US$92 billion in net inflows year-to-date, while US treasuries saw only at US$25 billion. That Treasury number is actually significantly higher than what we saw from the first quarter to the second quarter, while inflows to High Yield and low-quality Investment Grade corporates have slowed compared to the start of the year. Finally, money market funds – that is mutual funds that invest in short-term higher quality securities – have not yet really seen sustained outflows, as one would expect when investors believe shorter term yields would come down, as central banks start to ease. Rather there’s been some $70 billion in net inflows through the first half of this year. Although we’re sympathetic to the view that money market outflows should begin when the Fed starts cutting rates, there’s actually a considerable lag between first cut and those outflows, as we have seen in the last two rate cutting cycles. But what does all of this mean for investors? Well, it suggests they still have a defensive tilt, and they shouldn’t really be jumping on the rotational story. The...]]>310alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1180fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-genai-help-or-hurt-ad-agencies--75651114----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Metayer, from the Morgan Stanley Europe Media & Entertainment team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what the future may hold for advertising agencies amid fast-paced Generative AI developments.It’s Wednesday, July 31, at 2 PM in London. Right now we’re still in the early stages of GenAI’s impact on ad agency offerings; although the debate around technology removing the need for ad agencies is not new. Soon after the release of ChatGPT in early 2023, my colleagues in North America started mapping out the potential impact of GenAI on the ad agencies. They concluded that GenAI should represent an opportunity for the ad agencies, at least near-term. First, Gen AI would lead to productivity improvements from automatable tasks in creative, media, digital transformation consulting and central functions like HR and Finance. Second, GenAI would boost client demand for advice from agencies to help navigate the coming evolution in digital advertising.   Fast-forward to now and the impact of GenAI on the ad agencies has become an active investor debate, with concerns centering around the Creative business. Many eyes are on the Gen AI-powered text to image/video tools, which could disrupt the ad agencies' Creative & Production business. We this has weighed on agency stock prices recently.  Essentially, the bear case has been – and is – that technology would devalue agencies’ offerings and agency clients may rely more on tech platforms and in-house services. That bear case – twenty years into online advertising – has not played out. We think that in these early days of AI’s impact on marketing, there may be more upside to agency equities than risk over the next 12 to 18 months.  On the one hand, the introduction of Gen AI tools may mean reduced pricing power and challenged top-line growth. At the same time, replacing creative personnel with software may increase earnings power, even with less revenue. We think it's likely that a key value-add of the ad agencies' Creative business would be campaign personalization at scale, powered by data and technology. Looking back, technology has been commoditizing certain areas of creative and production for years, well ahead of AI; and yet creativity and creative services remain core value propositions by agencies to brands. Overall, there is as much – if not more – opportunity than risk for ad agencies over time. So let me leave you with two key takeaways:  First, we see the larger ad agencies as better positioned to remain relevant to customers in the GenAI era. However, we would caution that their large scale may also lower their ability to adapt quickly to evolving customer requirements when it comes to GenAI. Second, we expect GenAI to drive more consolidation in the industry. We think it’s likely that some of the large ad agencies take market share from other large ad agencies. As these trends play out over time, we’ll continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TQv-i523mvhMNZ75L2B_mobMRITaFesppCCEj9gmMhoWed, 31 Jul 2024 22:10:41 +0000gtyAs Generative AI continues to accelerate, some agencies will be better positioned than others to reap the benefits. Our Europe Media & Entertainment analyst, Laura Metayer, explains. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Metayer, from the Morgan Stanley Europe Media & Entertainment team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what the future may hold for advertising agencies amid fast-paced Generative AI developments.It’s Wednesday, July 31, at 2 PM in London. Right now we’re still in the early stages of GenAI’s impact on ad agency offerings; although the debate around technology removing the need for ad agencies is not new. Soon after the release of ChatGPT in early 2023, my colleagues in North America started mapping out the potential impact of GenAI on the ad agencies. They concluded that GenAI should represent an opportunity for the ad agencies, at least near-term. First, Gen AI would lead to productivity improvements from automatable tasks in creative, media, digital transformation consulting and central functions like HR and Finance. Second, GenAI would boost client demand for advice from agencies to help navigate the coming evolution in digital advertising.   Fast-forward to now and the impact of GenAI on the ad agencies has become an active investor debate, with concerns centering around the Creative business. Many eyes are on the Gen AI-powered text to image/video tools, which could disrupt the ad agencies' Creative & Production business. We this has weighed on agency stock prices recently.  Essentially, the bear case has been – and is – that technology would devalue agencies’ offerings and agency clients may rely more on tech platforms and in-house services. That bear case – twenty years into online advertising – has not played out. We think that in these early days of AI’s impact on marketing, there may be more upside to agency equities than risk over the next 12 to 18 months.  On the one hand, the introduction of Gen AI tools may mean reduced pricing power and challenged top-line growth. At the same time, replacing creative personnel with software may increase earnings power, even with less revenue. We think it's likely that a key value-add of the ad agencies' Creative business would be campaign personalization at scale, powered by data and technology. Looking back, technology has been commoditizing certain areas of creative and production for years, well ahead of AI; and yet creativity and creative services remain core value propositions by agencies to brands. Overall, there is as much – if not more – opportunity than risk for ad agencies over time. So let me leave you with two key takeaways:  First, we see the larger ad agencies as better positioned to remain relevant to customers in the GenAI era. However, we would caution that their large scale may also lower their ability to adapt quickly to evolving customer requirements when it comes to GenAI. Second, we expect GenAI to drive more consolidation in the industry. We think it’s likely that some of the large ad agencies take market share from other large ad agencies. As these trends play out over time, we’ll continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>230alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1179fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/navigating-the-quality-and-cap-curves--75651325----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about slowing growth in the context of high valuations.It's Tuesday, July 30th at 3pm in New York.So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks, the equity markets have taken on a different complexion with the mega cap stocks lagging and lower quality small caps doing better. What does this mean for investor portfolios? And is the market telling us something about future fundamentals? In our view, we think most of this rotation is due to the de-grossing that is occurring within portfolios that are overweight large cap quality growth and underweight lower quality and smaller cap names.We have long been in the camp that large cap quality has been the place to be – for equity investors – as opposed to diving down the quality and cap curves. That continues to be the case; though we are watching the fundamental and technical backdrop for small caps closely, and we’re respectful of the pace of the recent move in the space.For now, however, we continue to think the better risk/reward is to stay up the quality curve and avoid the more cyclical parts in the market like small caps. Our rationale for such positioning is simple — in a later cycle economy where growth is softening or not translating into earnings growth for most companies, large cap quality outperforms. Exacerbating the many imbalances across the economy is a bloated fiscal budget deficit. In our view, there are diminishing returns to fiscal spending when it starts to crowd out private companies and consumers. As I have been discussing for the past year, this crowding out has contributed to the bifurcation of performance in both the economy and equity markets, while potentially keeping the Fed's Interest rate policy tighter than it would have been otherwise.While the macro data has been mixed, there is a growing debate around the actual strength of the labor market with the household survey painting a weaker picture than the non-farm payroll data which is based on employer surveys. The bottom line is that we are in a stable, but decelerating late cycle economy from a macro data standpoint. However, on the micro front, the data has not been as stable and is showing a more meaningful deterioration in growth; particularly as it relates to the consumer.More specifically, earnings revision breadth has broken down recently for many of the cyclical parts of the market. Financials has been a bright spot here but that may be short-lived if the consumer continues to weaken. We continue to favor quality but with a greater focus on defensive sectors like utilities, staples and REITs as opposed to growthier ones like technology. The issue with the growth stocks is valuations and the quality of the earnings for some of the mega cap tech stocks.The other variable weighing on stocks at the moment is valuations which remain in the top decile of the past 20 years. It’s worth noting that valuations are very sensitive to earnings revisions breadth. The last time revision breadth rolled over into negative territory was last fall. Between July and October 2023, the market multiple declined from 20x to 17x. Two weeks ago, this multiple was 22x and is now 21x. If earnings revisions continue to fade as we expect, it’s likely these valuations have further to fall. With our 12-month base case target multiple at 19x, the risk reward for equities broadly remains quite unfavorable at the moment.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FfCPXqbpmWwWTwjjIq_OSPXo7mTIl19bLVHCxk07_Q0Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:49:24 +0000gtyA later cycle economy and continued uncertainty means that investors should be remain wary of cyclicals such as small caps, explains Mike Wilson, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about slowing growth in the context of high valuations.It's Tuesday, July 30th at 3pm in New York.So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks, the equity markets have taken on a different complexion with the mega cap stocks lagging and lower quality small caps doing better. What does this mean for investor portfolios? And is the market telling us something about future fundamentals? In our view, we think most of this rotation is due to the de-grossing that is occurring within portfolios that are overweight large cap quality growth and underweight lower quality and smaller cap names.We have long been in the camp that large cap quality has been the place to be – for equity investors – as opposed to diving down the quality and cap curves. That continues to be the case; though we are watching the fundamental and technical backdrop for small caps closely, and we’re respectful of the pace of the recent move in the space.For now, however, we continue to think the better risk/reward is to stay up the quality curve and avoid the more cyclical parts in the market like small caps. Our rationale for such positioning is simple — in a later cycle economy where growth is softening or not translating into earnings growth for most companies, large cap quality outperforms. Exacerbating the many imbalances across the economy is a bloated fiscal budget deficit. In our view, there are diminishing returns to fiscal spending when it starts to crowd out private companies and consumers. As I have been discussing for the past year, this crowding out has contributed to the bifurcation of performance in both the economy and equity markets, while potentially keeping the Fed's Interest rate policy tighter than it would have been otherwise.While the macro data has been mixed, there is a growing debate around the actual strength of the labor market with the household survey painting a weaker picture than the non-farm payroll data which is based on employer surveys. The bottom line is that we are in a stable, but decelerating late cycle economy from a macro data standpoint. However, on the micro front, the data has not been as stable and is showing a more meaningful deterioration in growth; particularly as it relates to the consumer.More specifically, earnings revision breadth has broken down recently for many of the cyclical parts of the market. Financials has been a bright spot here but that may be short-lived if the consumer continues to weaken. We continue to favor quality but with a greater focus on defensive sectors like utilities, staples and REITs as opposed to growthier ones like technology. The issue with the growth stocks is valuations and the quality of the earnings for some of the mega cap tech stocks.The other variable weighing on stocks at the moment is valuations which remain in the top decile of the past 20 years. It’s worth noting that valuations are very sensitive to earnings revisions breadth. The last time revision breadth rolled over into negative territory was last fall. Between July and October 2023, the market multiple declined from 20x to 17x. Two weeks ago, this multiple was 22x and is now 21x. If earnings revisions continue to fade as we expect, it’s likely these valuations have further to fall. With our 12-month base case target multiple at 19x, the risk reward for equities broadly remains quite unfavorable at the moment.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>234alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1178fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-coming-nuclear-power-renaissance--75651322----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Steven Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Asia Pacific Head of Sustainability Research.Stephen Byrd: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some significant developments in the nuclear power generation space with long term implications for global markets.It’s Monday, July 29th at 8am in New York.Tim Chan: And 8 pm in Hong Kong.Stephen Byrd: Nuclear power remains divisive, but it is making a comeback.So, Tim, let's set the scene here. What's really driving this resurgence of interest in nuclear power generation?Tim Chan: One key moment was the COP28 conference last year. Over 20 countries, including the US, Canada, and France, signed a joint declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Right now, the world has about 390 gigawatts of nuclear capacity providing 10 per cent of global electricity. It took 70 years to bring global nuclear capacity to 390 gigawatts. And now the COP28 target promises to build another 740 gigawatts in less than 30 years.And if this remarkable nuclear journey is going to be achieved, that will require financing and also shorter construction time.Stephen Byrd: So, Tim, how do you size the market opportunity on a global scale over the next five to ten years?Tim Chan: We estimate that nuclear renaissance will be worth $ 1.5 trillion (USD) through 2050, in the form of capital investment in new global nuclear capacity. And the growth globally will be led by China and the US. China will also lead in the investment in nuclear, followed by the US and the EU. In addition, this new capacity will need $128 billion (USD) annually to maintain.Stephen Byrd: Well, Tim, those are some gigantic numbers, $1.5 trillion (USD) and essentially a doubling of nuclear capacity by 2050. I want to dig into China a bit and if you could just speak to how big of a role China is going to play in this.Tim Chan: In China, by 2060, nuclear is likely to account for roughly 80 per cent of the total power generation, according to the China Nuclear Association. This figure represents half of the global nuclear capacity in similar stages, which amounts to 520 gigawatts.And Stephen, can you tell us more about the US?Stephen Byrd: Sure, during COP 28, the US joined a multinational declaration to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050. In this past year, the US has seen the completion of a new nuclear power plant in Georgia, which is the first new reactor built in the United States in over 30 years.Now, beyond this, we have not seen a strong pipeline in the US on large scale nuclear plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. And for the US to triple its nuclear capacity from about 100 gigawatts currently, the nation would need to build about 200 gigawatts more capacity to meet the target.In our nuclear renaissance scenario, we assume only 50 gigawatts will be built, considering a couple of factors. So, first, clean energy options, such as wind and solar are becoming more viable; they're dropping in cost. And also, for new nuclear in the United States, we've seen significant construction delays and cost overruns for the large-scale nuclear plants. Now that said, there is still upside if we're able to meet the target in the US.And I think that's going to depend heavily on the development of small modular reactors or SMRs. I am optimistic about SMRs in the longer term. They're modular, as the name says. They're easier to design, easier to construct, and easier to install. So, I do think we could see some upside surprises later this decade and into the next decade.Tim Chan: And nuclear offers a unique opportunity to power Generative AI, which is accounting for a growing share of energy needs.Stephen Byrd: So, Tim, I was wondering how long it was going to take before we began to talk about AI.Nuclear power generators do have a unique opportunity to provide power to data centers that are located on site, and those plants can provide consistent, uninterrupted power, potentially without external connections to the grid. In the US, we believe supercomputers, which are essentially extremely large data centers used primarily for GenAI training, will be built behind the fence at one or more nuclear power plants in the US. Now these supercomputers are absolutely massive. They could use the power, potentially, of multiple nuclear power plants.Now just let that sink in. These supercomputers could cost tens of billions of dollars, possibly even $100 billion plus. And they will bring to bear unprecedented compute power in developing future Large Language Models.So, Tim, where does regulation factor into the resurgence of nuclear power or the lack of resurgence?Tim Chan: So, for the regulation, we focus a lot on the framework to provide financing: subsidies, sustainable finance taxonomies and also from the bond investor; although we note that taxonomies are still developing to offer dedicated support to nuclear. We expect nuclear financing under green bonds will become increasingly common and accepted. However, exclusion on nuclear still exists.Stephen Byrd: So finally, Tim, what are some of the key risks and constraints for nuclear development?Tim Chan: I would highlight three risks. Construction time, shortage of labor, and uranium constraint. These remain the key risks for nuclear projects to bring value creation.US and Europe had high profile delay in the past, which led to massive cost overrun. We are also watching the impacts of shortage of skilled labor, which is more likely in the developed markets versus emerging markets. And the supply of enriched uranium, which is mainly dominated by Russia.Stephen Byrd: Well, that's interesting, Tim. There are clearly some risks that could derail or slow down this nuclear renaissance. Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk.Tim Chan: Great speaking with you, Stephen.Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OKqapaUpTy-glI6eUYTNxlEmjCIeKYsz_jD1hGtw2e0Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:50:07 +0000gtyOur sustainability strategists Stephen Byrd and Tim Chan discuss what’s driving new opportunities across the global nuclear power sector and some risks investors should keep in mind. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Steven Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Asia Pacific Head of Sustainability Research.Stephen Byrd: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some significant developments in the nuclear power generation space with long term implications for global markets.It’s Monday, July 29th at 8am in New York.Tim Chan: And 8 pm in Hong Kong.Stephen Byrd: Nuclear power remains divisive, but it is making a comeback.So, Tim, let's set the scene here. What's really driving this resurgence of interest in nuclear power generation?Tim Chan: One key moment was the COP28 conference last year. Over 20 countries, including the US, Canada, and France, signed a joint declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Right now, the world has about 390 gigawatts of nuclear capacity providing 10 per cent of global electricity. It took 70 years to bring global nuclear capacity to 390 gigawatts. And now the COP28 target promises to build another 740 gigawatts in less than 30 years.And if this remarkable nuclear journey is going to be achieved, that will require financing and also shorter construction time.Stephen Byrd: So, Tim, how do you size the market opportunity on a global scale over the next five to ten years?Tim Chan: We estimate that nuclear renaissance will be worth $ 1.5 trillion (USD) through 2050, in the form of capital investment in new global nuclear capacity. And the growth globally will be led by China and the US. China will also lead in the investment in nuclear, followed by the US and the EU. In addition, this new capacity will need $128 billion (USD) annually to maintain.Stephen Byrd: Well, Tim, those are some gigantic numbers, $1.5 trillion (USD) and essentially a doubling of nuclear capacity by 2050. I want to dig into China a bit and if you could just speak to how big of a role China is going to play in this.Tim Chan: In China, by 2060, nuclear is likely to account for roughly 80 per cent of the total power generation, according to the China Nuclear Association. This figure represents half of the global nuclear capacity in similar stages, which amounts to 520 gigawatts.And Stephen, can you tell us more about the US?Stephen Byrd: Sure, during COP 28, the US joined a multinational declaration to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050. In this past year, the US has seen the completion of a new nuclear power plant in Georgia, which is the first new reactor built in the United States in over 30 years.Now, beyond this, we have not seen a strong pipeline in the US on large scale nuclear plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. And for the US to triple its nuclear capacity from about 100 gigawatts currently, the nation would need to build about 200 gigawatts more capacity to meet the target.In our nuclear renaissance scenario, we assume only 50 gigawatts will be built, considering a couple of factors. So, first, clean energy options, such as wind and solar are becoming more viable; they're dropping in cost. And also, for new nuclear in the United States, we've seen significant construction delays and cost overruns for the large-scale nuclear plants. Now that said, there is still upside if we're able to meet the target in the US.And I think that's going to depend heavily on the development of small modular reactors or SMRs. I am optimistic about SMRs in the longer term. They're modular, as the name says. They're easier to design, easier to construct, and easier to install. So, I do think we could see some upside surprises later this decade and into the next decade.Tim Chan: And nuclear offers a unique opportunity to power Generative AI, which is accounting for a growing share of energy needs.Stephen Byrd: So,...]]>378alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1177fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/three-risks-for-the-third-quarter--75651292----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about three risks we’re focused on for the third quarter.It's Friday, July 26th at 2pm in London.We like credit. But there are certainly risks we’re watching. I’d like to discuss three that are top of mind. The first is probably the mildest. Looking back over the last 35 years, August and September have historically been tougher months for riskier assets like stocks and corporate bonds. US High Yield bonds, for example, lose about 1 per cent relative to safer government bonds over August-September. That’s hardly a cataclysm, but it still represents the worst two-month stretch of any point of the year. And so all-else-equal, treading a little more cautiously in credit over the next two months has, from a seasonal perspective, made sense. The second risk is probably the most topical. Equity markets, especially US equity markets, are seeing major shifts in which stocks are doing well. Since July 8th, the Nasdaq 100, an index dominated by larger high-quality, often Technology companies, is down over 7 per cent. The Russell 2000, a different index representing smaller, often lower quality companies, is up over 11 per cent. So ask somebody – ‘How is the market?’ – and their answer is probably going to differ based on which market they’re currently in. This so-called rotation in what’s outperforming in the equity market is a risk, as Technology and large-cap equities have outperformed for more than a decade, meaning that they tend to be more widely held. But for credit, we think this risk is pretty modest. The weakness in these Large, Technology companies is having such a large impact because they make up so much of the market – roughly 40 per cent of the S&P 500 index. But those same sectors are only 6 per cent of the Investment grade credit market, which is weighted differently by the amount of debt somebody is issued. Meanwhile, Banks have been one of the best performing sectors of the stock market. And would you believe it? They are one of the largest sectors of credit, representing over 20 per cent of the US Investment Grade index. Put a slightly different way, when thinking about the Credit market, the average stock is going to map much more closely to what’s in our indices than, say, a market-weighted index. The third risk on our minds is the most serious: that economic data ends up being much weaker than we at Morgan Stanley expect. Yes, weaker data could lead the Fed and the ECB to make more interest rate cuts. But history suggests this is usually a bad bargain. When the Fed needs to cut a lot as growth weakens, it is often acting too late. And Credit consistently underperforms.We do worry that the Fed is a bit too confident that it will be able to see softness coming, given the lag that exists between when it cuts rates and the impact on the economy. We also think interest rates are probably higher than they need to be, given that inflation is rapidly falling toward the Fed’s target. But for now, the US Economy is holding up, growing at an impressive 2.8 per cent rate in the second quarter in data announced this week. Good data is good news for credit, in our view. Weaker data would make us worried. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pWJ1UQLXxan4NvvyonofRE_wxLlDKCb1EEi255wxskMFri, 26 Jul 2024 19:41:09 +0000gtyOur head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, notes areas of uncertainty in the credit, equity and macro landscapes that are worth tracking as we move into the fall. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about three risks we’re focused on for the third quarter.It's Friday, July 26th at 2pm in London.We like credit. But there are certainly risks we’re watching. I’d like to discuss three that are top of mind. The first is probably the mildest. Looking back over the last 35 years, August and September have historically been tougher months for riskier assets like stocks and corporate bonds. US High Yield bonds, for example, lose about 1 per cent relative to safer government bonds over August-September. That’s hardly a cataclysm, but it still represents the worst two-month stretch of any point of the year. And so all-else-equal, treading a little more cautiously in credit over the next two months has, from a seasonal perspective, made sense. The second risk is probably the most topical. Equity markets, especially US equity markets, are seeing major shifts in which stocks are doing well. Since July 8th, the Nasdaq 100, an index dominated by larger high-quality, often Technology companies, is down over 7 per cent. The Russell 2000, a different index representing smaller, often lower quality companies, is up over 11 per cent. So ask somebody – ‘How is the market?’ – and their answer is probably going to differ based on which market they’re currently in. This so-called rotation in what’s outperforming in the equity market is a risk, as Technology and large-cap equities have outperformed for more than a decade, meaning that they tend to be more widely held. But for credit, we think this risk is pretty modest. The weakness in these Large, Technology companies is having such a large impact because they make up so much of the market – roughly 40 per cent of the S&P 500 index. But those same sectors are only 6 per cent of the Investment grade credit market, which is weighted differently by the amount of debt somebody is issued. Meanwhile, Banks have been one of the best performing sectors of the stock market. And would you believe it? They are one of the largest sectors of credit, representing over 20 per cent of the US Investment Grade index. Put a slightly different way, when thinking about the Credit market, the average stock is going to map much more closely to what’s in our indices than, say, a market-weighted index. The third risk on our minds is the most serious: that economic data ends up being much weaker than we at Morgan Stanley expect. Yes, weaker data could lead the Fed and the ECB to make more interest rate cuts. But history suggests this is usually a bad bargain. When the Fed needs to cut a lot as growth weakens, it is often acting too late. And Credit consistently underperforms.We do worry that the Fed is a bit too confident that it will be able to see softness coming, given the lag that exists between when it cuts rates and the impact on the economy. We also think interest rates are probably higher than they need to be, given that inflation is rapidly falling toward the Fed’s target. But for now, the US Economy is holding up, growing at an impressive 2.8 per cent rate in the second quarter in data announced this week. Good data is good news for credit, in our view. Weaker data would make us worried. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>230alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1176fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investors-questions-after-election-shakeup--75651218----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the latest development in the US presidential race.It's Thursday, July 25th at 2:30 pm in New York. Last weekend, when President Biden decided not to seek re-election, it begged some questions from investors. First, with a new candidate at the top of the ticket, are there new policy impacts, and potential market effects, resulting from Democrats winning that we haven’t previously considered? For the moment, we think the answer is no. Consider Vice President Harris. Her policy positions are similar to Biden’s on key issues of importance to markets. And even if they weren’t, the details of key legislative policies in a Democratic win scenario will likely be shaped by the party’s elected officials overall. So, our guidance for market impacts that investors should watch for in the event that Democrats win the White House is unchanged. Second, what does it mean for the state of the race? After all, markets in the past couple of weeks began anticipating a stronger possibility of Republican victory. It was visible in stronger performance in small cap stocks, which our equity strategy team credited to investors seeing greater benefits in that sector from more aggressive tax cuts under possible Republican governance. It was also visible in steeper yield curves, which could reflect both weaker growth prospects due to tariff risks, pushing shorter maturity yields lower, and greater long-term uncertainty on economic growth, inflation, and bond supply from higher US deficits – something that could push longer-maturity Treasury yields relatively higher. So, it's understandable that investors could question the durability of these market moves if the race appeared more competitive. But the honest answer here is that it's too early to know how the race has changed. As imperfect as they are, polls are still our best tool to gauge public sentiment. And there’s scant polling on Democratic candidates not named Biden. So, on the question of which candidate more likely enjoys sufficient voter support to win the election, it could be days or weeks before we have reliable information. That said, prediction markets are communicating that they expect the race to tighten – pricing President Trump’s probability of regaining the White House at about 60-65 per cent, down from a recent high of 75-80 per cent. So bottom line, a change in the Democratic ticket hasn’t changed the very real policy stakes in this election. We’ll keep you informed here of how it's impacting our outlook for markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tL12AqlaQe4jwKq5MdHkQjjaPFwXafuOW_cDSer-IRIThu, 25 Jul 2024 21:27:35 +0000gtyMarkets are contending with greater uncertainty around the US presidential election following President Biden’s withdrawal. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research breaks down what we know as the campaign enters a new phase. -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the latest development in the US presidential race.It's Thursday, July 25th at 2:30 pm in New York. Last weekend, when President Biden decided not to seek re-election, it begged some questions from investors. First, with a new candidate at the top of the ticket, are there new policy impacts, and potential market effects, resulting from Democrats winning that we haven’t previously considered? For the moment, we think the answer is no. Consider Vice President Harris. Her policy positions are similar to Biden’s on key issues of importance to markets. And even if they weren’t, the details of key legislative policies in a Democratic win scenario will likely be shaped by the party’s elected officials overall. So, our guidance for market impacts that investors should watch for in the event that Democrats win the White House is unchanged. Second, what does it mean for the state of the race? After all, markets in the past couple of weeks began anticipating a stronger possibility of Republican victory. It was visible in stronger performance in small cap stocks, which our equity strategy team credited to investors seeing greater benefits in that sector from more aggressive tax cuts under possible Republican governance. It was also visible in steeper yield curves, which could reflect both weaker growth prospects due to tariff risks, pushing shorter maturity yields lower, and greater long-term uncertainty on economic growth, inflation, and bond supply from higher US deficits – something that could push longer-maturity Treasury yields relatively higher. So, it's understandable that investors could question the durability of these market moves if the race appeared more competitive. But the honest answer here is that it's too early to know how the race has changed. As imperfect as they are, polls are still our best tool to gauge public sentiment. And there’s scant polling on Democratic candidates not named Biden. So, on the question of which candidate more likely enjoys sufficient voter support to win the election, it could be days or weeks before we have reliable information. That said, prediction markets are communicating that they expect the race to tighten – pricing President Trump’s probability of regaining the White House at about 60-65 per cent, down from a recent high of 75-80 per cent. So bottom line, a change in the Democratic ticket hasn’t changed the very real policy stakes in this election. We’ll keep you informed here of how it's impacting our outlook for markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>178alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1175fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-asian-markets-view-us-elections--75651123----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a question that’s drawing increasing attention – just how the U.S. presidential election would affect Asian economies and markets. It’s Wednesday, July 24th, at 8 PM in Hong Kong. As the US presidential race progresses, global markets are beginning to evaluate the possibility of a Trump win and maybe even a Republican sweep. Investors are wondering what this would   mean for Asia in particular. We believe there are three channels through which the US election outcome will matter for Asia. First, financial conditions – how the US dollar and rates will move ahead of and after the US elections. Second, tariffs. And third, US growth outcomes, which will affect global growth and end demand for Asian exports. Well, out of the three our top concern is the growth downside from higher tariffs. The 2018 experience suggests that the direct effect of tariffs is not what plays the most dominant role in affecting the macro outcomes; but rather the transmission through corporate confidence, capital expenditure, global demand and financial conditions. Let’s consider two scenarios. First, in a potential Trump win with divided government, China would likely be more affected from tariffs than Asia ex China. We see potentially two outcomes in this scenario – one where the US imposes tariffs only on China, and another where it also imposes 10 percent tariffs on the rest of the world. In the case of 60 percent tariffs on imports from China, there would be meaningful adverse effect on Asia's growth and it will be deflationary. China would remain most exposed compared to the rest of the region, which has reduced its export exposure to China over time and could see a positive offset from diversification of the supply chain away from China. In the case where the US also imposes 10 percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, we expect a bigger downside for China and the region. We believe that in this instance – in addition to the direct effect of tariffs on exports – the growth downside will be amplified by significant negative impact on corporate confidence, capex and trade. Corporate confidence will see bigger damage in this instance as compared to the one where tariffs are imposed only on China as corporate sector will have to think about on-shoring rather than continuing with friend-shoring. In the second scenario, in a potential Trump win with Republican sweep, in addition to the implications from tariffs, we would also be watching the possible fiscal policy outcomes and how they would shift the US yields and the dollar. This means that the tightening of financial conditions would pose further growth downside to Asia, over and above the effects of tariffs. How would Asia’s policymakers respond to these scenarios? As tariffs are imposed, we would expect Asian currencies to most likely come under depreciation pressure in the near term. While this helps to partly offset the negative implications of tariffs, it will constraint the ability of the central banks to cut rates. In this context, we expect fiscal easing to lead the first part of the policy response before rate cuts follow once currencies stabilize. It’s worth noting that in this cycle, the monetary policy space in Asia is much more limited than in the previous cycles because nominal rates in Asia for the most part are lower than in the US at the starting point. Of course, this is an evolving situation in the remaining months before the US elections, and we’ll continue to keep you updated on any significant developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9dDzNynUZrgNQbGsCKpVX3wivAmfbqWjHN2NPD0yN2oWed, 24 Jul 2024 22:18:02 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia Economist explains how the region’s economies and markets would be affected by higher tariffs, and other possible scenarios in the US elections. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a question that’s drawing increasing attention – just how the U.S. presidential election would affect Asian economies and markets. It’s Wednesday, July 24th, at 8 PM in Hong Kong. As the US presidential race progresses, global markets are beginning to evaluate the possibility of a Trump win and maybe even a Republican sweep. Investors are wondering what this would   mean for Asia in particular. We believe there are three channels through which the US election outcome will matter for Asia. First, financial conditions – how the US dollar and rates will move ahead of and after the US elections. Second, tariffs. And third, US growth outcomes, which will affect global growth and end demand for Asian exports. Well, out of the three our top concern is the growth downside from higher tariffs. The 2018 experience suggests that the direct effect of tariffs is not what plays the most dominant role in affecting the macro outcomes; but rather the transmission through corporate confidence, capital expenditure, global demand and financial conditions. Let’s consider two scenarios. First, in a potential Trump win with divided government, China would likely be more affected from tariffs than Asia ex China. We see potentially two outcomes in this scenario – one where the US imposes tariffs only on China, and another where it also imposes 10 percent tariffs on the rest of the world. In the case of 60 percent tariffs on imports from China, there would be meaningful adverse effect on Asia's growth and it will be deflationary. China would remain most exposed compared to the rest of the region, which has reduced its export exposure to China over time and could see a positive offset from diversification of the supply chain away from China. In the case where the US also imposes 10 percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, we expect a bigger downside for China and the region. We believe that in this instance – in addition to the direct effect of tariffs on exports – the growth downside will be amplified by significant negative impact on corporate confidence, capex and trade. Corporate confidence will see bigger damage in this instance as compared to the one where tariffs are imposed only on China as corporate sector will have to think about on-shoring rather than continuing with friend-shoring. In the second scenario, in a potential Trump win with Republican sweep, in addition to the implications from tariffs, we would also be watching the possible fiscal policy outcomes and how they would shift the US yields and the dollar. This means that the tightening of financial conditions would pose further growth downside to Asia, over and above the effects of tariffs. How would Asia’s policymakers respond to these scenarios? As tariffs are imposed, we would expect Asian currencies to most likely come under depreciation pressure in the near term. While this helps to partly offset the negative implications of tariffs, it will constraint the ability of the central banks to cut rates. In this context, we expect fiscal easing to lead the first part of the policy response before rate cuts follow once currencies stabilize. It’s worth noting that in this cycle, the monetary policy space in Asia is much more limited than in the previous cycles because nominal rates in Asia for the most part are lower than in the US at the starting point. Of course, this is an evolving situation in the remaining months before the US elections, and we’ll continue to keep you updated on any significant developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and...]]>258alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1174fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/almost-human-robots-in-our-near-future--75651083----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility. Today I’ll be talking about an unusual but hotly debated topic: humanoid robots.It’s Tuesday, July 23rd, at 10am in New York. We've seen robots on factory floors, in displays at airports and at trade shows – doing work, performing tasks, even smiling. But over the last eighteen months, we seem to have hit a major inflection point.What's changed? Large Language Models and Generative AI. The current AI movement is drawing comparisons to the dawn of the Internet. It’s begging big, existential questions about the future of the human species and consciousness itself. But let’s look at this in more practical terms and consider why robots are taking on a human shape. The simplest answer is that we live in a world built for humans. And we’re getting to the point where – thanks to GenAI – robots are learning through observation. Not just through rudimentary instruction and rules based heuristic models. GenAI means robots can observe humans in action doing boring, dangerous and repetitive tasks in warehouses, in restaurants or in factories. And in order for these robots to learn and function most effectively, their design needs to be anthropomorphic. Another reason we're bullish on humanoid robots is because developers can have these robots experiment and learn from both simulation and physically in areas where they’re not a serious threat to other humans. You see, many of the enabling technologies driving humanoid robots have come from developments in autonomous cars. The problem with autonomous cars is that you can't train them on public roads without directly involving innocent civilians – pedestrians, children and cyclists -- into that experiment. Add to all of this the issue of critical labor shortages and challenging demographic trends. The global labor total addressable market is around $30 trillion (USD) or about one-third of global GDP. We’ve built a proprietary US total addressable market model examining labor dynamics and humanoid optionality across 831 job classifications, working with our economic team; and built a comprehensive survey across 40 sectors to understand labor intensity and humanoid ability of the workforce over time. In the United States, we forecast 40,000 humanoid units by 2030, 8 million by 2040 and 63 million by 2050 – equivalent to around $3 trillion (USD) of salary equivalent. But as early as 2028 we think you're going to see significant adoption beginning in industries like manufacturing, production, warehousing, and logistics, installation, healthcare and food prep. Then in the 2030s, you’re going to start adding more in healthcare, recreational and transportation. And then after 2040, you may see the adoption of humanoid robots go vertical. Now you might say – that’s 15 years from now. But just like autonomous cars, the end state might be 20 years away, but the capital formation is happening right now. And investors should pay close attention because we think the technological advances will only accelerate from here. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/l5IToXGIEHKiKtfj2YudbdZhrZn4hKJCpaNtoGTOEKwTue, 23 Jul 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility discusses what makes humanoid robots a pivotal trend with implications for the global economy. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Global...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility. Today I’ll be talking about an unusual but hotly debated topic: humanoid robots.It’s Tuesday, July 23rd, at 10am in New York. We've seen robots on factory floors, in displays at airports and at trade shows – doing work, performing tasks, even smiling. But over the last eighteen months, we seem to have hit a major inflection point.What's changed? Large Language Models and Generative AI. The current AI movement is drawing comparisons to the dawn of the Internet. It’s begging big, existential questions about the future of the human species and consciousness itself. But let’s look at this in more practical terms and consider why robots are taking on a human shape. The simplest answer is that we live in a world built for humans. And we’re getting to the point where – thanks to GenAI – robots are learning through observation. Not just through rudimentary instruction and rules based heuristic models. GenAI means robots can observe humans in action doing boring, dangerous and repetitive tasks in warehouses, in restaurants or in factories. And in order for these robots to learn and function most effectively, their design needs to be anthropomorphic. Another reason we're bullish on humanoid robots is because developers can have these robots experiment and learn from both simulation and physically in areas where they’re not a serious threat to other humans. You see, many of the enabling technologies driving humanoid robots have come from developments in autonomous cars. The problem with autonomous cars is that you can't train them on public roads without directly involving innocent civilians – pedestrians, children and cyclists -- into that experiment. Add to all of this the issue of critical labor shortages and challenging demographic trends. The global labor total addressable market is around $30 trillion (USD) or about one-third of global GDP. We’ve built a proprietary US total addressable market model examining labor dynamics and humanoid optionality across 831 job classifications, working with our economic team; and built a comprehensive survey across 40 sectors to understand labor intensity and humanoid ability of the workforce over time. In the United States, we forecast 40,000 humanoid units by 2030, 8 million by 2040 and 63 million by 2050 – equivalent to around $3 trillion (USD) of salary equivalent. But as early as 2028 we think you're going to see significant adoption beginning in industries like manufacturing, production, warehousing, and logistics, installation, healthcare and food prep. Then in the 2030s, you’re going to start adding more in healthcare, recreational and transportation. And then after 2040, you may see the adoption of humanoid robots go vertical. Now you might say – that’s 15 years from now. But just like autonomous cars, the end state might be 20 years away, but the capital formation is happening right now. And investors should pay close attention because we think the technological advances will only accelerate from here. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>225alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1173fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/business-cycle-may-trump-politics--75651354----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity  Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about  why investors should fade the recent rally in small caps and other pro cyclical trades. It's Monday, July 22nd at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.With Donald Trump’s odds of winning a second Presidency rising substantially over the past few weeks, we’ve fielded many questions on how to position for this outcome. In general, there is an increasing view that growth and interest rates could be higher given Trump's focus on business-friendly policies, de-regulation, higher tariffs, less immigration and additional tax cuts.  While the S&P 500 has risen alongside Trump's presidential odds this year, several of the perceived  industry outperformers under this political scenario have only just recently started to show relative outperformance. One could argue a Trump win in conjunction with a Republican sweep could be  particularly beneficial for Banks, Small Caps, Energy Infrastructure and perhaps Industrials. Although, the  Democrats' heavy fiscal spending and subsidies for the Inflation Reduction Act, Chips Act and other infrastructure projects suggest Industrial stocks may not see as much of an incremental benefit relative to the past four years. The  perceived industry underperformers are alternative energy stocks and companies likely to be affected  the most by increased tariffs. Consumer stocks stand out in terms of this latter point, and they have underperformed recently. However, macro factors are likely affecting this dynamic as well. For example, concerns around slowing services demand and an increasingly value-focused consumer have risen, too. It's interesting to note that while these cyclical areas that are perceived to outperform under a Trump Presidency did work in 2016 and through part of 2017, they did even better during Biden's first year. Our rationale on this front is that the cycle plays a larger role in how stocks trade broadly and at the sector level than who is in the White House. As a comparison, we laid out a bullish case at the end of 2016 and in early 2017 when many were less constructive on pro cyclical risk assets than we were post the 2016 election. It’s worth pointing out that the global economy was coming out of a commodity and  manufacturing recession at that time, and growth was just starting to reaccelerate, led by another China boom. Today, we face a much different macro landscape. More specifically, several of the cyclical trades mentioned above typically show their best performance in the early cycle phase of an economic  expansion like 2020-2021. They show strong, but often not quite as strong performance in mid cycle  periods like 2016-17. They tend to show less strong returns later in the cycle like today. Our late cycle view is further supported by the persistent fall in long term interest rates and inverted yield curve.  We believe the recent outperformance of lower quality, small cap stocks has been driven mainly by a combination of softer inflation data and hopes for an earlier Fed cut combined with dealer demand and short covering from investors on the back of Trump’s improved odds. For those looking to the 2016 playbook, we would point out that relative earnings revisions for small cap cyclicals are much weaker today than they were during that period.   Back in December when small caps saw a similar squeeze higher, we explored the combination of factors  that would likely need to be in place for small cap equities to see a durable, multi-month period of  outperformance. Our view was that the introduction of rate cuts in and of itself was not enough of a factor to drive small cap outperformance versus large caps. In fact, history suggests large cap growth tends to be the best performing style once the Fed begins cutting as nominal growth is often slowing at  this point in the cycle, which enables the Fed to begin cutting. We concluded that to see durable small cap  outperformance, we would need to see a much more aggressive Fed cutting cycle that revived animal spirits in a significant enough way for growth and pricing power to inflect higher, not lower like recent trends.  We are monitoring small cap earnings expectations and small business sentiment for signs that animal  spirits are building in this way. Rates and pricing power are still headwinds; while small businesses are not all that sanguine about expanding operations, they are increasingly viewing the economy more  positively — an incremental positive and something worth watching. We will continue to monitor the  data in assessing the feasibility of this small cap rally continuing. Based on the evidence to date, we  would resist the urge to chase this cohort and lean back into large cap quality and defensives. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share  Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_BG_lplnOsByCfUkcX359R2PyqA-BqdlVb1wANgZY50Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:19:13 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains that in the event of a Republican sweep in this fall’s U.S. elections, investors should not expect a repeat of 2016 given the different business environment. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity  Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about  why investors should fade the recent rally in small caps and other pro cyclical trades. It's Monday, July 22nd at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.With Donald Trump’s odds of winning a second Presidency rising substantially over the past few weeks, we’ve fielded many questions on how to position for this outcome. In general, there is an increasing view that growth and interest rates could be higher given Trump's focus on business-friendly policies, de-regulation, higher tariffs, less immigration and additional tax cuts.  While the S&P 500 has risen alongside Trump's presidential odds this year, several of the perceived  industry outperformers under this political scenario have only just recently started to show relative outperformance. One could argue a Trump win in conjunction with a Republican sweep could be  particularly beneficial for Banks, Small Caps, Energy Infrastructure and perhaps Industrials. Although, the  Democrats' heavy fiscal spending and subsidies for the Inflation Reduction Act, Chips Act and other infrastructure projects suggest Industrial stocks may not see as much of an incremental benefit relative to the past four years. The  perceived industry underperformers are alternative energy stocks and companies likely to be affected  the most by increased tariffs. Consumer stocks stand out in terms of this latter point, and they have underperformed recently. However, macro factors are likely affecting this dynamic as well. For example, concerns around slowing services demand and an increasingly value-focused consumer have risen, too. It's interesting to note that while these cyclical areas that are perceived to outperform under a Trump Presidency did work in 2016 and through part of 2017, they did even better during Biden's first year. Our rationale on this front is that the cycle plays a larger role in how stocks trade broadly and at the sector level than who is in the White House. As a comparison, we laid out a bullish case at the end of 2016 and in early 2017 when many were less constructive on pro cyclical risk assets than we were post the 2016 election. It’s worth pointing out that the global economy was coming out of a commodity and  manufacturing recession at that time, and growth was just starting to reaccelerate, led by another China boom. Today, we face a much different macro landscape. More specifically, several of the cyclical trades mentioned above typically show their best performance in the early cycle phase of an economic  expansion like 2020-2021. They show strong, but often not quite as strong performance in mid cycle  periods like 2016-17. They tend to show less strong returns later in the cycle like today. Our late cycle view is further supported by the persistent fall in long term interest rates and inverted yield curve.  We believe the recent outperformance of lower quality, small cap stocks has been driven mainly by a combination of softer inflation data and hopes for an earlier Fed cut combined with dealer demand and short covering from investors on the back of Trump’s improved odds. For those looking to the 2016 playbook, we would point out that relative earnings revisions for small cap cyclicals are much weaker today than they were during that period.   Back in December when small caps saw a similar squeeze higher, we explored the combination of factors  that would likely need to be in place for small cap equities to see a durable, multi-month period of  outperformance. Our view was that the introduction of rate cuts in and of itself was...]]>310alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1172fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-credit-markets-like-moderation--75651369----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why being negative credit isn’t as obvious as it looks, despite historically low spreads.It's Friday, July 19th at 2pm in London.We’re constructive on credit. We think the asset class likes moderation, and that’s exactly what Morgan Stanley forecasts expect: moderate growth, moderating inflation and moderating policy rates. Corporate activity is also modest; and even though it’s picking up, we haven’t yet seen the really aggressive types of corporate behavior that tend to make bondholders unhappy. Meanwhile, demand for the asset class is strong, and we think the start of Fed rate cuts in September could make it even stronger as money comes out of money market funds, looking to lock in current interest rates for longer in all sorts of bonds – including corporate bonds. And so while spreads are low by historical standards, our call is that helpful fundamentals and demand will keep them low, at least for the time being. But the question of credit’s valuation is important. Indeed, one of the most compelling bearish arguments in credit is pretty straightforward: current spreads are near some of their lowest levels of several prior cycles. They’ve repeatedly struggled to go lower. And if they can’t go lower, positioning for spreads to go wider and for the market to go weaker, well, it would seem like pretty good risk/reward. This is an extremely fair question! But there are four reasons why we think the case to be negative isn’t as straightforward as this logic might otherwise imply.First, a historical quirk of credit valuations is that spreads rarely trade at long-run average. They are often either much wider, in times of stress, or much tighter, in periods of calm. In statistical terms, spreads are bi-modal – and in the mid 1990s or mid 2000’s, they were able to stay near historically tight levels for a pretty extended period of time. Second, work by my colleague Vishwas Patkar and our US Credit Strategy team notes that, if you make some important adjustments to current credit spreads, for things like quality, bond price, and duration, current spreads don’t look quite as rich relative to prior lows. Current investment grade spreads in the US, for example, may still be 20 basis points wider than levels of January 2020, right before the start of COVID. Third, a number of the key buyers of corporate bonds at the moment are being driven by the level of yields, which are still high rather than spread, which are admittedly low. That could mean that demand holds up better even in the face of lower spreads. And fourth, credit is what we’d call a positive carry asset class: sellers lose money if nothing in the market changes. That’s not the case for US Treasuries, or US Equities, where those who are negative – or short – will profit if the market simply moves sideways. It’s one more factor that means that, while spreads are low, we’re mindful that being negative too early can still be costly. It’s not as simple as it looks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YDd4S4FLmyd937caUyg1s1TItknpKy1Iwtb5hdCGiLkFri, 19 Jul 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research shares four reasons that he believes credit spreads are likely to stay near their current lows. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why being negative credit isn’t as obvious as it looks, despite historically low spreads.It's Friday, July 19th at 2pm in London.We’re constructive on credit. We think the asset class likes moderation, and that’s exactly what Morgan Stanley forecasts expect: moderate growth, moderating inflation and moderating policy rates. Corporate activity is also modest; and even though it’s picking up, we haven’t yet seen the really aggressive types of corporate behavior that tend to make bondholders unhappy. Meanwhile, demand for the asset class is strong, and we think the start of Fed rate cuts in September could make it even stronger as money comes out of money market funds, looking to lock in current interest rates for longer in all sorts of bonds – including corporate bonds. And so while spreads are low by historical standards, our call is that helpful fundamentals and demand will keep them low, at least for the time being. But the question of credit’s valuation is important. Indeed, one of the most compelling bearish arguments in credit is pretty straightforward: current spreads are near some of their lowest levels of several prior cycles. They’ve repeatedly struggled to go lower. And if they can’t go lower, positioning for spreads to go wider and for the market to go weaker, well, it would seem like pretty good risk/reward. This is an extremely fair question! But there are four reasons why we think the case to be negative isn’t as straightforward as this logic might otherwise imply.First, a historical quirk of credit valuations is that spreads rarely trade at long-run average. They are often either much wider, in times of stress, or much tighter, in periods of calm. In statistical terms, spreads are bi-modal – and in the mid 1990s or mid 2000’s, they were able to stay near historically tight levels for a pretty extended period of time. Second, work by my colleague Vishwas Patkar and our US Credit Strategy team notes that, if you make some important adjustments to current credit spreads, for things like quality, bond price, and duration, current spreads don’t look quite as rich relative to prior lows. Current investment grade spreads in the US, for example, may still be 20 basis points wider than levels of January 2020, right before the start of COVID. Third, a number of the key buyers of corporate bonds at the moment are being driven by the level of yields, which are still high rather than spread, which are admittedly low. That could mean that demand holds up better even in the face of lower spreads. And fourth, credit is what we’d call a positive carry asset class: sellers lose money if nothing in the market changes. That’s not the case for US Treasuries, or US Equities, where those who are negative – or short – will profit if the market simply moves sideways. It’s one more factor that means that, while spreads are low, we’re mindful that being negative too early can still be costly. It’s not as simple as it looks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>209alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1171fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-surprising-link-between-auto-insurance-and-inflation--75651170----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Diego Anzoategui: I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.Bob Huang: And I'm Bob Huang, the US Life and Property Casualty Insurance Analyst.Seth Carpenter: And on this episode, we're going to talk about a topic that -- I would have guessed -- historically we weren't going to think about too often in a macro setting; but over the past couple of years it's been a critical part of the whole story on inflation, and probably affects most of our listeners.It's auto insurance and why we think we're reaching a turning point.It's Thursday, July 18th at 10am in New York.All right, let's get started.If you drive a car in the United States, you almost surely have been hit by a big increase in your auto insurance prices. Over the past couple of years, everyone has been talking about inflation, how much consumer prices have been going up. But one of the components that lots of people see that's really gone up dramatically recently has been auto insurance.So that's why I wanted to come in and sit down with my colleagues, Diego and Bob, and talk through just what's going on here with auto insurance and how does it matter.Diego, I'm going to start with you.One thing that is remarkable is that the inflation that we're seeing now and that we've seen over the past several months is not related to the current state of the economy.But we know in markets that everyone's looking at the Fed, and the Fed is looking at the CPI data that's coming out. We just got the June CPI data for the US recently. How does this phenomenon of auto insurance fit into that reading on the data?Diego Anzoategui: Auto insurance is a relatively small component of CPI. It only represents just below 3 per cent of the CPI basket. But it has become a key driver because of the very high inflation rates has been showing. You know, the key aggregate the Fed watches carefully is core services ex-housing inflation. And the general perception is that inflation in these services is a lagged reflection of labor market tightness. But the main component driving this aggregate, at least in CPI, since 2022 has been auto insurance.So the main story behind core services ex-housing inflation in CPI is just the lagged effect of a cost shock to insurance companies.Seth Carpenter: Wait, let me stop you there. Did I understand you right? That if we're thinking about core services inflation, if you exclude housing; that is, I think, what a lot of people think is inflation that comes from a tight labor market, inflation that comes from an overheated economy. And you're saying that a lot of the movement in the past year or two is really coming from this auto insurance phenomenon.Diego Anzoategui: Yes, that's exactly true. It is the main component explaining core services ex-housing inflation.Seth: What's caused this big acceleration in auto insurance over the past few years? And just how big a deal is it for an economist like us?Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, so believe it or not, today's auto insurance inflation is related to COVID and the supply chain issues we faced in 2021 and 2022. Key cost components such as used cars, parts and equipment, and repair cost increased significantly, creating cost pressures to insurance companies. But the reaction in terms of pricing was sluggish. Some companies reacted slowly; but perhaps more importantly, regulators in key states didn't approve price increases quickly.Remember that this is a regulated industry, and insurance companies need approvals from regulators to update premiums. And, of course, losses increased as a result of this sluggish response in pricing, and several insurance started to scale back businesses, creating supply demand imbalances.And it is when these imbalances became evident that regulators started to approve large rate increases, boosting car insurance inflation rapidly from the second half of 2022 until today.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so if that's the case, what should we think about as key predictors, then, of auto insurance prices going forward? What should investors be aware of? What should consumers be aware of? Diego Anzoategui: So in terms of predictors, it is always a good idea to keep track of cost related variables. And these are leading indicators that we both Bob and I would follow closely.Used car prices, repair costs, which are also CPI components, are leading indicators of auto insurance inflation. And both of them are decelerating. Used car prices are actually falling. So there is deflation in that component. But I think rate filings are a key indicator to identify the turning point we are expecting this cycle.Seth Carpenter: Can you walk through what that means -- rate filings? Just for our listeners who might not be familiar?Diego Anzoategui: So, rate filings basically summarize how much insurers are asking to regulators to increase their premiums. And we actually have access to this data at a monthly frequency. Filings from January to May this year -- they are broadly running in line with what happened in 2023. But we are expecting deceleration in the coming months.If filings start to come down, that will be a confirmation of our view of a turning point coming and a strong sign of future deceleration in car insurance inflation.Seth Carpenter: So Bob, let me turn to you. Diego outlines with the macro considerations here. You're an analyst, you cover insurers, you cover the equity prices for those insurance, you're very much in the weeds. Are we reaching a turning point? Walk us through what actually has happened.Bob Huang: Yeah, so we certainly are reaching a turning point. And then, similar to what Diego said before, right, losses have been very high; and then that consequently resulted in ultimately regulators allowing insurance companies to increase price, and then that price increase really is what's impacting this.Now, going forward, as insurers are slowly achieving profitability in the personal auto space, personal auto insurers are aiming to grow their business. And then, if we believe that the personal auto insurance is more or less a somewhat commoditized product, and then the biggest lever that the insurance companies have really is on the pricing side. And as insurers achieve profitability, aim for growth, and that will consequently cost some more increased pricing competition.So, yes, we'll see pricing deceleration, and that's what I'm expecting for the second half of the year. And then perhaps even further out, and that could even intensify further. But we'll have to see down the road.Seth Carpenter: Is there any chance that we actually see decreases in those premiums? Or is the best we can hope for is that they just stopped rising as rapidly as they have been?Bob Huang: I think the most likely scenario is that the pricing will stabilize. For price to decrease to before COVID level, that losses have to really come down and stabilize as well. There are only a handful of insurers right now that are making what we call an underwriting profit. Some other folks are still trying to make up for the losses from before.So, from that perspective, I think, when we think about competition, when we think about pricing, stabilization of pricing will be the first point. Can price slightly decrease from here? It's possible depending on how intensive the competition is. But is it going to go back to pre-COVID level? I think that's a hard ask for the entire industry.Seth Carpenter: You were talking a lot about competition and how competition might drive pricing, but Diego reminded all of us at the beginning that this industry is a regulated industry. So can you walk us through a little bit about how we should think about this going forward?What's the interaction between competition on the one hand and regulation on the other? How big a deal is regulation? And, is any of that up for grabs given that we've got an election in November?Bob Huang: Usually what an insurer will have to do in general is that for some states -- well actually, in most cases they would have to ask for rate filings, depending on how severe those rate filings are. Regulators may have to step in and approve those rate filings.Now, as we believe that competition will gradually intensify, especially with some of the more successful carriers, what they can do is simply just not ask for price increase. And in that case, regulators don't really need to be involved. And then also implies that if you're not asking for a rate increase, then that also means that you're not really getting that pricing -- like upward pricing pressure on the variety of components that we're looking at.Seth Carpenter: To summarize, what I'm hearing from Bob at the micro level is those rate increases are probably slowing down and probably come to a halt and we'll have a stabilization. But don't get too excited, consumers. It's not clear that car insurance premiums are actually going to fall, at least not by a sizable margin.And Diego, from you, what I'm hearing is this component of inflation has really mattered when it comes to the aggregate measure of inflation, especially for services. It's been coming down. We expect it to come down further. And so, your team's forecast, the US economics team forecast, for the Fed to cut three times this year on the back of continued falls of inflation -- this is just another reason to be in that situation.So, thanks to both of you being on this. It was great for me to be able to talk to you, and hopefully our listeners enjoyed it too.Bob Huang: Thank you for having me here.Diego Anzoategui: Always a pleasure.Seth Carpenter: To the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/q6aT7z57nIr7wqSNqc4nnducTubSsfkghN5OrvkiPrwThu, 18 Jul 2024 22:57:54 +0000gtyOur experts discuss how high prices for auto insurance have been driving inflation, and the implications for consumers and the Fed now that price increases are due to slow. ----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Diego Anzoategui: I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.Bob Huang: And I'm Bob Huang, the US Life and Property Casualty Insurance Analyst.Seth Carpenter: And on this episode, we're going to talk about a topic that -- I would have guessed -- historically we weren't going to think about too often in a macro setting; but over the past couple of years it's been a critical part of the whole story on inflation, and probably affects most of our listeners.It's auto insurance and why we think we're reaching a turning point.It's Thursday, July 18th at 10am in New York.All right, let's get started.If you drive a car in the United States, you almost surely have been hit by a big increase in your auto insurance prices. Over the past couple of years, everyone has been talking about inflation, how much consumer prices have been going up. But one of the components that lots of people see that's really gone up dramatically recently has been auto insurance.So that's why I wanted to come in and sit down with my colleagues, Diego and Bob, and talk through just what's going on here with auto insurance and how does it matter.Diego, I'm going to start with you.One thing that is remarkable is that the inflation that we're seeing now and that we've seen over the past several months is not related to the current state of the economy.But we know in markets that everyone's looking at the Fed, and the Fed is looking at the CPI data that's coming out. We just got the June CPI data for the US recently. How does this phenomenon of auto insurance fit into that reading on the data?Diego Anzoategui: Auto insurance is a relatively small component of CPI. It only represents just below 3 per cent of the CPI basket. But it has become a key driver because of the very high inflation rates has been showing. You know, the key aggregate the Fed watches carefully is core services ex-housing inflation. And the general perception is that inflation in these services is a lagged reflection of labor market tightness. But the main component driving this aggregate, at least in CPI, since 2022 has been auto insurance.So the main story behind core services ex-housing inflation in CPI is just the lagged effect of a cost shock to insurance companies.Seth Carpenter: Wait, let me stop you there. Did I understand you right? That if we're thinking about core services inflation, if you exclude housing; that is, I think, what a lot of people think is inflation that comes from a tight labor market, inflation that comes from an overheated economy. And you're saying that a lot of the movement in the past year or two is really coming from this auto insurance phenomenon.Diego Anzoategui: Yes, that's exactly true. It is the main component explaining core services ex-housing inflation.Seth: What's caused this big acceleration in auto insurance over the past few years? And just how big a deal is it for an economist like us?Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, so believe it or not, today's auto insurance inflation is related to COVID and the supply chain issues we faced in 2021 and 2022. Key cost components such as used cars, parts and equipment, and repair cost increased significantly, creating cost pressures to insurance companies. But the reaction in terms of pricing was sluggish. Some companies reacted slowly; but perhaps more importantly, regulators in key states didn't approve price increases quickly.Remember that this is a regulated industry, and insurance companies need approvals from regulators to update premiums. And, of course, losses increased as a result of this sluggish response in pricing, and several insurance started to scale back businesses, creating supply demand...]]>567alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1170fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/navigating-market-reactions-to-the-news-cycle--75651247----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about development in the upcoming US elections.It's Wednesday, July 17th at 10:30am in New York. Financial markets are starting to reflect the possibility of a Trump presidency. Investors may be taking cues from a few current developments. There’s the recent weakening of President Biden’s polling numbers in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. There’s also the ongoing discussion about whether he will remain the Democratic nominee. And there's also former President Trump’s increased win probabilities in prediction markets, as well as the perception that Democrats will have more trouble pursuing their agenda in the wake of the assassination attempt against him. To that end we’ve seen moves in key areas of markets sensitive to what we have argued will be the policy impacts of a Trump presidency, including a steepening of the US Treasury yield curve. But – a word of caution. These market reactions to recent political events may be rational, but it's not clear they’re sustainable.  First, there are plausible ways investors’ perceptions of the likely outcomes of this election could shift. Voters can have very short memories, resulting in polls shifting to partisan priors. This happened with popular opinion on elected officials following notable incidents in recent years – such as the events of January 6th, 2021, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and more. Also, if President Biden were to withdraw as a candidate, it’s possible investors could perceive that a different candidate could tighten the race. For example, there have been recent surveys showing alternate Democratic candidates polling better than President Biden. Second, there’s also room for investors to misunderstand the policy path that could follow an election outcome as well as the impact of that path. For example, we’ve seen some recent press articles linking the broadening out of positive performance in the equity market to the likelihood of a Trump win on perceived benefits of friendlier tax policies that might result from this outcome. But if investors only focus on that policy, they’re not incorporating the potential offsetting effects that could come from policies that could challenge the economic growth outlook, such as higher tariffs – something former President Trump has advocated for. So bottom line, it makes sense to interrogate what seems like clear links between the upcoming election and markets.Some linkages are strong, and it’s possible that will make for a good investment strategy; others are weak and may break under scrutiny. We’ll help you sort it out here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/m_gWquW_lr8e0zHnm4JU32hEuCa4ii5haAsuZN8Vnb0Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyFinancial markets can be sensitive to news cycles, but our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research offers a word of caution about reacting to recent headlines about the US presidential election. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about development in the upcoming US elections.It's Wednesday, July 17th at 10:30am in New York. Financial markets are starting to reflect the possibility of a Trump presidency. Investors may be taking cues from a few current developments. There’s the recent weakening of President Biden’s polling numbers in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. There’s also the ongoing discussion about whether he will remain the Democratic nominee. And there's also former President Trump’s increased win probabilities in prediction markets, as well as the perception that Democrats will have more trouble pursuing their agenda in the wake of the assassination attempt against him. To that end we’ve seen moves in key areas of markets sensitive to what we have argued will be the policy impacts of a Trump presidency, including a steepening of the US Treasury yield curve. But – a word of caution. These market reactions to recent political events may be rational, but it's not clear they’re sustainable.  First, there are plausible ways investors’ perceptions of the likely outcomes of this election could shift. Voters can have very short memories, resulting in polls shifting to partisan priors. This happened with popular opinion on elected officials following notable incidents in recent years – such as the events of January 6th, 2021, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and more. Also, if President Biden were to withdraw as a candidate, it’s possible investors could perceive that a different candidate could tighten the race. For example, there have been recent surveys showing alternate Democratic candidates polling better than President Biden. Second, there’s also room for investors to misunderstand the policy path that could follow an election outcome as well as the impact of that path. For example, we’ve seen some recent press articles linking the broadening out of positive performance in the equity market to the likelihood of a Trump win on perceived benefits of friendlier tax policies that might result from this outcome. But if investors only focus on that policy, they’re not incorporating the potential offsetting effects that could come from policies that could challenge the economic growth outlook, such as higher tariffs – something former President Trump has advocated for. So bottom line, it makes sense to interrogate what seems like clear links between the upcoming election and markets.Some linkages are strong, and it’s possible that will make for a good investment strategy; others are weak and may break under scrutiny. We’ll help you sort it out here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>185alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1169fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/beyond-the-60-40-portfolio--75651208----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the future of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio. It’s Tuesday, July 16th, at 10am in New York.Now investors have been asking: Is the 60/40 portfolio -- which allocates 60 percent to stocks and 40 percent to bonds -- dead? After all, the last two years saw some of the worst returns of this strategy in decades. Now, we think the concerns about this widely used strategy are not unfounded, but definitely a bit exaggerated. Exactly how one thinks about the right mix of equities and bonds within this type of portfolio though will need to change.The strategy of investing 60 percent of a portfolio in equities and 40 percent in bonds to lower portfolio risk evolved from modern portfolio theory in the 1950s. To succeed, bonds must be less volatile than stocks and the correlation between stock and bond returns can't be 1 -- because that would mean a perfect positive correlation between stocks and bonds. And this correlation has been below 1 and low for a long time because growth and inflation have moved up and down in tandem for a long time. Now what does this have to do with anything, you may ask. Well, typically in an environment where equities are rallying on the back of strong growth, inflation is also increasing – which in turn means that nominal yields stay high, dampening bond returns; and vice-versa in a recessionary scenario. Now, in both of those cases, the negative stock-bond return correlations is related to the positive growth inflation correlation. Which explains why the strategy of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio worked so well for decades, particularly in the low-vol, high-growth inflation correlation, low stock-bond returns correlation environment of the late aughts to 2010s. Unfortunately for investors though, this has not been the backdrop for the last few years. The highly unusual macro environment coming out of pandemic broke that relationship between growth and inflation, which in turn broke the relationship between stocks and bonds, led to a spike in fixed income volatility, and dragged bond returns to lowest levels in decades over the last couple of years. But we believe these factors will slowly normalize, which means 60/40-like strategies should work again. While the levels of correlation and bond volatility going forward may look different from history, and definitely different from the QE period, as long as bonds have lower risks than stocks – and there’s little to suggest they won’t – bonds will continue to be good diversifiers. But it’s important for investors to ask themselves: what could drive correlation between stocks and bonds going forward? Well, longer term, the path of correlation between the two assets depends in part on the relationship between economic growth and inflation, as I touched on earlier. And this is where AI can come in. Positive productivity shocks from GenAI tech diffusion and the energy transition may change that dynamic between growth and inflation. And at the same time, decoupling in the world’s key economic regions as a result of the transition to a multipolar world can alter the correlation between regional equities and rates. So, will the 60/40 portfolio be the strategy of the future? Or is it going to be more like 70/30 or even 50/50? Slower normalization of volatility and correlation means that a portfolio with more equity could yield better risk/reward than a 60/40 mix. On the other hand, as the world’s 65+ year-old population continues to grow over the next decades, this aging demographic may demand higher allocations to less volatile assets, even at the expense of lower returns. Or maybe, just maybe, there is another solution. Instead of a simple 60/40 like strategy, investors can look beyond government bonds to other diversifiers, and building a multi-asset portfolio with more flexibility. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zYnx_9tqEZ6SVaV0bSudZITttdIH4ZlZXr3TanVnPa4Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:03:43 +0000gtyOur Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist explains why she sees a future for the 60/40 portfolio strategy, which worked well for over half a century and may continue to perform well – with some modifications. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the future of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio. It’s Tuesday, July 16th, at 10am in New York.Now investors have been asking: Is the 60/40 portfolio -- which allocates 60 percent to stocks and 40 percent to bonds -- dead? After all, the last two years saw some of the worst returns of this strategy in decades. Now, we think the concerns about this widely used strategy are not unfounded, but definitely a bit exaggerated. Exactly how one thinks about the right mix of equities and bonds within this type of portfolio though will need to change.The strategy of investing 60 percent of a portfolio in equities and 40 percent in bonds to lower portfolio risk evolved from modern portfolio theory in the 1950s. To succeed, bonds must be less volatile than stocks and the correlation between stock and bond returns can't be 1 -- because that would mean a perfect positive correlation between stocks and bonds. And this correlation has been below 1 and low for a long time because growth and inflation have moved up and down in tandem for a long time. Now what does this have to do with anything, you may ask. Well, typically in an environment where equities are rallying on the back of strong growth, inflation is also increasing – which in turn means that nominal yields stay high, dampening bond returns; and vice-versa in a recessionary scenario. Now, in both of those cases, the negative stock-bond return correlations is related to the positive growth inflation correlation. Which explains why the strategy of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio worked so well for decades, particularly in the low-vol, high-growth inflation correlation, low stock-bond returns correlation environment of the late aughts to 2010s. Unfortunately for investors though, this has not been the backdrop for the last few years. The highly unusual macro environment coming out of pandemic broke that relationship between growth and inflation, which in turn broke the relationship between stocks and bonds, led to a spike in fixed income volatility, and dragged bond returns to lowest levels in decades over the last couple of years. But we believe these factors will slowly normalize, which means 60/40-like strategies should work again. While the levels of correlation and bond volatility going forward may look different from history, and definitely different from the QE period, as long as bonds have lower risks than stocks – and there’s little to suggest they won’t – bonds will continue to be good diversifiers. But it’s important for investors to ask themselves: what could drive correlation between stocks and bonds going forward? Well, longer term, the path of correlation between the two assets depends in part on the relationship between economic growth and inflation, as I touched on earlier. And this is where AI can come in. Positive productivity shocks from GenAI tech diffusion and the energy transition may change that dynamic between growth and inflation. And at the same time, decoupling in the world’s key economic regions as a result of the transition to a multipolar world can alter the correlation between regional equities and rates. So, will the 60/40 portfolio be the strategy of the future? Or is it going to be more like 70/30 or even 50/50? Slower normalization of volatility and correlation means that a portfolio with more equity could yield better risk/reward than a 60/40 mix. On the other hand, as the world’s 65+ year-old population continues to grow over the next decades, this aging demographic may demand higher allocations to less volatile assets, even at the...]]>289alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1168fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/retail-s-comeback-plan--75651192----- Transcript -----
Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley's Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail Analyst.Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's US Internet Analyst.Simeon Gutman: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll hear how retailers are using technology to make a comeback and set themselves up for the future.It's Monday, July 15th at 6pm in London.Brian Nowak: And it's 1pm in New York.Simeon Gutman: Retail has taken a big hit over the last few years. The long tail of the pandemic, outbreaks of war and inflation have had a big impact on the landscape. However, our research suggests retail is finding its feet, and technology is playing a significant role.Automation, AI, and retail media are the game changers here. And we're seeing retailers of larger scale and larger size disproportionately invest in these technologies -- which means it will not benefit all retailers equally.My colleague Brian is here to help explain the technology and how these are manifesting themselves across the internet and technology landscapes. Brian, can you talk about how these things are materializing across your coverage universe?Brian Nowak: Thanks, Simeon. Across the US internet space, we're seeing early emerging use cases for Generative AI of many types. We are seeing improved targeting on the advertising side. We are seeing new diffusion and creative models being built where advertisers can create new types of advertising copy using large language models. We are seeing new forms of customer service using large language models and Generative AI. And in effect, we are seeing companies across the entire internet space better analyze their first party data to drive more new people and customers to their platforms -- to drive higher conversion and share of wallets from those customers. And ultimately more durable multiyear top-line growth, which in some cases is also leading to higher free cash flow growth over the long term as well. It's early, but it's very encouraging with what we're seeing for Generative AI and retail media across the space.Simeon Gutman: Can you talk about in more detail how retail media is influencing the success and the prospects for some of your companies?Brian Nowak: Retail media is a emerging, rapidly growing, new high margin revenue stream that is moving across the internet space. Large companies are analyzing more of their data and essentially creating new advertising units that users and consumers can click on to drive transactions. And they're finding ways to better link these advertising dollars to transactions and ultimately creating a new revenue stream that we think is going to drive more durable top-line growth -- and because of its high margin nature, also more durable, multiyear free cash flow growth. It is benefiting the commerce players. It is benefiting the online advertising players. And it's also benefiting the advertising technology players.So with that as a backdrop, Simeon, where are you seeing Generative AI, retail media, and maybe even automation, start to manifest itself throughout the retail landscape?Simeon Gutman: Those are the three pillars of technology that are influencing retailers. Taking a quick step back, what's changing is that market share in retail is concentrating and consolidating among the largest players. And if you think about the investments required for some of these new capabilities, the companies that have the greatest ability to invest should see the greatest benefits. That means that the big could get bigger at an even faster rate. And this is why the stakes in retail are growing even faster.Now with, respect to these technologies. Let's start with AI. AI is helping retailers analyze big pieces of data that they never had an ability to do in such a quick way. That could help them refine their search criteria to consumers scanning a website. That could help them improve the algorithms in a distribution center with robots creating orders.Second, speaking of robots, bringing automation to distribution centers, supply chains for retailers can cost anywhere between 2 to 6 per cent of sales. There's a significant opportunity to reduce the amount of labor -- human labor -- in these distribution centers by automating them; whether it's dry goods, whether it's grocery items, as tricky as frozen and perishable items.And then lastly, retail media, the way that you mentioned, Brian, the benefit to your companies is very similar to retailers. There are now advertising dollars that are moving into new channels, whether it's closed loop advertising in store or retail media that's appearing on websites -- where some of the larger and more successful companies have a lot of traffic and advertisers are intrigued to show them offers and deals to try to change their perception or behaviors.So those three pieces of technology are slowly transforming the retailer. So next time you step into a retail store, there may be more technology that meets the eyes.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BSOUFIWUb0V3sOFACKBjVrxexzhJEI1hoKA6gNutsIsMon, 15 Jul 2024 21:20:58 +0000gtyOur Retail analyst and U.S. Internet analyst connect the dots on how technology is helping the retail industry to cash in on the future. ----- Transcript ----- Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----
Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley's Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail Analyst.Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's US Internet Analyst.Simeon Gutman: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll hear how retailers are using technology to make a comeback and set themselves up for the future.It's Monday, July 15th at 6pm in London.Brian Nowak: And it's 1pm in New York.Simeon Gutman: Retail has taken a big hit over the last few years. The long tail of the pandemic, outbreaks of war and inflation have had a big impact on the landscape. However, our research suggests retail is finding its feet, and technology is playing a significant role.Automation, AI, and retail media are the game changers here. And we're seeing retailers of larger scale and larger size disproportionately invest in these technologies -- which means it will not benefit all retailers equally.My colleague Brian is here to help explain the technology and how these are manifesting themselves across the internet and technology landscapes. Brian, can you talk about how these things are materializing across your coverage universe?Brian Nowak: Thanks, Simeon. Across the US internet space, we're seeing early emerging use cases for Generative AI of many types. We are seeing improved targeting on the advertising side. We are seeing new diffusion and creative models being built where advertisers can create new types of advertising copy using large language models. We are seeing new forms of customer service using large language models and Generative AI. And in effect, we are seeing companies across the entire internet space better analyze their first party data to drive more new people and customers to their platforms -- to drive higher conversion and share of wallets from those customers. And ultimately more durable multiyear top-line growth, which in some cases is also leading to higher free cash flow growth over the long term as well. It's early, but it's very encouraging with what we're seeing for Generative AI and retail media across the space.Simeon Gutman: Can you talk about in more detail how retail media is influencing the success and the prospects for some of your companies?Brian Nowak: Retail media is a emerging, rapidly growing, new high margin revenue stream that is moving across the internet space. Large companies are analyzing more of their data and essentially creating new advertising units that users and consumers can click on to drive transactions. And they're finding ways to better link these advertising dollars to transactions and ultimately creating a new revenue stream that we think is going to drive more durable top-line growth -- and because of its high margin nature, also more durable, multiyear free cash flow growth. It is benefiting the commerce players. It is benefiting the online advertising players. And it's also benefiting the advertising technology players.So with that as a backdrop, Simeon, where are you seeing Generative AI, retail media, and maybe even automation, start to manifest itself throughout the retail landscape?Simeon Gutman: Those are the three pillars of technology that are influencing retailers. Taking a quick step back, what's changing is that market share in retail is concentrating and consolidating among the largest players. And if you think about the investments required for some of these new capabilities, the companies that have the greatest ability to invest should see the greatest benefits. That means that the big could get bigger at an even faster rate. And this is why the stakes in retail are growing even faster.Now with, respect to these technologies. Let's start with AI. AI is helping retailers analyze big pieces of data that they never had an ability to do in such a quick way. That...]]>364alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1167fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-we-believe-the-fed-will-and-should-cut-rates-soon--75651383----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why it's looking more likely that the Fed should, and will, cut interests rates several times this year.It's Friday, July 12th at 2pm in London.Last week, we discussed why the case for Fed rate cuts this year was strengthening. Credit markets generally don’t care too much about the exact timing or pace of policy rates, but they do care if a central bank is behind the curve. That’s because over the last 40 years, the worst returns for credit have repeatedly overlapped with periods where the Fed was too late in reversing tight monetary policy. After all, interest rates impact the economy with a pretty long and variable lag; and a interest rate cut today may not be fully felt in the economy for 12 months – or even longer. It’s therefore important for a central bank to be proactive. And so, with the recent US economic data softer, and the Fed appearing in little rush to act, the concern was straightforward: if the Fed is waiting for signs of economic weakness to be obvious, it will take too long to lower interest rates to blunt this. The Fed will be behind the curve. This risk of acting too late hasn’t gone away, and it’s a key reason why we think credit investors should be rooting for economic data in the second half of this year to remain solid, in line with Morgan Stanley’s base case. But this week did bring some events that suggest the Fed may start to adjust rates soon. First, in testimony before the US Congress, Chair Powell repeatedly emphasized that the risks for the US economy are becoming more balanced. Previously, the Fed had appeared to be much more focused on an upside scenario where conditions are hotter rather than a scenario where growth slowed unexpectedly. Second, in data released yesterday, US Consumer Price Inflation – or CPI – came in lower than expected. Overall, prices actually fell month-over-month, something that hasn’t happened since May of 2020, a time when the pandemic was raging, and Fed rates were near zero percent. Morgan Stanley’s base case is that moderating inflation will lead the Fed to cut interest rates by 25 basis points in September, November and December of this year. For credit, the question of “what do these rate cuts” mean is an ‘and’ statement. If the Fed is lowering rates and growth is holding up, you are potentially looking at a mid-1990s scenario, the best period for credit in the modern era. But if the Fed is cutting and growth is weak … well, over and over again, that has not been good. We remain constructive on credit, expecting three Fed rate cuts this year to coexist with moderate growth. But weaker data remains the risk. For credit, good data is good. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZArZzQu6ckEfl6Dea3R60B0EPG6ttVxdW5z_OPM1rl0Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why he expects the US Federal Reserve to make three rate cuts before the end of the year, starting in September. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why it's looking more likely that the Fed should, and will, cut interests rates several times this year.It's Friday, July 12th at 2pm in London.Last week, we discussed why the case for Fed rate cuts this year was strengthening. Credit markets generally don’t care too much about the exact timing or pace of policy rates, but they do care if a central bank is behind the curve. That’s because over the last 40 years, the worst returns for credit have repeatedly overlapped with periods where the Fed was too late in reversing tight monetary policy. After all, interest rates impact the economy with a pretty long and variable lag; and a interest rate cut today may not be fully felt in the economy for 12 months – or even longer. It’s therefore important for a central bank to be proactive. And so, with the recent US economic data softer, and the Fed appearing in little rush to act, the concern was straightforward: if the Fed is waiting for signs of economic weakness to be obvious, it will take too long to lower interest rates to blunt this. The Fed will be behind the curve. This risk of acting too late hasn’t gone away, and it’s a key reason why we think credit investors should be rooting for economic data in the second half of this year to remain solid, in line with Morgan Stanley’s base case. But this week did bring some events that suggest the Fed may start to adjust rates soon. First, in testimony before the US Congress, Chair Powell repeatedly emphasized that the risks for the US economy are becoming more balanced. Previously, the Fed had appeared to be much more focused on an upside scenario where conditions are hotter rather than a scenario where growth slowed unexpectedly. Second, in data released yesterday, US Consumer Price Inflation – or CPI – came in lower than expected. Overall, prices actually fell month-over-month, something that hasn’t happened since May of 2020, a time when the pandemic was raging, and Fed rates were near zero percent. Morgan Stanley’s base case is that moderating inflation will lead the Fed to cut interest rates by 25 basis points in September, November and December of this year. For credit, the question of “what do these rate cuts” mean is an ‘and’ statement. If the Fed is lowering rates and growth is holding up, you are potentially looking at a mid-1990s scenario, the best period for credit in the modern era. But if the Fed is cutting and growth is weak … well, over and over again, that has not been good. We remain constructive on credit, expecting three Fed rate cuts this year to coexist with moderate growth. But weaker data remains the risk. For credit, good data is good. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>200alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1166fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/business-travelers-pack-their-bags--75651320----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss my expectations for corporate travel in the second half of this year. It’s Thursday, July 11th, at 10am in New York. More and more business travelers are packing their bags and taking a flight for business meetings. In fact, our corporate travel survey suggests that a record 50 percent of respondents marked their travel itineraries as returning to pre-COVID levels. As well, corporate travel budgets are expected to be up five to seven percent year-over-year in 2024, and about six percent in 2025. This means significantly more flights, hotels and car bookings for corporate travel.Interestingly, this is the first survey since 2021 that larger enterprises were more optimistic on corporate travel demand compared to smaller enterprises.The shift to virtual meetings over the next two years will likely be stable. Companies continue to predict that 12-13 percent of travel volume will be replaced by virtual meetings in 2024 and 2025. Looking ahead, respondents expect this level to hold through 2025, supporting some level of permanent shift we think.For US airlines specifically, we have started to see more signs of life within the corporate space. Several US airlines are pointing to noticeable improvement in the first quarter after fairly stagnant volumes at the end of 2023. We also saw a reversal from prior surveys with larger corporations recovering faster than smaller enterprises, which had initially led the post-COVID recovery.This positive trend in airline demand is supportive of our attractive view on US aerospace, as well. Even though global air traffic has already reached pre-COVID-19 levels, it is still about 32 percent below where the trendline would have been if COVID-19 had not happened, which leaves more room for growth.For business aviation, private jet use should remain strong and stable as a large majority of survey participants are not planning to change their business jet travel. Higher interest rates and a potentially slowing economy could lead to a potential slowdown in business jet demand, but this hasn’t happened so far as there continues to be limited excess capacity in the industry as well as continued strong demand for aircraft.Our colleagues in Europe note that although near-term indicators are positive, 40 percent of European respondents now do not expect corporate travel volumes to return to 2019 levels. This is concerning for the longer-term prospects of European corporate demand growth, which appears to be weaker than US growth.Whether you're flying private jets or commercial, or choosing to keep your team meetings virtual, we'll continue to monitor corporate travel trends, and let you know of any updates to those flight manifests. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hdlqajsF-Ho7MT-IJeTxSYCI0sUnoh-ZyUA0t3skXYgThu, 11 Jul 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst discusses the key takeaways from his mid-year corporate travel survey, which includes a number of positive trends for the second half of 2024. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss my expectations for corporate travel in the second half of this year. It’s Thursday, July 11th, at 10am in New York. More and more business travelers are packing their bags and taking a flight for business meetings. In fact, our corporate travel survey suggests that a record 50 percent of respondents marked their travel itineraries as returning to pre-COVID levels. As well, corporate travel budgets are expected to be up five to seven percent year-over-year in 2024, and about six percent in 2025. This means significantly more flights, hotels and car bookings for corporate travel.Interestingly, this is the first survey since 2021 that larger enterprises were more optimistic on corporate travel demand compared to smaller enterprises.The shift to virtual meetings over the next two years will likely be stable. Companies continue to predict that 12-13 percent of travel volume will be replaced by virtual meetings in 2024 and 2025. Looking ahead, respondents expect this level to hold through 2025, supporting some level of permanent shift we think.For US airlines specifically, we have started to see more signs of life within the corporate space. Several US airlines are pointing to noticeable improvement in the first quarter after fairly stagnant volumes at the end of 2023. We also saw a reversal from prior surveys with larger corporations recovering faster than smaller enterprises, which had initially led the post-COVID recovery.This positive trend in airline demand is supportive of our attractive view on US aerospace, as well. Even though global air traffic has already reached pre-COVID-19 levels, it is still about 32 percent below where the trendline would have been if COVID-19 had not happened, which leaves more room for growth.For business aviation, private jet use should remain strong and stable as a large majority of survey participants are not planning to change their business jet travel. Higher interest rates and a potentially slowing economy could lead to a potential slowdown in business jet demand, but this hasn’t happened so far as there continues to be limited excess capacity in the industry as well as continued strong demand for aircraft.Our colleagues in Europe note that although near-term indicators are positive, 40 percent of European respondents now do not expect corporate travel volumes to return to 2019 levels. This is concerning for the longer-term prospects of European corporate demand growth, which appears to be weaker than US growth.Whether you're flying private jets or commercial, or choosing to keep your team meetings virtual, we'll continue to monitor corporate travel trends, and let you know of any updates to those flight manifests. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>201alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1165fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/less-impact-than-you-might-think--75651039----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, chief Global Cross Asset Strategist,Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what the elections in the US and Europe mean for global markets.It's Wednesday, July 9th at 10am in New York.As investors digest the results of the French election and anticipate the upcoming US presidential election, there's some key debates that are surfacing. And so I wanted to sit down with Serena to dig into these issues that are top of mind for investors.Serena, do you expect the upcoming US elections will impact markets in the run up to November?Serena Tang: Significantly, not likely -- because if we look at history, for stocks for example, in any election year, returns don't look significantly different from any other year.Serena Tang: My team ran some cross asset analysis on market behavior in and out of prior US elections using as much data as we have. And what has been very interesting is that whether a Democrat or Republican candidate eventually takes the White House, that doesn't change the trend of returns into an election.The form of the future elected government, whether it is divided or unified, that has also never really bothered stock markets before the vote. And you can see very, very similar patterns in bond yields, the dollar and gold. Now, what this means is that even if an investor has perfect foresight and know the results of the elections now, it won't necessarily give them an edge over the next few months.Serena Tang: Now, beyond the election is really when you see performance in various election outcome scenarios really diverge. So, whether the election was tight or not seemed to have led US rates to see very different levels of returns 12 months out from an election. Whether the outcome means a unified or divided government saw very large swings in gold prices.Now there are a lot of caveats. Every election is different. The economic conditions in every election is different. And as much as we talk about other historical periods, the truth is there aren't a lot of data points to work with. Data for S&P 500 going back to 1927 reaches the most far back among the major markets, but even then it only covers 23 presidential elections.So what I'm trying to say is there have been a lot of presidents, but there aren't a lot of precedents, at least for markets.Michael Zezas: The US election isn't the only election making headlines this year. For example, we just had an election in France that had a surprising result. How does the outcome there affect your outlook on the market?Serena Tang: It doesn't, in short. It doesn't change our bullish view on European equities at all. As you know, we have been constructive on that market since January and added significant exposure in our asset allocation then -- very much on the back of our European equity strategist Marina Zavolok coming out with an out of consensus bullish call for European stocks.Serena Tang: We like the market because of its cheap optionality and convexity. It has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to US but at much cheaper valuation. And it has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to EM, meaning should we get a growth surprise to the upside; you're geared to that but at much lower volatility than owning EM equities outright.Now, none of this has changed post French elections, and we also don't see significant increase in bearish tail risks. If you look at other markets like Euro IG corporate credit or the euro, those markets are suggesting risks in France are idiosyncratic, not systemic. So we maintain our overweight in European stocks.Serena Tang: Everything that I just said is also true for our bullish view on Indian equities, even after elections a month ago. Ridham Desai, head of India research, argued the election outcome there is likely to usher in more structural reforms and really reinforces our forecast of 20 per cent annual earnings growth over next five years, sustaining India's longest and strongest bull market ever. Bullish secular factors for Indian equities have not changed and therefore our bullish view on Indian equities have not changed.Michael Zezas: And elections have consequences for how countries interact with one another. And how their policies differ from one another. And one area of the markets that tend to be sensitive to this is the foreign exchange markets. So are there any impacts you're looking for around foreign currencies?Serena Tang: Yes, in particular, the dollar. But let me start with the euro first. Because I talked earlier about our bullish view on European equities; and in fact, in our asset allocation, we actually have a higher allocation to Europe versus US for stocks, bonds, and corporate credit bonds. The one European market we're more cautious on is the euro. And this actually has nothing to do with the French election results, per se -- because what matters now really is dollar strength. Now, part of this is a rates differential issue. Our US economics team are expecting the Fed to start cutting in September, while the ECB, of course, has already started easing policy. So yield differentials really favor the dollar here.But we also need to factor in the election, which seems to be the theme for today. Our FX [foreign exchange] strategy team thinks markets really need to start pricing in material likelihoods of dollar positive changes in US fiscal, foreign and trade policy as the election approaches. Meaning the dollar will continue its modest uptrend into the second half. And geopolitical uncertainty, of course, will also be dollar positive.Michael Zezas: So bottom line then. Elections clearly have consequences for markets but in the run-up to an election, there might not be a reliable pattern.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Great. Well Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk.Serena Tang: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy the podcast, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/39NZIfLP7H9EsHFfkLY46uaLfpbKpiOxW2RqvpTAL0IWed, 10 Jul 2024 23:32:24 +0000gtyU.S., French and Indian elections may have a minimal effect on equity markets, particularly in the short term, according to our Global Head of Fixed Income and our Chief Global Cross Asset Strategist. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, chief Global Cross Asset Strategist,Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what the elections in the US and Europe mean for global markets.It's Wednesday, July 9th at 10am in New York.As investors digest the results of the French election and anticipate the upcoming US presidential election, there's some key debates that are surfacing. And so I wanted to sit down with Serena to dig into these issues that are top of mind for investors.Serena, do you expect the upcoming US elections will impact markets in the run up to November?Serena Tang: Significantly, not likely -- because if we look at history, for stocks for example, in any election year, returns don't look significantly different from any other year.Serena Tang: My team ran some cross asset analysis on market behavior in and out of prior US elections using as much data as we have. And what has been very interesting is that whether a Democrat or Republican candidate eventually takes the White House, that doesn't change the trend of returns into an election.The form of the future elected government, whether it is divided or unified, that has also never really bothered stock markets before the vote. And you can see very, very similar patterns in bond yields, the dollar and gold. Now, what this means is that even if an investor has perfect foresight and know the results of the elections now, it won't necessarily give them an edge over the next few months.Serena Tang: Now, beyond the election is really when you see performance in various election outcome scenarios really diverge. So, whether the election was tight or not seemed to have led US rates to see very different levels of returns 12 months out from an election. Whether the outcome means a unified or divided government saw very large swings in gold prices.Now there are a lot of caveats. Every election is different. The economic conditions in every election is different. And as much as we talk about other historical periods, the truth is there aren't a lot of data points to work with. Data for S&P 500 going back to 1927 reaches the most far back among the major markets, but even then it only covers 23 presidential elections.So what I'm trying to say is there have been a lot of presidents, but there aren't a lot of precedents, at least for markets.Michael Zezas: The US election isn't the only election making headlines this year. For example, we just had an election in France that had a surprising result. How does the outcome there affect your outlook on the market?Serena Tang: It doesn't, in short. It doesn't change our bullish view on European equities at all. As you know, we have been constructive on that market since January and added significant exposure in our asset allocation then -- very much on the back of our European equity strategist Marina Zavolok coming out with an out of consensus bullish call for European stocks.Serena Tang: We like the market because of its cheap optionality and convexity. It has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to US but at much cheaper valuation. And it has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to EM, meaning should we get a growth surprise to the upside; you're geared to that but at much lower volatility than owning EM equities outright.Now, none of this has changed post French elections, and we also don't see significant increase in bearish tail risks. If you look at other markets like Euro IG corporate credit or the euro, those markets are suggesting risks in France are idiosyncratic, not systemic. So we maintain our overweight in European stocks.Serena...]]>386alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1164fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-housing-what-will-slow-home-price-growth--75651244----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.
James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. It's Tuesday, July 9th, at 1pm in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, housing headlines just keep coming. Home prices are at record highs. What does that mean? How should we be thinking about that? James Egan: So, that has been a fun headline, and according to several measures of home prices, we are at record highs. But, let's put that into context. We've actually set a new record high for home prices every month for the past ten months. In fact, prior to a 12-month hiatus from July of ’22 to June of ’23, home prices had actually hit a new record high every month for 68 consecutive months. Jay Bacow: Alright, so if we're just talking about levels, it's important. But given that I'm a physicist by training, so are rates of change; and for that matter, changes to the rate of change, or acceleration, if you will. If there's something different about the current record of US home prices that is worth discussing, that would be interesting. James Egan: We think there is. Actually two months ago, home prices set a new record high. But it was also the first time in ten months that the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation did not accelerate. This month the pace of appreciation actually started to decelerate. As listeners of this podcast might remember, we've been calling for the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation to slow from above 6.5 per cent to just two percent by December. We are still above six percent today, but this could be the beginning of that deceleration. Jay Bacow: Right. And if there's going to be deceleration, Newton would say there needs to be some force that causes it. And my understanding is you thought that that force that causes it would be sale inventories increasing. Has that been the case? James Egan: Indeed, it has been actually. Total for sale inventory has increased for six consecutive months. And the pace of that growth is accelerating. Now, we do want to highlight that overall supply remains very tight. That part of the housing narrative hasn't changed. If we take a step back and look at the whole market, total months of supply are at just 4.5 per cent. Anything below six is really considered a seller's market there. On the other hand, this is the highest level that the market has experienced since the first half of 2020, which is another argument in our minds for the pace of home price appreciation to decelerate. But once we remove these pandemic era lows, four and a half months is close to the lowest level of the past 30 plus years. Jay Bacow: Alright, now sticking on the level context. Home prices weren't just the only thing that set a record level these days. Pending home sales just set a new record low in May. James Egan: Right, that's also the case. Now, we do want to put the record into context here. The pending home sales index that we're referring to only goes back to 2001. But over that 23 plus years, the May print was the lowest number that we've seen. Jay Bacow: Alright, so given all of that, how are you thinking about demand for housing amidst increasing supply? James Egan: Right. So this is a pretty important question. When it comes to demand at these levels, affordability remains very challenged. One of the primary questions for the US housing market moving forward is going to be the interplay between the absolute level of affordability and the direction and rate of change. Now, we are far from being able to declare a winner here. Sales volumes have increased off of 12 year lows from the fourth quarter of 2023; but at the same time, there are several demand indicators that are having trouble achieving liftoff, if you will. Pending home sales, for instance. They're not falling as fast as they have been, over the past two plus years; but they're also having a hard time achieving some sort of escape velocity as they continue to fall on a year-over year-basis. Mortgage applications for purchase -- another one of our leading indicators -- they're experiencing a similar dynamic. The first half of 2024 has been a noticeable second derivative improvement versus 2023, but that improvement has slowed and applications are still falling on a year-over-year basis. Now, part of this is going to be a function of mortgage rates going forward. Jay, what are we thinking there? Jay Bacow: Now, the biggest driver of mortgage rates is going to be the level of treasury rates. And our rate strategists are forecasting treasury rates to fall over the end of this year and into the middle of next year. If that happens, we would expect mortgage rates to get towards 6.25 to 6.5 per cent by next summer -- clearly materially lower than they are right now. But once again, the biggest driver of this is treasury rates. Not what's going on with the mortgage market. James Egan: And we continue to expect with that decrease affordability to improve, and that to drive year-over-year growth and sales in the second half of 2024 versus 2023. But it doesn't have to be a straight line to that outcome. And how are you thinking Jay, from a mortgage market perspective about sales volumes? Jay Bacow: So, the mortgage market is in a pretty interesting spot because there's almost two sides of it. There's the existing mortgage market, which is mostly made up of homeowners that have very low mortgage rates, and thus the coupon to the investor is relatively low; and they're trading at a discount. If turnover is low, then those bonds are outstanding for longer, which is bad for those investors. But, if that turnover is low, that means the supply to the market in the new higher coupon mortgages is relatively low, which is good for those investors in the new higher coupon mortgages. In effect, if turnover is lower, it's good for higher coupon mortgages, not so good for lower coupon mortgages. James Egan: And that's why all of this is so critical. If I were to, to summarize, we're paying attention to increasing inventory volumes in the housing market. We're paying attention to some of these demand statistics that are coming in a little softer than at least consensus estimates expected them to. We do think that home price growth is going to decelerate as a result. We also think it will remain positive. There continues to be very little overall supply in the US housing market. Jay, it was nice speaking with you. Jay Bacow: Jim, nice talking physics in the housing market with you. James Egan: Thanks for listening. And if you enjoyed this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7Fd5E_8k4DwSreaxttc20CKmB89nWWtYI_8Ub0O3GpoTue, 09 Jul 2024 22:13:48 +0000gtyRecord-high prices remain a key concern for buyers in the U.S. housing market. Our Co-Heads of Securitized Product Research dig into the data, explaining why they still believe a deceleration in home price growth will come. ----- Transcript ----- Jay...----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.
James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. It's Tuesday, July 9th, at 1pm in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, housing headlines just keep coming. Home prices are at record highs. What does that mean? How should we be thinking about that? James Egan: So, that has been a fun headline, and according to several measures of home prices, we are at record highs. But, let's put that into context. We've actually set a new record high for home prices every month for the past ten months. In fact, prior to a 12-month hiatus from July of ’22 to June of ’23, home prices had actually hit a new record high every month for 68 consecutive months. Jay Bacow: Alright, so if we're just talking about levels, it's important. But given that I'm a physicist by training, so are rates of change; and for that matter, changes to the rate of change, or acceleration, if you will. If there's something different about the current record of US home prices that is worth discussing, that would be interesting. James Egan: We think there is. Actually two months ago, home prices set a new record high. But it was also the first time in ten months that the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation did not accelerate. This month the pace of appreciation actually started to decelerate. As listeners of this podcast might remember, we've been calling for the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation to slow from above 6.5 per cent to just two percent by December. We are still above six percent today, but this could be the beginning of that deceleration. Jay Bacow: Right. And if there's going to be deceleration, Newton would say there needs to be some force that causes it. And my understanding is you thought that that force that causes it would be sale inventories increasing. Has that been the case? James Egan: Indeed, it has been actually. Total for sale inventory has increased for six consecutive months. And the pace of that growth is accelerating. Now, we do want to highlight that overall supply remains very tight. That part of the housing narrative hasn't changed. If we take a step back and look at the whole market, total months of supply are at just 4.5 per cent. Anything below six is really considered a seller's market there. On the other hand, this is the highest level that the market has experienced since the first half of 2020, which is another argument in our minds for the pace of home price appreciation to decelerate. But once we remove these pandemic era lows, four and a half months is close to the lowest level of the past 30 plus years. Jay Bacow: Alright, now sticking on the level context. Home prices weren't just the only thing that set a record level these days. Pending home sales just set a new record low in May. James Egan: Right, that's also the case. Now, we do want to put the record into context here. The pending home sales index that we're referring to only goes back to 2001. But over that 23 plus years, the May print was the lowest number that we've seen. Jay Bacow: Alright, so given all of that, how are you thinking about demand for housing amidst increasing supply? James Egan: Right. So this is a pretty important question. When it comes to demand at these levels, affordability remains very challenged. One of the primary questions for the US housing market moving forward is going to be the interplay between the absolute level of affordability and the direction and rate of change. Now, we are far from being able to declare a winner here. Sales volumes have increased off of 12 year lows from the fourth quarter...]]>416alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1163fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-us-elections-the-impact-of-inflation--75651200----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the consequences of elections on policy and markets. It's Monday, July 8th at 2:30pm in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Several important elections around the world have taken place with important implications for policy and markets. Most notably, elections in India, Mexico, the UK and France have all garnered the attention of investors.While these elections are unique to each country, there does appear to be a growing focus on the issue of economic inequalities and immigration. While these inequalities have been building for decades, the COVID pandemic and policies implemented to deal with it have ushered in a higher focus on these disparities and a general level of uncertainty about the future on the part of many citizens.Of all the changes affecting the average person most adversely, inflation stands out as the most challenging. While the rate of change on inflation has been steadily falling since 2022, the price level of a number of goods and services remains challenging for many. Prices for basic items like food, shelter, healthcare, insurance and utilities are 30 to 50 per cent higher than they were pre-pandemic. Offsetting some of this increase has been the rise in home equity and financial asset prices, but this only helps those who are asset owners. Fixed rate mortgages have also been a notable positive offset to rising prices and interest rates. For many, there is a natural arbitrage between these pre-existing, historically low mortgage rates and money market rates. Once again, such an arbitrage is only available to those who have large piles of cash.In our view, these dynamics further the case that inflation is going to play a major role in this year's upcoming U.S. election much like it is having an impact globally. The recent US Presidential debate prompted inquiries from investors on what a potential Trump win or a potential Republican sweep could mean for markets. Based on initial market reactions and our conversations with clients, there is a consistent view that both growth and longer-term interest rates could move higher under this outcome. This has led to a greater appetite to rotate one’s equity portfolio toward value and cyclical stocks, which also worked leading into the 2016 election. Market expectations for fiscal expansion, reflation and less regulation under a Trump Presidency support such moves.   However, we think there’s also a couple of important dynamics to consider. First, we would argue that the cycle is more mature today than it was in 2016 as evidenced by the two-and-a-half-year decline in the Conference Board Leading Economic Indicator and the nearly 2-year inversion of the yield curve. Given a later cycle environment is historically a backdrop where the market pays up for quality and liquidity, we advise staying up the quality curve and away from small cap cyclicals, which worked in 2016. In short, the state of the business cycle right now is more important than the election outcome. As such, we think investors should stay selective within cyclicals.  Second, the market welcomed a reflationary playbook in 2016. Inflation was not a headwind to consumers in the way it is now, and the US economy was recovering from a global manufacturing recession, the recovery of which was aided by the prospects of a pro-fiscal/reflationary policy regime. Today, inflation is a notable headwind to consumers as discussed previously and fiscal sustainability dynamics remain top of mind for the bond market. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-YXQO_eK8xKi1AWCoQ3Cfl8ACopAZEixIMPFE-1hzwkMon, 08 Jul 2024 23:12:12 +0000gtyInflation continues to be a key issue for voters in elections around the world. Our CIO and Chief US Equity strategist explains its potential influence on the upcoming US presidential election, and how investors may react to potential outcomes of this...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the consequences of elections on policy and markets. It's Monday, July 8th at 2:30pm in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Several important elections around the world have taken place with important implications for policy and markets. Most notably, elections in India, Mexico, the UK and France have all garnered the attention of investors.While these elections are unique to each country, there does appear to be a growing focus on the issue of economic inequalities and immigration. While these inequalities have been building for decades, the COVID pandemic and policies implemented to deal with it have ushered in a higher focus on these disparities and a general level of uncertainty about the future on the part of many citizens.Of all the changes affecting the average person most adversely, inflation stands out as the most challenging. While the rate of change on inflation has been steadily falling since 2022, the price level of a number of goods and services remains challenging for many. Prices for basic items like food, shelter, healthcare, insurance and utilities are 30 to 50 per cent higher than they were pre-pandemic. Offsetting some of this increase has been the rise in home equity and financial asset prices, but this only helps those who are asset owners. Fixed rate mortgages have also been a notable positive offset to rising prices and interest rates. For many, there is a natural arbitrage between these pre-existing, historically low mortgage rates and money market rates. Once again, such an arbitrage is only available to those who have large piles of cash.In our view, these dynamics further the case that inflation is going to play a major role in this year's upcoming U.S. election much like it is having an impact globally. The recent US Presidential debate prompted inquiries from investors on what a potential Trump win or a potential Republican sweep could mean for markets. Based on initial market reactions and our conversations with clients, there is a consistent view that both growth and longer-term interest rates could move higher under this outcome. This has led to a greater appetite to rotate one’s equity portfolio toward value and cyclical stocks, which also worked leading into the 2016 election. Market expectations for fiscal expansion, reflation and less regulation under a Trump Presidency support such moves.   However, we think there’s also a couple of important dynamics to consider. First, we would argue that the cycle is more mature today than it was in 2016 as evidenced by the two-and-a-half-year decline in the Conference Board Leading Economic Indicator and the nearly 2-year inversion of the yield curve. Given a later cycle environment is historically a backdrop where the market pays up for quality and liquidity, we advise staying up the quality curve and away from small cap cyclicals, which worked in 2016. In short, the state of the business cycle right now is more important than the election outcome. As such, we think investors should stay selective within cyclicals.  Second, the market welcomed a reflationary playbook in 2016. Inflation was not a headwind to consumers in the way it is now, and the US economy was recovering from a global manufacturing recession, the recovery of which was aided by the prospects of a pro-fiscal/reflationary policy regime. Today, inflation is a notable headwind to consumers as discussed previously and fiscal sustainability dynamics remain top of mind for the bond market. Thanks for...]]>243alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1162fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-a-sobering-view-on-the-spirits-sector--75651113----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about a surprising trend in the global spirits market.It's Monday, April 15, at 2pm in London. We all remember vividly the COVID-19 period when we spent much more on goods than services, particularly on goods that could be delivered to our homes. Not surprisingly, spirits consumption experienced a super-cycle during the pandemic. But as the world returned to normal, the demand for spirits has dropped off. The market believes that after a period of normalization, the US spirits market will return to mid-single-digit growth in line with history; but we think that’s too optimistic.Changes in demographics and consumer behavior make it much more likely that the US market will grow only modestly from here. There are several key challenges to the volume of US alcohol consumption in the coming years. Sobriety and moderation of alcohol intake are two rising trends. In addition, there’s the increased use of GLP-1 anti-obesity drugs, which appear to quell users' appetite for alcoholic beverages. And finally, there’s stiffer regulation, including the lowering of alcohol limits for driving.A slew of recent survey data points to consumer intention to reduce alcohol intake. A February 2023 IWSR survey reported that 50 per cent of US drinkers are moderating their consumption. Meanwhile, a January 2024 NCSolutions survey reported that 41 per cent of respondents are trying to drink less, an increase of 7 percentage points from the prior year. And importantly, this intention was most concentrated among younger drinkers, with 61 per cent of Gen Z planning to drink less in 2024, up from 40 per cent in the prior year's survey. Meanwhile, 49 per cent of Millennials had a similar intention, up 26 per cent year on year.Why is all this happening? And why now? Perhaps the increasingly vocal commentary by public bodies linking alcohol to cancer is really hitting home. Last November, the World Health Organization stated that "the higher the amount of alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer" but also that "half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by ‘light’ and ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption. A recent Gallup survey of Americans indicated that young adults are particularly concerned that moderate drinking is unhealthy, with 52 per cent holding this view, up from 34 per cent five years ago. Another explanation for the increased prevalence of non-drinking among the youngest group of drinkers may be demographic makeup: the proportion of non-White 18- to 34-year-olds has nearly doubled over the past two decades.And equally, the cost of alcohol, which saw steep price increases in the last couple of years, seems to be a reason for increased moderation. Spending on alcohol stepped up materially over the COVID-19 period when there were more limited opportunities for spending. With life returning to normal post pandemic, consumers have other – more attractive or more pressing – opportunities for expenditure.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/imfZ8oWfYOpDaZ8rWo07yokRnQOpSvw7SxNsZiBHphoFri, 05 Jul 2024 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal release date April 15, 2024: Markets are suggesting that spirits consumption will return to historical growth levels post-pandemic, but our Head of European Consumer Staples Research disagrees. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about a surprising trend in the global spirits market.It's Monday, April 15, at 2pm in London. We all remember vividly the COVID-19 period when we spent much more on goods than services, particularly on goods that could be delivered to our homes. Not surprisingly, spirits consumption experienced a super-cycle during the pandemic. But as the world returned to normal, the demand for spirits has dropped off. The market believes that after a period of normalization, the US spirits market will return to mid-single-digit growth in line with history; but we think that’s too optimistic.Changes in demographics and consumer behavior make it much more likely that the US market will grow only modestly from here. There are several key challenges to the volume of US alcohol consumption in the coming years. Sobriety and moderation of alcohol intake are two rising trends. In addition, there’s the increased use of GLP-1 anti-obesity drugs, which appear to quell users' appetite for alcoholic beverages. And finally, there’s stiffer regulation, including the lowering of alcohol limits for driving.A slew of recent survey data points to consumer intention to reduce alcohol intake. A February 2023 IWSR survey reported that 50 per cent of US drinkers are moderating their consumption. Meanwhile, a January 2024 NCSolutions survey reported that 41 per cent of respondents are trying to drink less, an increase of 7 percentage points from the prior year. And importantly, this intention was most concentrated among younger drinkers, with 61 per cent of Gen Z planning to drink less in 2024, up from 40 per cent in the prior year's survey. Meanwhile, 49 per cent of Millennials had a similar intention, up 26 per cent year on year.Why is all this happening? And why now? Perhaps the increasingly vocal commentary by public bodies linking alcohol to cancer is really hitting home. Last November, the World Health Organization stated that "the higher the amount of alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer" but also that "half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by ‘light’ and ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption. A recent Gallup survey of Americans indicated that young adults are particularly concerned that moderate drinking is unhealthy, with 52 per cent holding this view, up from 34 per cent five years ago. Another explanation for the increased prevalence of non-drinking among the youngest group of drinkers may be demographic makeup: the proportion of non-White 18- to 34-year-olds has nearly doubled over the past two decades.And equally, the cost of alcohol, which saw steep price increases in the last couple of years, seems to be a reason for increased moderation. Spending on alcohol stepped up materially over the COVID-19 period when there were more limited opportunities for spending. With life returning to normal post pandemic, consumers have other – more attractive or more pressing – opportunities for expenditure.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.]]>248alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1161fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-central-banks-still-get-it-wrong-sometimes--75651127----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why credit may start to get more concerned that the Fed will make the same mistake it often does.It's Wednesday, July 3rd at 2pm in London.Central banks are among the most powerful actors in financial markets, and investors everywhere hang on their every word, and potential next move. If possible, that seemed even more true recently, as central banks first intervened aggressively in bond markets during the height of COVID, and then raised interest rates at the fastest pace in over 40 years. Indeed, you could even take this a step further: many investors you speak to will argue central banks are the most important force in markets. All else comes second. But this view of Fed supremacy over the market and economy has an important caveat. For all of their power, the Federal Reserve did not prevent the recession of 1990. It did not prevent the dotcom bust or recession of 2001. It did not prevent the Great Financial Crisis or Great Recession of 2007-2009. These periods have represented the vast majority of credit losses over the last 35 years. And so, for all of the power of central banks, these recessions, and their associated default cycles in credit, have kept happening. The reasons for this are varied and debatable. But the central issue is that the economy is a bit like a supertanker; it’s hard to turn quickly. You need to make adjustments well in advance, and often well before the signs of danger are clear. Currently, the Fed is still pressing the economic brakes. Interest rates from the Federal Reserve are well above so-called neutral; that is, where the Fed thinks interest rates neither boost, nor hold back, the economy. The justification for riding the break, so to speak, is that inflation earlier this year has still been higher than expected. But in the last two months, this inflation has rapidly cooled. Our economists think this trend will accelerate in the second half of the year, and ultimately allow the Fed to cut interest rates in September, November, and December. Still-high rates and cooling inflation isn’t a problem when the economic data is strong. But more recently, this data has cooled. If that weaker data continues, credit investors may worry that central banks are too focused on the high inflation that’s now behind us, and not focused enough on the potential slowing ahead. They’ll worry that once again, it may be too late to turn the proverbial economic ship. We’d stress that the risks of this scenario are still low; but late-reacting central banks have – historically, repeatedly – been credit’s biggest vulnerability. It makes it all the more important, that as we head into summer, that the data holds up. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. And for those in the US, a very happy Fourth of July.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/o7nlhZ8ZzoW_-PWcScfYZvmuiQQ6jVv9hGkkfHC8dPsWed, 03 Jul 2024 21:12:35 +0000gtyCentral banks play a crucial role in monetary policy and moderating the business cycle. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why, despite their power, these financial institutions can’t quickly steer through choppy economic waters. -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why credit may start to get more concerned that the Fed will make the same mistake it often does.It's Wednesday, July 3rd at 2pm in London.Central banks are among the most powerful actors in financial markets, and investors everywhere hang on their every word, and potential next move. If possible, that seemed even more true recently, as central banks first intervened aggressively in bond markets during the height of COVID, and then raised interest rates at the fastest pace in over 40 years. Indeed, you could even take this a step further: many investors you speak to will argue central banks are the most important force in markets. All else comes second. But this view of Fed supremacy over the market and economy has an important caveat. For all of their power, the Federal Reserve did not prevent the recession of 1990. It did not prevent the dotcom bust or recession of 2001. It did not prevent the Great Financial Crisis or Great Recession of 2007-2009. These periods have represented the vast majority of credit losses over the last 35 years. And so, for all of the power of central banks, these recessions, and their associated default cycles in credit, have kept happening. The reasons for this are varied and debatable. But the central issue is that the economy is a bit like a supertanker; it’s hard to turn quickly. You need to make adjustments well in advance, and often well before the signs of danger are clear. Currently, the Fed is still pressing the economic brakes. Interest rates from the Federal Reserve are well above so-called neutral; that is, where the Fed thinks interest rates neither boost, nor hold back, the economy. The justification for riding the break, so to speak, is that inflation earlier this year has still been higher than expected. But in the last two months, this inflation has rapidly cooled. Our economists think this trend will accelerate in the second half of the year, and ultimately allow the Fed to cut interest rates in September, November, and December. Still-high rates and cooling inflation isn’t a problem when the economic data is strong. But more recently, this data has cooled. If that weaker data continues, credit investors may worry that central banks are too focused on the high inflation that’s now behind us, and not focused enough on the potential slowing ahead. They’ll worry that once again, it may be too late to turn the proverbial economic ship. We’d stress that the risks of this scenario are still low; but late-reacting central banks have – historically, repeatedly – been credit’s biggest vulnerability. It makes it all the more important, that as we head into summer, that the data holds up. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. And for those in the US, a very happy Fourth of July.]]>201alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1160fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investors-eye-reactions-to-us-presidential-debate--75651280----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the US elections and its impact on markets.It's Tuesday, July 2nd at 10:30am in New York. For months, investors have been asking us when markets will start paying attention to the US presidential election. Well, we think that time arrived with last week’s Presidential debate. The media coverage that followed revealed that many Democratic party officials became concerned about President Biden’s ability to win the November election. This understandably led many to ask if the race for the White House had meaningfully changed; If it was no longer a close one – and if so, what would that mean for markets that might have to start pricing in the impacts of a Trump Presidency. On the first question: While we think it's too early to conclude that the race is no longer a close one, we expect some data in the next week or two that could clarify this. The few polls that have been released following the debate show that voters are increasingly concerned about Biden’s ability to win; but they also show a level of support for Biden similar to what he enjoyed before the debates. What we haven’t seen yet is a set of high-quality polls gauging swing state voter preferences. And even modest deterioration in Biden’s support there could meaningfully boost Trump’s prospects. That’s because, going into the debate, polls showed former President Trump with a small but consistent lead in national and key swing state polls. Nothing outside the polling margin of error. But it still suggested that for President Biden to improve his odds of winning, he’d be served well by having a strong debate performance that moved the polls more in his favor.  It doesn’t appear that this has happened, and if polls show movement in the other direction for Biden, it would be fair to think of Trump as something of a favorite. But only for the time being. There’d still be time and catalysts for the race to change – including another scheduled debate in September. If we do end up with a race where Former President Trump is a more clear favorite, even if just for a short time, there could be reflections in the market. As we’ve previously discussed, a Trump win increases the chances of more of the expiring tax cuts being extended. The benefits of those cuts most clearly accrue to key sectors like energy and telecom, so there’s potential outperformance there.  In fixed-income – a steeper US Treasury yield curve is an outcome our macro strategy team is particularly attuned to. That’s because a Trump presidency brings greater uncertainty about future fiscal policy, which could be reflected in relatively higher yields for longer maturity bonds. But it also increases the chances of policy choices that create near term pressure on economic growth that could push shorter maturity yields lower. This includes higher tariffs and tighter immigration policies. So bottom line, the markets are paying attention. And the race is sure to have many more twists and turns. We’ll keep you updated on how we’re navigating it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/A75zVP7kAJgCXP20uw_hULX0O366Czm28kGHE9-pGtgTue, 02 Jul 2024 21:26:07 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income recaps the aftermath of the first U.S. presidential debate, and how markets may react if forthcoming poll data shows a meaningful shift in the race. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the US elections and its impact on markets.It's Tuesday, July 2nd at 10:30am in New York. For months, investors have been asking us when markets will start paying attention to the US presidential election. Well, we think that time arrived with last week’s Presidential debate. The media coverage that followed revealed that many Democratic party officials became concerned about President Biden’s ability to win the November election. This understandably led many to ask if the race for the White House had meaningfully changed; If it was no longer a close one – and if so, what would that mean for markets that might have to start pricing in the impacts of a Trump Presidency. On the first question: While we think it's too early to conclude that the race is no longer a close one, we expect some data in the next week or two that could clarify this. The few polls that have been released following the debate show that voters are increasingly concerned about Biden’s ability to win; but they also show a level of support for Biden similar to what he enjoyed before the debates. What we haven’t seen yet is a set of high-quality polls gauging swing state voter preferences. And even modest deterioration in Biden’s support there could meaningfully boost Trump’s prospects. That’s because, going into the debate, polls showed former President Trump with a small but consistent lead in national and key swing state polls. Nothing outside the polling margin of error. But it still suggested that for President Biden to improve his odds of winning, he’d be served well by having a strong debate performance that moved the polls more in his favor.  It doesn’t appear that this has happened, and if polls show movement in the other direction for Biden, it would be fair to think of Trump as something of a favorite. But only for the time being. There’d still be time and catalysts for the race to change – including another scheduled debate in September. If we do end up with a race where Former President Trump is a more clear favorite, even if just for a short time, there could be reflections in the market. As we’ve previously discussed, a Trump win increases the chances of more of the expiring tax cuts being extended. The benefits of those cuts most clearly accrue to key sectors like energy and telecom, so there’s potential outperformance there.  In fixed-income – a steeper US Treasury yield curve is an outcome our macro strategy team is particularly attuned to. That’s because a Trump presidency brings greater uncertainty about future fiscal policy, which could be reflected in relatively higher yields for longer maturity bonds. But it also increases the chances of policy choices that create near term pressure on economic growth that could push shorter maturity yields lower. This includes higher tariffs and tighter immigration policies. So bottom line, the markets are paying attention. And the race is sure to have many more twists and turns. We’ll keep you updated on how we’re navigating it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>203alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1159fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/housing-update-home-prices-unlikely-to-decline--75651190----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the housing market, inflation, growth and monetary policy. It's Monday, July 1st, at 11am in New York. Housing is at the center of many macro debates from growth to inflation. And when you put those two together – monetary policy. House prices have continued to rise despite high interest rates, which gives the impression to some of stalled deflation and forces consumers at times to make some really difficult choices. And in some economies, there's a seeming lack of responsiveness of housing to higher interest rates. All of which tends to prompt questions about the efficacy of monetary policy. So where are we? We think monetary policy is still working through housing as it usually does, but supply shortages, or in some places just idiosyncratic factors like buildable lands or permitting, that's supported home prices. And as has been the case across several sectors in this business cycle, there really are some factors about housing that's just different in this cycle than in previous ones. For the U.S., a key part of the housing story has been the mortgage lock in for homeowners. Our strategists have noted that the gap between the current new mortgage rate and the average effective mortgage rate is at historical highs. And the share of 30 year fixed rate mortgages is at its highest in a decade. Consequently, the inventory of existing houses has remained low because homeowners who have those really low mortgages are reluctant to move unless they have to. The market has become thinner with less available supply; and then if we think more broadly for the economy, there's a risk of labor market frictions if that mortgage lock in also reduces labor mobility. Now, there will be a decline in mortgage rates if we get the modest easing cycle from the Fed that we expect. But that decline will be similarly modest so that gap in rates will not be fully closed even if it narrows. And so there might be some uplift to supply of housing, but it might not be huge. That decline in mortgage rates can also supply demand, so then we have to think about the net of this shift in demand and the shift in supply. And ultimately what we think is going to happen is that there'll be a moderation in home price appreciation, but not an outright decline in home prices.First, the choice of housing for a lot of households is do you buy or do you rent? If you've got high home prices and high mortgages, buying is much less affordable and so it pushes people into renting, which could push up rents. That phenomenon is partly responsible for the surge in rents that we've seen over the past few years. In the longer run, there should be a sort of arbitrage condition between home prices and rents. And while rising home prices can impinge the spending power for first time homebuyers, rising house prices can actually boost sentiment and consumption for existing homeowners. And that mortgage lock in that I talked about before? Well, that can actually support aggregate consumption to some degree because now there's predictability of cash flows and the monthly payment is pretty low. So what do we do when we take all of this together? The housing market might be telling us that monetary policy is working a bit less effectively than historically, but not that monetary policy is not working. Home price appreciation is moderating. Housing starts have slowed, as usual, following those big rate increases. But that slowing? It's actually been a bit inconsistent because mortgage lock has meant that new supply is the only supply. Existing home sales, by contrast, are just plain weak. They're about as weak as they were around the financial crisis. We do not think the housing market overall is at risk of collapse, but monetary policy is restraining activity in a very familiar way. Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JC5j__RXRFuG6pDGgzC9dPo3OxCU3VuItUygPCZOFqYMon, 01 Jul 2024 21:34:20 +0000gtyRising rents and mortgage payments have been at the center of the inflation discussion. Our Global Chief Economist assesses whether monetary policy can effectively blunt those figures.  ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the housing market, inflation, growth and monetary policy. It's Monday, July 1st, at 11am in New York. Housing is at the center of many macro debates from growth to inflation. And when you put those two together – monetary policy. House prices have continued to rise despite high interest rates, which gives the impression to some of stalled deflation and forces consumers at times to make some really difficult choices. And in some economies, there's a seeming lack of responsiveness of housing to higher interest rates. All of which tends to prompt questions about the efficacy of monetary policy. So where are we? We think monetary policy is still working through housing as it usually does, but supply shortages, or in some places just idiosyncratic factors like buildable lands or permitting, that's supported home prices. And as has been the case across several sectors in this business cycle, there really are some factors about housing that's just different in this cycle than in previous ones. For the U.S., a key part of the housing story has been the mortgage lock in for homeowners. Our strategists have noted that the gap between the current new mortgage rate and the average effective mortgage rate is at historical highs. And the share of 30 year fixed rate mortgages is at its highest in a decade. Consequently, the inventory of existing houses has remained low because homeowners who have those really low mortgages are reluctant to move unless they have to. The market has become thinner with less available supply; and then if we think more broadly for the economy, there's a risk of labor market frictions if that mortgage lock in also reduces labor mobility. Now, there will be a decline in mortgage rates if we get the modest easing cycle from the Fed that we expect. But that decline will be similarly modest so that gap in rates will not be fully closed even if it narrows. And so there might be some uplift to supply of housing, but it might not be huge. That decline in mortgage rates can also supply demand, so then we have to think about the net of this shift in demand and the shift in supply. And ultimately what we think is going to happen is that there'll be a moderation in home price appreciation, but not an outright decline in home prices.First, the choice of housing for a lot of households is do you buy or do you rent? If you've got high home prices and high mortgages, buying is much less affordable and so it pushes people into renting, which could push up rents. That phenomenon is partly responsible for the surge in rents that we've seen over the past few years. In the longer run, there should be a sort of arbitrage condition between home prices and rents. And while rising home prices can impinge the spending power for first time homebuyers, rising house prices can actually boost sentiment and consumption for existing homeowners. And that mortgage lock in that I talked about before? Well, that can actually support aggregate consumption to some degree because now there's predictability of cash flows and the monthly payment is pretty low. So what do we do when we take all of this together? The housing market might be telling us that monetary policy is working a bit less effectively than historically, but not that monetary policy is not working. Home price appreciation is moderating. Housing starts have slowed, as usual, following those big rate increases. But that slowing? It's actually been a bit inconsistent because mortgage lock has meant that new supply is the only supply. Existing home sales, by contrast,...]]>250alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1158fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-good-data-is-good-for-markets--75651302Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why good data … is good.It's Friday, June 28th at 2pm in London. One of the bigger investor debates of 2024 is whether stronger or weaker economic data is the preferred outcome for the market. This isn’t a trick question.  Post-COVID, a large spike of inflation led to the fastest pace of interest rate hikes by central banks in over forty years. And so there’s been an idea that weaker economic data, which would reduce that inflationary pressure and make central banks more likely to cut interest rates, is actually the better outcome for the market. Those lower interest rates after all might be helpful for moving the market higher or tighter. And stronger economic data, in contrast, could lead to more inflationary pressure, and even more rate increases. And so by this logic, bad data is good … and good data, well, would be bad. This “bad is good” mindset was prominent in the Autumn of 2022 and again in September of 2023, as markets weakened on stronger data and fears that it could drive further rate hikes. We saw the idea return this year, amidst higher-than-expected inflation readings in the first quarter. But we currently think this logic is misplaced. For markets, and certainly for credit, we think those who are constructive, like ourselves, are very much rooting for solid economic data. For now, good is good. Our first argument here is general. Over a long swath of available data, the worst returns for credit have consistently overlapped with the worst economic growth. Hoping for weaker data is, historically speaking, playing with fire, raising the odds that such weakness isn’t just a blip, and opens the door for much worse outcomes for both the economy and credit. But our second reason is more specific to right now. Central to this idea that bad data would be better for the market is the assumption that central banks would look at any poor data, change their tune and come to the market’s aid by lowering interest rates quickly. I think recent events really challenge that sort of thinking. While the European central bank did lower interest rates earlier this month, it struck a pretty cautious tone about any further easing. And the Federal Reserve actually raised its expected level of inflation and projected rate path on the same day that consumer price inflation in the US came in much lower than expected. Both increased the risk that these central banks are being more backward looking, and will be slow to react to weaker economic data if it materialises. And so, we think, credit investors should be hoping for good data, which would avoid a scenario where backward-looking central banks are too slow to change their tune. I’d note that this is what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting, with expectations that growth is a little over 2 percent this year in the US and a little over 1 percent in the Euro Area for this year. We expect the economic data to hold up, and for that to be the better scenario for credit. If the data turns down, we may need to change our tune. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mcSpKDg9SB6A-Ev63hGpFOPlt7DACk33EhgJh-ZwGEUFri, 28 Jun 2024 21:07:42 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research makes the case against the popular notion that solid economic data would be bad for markets, and instead offers a rationale for why now, more than ever, is the time for investors to root for positive economic...Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why good data … is good.It's Friday, June 28th at 2pm in London. One of the bigger investor debates of 2024 is whether stronger or weaker economic data is the preferred outcome for the market. This isn’t a trick question.  Post-COVID, a large spike of inflation led to the fastest pace of interest rate hikes by central banks in over forty years. And so there’s been an idea that weaker economic data, which would reduce that inflationary pressure and make central banks more likely to cut interest rates, is actually the better outcome for the market. Those lower interest rates after all might be helpful for moving the market higher or tighter. And stronger economic data, in contrast, could lead to more inflationary pressure, and even more rate increases. And so by this logic, bad data is good … and good data, well, would be bad. This “bad is good” mindset was prominent in the Autumn of 2022 and again in September of 2023, as markets weakened on stronger data and fears that it could drive further rate hikes. We saw the idea return this year, amidst higher-than-expected inflation readings in the first quarter. But we currently think this logic is misplaced. For markets, and certainly for credit, we think those who are constructive, like ourselves, are very much rooting for solid economic data. For now, good is good. Our first argument here is general. Over a long swath of available data, the worst returns for credit have consistently overlapped with the worst economic growth. Hoping for weaker data is, historically speaking, playing with fire, raising the odds that such weakness isn’t just a blip, and opens the door for much worse outcomes for both the economy and credit. But our second reason is more specific to right now. Central to this idea that bad data would be better for the market is the assumption that central banks would look at any poor data, change their tune and come to the market’s aid by lowering interest rates quickly. I think recent events really challenge that sort of thinking. While the European central bank did lower interest rates earlier this month, it struck a pretty cautious tone about any further easing. And the Federal Reserve actually raised its expected level of inflation and projected rate path on the same day that consumer price inflation in the US came in much lower than expected. Both increased the risk that these central banks are being more backward looking, and will be slow to react to weaker economic data if it materialises. And so, we think, credit investors should be hoping for good data, which would avoid a scenario where backward-looking central banks are too slow to change their tune. I’d note that this is what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting, with expectations that growth is a little over 2 percent this year in the US and a little over 1 percent in the Euro Area for this year. We expect the economic data to hold up, and for that to be the better scenario for credit. If the data turns down, we may need to change our tune. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>217alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1156fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/introducing-what-should-i-do-with-my-money-season-2--75651045Financial Advisors show once again that a little guidance can go a long way. Join us to hear how a conversation can turn concern into confidence, hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô.
-----
This material has been prepared for educational purposes only. It does not provide individually tailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.Important information about your relationship with your Financial Advisor and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC when using a Financial Planning tool. When your Financial Advisor prepares a Financial Plan, they will be acting in an investment advisory capacity with respect to the delivery of your Financial Plan. To understand the differences between brokerage and advisory relationships, you should consult your Financial Advisor, or review our Understanding Your Brokerage and Investment Advisory Relationships brochure available at https://www.morganstanley.com/wealth-relationshipwithms/pdfs/understandingyourrelationship.pdfYou have sole responsibility for making all investment decisions with respect to the implementation of a Financial Plan. You may implement the Financial Plan at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC or at another firm. If you engage or have engaged Morgan Stanley, it will act as your broker, unless you ask it, in writing, to act as your investment adviser on any particular account.Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”), its affiliates and Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors and Private Wealth Advisors do not provide tax or legal advice. Clients should consult their tax advisor for matters involving taxation and tax planning and their attorney for matters involving trust and estate planning and other legal matters.Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) investments in a portfolio may experience performance that is lower or higher than a portfolio not employing such practices. Portfolios with ESG restrictions and strategies as well as ESG investments may not be able to take advantage of the same opportunities or market trends as portfolios where ESG criteria is not applied. There are inconsistent ESG definitions and criteria within the industry, as well as multiple ESG ratings providers that provide ESG ratings of the same subject companies and/or securities that vary among the providers. Certain issuers of investments may have differing and inconsistent views concerning ESG criteria where the ESG claims made in offering documents or other literature may overstate ESG impact. ESG designations are as of the date of this material, and no assurance is provided that the underlying assets have maintained or will maintain and such designation or any stated ESG compliance. As a result, it is difficult to compare ESG investment products or to evaluate an ESG investment product in comparison to one that does not focus on ESG. Investors should also independently consider whether the ESG investment product meets their own ESG objectives or criteria.There is no assurance that an ESG investing strategy or techniques employed will be successful. Past performance is not a guarantee or a dependable measure of future results.Insurance products are offered in conjunction with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC’s licensed insurance agency affiliates.
Signal Awards 2023 – Bronze WinnerSource: Signal Award Winners (October 2023) 2023 Signal Awards receive votes from the public voting stage, podcast fans cast over 130,000 votes for the Signal Listener’s Choice award. Signal Award Winners were selected by the Signal Academy. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with Signal Awards. For more information, see www.signalawards.com. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.
FCS Portfolio Awards 2024 – BronzeSource: Financial Community Society Portfolio Awards (May 2024) 2024 FCS Portfolio Awards. The Portfolio Awards competition recognizes creative excellence in marketing communications work from financial companies, with Gold, Silver and Bronze trophies awarded for Branded Content. This year’s panel comprised 49 senior executives from financial firms and communications agencies. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with Financial Communications Society. For more information, see https://thefcs.org/portfolio-awards. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.
Shorty Awards Finalist 2024Source: Shorty Impact Awards (May 2024) 2024 Annual Shorty Impact Awards. The Shorty Awards winners and honorees, including Finalists, Gold, Silver, and Bronze Honorees; are chosen by the Real Time Academy. The decision is made based on three main criteria: purpose/impact, creativity, strategy & execution, and engagement. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with the Shorty Impact Awards. For more information, see https://shortyawards.com/impact-awards/rules/. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.
Webby Award Nominee 2024Source: 2024 Webby Awards (May 2024) The Webby Awards is the Internet’s most respected symbol of success. The 28th Annual Webby Awards received nearly 13,000 entries from all 50 states and over 70 countries worldwide. Podcasts: News & Politics, Best Host, Best Series, Best Live Podcast Recording & more. Associate Academy members are former Webby winners and nominees and other invited industry professionals who are leaders in their peer groups because of their creative and technical accomplishments. Associate members are invited to take part in Round 1 Judging, the initial phase of the Webby evaluation process. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with The Webby Awards. For more information, see https://www.webbyawards.com/. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.© 2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.
CRC# (3566982 05/2024)]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/INDAq3ztDG9RZHKqnUu8J1u2D44HcHUS8JuytNYlBIcFri, 28 Jun 2024 16:57:33 +0000gtyIf you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in Season 2 of our podcast: What Should I Do With My Money? ----------------Money is emotional and that can make it difficult to know if we’re making the right decisions. This...Financial Advisors show once again that a little guidance can go a long way. Join us to hear how a conversation can turn concern into confidence, hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô.
-----
This material has been prepared for educational purposes only. It does not provide individually tailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.Important information about your relationship with your Financial Advisor and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC when using a Financial Planning tool. When your Financial Advisor prepares a Financial Plan, they will be acting in an investment advisory capacity with respect to the delivery of your Financial Plan. To understand the differences between brokerage and advisory relationships, you should consult your Financial Advisor, or review our Understanding Your Brokerage and Investment Advisory Relationships brochure available at https://www.morganstanley.com/wealth-relationshipwithms/pdfs/understandingyourrelationship.pdfYou have sole responsibility for making all investment decisions with respect to the implementation of a Financial Plan. You may implement the Financial Plan at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC or at another firm. If you engage or have engaged Morgan Stanley, it will act as your broker, unless you ask it, in writing, to act as your investment adviser on any particular account.Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”), its affiliates and Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors and Private Wealth Advisors do not provide tax or legal advice. Clients should consult their tax advisor for matters involving taxation and tax planning and their attorney for matters involving trust and estate planning and other legal matters.Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) investments in a portfolio may experience performance that is lower or higher than a portfolio not employing such practices. Portfolios with ESG restrictions and strategies as well as ESG investments may not be able to take advantage of the same opportunities or market trends as portfolios where ESG criteria is not applied. There are inconsistent ESG definitions and criteria within the industry, as well as multiple ESG ratings providers that provide ESG ratings of the same subject companies and/or securities that vary among the providers. Certain issuers of investments may have differing and inconsistent views concerning ESG criteria where the ESG claims made in offering documents or other literature may overstate ESG impact. ESG designations are as of the date of this material, and no assurance is provided that the underlying assets have maintained or will maintain and such...]]>195alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1155fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/funding-the-ai-revolution--75651275----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the role of credit markets in the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution.  It's Thursday, June 27th at 1 pm in New York. Technology diffusion driven by artificial intelligence has been a defining theme for investors over the last few years. Recent developments in generative AI, or GenAI powered by large language models, have the potential to bring transformational changes across the economy. Today, I want to talk about the role of credit markets in this AI revolution. The infrastructure requirements of AI – semi fabs, data centers and the energy resources to power the Gen AI models – are enormous. Our analysts estimate that GenAI power demand will rise rapidly, reaching 224 Trillion Watt hours by 2027 in their base case which is roughly close to Spain's total 2022 power consumption. So, it goes without saying that AI infrastructure will need substantial capex. Early on, much of the AI capex has been funded by a combination of venture capital and retained earnings from cash-rich technology companies; in other words funded by equity capital. As the focus shifts from early innovators and enablers of AI to adopters of AI, these needs are bound to grow and will require more efficient forms of capital. We think that credit markets in various forms – unsecured, secured, securitized and asset-backed – will have a major role to play in this transformation. So far, debt financing has played a relatively small part in funding technology companies, especially AI beneficiaries. The sector has significant capacity to add debt without a material deterioration in their credit metrics. This capacity is also complemented by an investor base with a significant dry powder to absorb incremental issuance, thereby avoiding a demand-supply mismatch. Of course, the story is not that simple. Cash-rich companies may not have a compelling need to access credit markets if the equity market continues to reward redirection of these free cash flows. But then the path of the interest rate markets will also matter, as monetary policy eases, the cost of debt becomes incrementally even more attractive. It’s clearly early innings, but credit markets holistically should play a bigger role as the cycle matures. In addition, as the capex cycle broadens out from enablers to adopters, we note that most sectors are nearly not as cash-rich as the technology sectors. For example, the median cash to debt ratio for the technology sector is over 50 percent, but then for the remaining sectors, it is just 15 percent. So as capital needs driven by these infrastructure needs increase, we expect the reliance on credit markets also to increase. In some ways, this has already begun to happen. The first data center asset backed security was issued in 2018. The market has now grown to over 20 billion outstanding and it is poised for a rapid growth. The bottom line is simply this: As AI driven technology diffusion takes center stage, credit markets, broadly defined, will likely play a growing role. As always, there will be winners and there will be losers. But AI as a theme for credit investors is here to stay. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZcKX-7eQdCKJBPcdcKKuBgrKluF9DvZYtSxAs4h93wQThu, 27 Jun 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyAs the infrastructure needs for artificial intelligence soar, so does the need for financing. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist talks about the role credit markets can play in providing capital to power the sector. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the role of credit markets in the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution.  It's Thursday, June 27th at 1 pm in New York. Technology diffusion driven by artificial intelligence has been a defining theme for investors over the last few years. Recent developments in generative AI, or GenAI powered by large language models, have the potential to bring transformational changes across the economy. Today, I want to talk about the role of credit markets in this AI revolution. The infrastructure requirements of AI – semi fabs, data centers and the energy resources to power the Gen AI models – are enormous. Our analysts estimate that GenAI power demand will rise rapidly, reaching 224 Trillion Watt hours by 2027 in their base case which is roughly close to Spain's total 2022 power consumption. So, it goes without saying that AI infrastructure will need substantial capex. Early on, much of the AI capex has been funded by a combination of venture capital and retained earnings from cash-rich technology companies; in other words funded by equity capital. As the focus shifts from early innovators and enablers of AI to adopters of AI, these needs are bound to grow and will require more efficient forms of capital. We think that credit markets in various forms – unsecured, secured, securitized and asset-backed – will have a major role to play in this transformation. So far, debt financing has played a relatively small part in funding technology companies, especially AI beneficiaries. The sector has significant capacity to add debt without a material deterioration in their credit metrics. This capacity is also complemented by an investor base with a significant dry powder to absorb incremental issuance, thereby avoiding a demand-supply mismatch. Of course, the story is not that simple. Cash-rich companies may not have a compelling need to access credit markets if the equity market continues to reward redirection of these free cash flows. But then the path of the interest rate markets will also matter, as monetary policy eases, the cost of debt becomes incrementally even more attractive. It’s clearly early innings, but credit markets holistically should play a bigger role as the cycle matures. In addition, as the capex cycle broadens out from enablers to adopters, we note that most sectors are nearly not as cash-rich as the technology sectors. For example, the median cash to debt ratio for the technology sector is over 50 percent, but then for the remaining sectors, it is just 15 percent. So as capital needs driven by these infrastructure needs increase, we expect the reliance on credit markets also to increase. In some ways, this has already begun to happen. The first data center asset backed security was issued in 2018. The market has now grown to over 20 billion outstanding and it is poised for a rapid growth. The bottom line is simply this: As AI driven technology diffusion takes center stage, credit markets, broadly defined, will likely play a growing role. As always, there will be winners and there will be losers. But AI as a theme for credit investors is here to stay. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>246alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1154fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fiscal-sustainability-and-the-french-and-us-elections--75651091---- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about elections, and what they might mean for fiscal sustainability.It's Wednesday, June 26th at 10am in New York.Elections have unexpectedly become a key risk in an otherwise positive growth narrative for France this year. And there are a wide range of possible outcomes for the next government.Fiscal sustainability is one key market narrative we have been flagging. And in France, the fiscal position is expected to deteriorate. Our strategists note that the 10-year OAT boon spreads have widened more than 20 basis points. And in their view, further discounts on OATs are likely due to the deficit trajectories in the different political scenarios and heightened political and economic uncertainty.In recent work we've done on developed market government sustainability, we flagged that across DMs, even if fiscal deficits remain steady, interest expense on the debt will continue to rise, pushing up the debt to GDP ratios. Larger deficits would necessarily exacerbate the situation. Austerity is necessary to stabilize or lower the debt to GDP ratios.For France in particular, the maturity profile and forward rates had meant there could be relatively more time for the repricing to happen; but the market reaction to the election has meant higher yields, effectively pulling forward that repricing. Relative to our analysis in the first quarter of 2024, the debt surfacing costs are already higher.The election results have now led to expectations of higher deficits, implying faster rising debt to GDP ratios as well. This combination of higher rates and higher deficits is self-reinforcing. The market will pay close attention to specific policy proposals -- and the coalitions that result from the election.For the US elections, debt sustainability has so far been lower on the list of topics that clients bring up. The elections are expected to be close. In a recent joint note with our US public policy colleagues, we noted four basic scenarios: a Republican sweep; a Democratic sweep; or divided governments with either a Republican or a Democratic president.Our public policy colleagues see very different outcomes across a 10-year time horizon for the deficit, ranging from an increase of [$]1.6 trillion under the Republican sweep scenario to an increase of about $600 billion in the Democratic sweep scenario, and the split government scenario is somewhere in between.Of course, fiscal policy is not the only consideration for debt sustainability. Tariffs could generate some higher revenues, but the adverse hit to GDP means that the denominator of the debt to GDP ratio will fall and push the ratio higher.Our policy colleagues have also flagged a big range of possible immigration policy outcomes. The current positive supply shock to the labor force has allowed for faster GDP growth and consequently, higher revenues. Under the strictest immigration policies, the so-called break-even monthly payrolls flow could fall from a baseline now of just over 200,000 per month to as low as 45,000 per month.Such an outcome would imply lower revenues and lower GDP, meaning both the numerator and the denominator of the debt to GDP ratio would be pushing upward.Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/aUPLz5-Ow6oiEtYc6p5sxtIv0xQm-bNWipc6DaIyUvwWed, 26 Jun 2024 22:05:07 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist explains why markets are concerned about uncertainty around the French and US elections, and how their outcomes may affect each economy’s debt load. ---- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....---- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about elections, and what they might mean for fiscal sustainability.It's Wednesday, June 26th at 10am in New York.Elections have unexpectedly become a key risk in an otherwise positive growth narrative for France this year. And there are a wide range of possible outcomes for the next government.Fiscal sustainability is one key market narrative we have been flagging. And in France, the fiscal position is expected to deteriorate. Our strategists note that the 10-year OAT boon spreads have widened more than 20 basis points. And in their view, further discounts on OATs are likely due to the deficit trajectories in the different political scenarios and heightened political and economic uncertainty.In recent work we've done on developed market government sustainability, we flagged that across DMs, even if fiscal deficits remain steady, interest expense on the debt will continue to rise, pushing up the debt to GDP ratios. Larger deficits would necessarily exacerbate the situation. Austerity is necessary to stabilize or lower the debt to GDP ratios.For France in particular, the maturity profile and forward rates had meant there could be relatively more time for the repricing to happen; but the market reaction to the election has meant higher yields, effectively pulling forward that repricing. Relative to our analysis in the first quarter of 2024, the debt surfacing costs are already higher.The election results have now led to expectations of higher deficits, implying faster rising debt to GDP ratios as well. This combination of higher rates and higher deficits is self-reinforcing. The market will pay close attention to specific policy proposals -- and the coalitions that result from the election.For the US elections, debt sustainability has so far been lower on the list of topics that clients bring up. The elections are expected to be close. In a recent joint note with our US public policy colleagues, we noted four basic scenarios: a Republican sweep; a Democratic sweep; or divided governments with either a Republican or a Democratic president.Our public policy colleagues see very different outcomes across a 10-year time horizon for the deficit, ranging from an increase of [$]1.6 trillion under the Republican sweep scenario to an increase of about $600 billion in the Democratic sweep scenario, and the split government scenario is somewhere in between.Of course, fiscal policy is not the only consideration for debt sustainability. Tariffs could generate some higher revenues, but the adverse hit to GDP means that the denominator of the debt to GDP ratio will fall and push the ratio higher.Our policy colleagues have also flagged a big range of possible immigration policy outcomes. The current positive supply shock to the labor force has allowed for faster GDP growth and consequently, higher revenues. Under the strictest immigration policies, the so-called break-even monthly payrolls flow could fall from a baseline now of just over 200,000 per month to as low as 45,000 per month.Such an outcome would imply lower revenues and lower GDP, meaning both the numerator and the denominator of the debt to GDP ratio would be pushing upward.Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>232alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1153fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/navigating-the-narrow-stock-market--75651171----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the narrowness in breadth and why that supports our preference for high quality and defensive stocks.It's Tuesday, June 25th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. I am fond of the saying that the economy is not the stock market, and the stock market is not the economy. Often, a strong economy is not good for stocks, while a soft one can lead to higher equity prices. This latter case is the classic late cycle period in which we find ourselves. More specifically, when the economy is slowing from previous tightening by the Federal Reserve, the equity market starts to get excited about the Fed reversing course, and it looks forward to loosening policy and valuations rise in anticipation. With price/earnings multiples and other valuation metrics now in the top decile, the question is when will valuations matter and begin to fall faster than earnings growth and lead to a meaningful correction?At the stock level, this is already happening as illustrated by the weakest breadth since 1965. In other words, most stocks are seeing valuations fall more than earnings are rising. This is exactly why stock picking has become so important for equity investors to outperform the S&P 500. While this creates a great long and short opportunity, the list of longs has become harder to find and why the momentum in a few stocks continues unabated. This also syncs with our view for the past year that large cap quality is likely to continue to outperform until something material changes in the macro environment. I see three potential candidates to change this seemingly very stable and benign outcome for equity markets.First, inflation and growth reaccelerate in a way that forces the Fed to reconsider rate hikes. Right now, that does not appear likely and why there is virtually no risk of such an outcome priced into either bond or stock markets. Such an outcome would likely lead to a broadening out of the equity rally to areas that have lagged persistently over the past 2 years—areas like small caps, lower quality consumer cyclicals, regional banks and transports. The S&P 500 would likely trade poorly under this scenario as higher rates would potentially weigh on valuations for the big winners. Second, the liquidity picture deteriorates and money flows out of equities. A key risk in this regard relates to the funding of the extraordinary government deficit. A good way to monitor this risk is the term premium in the bond market which remains near zero. Should this change and the term premium rise like last fall, the decline in equities would likely be broad with few stocks doing well. This does not appear to be a concern at the moment given the liquidity provisions still in place.The third possible risk is a growth scare that is substantial enough to turn bad economic data into bad news for equity multiples across the board. This is the most likely risk to upset the apple cart in our view. Under this outcome, large cap quality should continue to do ok on a relative basis, but defensives are likely to do better. The economic growth surprises have been trending lower all year. So far, the S&P 500 has taken these weaker data in stride assuming bad economic data is still good for large cap quality stocks as the market looks forward to rate cuts from the Fed. Meanwhile, weaker indices and stocks have broken down with many now down on the year. The bottom line is that the ongoing policy mix of heavy fiscal spending and tight interest rate policy is crowding out many companies and consumers in a waythat is unsustainable in our view. Investors have correctly recognized this outcome by bidding up the few stocks of the companies that are doing well in this environment. Until the bond market pushes back via higher term premium or growth slows down in a more meaningful way, we expect this narrow market performance to persist. As such, we continue to recommend a barbell of large cap quality growth with defensives while fading cyclicals and avoiding the temptation to play for a true broadening out until the macro regime makes a meaningful shift.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YWfAO3yhk-HmVFUkMPxaIHzoW8hh81fA-MCgxJUFhoITue, 25 Jun 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains how to make sense of the equity market’s narrow performance, and why stock picking takes on greater importance for investors. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the narrowness in breadth and why that supports our preference for high quality and defensive stocks.It's Tuesday, June 25th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. I am fond of the saying that the economy is not the stock market, and the stock market is not the economy. Often, a strong economy is not good for stocks, while a soft one can lead to higher equity prices. This latter case is the classic late cycle period in which we find ourselves. More specifically, when the economy is slowing from previous tightening by the Federal Reserve, the equity market starts to get excited about the Fed reversing course, and it looks forward to loosening policy and valuations rise in anticipation. With price/earnings multiples and other valuation metrics now in the top decile, the question is when will valuations matter and begin to fall faster than earnings growth and lead to a meaningful correction?At the stock level, this is already happening as illustrated by the weakest breadth since 1965. In other words, most stocks are seeing valuations fall more than earnings are rising. This is exactly why stock picking has become so important for equity investors to outperform the S&P 500. While this creates a great long and short opportunity, the list of longs has become harder to find and why the momentum in a few stocks continues unabated. This also syncs with our view for the past year that large cap quality is likely to continue to outperform until something material changes in the macro environment. I see three potential candidates to change this seemingly very stable and benign outcome for equity markets.First, inflation and growth reaccelerate in a way that forces the Fed to reconsider rate hikes. Right now, that does not appear likely and why there is virtually no risk of such an outcome priced into either bond or stock markets. Such an outcome would likely lead to a broadening out of the equity rally to areas that have lagged persistently over the past 2 years—areas like small caps, lower quality consumer cyclicals, regional banks and transports. The S&P 500 would likely trade poorly under this scenario as higher rates would potentially weigh on valuations for the big winners. Second, the liquidity picture deteriorates and money flows out of equities. A key risk in this regard relates to the funding of the extraordinary government deficit. A good way to monitor this risk is the term premium in the bond market which remains near zero. Should this change and the term premium rise like last fall, the decline in equities would likely be broad with few stocks doing well. This does not appear to be a concern at the moment given the liquidity provisions still in place.The third possible risk is a growth scare that is substantial enough to turn bad economic data into bad news for equity multiples across the board. This is the most likely risk to upset the apple cart in our view. Under this outcome, large cap quality should continue to do ok on a relative basis, but defensives are likely to do better. The economic growth surprises have been trending lower all year. So far, the S&P 500 has taken these weaker data in stride assuming bad economic data is still good for large cap quality stocks as the market looks forward to rate cuts from the Fed. Meanwhile, weaker indices and stocks have broken down with many now down on the year. The bottom line is that the ongoing policy mix of heavy fiscal spending and tight interest rate policy is crowding out many companies and consumers in a waythat is unsustainable in our view. Investors...]]>278alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1152fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economics-roundtable-global-elections-in-focus--75651195----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome back to the second part of a special two-part episode of the podcast. We've been covering Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the third quarter of 2024. In the first part, we covered the twin themes of inflation in central banks. In this part, we're going to look at elections, with my colleagues Ellen Zentner, our Chief US Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist, and Chetan Ahya, who is our Chief Asia Economist.It's Monday, June 24th at 10 am in New York.It is astounding if we look around the world just how many elections there have already been this year and how many more there are going to be. We will get to the US, but before we do, Chetan, in Asia, India is one of the most important economies; and in India they recently had elections. Can you just let our listeners know basically what happened and what do you think are the implications for that election for the Indian economy?Chetan Ahya: Yeah Seth. So Definitely there was a big change in India in terms of the political outcome. So the ruling party did not get the full majority and they have had to form a government under a coalition structure. There is a question though, as a result of that, whether the policy shift will happen in India and the government will go back to redistribution instead of focusing on boosting investment and jobs. Well, we think that, you know, there is no change. There is policy continuity. We think that this government is very much aligned in thinking that they want to keep inflation in check and current account deficit in check, i.e. macro stability should be in control. And they still believe that job creation is the way to ensure that the general masses and the bottom 20 per cent see the benefit and then vote for them back again.So, for us, we are not changing our view that this is India's decade. We are still maintaining our growth forecast that India will be achieving 6.5 per cent until 2030, and at the same time as India continues to build this growth rates on a high base, India will be at $8 trillion by 2032. Back to you, Seth.Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Chetan. super interesting. And EM elections have had a lot of surprises. We had South Africa. We had a surprise -- in terms of the margin in the opposite direction of what you said for India -- when it comes to the case of Mexico, where Scheinbaum won, but the majority was even bigger than I think most people were expected.But there are other elections that had some big surprises. Jens, let me come to you. In Europe, we had the European elections, and there were some big surprises there, to say the very least. First, can you just walk us through, what do the European level elections mean, in terms of our outlook? And then, part of the fallout from those surprises was that President Macron in France called for snap elections. What do you think we need to take away from that fact?Jens Eisenschmidt: We have had a look at the manifestos, what is known so far from those that are competing for government in France, say, and I think one of our key takeaways is that might be more fiscal spending. And of course, short run this might get you more growth. But of course, the question is always, what's the price for us to pay? There might be higher interest rates and that in the longer term may be detrimental. So, I think overall we have to wait until we see really and observe the full election outcome.Now, more generally, we had the European elections and we get a lot of questions by clients -- what the implications are here. Now, if you, sort of just look again from very high up, far away, then we see that the coalition that has last time, voted and elected, Ursula von der Leyen, the currently sitting, President of the European Commission. That coalition still stands or commands a majority in the European Parliament post the elections. Just that that majority, of course, is a little bit smaller than before.It's very likely that von der Leyen will have to reach out to either the Greens that were not in the past part of her coalition, voting for her; or the bloc around the Italian Prime Minister Meloni. The implication of it is that we have to see which side the reach out is for – for the consequences for the commission priorities. But I would say from today's perspective, and again giving that there is some logic of averaging here, it's very unlikely to be dramatic changes that we are going to see at the European level.Seth Carpenter: Staying on, on your side of the Atlantic, of course the UK is going to have elections as well. And notably on July 4th, the anniversary of the US independence from Great Britain. I love that timing. What's the story with the UK elections and are they going to change at all, your team's outlook for what goes on in the UK?Jens Eisenschmidt: So on current polls, they were remarkably stable. There seems to be a change in government in the making, say. The Tories, the Conservative Party in the UK, it's very likely to have to give away power to a new labor government. That's essentially what polls currently suggest.Now, we've had a look at both manifestos, and there are differences here and there. Typically, you would think, there's a bit more fiscal spending coming out of one government and the other. But, you know, if you really sort of compare notes and if you also see the constraints that both contenders -- conservative or labor -- would have to work with, it's hard to see a material difference, at least for the growth outlook, from their policies.Again, it's early days. We will have to see what exactly then will be implemented after July 4th. But from today's perspective, it's hardly a game changer.Seth Carpenter: Okay, great, thanks. I want to bring it back to this side of the Atlantic, back to the United States. Ellen, Morgan Stanley Research put out a big piece last week about the US election scenarios. Can you just run us through the key points there, because I will say, everyone around the world looks at the US election and has to take some notice.Ellen Zentner: Ah yes. I love elections. I thought you'd never ask. So, in the US it's not just about Biden versus Trump. The outcome for the Congress matters critically for fiscal outcomes as well. So, broadly for deficits, we see a rank ordering of a Republican sweep leading to the biggest deficit expansion. Then a smaller deficit with a split government because there will not be unity to get things done. And then the smallest deficit comes with a Dem sweep because we do think that tax increases could be meaningful.Seth Carpenter: Okay, whoa. Let me stop you there because it sounds like if we've got this rank ordering of how much the deficit expands, can we just take that and then translate it into a forecast for economic growth? So bigger deficit, more fiscal boost; smaller deficit, less fiscal boost; smallest deficit, sort of weakest growth. Is that the way we should think about this fiscal plan translates into projections of growth?Ellen Zentner: Okay, I wish it were that easy and I know you're asking that because it would definitely poke me a bit. So, there are other policies that are going to matter. So tariffs, for example, and they're likely to differ substantially. So, you know, former President Trump has talked about 60 per cent tariffs on Chinese imports and 10 per cent tariffs broadly on global imports. And there are specifics that are hard to forecast now. Some of the broader plans might require congressional action; but what we learned from 2018 is that there is some inflationary impulse. But you can have a meaningful adverse hit to the economy from tariffs, and then that tends to have a pull on inflation thereafter. So, you can't just take the fiscal deficit, as a direction for growth.And as I noted earlier, immigration has been a key part of the macro story in the US for the past year. I promised I would come back to that. You know, you've got, wildly different scenarios for immigration, depending on the congressional makeup and depending on who's president, as well. So, if I just take you to the most extreme example. So if you could see, immigration scenario under former president Trump, where he's talked about shutting down the border, and also deporting unauthorized immigrants that are already here. You know, you could damage the potential growth rate of the economy that would be slower.To put it into numbers, the extreme version we published would result in a break even for non-farm payrolls going to 45, 000 from our current estimate of around 250, 000. So that would be a big shift. And I think immigration, rather than just the size of the deficit, is probably going to be one of the bigger things to watch out of the election.Seth Carpenter: So as the saying goes, elections have consequences, not just in the United States, but around the world.All right. Ellen, Chetan, Jens, thank you so much for joining today. And to our listeners, thank you for listening.If you enjoy the show, please leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LVElfDS8qQ_ZW_yGGqJ40a-UjAusnDL-PXzyaTGsH8oMon, 24 Jun 2024 22:17:31 +0000gtyHalfway through a historic year for elections around the world, Morgan Stanley’s chief economists assess the impact of recent results on the global economy, and weigh potential effects from key elections to come. ----- Transcript -----Seth...----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome back to the second part of a special two-part episode of the podcast. We've been covering Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the third quarter of 2024. In the first part, we covered the twin themes of inflation in central banks. In this part, we're going to look at elections, with my colleagues Ellen Zentner, our Chief US Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist, and Chetan Ahya, who is our Chief Asia Economist.It's Monday, June 24th at 10 am in New York.It is astounding if we look around the world just how many elections there have already been this year and how many more there are going to be. We will get to the US, but before we do, Chetan, in Asia, India is one of the most important economies; and in India they recently had elections. Can you just let our listeners know basically what happened and what do you think are the implications for that election for the Indian economy?Chetan Ahya: Yeah Seth. So Definitely there was a big change in India in terms of the political outcome. So the ruling party did not get the full majority and they have had to form a government under a coalition structure. There is a question though, as a result of that, whether the policy shift will happen in India and the government will go back to redistribution instead of focusing on boosting investment and jobs. Well, we think that, you know, there is no change. There is policy continuity. We think that this government is very much aligned in thinking that they want to keep inflation in check and current account deficit in check, i.e. macro stability should be in control. And they still believe that job creation is the way to ensure that the general masses and the bottom 20 per cent see the benefit and then vote for them back again.So, for us, we are not changing our view that this is India's decade. We are still maintaining our growth forecast that India will be achieving 6.5 per cent until 2030, and at the same time as India continues to build this growth rates on a high base, India will be at $8 trillion by 2032. Back to you, Seth.Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Chetan. super interesting. And EM elections have had a lot of surprises. We had South Africa. We had a surprise -- in terms of the margin in the opposite direction of what you said for India -- when it comes to the case of Mexico, where Scheinbaum won, but the majority was even bigger than I think most people were expected.But there are other elections that had some big surprises. Jens, let me come to you. In Europe, we had the European elections, and there were some big surprises there, to say the very least. First, can you just walk us through, what do the European level elections mean, in terms of our outlook? And then, part of the fallout from those surprises was that President Macron in France called for snap elections. What do you think we need to take away from that fact?Jens Eisenschmidt: We have had a look at the manifestos, what is known so far from those that are competing for government in France, say, and I think one of our key takeaways is that might be more fiscal spending. And of course, short run this might get you more growth. But of course, the question is always, what's the price for us to pay? There might be higher interest rates and that in the longer term may be detrimental. So, I think overall we have to wait until we see really and observe the full election outcome.Now, more generally, we had the European elections and we get a lot of questions by clients -- what the implications are here. Now, if you, sort of just look again from very high up, far away, then we see that the coalition that has last time, voted and elected, Ursula...]]>562alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1151fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economics-roundtable-investors-eye-central-banks--75651103----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. We have a special two-part episode of the podcast where we'll cover Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the third quarter of 2024.It's Friday, June 21st at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong.Seth Carpenter: Alright, so a lot's happened since our last economics roundtable on this podcast back in March and since we published our mid-year outlook in May. My travels have taken me to many corners of the globe, including Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Sydney, Washington D. C., Chicago.Two themes have dominated every one of my meetings. Inflation in central banks on the one hand, and then on the other hand, elections.In the first part of this special episode, I wanted to discuss these key topics with the leaders of Morgan Stanley Economics in key regions. Ellen Zentner is our Chief US Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt is our Chief Europe Economist, and Chetan Ahya is our Chief Asia Economist.Ellen, I'm going to start with you. You've also been traveling. You were in London recently, for example. In your conversations with folks, what are you explaining to people? Where do things stand now for the Fed and inflation in the US?Ellen Zentner: Thanks, Seth. So, we told people that the inflation boost that we saw in the first quarter was really noise, not signal, and it would be temporary; and certainly, the past three months of data have supported that view. But the Fed got spooked by that re-acceleration in inflation, and it was quite volatile. And so, they did shift their dot plot from a median of three cuts to a median of just one cut this year. Now, we're not moved by the dot plot. And Chair Powell told everyone to take the projections with a grain of salt. And we still see three cuts starting in September.Jens Eisenschmidt: If you don't mind me jumping in here, on this side of the Atlantic, inflation has also been noisy and the key driver behind repricing in rate expectations. The ECB delivered its cut in June as expected, but it didn't commit to much more than that. And we had, in fact, anticipated that cautious outcome simply because we have seen surprises to the upside in the April, and in particular in the May numbers. And here, again, the upside surprise was all in services inflation.If you look at inflation and compare between the US experience and euro area experience, what stands out at that on both sides of the Atlantic, services inflation appears to be the sticky part. So, the upside surprises in May in particular probably have left the feeling in the governing council that the process -- by which they got more and more confidence in their ability to forecast inflation developments and hence put more weight on their forecast and on their medium-term projections – that confidence and that ability has suffered a slight setback. Which means there is more focus now for the next month on current inflation and how it basically compares to their forecast.So, by implication, we think upside surprises or continued upside surprises relative to the ECB's path, which coincides in the short term with our path, will be a problem; will mean that the September rate cut is put into question.For now, our baseline is a cut in September and another one in December. So, two more this year. And another four next year.Seth Carpenter: Okay, I get it. So, from my perspective, then, listening to you, Jens, listening to Ellen, we're in similar areas; the timing of it a little bit different with the upside surprise to inflation, but downward trend in inflation in both places. ECB already cutting once. Fed set to start cutting in September, so it feels similar.Chetan, the Bank of Japan is going in exactly the opposite direction. So, our view on the reflation in Japan, from my conversations with clients, is now becoming more or less consensus. Can you just walk us through where things stand? What do you expect coming out of Japan for the rest of this year?Chetan Ahya: Thanks, Seth. So, Japan's reflation story is very much on track. We think a generational shift from low-flation to new equilibrium of sustainable moderate inflation is taking hold. And we see two key factors sustaining this story going forward. First is, we expect Japan's policymakers to continue to keep macro policies accommodative. And second, we think a virtuous cycle of higher prices and wages is underway.The strong spring wage negotiation results this year will mean wage growth will rise to 3 percent by third quarter and crucially the pass through of wages to prices is now much stronger than in the past -- and will keep inflation sustainably higher at 1.5 to 2 per cent. This is why we expect BOJ to hike by 15 basis points in July and then again in January of next year by 25 basis points, bringing policy rates to 0.5 per cent.We don't expect further rate hikes beyond that, as we don't see inflation overshooting the 2 percent target sustainably. We think Governor Ueda would want to keep monetary policy accommodative in order for reflation to become embedded. The main risk to our outlook is if inflation surprises to the downside. This could materialize if the wage to price pass through turns out to be weaker than our estimates.Seth Carpenter: All of that was a great place to start. Inflation, central banking, like I said before, literally every single meeting I've had with clients has had a start there. Equity clients want to know if interest rates are coming down. Rates clients want to know where interest rates are going and what's going on with inflation.But we can't forget about the overall economy: economic activity, economic growth. I will say, as a house, collectively for the whole globe, we've got a pretty benign outlook on growth, with global growth running about the same pace this year as last year. But that top level view masks some heterogeneity across the globe.And Chetan I'm going to come right back to you, staying with topics in Asia. Because as far as I can remember, every conversation about global economic activity has to have China as part of it. China's been a key part of the global story. What's our current thinking there in China? What's going on this year and into next year?Chetan Ahya: So, Seth, in China, cyclically improving exports trend has helped to stabilize growth, but the structural challenges are still persisting. The biggest structural challenge that China faces is deflation. The key source of deflationary pressure is the housing sector. While there is policy action being taken to address this issue, we are of the view that housing will still be a drag on aggregate demand. To contextualize, the inventory of new homes is around 20 million units, as compared to the sales of about 7 to 8 million units annually. Moreover, there is another 23 million units of existing home inventory.So, we think it would take multiple years for this huge inventory overhang tobe digested to a more reasonable level. And as downturn in the property sector is resulting in downward pressures on aggregate demand, policy makers are supporting growth by boosting supply.Consider the shifts in flow of credit. Over the past few years, new loans to property sector have declined by about $700 billion, but this has been more than offset by a rise of about $500 billion in new loans for industrial sector, i.e. manufacturing investment, and $200 billion loans for infrastructure. This supply -centric policy response has led to a buildup of excess capacities in a number of key manufacturing sectors, and that is keeping deflationary pressures alive for longer. Indeed, we continue to see the diversions of real GDP growth and normal GDP growth outcomes. While real GDP growth will stabilize at 4.8 per cent this year, normal GDP growth will still be somewhat subdued at 4.5 per cent.Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Chetan. That's super helpful.Jens, let's think about the euro area, where there had, been a lot of slower growth relative to the US. I will say, when I'm in Europe, I get that question, why is the US outperforming Europe? You know, I think, my read on it, and you should tell me if I'm right or not -- recent data suggests that things, in terms of growth at least have bottomed out in Europe and might be starting to look up. So, what are you thinking about the outlook for European growth for the rest of the year? Should we expect just a real bounce back in Europe or what's it going to look like?Jens Eisenschmidt: Indeed, growth has bottomed. In fact, we are emerging from a period of stagnation last year; and as expected in our NTIA Outlook in November we had outlined the script -- that based on a recovery in consumption, which in turn is based on real wage gains. And fading restrictiveness of monetary policy, we would get a growth rebound this year. And the signs are there that we are exactly getting this, as expected.So, we had a very strong first quarter, which actually led us to upgrade still our growth that we had before at 0.5 to 0.7. And we have the PMIs, the survey indicators indicating indeed that the growth rebound is set to continue. And we have also upgraded the growth outlook for 2025 from 1 to 1.2 per cent here on the back of stronger external demand assumptions. So, all in all, the picture looks pretty consistent with that rebound.At the same time, one word of caution is that it won't get very fast. We will see growth very likely peaking below the levels that were previous peaks simply because potential growth is lower; we think is lower than it has been before the pandemic. So just as a measure, we think, for instance, that potential growth in Europe could be here lie between one, maybe one, 1 per cent, whereas before it would]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/B-iZE4Ia8UvDutN0CeuLkTg2HSq1ShLP-4AcRFQzYyUFri, 21 Jun 2024 22:00:22 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s chief economists examine the varied responses of global central banks to noisy inflation data in their quarterly roundtable discussion. ----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter,...----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. We have a special two-part episode of the podcast where we'll cover Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the third quarter of 2024.It's Friday, June 21st at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong.Seth Carpenter: Alright, so a lot's happened since our last economics roundtable on this podcast back in March and since we published our mid-year outlook in May. My travels have taken me to many corners of the globe, including Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Sydney, Washington D. C., Chicago.Two themes have dominated every one of my meetings. Inflation in central banks on the one hand, and then on the other hand, elections.In the first part of this special episode, I wanted to discuss these key topics with the leaders of Morgan Stanley Economics in key regions. Ellen Zentner is our Chief US Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt is our Chief Europe Economist, and Chetan Ahya is our Chief Asia Economist.Ellen, I'm going to start with you. You've also been traveling. You were in London recently, for example. In your conversations with folks, what are you explaining to people? Where do things stand now for the Fed and inflation in the US?Ellen Zentner: Thanks, Seth. So, we told people that the inflation boost that we saw in the first quarter was really noise, not signal, and it would be temporary; and certainly, the past three months of data have supported that view. But the Fed got spooked by that re-acceleration in inflation, and it was quite volatile. And so, they did shift their dot plot from a median of three cuts to a median of just one cut this year. Now, we're not moved by the dot plot. And Chair Powell told everyone to take the projections with a grain of salt. And we still see three cuts starting in September.Jens Eisenschmidt: If you don't mind me jumping in here, on this side of the Atlantic, inflation has also been noisy and the key driver behind repricing in rate expectations. The ECB delivered its cut in June as expected, but it didn't commit to much more than that. And we had, in fact, anticipated that cautious outcome simply because we have seen surprises to the upside in the April, and in particular in the May numbers. And here, again, the upside surprise was all in services inflation.If you look at inflation and compare between the US experience and euro area experience, what stands out at that on both sides of the Atlantic, services inflation appears to be the sticky part. So, the upside surprises in May in particular probably have left the feeling in the governing council that the process -- by which they got more and more confidence in their ability to forecast inflation developments and hence put more weight on their forecast and on their medium-term projections – that confidence and that ability has suffered a slight setback. Which means there is more focus now for the next month on current inflation and how it basically compares to their forecast.So, by implication, we think upside surprises or continued upside surprises relative to the ECB's path, which coincides in the short term with our path, will be a problem; will mean that the September rate cut is put into question.For now, our baseline is a cut in September and another one in December. So, two more this year. And another four next year.Seth Carpenter: Okay, I get it. So, from my perspective, then, listening to you, Jens, listening to Ellen, we're in similar areas; the timing of it a little bit different with the upside surprise to inflation, but downward trend in inflation in both places. ECB already cutting once. Fed set to start cutting in September, so it feels similar.Chetan, the Bank of Japan is going in...]]>733alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1150fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/volatility-doesn-t-necessarily-rock-the-boat--75651289----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about correlations, and why they are currently so important to markets being calmer than they would otherwise be. It’s Thursday, June 20th at 2pm in London.Imagine you’re on a boat, maybe looking for sea life. People are milling around the deck, watching the vessel ripple through the waves. Suddenly someone spotsa whale, and everybody runs to port. The whale swims under the boat, and everybody now runs to starboard. The boat rocks significantly. But imagine the same scenario where marine life is popping up on both sides of the vessel. You and your fellow passengers are all now running past each other in both directions. The movements balance out. The boat is pretty stable. Believe it or not, this is how the volatility in the stock indices work. The individual passengers can be thought of as individual stocks, and how much they’re each moving around can be thought of as each stock’s volatility. The boat is the overall index – say, the S&P 500, the EuroStoxx 50, or an index of corporate bonds. When everybody on the boat moves together, what we’d call a high correlation environment, you’d get a lot of rocking, or volatility, at the index level. But when people are moving in opposite directions, moving past each other; you can still have a lot of running, or individual vol – but the market, or the boat, will appear much more calm. That is exactly what’s been happening, especially last week. Stocks within the S&P 500 are moving with unusual independence from each other, running to opposite sides of the boat, with the lowest such correlation in almost 20 years. That is a big reason why, despite all the volatile headlines out of Europe, and more stocks falling than rising in the US, the overall market has been surprisingly calm – and going up. Even in Europe, this phenomenon of low correlation has really helped. That volatility I mentioned relates to upcoming elections in France, which led the difference between French and German bond yields to jump to their highest level in more than a decade. But because this spread of France to Germany moved in the opposite direction as overall French yields, the overall result for French government bonds was not much. Last week, despite all the apparent ruckus, the yield on French government bonds was basically unchanged. Markets have been calmer than you would usually expect them to be. These correlations are a big reason why. We think they suggest a still healthy dynamic where markets are differentiating between different types of risks. To go back to our original analogy, there is still plenty of sea life out there for the market to look at. But these correlations are also worth watching, were they to rise significantly. If one thing were to dominate the focus and lead everybody to run to the same side of the boat, overall market volatility could rise surprisingly fast. It's something, you could say, that we're on the lookout for. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review, wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/H14wxR29d4XPlQ9G1PHlcu4yzVGb2szAQqf1z3Omv6gThu, 20 Jun 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur head of corporate credit research dives into the question of correlation and market volatility, and explains why stock indices can remain stable despite a certain level of turmoil, as we have seen recently in Europe. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about correlations, and why they are currently so important to markets being calmer than they would otherwise be. It’s Thursday, June 20th at 2pm in London.Imagine you’re on a boat, maybe looking for sea life. People are milling around the deck, watching the vessel ripple through the waves. Suddenly someone spotsa whale, and everybody runs to port. The whale swims under the boat, and everybody now runs to starboard. The boat rocks significantly. But imagine the same scenario where marine life is popping up on both sides of the vessel. You and your fellow passengers are all now running past each other in both directions. The movements balance out. The boat is pretty stable. Believe it or not, this is how the volatility in the stock indices work. The individual passengers can be thought of as individual stocks, and how much they’re each moving around can be thought of as each stock’s volatility. The boat is the overall index – say, the S&P 500, the EuroStoxx 50, or an index of corporate bonds. When everybody on the boat moves together, what we’d call a high correlation environment, you’d get a lot of rocking, or volatility, at the index level. But when people are moving in opposite directions, moving past each other; you can still have a lot of running, or individual vol – but the market, or the boat, will appear much more calm. That is exactly what’s been happening, especially last week. Stocks within the S&P 500 are moving with unusual independence from each other, running to opposite sides of the boat, with the lowest such correlation in almost 20 years. That is a big reason why, despite all the volatile headlines out of Europe, and more stocks falling than rising in the US, the overall market has been surprisingly calm – and going up. Even in Europe, this phenomenon of low correlation has really helped. That volatility I mentioned relates to upcoming elections in France, which led the difference between French and German bond yields to jump to their highest level in more than a decade. But because this spread of France to Germany moved in the opposite direction as overall French yields, the overall result for French government bonds was not much. Last week, despite all the apparent ruckus, the yield on French government bonds was basically unchanged. Markets have been calmer than you would usually expect them to be. These correlations are a big reason why. We think they suggest a still healthy dynamic where markets are differentiating between different types of risks. To go back to our original analogy, there is still plenty of sea life out there for the market to look at. But these correlations are also worth watching, were they to rise significantly. If one thing were to dominate the focus and lead everybody to run to the same side of the boat, overall market volatility could rise surprisingly fast. It's something, you could say, that we're on the lookout for. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review, wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>218alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1149fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investment-discipline-in-an-election-year--75651279----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the US elections and its impacts on markets.It's Tuesday, June 18th at 10:30am in New York. We first started covering the 2024 US election in December of last year. With about five months to go until the event, it’s a good time to take stock of what we’ve learned that might be useful for investors. In short, there’s a lot of noise around this election, and recognizing that noise is a first step toward not making mistakes around the event. First, don’t make the mistake of confidently predicting an outcome. All indicators suggest it’s very unlikely that we’ll have a good sense about which candidate will win the election in the run up to the Election Day, and perhaps even in the days that follow. Neither candidate has a lead beyond a polling margin of error in sufficient states to suggest that if the election were held today that they would win the electoral college.Prediction markets and polling models also point to a race that’s a toss-up. It all suggests a tight race going into Election Day. And with the sustained popularity of voting by mail, vote counts could move slowly, as they did in 2020; meaning we may have to dig in for another election week.Second, don’t make the mistake of making big strategic changes in your portfolio just because it’s an election year. We recently studied this and there’s little pattern for how markets behave in the run up to an election, even when filtering for factors like similar outcomes and closeness of the race. Markets in the aggregate don’t seem to consistently price in US election outcomes ahead of time. There’s more evidence that they price in expected policy impacts once the outcome is known, which brings me to my third point.Don’t make the mistake of overconfidence when it comes to how post-election policies will impact the economy. Sure, if we knew one outcome was bad for growth and the other good, it might be advisable to buy risk assets on the news of the latter outcome occurring. But especially in this election it’s not that simple.For example, in scenarios where Republicans win the White House, you can expect greater tariffs, immigration curbs, and – if they also control congress – bigger deficits driven by tax cuts relative to alternative outcomes. According to our economists, these policies have different effects on growth, inflation and monetary policy depending on how they are constructed and timed; and so it defies simple conclusions of growth positive or growth negative, at least at this point.So bottom line, don’t mistake noise for signal when it comes to the election. Stick to the plan, such as the cross-asset framework recently put forward in our mid-year outlook. And maybe focus on some equity sectors, such as industrials and defense, which are well placed currently but have upside in certain election scenarios.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gRlZgFki2aL4I1GaVW7Wi2ewcto-CKfHx_Wqe0LkgiUTue, 18 Jun 2024 21:49:23 +0000gtyInvestors watching for market reactions would do well to stick to their existing plans in an environment where the economic impacts of any particular US election outcome remains unclear. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the US elections and its impacts on markets.It's Tuesday, June 18th at 10:30am in New York. We first started covering the 2024 US election in December of last year. With about five months to go until the event, it’s a good time to take stock of what we’ve learned that might be useful for investors. In short, there’s a lot of noise around this election, and recognizing that noise is a first step toward not making mistakes around the event. First, don’t make the mistake of confidently predicting an outcome. All indicators suggest it’s very unlikely that we’ll have a good sense about which candidate will win the election in the run up to the Election Day, and perhaps even in the days that follow. Neither candidate has a lead beyond a polling margin of error in sufficient states to suggest that if the election were held today that they would win the electoral college.Prediction markets and polling models also point to a race that’s a toss-up. It all suggests a tight race going into Election Day. And with the sustained popularity of voting by mail, vote counts could move slowly, as they did in 2020; meaning we may have to dig in for another election week.Second, don’t make the mistake of making big strategic changes in your portfolio just because it’s an election year. We recently studied this and there’s little pattern for how markets behave in the run up to an election, even when filtering for factors like similar outcomes and closeness of the race. Markets in the aggregate don’t seem to consistently price in US election outcomes ahead of time. There’s more evidence that they price in expected policy impacts once the outcome is known, which brings me to my third point.Don’t make the mistake of overconfidence when it comes to how post-election policies will impact the economy. Sure, if we knew one outcome was bad for growth and the other good, it might be advisable to buy risk assets on the news of the latter outcome occurring. But especially in this election it’s not that simple.For example, in scenarios where Republicans win the White House, you can expect greater tariffs, immigration curbs, and – if they also control congress – bigger deficits driven by tax cuts relative to alternative outcomes. According to our economists, these policies have different effects on growth, inflation and monetary policy depending on how they are constructed and timed; and so it defies simple conclusions of growth positive or growth negative, at least at this point.So bottom line, don’t mistake noise for signal when it comes to the election. Stick to the plan, such as the cross-asset framework recently put forward in our mid-year outlook. And maybe focus on some equity sectors, such as industrials and defense, which are well placed currently but have upside in certain election scenarios.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>188alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1148fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/tracking-the-rebound-in-tech-ipos--75651197----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Diana Doyle: I am Diana Doyle, Managing Director and Co-Head of Technology Equity Capital Markets in the Americas.Lauren Garcia Belmonte: And I'm Lauren Garcia Belmonte, Managing Director, Co-Head of Technology Equity Capital Markets Americas.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll dive into what's ahead for the tech IPO market this year.It's Monday, June 17th, at 11 am in New York.Diana Doyle: And 8 am in San Francisco.Michael Zezas: Since 2023 only nine technology companies completed an initial public offering, which is one of the longest periods of reduced IPO activity in history. For context, compare that with the all-time record of 124 technology IPOs in 2021. But with the first quarter of 2024 behind us, we're starting to see that picture improve. With tech and AI in focus right now, on today's episode, I want to speak with Diana and Lauren from our global capital markets team to get their take on where the tech IPO environment might be headed and what investors may want to watch for.Lauren, maybe to start -- what's contributing to this resurgence in IPO activity this year?Lauren Garcia Belmonte: Well, the market backdrop has been constructive. We've had the SMP and NASDAQ trading up 10 -- 11 per cent this year and multiples have been stable for technology businesses. And against this backdrop, we've seen some IPO issuers recognize that this is a good environment in which to move forward with their IPO event. There are several benefits to becoming a public company, not just the opportunity to raise capital -- but to give liquidity to employees and to early investors in the business, and to set the company up to be a real industry leader as a public company.So, issuers are seeing the opportunity; and meanwhile, the demand side from investors has been encouraging as well. Investors in the public equities recognize that there's limited opportunity, in some instances, to underwrite growth. Right now, 55 per cent of publicly traded technology businesses are growing top line 10 per cent or less. So, the IPO opportunity, where companies generally have an attractive growth profile, is a way for these investors to get access to an opportunity to underwrite exciting growth profiles -- even when that opportunity isn't so prevalent in the public markets right now.Michael Zezas: And Diana, do you see the rebound in IPO activity as a durable trend? Maybe take us into 2025.Diana Doyle: Well, 2024 is definitely going to be better than 2022 and 2023. Now, it'll be a long time before we get back to that 124 tech IPOs in 2021 that you mentioned, Michael. But in an average year, we have about 35 to 40 IPOs, and we expect 2025 to approach more of an average. So, as Lauren said, we're encouraged by the breadth of investor demand for IPOs that we've done this year, and investors’ appetite to take risk. And all that lays the foundation for a healthy IPO market in 12 to 18 months.But it will be a slow build because IPOs are not a quick turnaround financing. It takes about six months on average to get through an IPO process. So, if you're not already underway, you're likely looking at 2025. In the meantime, we're seeing many late-stage private companies. They have plenty of cash. They're doing secondary raises to provide liquidity to employees and early investors, and they're waiting for growth rates to be more predictable -- for profitability to improve and to get more scale.So, we're excited for 2025, and the IPO market is wide open for companies that have growth and scale, profitability and that offer investors something different than what's available in the public market today.Michael Zezas: Got it. And what about macro conditions, Lauren? So perhaps the Fed's pivoting to cutting rates, the overall economic backdrop, geopolitical considerations. How do those things impact the tech IPO market?Lauren Garcia Belmonte: Yeah, absolutely. The tech IPO market is influenced by these macro considerations -- and it's in a few different ways.First, of course, and importantly, the valuation impact is real for technology businesses that have a lot of their growth on the come and a higher rate environment. Of course, that future growth needs to be discounted more significantly. The second key impact is around just how these management teams are able to manage, predict, and model out their business.In a more uncertain environment, it can be more challenging to articulate and defend the forward model that is a part of all IPO processes where you're explaining to the research analysts and investors how your business will perform, as a public company. And, of course, management teams want to set their companies up for success as public companies -- and set up for a beat and raise cadence -- which can be difficult to do when you're dealing with an uncertain macro backdrop.I think one encouraging signal -- as much as we haven't seen the Fed cut as much as people had anticipated as would have happened at the start of this year -- is that the rate of change has slowed.So, the rate increase environment was one of the quickest that we've seen; and although we haven't seen the cuts as people had anticipated, I think it's encouraging that that rate of change has adjusted and that will allow for, hopefully, more predictability in businesses going forwardMichael Zezas: Got it. That connection between predictability and rates makes a lot of sense. And it seems that the market's particularly hungry for AI names. Diana, what AI related trends are you seeing?Diana Doyle: Well, AI is this black hole right now that's drawing all the energy and attention in the private markets. There's this huge enthusiasm because the technology is improving so quickly, and there's an uncertainty how long that rapid pace of advancement will continue. This cycle, in fact, is an exaggerated version of what we've seen in prior cycles, where the monetization typically accrues first to the semiconductors and hardware, then eventually to software. So right now, a lot of the investment is going into the semiconductors and hardware, the picks and shovels, and the fundamental model of research.But in software, there's still a lot to play out in private companies to create the type of profitable, proven business models that public market investors are looking for. There are big unknowns in how enterprises are going to reallocate spend in a world of AI, what happens with all the efficiency these new tools create, how a lower barrier to entry for software creation impacts margins.Michael Zezas: And aside from AI, Lauren, what other areas within tech are seeing more activity?Lauren Garcia Belmonte: I would say that these businesses aren't in a particular spot within the tech landscape, but rather have certain characteristics in that they share -- namely that they are in attractive markets.Additionally, being a market leader is of critical importance today. No longer do people want to back the third, fourth, fifth player in a market. I think people are really focused on market leadership. So that one or two spot is going to be really important. And investors are looking for businesses that are already scaled. That market leadership typically comes along with a certain scale qualifier. But that is absolutely going to be an important feature of the businesses that are successful transitioning from the private to public markets.These companies are in the software space and the internet side. So, there's a diversity of companies that have this in common, and that could be great IPO candidates on that timeline that Diana was mentioning.Michael Zezas: And finally, I'm curious how the political election cycle might have an impact on IPO activity during the rest of this year. Diana, what's your read?Diana Doyle: Well, we do expect to see some volatility in the pre-election window in the fall, like we do in every presidential election cycle. But what's different this time is that we have a pretty good sense, not only of who the candidates will be -- but also what their presidency is likely to look like and what policies they're likely to prioritize.So that de-risks the election as a market event materially versus prior cycles. And for the IPO market, any company that's been looking at an IPO in the second half of 2024 has already evaluated pulling it forward to hit the September-October time frame and get ahead of that likely market event.But there's a narrow window for anyone who hasn't yet pulled the trigger to accelerate. Before the holidays, post-election -- where some IPOs will be able to squeeze in. In practice, most of the companies that aren't already in the pipeline now -- have their eye on 2025.Michael Zezas: Okay, so, putting it all together, seems you're both pretty confident that there's going to be a durable pickup in IPO activity.Lauren Garcia Belmonte: That's right.Diana Doyle: Yes.Michael Zezas: Okay, great. So, our audience should stay tuned. Well, Diana, Lauren, thanks for taking the time to talk.Diana Doyle: Great speaking with you, Michael.Lauren Garcia Belmonte: Yes. Thank you for having us.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/doDSxsRIU6mseck3bJeCOigMZtEotsxyMmmttPpmeskMon, 17 Jun 2024 20:48:12 +0000gtyThe AI revolution has helped fuel the tech IPO sector’s resurgence following a two-year lull. Our Co-Heads of Technology Equity Capital Markets join our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research to discuss the sustainability of this trend. ...----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Diana Doyle: I am Diana Doyle, Managing Director and Co-Head of Technology Equity Capital Markets in the Americas.Lauren Garcia Belmonte: And I'm Lauren Garcia Belmonte, Managing Director, Co-Head of Technology Equity Capital Markets Americas.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll dive into what's ahead for the tech IPO market this year.It's Monday, June 17th, at 11 am in New York.Diana Doyle: And 8 am in San Francisco.Michael Zezas: Since 2023 only nine technology companies completed an initial public offering, which is one of the longest periods of reduced IPO activity in history. For context, compare that with the all-time record of 124 technology IPOs in 2021. But with the first quarter of 2024 behind us, we're starting to see that picture improve. With tech and AI in focus right now, on today's episode, I want to speak with Diana and Lauren from our global capital markets team to get their take on where the tech IPO environment might be headed and what investors may want to watch for.Lauren, maybe to start -- what's contributing to this resurgence in IPO activity this year?Lauren Garcia Belmonte: Well, the market backdrop has been constructive. We've had the SMP and NASDAQ trading up 10 -- 11 per cent this year and multiples have been stable for technology businesses. And against this backdrop, we've seen some IPO issuers recognize that this is a good environment in which to move forward with their IPO event. There are several benefits to becoming a public company, not just the opportunity to raise capital -- but to give liquidity to employees and to early investors in the business, and to set the company up to be a real industry leader as a public company.So, issuers are seeing the opportunity; and meanwhile, the demand side from investors has been encouraging as well. Investors in the public equities recognize that there's limited opportunity, in some instances, to underwrite growth. Right now, 55 per cent of publicly traded technology businesses are growing top line 10 per cent or less. So, the IPO opportunity, where companies generally have an attractive growth profile, is a way for these investors to get access to an opportunity to underwrite exciting growth profiles -- even when that opportunity isn't so prevalent in the public markets right now.Michael Zezas: And Diana, do you see the rebound in IPO activity as a durable trend? Maybe take us into 2025.Diana Doyle: Well, 2024 is definitely going to be better than 2022 and 2023. Now, it'll be a long time before we get back to that 124 tech IPOs in 2021 that you mentioned, Michael. But in an average year, we have about 35 to 40 IPOs, and we expect 2025 to approach more of an average. So, as Lauren said, we're encouraged by the breadth of investor demand for IPOs that we've done this year, and investors’ appetite to take risk. And all that lays the foundation for a healthy IPO market in 12 to 18 months.But it will be a slow build because IPOs are not a quick turnaround financing. It takes about six months on average to get through an IPO process. So, if you're not already underway, you're likely looking at 2025. In the meantime, we're seeing many late-stage private companies. They have plenty of cash. They're doing secondary raises to provide liquidity to employees and early investors, and they're waiting for growth rates to be more predictable -- for profitability to improve and to get more scale.So, we're excited for 2025, and the IPO market is wide open for companies that have growth and scale, profitability and that offer investors...]]>561alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1147fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/this-is-still-india-s-decade--75651173----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss our take on India’s election results and why we still believe this is India’s decade.  It’s Friday, June 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai.India’s general election results are in, and the world is paying close attention. The most important aspect of the BJP led NDA retaining its majority is policy predictability – something equities tend to thrive on. We believe the market can look forward to further structural reforms. This gives us more confidence in our forecast of a 20 per cent annual earnings growth over the next five years. Macro stability with rising GDP growth relative to real rates should extend India's outperformance over Emerging Market equities. We’ve been bullish on India since April 2020, and we still believe that India is likely to drive a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. This will be underpinned by increased offshoring of both services and manufacturing, as well as the energy transition and the country's advanced digital infrastructure. India's stock market has been making new highs. The big investor debate now is what could take the India market even higher from here. We believe share prices have yet to bake in a number of positives, such as India's newfound macro stability, a likely fall in its primary deficit moving into a primary balance, and a fast-evolving deep tech sector, to name just a few.We expect critical reforms to be made in Modi’s third term. Here are three more important ones. Number one, further consolidation of India’s fiscal deficit. From a market perspective this lends itself to sustained credit growth, which we think is going to be good for India’s private banks. Number two, a continuing buildout of both physical and social infrastructure. The physical infrastructure will likely focus on railways. Social infrastructure may include more low-income housing as well as water and electricity security. These reforms make us bullish on industrial stocks. Number three, further growth in India’s manufacturing prowess. The government will likely focus on improving competitiveness via fiscal incentives and by building infrastructure within such industries as defense, electronics, aerospace, food processing and renewables. We expect India’s energy consumption to rise by around 50 per cent over the next five years with increasing contribution from renewables. From an equities perspective, we think consumer stocks are well-positioned as nearly 100 million families could move into the middle-income bracket in the next decade. At the top end of the income pyramid, India’s affluent households could quintuple to 25 million over the coming decade, which should support a surge in luxury consumption. Of course, there are plenty of risks, even with the elections behind us – from various capacity constraints to geopolitics, the impact of AI and climate change. But even with all these in mind, we still believe this is set to be India's longest and strongest bull market ever. Stay invested. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nNda6HrksAIyRKd0PHkQNNNdSQ50kcFfW8CHPTqvcq4Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist lays out his bullish post-election view on India, explaining why the market is likely to drive a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss our take on India’s election results and why we still believe this is India’s decade.  It’s Friday, June 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai.India’s general election results are in, and the world is paying close attention. The most important aspect of the BJP led NDA retaining its majority is policy predictability – something equities tend to thrive on. We believe the market can look forward to further structural reforms. This gives us more confidence in our forecast of a 20 per cent annual earnings growth over the next five years. Macro stability with rising GDP growth relative to real rates should extend India's outperformance over Emerging Market equities. We’ve been bullish on India since April 2020, and we still believe that India is likely to drive a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. This will be underpinned by increased offshoring of both services and manufacturing, as well as the energy transition and the country's advanced digital infrastructure. India's stock market has been making new highs. The big investor debate now is what could take the India market even higher from here. We believe share prices have yet to bake in a number of positives, such as India's newfound macro stability, a likely fall in its primary deficit moving into a primary balance, and a fast-evolving deep tech sector, to name just a few.We expect critical reforms to be made in Modi’s third term. Here are three more important ones. Number one, further consolidation of India’s fiscal deficit. From a market perspective this lends itself to sustained credit growth, which we think is going to be good for India’s private banks. Number two, a continuing buildout of both physical and social infrastructure. The physical infrastructure will likely focus on railways. Social infrastructure may include more low-income housing as well as water and electricity security. These reforms make us bullish on industrial stocks. Number three, further growth in India’s manufacturing prowess. The government will likely focus on improving competitiveness via fiscal incentives and by building infrastructure within such industries as defense, electronics, aerospace, food processing and renewables. We expect India’s energy consumption to rise by around 50 per cent over the next five years with increasing contribution from renewables. From an equities perspective, we think consumer stocks are well-positioned as nearly 100 million families could move into the middle-income bracket in the next decade. At the top end of the income pyramid, India’s affluent households could quintuple to 25 million over the coming decade, which should support a surge in luxury consumption. Of course, there are plenty of risks, even with the elections behind us – from various capacity constraints to geopolitics, the impact of AI and climate change. But even with all these in mind, we still believe this is set to be India's longest and strongest bull market ever. Stay invested. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>238alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1146fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cautious-corporate-boards-extend-the-credit-cycle--75651307----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the surprising lack of confidence in corporate boardrooms, and why it could extend the cycle. It's Thursday, June 13th at 2pm in London. “Buy low, sell high.” That age-old advice is rooted in the idea that investors should try to buy when others are fearful and sell when others are euphoric. The high in prices, after all, should occur when people are as positive, and things are as good as they can possibly be. At the moment, there is plenty of focus on this idea that the market pendulum may have swung too far towards excessive positivity. The economy is strong, with US growth tracking above 2 per cent, inflation moderating and the unemployment rate still near a 60 year low. US and global stock markets are near all-time highs. And many quantitative measures of investor optimism are elevated, whether it's the low levels of expected volatility, polls of investor outlooks or ownership of equity futures. But we think there is one missing piece of this story, with relevance for credit and beyond. While investors are optimistic, corporate boardrooms remain much more restrained. And that caution could help extend the cycle. One way to measure corporate optimism is whether or not companies are adding debt; a company is more likely to borrow when it feels better about the future. Well, as of the first quarter of 2024, the growth in US non-financial corporate borrowing was at a 10-year low. And among lower rated borrowers, the issuance of high yield bonds and loans remains dominated by borrowing to repay or refinance existing debt – the most conservative type of issuance that you can get. Another way to measure corporate optimism is Mergers & Acquisitions, or M&A, as it really takes confidence in the future to acquire another company. Well, global M&A volumes in 2023 were the lowest, adjusted for the size of the economy in over 30 years. While this has picked up a bit, and we do think M&A recovers significantly over the next two years, it’s currently still very low. On the surface, there are plenty of signs that investors are entering the summer optimistic. But the corporate sector remains surprisingly restrained, especially given that solid economic data, record profits and record highs in the stock market. We’d further note that the Tech sector, where there is more optimism and much more investment spending, generally isn’t borrowing to fund this, and also enjoys unusually strong balance sheets. All of this matters because it’s been high levels of corporate optimism that have often been very bad for credit, as it’s excessive optimism that often leads to excessive risk taking, hubris, and an eventual payback that is bad for lenders. The lack of optimism, at the moment, is a good sign, and one of several reasons why we think spreads can remain tight, and the credit cycle has further to run. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MP2ha3Ccp9PZqvbXArnao7tMywyf119sO7P-9TVqQ6oThu, 13 Jun 2024 22:48:58 +0000gtyA strong economy and global stock market surge may suggest market euphoria. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the corporate sector caution is, in fact, a good sign. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the surprising lack of confidence in corporate boardrooms, and why it could extend the cycle. It's Thursday, June 13th at 2pm in London. “Buy low, sell high.” That age-old advice is rooted in the idea that investors should try to buy when others are fearful and sell when others are euphoric. The high in prices, after all, should occur when people are as positive, and things are as good as they can possibly be. At the moment, there is plenty of focus on this idea that the market pendulum may have swung too far towards excessive positivity. The economy is strong, with US growth tracking above 2 per cent, inflation moderating and the unemployment rate still near a 60 year low. US and global stock markets are near all-time highs. And many quantitative measures of investor optimism are elevated, whether it's the low levels of expected volatility, polls of investor outlooks or ownership of equity futures. But we think there is one missing piece of this story, with relevance for credit and beyond. While investors are optimistic, corporate boardrooms remain much more restrained. And that caution could help extend the cycle. One way to measure corporate optimism is whether or not companies are adding debt; a company is more likely to borrow when it feels better about the future. Well, as of the first quarter of 2024, the growth in US non-financial corporate borrowing was at a 10-year low. And among lower rated borrowers, the issuance of high yield bonds and loans remains dominated by borrowing to repay or refinance existing debt – the most conservative type of issuance that you can get. Another way to measure corporate optimism is Mergers & Acquisitions, or M&A, as it really takes confidence in the future to acquire another company. Well, global M&A volumes in 2023 were the lowest, adjusted for the size of the economy in over 30 years. While this has picked up a bit, and we do think M&A recovers significantly over the next two years, it’s currently still very low. On the surface, there are plenty of signs that investors are entering the summer optimistic. But the corporate sector remains surprisingly restrained, especially given that solid economic data, record profits and record highs in the stock market. We’d further note that the Tech sector, where there is more optimism and much more investment spending, generally isn’t borrowing to fund this, and also enjoys unusually strong balance sheets. All of this matters because it’s been high levels of corporate optimism that have often been very bad for credit, as it’s excessive optimism that often leads to excessive risk taking, hubris, and an eventual payback that is bad for lenders. The lack of optimism, at the moment, is a good sign, and one of several reasons why we think spreads can remain tight, and the credit cycle has further to run. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>208alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1145fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/convenience-is-compelling--75651117----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s US Thematic Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about convenience and why it’s such an important factor for a number of industries.  It’s Wednesday, June 12, at 11am in New York. The consumer has been weakening around the edges, and this is flowing through to companies' bottom line. Our Consumer Economist thinks that consumption is likely to continue to slow this year and even into 2025 as the labor market cools and that weighs on real disposable income, elevated rates continue to pressure debt service costs, and tighter lending standards limit credit availability.   And given this setup, companies have been focusing on their value offerings, and we saw a lot of commentary around this during first quarter earnings calls. Mentions of just the word value itself were elevated. But value isn't the whole story, and consumers aren’t always just choosing the cheapest option.  You and I are consumers. We are all consumers. Think about the last time you bought something. Did you pick one retailer over another because buying the item was easier? Did the company have a better website or a better mobile app? Did they offer faster shipping options or free shipping? Would the product itself save you time? And how much more were you willing to pay to make the more convenient choice?  Convenience is a valuable product and a key factor in consumer choice. In fact, our survey shows that 77 percent of US consumers rate it as important and base purchasing decisions on it. Our work suggests three key conclusions. On average, consumers would be willing to pay about a 5 percent price premium for convenience. And there are two groups that place a particular emphasis on it - those who are younger and those who are more affluent. Second, consumers are willing to choose one company's product or service over another's because of convenience. Staples products and food away from home are the industries where consumers are especially likely to pick one option over another. And third, shipping features like free shipping or fast shipping are the most important convenience-related criteria when shopping online. Several industries stand to benefit from providing convenience. And convenience has been a long-term, persistent driver of eCommerce. Consumers love the combination of an ever-expanding assortment of goods and services and shrinking delivery times – and this is convenience really at its best. Convenience is easier to deliver for categories with standardized, durable products with lower purchase frequency that are easier to deliver like electronics or travel. But even within an already winning industry there is still a lot of opportunity, especially within the least penetrated categories, grocery and household and personal care. In Restaurants, fast casual is likely to continue to take share given the combination of quality and convenience. Restaurants that have led digital access -- like mobile and online orders as well as online reservations – have posted impressive growth over time. Some fast-food chains have also invested in a digital approach and will likely to continue to build on this in the future. Now unlike internet and restaurants, the parcels industry is facing a large threat from convenience, specifically fast and free shipping and easy returns. Their networks were not built to handle the quick delivery required of ecommerce volumes today, and the business-to-consumer shipping that is offered by the largest online vendors. We think convenience is an important factor for companies and one they can use to differentiate themselves in customers minds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/B4K0QxuOO15VHSZLNkx2mDuXw1gHzD2ojhSvDJ7LzAUWed, 12 Jun 2024 21:09:22 +0000gtyOur US Thematic Strategist explains the premium that consumers will pay for convenience, and what that means for sectors including online retail, dining and package delivery. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s US Thematic Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about convenience and why it’s such an important factor for a number of industries.  It’s Wednesday, June 12, at 11am in New York. The consumer has been weakening around the edges, and this is flowing through to companies' bottom line. Our Consumer Economist thinks that consumption is likely to continue to slow this year and even into 2025 as the labor market cools and that weighs on real disposable income, elevated rates continue to pressure debt service costs, and tighter lending standards limit credit availability.   And given this setup, companies have been focusing on their value offerings, and we saw a lot of commentary around this during first quarter earnings calls. Mentions of just the word value itself were elevated. But value isn't the whole story, and consumers aren’t always just choosing the cheapest option.  You and I are consumers. We are all consumers. Think about the last time you bought something. Did you pick one retailer over another because buying the item was easier? Did the company have a better website or a better mobile app? Did they offer faster shipping options or free shipping? Would the product itself save you time? And how much more were you willing to pay to make the more convenient choice?  Convenience is a valuable product and a key factor in consumer choice. In fact, our survey shows that 77 percent of US consumers rate it as important and base purchasing decisions on it. Our work suggests three key conclusions. On average, consumers would be willing to pay about a 5 percent price premium for convenience. And there are two groups that place a particular emphasis on it - those who are younger and those who are more affluent. Second, consumers are willing to choose one company's product or service over another's because of convenience. Staples products and food away from home are the industries where consumers are especially likely to pick one option over another. And third, shipping features like free shipping or fast shipping are the most important convenience-related criteria when shopping online. Several industries stand to benefit from providing convenience. And convenience has been a long-term, persistent driver of eCommerce. Consumers love the combination of an ever-expanding assortment of goods and services and shrinking delivery times – and this is convenience really at its best. Convenience is easier to deliver for categories with standardized, durable products with lower purchase frequency that are easier to deliver like electronics or travel. But even within an already winning industry there is still a lot of opportunity, especially within the least penetrated categories, grocery and household and personal care. In Restaurants, fast casual is likely to continue to take share given the combination of quality and convenience. Restaurants that have led digital access -- like mobile and online orders as well as online reservations – have posted impressive growth over time. Some fast-food chains have also invested in a digital approach and will likely to continue to build on this in the future. Now unlike internet and restaurants, the parcels industry is facing a large threat from convenience, specifically fast and free shipping and easy returns. Their networks were not built to handle the quick delivery required of ecommerce volumes today, and the business-to-consumer shipping that is offered by the largest online vendors. We think convenience is an important factor for companies and one they can use to differentiate themselves in customers minds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave...]]>242alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1144fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/presidential-elections-aren-t-the-only-important-ones--75651285----- Transcript -----
Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent elections and upcoming elections and what they mean for the economy.It's Tuesday, June 11th at 10am in New York.Markets usually prefer simple narratives, but this week it's shown us that simplicity can be elusive. In particular, for elections, legislative outcomes can be more complicated but are consequential. Here in the US, clients often ask about the economic implications of a Trump vs. Biden presidency -- but we immediately have to flag that the congressional outcome has to be a big part of the conversation.Indeed, three important elections in the past weeks have emphasized the importance of a legislative focus. But the surprise was not in who won -- rather, in how big the legislative decisions were. In India, Prime Minister Modi was re-elected, but his BJP party lost its outright majority. Exit polls on June 1st had predicted a resounding victory for the BJP, prompting a rally in the lead up to the final results.The results surprised markets and caused a reversal. Markets have since recovered to roughly where they were before the exit polls,We expect policy predictability with the continued focus on macro stability. This focus implies moderate inflation, smaller primary deficits, along with support for domestic manufacturing and infrastructure in upcoming years. Those have been the core of our view that the Indian economy is set for continued expansion.The Mexican election was almost the reverse, where the winning candidate's party won far more votes than was expected. In response to the news, equity markets sold off and the Mexican peso depreciated. Scheinbaum was largely expected to win after the endorsement of Obrador; but by winning a supermajority, the market focus turned to Mexican fiscal discipline based on a view that there may be less restraint on government spending.Fiscal policy has been in focus for us because for the first time in recent years the government there ran a fiscal deficit. While the party has sought to reassure markets, concern has mounted regarding the risks of fiscal slippage without a more balanced legislature.Compared to India and Mexico, The South African market reaction to the election was modest, though not for a lack of surprise in the legislature. The ANC lost more of its majority than polls had predicted, which narrows the options for a coalition. The market now expects a more reform-oriented coalition to take power and support a continued improvement in the economy. For example, frequent power outages had impeded the economy for a long time, but the energy sector now appears to be more stable, and those sorts of reforms can help catalyze an improved economic outlook.Examples of India, Mexico, and South Africa have reinforced why we've remained focused on the upcoming general elections in the UK, and also the congressional outcomes in the US. In the UK, a change in government is predicted by the polls, and fiscal considerations will be in focus.So back here in the US, the fiscal outcome will largely be determined by the congressional results. To meaningfully change federal tax or spending requires legislation. And our colleagues in public policy research have flagged that under a Republican sweep, they expect lower taxes and higher spending; contrasted with a Democratic sweep that might bring somewhat higher spending, but also higher taxes leading to a narrower deficit.A split government, where the party in the White House not the same as the party controlling each of the Houses of Congress, however, probably implies more muted outcomes. While we should focus on the legislative outcomes, there are important authorities, of course, that the President can exercise independently of the Congress.So, when we highlight the importance of the legislative outcomes, we are not denying the criticality of the presidency.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Sai4gOwFOlXNyeu9TSW00tIRW0dO1ZLdG0M4UPqQMK8Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:57:42 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist takes stock of recent elections in India, Mexico and South Africa -- and what they suggest about the market implications of the upcoming UK and US elections. ----- Transcript ----- Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent elections and upcoming elections and what they mean for the economy.It's Tuesday, June 11th at 10am in New York.Markets usually prefer simple narratives, but this week it's shown us that simplicity can be elusive. In particular, for elections, legislative outcomes can be more complicated but are consequential. Here in the US, clients often ask about the economic implications of a Trump vs. Biden presidency -- but we immediately have to flag that the congressional outcome has to be a big part of the conversation.Indeed, three important elections in the past weeks have emphasized the importance of a legislative focus. But the surprise was not in who won -- rather, in how big the legislative decisions were. In India, Prime Minister Modi was re-elected, but his BJP party lost its outright majority. Exit polls on June 1st had predicted a resounding victory for the BJP, prompting a rally in the lead up to the final results.The results surprised markets and caused a reversal. Markets have since recovered to roughly where they were before the exit polls,We expect policy predictability with the continued focus on macro stability. This focus implies moderate inflation, smaller primary deficits, along with support for domestic manufacturing and infrastructure in upcoming years. Those have been the core of our view that the Indian economy is set for continued expansion.The Mexican election was almost the reverse, where the winning candidate's party won far more votes than was expected. In response to the news, equity markets sold off and the Mexican peso depreciated. Scheinbaum was largely expected to win after the endorsement of Obrador; but by winning a supermajority, the market focus turned to Mexican fiscal discipline based on a view that there may be less restraint on government spending.Fiscal policy has been in focus for us because for the first time in recent years the government there ran a fiscal deficit. While the party has sought to reassure markets, concern has mounted regarding the risks of fiscal slippage without a more balanced legislature.Compared to India and Mexico, The South African market reaction to the election was modest, though not for a lack of surprise in the legislature. The ANC lost more of its majority than polls had predicted, which narrows the options for a coalition. The market now expects a more reform-oriented coalition to take power and support a continued improvement in the economy. For example, frequent power outages had impeded the economy for a long time, but the energy sector now appears to be more stable, and those sorts of reforms can help catalyze an improved economic outlook.Examples of India, Mexico, and South Africa have reinforced why we've remained focused on the upcoming general elections in the UK, and also the congressional outcomes in the US. In the UK, a change in government is predicted by the polls, and fiscal considerations will be in focus.So back here in the US, the fiscal outcome will largely be determined by the congressional results. To meaningfully change federal tax or spending requires legislation. And our colleagues in public policy research have flagged that under a Republican sweep, they expect lower taxes and higher spending; contrasted with a Democratic sweep that might bring somewhat higher spending, but also higher taxes leading to a narrower deficit.A split government, where the party in the White House not the same as the party controlling each of the Houses of Congress, however, probably implies more muted outcomes. While we should focus on the...]]>254alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1143fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/investors-riding-an-unpredictable-wave--75651272----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the continued uncertainty in economic data and its impact on markets.  It's Monday, June 10th at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Over the past few months, the economic growth data has surprised to the downside with more data releases coming in below expectations than usual. Meanwhile, inflation surprises have skewed more to the upside. This is a challenging combination because it means the Fed can't cut rates yet even though it may make sense to keep the economic expansion going.  As we have been discussing for months, aggressive fiscal spending is keeping the headline economy looking good on the surface. The bad news is that inflation remains too high for the Fed which has to keep interest rate policy too tight for many economic participants. Some may disagree with that statement, but we think it's hard to argue with the yield curve which remains significantly inverted and a valid indicator of interest rate policy. When combined with high price levels for many goods and services, the end result is a crowding out of many parts of the economy and consumers. From our perspective, this is most evident in the persistent underperformance of small cap stocks. In fact, this past week, small cap equities relative performance fell to new cycle lows. Even more concerning is that while small caps are showing greater interest rate sensitivity than large caps, it’s also asymmetric. While higher rates are an obvious headwind for small caps, we're skeptical that lower rates offer a comparable benefit. Last week was a good example of this dynamic when small caps underperformed early in the week when rates rose and later in the week when rates fell.   All of this argues for what we have been recommending — in an uncertain macro world, we think investors should stay up the quality curve with a barbell of both growth and cyclicals to participate in both the soft and no landing outcomes. We also think it makes sense to have some defensive exposure as a hedge against the above average risk of a recession that still looms. Given the more negative skew in the economic surprise data as noted, we think the defensive part of the portfolio should outweigh cyclicals at this point. We favor staples and utilities specifically in this regard.  With markets sensitive to unpredictable inflation and labor data, it's very difficult to have an edge going into these releases, particularly on the labor front where the data itself has been subject to significant and ongoing revisions. While many market participants focus on the non-farm payroll data, these data have been subject to some of the larger revisions we’ve seen in recent history. Meanwhile, the household survey has been weaker than the non-farm payroll data and job openings have fallen persistently over the last 18 months. These diverging labor dynamics are classic late cycle phenomena based on our experience. For investors, it's just another reason to stay up the quality curve and to avoid positioning for a broadening out to lower quality areas. In our view, such a broadening is unlikely in any kind of sustainable way until the Fed cuts meaningfully — and by that we mean several hundred basis points rather than the one-to-two cuts that are now priced into the markets for this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LVqQZSo0Mabx7ekAaKAApIspsRMYM3ANdq6Sk6TIuRoMon, 10 Jun 2024 21:16:53 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains why economic fluctuations have made it more difficult to project a possible soft or no landing outcome, and how investors can navigate this continuing market volatility. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the continued uncertainty in economic data and its impact on markets.  It's Monday, June 10th at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Over the past few months, the economic growth data has surprised to the downside with more data releases coming in below expectations than usual. Meanwhile, inflation surprises have skewed more to the upside. This is a challenging combination because it means the Fed can't cut rates yet even though it may make sense to keep the economic expansion going.  As we have been discussing for months, aggressive fiscal spending is keeping the headline economy looking good on the surface. The bad news is that inflation remains too high for the Fed which has to keep interest rate policy too tight for many economic participants. Some may disagree with that statement, but we think it's hard to argue with the yield curve which remains significantly inverted and a valid indicator of interest rate policy. When combined with high price levels for many goods and services, the end result is a crowding out of many parts of the economy and consumers. From our perspective, this is most evident in the persistent underperformance of small cap stocks. In fact, this past week, small cap equities relative performance fell to new cycle lows. Even more concerning is that while small caps are showing greater interest rate sensitivity than large caps, it’s also asymmetric. While higher rates are an obvious headwind for small caps, we're skeptical that lower rates offer a comparable benefit. Last week was a good example of this dynamic when small caps underperformed early in the week when rates rose and later in the week when rates fell.   All of this argues for what we have been recommending — in an uncertain macro world, we think investors should stay up the quality curve with a barbell of both growth and cyclicals to participate in both the soft and no landing outcomes. We also think it makes sense to have some defensive exposure as a hedge against the above average risk of a recession that still looms. Given the more negative skew in the economic surprise data as noted, we think the defensive part of the portfolio should outweigh cyclicals at this point. We favor staples and utilities specifically in this regard.  With markets sensitive to unpredictable inflation and labor data, it's very difficult to have an edge going into these releases, particularly on the labor front where the data itself has been subject to significant and ongoing revisions. While many market participants focus on the non-farm payroll data, these data have been subject to some of the larger revisions we’ve seen in recent history. Meanwhile, the household survey has been weaker than the non-farm payroll data and job openings have fallen persistently over the last 18 months. These diverging labor dynamics are classic late cycle phenomena based on our experience. For investors, it's just another reason to stay up the quality curve and to avoid positioning for a broadening out to lower quality areas. In our view, such a broadening is unlikely in any kind of sustainable way until the Fed cuts meaningfully — and by that we mean several hundred basis points rather than the one-to-two cuts that are now priced into the markets for this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>227alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1142fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-global-elections-mean-for-markets--75651347----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit and Latin America Fixed Income Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the far-reaching impact of emerging market elections on global markets. It’s Friday, June 7, at 10am in New York.Elections in 2024 will impact roughly 4 billion people around the globe – that’s the most in history. And within emerging markets, elections this year will impact nearly half the market cap of both hard and local currency debt indices and 60 percent of equities. With a dozen elections in the emerging markets sovereign credit universe already behind us, there are still almost another twenty more to go.We find that elections in emerging markets matter for both credit spreads and fiscal balances. And a frequent investor question is how to trade positive and negative election outcomes. This can be defined in many ways, of course, but we focus on whether credit spreads widen – which is a negative – or tighten – which is a positive – in the week post-elections. And history suggests that buying into negative election surprises has been a profitable strategy. But on the other hand, positive elections, they’re priced in beforehand and should not be chased post-outcome.So why is that, exactly? Well, for positive elections, markets tend to rally nearly continuously into the elections; but after the initial week of tightening, spreads then revert and end up trading only slightly tight to the levels prior to the elections. And then for negative elections, there’s actually no real trend ahead of the elections, with spreads largely flat. But then, after the initial sell-off, credit spreads end up reversing the initial move wider, and three months out the spreads are tighter than immediately post-elections. So, with this in mind, let’s consider the three most recent election outcomes in Mexico, India, and South Africa. And actually, all three had an element of surprise.In Mexico, they elected their first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum. That was expected – but the surprise was that she got a much larger majority than polls suggested, which means that it becomes easier to push through constitutional changes. So, I think it’s fair to say that uncertainty has increased, and markets are now in a wait-and-see mode looking for what policy she will prioritize.And from my side, I’m paying particularly close attention to the many reforms submitted by the executive to the Congress back in February, and then any signs of fiscal consolidation, which is needed.South Africa saw the ANC fall below 50 per cent for the first time, and they now need to form a coalition or at least agree on a confidence and supply model. Well, I would say that at this point, markets are already pricing a lot of that uncertainty.Finally, in India, the BJP led New Democratic Alliance is set to form a government for the third term, and we think the most important aspect of this is policy predictability. And in particular we see a number of critical structural reforms made in this third term; and then importantly for fixed income, we see a reduction in the primary budget deficit.We will continue to monitor closely the remaining emerging markets elections in this landmark election year, and we’ll come back with more investment updates.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/k9NE2dixaymYNk5hswv2Jk-wCJANhpaoNyF0NBdIIM0Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:00:00 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Emerging Markets Sovereign Credit reviews key insights and strategies for investors following the recent elections in Mexico, South Africa and India. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simon Waever, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit and Latin America Fixed Income Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the far-reaching impact of emerging market elections on global markets. It’s Friday, June 7, at 10am in New York.Elections in 2024 will impact roughly 4 billion people around the globe – that’s the most in history. And within emerging markets, elections this year will impact nearly half the market cap of both hard and local currency debt indices and 60 percent of equities. With a dozen elections in the emerging markets sovereign credit universe already behind us, there are still almost another twenty more to go.We find that elections in emerging markets matter for both credit spreads and fiscal balances. And a frequent investor question is how to trade positive and negative election outcomes. This can be defined in many ways, of course, but we focus on whether credit spreads widen – which is a negative – or tighten – which is a positive – in the week post-elections. And history suggests that buying into negative election surprises has been a profitable strategy. But on the other hand, positive elections, they’re priced in beforehand and should not be chased post-outcome.So why is that, exactly? Well, for positive elections, markets tend to rally nearly continuously into the elections; but after the initial week of tightening, spreads then revert and end up trading only slightly tight to the levels prior to the elections. And then for negative elections, there’s actually no real trend ahead of the elections, with spreads largely flat. But then, after the initial sell-off, credit spreads end up reversing the initial move wider, and three months out the spreads are tighter than immediately post-elections. So, with this in mind, let’s consider the three most recent election outcomes in Mexico, India, and South Africa. And actually, all three had an element of surprise.In Mexico, they elected their first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum. That was expected – but the surprise was that she got a much larger majority than polls suggested, which means that it becomes easier to push through constitutional changes. So, I think it’s fair to say that uncertainty has increased, and markets are now in a wait-and-see mode looking for what policy she will prioritize.And from my side, I’m paying particularly close attention to the many reforms submitted by the executive to the Congress back in February, and then any signs of fiscal consolidation, which is needed.South Africa saw the ANC fall below 50 per cent for the first time, and they now need to form a coalition or at least agree on a confidence and supply model. Well, I would say that at this point, markets are already pricing a lot of that uncertainty.Finally, in India, the BJP led New Democratic Alliance is set to form a government for the third term, and we think the most important aspect of this is policy predictability. And in particular we see a number of critical structural reforms made in this third term; and then importantly for fixed income, we see a reduction in the primary budget deficit.We will continue to monitor closely the remaining emerging markets elections in this landmark election year, and we’ll come back with more investment updates.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>227alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1141fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/inside-japan-s-economic-transformation--75651140----- Transcript -----
Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Japan is undergoing a once in a generation transformation. A country once associated with its lost decades is now seeing multi-decade highs for nominal GDP growth and equity indices.On this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss why we are so optimistic on Japan's trajectory from here. I'm joined by our Chief Japan Economist Takeshi Yamaguchi, our Chief Asia and EM Strategist Jonathan Garner, and our Japan Equity Strategist Sho Nakazawa.This episode was recorded last Friday, May 31st at 9 am in Hong Kong.Jonathan Garner: And 9 am in Singapore. Takeshi Yamaguchi: And 10 am in Tokyo. Chetan Ahya: Japan's nominal GDP growth reached a 32 year high in 2023. Equity markets have reached multi decade highs, and ROE and productivity growth have been on an improving trend. Corporate sector vibrancy is returning, and animal spirits are reviving. A new, stronger equilibrium is one of robust nominal GDP growth and a sustainable moderate inflation.This new equilibrium of stronger normal GDP growth and low real interest rates will also be supportive of Japan's capex trends. With that backdrop, let me now turn to Yamaguchi san. Yamaguchi-san, what makes us confident that this virtuous cycle of rising wages and prices will continue to play out?Takeshi Yamaguchi: We think Japan's social norm of no price hike, no wage hike is changing, and a good feedback loop between wages and prices is emerging. Workers demand higher wages with higher inflation expectations and the corporate management accept their demand, as they also expect higher inflation. Japan's labor market remains structurally tight and aggregated corporate profits are now at a record high level. In addition to the pass-through from prices to wages, we are beginning to see the pass-through in the other direction from wages to prices, especially in service prices. The average wage hike in these spring wage negotiations was the highest in the last 33 years. So, we expect to see a gradual rise in service inflation going ahead with a rise in wages. Chetan Ahya: Could you elaborate a bit on the details of the capex outlook? Takeshi Yamaguchi: Yes. We expect Japan's private capex to exceed its previous 1991 peak this year. In the previous deflationary period, domestic nominal GDP remained in a flat range, and Japanese firms mainly invested abroad. That said, the trend of Japanese nominal GDP growth has shifted up, which will likely positively affect Japanese firms’ decision to increase domestic investment.Also, there are various other factors supporting domestic capex, such as real interest rates remaining low, the weak yen, the government's new industrial policy supporting onshoring and semiconductor investment, and the need for digitalization and labor-saving investment on the back of structural labor shortage driven by demographic shifts.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-san. And, you know, I can't let you go without answering this question, which is much of the focus of the markets right now. If yen depreciates to 160 again, how much upside risk to your rate path do you see?Takeshi Yamaguchi: Our FX team expects the yen to gradually appreciate to 146 by the end of 2024, and under the assumption, we expect one hike this year in July and another one in January next year. However, if sustained yen depreciation raises domestic underlying inflation trend, we think the BOJ will respond by raising the policy rate further to 0.75 per cent in 2025.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-san. Jonathan, let me come over to you now. You have led the debate on Japan's ROE improvement and have been bullish since 2018. How are we thinking about Japan equities from a broader Asia market allocation perspective now?Jonathan Garner: Back in 2018, we highlighted Japan equities as what we called the most underappreciated turnaround story in global equities. And at the heart of our thesis was the idea that monetary and fiscal policy dials were now set to exit deflation, driving an improved top-down environment for corporations from an asset utilization perspective.It's worth recalling that during the deflation era, Japan listed equities ROE averaged just 4.2 per cent for two decades, by far the lowest in global markets. That's now reached almost 10 per cent, and we're confident that by the end of next year we can be approaching 12 per cent, which would put Japan back in the middle of the pack in global equity markets.And we think further re-rating in line with the improved ROE is likely, over the medium term.Chetan Ahya: And how much upside do we see from here?Jonathan Garner: Well, in terms of the target price that we published in our midyear outlook, that now stands at 3,200 for June 2025 for TOPIX. And the way that we derive that is through an earnings forecast for TOPIX, which is around 5 per cent above current consensus levels.And in addition, a forward PE multiple assumption of 15 times, which is close to where the market is currently trading, and around about a 4 PE point discount to our target multiple for the S&P 500. So that gives us around 16 per cent upside versus current spot levels.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Jonathan. And you mentioned about corporate governance changes helping Japan equity markets. Sho, let me bring you in here. How will corporate governance changes drive further improvement in Japan's ROE?Sho Nakazawa: I would say corporate governance reform, which is Tokyo Stock Exchange initiative will help fuel OE gains going forward. From the last year below 1x P/B has been a buzz word in the market, growing sense of shame and peer pressure to enhance capital efficiency for the corporate executives. And this is not just a psychological change. If we look at cumulative share buybacks amount, last fiscal year it hit a record high of ¥10 trillion, and we are seeing further record growth into this fiscal year as well.Chetan Ahya: And what are the key alpha generation themes still to pay for within Japan equities space?Sho Nakazawa: In terms of alpha generation, we explored three key themes within the Japanese equity landscape. So one, identifying companies with labor productivity and pricing power that can pay and absorb higher real wages; and two, finding the next cohort of corporate reform beneficiaries. Three, assessing the impact of NISA, Nippon Individual Saving Account, inflows.I think this will drive large cap, high-liquidity value and high dividend stock. Still plenty to play for in Japan.Chetan Ahya: Yamaguchi-san, Jonathan, Nakazawa-san, thank you all for taking the time to talk. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JU7F9cdgmvgb_aTNBaTv1ycYjsAqVUi6NV5fIxvhgCQThu, 06 Jun 2024 23:23:01 +0000gtyOur four-person panel explains Japan’s economic boom, from growing GDP to corporate sector vibrancy, and which upward trends will sustain. ----- Transcript ----- Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----
Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Japan is undergoing a once in a generation transformation. A country once associated with its lost decades is now seeing multi-decade highs for nominal GDP growth and equity indices.On this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss why we are so optimistic on Japan's trajectory from here. I'm joined by our Chief Japan Economist Takeshi Yamaguchi, our Chief Asia and EM Strategist Jonathan Garner, and our Japan Equity Strategist Sho Nakazawa.This episode was recorded last Friday, May 31st at 9 am in Hong Kong.Jonathan Garner: And 9 am in Singapore. Takeshi Yamaguchi: And 10 am in Tokyo. Chetan Ahya: Japan's nominal GDP growth reached a 32 year high in 2023. Equity markets have reached multi decade highs, and ROE and productivity growth have been on an improving trend. Corporate sector vibrancy is returning, and animal spirits are reviving. A new, stronger equilibrium is one of robust nominal GDP growth and a sustainable moderate inflation.This new equilibrium of stronger normal GDP growth and low real interest rates will also be supportive of Japan's capex trends. With that backdrop, let me now turn to Yamaguchi san. Yamaguchi-san, what makes us confident that this virtuous cycle of rising wages and prices will continue to play out?Takeshi Yamaguchi: We think Japan's social norm of no price hike, no wage hike is changing, and a good feedback loop between wages and prices is emerging. Workers demand higher wages with higher inflation expectations and the corporate management accept their demand, as they also expect higher inflation. Japan's labor market remains structurally tight and aggregated corporate profits are now at a record high level. In addition to the pass-through from prices to wages, we are beginning to see the pass-through in the other direction from wages to prices, especially in service prices. The average wage hike in these spring wage negotiations was the highest in the last 33 years. So, we expect to see a gradual rise in service inflation going ahead with a rise in wages. Chetan Ahya: Could you elaborate a bit on the details of the capex outlook? Takeshi Yamaguchi: Yes. We expect Japan's private capex to exceed its previous 1991 peak this year. In the previous deflationary period, domestic nominal GDP remained in a flat range, and Japanese firms mainly invested abroad. That said, the trend of Japanese nominal GDP growth has shifted up, which will likely positively affect Japanese firms’ decision to increase domestic investment.Also, there are various other factors supporting domestic capex, such as real interest rates remaining low, the weak yen, the government's new industrial policy supporting onshoring and semiconductor investment, and the need for digitalization and labor-saving investment on the back of structural labor shortage driven by demographic shifts.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-san. And, you know, I can't let you go without answering this question, which is much of the focus of the markets right now. If yen depreciates to 160 again, how much upside risk to your rate path do you see?Takeshi Yamaguchi: Our FX team expects the yen to gradually appreciate to 146 by the end of 2024, and under the assumption, we expect one hike this year in July and another one in January next year. However, if sustained yen depreciation raises domestic underlying inflation trend, we think the BOJ will respond by raising the policy rate further to 0.75 per cent in 2025.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-san. Jonathan, let me come over to you now. You have led the debate on Japan's ROE improvement and have been bullish since 2018. How are we thinking about Japan equities from a broader Asia market allocation perspective now?Jonathan...]]>441alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1140fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-the-curious-connection-between-airlines-and-fashion--75651109----- Transcript -----
Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's North America Softlines, Retail and Brands Analyst.Ravi Shanker: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some really surprising parallels between fashion, retail, and airlines.It's Monday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Now, you're probably wondering why we're talking about airlines and fashion retail in the same sentence. And that's because even though they may seem worlds apart, they actually have a lot in common. They're both highly cyclical industries driven by consumer spending, inventory pressure, and brand attrition over time.And so, we would argue that what applies to one industry actually has relevance to the other industry as well. So, Alex, you've been observing some remarkable turnaround stories in your space recently. Can you paint a picture of what some fashion retail businesses have done to engineer a successful turnaround? Maybe go over some of the fundamentals first?Alex Straton: What I'll lead with here is that in my North America apparel retail coverage, turnarounds are incredibly hard to come by, to the point where I'd argue I'm skeptical when any business tries to architect one. And part of that difficulty directly pertains to your question, Ravi -- the fundamental backdrop of the industry.So, what are we working with here? Apparel is a low single digit growing category here in North America, where the average retailer operates at a mid single digit plus margin level. This is super meager compared to other more profitable industries that Ravi and I don't necessarily have the joy of covering. But part of why my industry is characterized by such low operating performance is the fact that there are incredibly low barriers to entry in the space. And you can really see that in two dynamics.The first being how fragmented the competitive landscape is. That means that there are many players as opposed to consolidation across a select few. Just think of how many options you have out there as you shop for clothing and then how much that has changed over time. And then second, and somewhat due to that fragmentation, the category has historically been deflationary, meaning prices have actually fallen over time as retailers compete mostly on price to garner consumer attention and market share.So put differently, historically, retailers’ key tool for drawing in the consumer and driving sales has been based on being price competitive, often through promotions and discounting, which, along with other structural headwinds, like declining mall traffic, e-commerce growth and then rising wages, rent and product input costs has actually meant the average retailers’ margin was in a steady and unfortunately structural decline prior to the pandemic.So, this reliance on promotions and discounting in tandem with those other pressures I just mentioned, not only hurt many retailers’ earnings power but in many cases also degraded consumer brand perception, creating a super tough cycle to break out of and thus turnarounds very tough to come by -- bringing it full circle.So, in a nutshell, what you should hear is apparel is a low barrier to entry, fragmented market with subsequently thin margins and little to no precedent for successful turnarounds. That's not to say a retail turnaround isn't possible, though, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So that's great background. And you've identified some very specific key levers that these fashion retail companies can pull in order to boost their profitability. What are some of these levers?Alex Straton: We do have a recent example in the space of a company that was able to break free of that rather vicious cycle I just went through, and it actually lifted its sales growth and profitability levels above industry average. From our standpoint, this super rare retail turnaround relied on five key levers, and the first was targeting a different customer demographic. Think going from a teens focused customer with limited brand loyalty to an older, wealthier and less fickle shopper; more reliable, but differently.Second, you know, evolving the product assortment. So, think mixing the assortment into higher priced, less seasonal items that come with better margins. To bring this to life, imagine a jeans and tees business widening its offering to include things like tailored pants and dresses that are often higher margin.Third, we saw that changing the pricing strategy was also key. You can retrain or reposition a brand as not only higher priced through the two levers I just mentioned, but also try and be less promotional overall. This is arguably, from my experience, one of the hardest things for a retailer to execute over time. So, this is the thing I would typically, you know, red flag if you hear it.Fourth, and this is very, very key, reducing the store footprint, re-examining your costs. So, as I mentioned in my coverage, cost inflation across the P&L (profit and loss) historically, consumers moving online over time, and what it means is retailers are sitting on a cost base that might not necessarily be right for the new demand or the new structure of the business. So, finding cost savings on that front can really do wonders for the margins.Fifth, and I list this last because it's a little bit more of a qualitative type of lever -- is that you can focus on digital. That really matters in this modern era. What we saw was a retailer use digital driven data to inform decision making across the business, aligning consumer experience across channels and doing this in a profitable way, which is no easy feat, to say the least.So, look, we identified five broad enablers of a turnaround. But there were, of course, little changes along the way that were also done.Ravi Shanker: Right.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, given what we've discussed, how do you think this turnaround model from fashion retail can apply to airlines?Ravi Shanker: Look, I mean, as we discussed, at the top here, we think there are significant similarities between the world of fashion retail and airlines; even though it may not seem obvious, at first glance. I mean, they're both very consumer discretionary type, demand environments. The vicious circle that you described, the price deflation, the competition, the brand attrition, all of that applies to retail and to airlines as well.And so, I think when you look at the five enablers of the turnaround or levers that you pull to make it happen, I think those can apply from retail to airlines as well. For instance, you target a different customer, one that likes to travel, one that is a premium customer and, and wants to sit in the front of the plane and spend more money.Second, you have a different product out there. Kind of you make your product better, and it's a better experience in the sky, and you give the customer an opportunity to subscribe to credit cards and loyalty program and have a full-service experience when they travel.Third, you change your distribution method. You kind of go more digital, as you said. We don't have inventory here, so it'd be more of -- you don't fly everywhere all the time and be everything to everyone. You are a more focused airline and give your customer a better experience. So, all of those things can drive better outcomes and better financial performance, both in the world of fashion retail as well as in the world of airlines.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, we've definitely identified some pretty startling similarities between fashion retail and airlines. Definitely more so than I appreciated when you called me a couple months ago to explore this topic. So, with that in mind, what are some of the differences and challenges to applying to airlines, a playbook taken from the world of fashion retail?Ravi Shanker: Right, so, look, I mean, they are obviously very different industries, right? For instance, clothing is a basic human staple; air travel and going on vacations is not. It's a lot more discretionary. The industry is a lot more consolidated in the airline space compared to the world of retail. Air travel is also a lot more premium compared to the entire retail industry. But when you look at premium retail and what some of those brands have done where brands really make a difference, the product really makes a difference. I think there are a lot more similarities than differences between those premium retail brands on the airline industry.So, Alex, going back to you, given the success of the turnaround model that you've discussed, do you think more retail businesses will adopt it? And are there any risks if that becomes a norm?Alex Straton: The reality is Ravi, I breezed through those five key enablers in a super clear manner. But, first, you know, the enablers of a turnaround in my view are only super clear in hindsight. And then secondly, one thing I want to just re-emphasize again is that a turnaround of the nature I described isn't something that happens overnight. Shifting something like your consumer base or changing investor perception of discounting activity is a multi year, incredibly difficult task; meaning turnarounds are also often multi year affairs, if ever successful at all.So, looking ahead, given how rare retail turnarounds have proven to be historically, I think while many businesses in my coverage area are super intrigued by some of this recent success; at the same time, I think they're eyes wide open that it's much easier said than done, with execution far from certain in any given turnaround.Ravi Shanker: Got it. I think the good news from my perspective is that hindsight and time both the be]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HBm0v5LgLgm81M1ewPooKRb4Iy7GUZKHp46Mdjxl_kUWed, 05 Jun 2024 22:32:56 +0000gtyOriginal release date April 29, 2024: Our analysts find that despite the obvious differences between retail fashion and airlines, struggling brands in both industries can use a similar playbook for a turnaround. ----- Transcript ----- Ravi...----- Transcript -----
Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's North America Softlines, Retail and Brands Analyst.Ravi Shanker: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some really surprising parallels between fashion, retail, and airlines.It's Monday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Now, you're probably wondering why we're talking about airlines and fashion retail in the same sentence. And that's because even though they may seem worlds apart, they actually have a lot in common. They're both highly cyclical industries driven by consumer spending, inventory pressure, and brand attrition over time.And so, we would argue that what applies to one industry actually has relevance to the other industry as well. So, Alex, you've been observing some remarkable turnaround stories in your space recently. Can you paint a picture of what some fashion retail businesses have done to engineer a successful turnaround? Maybe go over some of the fundamentals first?Alex Straton: What I'll lead with here is that in my North America apparel retail coverage, turnarounds are incredibly hard to come by, to the point where I'd argue I'm skeptical when any business tries to architect one. And part of that difficulty directly pertains to your question, Ravi -- the fundamental backdrop of the industry.So, what are we working with here? Apparel is a low single digit growing category here in North America, where the average retailer operates at a mid single digit plus margin level. This is super meager compared to other more profitable industries that Ravi and I don't necessarily have the joy of covering. But part of why my industry is characterized by such low operating performance is the fact that there are incredibly low barriers to entry in the space. And you can really see that in two dynamics.The first being how fragmented the competitive landscape is. That means that there are many players as opposed to consolidation across a select few. Just think of how many options you have out there as you shop for clothing and then how much that has changed over time. And then second, and somewhat due to that fragmentation, the category has historically been deflationary, meaning prices have actually fallen over time as retailers compete mostly on price to garner consumer attention and market share.So put differently, historically, retailers’ key tool for drawing in the consumer and driving sales has been based on being price competitive, often through promotions and discounting, which, along with other structural headwinds, like declining mall traffic, e-commerce growth and then rising wages, rent and product input costs has actually meant the average retailers’ margin was in a steady and unfortunately structural decline prior to the pandemic.So, this reliance on promotions and discounting in tandem with those other pressures I just mentioned, not only hurt many retailers’ earnings power but in many cases also degraded consumer brand perception, creating a super tough cycle to break out of and thus turnarounds very tough to come by -- bringing it full circle.So, in a nutshell, what you should hear is apparel is a low barrier to entry, fragmented market with subsequently thin margins and little to no precedent for successful turnarounds. That's not to say a retail turnaround isn't possible, though, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So that's great background. And you've identified some very specific key levers that these fashion retail companies can pull in order to boost their profitability. What are some of these levers?Alex Straton: We do have a recent example in the space of a company...]]>606alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1138fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/spirited-debates-around-our-midyear-outlooks--75651211----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupathur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the key debates we engaged in during the mid-year outlook process.It's Tuesday, June 4th at 1pm in New York.Over the last few episodes, you've been hearing a lot about Morgan Stanley's midyear outlook, where our economists have forecasted a sunny macro environment of decelerating growth and inflation, and policy easing in most developed market economies, leading to a positive backdrop for risk assets in the base case, especially in the second half of the year.But beyond the year end, many uncertainties -- uncertainties of outcomes and uncertainties of the consequences of those outcomes -- point to a wider range of outcomes, driving a wider than normal bull versus bear skew in our expectations for markets over the next 12 months.As always, these outlooks are the culmination of a process involving much deliberation and spirited debate among economists and strategists across all the regions and asset classes we cover. I thought it might be useful to detail some of these debates that we've had during the process to shed a better light on the forecast in our outlook.First, given the many changes to market pricing of Fed's rate cuts year to date, driven by higher-than-expected inflation, the path ahead for US inflation was heavily debated. Our economists argued that the acceleration in goods and financial services prices, which explains a substantial portion of the upside in the first quarter inflation data should decelerate from here. And also that leading indicators point to a weaker shelter inflation ahead. Their analysis also showed that residual seasonality contributed to the unexpected strength in first quarter [20]24 inflation data, suggesting a payback has to happen in the second half of 2024.The outlook for China economy and our cautious stance on the market was another point of debate, mainly because China's growth has surprised to the upside relative to our 2024 year ahead outlook. Our economists argued that while there are a few policy positives on housing and green products mitigating the debt deflation spiral, growth remains unbalanced and subpar. So, we discussed our cautious stance on China equity markets against this backdrop and concluded that the equity market recovery is still very challenging in China.Third, given the combination of favorable technicals, solid fundamentals, and a relatively benign economic outlook, we debated whether corporate credit, on which we are constructive, should we be even more constructive in our forecasts. After all, the setup for corporate credit has many elements similar to those during the mid 1990s, when, for example, US IG index spreads were about 30 basis points tighter versus the current spread targets. Our strategist highlighted the significant differences in the market structure, the composition of the index, and the duration of the underlying bonds that make up this index today, versus 1990s -- all of which put a higher floor on spreads, which explains our spread targets.The debates notwithstanding, we cannot argue with the benign macro backdrop and what that means for the second half of 2024. We turn overweight in global equities and overweight in a range of spread products within fixed income, most notably agency MBS, EM Sovereign credit, leveraged loans, securitized credit, especially CLO equity tranches.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ju_lFL4cWjVftbbs4UpoEd9EpJrauQFtCwQOJ4cpDuATue, 04 Jun 2024 21:10:47 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist takes listeners behind the curtain on Morgan Stanley’s expectations for markets over the next 12 months. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupathur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupathur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the key debates we engaged in during the mid-year outlook process.It's Tuesday, June 4th at 1pm in New York.Over the last few episodes, you've been hearing a lot about Morgan Stanley's midyear outlook, where our economists have forecasted a sunny macro environment of decelerating growth and inflation, and policy easing in most developed market economies, leading to a positive backdrop for risk assets in the base case, especially in the second half of the year.But beyond the year end, many uncertainties -- uncertainties of outcomes and uncertainties of the consequences of those outcomes -- point to a wider range of outcomes, driving a wider than normal bull versus bear skew in our expectations for markets over the next 12 months.As always, these outlooks are the culmination of a process involving much deliberation and spirited debate among economists and strategists across all the regions and asset classes we cover. I thought it might be useful to detail some of these debates that we've had during the process to shed a better light on the forecast in our outlook.First, given the many changes to market pricing of Fed's rate cuts year to date, driven by higher-than-expected inflation, the path ahead for US inflation was heavily debated. Our economists argued that the acceleration in goods and financial services prices, which explains a substantial portion of the upside in the first quarter inflation data should decelerate from here. And also that leading indicators point to a weaker shelter inflation ahead. Their analysis also showed that residual seasonality contributed to the unexpected strength in first quarter [20]24 inflation data, suggesting a payback has to happen in the second half of 2024.The outlook for China economy and our cautious stance on the market was another point of debate, mainly because China's growth has surprised to the upside relative to our 2024 year ahead outlook. Our economists argued that while there are a few policy positives on housing and green products mitigating the debt deflation spiral, growth remains unbalanced and subpar. So, we discussed our cautious stance on China equity markets against this backdrop and concluded that the equity market recovery is still very challenging in China.Third, given the combination of favorable technicals, solid fundamentals, and a relatively benign economic outlook, we debated whether corporate credit, on which we are constructive, should we be even more constructive in our forecasts. After all, the setup for corporate credit has many elements similar to those during the mid 1990s, when, for example, US IG index spreads were about 30 basis points tighter versus the current spread targets. Our strategist highlighted the significant differences in the market structure, the composition of the index, and the duration of the underlying bonds that make up this index today, versus 1990s -- all of which put a higher floor on spreads, which explains our spread targets.The debates notwithstanding, we cannot argue with the benign macro backdrop and what that means for the second half of 2024. We turn overweight in global equities and overweight in a range of spread products within fixed income, most notably agency MBS, EM Sovereign credit, leveraged loans, securitized credit, especially CLO equity tranches.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>238alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1137fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-an-everything-rally-is-still-possible--75651054----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss why we believe bonds and equities can both rally this year, with the still-elevated correlations between the two assets a boon rather than a bane to investors. It’s Monday, June 3rd at 10am in New York. In our mid-year outlook two weeks ago, we expressed our bullish view on both global equities and parts of fixed income space like agency mortgage-backed securities and leveraged loans, on the back of the benign economic backdrop our economists are forecasting for in the second half of 2024. Now, this may be surprising to some. Received wisdom is that in an environment of rate cuts and falling yields, equities can't perform well because the former usually maps to growth slowdowns. When equities see double-digit upside – which is what we’re projecting for European equities – it’s unusual for bonds to also see strong and positive returns, which is what we’re projecting for German government bonds. And I want to push back on this received wisdom that we can’t have an ‘everything rally’. When we look at the annual performance of global stocks and 10-year US Treasuries every year going back to 1988, in the 13 times when the Fed cut rates over the course of the year, bond yields were lower and equities were up 43 per cent of the time. And in those periods, stock returns averaged 18 per cent while yields fell over 1 percentage points. ‘Everything rallies’ happen often in this very macro backdrop of benign growth and Fed cuts we’re expecting, And when they do happen, everything indeed rallies – strongly. Or to frame it another way – our expectations for both global equities and fixed income to see strong total returns this year is the flipside of what markets had experienced in 2022. Now back then, unlike in most other prior cycles, stock-bond return correlations were high because inflation was elevated even as growth was sluggish, meaning that bonds sold off on higher rates expectations, and equities on bad earnings. Today, with our view that global growth can be robust while disinflation continues, the opposite will likely be true; bonds should rally on lower rates expectations, and equities on strong earnings revisions. Stock-bond return correlations are still elevated, but it should work in an investor’s favor this year. Lean into it. Good macro, fair fundamentals, pockets of attractive valuations all make for a strong environment for risk assets, a reason for us to get more bullish on European and Japanese equities, but also in fixed income products like leveraged loans and Collateralized Loan Obligations. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fMcYeGW4biNBoTXAh-_7G2gmcIfFeIlruoTmUrPyUTYMon, 03 Jun 2024 21:57:05 +0000gtyOur Chief Cross-Asset Strategist explains why the high correlation between stocks and bonds could work in investors’ favor throughout the second half of this year. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss why we believe bonds and equities can both rally this year, with the still-elevated correlations between the two assets a boon rather than a bane to investors. It’s Monday, June 3rd at 10am in New York. In our mid-year outlook two weeks ago, we expressed our bullish view on both global equities and parts of fixed income space like agency mortgage-backed securities and leveraged loans, on the back of the benign economic backdrop our economists are forecasting for in the second half of 2024. Now, this may be surprising to some. Received wisdom is that in an environment of rate cuts and falling yields, equities can't perform well because the former usually maps to growth slowdowns. When equities see double-digit upside – which is what we’re projecting for European equities – it’s unusual for bonds to also see strong and positive returns, which is what we’re projecting for German government bonds. And I want to push back on this received wisdom that we can’t have an ‘everything rally’. When we look at the annual performance of global stocks and 10-year US Treasuries every year going back to 1988, in the 13 times when the Fed cut rates over the course of the year, bond yields were lower and equities were up 43 per cent of the time. And in those periods, stock returns averaged 18 per cent while yields fell over 1 percentage points. ‘Everything rallies’ happen often in this very macro backdrop of benign growth and Fed cuts we’re expecting, And when they do happen, everything indeed rallies – strongly. Or to frame it another way – our expectations for both global equities and fixed income to see strong total returns this year is the flipside of what markets had experienced in 2022. Now back then, unlike in most other prior cycles, stock-bond return correlations were high because inflation was elevated even as growth was sluggish, meaning that bonds sold off on higher rates expectations, and equities on bad earnings. Today, with our view that global growth can be robust while disinflation continues, the opposite will likely be true; bonds should rally on lower rates expectations, and equities on strong earnings revisions. Stock-bond return correlations are still elevated, but it should work in an investor’s favor this year. Lean into it. Good macro, fair fundamentals, pockets of attractive valuations all make for a strong environment for risk assets, a reason for us to get more bullish on European and Japanese equities, but also in fixed income products like leveraged loans and Collateralized Loan Obligations. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>216alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1136fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-tmt-bonds-are-underperforming--75651183----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley.David Hamburger: And I'm David Hamburger, Head of US Sector Corporate Credit Research and Lead Analyst for the high yield telecom, media, and technology sectors.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be discussing the contrast between strong overall markets in credit and a whole lot of volatility in the high yield TMT space.It's Friday, May 31st at 10am in New York.So, David, it's great to talk to you. You know, listeners have probably been hearing about our views on overall markets and credit markets for the 12 months ahead.We have US growth at 2 percent. We have inflation coming down. We had the Fed lowering interest rates. But there’s needless to say; there's some pretty notable contrast between that sort of backdrop and the backdrop we've had for credit year to date, which has been pretty calm, pretty strong -- and what's been going on in your sector.So maybe before we get into the why -- let's talk about the what and bring people up to speed on the saga that's been high yield TMT year.David Hamburger: Yeah. I'm here today to disavow you of any notion that everything is fine and dandy in the market today. So, if you look at the high yield communications sector, it's trading about 325 basis points wide of the overall high yield index. And just to give you that magnitude of that -- the high yield index trading around 300 basis points -- we're talking about 625 basis points over. Now, the high yield communication sector as well is trading about 275 basis points, wider than the next widest sector in the index.And so, it's pretty astounding today, given the market backdrop, how much underperformance we've seen in this sector.Andrew Sheets: What's been causing this just large divergence between high yield TMT and what seems like a lot of other things?David Hamburger: Yeah, I think there are two forces at work here. One's kind of a broader set of issues that I can outline for you. Really, I think it's a combination of one, the maturation of the communications marketplace. Coming out of COVID, we certainly had accelerated adoption of broadband and wireless services. That in and of itself has created a lot of intense competition.And as such, we've seen a lot of technological advances that have created some secular pressures on the space. As well, when you pair that up with elevated financial leverage, all coming together at a time when the marginal cost of capital for companies has increased due to higher interest rates. Those are really some of the underlying forces at work that have driven underperformance in this sector.But some companies have managed to navigate this environment. And I would say by and large, it's those with really strong balance sheets. But that has really cast a shadow on this sector -- is the fundamental and financing issues.When you think about the bloated balance sheets that some of the other companies have had, they've been exploring a whole new set of transactions and, evaluating different options for their balance sheets. And that's probably the more sinister thing that we've seen in the market of late.Andrew Sheets: So, so tell me a little bit more about this. You know, what are some of the types of things that companies can do that often leave the bond holder unhappy?David Hamburger:  We all became all too aware of what private equity sponsors might do back in the heyday of LBOs, and we still live in that world today, and it's really fairly well known.You know, I've been in the credit markets for more than 20 years, but I can't recall a time we've seen so many management teams and controlling shareholders now that are at odds with their creditors because of elevated leverage and the business risks they face. So really, the prospect of real and expected liability management has created a lot of dislocation across companies’ capital structures.So, what have they done? We look and see companies that have been exploring liability manage, taking advantage of weak protections in certain credit documentation in their structure at the expense of other creditors in the same capital structure. So, we have one company where you see this dislocation in their term loans. They have the same pool of collateral between two different term loans with two different maturities. The later dated maturity is trading higher than the nearer dated maturity, strictly or solely because of the better protections in that documentation. And the premise being, you can negotiate with that class of creditors, give them an advantaged position in the capital structure at the expense of other creditors -- in order to somehow manage the balance sheet and manage those liabilities.Andrew Sheets: And David, is it fair to say that this is a direct outcrop of, you know -- a term some people might have heard of -- of covenant light debt, where, you know, usually debt has certain legal protections that mean that the bondholder is more assured of getting paid back or not being made a less well off than other lenders. But you know, we did see some of that change during different, stronger market conditions. Is that a partial explanation of what's going on?David Hamburger: That's exactly right, Andrew. We are seeing the result, if I might say, the hangover from some of these covenant light deals that came to market over the last few years; almost to the point of speak to some clients and they will just want to know what is the vintage of that secured debt issue that you're talking about because there were certain years where they were far more flexible documentation and protections. And now, given where the equity markets are trading and the financing environment, you see a lot of those securities trading at severe discounts to par, which is unusual because, again, in my 20-year career, I've not often seen companies with billion-dollar equity market caps and bonds trading in the 20, 30, or 40 cents on the dollar.You would think that if a company had a substantial market cap, that their bonds would be trading closer to par and would have value. But what really the market's, I think, pricing in is this transference of value from creditors to shareholders; and the opportunity cost associated with these shareholders; or controlling shareholders or management teams looking to capture those discounts that they now see in their bonds; or in their loans to the benefit of equity shareholders -- really puts all constituents in the company's balance sheet, if you will, at odds with one another.Andrew Sheets: So, David, this is so interesting because again, I think, you know, for a lot of listeners, you can read the newspaper, you see the headlines, the market looks very strong and stable. And yet, there's definitely a tempest that's been brewing, you know, in your sector. For people who are investing in high yield TMT, what are you think the most important things that you're looking out for in your credit coverage?David Hamburger: Well, look, we're forced to really dig in and scrutinize these credit docs and really understand what protections are there, understanding how companies might navigate through those protections in order to prolong or preserve their equity value or the equity options in their companies.It's not like we're trying to be alarmists in saying this is a canary in the coal mine, but it is certainly a cautionary tale for any high yield investor to be well versed in those credit documentation, understanding the protections in those debt securities.And we have seen bondholders and creditors, largely even in loans, you know, get together in co-op agreements to push back on some of these aggressive liability management transactions. And that, I think, is really important in an environment where yields have come back in and, you know, where people look at opportunities and maybe we could, once again, see two things. One, a reach for yield, where you're looking at sectors that have underperformed. And secondly, should we get back into an environment of covenant light docks once again? So, I don't want to be talking about this again in a few years’ time. And it's not something that the market has helped resolve rather than just perpetuate.Andrew Sheets: David, it's fascinating as always. Thanks for taking the time to talk.David Hamburger: Thank you Andrew. Glad to be here.Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you get your podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6Vu7B9sJszNBK6eZXGSXcOQOyM1oamK2UkvrM5RbQEgFri, 31 May 2024 22:01:53 +0000gtyIn a generally positive environment for corporate credit, the recent performance of high-yield bonds in the telecom, media and technology (TMT) sector offers a market contrast. Our Lead Analyst for High-Yield TMT joins our Head of Corporate Credit...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley.David Hamburger: And I'm David Hamburger, Head of US Sector Corporate Credit Research and Lead Analyst for the high yield telecom, media, and technology sectors.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be discussing the contrast between strong overall markets in credit and a whole lot of volatility in the high yield TMT space.It's Friday, May 31st at 10am in New York.So, David, it's great to talk to you. You know, listeners have probably been hearing about our views on overall markets and credit markets for the 12 months ahead.We have US growth at 2 percent. We have inflation coming down. We had the Fed lowering interest rates. But there’s needless to say; there's some pretty notable contrast between that sort of backdrop and the backdrop we've had for credit year to date, which has been pretty calm, pretty strong -- and what's been going on in your sector.So maybe before we get into the why -- let's talk about the what and bring people up to speed on the saga that's been high yield TMT year.David Hamburger: Yeah. I'm here today to disavow you of any notion that everything is fine and dandy in the market today. So, if you look at the high yield communications sector, it's trading about 325 basis points wide of the overall high yield index. And just to give you that magnitude of that -- the high yield index trading around 300 basis points -- we're talking about 625 basis points over. Now, the high yield communication sector as well is trading about 275 basis points, wider than the next widest sector in the index.And so, it's pretty astounding today, given the market backdrop, how much underperformance we've seen in this sector.Andrew Sheets: What's been causing this just large divergence between high yield TMT and what seems like a lot of other things?David Hamburger: Yeah, I think there are two forces at work here. One's kind of a broader set of issues that I can outline for you. Really, I think it's a combination of one, the maturation of the communications marketplace. Coming out of COVID, we certainly had accelerated adoption of broadband and wireless services. That in and of itself has created a lot of intense competition.And as such, we've seen a lot of technological advances that have created some secular pressures on the space. As well, when you pair that up with elevated financial leverage, all coming together at a time when the marginal cost of capital for companies has increased due to higher interest rates. Those are really some of the underlying forces at work that have driven underperformance in this sector.But some companies have managed to navigate this environment. And I would say by and large, it's those with really strong balance sheets. But that has really cast a shadow on this sector -- is the fundamental and financing issues.When you think about the bloated balance sheets that some of the other companies have had, they've been exploring a whole new set of transactions and, evaluating different options for their balance sheets. And that's probably the more sinister thing that we've seen in the market of late.Andrew Sheets: So, so tell me a little bit more about this. You know, what are some of the types of things that companies can do that often leave the bond holder unhappy?David Hamburger:  We all became all too aware of what private equity sponsors might do back in the heyday of LBOs, and we still live in that world today, and it's really fairly well known.You know, I've been in the credit markets for more than 20 years, but I can't recall a time we've seen so many...]]>520alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategy,tmtfalse1135fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/european-economic-outlook-decidedly-more-optimistic--75651232----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Europe Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss our outlook for Europe’s economy in the second half of 2024 and into next year. It’s Thursday, May 30 at 10am in Frankfurt.So, over the last year, we have had a relatively downbeat outlook for Europe's economy, but as we head into the second half of this year our view is decidedly more optimistic. After bottoming last year, euro area growth should reach 0.7 per cent annualized terms in 2024 and 1.2 per cent in 2025 on the back of stronger consumption and exports. Inflation is on its way to the European Central Bank’s target, paving the way for the ECB to start cutting rates in June with three cuts in 2024, for a total of 75 basis points, and four more cuts in 2025, for a total of 100 basis points.What’s particularly notable, though, is the set-up of this growth rebound is highly unusual for several reasons.Let's start with inflation. In a normal environment, higher growth leads to higher inflation and vice versa. This time is different. The euro area needs to grow faster to get inflation down. The reason is that faster growth should lead to better resource utilization in sectors characterized by labor hoarding or keeping a surplus of employees. This should keep unit labor costs – or how much a business pays its workers to produce one unit of output – in check. We’re expecting further wage increases, mostly driven by the catch-up with past inflation, and so higher productivity is a way to cushion the pass-through to prices.So again, just to repeat, we are in a cycle where we need higher growth to get inflation down and not as usual, we have higher growth and that gets us more inflation. Of course, there is a limit to that. If we get too much growth, that would be an issue potentially for the ECB. And if you get too little growth, that is another issue because then we won't get the productivity rebound.In some sense, you could think of the growth we need as a landing strip and we need to come in at that landing strip precisely; and so far, the signs are there that is exactly the picture we are getting in 2024 and 2025 in Europe.Now the monetary and fiscal policy mix is another area where this cycle stands out. So normally, monetary policy would tighten into an upswing and ease into a downturn, while fiscal policy would be expansionary in a downturn and contractionary in an upswing. Euro area monetary policy is currently restrictive – but it’s set to get less restrictive over time. The likelihood of rates coming down is hardly bad news for growth. But policymakers will need to take care to not reignite inflation in the process. So all of that gives rise to the gradualism that the European Central Bank has been signaling it will use in its policy easing approach. And again, think about the landing strip metaphor. If we are not gradual enough and we reignite a growth too much, and with it inflation, we might be exiting the landing strip in one way or the other.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MACtp2H6E6_lmSJ5rz6KjpxyVAzyxZcXhbQXxL6BzB0Thu, 30 May 2024 21:47:17 +0000gtyOur Chief Europe Economist explains why the region’s outlook over the next year is trending upward, including how higher growth will lead to lower interest rates this cycle. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jens...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Europe Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss our outlook for Europe’s economy in the second half of 2024 and into next year. It’s Thursday, May 30 at 10am in Frankfurt.So, over the last year, we have had a relatively downbeat outlook for Europe's economy, but as we head into the second half of this year our view is decidedly more optimistic. After bottoming last year, euro area growth should reach 0.7 per cent annualized terms in 2024 and 1.2 per cent in 2025 on the back of stronger consumption and exports. Inflation is on its way to the European Central Bank’s target, paving the way for the ECB to start cutting rates in June with three cuts in 2024, for a total of 75 basis points, and four more cuts in 2025, for a total of 100 basis points.What’s particularly notable, though, is the set-up of this growth rebound is highly unusual for several reasons.Let's start with inflation. In a normal environment, higher growth leads to higher inflation and vice versa. This time is different. The euro area needs to grow faster to get inflation down. The reason is that faster growth should lead to better resource utilization in sectors characterized by labor hoarding or keeping a surplus of employees. This should keep unit labor costs – or how much a business pays its workers to produce one unit of output – in check. We’re expecting further wage increases, mostly driven by the catch-up with past inflation, and so higher productivity is a way to cushion the pass-through to prices.So again, just to repeat, we are in a cycle where we need higher growth to get inflation down and not as usual, we have higher growth and that gets us more inflation. Of course, there is a limit to that. If we get too much growth, that would be an issue potentially for the ECB. And if you get too little growth, that is another issue because then we won't get the productivity rebound.In some sense, you could think of the growth we need as a landing strip and we need to come in at that landing strip precisely; and so far, the signs are there that is exactly the picture we are getting in 2024 and 2025 in Europe.Now the monetary and fiscal policy mix is another area where this cycle stands out. So normally, monetary policy would tighten into an upswing and ease into a downturn, while fiscal policy would be expansionary in a downturn and contractionary in an upswing. Euro area monetary policy is currently restrictive – but it’s set to get less restrictive over time. The likelihood of rates coming down is hardly bad news for growth. But policymakers will need to take care to not reignite inflation in the process. So all of that gives rise to the gradualism that the European Central Bank has been signaling it will use in its policy easing approach. And again, think about the landing strip metaphor. If we are not gradual enough and we reignite a growth too much, and with it inflation, we might be exiting the landing strip in one way or the other.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>220alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1134fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-questions-about-the-us-elections--75651350----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the upcoming US elections.It's Wednesday, May 29th at 10:30am in New York.I recently returned from Tokyo, having attended and presented at Morgan Stanley's inaugural Japan summit. And while I was asked to present on topics ranging from our fixed income markets outlook to the role of Japan in an increasingly multipolar world, my one-on-one conversations always tracked back to the same client question: who will win the US election.Of course this is a matter of great importance globally. But the investor in Japan is particularly interested in whether possible election outcomes could disrupt their rosy economic outlook – either through new tariffs or increased geopolitical tensions between the US and China, and also North Korea. To that end, many were focused on polls showing former President Trump with sufficient support to win the election, asking how predictive this would be of the ultimate outcome. Here our view remains, for all investors, that polls aren't giving a reliable signal yet. The election is still several months away. And Trump doesn't have leads beyond a normal polling error in sufficient states to win the presidency. So, investors still need to consider the potential impacts of a variety of US electoral outcomes. That's perhaps not the most settling answer for investors, who strive to limit uncertainties. But we think it's the most honest one. And as we've been doing in this space all year, we'll continue to walk you through the outcomes, policy impacts, and resulting market effects you need to be aware of. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-uhvjzdOaUbPPMOmNNf7iRctlwrmd152Sf6mko4HSQ4Wed, 29 May 2024 20:59:37 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research reflects on Japanese investors’ interest in the outcome of the upcoming presidential vote in the US. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the upcoming US elections.It's Wednesday, May 29th at 10:30am in New York.I recently returned from Tokyo, having attended and presented at Morgan Stanley's inaugural Japan summit. And while I was asked to present on topics ranging from our fixed income markets outlook to the role of Japan in an increasingly multipolar world, my one-on-one conversations always tracked back to the same client question: who will win the US election.Of course this is a matter of great importance globally. But the investor in Japan is particularly interested in whether possible election outcomes could disrupt their rosy economic outlook – either through new tariffs or increased geopolitical tensions between the US and China, and also North Korea. To that end, many were focused on polls showing former President Trump with sufficient support to win the election, asking how predictive this would be of the ultimate outcome. Here our view remains, for all investors, that polls aren't giving a reliable signal yet. The election is still several months away. And Trump doesn't have leads beyond a normal polling error in sufficient states to win the presidency. So, investors still need to consider the potential impacts of a variety of US electoral outcomes. That's perhaps not the most settling answer for investors, who strive to limit uncertainties. But we think it's the most honest one. And as we've been doing in this space all year, we'll continue to walk you through the outcomes, policy impacts, and resulting market effects you need to be aware of. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>126alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1133fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-european-equities-outlook-in-the-sweet-spot--75651415----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley’s Chief European Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss why our mid-year outlook extends our bullish view on European equities. It’s Tuesday, May 28, at 10am in London. We have recently updated our outlook for the year ahead, maintaining our bullish view on European equities as we fully incorporate and roll forward our mid-1990s “soft landing” playbook. Like today, the mid-1990's was a period where markets focused on rates, inflation, and related data above anything else. The US and Europe saw soft and “softish” landings, the Fed’s cutting cycle was slower than investors initially expected, and there was an undercurrent of technological innovation. European equities, in particular, are following the mid-1990s path closely, and that means both a mid-cycle extension and a strong market set-up. We have high conviction in our constructive European equities view and have recently raised our one year forward MSCI Europe Index target to 2,500 – 18 percent potential upside. This brings potential total return upside – if we incorporate dividends and buybacks – to 23 percent. So why do we remain bullish? Over the second half of this year in particular we anticipate European equities ongoing re-rating is likely to combine with an emerging European equities earnings recovery. We’ve just come out of one of the strongest earnings seasons Europe has had in several quarters and we anticipate this is only the beginning. Our earnings model projects 7.5 percent earnings growth by year end for MSCI Europe, which is almost double consensus estimates. On top of this, we think the market underappreciates a number of significant thematic tailwinds that benefit European equities. These include rising corporate confidence, an M&A cycle recovery that is leading the global trend, an imminent start to rate cuts, high and rising capital distributions including buybacks, and underappreciated AI diffusion. In terms of our sector preferences, structurally, we continue to prefer Europe’s quality growth sectors. These include Software, Aerospace & Defense, Pharma, and Semiconductors, along with the Banks sector. Shorter-term, we also believe a recovery in bond yield-sensitive stocks has begun, which is expected at this stage in our mid-1990s playbook. We expect this rally to be tactical and bumpy but ultimately more powerful than a similar rotation that occurred around the Fed pivot late last year. We recently upgraded Building & Construction to overweight to play this rotation. Although we believe European equities are in the sweet spot over the second half of 2024, we expect the bar for continued performance to become tougher by the time we get into first half of 2025. Also, our bear case incorporates rising geopolitical risks and lower-than-expected economic growth – the latter in line with our economists' bear case. A US election scenario that would bring a change in the status quo is also a risk for European equities, albeit it’s far more idiosyncratic than broad-based according to our in-depth analysis. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rIfeqqFnRLHQ1IU-8vVV4UePMiJPr-LuGj-nIAJn1vsTue, 28 May 2024 21:38:20 +0000gtyOur Chief Europe Equity Strategist explains why she is forecasting a 23 percent total return for European equities over the next year. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley’s Chief European...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley’s Chief European Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss why our mid-year outlook extends our bullish view on European equities. It’s Tuesday, May 28, at 10am in London. We have recently updated our outlook for the year ahead, maintaining our bullish view on European equities as we fully incorporate and roll forward our mid-1990s “soft landing” playbook. Like today, the mid-1990's was a period where markets focused on rates, inflation, and related data above anything else. The US and Europe saw soft and “softish” landings, the Fed’s cutting cycle was slower than investors initially expected, and there was an undercurrent of technological innovation. European equities, in particular, are following the mid-1990s path closely, and that means both a mid-cycle extension and a strong market set-up. We have high conviction in our constructive European equities view and have recently raised our one year forward MSCI Europe Index target to 2,500 – 18 percent potential upside. This brings potential total return upside – if we incorporate dividends and buybacks – to 23 percent. So why do we remain bullish? Over the second half of this year in particular we anticipate European equities ongoing re-rating is likely to combine with an emerging European equities earnings recovery. We’ve just come out of one of the strongest earnings seasons Europe has had in several quarters and we anticipate this is only the beginning. Our earnings model projects 7.5 percent earnings growth by year end for MSCI Europe, which is almost double consensus estimates. On top of this, we think the market underappreciates a number of significant thematic tailwinds that benefit European equities. These include rising corporate confidence, an M&A cycle recovery that is leading the global trend, an imminent start to rate cuts, high and rising capital distributions including buybacks, and underappreciated AI diffusion. In terms of our sector preferences, structurally, we continue to prefer Europe’s quality growth sectors. These include Software, Aerospace & Defense, Pharma, and Semiconductors, along with the Banks sector. Shorter-term, we also believe a recovery in bond yield-sensitive stocks has begun, which is expected at this stage in our mid-1990s playbook. We expect this rally to be tactical and bumpy but ultimately more powerful than a similar rotation that occurred around the Fed pivot late last year. We recently upgraded Building & Construction to overweight to play this rotation. Although we believe European equities are in the sweet spot over the second half of 2024, we expect the bar for continued performance to become tougher by the time we get into first half of 2025. Also, our bear case incorporates rising geopolitical risks and lower-than-expected economic growth – the latter in line with our economists' bear case. A US election scenario that would bring a change in the status quo is also a risk for European equities, albeit it’s far more idiosyncratic than broad-based according to our in-depth analysis. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>208alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1132fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-credit-outlook-favors-moderation--75651376----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley, along with my colleagues, bring you a variety of perspectives Today, I'll be talking about our outlook for credit markets over the next 12 months.It's Friday, May 24th, at 9 a. m. in New York. Morgan Stanley's global economic and strategy teams have recently published our mid year outlook. Twice a year, all of us get together to take a step back, debating what we think the outlook could look like over the 12 months ahead. For credit, we think that backdrop still looks pretty good.Corporate credit, in representing lending to companies, is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. An economy that's too weak raises the risk that companies fail, and has been consistently bad for returns. But an economy that's too strong also causes challenges, as companies take more risks, the rewards of which often go to stockholders, not their lenders.The good news for credit is that Morgan Stanley's latest economic forecasts are absolutely full of moderation for economic growth. We see the U.S. growing at about 2 percent this year and next and Europe growing at about 1%. Right in that temperate zone, the credit usually finds optimal.We see inflation falling, with core inflation back to 2 percent in the U. S. and Europe over the next 12 months. And monetary policy should also moderate, with the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, and the Bank of England All lowering interest rates as this inflation comes down.For credit, forecasts that expect moderate growth, moderating inflation, and moderating interest rates are exactly that down the fairway outcome that we think markets generally like. The challenge, of course, is that spreads have narrowed and lower risk premiums are discounting a lot of good news. So how do investors navigate richer valuations within what we think is still a very supportive economic backdrop?One thing we continue to like is leveraged loans, where yields and spreads we think are more attractive. In the U. S., yields on loans are still north of 9%. We like short dated investment grade bonds, which we think offer a good mix of income and stability, and also happen to correspond to the maturity range that our interest rate colleagues expect yields to see the largest decline.That should help total returns. And in Europe, we don't think spreads are particularly tight. And that should be further supported by relatively upbeat views on the European stock market from our equity strategies. Morgan Stanley's macroeconomic backdrop, which is full of moderation, is supportive for credit.Tighter valuations are a challenge, but given this moderate backdrop, we think they can stay expensive. We still think there are good opportunities within credit, but investors will have to pick their spots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fIdHGVuoQgtgCjntECmM_xuIG-NiZkzFmIEDUsIMuBAFri, 24 May 2024 21:21:14 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why moderate economic growth offers opportunities in credit markets – if investors choose carefully. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley, along with my colleagues, bring you a variety of perspectives Today, I'll be talking about our outlook for credit markets over the next 12 months.It's Friday, May 24th, at 9 a. m. in New York. Morgan Stanley's global economic and strategy teams have recently published our mid year outlook. Twice a year, all of us get together to take a step back, debating what we think the outlook could look like over the 12 months ahead. For credit, we think that backdrop still looks pretty good.Corporate credit, in representing lending to companies, is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. An economy that's too weak raises the risk that companies fail, and has been consistently bad for returns. But an economy that's too strong also causes challenges, as companies take more risks, the rewards of which often go to stockholders, not their lenders.The good news for credit is that Morgan Stanley's latest economic forecasts are absolutely full of moderation for economic growth. We see the U.S. growing at about 2 percent this year and next and Europe growing at about 1%. Right in that temperate zone, the credit usually finds optimal.We see inflation falling, with core inflation back to 2 percent in the U. S. and Europe over the next 12 months. And monetary policy should also moderate, with the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, and the Bank of England All lowering interest rates as this inflation comes down.For credit, forecasts that expect moderate growth, moderating inflation, and moderating interest rates are exactly that down the fairway outcome that we think markets generally like. The challenge, of course, is that spreads have narrowed and lower risk premiums are discounting a lot of good news. So how do investors navigate richer valuations within what we think is still a very supportive economic backdrop?One thing we continue to like is leveraged loans, where yields and spreads we think are more attractive. In the U. S., yields on loans are still north of 9%. We like short dated investment grade bonds, which we think offer a good mix of income and stability, and also happen to correspond to the maturity range that our interest rate colleagues expect yields to see the largest decline.That should help total returns. And in Europe, we don't think spreads are particularly tight. And that should be further supported by relatively upbeat views on the European stock market from our equity strategies. Morgan Stanley's macroeconomic backdrop, which is full of moderation, is supportive for credit.Tighter valuations are a challenge, but given this moderate backdrop, we think they can stay expensive. We still think there are good opportunities within credit, but investors will have to pick their spots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.
]]>189alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1131fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-housing-outlook-is-home-sale-activity-picking-up--75652949----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our outlook for mortgage rates and the housing market over the next 12 months.It's Thursday, May 23rd, at 1pm in New York.James Egan: Jay, I want to talk about mortgage rates. From November through January, mortgage rates decreased over 120 basis points. But then from February to May, they've given back more than half of that decline. Where are mortgage rates headed from here?Jay Bacow: So, day to day, week to week, it's hard to have a lot of conviction, a lot of things can happen. But, over the next 12 months, we think mortgage rates are coming down. We estimate that by summer 2025, the 30-year fixed rate mortgage will be roughly 6.25 per cent.James Egan: Alright, that is a significant amount lower than about 7 per cent where we are right now. And that's good news for affordability in the US housing market. What gets us there?Jay Bacow: We think inflation is going to cool, and our economists are forecasting that the Fed is going to cut their policy rate by 75 basis points this year and 100 basis points next year. In fact, our economists are forecasting eight of the G10 central banks to cut rates next year.Now, mortgage rates are 30 year fixed rate products, so they're based more on where the longer end of the treasury curve is than the front end. But our rate strategists think ten year notes are going to rally to 375 by next summer.When you combine all of that with our expectation for secondary mortgage rates to tighten versus treasuries, that's how we end up with that forecast for the primary rate to rally.James Egan: All right, I want to dig in there. I really like how you highlighted the secondary mortgage rates tightening versus treasuries. One thing I know that we've both gotten a lot of questions on over the course of the past year plus is how wide mortgages are trading versus treasuries right now. So, what do you think drives that tightening basis?Jay Bacow: There’s a lot of factors -- but in end, two of them that are always going to drive things are supply and demand. One of the interesting things is that while housing activity has picked up, we're near the decade high in the percentage of homes that are bought with all cash, which means that the supply of mortgages to the market is actually not that high.On the demand front, we think you're going to get demand from a broad spread of investors. We think there's been some money manager supported inflows into the mortgage market. We think that as the Fed cuts rates and you get the Basel III endgame resolution, domestic banks are going to come back to the market as they get more regulatory clarity.And then also as the Fed cuts rates, that means that FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs for overseas investors will be improved and so you think Japanese life insurance companies can go back to the market and we think there's going to be continued demand from Chinese commercial banks. But, if you get all of this support, then as mortgage rates come down, that should be good news on the affordability front in the housing market, right Jim?James Egan: Exactly. When we combine that decrease in mortgage rates with what our US economics team is saying will be about mid-single digit growth in nominal incomes, we get an improvement in affordability over the next 12 months that we've only seen a handful of times over the past 30 years.Jay Bacow: Now this six and a quarter forecast is certainly good news versus spot rates. It's almost two per cent below the peaks we saw last year, but I don't really think it solves the lock-in effect that we've discussed on this podcast previously.Close to 80 per cent of homeowners have a mortgage rate below 5 per cent. So, they're still out of the money versus our expectations for our mortgage rates going next year.James Egan: Right, and we think that's a very important point. You made the point earlier about thinking about supply and demand with respect to mortgage rates versus treasuries, and we're going to talk about it here in the housing market. We have to think about affordability improvement in terms of both that supply and demand piece.If we look back towards the start of this year, I'd say that demand increased a little bit faster, a little bit stronger than we thought. Typically, when you see sharp improvements in affordability, it doesn't always lead to immediate increases in sales volumes. However, what we saw from November to January seemed to be a little bit quicker to stir animal spirits, perhaps because of how healthy this improvement in affordability was. Home prices were still climbing. Mortgage rates weren't even coming down because the Fed was cutting; it was because of market expectations for future fed cuts in a soft landing environment. But on the supply side, while we expect for sale listing volumes to increase as rates come down, they aren't going to race higher because of that lock-in dynamic that you just described.Jay Bacow: So, Jim, you think more people will list their homes; but what will actually happen to sales volumes? Will people buy them?James Egan: Right. So, I think we have to delineate between existing home sales and new home sales here. Yes, we think existing listings are going to increase on the margins. New home inventory has already increased.Historically, new homes make up about 10 to 20 per cent of the for-sale inventory on a monthly basis. Right now, they're between 30 and 35 per cent, and that's been the case for a little while. So, when we think about our forecasts for sales volumes, we're confident that new home sales will increase more than existing home sales. And that that growth in new home sales will spur single unit starts to increase more than both of them. Our specific spot forecasts, 10 per cent growth in new home sales, 5 per cent growth in existing home sales, with single unit starts edging out a double digit return of about 15 per cent growth. Jay Bacow: Do you have specific spot forecasts for home prices as well? James Egan: We do. As supply increases, the pace of home price growth should slow from where it is right now. It's been accelerating for the past several months, but the absolute level of supply is still pretty tight. We're at 3.8 months of supply as we're recording this podcast. Any reading below 6 is really associated with home price growth, not just today, but at least over the course of the next 6 months -- and we're well below 6 months of inventory.Right now, home prices are growing at about 6.5 per cent. We think they're growing to slow to about 2 per cent by the end of 2024, before accelerating to 3 per cent in 2025. So, while growing inventory leads to deceleration, tight inventory keeps home price appreciation positive.Jay Bacow: Alright so, home sale activity is going to pick up. It's going to be led by starts, which we think will be up 15 percent and more new home sales than existing home sales. There’s new home sales up 10 per cent. Home prices we now think will end the year positive; up 2 per cent in 2024 and up 3 per cent in 2025.Jim, always a pleasure talking.James Egan: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zoEHGaRP93zdwUdl7Aqatfi9tOOEgKGrlRQCle6akx4Thu, 23 May 2024 20:00:00 +0000gtyWith cooling inflation and an expected drop for mortgage rates, will more affordable housing lead to a big spike in sales? Our Co-Heads of Securitized Product Research take stock of the US housing market.  ----- Transcript ----- Jay Bacow: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our outlook for mortgage rates and the housing market over the next 12 months.It's Thursday, May 23rd, at 1pm in New York.James Egan: Jay, I want to talk about mortgage rates. From November through January, mortgage rates decreased over 120 basis points. But then from February to May, they've given back more than half of that decline. Where are mortgage rates headed from here?Jay Bacow: So, day to day, week to week, it's hard to have a lot of conviction, a lot of things can happen. But, over the next 12 months, we think mortgage rates are coming down. We estimate that by summer 2025, the 30-year fixed rate mortgage will be roughly 6.25 per cent.James Egan: Alright, that is a significant amount lower than about 7 per cent where we are right now. And that's good news for affordability in the US housing market. What gets us there?Jay Bacow: We think inflation is going to cool, and our economists are forecasting that the Fed is going to cut their policy rate by 75 basis points this year and 100 basis points next year. In fact, our economists are forecasting eight of the G10 central banks to cut rates next year.Now, mortgage rates are 30 year fixed rate products, so they're based more on where the longer end of the treasury curve is than the front end. But our rate strategists think ten year notes are going to rally to 375 by next summer.When you combine all of that with our expectation for secondary mortgage rates to tighten versus treasuries, that's how we end up with that forecast for the primary rate to rally.James Egan: All right, I want to dig in there. I really like how you highlighted the secondary mortgage rates tightening versus treasuries. One thing I know that we've both gotten a lot of questions on over the course of the past year plus is how wide mortgages are trading versus treasuries right now. So, what do you think drives that tightening basis?Jay Bacow: There’s a lot of factors -- but in end, two of them that are always going to drive things are supply and demand. One of the interesting things is that while housing activity has picked up, we're near the decade high in the percentage of homes that are bought with all cash, which means that the supply of mortgages to the market is actually not that high.On the demand front, we think you're going to get demand from a broad spread of investors. We think there's been some money manager supported inflows into the mortgage market. We think that as the Fed cuts rates and you get the Basel III endgame resolution, domestic banks are going to come back to the market as they get more regulatory clarity.And then also as the Fed cuts rates, that means that FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs for overseas investors will be improved and so you think Japanese life insurance companies can go back to the market and we think there's going to be continued demand from Chinese commercial banks. But, if you get all of this support, then as mortgage rates come down, that should be good news on the affordability front in the housing market, right Jim?James Egan: Exactly. When we combine that decrease in mortgage rates with what our US economics team is saying will be about mid-single digit growth in nominal incomes, we get an improvement in affordability over the next 12 months that we've only seen a handful of times over the past 30 years.Jay Bacow: Now this six and a quarter forecast is certainly good news versus spot rates. It's almost two per cent below the peaks we saw...]]>414alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1130fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-us-economic-outlook-continued-resilience--75652917----- Transcript -----
Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief US Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our mid-year outlook for the US economy. As we near the midpoint of this year, we refresh our outlook for the second half of the year. In our base case, the US economy remains strong, but US GDP growth is slowing, and slowing from 3.1 percent on a fourth quarter over fourth quarter basis last year, to 2.1 percent this year and in 2025.Okay, so what's behind the continued strength? Well, it's something we've been intensely following this year. Faster immigration and population growth will continue to expand the labor supply and support economic activity, and all without increasing inflationary pressures. So, whereas the mid-pandemic labor market was characterized by persistent shortage of labor, the supply of labor is now increasing, and we think will outstrip demand this year.This will drive the unemployment rate higher, which we expect will end this year half a point above 2023 at 4.2 per cent and rise further to 4.5 per cent in 2025. And wage gains should moderate further as the unemployment rate rises. We think consumer activity will continue to slow this year and into 2025 as that cooling labor market weighs on growth in real disposable income and elevated interest rates keep borrowing costs high.Tight lending standards also limit credit availability. That said, we do think lower rates are on the horizon, and this should spur a pickup in housing demand and goods spending around the middle of next year. In fact, after substantial reflation numbers in the first quarter of 2024, we expect lower inflation numbers ahead. We've already seen that in the April data, as rents, goods, and services prices decelerate. The Fed has held the policy rate steady at a range of 5.25 to 5.5 per cent since July 2023, and we expect it will deliver the first quarter point cut in September this year. In total, we expect three quarter point cuts this year, and four more by the middle of next year, which lowers the policy rate to around 4.5 per cent in the fourth quarter this year to about 3.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2025. But even before rate cuts, the Fed has announced it will start phasing out Quantitative Tightening, or QT, in June. We expect QT to end around March 2025, when the Fed's balance sheet is a little above 3 trillion.Finally, let's talk about housing. We expect continued growth in residential investment through 2025, with a rapid rise in housing starts, solid new home sales, and a bit more turnover in existing home sales as mortgage rates fall. Home building and increased brokerage commissions should keep residential investment on the boil, posting a 4.6 per cent rise on a 4th quarter over 4th quarter basis this year and 3.2 per cent in 2025. Our residential investment forecasts are a good deal stronger than we expected in the year ahead outlook we published last November. Booming first quarter growth probably reflected a combination of the warm winter and the temporary downswing in mortgage rates. We don't expect the same outperformance later in the year. But at the same time, housing demand is greater than we had anticipated amid that faster population growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/k6sGv3fRv2ieuy2nVSb9sV6STRIZfYP7bc6pK29iVRoWed, 22 May 2024 18:23:13 +0000gtyWhy is the US economy poised for a strong second half of the year, despite slowing GDP growth? Our Chief US Economist points to population growth, housing demand and anticipated Fed rate cuts.  ----- Transcript ----- Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts...----- Transcript -----
Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief US Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our mid-year outlook for the US economy. As we near the midpoint of this year, we refresh our outlook for the second half of the year. In our base case, the US economy remains strong, but US GDP growth is slowing, and slowing from 3.1 percent on a fourth quarter over fourth quarter basis last year, to 2.1 percent this year and in 2025.Okay, so what's behind the continued strength? Well, it's something we've been intensely following this year. Faster immigration and population growth will continue to expand the labor supply and support economic activity, and all without increasing inflationary pressures. So, whereas the mid-pandemic labor market was characterized by persistent shortage of labor, the supply of labor is now increasing, and we think will outstrip demand this year.This will drive the unemployment rate higher, which we expect will end this year half a point above 2023 at 4.2 per cent and rise further to 4.5 per cent in 2025. And wage gains should moderate further as the unemployment rate rises. We think consumer activity will continue to slow this year and into 2025 as that cooling labor market weighs on growth in real disposable income and elevated interest rates keep borrowing costs high.Tight lending standards also limit credit availability. That said, we do think lower rates are on the horizon, and this should spur a pickup in housing demand and goods spending around the middle of next year. In fact, after substantial reflation numbers in the first quarter of 2024, we expect lower inflation numbers ahead. We've already seen that in the April data, as rents, goods, and services prices decelerate. The Fed has held the policy rate steady at a range of 5.25 to 5.5 per cent since July 2023, and we expect it will deliver the first quarter point cut in September this year. In total, we expect three quarter point cuts this year, and four more by the middle of next year, which lowers the policy rate to around 4.5 per cent in the fourth quarter this year to about 3.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2025. But even before rate cuts, the Fed has announced it will start phasing out Quantitative Tightening, or QT, in June. We expect QT to end around March 2025, when the Fed's balance sheet is a little above 3 trillion.Finally, let's talk about housing. We expect continued growth in residential investment through 2025, with a rapid rise in housing starts, solid new home sales, and a bit more turnover in existing home sales as mortgage rates fall. Home building and increased brokerage commissions should keep residential investment on the boil, posting a 4.6 per cent rise on a 4th quarter over 4th quarter basis this year and 3.2 per cent in 2025. Our residential investment forecasts are a good deal stronger than we expected in the year ahead outlook we published last November. Booming first quarter growth probably reflected a combination of the warm winter and the temporary downswing in mortgage rates. We don't expect the same outperformance later in the year. But at the same time, housing demand is greater than we had anticipated amid that faster population growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>234alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1129fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-cross-asset-outlook-bullish-possibilities--75652931----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross Asset Strategist.Seth Carpenter: And yesterday, Serena, you and I discussed Morgan Stanley's global economic mid-year outlook. And today, I'm going to turn the tables on you, and we'll talk about asset markets.It's Tuesday, May 21st, at 10am in New York.Okay, so yesterday we talked about all sorts of different parts of the macro environment. Disinflation, inflation, central bank policy, growth. But when you think about all of that -- that macro backdrop -- what does it mean to you for markets across the world?Serena Tang: Right, I think the outlook laid out by your team of stable growth, disinflation, rate cuts. That is a great backdrop for risk assets, one of the reasons why we got overweight in global equities. Now, there will likely be low visibility and uncertainty beyond year end, and why we recommend investors should focus on the triple C's of cheap optionality, convexity, and carry.That very benign backdrop suggests more bullish possibilities. Your team has noted several times now that the patterns we're seeing now and what we expect have parallels to what happened in the mid 1990s -- when the Fed cut in small increments, US growth was sustained at high levels, and the labor market was strong. And now I'm not suggesting that this is 1990s and we should party like it. But just that the last time we found ourselves in this kind of benign macro environment, risk assets -- actually most markets did really well.Seth Carpenter: So, I will say the 1990s was a pretty good decade for me. However, you mentioned some uncertainty ahead, low visibility. We titled our macroeconomic outlook ‘Are we there yet?’ Because I agree, we do feel like we're on a path to something pretty good, but we're not out of the woods yet. So, when you say there's some low visibility about where asset markets are going, maybe beyond year end, what do you mean by that?Serena Tang: I think there's less visibility going into 2025. And specifically, I'm talking about the US elections. When I think about the range of possible outcomes, all I can confidently say is that it's wide, which I think you can see reflected in our strategist's latest forecast. Most teams actually have relatively constructive forecast returns for their assets in the base case, but there's an unusually wide gap between their bull and bear cases for bond and equity markets.Seth Carpenter: Let me narrow it down a little bit because equity markets have actually performed pretty well during the first half of the year. So what do you think is going to happen specifically with equities going forward? How should we be thinking about equity markets per se?Serena Tang: Equities have rallied a lot, but we've actually gotten more bullish. I talked about the three Cs of cheap optionality, convexity, and carry earlier, and I think European and Japanese equities really tick these boxes. Both of these markets also have above average dividend yields, especially for a dollar-based FX hedge investor.Serena Tang: Where we think there might be some underperformance is really in EM equities, but it's a bit nuanced. Our China equity strategy team thinks that consensus mid-teens earnings growth expectation for this year will still likely to disappoint given the Chinese growth forecast that you talked about yesterday.Seth Carpenter: Alright, in that case. Let me flip over to fixed income. A lot of that is often driven by central banks. Around the world, you just mentioned EM equities may be struggling a little bit. A lot of EM central banks are either cutting a little bit ahead of the Fed, but being cautious, worrying about not getting too far ahead of the Fed. So, if that's what's going on with policy rates at the very front end of the curve, what's happening in fixed income more broadly?Serena Tang: We generally see government bond yields lower over the forecast horizon for two reasons. On your team's forecast of central banks cutting rates and also in the US, an optical rise in the unemployment rate, our macro strategy team forecasts for the 10 year U.S. Treasury yields to fall to just above 4 per cent by the end of this year. And because government bond yields will be coming down, we also expect yields for spread products like agency MBS, investment grade, etc. to also come down. But I think for these spread products, returns can be positive beyond that duration piece.Serena Tang: So, credit loves moderation, and I think the mild growth backdrop your team is forecasting for is exactly that. US fixed income more generally should also see renewed flows from Japanese investors as FX hedging costs come down over the next six months. All of this supports tighter than average spreads.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so we talked about equities, we talked about fixed income. Big asset class that we haven't talked about yet are commodities. How bullish are you going into the summer? What do you think is going to go on and can that bullish view that you guys have last even longer?Serena Tang: So for crude oil, our strategists see market tightness over the summer, which could drive Brent to about $90 per barrel. You have demand coming in stronger than expected, and of course OPEC has extended its production agreement.But we also don't really expect prices to hold over the medium term. Non-OPEC supply should meet most of the global demand growth later this year and into 2025, which sort of leaves very little room for OPEC to unwind production cuts. We expect Brent to revert back steadily to its long-term anchor, which is probably somewhere around $80 per barrel.Serena Tang: For copper, it’s actually our metal strategist's top pick right now, and it's very much driven by, I think, tightening supply and demand balance. You've had significant mine supply disruptions, but also better than expected demand and new drivers such as -- we've talked about AI a lot, data centers and increasing participation.Serena Tang: And on gold, in our view, pricing is likely to remain pretty choppy as investors have to weigh inflation risk, incoming data, and the Fed path. But historically, that first rate cut tends to be a very positive catalyst for gold. And we see risks more skewed to our bull case at the moment.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so talked about equities, talked about fixed income, talked about commodities. These are global markets, and often when investors are looking around the world and thinking about what it means for them, currencies come into it, and everybody's always going to be looking at the dollar. So why don't you run us through the Morgan Stanley view on where the US dollar is going to go over the rest of this year, and maybe over the next 12 months.Serena Tang: The short answer is we see the dollar staying stronger for longer. Yes, we expect central banks to begin cutting this year. But the pace of cuts and ultimate destinations are likely to vary widely. Now another potential dollar tailwind is an increased risk premium being priced for the 2024 US elections. We think that investors may begin to price in material risks to dollar positive changes in US foreign and trade policy as the election approaches, which we assume will sort of begin ramping up in the third quarter.Seth Carpenter: All right, let's step back from the details. I want you to bring us home now. Give me some strategy. So where should people lean in, where should we be looking for the best returns and where do we need to be super cautious?Serena Tang: In our asset allocation recommendation, we recommend overweight in global equities, overweight in spread products, equal weight in commodities, and underweight in cash.We really like European and Japanese equities on the back of pretty strong earnings revision, attractive relative valuations, and good carry for a dollar based investor. We like spread products. Not so much that our strategists are not expecting duration to do well. We are still expecting yields to come down.Serena Tang: Where we are most cautious on, really, continues to be EM equities. From a very top down perspective, the outlook we have is constructive stable growth, continued disinflation, rate cuts. These make for a good environment for risk assets. But uncertainties beyond year end, that really argues for investors to look for assets which have those triple Cs, cheap optionality, convexity, and carry.And we think Japanese and European equities and spread products within fixed income take those boxes.Seth Carpenter: Alright, looking at the clock, I'm going to have to cut you off there. I could talk to you all day. Thank you for coming in and letting me turn the tables relative to yesterday when you were asking me all the questions.Serena Tang: Great speaking with you, Seth. And yes, I know we can go on forever.Seth Carpenter: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. And share this episode with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2EF8dJaNf2k0kCuco2nL7pWpOZ0PRMRfC_dE1m2qhksTue, 21 May 2024 21:49:08 +0000gtyOur Global Cross-Asset Strategist and Global Chief Economist discuss the state of asset markets at the midway point of 2024, and why the current backdrop suggests positive directions for several key markets. ----- Transcript ----- Seth...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross Asset Strategist.Seth Carpenter: And yesterday, Serena, you and I discussed Morgan Stanley's global economic mid-year outlook. And today, I'm going to turn the tables on you, and we'll talk about asset markets.It's Tuesday, May 21st, at 10am in New York.Okay, so yesterday we talked about all sorts of different parts of the macro environment. Disinflation, inflation, central bank policy, growth. But when you think about all of that -- that macro backdrop -- what does it mean to you for markets across the world?Serena Tang: Right, I think the outlook laid out by your team of stable growth, disinflation, rate cuts. That is a great backdrop for risk assets, one of the reasons why we got overweight in global equities. Now, there will likely be low visibility and uncertainty beyond year end, and why we recommend investors should focus on the triple C's of cheap optionality, convexity, and carry.That very benign backdrop suggests more bullish possibilities. Your team has noted several times now that the patterns we're seeing now and what we expect have parallels to what happened in the mid 1990s -- when the Fed cut in small increments, US growth was sustained at high levels, and the labor market was strong. And now I'm not suggesting that this is 1990s and we should party like it. But just that the last time we found ourselves in this kind of benign macro environment, risk assets -- actually most markets did really well.Seth Carpenter: So, I will say the 1990s was a pretty good decade for me. However, you mentioned some uncertainty ahead, low visibility. We titled our macroeconomic outlook ‘Are we there yet?’ Because I agree, we do feel like we're on a path to something pretty good, but we're not out of the woods yet. So, when you say there's some low visibility about where asset markets are going, maybe beyond year end, what do you mean by that?Serena Tang: I think there's less visibility going into 2025. And specifically, I'm talking about the US elections. When I think about the range of possible outcomes, all I can confidently say is that it's wide, which I think you can see reflected in our strategist's latest forecast. Most teams actually have relatively constructive forecast returns for their assets in the base case, but there's an unusually wide gap between their bull and bear cases for bond and equity markets.Seth Carpenter: Let me narrow it down a little bit because equity markets have actually performed pretty well during the first half of the year. So what do you think is going to happen specifically with equities going forward? How should we be thinking about equity markets per se?Serena Tang: Equities have rallied a lot, but we've actually gotten more bullish. I talked about the three Cs of cheap optionality, convexity, and carry earlier, and I think European and Japanese equities really tick these boxes. Both of these markets also have above average dividend yields, especially for a dollar-based FX hedge investor.Serena Tang: Where we think there might be some underperformance is really in EM equities, but it's a bit nuanced. Our China equity strategy team thinks that consensus mid-teens earnings growth expectation for this year will still likely to disappoint given the Chinese growth forecast that you talked about yesterday.Seth Carpenter: Alright, in that case. Let me flip over to fixed income. A lot of that is often driven by central banks. Around the world, you just mentioned EM equities may be struggling a little bit. A lot of EM central banks are either cutting a little bit ahead of the Fed, but...]]>547alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1128fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/midyear-economic-outlook-reasons-for-optimism--75652778----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's chief global cross-asset strategist.Seth Carpenter: And I’m Seth Carpenter. Morgan Stanley's global chief economist.Serena Tang: And on this two-part episode of the podcast, we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's global mid-year outlook. Today we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy.It's Monday, May 20th, at 10am in New York.So, Seth, we've seen a lot of volatile economic data since you published your 2024 year ahead outlook last November. The US has gone through a few months of downside inflation and upside growth surprises, followed by renewed inflationary pressures; and in China, real growth surprise to the upside, but deflation deepened. In contrast, India and Japan, your two strongest conviction bullish views, have played out so far.So, with all this in mind, Seth, what is your outlook for the global economy and its growth trajectory for the second half of this year and into 2025?Seth Carpenter: So, we're pretty optimistic. We see some mild deceleration in the US relative to last year's particularly strong growth but not collapsing. And I think that part is really important. The euro area growth, all the signs that we've had since we wrote the outlook in November, updating now it says that growth is actually bottomed out there and we're starting to see the initial recovery. Now, don't get carried away. It's not that it's gonna be this massive rebound. But there should be now a bottoming out gradual growth as inflation keeps coming down. That means that real wage growth is actually going to get stronger, and we think consumption starts to lead the way.China though, there we've surprised the upside but just an inflation adjusted growth because fiscal policy has been adding to capacity they're adding to the ability. And so, deflation has stayed. It's one of the longest and deepest deflationary episodes China has had. We think that's actually going to be exporting deflation to the rest of the world. But in terms of real growth, they're actually hanging in there around 5 per cent.Serena Tang: I'm glad you kind of highlighted the difference between what we're expecting for the US and Europe and what we're expecting for China, because one of the themes that I think you touched on in this outlook is divergence that you see some slowing in the US -- even though it's very stable, while the rest of the world really is where growth starts to pick up. So, what is driving this divergence? How persistent do you think it will be? And what does it mean for central bank policy?Seth Carpenter: Let me start with Europe and the US, the way you framed it. Like I said, European growth is probably bottom. They had more adverse shocks than the US did. So, the energy shock -- that was particularly damaging to German manufacturing, really slowed the European economy down. Whereas in the US, we had a lot of strong growth last year. Last year we had growth in the US at just over three per cent. Non-trivial amount of that growth was enabled by the surge of immigration, but we still see some residual impetus from fiscal policy.And so, where are we now? Inflation in the euro area is continuing to fall. In fact, it's clearer signal down than it has been, at least for the fourth quarter this year in the US. Growth is picking up, but not so much that it's going to re-spark inflation. So, we think the ECB is going to start to cut rates as soon as next month, as soon as the June meeting. Whereas for the US, we still have strong growth. Inflation sort of gave us that head fake in the first quarter, so the Fed's going to have to wait, we think probably until September.Serena Tang: And on the point of inflation, can you actually give us a snapshot of where we are right now and what your projections from here will be? You know, you talked about disinflation in the US. What's gonna be driving that?Seth Carpenter: I think the first thing to keep in mind is that just globally we see further disinflation and so the run up in inflation that was, by and large, a global phenomenon, we do see as abating. For the US specifically, though, I think there are a few parts that are really important and always the conversation has to deal with housing. There, in the United States, we measure housing inflation through rents, and we know various things. One recent readings on rents in the market right now have actually been moving roughly sideways. The statistical agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that creates the CPI, takes those market-based rents and then spreads it through an algorithm. And the official statistics reflect what's going on now over the next couple of quarters. So, for that reason alone, we think rent inflation, which is 40 per cent of core CPI, we think that keeps trending down over the rest of the year.We see some deflation in consumer goods. That's especially in automobiles. The deflation that we see in China, that's probably being exported to the rest of the world, contributes a little bit more to that downward pressure. So, we feel pretty convicted that the high inflation that we saw in the first quarter was more noise than signal, and we get greater disinflation as the year goes on.Serena Tang: So finally, I want to ask you about Japan specifically. It's the region where we're actually expecting rate hikes. Since it has gone through a structural shift recently, decades of deflation are now over, seems to be over. And so, what are your expectations there?Seth Carpenter: I think it is a fundamental shift here. We did have decades of essentially zero nominal growth and that is now clearly, in the rear-view mirror. We see wage inflation; we see price inflation. When I talk to our colleagues in research in Tokyo who cover the consumer sector, the mindset has shifted, and consumers are willing to accept these higher inflation prints.And so, in that regard, we do think very much we've shifted from that zero nominal growth, that sort of disinflationary-deflationary equilibrium, to one where inflation will be sustained above target. As a result, the Bank of Japan got rid of negative interest rate policy. And we think they're gonna hike into positive territory in July of this year. Probably again in the beginning of next year.All, as long as we're right, that inflation is here to stay and that seems very much the case. Now, why only two rate hikes then as opposed to more if the world is fundamentally different? And this, I think, is critical. Governor Ueda, the BOJ, is committed to making sure that we have shifted to this reflationary environment. And so, I do think he's going to be cautious and only hike as much as he can be confident that inflation stays high for the foreseeable future.Serena Tang: Seth, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Seth Carpenter: Serena, it's always great to talk to you.Serena Tang: And thanks for listening. Please be sure to tune in for Part Two of this episode, where Seth and I will discuss our mid-year strategy outlook. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JMjP_uEoXw7jRmESkyaH0thS03cmqhtI4347t8WypCUMon, 20 May 2024 22:21:48 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist and Global Cross-Asset Strategist discuss the state of the global economy at the midpoint of 2024, including how the U.S. and Europe are on growth trajectories despite volatile economic data. ----- Transcript ----- Serena...----- Transcript -----
Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's chief global cross-asset strategist.Seth Carpenter: And I’m Seth Carpenter. Morgan Stanley's global chief economist.Serena Tang: And on this two-part episode of the podcast, we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's global mid-year outlook. Today we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy.It's Monday, May 20th, at 10am in New York.So, Seth, we've seen a lot of volatile economic data since you published your 2024 year ahead outlook last November. The US has gone through a few months of downside inflation and upside growth surprises, followed by renewed inflationary pressures; and in China, real growth surprise to the upside, but deflation deepened. In contrast, India and Japan, your two strongest conviction bullish views, have played out so far.So, with all this in mind, Seth, what is your outlook for the global economy and its growth trajectory for the second half of this year and into 2025?Seth Carpenter: So, we're pretty optimistic. We see some mild deceleration in the US relative to last year's particularly strong growth but not collapsing. And I think that part is really important. The euro area growth, all the signs that we've had since we wrote the outlook in November, updating now it says that growth is actually bottomed out there and we're starting to see the initial recovery. Now, don't get carried away. It's not that it's gonna be this massive rebound. But there should be now a bottoming out gradual growth as inflation keeps coming down. That means that real wage growth is actually going to get stronger, and we think consumption starts to lead the way.China though, there we've surprised the upside but just an inflation adjusted growth because fiscal policy has been adding to capacity they're adding to the ability. And so, deflation has stayed. It's one of the longest and deepest deflationary episodes China has had. We think that's actually going to be exporting deflation to the rest of the world. But in terms of real growth, they're actually hanging in there around 5 per cent.Serena Tang: I'm glad you kind of highlighted the difference between what we're expecting for the US and Europe and what we're expecting for China, because one of the themes that I think you touched on in this outlook is divergence that you see some slowing in the US -- even though it's very stable, while the rest of the world really is where growth starts to pick up. So, what is driving this divergence? How persistent do you think it will be? And what does it mean for central bank policy?Seth Carpenter: Let me start with Europe and the US, the way you framed it. Like I said, European growth is probably bottom. They had more adverse shocks than the US did. So, the energy shock -- that was particularly damaging to German manufacturing, really slowed the European economy down. Whereas in the US, we had a lot of strong growth last year. Last year we had growth in the US at just over three per cent. Non-trivial amount of that growth was enabled by the surge of immigration, but we still see some residual impetus from fiscal policy.And so, where are we now? Inflation in the euro area is continuing to fall. In fact, it's clearer signal down than it has been, at least for the fourth quarter this year in the US. Growth is picking up, but not so much that it's going to re-spark inflation. So, we think the ECB is going to start to cut rates as soon as next month, as soon as the June meeting. Whereas for the US, we still have strong growth. Inflation sort of gave us that head fake in the first quarter, so the Fed's going to have to wait, we think probably until September.Serena Tang: And on the point of...]]>409alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1127fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seeking-better-value-in-emerging-market-debt--75652820----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why – for buyers of investment grade bonds – we see better value in Emerging Markets. It's Friday May 17th at 2pm in London.This is a good backdrop for corporate credit. The asset class loves moderation and our forecasts at Morgan Stanley see a US soft landing with growth about 2 percent comfortably above recession, but also not so strong that we think we need further rate increases from the Federal Reserve. Corporate balance sheets are in good shape, especially in the financial sector and the demand for investment grade corporate bonds remains high – thanks to yields, which hover around five and a half percent.For all these reasons, even though the additional yield that you currently get on corporate bonds, relative to say government bonds is low, we think that spread can remain around current levels, given this unusually favorable backdrop. But we're less confident about longer maturity bonds. Here, credit spreads are much more extreme, near their lowest levels than 20 years. So, what can investors do if they're looking to get some of the advantages of this macro backdrop but still access higher risk premiums.For investors who are looking for high rated yield with longer duration, we see a better alternative: the debt of high rated countries in the Emerging Markets, or EM. Adjusting for rating, high grade Emerging Market debt currently trades at a discount to corporate bonds. That is for bonds of similar ratings, the spreads on EM debt are generally higher. And this is even more pronounced when we're looking at those longer dated borrowings; the bonds with the maturity over 10 years. In investment grade credit, you get paid relatively little incremental risk premium to lend to a company over 30 years, relative to lending it to 10. But that's not the case in Emerging Market sovereigns. There, these curves are steep. The incremental premium you get for lending at a longer maturity is much higher. So, what's driving this difference? Well one has been relatively different flows between these different but related asset classes. Corporate bonds have been very popular with investors, enjoying strong inflows year to date. But Emerging Market bond funds have not, and have seen money come out. Relatively weaker flows may help explain why risk premiums in the EM debt market are higher.Another reason is that the same EM investors who are often seeing outflows have been asked to buy an unusually large amount of EM bonds. Issuance from Emerging Market sovereigns has been unusually high year to date and unusually focused on longer dated debt. We think this may help explain why Emerging Market risk premiums are even higher for longer dated bonds. The good news? Our EM strategy team thinks some of this issuance surge will moderate in the second half of the year. It's a good backdrop for high rated credit and this week's CPI number, which showed continued moderation. And inflation is further reinforcing the idea that the US can see a soft landing. The challenge is that – that good news has tightened spreads in the corporate market.While we think those risk premiums can stay low, we currently see better relative value for investors, looking for yield and risk premium in high-rated EM sovereigns – especially for those looking at longer maturities. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market wherever you get your podcasts and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/oSE8QPL9gNGsjOr8P-hLwKBMoFMnUM5c2QP_WFNqQd8Fri, 17 May 2024 18:02:17 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the debt of high-rated EM countries is a viable alternative for investors looking for high yields with longer duration. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why – for buyers of investment grade bonds – we see better value in Emerging Markets. It's Friday May 17th at 2pm in London.This is a good backdrop for corporate credit. The asset class loves moderation and our forecasts at Morgan Stanley see a US soft landing with growth about 2 percent comfortably above recession, but also not so strong that we think we need further rate increases from the Federal Reserve. Corporate balance sheets are in good shape, especially in the financial sector and the demand for investment grade corporate bonds remains high – thanks to yields, which hover around five and a half percent.For all these reasons, even though the additional yield that you currently get on corporate bonds, relative to say government bonds is low, we think that spread can remain around current levels, given this unusually favorable backdrop. But we're less confident about longer maturity bonds. Here, credit spreads are much more extreme, near their lowest levels than 20 years. So, what can investors do if they're looking to get some of the advantages of this macro backdrop but still access higher risk premiums.For investors who are looking for high rated yield with longer duration, we see a better alternative: the debt of high rated countries in the Emerging Markets, or EM. Adjusting for rating, high grade Emerging Market debt currently trades at a discount to corporate bonds. That is for bonds of similar ratings, the spreads on EM debt are generally higher. And this is even more pronounced when we're looking at those longer dated borrowings; the bonds with the maturity over 10 years. In investment grade credit, you get paid relatively little incremental risk premium to lend to a company over 30 years, relative to lending it to 10. But that's not the case in Emerging Market sovereigns. There, these curves are steep. The incremental premium you get for lending at a longer maturity is much higher. So, what's driving this difference? Well one has been relatively different flows between these different but related asset classes. Corporate bonds have been very popular with investors, enjoying strong inflows year to date. But Emerging Market bond funds have not, and have seen money come out. Relatively weaker flows may help explain why risk premiums in the EM debt market are higher.Another reason is that the same EM investors who are often seeing outflows have been asked to buy an unusually large amount of EM bonds. Issuance from Emerging Market sovereigns has been unusually high year to date and unusually focused on longer dated debt. We think this may help explain why Emerging Market risk premiums are even higher for longer dated bonds. The good news? Our EM strategy team thinks some of this issuance surge will moderate in the second half of the year. It's a good backdrop for high rated credit and this week's CPI number, which showed continued moderation. And inflation is further reinforcing the idea that the US can see a soft landing. The challenge is that – that good news has tightened spreads in the corporate market.While we think those risk premiums can stay low, we currently see better relative value for investors, looking for yield and risk premium in high-rated EM sovereigns – especially for those looking at longer maturities. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market wherever you get your podcasts and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>232alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1126fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/get-ready-for-a-summer-travel-boom--75652846----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s US Thematic Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the summer travel trends we’re expecting to see this year. It’s Thursday, May 16th at 10am in New York. With Memorial Day just around the corner, most of us are getting really excited about our summer vacation plans. We recently ran a survey, and our work shows that nearly 60 percent of US consumers are planning to travel this summer. This figure though skews significantly higher for upper income consumers. 75 percent of consumers making $75,000 to $150,000 are planning to travel and this figure rises to 78 percent for those who make more than $150,000. And travel remains a key spending priority for higher-income consumers. They place travel as one of their top priorities when compared to other discretionary purchases. This picture reverses though when you look at lower-income consumers making less than $50,000 a year. Travel tends to be among their lowest priorities when they are thinking about their discretionary purchases.What really matters for companies though is if consumers are going to spend more this year than they did last year. And consumers who are planning a vacation are inclined to spend more this year, with 49 percent expecting to spend more and 16 percent intending to spend less. So that yields a net plus-32 percent increase in spending intentions for summer travel.And what does this mean for key players in the travel industry? For starters, let’s look at airlines, where demand no longer seems to be a market debate within the space. It’s remained very resilient so far in 2024, contrary to what many had feared when we were going into this year. Our Transportation Analyst also has a positive view of US Airlines, especially Premium carriers. And the reason: This category caters to high-end consumers who are more likely to fly regardless of the state of the economy. Since the pandemic, Premium air travel has been one of the fastest growing and likely most resilient parts of the US Airlines industry, with premium cabin outperforming the main cabin consistently. And then what’s in store for cruise companies this summer? The outlook seems to be broadly positive, according to our analysts. The largest cruise operators source the majority of their guests from the US. And these companies provide leisure travel – as opposed to business travel – almost exclusively, so their revenues are closely tied to the health of the US consumer. Of the 60 percent of consumers who are planning to travel this summer, 6 percent are planning a cruise. That’s a little bit lower than pre-COVID, but cruise passengers tend to skew older and more affluent. So, they take more than one vacation frequently. This keeps the outlook broadly supportive for cruise companies. Finally, let’s think about Gaming and Lodging. These are your hotels and casinos. Investor sentiment is generally cautious for this space, but our analyst believes the data is encouraging. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in demand, compounded by continued – but moderating – labor inflation. This has created margin pressure for companies with higher operating leverage but the data suggests that upscale and luxury operators are outpacing midscale and economy ones. In addition, the Las Vegas strip, which tends to skew higher end, has outpaced regional casinos. And even when you look within the Las Vegas strip, baccarat is outpacing slot demand and luxury properties are outpacing more affordable options.So, all in all, the summer looks bright for travel operators, especially those who have more exposure to the high-end consumer. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1Yv1qxM_Uup1drjWRHNk7wIR8gQPGRrNwCscZYQ1rqkThu, 16 May 2024 21:07:39 +0000gtyOur research shows travelers are willing to spend more this summer than last. U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver explains how this will impact the airline, cruise and lodging industries.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s US Thematic Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the summer travel trends we’re expecting to see this year. It’s Thursday, May 16th at 10am in New York. With Memorial Day just around the corner, most of us are getting really excited about our summer vacation plans. We recently ran a survey, and our work shows that nearly 60 percent of US consumers are planning to travel this summer. This figure though skews significantly higher for upper income consumers. 75 percent of consumers making $75,000 to $150,000 are planning to travel and this figure rises to 78 percent for those who make more than $150,000. And travel remains a key spending priority for higher-income consumers. They place travel as one of their top priorities when compared to other discretionary purchases. This picture reverses though when you look at lower-income consumers making less than $50,000 a year. Travel tends to be among their lowest priorities when they are thinking about their discretionary purchases.What really matters for companies though is if consumers are going to spend more this year than they did last year. And consumers who are planning a vacation are inclined to spend more this year, with 49 percent expecting to spend more and 16 percent intending to spend less. So that yields a net plus-32 percent increase in spending intentions for summer travel.And what does this mean for key players in the travel industry? For starters, let’s look at airlines, where demand no longer seems to be a market debate within the space. It’s remained very resilient so far in 2024, contrary to what many had feared when we were going into this year. Our Transportation Analyst also has a positive view of US Airlines, especially Premium carriers. And the reason: This category caters to high-end consumers who are more likely to fly regardless of the state of the economy. Since the pandemic, Premium air travel has been one of the fastest growing and likely most resilient parts of the US Airlines industry, with premium cabin outperforming the main cabin consistently. And then what’s in store for cruise companies this summer? The outlook seems to be broadly positive, according to our analysts. The largest cruise operators source the majority of their guests from the US. And these companies provide leisure travel – as opposed to business travel – almost exclusively, so their revenues are closely tied to the health of the US consumer. Of the 60 percent of consumers who are planning to travel this summer, 6 percent are planning a cruise. That’s a little bit lower than pre-COVID, but cruise passengers tend to skew older and more affluent. So, they take more than one vacation frequently. This keeps the outlook broadly supportive for cruise companies. Finally, let’s think about Gaming and Lodging. These are your hotels and casinos. Investor sentiment is generally cautious for this space, but our analyst believes the data is encouraging. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in demand, compounded by continued – but moderating – labor inflation. This has created margin pressure for companies with higher operating leverage but the data suggests that upscale and luxury operators are outpacing midscale and economy ones. In addition, the Las Vegas strip, which tends to skew higher end, has outpaced regional casinos. And even when you look within the Las Vegas strip, baccarat is outpacing slot demand and luxury properties are outpacing more affordable options.So, all in all, the summer looks bright for travel operators, especially those who have more exposure to the high-end consumer. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show,...]]>232alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1125fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-narrow-scope-of-us-tariffs-on-china--75653008----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of newly announced tariffs by the United States. It's Wednesday, May 15th at 10:30am in New York.Yesterday, the Biden administration announced new tariffs on the import of certain goods from China. These include semiconductors, batteries, solar cells and critical minerals among other products. For investors, this might remind them of the tariff escalation in 2018 and 2019 that led to global economic concerns. But we’d caution investors not to arrive at similar conclusions from this latest action.Consider that the scope of this action is far more muted than the tariffs actions from a few years ago. New tariffs will affect a projected $18 billion of imports, or only about 0.5 percent of all China’s exports. And as our chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya has explained in his recent work, the sectors in scope for this round are areas where China has substantial spare capacity. Said differently, the tariffs are narrowly scoped and appear to be targeted at areas where the US perceives specific risk of imbalanced trade and market conditions. That contrasts with tariffs on roughly $360 billion of imports from China in the 2018-2019 period – a much broader approach that was in part aimed at forcing broad trade concessions from China but carried greater economic consequences by crimping corporate’s capital spending globally as they re-evaluated their production strategies. There is some signal for investors here though. While the scope of the Biden administration's efforts here are more narrow, it does signal something we’ve known for a few years now. There’s continuity across presidential administrations and across political parties in the US on the topic of the economic relationship with China. While each party has different tactics, there’s clear overlap in their goals, in particular on the idea that the US must continue taking steps to protect critical and emerging technologies in order to preserve its economic and national security. This suggests that the laws of gravity won’t apply to US tariffs any time soon, regardless of the US election outcome. So, the rewiring of the global economy in the emerging multipolar world will continue, and investors can still focus on some key regional beneficiaries of this secular trend – namely Mexico, India, and Japan.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/QCMPkUAYRZ1eaIdHj3IUoQ12c7wBibQkUKYQr1hVkfEWed, 15 May 2024 21:44:46 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains that the Biden administration’s new tariffs on Chinese imports are narrower than those of 2018 and 2019, but still send a signal about the economic relationship between the US and China....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of newly announced tariffs by the United States. It's Wednesday, May 15th at 10:30am in New York.Yesterday, the Biden administration announced new tariffs on the import of certain goods from China. These include semiconductors, batteries, solar cells and critical minerals among other products. For investors, this might remind them of the tariff escalation in 2018 and 2019 that led to global economic concerns. But we’d caution investors not to arrive at similar conclusions from this latest action.Consider that the scope of this action is far more muted than the tariffs actions from a few years ago. New tariffs will affect a projected $18 billion of imports, or only about 0.5 percent of all China’s exports. And as our chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya has explained in his recent work, the sectors in scope for this round are areas where China has substantial spare capacity. Said differently, the tariffs are narrowly scoped and appear to be targeted at areas where the US perceives specific risk of imbalanced trade and market conditions. That contrasts with tariffs on roughly $360 billion of imports from China in the 2018-2019 period – a much broader approach that was in part aimed at forcing broad trade concessions from China but carried greater economic consequences by crimping corporate’s capital spending globally as they re-evaluated their production strategies. There is some signal for investors here though. While the scope of the Biden administration's efforts here are more narrow, it does signal something we’ve known for a few years now. There’s continuity across presidential administrations and across political parties in the US on the topic of the economic relationship with China. While each party has different tactics, there’s clear overlap in their goals, in particular on the idea that the US must continue taking steps to protect critical and emerging technologies in order to preserve its economic and national security. This suggests that the laws of gravity won’t apply to US tariffs any time soon, regardless of the US election outcome. So, the rewiring of the global economy in the emerging multipolar world will continue, and investors can still focus on some key regional beneficiaries of this secular trend – namely Mexico, India, and Japan.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>178alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1124fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lessons-from-retail-success-stories--75652810----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s Hardlines, Broadlines & Food Retail Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss how some retail businesses are responding to daunting consumer challenges. It’s Tuesday, May 14th at 10am in New York.There have been dramatic shifts within the consumer sector over the past three years. During the pandemic, we all had to redirect our spending away from services, such as travel and leisure, to various goods, which we were able to purchase online and have delivered at home. Consumer packaged goods, for example, experienced two years of outsized growth during the pandemic. But since 2022, consumption has been declining across the value chain. For some categories, this dynamic may not be a temporary, post-COVID phenomenon, but rather a continuation of a longer-standing secular trend that had started prior to the pandemic. For example, non-durable goods – such as clothing, footwear and food at home – were already losing wallet share pre-COVID. Grocery spend was losing to dining out, as consumers placed more value on convenience. And although some sectors experienced unprecedented pricing power between 2020 and 2023, they’re now seeing this pricing power decline as inflation moderates. Against this backdrop, Consumer Packaged Goods companies and retailers are attempting to find new growth levers in the face of stagnating – or even declining – sales and decreasing pricing power. A select few companies in US consumer retail, automotive, communication services and IT hardware have been able to navigate the current consumer environment of slowing growth. We believe there’s a powerful lesson in the combination of strategies these successful outliers have deployed to reposition themselves in the face of tepid demand. For example, these companies are shifting their value proposition by focusing on products in faster-growing markets. They are also exiting underperforming areas to optimize their core brand and product portfolios. They’re streamlining their internal operations by changing organizational structures, revamping their supply chains, and using AI to automate processes. All of this helps to reduce costs and enhance productivity. Successful retail companies are also looking to alternative revenue sources and profit pools to grow their businesses, focusing on higher growth areas within their industries. Discount retail is a prime example as it focuses on high margin digital media, which has the potential to lift operating profit margins for the entire sector. Furthermore, a shift to omni-channel has revolutionized Retail, by capturing greater consumer wallet share and reducing delivery costs. And finally, successful companies have prioritized free cash flow by divesting non-core assets in less profitable areas. Businesses that have been able to deploy these strategies have been rewarded by the market. They have seen their average 12-month price to earnings multiples expand more than 35 percent over the past five years, meaning that the market's outlook for these companies is considerably better than it was previously. Several of these strategies have also led to stronger top-line growth and margin expansion, which our US equity strategists identify as the two major drivers of shareholder value across consumer staples and consumer discretionary.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/vnHCs5RAo20Ko8PYXm93_JoM0O8xEGRmQuHMpFqzzboTue, 14 May 2024 22:38:00 +0000gtyOur Retail Analyst discusses the key strategies that have propelled a select few companies in U.S. consumer retail amid a challenging demand backdrop.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s Hardlines, Broadlines & Food Retail Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss how some retail businesses are responding to daunting consumer challenges. It’s Tuesday, May 14th at 10am in New York.There have been dramatic shifts within the consumer sector over the past three years. During the pandemic, we all had to redirect our spending away from services, such as travel and leisure, to various goods, which we were able to purchase online and have delivered at home. Consumer packaged goods, for example, experienced two years of outsized growth during the pandemic. But since 2022, consumption has been declining across the value chain. For some categories, this dynamic may not be a temporary, post-COVID phenomenon, but rather a continuation of a longer-standing secular trend that had started prior to the pandemic. For example, non-durable goods – such as clothing, footwear and food at home – were already losing wallet share pre-COVID. Grocery spend was losing to dining out, as consumers placed more value on convenience. And although some sectors experienced unprecedented pricing power between 2020 and 2023, they’re now seeing this pricing power decline as inflation moderates. Against this backdrop, Consumer Packaged Goods companies and retailers are attempting to find new growth levers in the face of stagnating – or even declining – sales and decreasing pricing power. A select few companies in US consumer retail, automotive, communication services and IT hardware have been able to navigate the current consumer environment of slowing growth. We believe there’s a powerful lesson in the combination of strategies these successful outliers have deployed to reposition themselves in the face of tepid demand. For example, these companies are shifting their value proposition by focusing on products in faster-growing markets. They are also exiting underperforming areas to optimize their core brand and product portfolios. They’re streamlining their internal operations by changing organizational structures, revamping their supply chains, and using AI to automate processes. All of this helps to reduce costs and enhance productivity. Successful retail companies are also looking to alternative revenue sources and profit pools to grow their businesses, focusing on higher growth areas within their industries. Discount retail is a prime example as it focuses on high margin digital media, which has the potential to lift operating profit margins for the entire sector. Furthermore, a shift to omni-channel has revolutionized Retail, by capturing greater consumer wallet share and reducing delivery costs. And finally, successful companies have prioritized free cash flow by divesting non-core assets in less profitable areas. Businesses that have been able to deploy these strategies have been rewarded by the market. They have seen their average 12-month price to earnings multiples expand more than 35 percent over the past five years, meaning that the market's outlook for these companies is considerably better than it was previously. Several of these strategies have also led to stronger top-line growth and margin expansion, which our US equity strategists identify as the two major drivers of shareholder value across consumer staples and consumer discretionary.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>247alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1123fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/spring-imf-meetings-spark-cautious-optimism--75652918----- Transcript -----
Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Emerging Markets, Sovereign Credit and Latin America Fixed income strategy. Neville Mandimika: And I'm Neville Mandimika from the Emerging Markets Credit Strategy team with a focus on Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa.Simon Waever: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss what we believe investors should take away from the International Monetary Fund’s Spring Meetings in Washington, DC. It's Monday, May 13th at 10am in New York.Neville Mandimika: And it's 3 pm in London.To give some context, every year, the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank provide a forum for country officials, private sector market participants and academics to discuss critical global economic issues. This time around, the meetings were held against a backdrop, as you might imagine, of rising geopolitical tensions, monetary policy pivots, and limited fiscal space.Simon, we were both at the event, and I wanted to discuss what we took away from our own meetings, as well as discussions with other market participants. How would you describe the mood this time around compared to the annual meetings in October last year?Simon Waever: So, I would say sentiment was cautiously optimistic. Of course, it did happen in the backdrop of inflation; the first quarter not being as well behaved as everyone had hoped for. So that really put the focus on central banks being more cautious in their easing paths, which is actually a point the IMF also made back in October.But away from that, growth has held up better than expected. In the US for sure, but also more globally. So, I would say it could have been a lot worse.Neville Mandimika: Was it just me or there was a particular focus on fiscals this time around? What did you make of this?Simon Waever: No, there was for sure and interestingly it was focused on both developed economies and developing economies, which isn't usually the case. And I think it's clear that not only the IMF but also the markets are worried that we're still some distance away from stabilizing debt in most countries. And not only that but that it's going to be hard to close that gap due to lower growth and spending pressures. So that meant that there was a lot of discussions on how much term premier there needs to be in government bond curves and whether they need to be steeper.Neville Mandimika: It's often very difficult to talk about, you know, the global economic dynamics without talking about AI, which seems to be the catchphrase this year. How is the fund viewing this in light of the potential for the global economy?Simon Waever: So, the issue is that the IMF has often had to revise down medium-term growth outlook; something that it pretty much had to do every year since 2010, actually. And today it stands at only 2.8 globally. If you look at the IMF's publications, they attribute the key reasons to this to misallocation of capital and labor.But what they also did this time around was look at what could turn it around; and maybe unsurprisingly structural reforms that reduces that misallocation would be the larger potential factor that could boost this up again. They estimate about around 1.2 per cent of GDP. But then to your point the adoption of AI is seen as another new driver.Of course, it's also a lot more uncertain because there needs to be a lot of a lot more work done around it. But they think it could add nearly one percentage point to global growth in a positive scenario. But Neville, with that, let's dig deeper into the issues of developing countries which, after all, is the focus of the meetings. The cost of debt is rising, which has led to some countries experience debt distress. But from our side, we've also frequently pushed back against the idea that there is a growing debt crisis. So, coming back from the meetings, what kind of debt restructuring progress has been made? And how do you see it playing out for the remainder of the year? Neville Mandimika: Yeah, interestingly, there was still plenty of talk in the meetings about EM (emerging market) debt crisis, but the backdrop to the conversation was significantly better this time around compared to October 2023.Since last year, we've seen progress from Suriname, which is a small part of the Emerging Market Bond Index, close its restructuring, Zambia reaching a deal with private bondholders with the expectation that all of this could be buttoned up by June this year, multiple proposals in Sri Lanka and Ukraine making some progress.This gives me some hope that the number of sovereigns in default will be lower by the end of this year. And I think more importantly, we don't expect any country, any new country, to get into default -- as countries like Pakistan and Tunisia have made some progress in avoiding restructuring its own debt.The other important thing that came out from my vantage point is that the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable seems to be making some progress, particularly on outlining the structure of EM debt crises, which is, you know, emphasizing parallel negotiations between official and private creditors and, of course, timely sharing of information between stakeholders.Simon Waever: Then another focus has been that the IMF has been making some concessions to try to increase financing for countries that need it. Do you think there was progress on this front? Neville Mandimika: Yeah, it certainly seems so. You know, there seems to be some momentum on that front. You'd remember that last year, there was a resolution to increase the IMF's lending capacity by increasing country quotas by 50 per cent. Once this is buttoned up, heavy borrowers like Egypt and Argentina would greatly benefit, I think.Until this is done, the fund extended its temporary higher access limits to allow countries to borrow more in the meantime. There was also increased dialogue on reducing surcharges, which is the additional interest payments the IMF imposes on borrowers. The reduction of these would greatly help the likes of Argentina and Ecuador. Unfortunately, not much concrete progress has been made on this front.Simon Waever: And then finally, across all the meetings we held, which countries did you come away more positive on and which ones would still be of concern?Neville Mandimika: Yeah, I certainly came out a lot more positive on Senegal, as fears of large policy changes like leaving the CFA franc were eased. Egypt was also another clear positive, given the commitment to reforms, despite large financing that was received earlier this year. Nigeria, there was also some momentum on this front as reforms is still very much front and center from the political authorities. And lastly, Turkey saw authorities affirming their commitment to fighting inflation and loosening the grip on the foreign exchange market.And I'll throw the same question to you, Simon. Which countries are you positive on?Simon Waever: Yeah, I mean, it was pretty hard to take away the excitement from Egypt, but I would say that Argentina is another country where people came away pretty positive. The imbalances are significant, but they're just making very good headway in unwinding them; and they have the support of the IMF to do so. Ecuador would be the other one where sentiment in general is positive. On the more cautious side, I would point towards those countries where fiscal deficits are heading in the wrong direction, which goes back to the worries about fiscals we spoke about earlier -- and Colombia is one such example.But with that, let's wrap it up. Neville, thanks for taking the time to talk.Neville Mandimika: Great speaking with you, Simon.Simon Waever: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to the podcast. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ASHP-uZlUEd0BbZnM77jaTI_N1N-IFRAP0J-jwQbjD4Mon, 13 May 2024 21:15:58 +0000gtyOur experts highlight their biggest takeaways from the International Monetary Fund’s recent meetings, including which markets around the globe are on an upward trajectory. ----- Transcript ----- Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Emerging Markets, Sovereign Credit and Latin America Fixed income strategy. Neville Mandimika: And I'm Neville Mandimika from the Emerging Markets Credit Strategy team with a focus on Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa.Simon Waever: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss what we believe investors should take away from the International Monetary Fund’s Spring Meetings in Washington, DC. It's Monday, May 13th at 10am in New York.Neville Mandimika: And it's 3 pm in London.To give some context, every year, the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank provide a forum for country officials, private sector market participants and academics to discuss critical global economic issues. This time around, the meetings were held against a backdrop, as you might imagine, of rising geopolitical tensions, monetary policy pivots, and limited fiscal space.Simon, we were both at the event, and I wanted to discuss what we took away from our own meetings, as well as discussions with other market participants. How would you describe the mood this time around compared to the annual meetings in October last year?Simon Waever: So, I would say sentiment was cautiously optimistic. Of course, it did happen in the backdrop of inflation; the first quarter not being as well behaved as everyone had hoped for. So that really put the focus on central banks being more cautious in their easing paths, which is actually a point the IMF also made back in October.But away from that, growth has held up better than expected. In the US for sure, but also more globally. So, I would say it could have been a lot worse.Neville Mandimika: Was it just me or there was a particular focus on fiscals this time around? What did you make of this?Simon Waever: No, there was for sure and interestingly it was focused on both developed economies and developing economies, which isn't usually the case. And I think it's clear that not only the IMF but also the markets are worried that we're still some distance away from stabilizing debt in most countries. And not only that but that it's going to be hard to close that gap due to lower growth and spending pressures. So that meant that there was a lot of discussions on how much term premier there needs to be in government bond curves and whether they need to be steeper.Neville Mandimika: It's often very difficult to talk about, you know, the global economic dynamics without talking about AI, which seems to be the catchphrase this year. How is the fund viewing this in light of the potential for the global economy?Simon Waever: So, the issue is that the IMF has often had to revise down medium-term growth outlook; something that it pretty much had to do every year since 2010, actually. And today it stands at only 2.8 globally. If you look at the IMF's publications, they attribute the key reasons to this to misallocation of capital and labor.But what they also did this time around was look at what could turn it around; and maybe unsurprisingly structural reforms that reduces that misallocation would be the larger potential factor that could boost this up again. They estimate about around 1.2 per cent of GDP. But then to your point the adoption of AI is seen as another new driver.Of course, it's also a lot more uncertain because there needs to be a lot of a lot more work done around it. But they think it could add nearly one percentage point to global growth in a positive scenario. But Neville, with that, let's dig deeper into the issues of developing countries which, after all, is the focus of the meetings. The cost of debt is rising, which has led to some countries...]]>445alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1122fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-mexico-s-elections-could-change-global-markets--75652950----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nik Lippman, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about why Mexico’s upcoming election matters for markets. It's Friday, May 10, at 10am in Sao Paulo. Voters in Mexico will choose a new president in less than a month, on June 2. The two leading candidates – Claudia Sheinbaum and Xóchitl Gálvez – have presented strong campaigns amidst a tense political backdrop. And yet, asset prices have not yet begun to react to potential election outcomes. There’s significant policy differences between Sheinbaum and Galvez – thus an important investment debate around each of them. However, polls suggest a strong lead for Sheinbaum, who is the candidate from the ruling party Morena. In fact, it seems that the key debate that markets are focused on right now is not so much who wins, but rather what type of president Sheinbaum would be, if she does get elected.If she does indeed win, the expectation is for policy continuity post-election—particularly as it relates to Mexico’s nearshoring – or moving industrial supply chains from Asia to North America. This trend has been a major driver of the country’s economy and major asset classes. And so the market seems to be focusing squarely on policy decisions that may be taken by the incoming administration. Mexico is in a strong position to benefit from its relationship with the United States and as well as the nearshoring opportunities. We see a positive skew for both equities and credit, and think the election can act as a catalyst for assets that have traded cheaply.Yet, significant reforms are necessary to take full advantage of this setup. Indeed, we would argue that rapid and deep structural reforms would be crucial, especially when it comes to fiscals and the energy space. For example, we think there could be a need for stronger partnership between the public and the private sector and a rethink of parts of Mexico’s electricity model. If Mexico solves its electricity supply-side challenges, it can build on its favorable nearshoring position. But on the other hand, there’s no industrial revolution without electricity. However, the risk-reward for the Mexican peso is slightly different. It has already benefited from the rise in foreign investment - and the high interest rate differential between Mexico and the United States.With all that said, there are risks from the elections, too. If any political party wins two-thirds majority, it opens the possibility for changes to the constitution. And current proposals by Mexico’s sitting president could open the door for larger fiscal deficits; and potentially some more unorthodox policies down the road. We will continue to keep you posted on Mexico’s election outcomes.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Hcwq8FOTVVMZEC4jbbFBRZHnFc6bEesRa2-pNHUM0vAFri, 10 May 2024 17:46:43 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Strategist explains the importance of Mexico’s upcoming presidential election, laying out the possible investment implications of potential policy reforms. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nik Lippman, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about why Mexico’s upcoming election matters for markets. It's Friday, May 10, at 10am in Sao Paulo. Voters in Mexico will choose a new president in less than a month, on June 2. The two leading candidates – Claudia Sheinbaum and Xóchitl Gálvez – have presented strong campaigns amidst a tense political backdrop. And yet, asset prices have not yet begun to react to potential election outcomes. There’s significant policy differences between Sheinbaum and Galvez – thus an important investment debate around each of them. However, polls suggest a strong lead for Sheinbaum, who is the candidate from the ruling party Morena. In fact, it seems that the key debate that markets are focused on right now is not so much who wins, but rather what type of president Sheinbaum would be, if she does get elected.If she does indeed win, the expectation is for policy continuity post-election—particularly as it relates to Mexico’s nearshoring – or moving industrial supply chains from Asia to North America. This trend has been a major driver of the country’s economy and major asset classes. And so the market seems to be focusing squarely on policy decisions that may be taken by the incoming administration. Mexico is in a strong position to benefit from its relationship with the United States and as well as the nearshoring opportunities. We see a positive skew for both equities and credit, and think the election can act as a catalyst for assets that have traded cheaply.Yet, significant reforms are necessary to take full advantage of this setup. Indeed, we would argue that rapid and deep structural reforms would be crucial, especially when it comes to fiscals and the energy space. For example, we think there could be a need for stronger partnership between the public and the private sector and a rethink of parts of Mexico’s electricity model. If Mexico solves its electricity supply-side challenges, it can build on its favorable nearshoring position. But on the other hand, there’s no industrial revolution without electricity. However, the risk-reward for the Mexican peso is slightly different. It has already benefited from the rise in foreign investment - and the high interest rate differential between Mexico and the United States.With all that said, there are risks from the elections, too. If any political party wins two-thirds majority, it opens the possibility for changes to the constitution. And current proposals by Mexico’s sitting president could open the door for larger fiscal deficits; and potentially some more unorthodox policies down the road. We will continue to keep you posted on Mexico’s election outcomes.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

]]>187alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,mexico,strategyfalse1121fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-fed-sends-a-clear-message--75652867----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about last week’s FOMC meeting and its impact on fixed income markets.  It's Thursday, May 9th at 1pm in New York.Last week’s Fed meeting was consequential. It had a clear and unambiguous messaging about the path ahead for Fed’s monetary policy. Fed’s next move in policy rate is unlikely to be a hike. The Fed’s focus now is on how long the current target range for the fed funds rate will be maintained; and the next move, whenever it happens, is likely a cut. Importantly, the FOMC’s decision was unanimous and their statement maintained an overall easing bias.In the aftermath of recent upside surprises to inflation and the reaction in the rates market, many market participants, yours truly included, were apprehensive that the FOMC’s tone might be overtly hawkish. Turns out, that was not the case. By setting a very high bar for the next move to be a hike, the Fed’s message has meaningfully narrowed the distribution of outcomes for policy rates, at least in 2024 As our economists led by Ellen Zentner note, the two likely policy outcomes now are keeping the rates on hold or cutting. Given the prospect that policy rates may remain in the current target range, the negative carry of an inverted yield curve keeps us from pounding the table to move to outright long in duration, although the direction of travel does suggest that. We would note that Guneet Dhingra, our head of US interest rate strategy, sees better risk/reward in duration longs through 3 month 10 year receivers than in the very crowded curve steepener trade. In general, spread products in fixed income – agency MBS, corporate credit and securitized credit – stand to benefit the most from this notably less hawkish messaging, in our view.As Jay Bacow, our head of agency MBS strategy, observes, the backdrop in which tail risks of higher policy rates are much more remote than they were before the FOMC meeting is supportive for agency MBS. At current valuations, agency MBS offers an attractive expression for investors seeking to play for lower interest rates, lower interest rate volatility or both. Their high all-in yields have bolstered strong inflows and sustained demand for corporate credit across a wide range of investor types. If policy rates remain in the current range, we expect the demand for corporate credit to accelerate. If policy rates stay in the current range or go lower, pressures on interest coverage are unlikely to get worse going forward. Given their high single-digit all-in yields, we see an attractive risk/reward calculus favoring leveraged loans. We like expressing this view directly in loans as well as in securitized credit through CLO tranches.  In sum, the message from the Fed was clear and unambiguous. The policy rate path ahead is for rates to remain in the current range or decline, and the bar for the next move to be a hike is very high. This bodes well for a wide range of instruments in fixed income.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2UpPWAYs1XqF1RfF-Ugh0lu3IiWNr4QXTfAgkrKcTZEThu, 09 May 2024 19:01:23 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why the Federal Reserve’s most recent meeting was so consequential, and the likeliest path ahead for interest rates. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about last week’s FOMC meeting and its impact on fixed income markets.  It's Thursday, May 9th at 1pm in New York.Last week’s Fed meeting was consequential. It had a clear and unambiguous messaging about the path ahead for Fed’s monetary policy. Fed’s next move in policy rate is unlikely to be a hike. The Fed’s focus now is on how long the current target range for the fed funds rate will be maintained; and the next move, whenever it happens, is likely a cut. Importantly, the FOMC’s decision was unanimous and their statement maintained an overall easing bias.In the aftermath of recent upside surprises to inflation and the reaction in the rates market, many market participants, yours truly included, were apprehensive that the FOMC’s tone might be overtly hawkish. Turns out, that was not the case. By setting a very high bar for the next move to be a hike, the Fed’s message has meaningfully narrowed the distribution of outcomes for policy rates, at least in 2024 As our economists led by Ellen Zentner note, the two likely policy outcomes now are keeping the rates on hold or cutting. Given the prospect that policy rates may remain in the current target range, the negative carry of an inverted yield curve keeps us from pounding the table to move to outright long in duration, although the direction of travel does suggest that. We would note that Guneet Dhingra, our head of US interest rate strategy, sees better risk/reward in duration longs through 3 month 10 year receivers than in the very crowded curve steepener trade. In general, spread products in fixed income – agency MBS, corporate credit and securitized credit – stand to benefit the most from this notably less hawkish messaging, in our view.As Jay Bacow, our head of agency MBS strategy, observes, the backdrop in which tail risks of higher policy rates are much more remote than they were before the FOMC meeting is supportive for agency MBS. At current valuations, agency MBS offers an attractive expression for investors seeking to play for lower interest rates, lower interest rate volatility or both. Their high all-in yields have bolstered strong inflows and sustained demand for corporate credit across a wide range of investor types. If policy rates remain in the current range, we expect the demand for corporate credit to accelerate. If policy rates stay in the current range or go lower, pressures on interest coverage are unlikely to get worse going forward. Given their high single-digit all-in yields, we see an attractive risk/reward calculus favoring leveraged loans. We like expressing this view directly in loans as well as in securitized credit through CLO tranches.  In sum, the message from the Fed was clear and unambiguous. The policy rate path ahead is for rates to remain in the current range or decline, and the bar for the next move to be a hike is very high. This bodes well for a wide range of instruments in fixed income.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>226alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1120fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-us-dollar-dominance-continue--75652722----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss whether the US status as the world's major reserve currency can be challenged, and how.It's Wednesday, May 8th, at 3pm in London.Last week, you both joined me to discuss the historic strength of the US dollar and its impact on the global economy. Today, I'd like us to dive into one aspect of the dollar's dominance, namely the fact that the dollar remains the primary global reserve asset.James, let's start with the basics. What is a reserve currency and why should investors care about this?James Lord: The most simplistic and straightforward definition of a reserve currency is simply that central banks around the world hold that currency as part of its foreign currency reserves. So, the set of reserve currencies in the world is defined by the revealed preferences of the world's central banks. They hold around 60 percent of those reserves in U.S. dollars, with the euro around 20 percent, and the rest divided up between the British pound, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, and more recently, the Chinese renminbi.But the true essence of a global reserve currency is broader than this, and it really revolves around which currency is most commonly used for cross border transactions of various kinds internationally. That could be international trade, and the US dollar is the most commonly used currency for trade invoicing, including for commodity prices. It could also be in cross border lending or in the foreign currency debt issuance that global companies and emerging market governments issue. These all involve cross border transactions.But for me, two of the most powerful indications of a currency's global status.One, are third parties using it without the involvement of a home country? So, when Japan imports commodities from abroad, it probably pays for it in US dollars and the exporting country receives US dollars, even though the US is not involved in that transaction. And secondly, I think, which currency tends to strengthen when risk aversion rises in the global economy? That tends to be the US dollar because it remains the highly trusted asset and investors put a premium on safety.So why should investors care? Well, which currency would you want to own when global stock markets start to fall, and the global economy tends to head into recession? You want to be positioning in US dollars because that has historically been the exchange rate reaction to those kinds of events.Michael Zezas: And so, Dave, what's the dollar's current status as a reserve currency?David Adams: The dollar is the most dominant currency and has been for almost a hundred years. We looked at a lot of different ways to measure currency dominance or reserve currency status, and the dollar really does reign supreme in all of them.It is the highest share of global FX reserves, as James mentioned. It is the highest share of usage to invoice global trade. It's got the highest usage for cross border lending by banks. And when corporates or foreign governments borrow in foreign currency, it's usually in dollars. This dominant status has been pretty stable over recent decades and doesn't really show any major signs of abating at this point.Michael Zezas: And the British pound was the first truly global reserve currency. How and when did it lose its position?David Adams: It surprises investors how quick it really was. It only took about 10 years from 1913 to 1923 for the pound to begin losing its crown to king Dollar. But of course, such a quick change requires a shock with the enormity of the First World War.It's worth remembering that the war fundamentally shifted the US' role in the global economy, bringing it from a large but regional second tier financial power to a global financial powerhouse. Shocks like that are pretty rare. But the lesson I really draw from this period is that a necessary condition for a currency like sterling to lose its dominant status is a credible alternative waiting in the wings.In the absence of that credible alternative, changes in dominance are at most gradual and at least minimal.Michael Zezas: This is helpful background about the British pound. Now let's talk about potential challengers to the dollar status as the world's major reserve currency. The currency most often discussed in this regard is the Chinese renminbi. James, what's your view on this?James Lord: It seems unlikely to challenge the US dollar meaningfully any time soon. To do so, we think China would need to relax control of its currency and open the capital account. It doesn't seem likely that Beijing will want to do this any time soon. And global investors remain concerned about the outlook for the Chinese economy, and so are probably unwilling to hold substantial amounts of RNB denominated assets. China may make some progress in denominating more of its bilateral trade in US dollars, but the impact that that has on global metrics of currency dominance is likely to be incremental.David Adams: It’s an interesting point, James, because when we talk to investors, there does seem to be an increasing concern about the end of dollar dominance driven by both a perceived unsustainable fiscal outlook and concerns about sanctions overreach.Mike, what do you think about these in the context of dollar dominance?Michael Zezas: So, I understand the concern, but for the foreseeable future, there's not much to it. Depending on the election outcome in the US, there's some fiscal expansion on the table, but it's not egregious in our view, and unless we think the Fed can't fight inflation -- and our economists definitely think they can -- then it's hard to see a channel toward the dollar becoming an unstable currency, which I believe is what you're saying is one of the very important things here.But James, in your view, are there alternatives to the US led financial system?James Lord: At present, no, not really. I think, as I mentioned in last week's episode, few economies and markets can really match the liquidity and the safety that the US financial system offers. The Eurozone is a possible contender, but that region offers a suboptimal currency union, given the lack of common fiscal policy; and its capital markets there are just simply not deep enough.Michael Zezas: And Dave, could cryptocurrency serve as an alternative reserve currency?David Adams: It's a question we get from time to time. I think a challenge crypto faces as an alternative dominant currency is its store of value function. One of the key functions of a dominant currency is its use for cross border transactions. It greases the wheels of foreign trade. Stability and value is important here. Now, usually when we talk to investors about value stability, they think in terms of downside. What's the risk I lose money holding this asset?But when we think about currencies and trade, asset appreciation is important too. If I'm holding a crypto coin that rises, say, 10 per cent a month, I'm less likely to use that for trade and instead just hoard it in my wallet to benefit from its price appreciation. Now, reasonable people can disagree about whether cryptocurrencies are going to appreciate or depreciate, but I'd argue that the best outcome]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LCfD6HHTikjsZNaEfzYyyG_iGI3YJZ0c23V-MNteruQWed, 08 May 2024 21:36:29 +0000gtyOur expert panel explains the U.S. dollar’s current status as the primary global reserve currency and whether the euro and renminbi, or even crypto currencies are positioned to take over that role.Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are...----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss whether the US status as the world's major reserve currency can be challenged, and how.It's Wednesday, May 8th, at 3pm in London.Last week, you both joined me to discuss the historic strength of the US dollar and its impact on the global economy. Today, I'd like us to dive into one aspect of the dollar's dominance, namely the fact that the dollar remains the primary global reserve asset.James, let's start with the basics. What is a reserve currency and why should investors care about this?James Lord: The most simplistic and straightforward definition of a reserve currency is simply that central banks around the world hold that currency as part of its foreign currency reserves. So, the set of reserve currencies in the world is defined by the revealed preferences of the world's central banks. They hold around 60 percent of those reserves in U.S. dollars, with the euro around 20 percent, and the rest divided up between the British pound, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, and more recently, the Chinese renminbi.But the true essence of a global reserve currency is broader than this, and it really revolves around which currency is most commonly used for...]]>441alternatives,crypto,currency,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,renmibi,strategyfalse1119fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/managing-for-economic-uncertainty--75652780----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the higher-than-normal uncertainty in economic data and its impact on markets. It's Tuesday, May 7th at 1:30 pm in New York. So let’s get after it. In recent research, I’ve discussed how markets are likely to oscillate between the "soft landing" and “no landing" outcomes in today's late cycle environment. Continued mixed and unpredictable macro data should foster that back and forth, and last week was a microcosm in that respect. Tuesday's Employment Cost Index report came in stronger than expected, leading to a rise in the 10-year Treasury yield to nearly 4.7 per cent. Meanwhile, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index turned down, falling to its lowest level since July of 2022. On Friday, the equity market rose sharply as bond yields fell on the back of a weaker labor report, while the ISM Services headline series fell to its lowest level since December of 2022. In our view, this uncertain economic backdrop warrants an investment approach that can work as market pricing and sector/factor leadership bounces between these potential outcomes. As such, we recommend a barbell of quality cyclicals which should outperform in a "no landing" scenario and quality growth, the relative winner in a "soft landing.” One might even want to consider adding a bit of exposure to defensive sectors like Utilities and Staples in the event that growth slows further.  Meanwhile, last week's Fed meeting materialized largely as expected. Chair Powell expressed somewhat lower confidence on the timing of the first cut given recent inflation data, but he pushed  back on the notion that the next move would be a hike which eased some concerns going into the  meeting. The April Consumer Price Index released on May 15th is the next key macro event informing the path of monetary policy and the market's pricing of that path. As usual, the price reaction on the back of this release may be more important than the data itself given how influential price action has been on investor sentiment amid an uncertain macro set up. On the rate front, our view remains consistent with our recent research—the relationship between the 6-month rate of change on the 10-year yield and the S&P 500 price earnings multiple implies that yields around current levels are about 10 per cent headwind to valuation through the end of June but a tailwind thereafter, all else equal.Given the uncertainty and unpredictability of the economic data more recently, we think it's useful to look at the technicals for insight into what comes next. In early April, we highlighted that the breakdown in the S&P 500 from its well-defined uptrend was an important early warning sign that performance could become more challenged. Based on our analysis, this headwind to valuation is likely to remain with us through the end of June unless yields fall significantly in the near term. Assuming interest rates stay around current levels, stronger valuation support lies closer to 19 times earnings, which would also imply price support closer to the 200-day moving average or 4800.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/79EFtoJfqWu6YrfpfbjjITHHRzdRMtQIQkI_0jvOfroTue, 07 May 2024 22:03:07 +0000gtyAs the U.S. economy continues to send mixed signals, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains how markets are likely to oscillate between “soft landing” and “no landing” outcomes.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the higher-than-normal uncertainty in economic data and its impact on markets. It's Tuesday, May 7th at 1:30 pm in New York. So let’s get after it. In recent research, I’ve discussed how markets are likely to oscillate between the "soft landing" and “no landing" outcomes in today's late cycle environment. Continued mixed and unpredictable macro data should foster that back and forth, and last week was a microcosm in that respect. Tuesday's Employment Cost Index report came in stronger than expected, leading to a rise in the 10-year Treasury yield to nearly 4.7 per cent. Meanwhile, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index turned down, falling to its lowest level since July of 2022. On Friday, the equity market rose sharply as bond yields fell on the back of a weaker labor report, while the ISM Services headline series fell to its lowest level since December of 2022. In our view, this uncertain economic backdrop warrants an investment approach that can work as market pricing and sector/factor leadership bounces between these potential outcomes. As such, we recommend a barbell of quality cyclicals which should outperform in a "no landing" scenario and quality growth, the relative winner in a "soft landing.” One might even want to consider adding a bit of exposure to defensive sectors like Utilities and Staples in the event that growth slows further.  Meanwhile, last week's Fed meeting materialized largely as expected. Chair Powell expressed somewhat lower confidence on the timing of the first cut given recent inflation data, but he pushed  back on the notion that the next move would be a hike which eased some concerns going into the  meeting. The April Consumer Price Index released on May 15th is the next key macro event informing the path of monetary policy and the market's pricing of that path. As usual, the price reaction on the back of this release may be more important than the data itself given how influential price action has been on investor sentiment amid an uncertain macro set up. On the rate front, our view remains consistent with our recent research—the relationship between the 6-month rate of change on the 10-year yield and the S&P 500 price earnings multiple implies that yields around current levels are about 10 per cent headwind to valuation through the end of June but a tailwind thereafter, all else equal.Given the uncertainty and unpredictability of the economic data more recently, we think it's useful to look at the technicals for insight into what comes next. In early April, we highlighted that the breakdown in the S&P 500 from its well-defined uptrend was an important early warning sign that performance could become more challenged. Based on our analysis, this headwind to valuation is likely to remain with us through the end of June unless yields fall significantly in the near term. Assuming interest rates stay around current levels, stronger valuation support lies closer to 19 times earnings, which would also imply price support closer to the 200-day moving average or 4800.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 
]]>214alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1118fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-if-rates-are-higher-for-longer--75652934Our CIO for Wealth Management, Lisa Shalett, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research continue their discussion of the impact of interest rates on different asset classes, the high concentration of value in equity markets and more.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and to part two of a conversation with Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley wealth management. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of corporate credit research at Morgan Stanley.Today, we'll be continuing that conversation, focusing on how higher interest rates could impact asset classes, and also some recent work about the unusually high concentration of stocks within the equity market.We begin with Lisa's very topical question about how higher interest rates might impact credit. Lisa Shalett: So, Andrew, let me ask you this. From your perspective as the Global Head of Corporate Credit Research, what happens if we're, in fact, in this new regime of rates being higher for longer? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, thanks, Lisa. It seems more topical by the day as we see yields continuing to march higher. So I think like a lot of things in the market, it kind of depends a little bit on what the fundamental backdrop is that's driving those interest rates higher. Because if I think about the modern era for credit, which I’ll define as maybe the last 40 years, the tightest that we've ever seen corporate credit spreads was not when the Fed or the European central bank was buying bonds. It was not when you had lots of leverage building up in the financial system prior to the financial crisis. It was in the mid 90s when the economy was pretty good. The Fed had hiked rates a lot in [19]94 and then it cut them a little. And, you know, the mid nineties, I think, are one of the poster children for, kind of, a higher for longer rate environment amidst a pretty strong economy. So, if that is what we're looking at, we're looking at rates being higher for longer because the economic output of the US and other regions is generally stronger. I think that's an environment where you can have the overall credit market performing still pretty well. You'll certainly have dispersion around that as not every balance sheet, not every capital structure was planned, was created with that sort of rate environment in mind.Overall, if you had to say, is credit more afraid of a kind of higher for longer scenario or is it more afraid of, growth being a lot weaker than expected, but that would bring low rates. I actually think a lot of credit investors would much rather have a more stable growth environment, even if that brings somewhat fewer rate cuts and higher for longer rates.Lisa Shalett: One other thing, I know that the Global Investment Committee has been debating is this idea between the haves and the have nots that's been somewhat unique to this business cycle where, there's been a portion of the mega cap and large cap universes who have demonstrated, quite frankly, total insensitivity to interest rates because of their cash balances. Or because of their lack of need for actual borrowing. And then there's smaller midsize companies, these smaller cap or unprofitable tech companies, some of the companies that may have been born in the venture capital boom of the early 2020s. How is this have, have not, debate playing out in the credit markets? Are there parts of the credit markets that are starting to worry that there's a tail?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, I think that's just a fascinating question at the moment because we’ve lived in this very macro world where it seemed like big picture questions about central banks: Will we go into recession? What will commodity prices do is driving everything. And even this week, questions about interest rates are dominating the headlines on TV and on the news.But I think if you peel things back a little bit, this is an incredibly micro market, you know, we're seeing some of the lowest correlations and co-movement between individual stocks in the US and Europe that we haven't in 15 years. If I think about the credit market, the credit market is not just sailing into this environment, happy go lucky, no risk on the horizon. It's showing some of the highest tiering that we've seen in a very long time between CCC rated issuers, which is the lowest rated, main part of performing credit and Single-B issuers, which are still below investment grade rated, but are somewhat better. Market is charging a very high price premium between those two, which suggests that it is exactly as you mentioned, differentiating based on business model strength and level of leverage and the likes.So, this environment of differentiation -- where the overall market is kind of okay, but you have lots of churning below the surface -- I think it's a very accurate description of credit. I think it's a very accurate description of the broader market, and it's certainly something that we're seeing investors take advantage of we see it in the data.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you recently published a special report on the consequences of concentration, which focuses on some of these mega cap stocks and how they may present underappreciated risks for investors. What were the key takeaways from that that we should keep in mind when it comes to market concentration and how should we think about that?Lisa Shalett: The fundamental point we were trying to make -- and it really has to do with some of the unintended risks potentially that passive investors may be embracing that they don't fully appreciate -- is really through the end of 2023, US equity indices became extraordinarily, concentrated; where the top 10 names were accounting for greater than, a third of the market capitalization. And history has shown that such high levels of concentration are rarely sustainable. But what was particularly unique about the era of the Magnificent Seven or these top 10 mega cap tech stocks is not only were they a huge portion of the whole index, but in many ways they had become correlated to one another, right? Both, in terms of their trading dynamics and their valuations, but in terms of their factor exposures, right? They were all momentum oriented. They were all tech stocks. They were all moving on an AI, narrative. In many cases, they had begun competing with each other; one another directly in businesses, like the cloud, like streaming services and media, et cetera.Andrew Sheets: And Lisa, kind of further on that idea, I assume that one counterpoint that you get to this work is that some of these very large mega cap names are just great companies. They've got strong competitive positions; they've got opportunities for future growth. As an investor, how do you think about how much you are supposed to pay up for quality, so to speak? And, you know, maybe you could talk just a little bit more about how you see the valuations of some of these larger names in the market.Lisa Shalett: What we always remind clients is, there is no doubt that, these are great companies and they have cash flows, footprints, dominant positions, and markets that are growing. But the question is twofold. When is that story fully discounted, right?And when do great companies cease to be great stocks? And if you look back in history, history is littered with great companies who cease to be great stocks and very often, clients quote unquote never saw it coming because they hung their hat on this idea, but it's a great company.Andrew Sheets: Any parting thoughts as we move closer to the midpoint for 2024?Lisa Shalett: The line that I'm using most with clients is that, I fundamentally believe that uncertainty in terms of the economic scenarios that could play out from here. Whether we're talking about a no landing, we're talking about a hard landing, we talk about a stagflation. And the policy responses to that, whether it's the timing of the Fed, and what they do. And what's their mix between balance sheet and rates, and then what happens post the presidential elections in the US. And is there a policy change that shifts some of the growth drivers in the economy. I just think overall uncertainty is rising through the end of the year, and that continues to argue, for a position as we've noted, where clients and their advisors are particularly active towards risk management, and where the premium to diversification is above average. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Hope we can have you back again soon.Lisa Shalett: It's great to speak with you, as always, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MuIMe61ZOvz2nb9orXgNR36324j_UEqoKufQaLFBC7AMon, 06 May 2024 22:15:40 +0000gtyLisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research...Our CIO for Wealth Management, Lisa Shalett, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research continue their discussion of the impact of interest rates on different asset classes, the high concentration of value in equity markets and more.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and to part two of a conversation with Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley wealth management. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of corporate credit research at Morgan Stanley.Today, we'll be continuing that conversation, focusing on how higher interest rates could impact asset classes, and also some recent work about the unusually high concentration of stocks within the equity market.We begin with Lisa's very topical question about how higher interest rates might impact credit. Lisa Shalett: So, Andrew, let me ask you this. From your perspective as the Global Head of Corporate Credit Research, what happens if we're, in fact, in this new regime of rates being higher for longer? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, thanks, Lisa. It seems more topical by the day as we see yields continuing to march higher. So I think like a lot of things in the market, it kind of depends a little bit on what the fundamental backdrop is that's driving those interest rates higher. Because if I think about the modern era for credit, which I’ll define as maybe the last 40 years, the tightest that we've ever seen corporate credit spreads was not when the Fed or the European central bank was buying bonds. It was not when you had lots of leverage building up in the financial system prior to the financial crisis. It was in the mid 90s when the economy was pretty good. The Fed had hiked rates a lot in [19]94 and then it cut them a little. And, you know, the mid nineties, I think, are one of the poster children for, kind of, a higher for longer rate environment amidst a pretty strong economy. So, if that is what we're looking at, we're looking at rates being higher for longer because the economic output of the US and other regions is generally stronger. I think that's an environment where you can have the overall credit market performing still pretty well. You'll certainly have dispersion around that as not every balance sheet, not every capital structure was planned, was created with that sort of rate environment in mind.Overall, if you had to say, is credit more afraid of a kind of higher for longer scenario or is it more afraid of, growth being a lot weaker than expected, but that would bring low rates. I actually think a lot of credit investors would much rather have a more stable growth environment, even if that brings somewhat fewer rate cuts and higher for longer rates.Lisa Shalett: One other thing, I know that the Global Investment Committee has been debating is this idea between the haves and the have nots that's been somewhat unique to this business cycle where, there's been a portion of the mega cap and large cap universes who have demonstrated, quite frankly, total insensitivity to interest rates because of their cash balances. Or because of their lack of need for actual borrowing. And then there's smaller midsize companies, these smaller cap or unprofitable tech companies, some of the companies that may have been born in the venture capital boom of the early 2020s. How is this have, have not, debate playing out in the credit markets? Are there parts of the credit markets that are starting to worry that there's a tail?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, I think that's just a fascinating question at the moment because we’ve lived in this very macro world where it seemed like big picture questions about central banks: Will we go into recession? What will...]]>540alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1117fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/separating-the-cyclical-from-the-systemic--75652984Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part one of this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing long run expected returns across markets, how we think about cross asset correlations and portfolio construction, and what are the special considerations that investors might want to have in mind in the current environment.It's Friday, May 3rd at 4pm in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York City.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you and I are both members of Morgan Stanley's Global Investment Committee, which brings together nine of our firm's market, economic, and portfolio management thought leaders to provide a strategic framework for advice that we give to clients.Andrew Sheets: I wanted to touch on a unique aspect of that process because, you know, we're talking about estimating returns over different horizons for markets. And I think there's something that's kind of unique about that challenge. I mean, I think in most aspects of life, it's probably safe to say that the next decade is more uncertain than the next six months or next year. But when we're thinking about asset class returns, it's not quite as simple as that.Lisa Shalett: Not at all. And very often this is where our understanding of history needs to play a big part. When we think about the future, what are the patterns that we think might be persistent? And therefore, encourage us to think about long run trends and mean reversion. And what dynamics might actually be disconnected, or one offs that are characteristic of maybe structural change in the economy or geopolitics or in policymaking stance.Andrew Sheets: How have these latest capital market assumptions changed over the last year?Lisa Shalett: I think one of the most profound changes has been our willingness to embrace the idea that, in fact, we are in a higher for longer inflation regime. And that has a couple of implications. The first has to do, of course, with nominal returns. A higher inflation environment suggests that nominal returns are actually likely to be higher. The second really has to do with where we are in the cycle and its implications for correlations. We've been through periods most recently, where stocks and bonds were, in fact, anti-correlated; or there was a diversifying property, if you will to the 60 40 portfolio. Most recently, as inflation and level of interest rates has had profound importance to both stock valuations and bond valuations, we have found that these correlations have turned positive. And that creates a imperative, really, for clients to have to look elsewhere beyond cash, bonds, and stocks to get appropriate diversification in their portfolios.Andrew Sheets: Well, it's been less than a month since we updated our strategic recommendations. We've recently also published an update to our tactical asset allocation recommendations. So, Lisa, I guess I have two questions. One is, how do you think about these different horizons, the strategic versus the tactical? And can you also summarize what's changed?Lisa Shalett: Sure. You know, we very often talk to clients about the tactical horizon as being in the 12 to 18-month time frame.In our most recent adjustment, we moved from what had been roughly a, year old underweight in US large cap stocks, and we neutralized that, kind of quote unquote, back to benchmark. So, we added some exposure, and we funded that exposure by selling out of two other positions; one that we had had in both small cap value and small cap growth, as well as a position we had, that we had put on as a hedging oriented position and long duration treasuries.Now, some might say well, given the move in interest rates, is now the right time to take that hedge off? Our decision was basically premised on the fact that we're just not seeing the value in holding duration today given the inversion of the yield curve, and we're not getting paid for the risk of duration. And so, you know, we thought redeploying into those large cap stocks was prudent. Now, the other rationale, really has to do with earnings achievability. A lot of our thoughts were premised early in the year on this idea of a soft landing -- and a soft landing that would include deceleration in top line growth. And so, we were skeptical that could produce what consensus was looking for, which was a 10 to 11 per cent bottom line in 2024. As it turns out, it looks like, nominal GDP in the US is going to continue to persist at levels above 5 per cent, and that kind of tailwind, suggested that our skepticism would prove too conservative; and that, in fact, in a, 10 per cent bottom line could be achievable -- especially if it were being driven by manufacturing oriented companies who are seeing a pick up from global growth.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, maybe if I could just ask you kind of one more question related to some of these longer-term assumptions, you know, I imagine you get some skepticism to say, ‘Well, you know, is the market of today really comparable to, say, the stock market of 30 or 40 years ago? Can we really use metrics or mean reversion that's worked in the past when, you know, the world is different.’Lisa Shalett: Yeah, no, that, that's a fantastic question. I mean, some of the bigger variables in the world that we look at have shown over very long periods of time tendencies to cycle, whether those are things around the business cycle, valuations, cost of capital. Those are the types of variables that over long periods of time tend to mean revert. Same thing volatility. There tend to be long term characteristics. And the history book is pretty convincing that even if sometimes mean reversion is delayed, it ultimately plays out. But we do think that there are elements that we need to continue to question, right. One of them is, you know, has monetary policy and central bank intervention fundamentally changed the rules of the game? Where central banks implicitly or explicitly are managing market liquidity as much as they are managing cost of capital; and as a result, the way markets interact with the central bank and the guidance -- is that different?A second, factor has to do with market structure, right? And in a world where market prices were really being determined almost exclusively by fundamentals, right? There was this constant rotational shift between growth style and value style and where value could be determined in the market. As we've moved to a market that is increasingly driven by passive flows; there's a question that many market participants have raised about whether or not markets have gotten more inefficient because price discovery is actually, in the short run, not what's driving prices, but rather flows; passive flows are driving prices.And so, you know, how do we account for these leads and lags in prices being actually remarked to fundamentals? So those are at least two of the things that I know we are constantly tossing around as we think about our methodologies and capital market assumptions.Andrew Sheets: That was part one of my conversation with Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Look out for part two of our conversation, where we'll be discussing the impact of higher interest rates on asset classes. And how investors should think about an unusually concentrated stock market. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/j7PJCFvf6bcbYv_rXDRpA0_ZywLNIL4NhQAlO5aw6GsFri, 03 May 2024 21:04:40 +0000gtyLisa Shalett, our CIO for Wealth Management, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research discuss how to forecast expected returns over the long term, and whether historic cycles can help make sense of the market environment today. ----- Transcript -----...Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part one of this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing long run expected returns across markets, how we think about cross asset correlations and portfolio construction, and what are the special considerations that investors might want to have in mind in the current environment.It's Friday, May 3rd at 4pm in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York City.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you and I are both members of Morgan Stanley's Global Investment Committee, which brings together nine of our firm's market, economic, and portfolio management thought leaders to provide a strategic framework for advice that we give to clients.Andrew Sheets: I wanted to touch on a unique aspect of that process because, you know, we're talking about estimating returns over different horizons for markets. And I think there's something that's kind of unique about that challenge. I mean, I think in most aspects of life, it's probably safe to say that the next decade is more uncertain than the next six months or next year. But when we're thinking about asset class returns, it's not quite as simple as that.Lisa Shalett: Not at all. And very often this is where our understanding of history needs to play a big part. When we think about the future, what are the patterns that we think might be persistent? And therefore, encourage us to think about long run trends and mean reversion. And what dynamics might actually be disconnected, or one offs that are characteristic of maybe structural change in the economy or geopolitics or in policymaking stance.Andrew Sheets: How have these latest capital market assumptions changed over the last year?Lisa Shalett: I think one of the most profound changes has been our willingness to embrace the idea that, in fact, we are in a higher for longer inflation regime. And that has a couple of implications. The first has to do, of course, with nominal returns. A higher inflation environment suggests that nominal returns are actually likely to be higher. The second really has to do with where we are in the cycle and its implications for correlations. We've been through periods most recently, where stocks and bonds were, in fact, anti-correlated; or there was a diversifying property, if you will to the 60 40 portfolio. Most recently, as inflation and level of interest rates has had profound importance to both stock valuations and bond valuations, we have found that these correlations have turned positive. And that creates a imperative, really, for clients to have to look elsewhere beyond cash, bonds, and stocks to get appropriate diversification in their portfolios.Andrew Sheets: Well, it's been less than a month since we updated our strategic recommendations. We've recently also published an update to our tactical asset allocation recommendations. So, Lisa, I guess I have two questions. One is, how do you think about these different horizons, the strategic versus the tactical? And can you also summarize what's changed?Lisa Shalett: Sure. You know, we very often talk to clients about the tactical horizon as being in the 12 to 18-month time frame.In our most recent adjustment, we moved from what had been roughly a, year old underweight in US large cap stocks, and we neutralized that, kind of quote unquote, back to benchmark. So, we added some exposure, and we funded that exposure by selling out of two other positions; one that we had had in both small cap value and small cap growth, as well as a position we had, that we had...]]>525alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1116fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-seth-carpenter-looking-back-for-the-future--75652985----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the current interest rate cycle and the parallels we can draw from the 1990s.It's Monday, April 8th, at 10am in New York.Last year, we reiterated the view that the 1990s remain a useful cycle to consider for understanding the current cycle. Our European equity strategy colleagues shared our view, and they've used that episode to inform their ‘out of consensus, bullish initiation on European equities’ in January. No two cycles are identical, but as we move closer to a Fed cut, we reassess the key aspects of that comparison.We had previously argued that the current interest rate cycle and the mid 90s cycle differ from the intervening cycles because the goal now is to bring inflation down, rather than preventing it from rising. Of course, inflation was already falling when the 1994 cycle started, in part, because of the recession in 1991.This cycle -- because much of the inflation was driven by COVID-related shocks, like supply chains for consumer goods and shifts in housing for shelter inflation -- inflation started falling rapidly from its peak before the first hike could have possibly had any effect. In recent months, our economic growth forecasts have been regularly revised upward, even as we have largely hit our expected path for inflation.A labor supply shock appears to be a contributing factor that accounts for some of that forecast deviation, although fiscal policy likely contributed to the real side's strength as well. Supply shocks to the labor market are an interesting point of comparison for the two cycles. In the 1990s, labor force growth was still benefiting from this multi-decade rise in labor force participation among females. The aggregate labor force participation rate did not reach its peak until 2000.Now, as we've noted in several publications, the surge in immigration is providing a similar supply side boost, at least for a couple of years. But the key lesson for me for the policy cycle is that monetary policy is not on a pre-set, predetermined course merely rising, peaking and then falling. Cycles can be nuanced. In 1994, the Fed hiked the funds rate to 6 per cent, paused at that peak and then cut 75 basis points over 1995 and 1996. After that, the next policy move was actually a hike, not a cut.Currently, we think the Fed starts cutting rates in June; and for now, we expect that cutting to continue into next year. But as our US team has noted, the supply side revisions mean that the path for policy next year is just highly uncertain and subject to review. From 1994 to 1996, job gains trended down, much like they have over the past two years.That slowing was reflective of a broader slowing in the economy that prompted the Fed to stop hiking and partially reverse course. So, should we expect the same now, only a very partial reversal? Well, it's too soon to tell, and as we've argued, the faster labor supply growth expands both aggregate demand and aggregate supply -- so a somewhat tighter policy stance could be appropriate.In 1996, inflation stopped falling, and subsequently rose into 1997, and it was that development that supported the Fed's decision to maintain their somewhat restrictive policy. But we can't forget, afterward, inflation resumed its downward trajectory, with core PCE inflation eventually falling below 1.5 per cent, suggesting that that need to stop cutting and resume hiking, well, probably needs to be re-examined.So, no two cycles match, and the comparison may break down. To date, the rapid hikes, pause and pivot, along with a seeming soft landing, keeps that comparison alive. The labor supply shock parallel is notable, but it also points to what might be, just might be, another possible parallel.In the late 1990s, there was a rise in labor productivity, and we've written here many times about the potential contributions that AI might bring to labor productivity in coming years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rL-e_pUm8nlOXnkufJzgkvFO7WoJXw8lhCOV1zFtf88Fri, 03 May 2024 00:21:50 +0000gtyOriginal release date April 8, 2024: Our Global Chief Economist explains why the rapid hikes, pause and pivot of the current interest rate cycle are reminiscent of the 1990s. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the current interest rate cycle and the parallels we can draw from the 1990s.It's Monday, April 8th, at 10am in New York.Last year, we reiterated the view that the 1990s remain a useful cycle to consider for understanding the current cycle. Our European equity strategy colleagues shared our view, and they've used that episode to inform their ‘out of consensus, bullish initiation on European equities’ in January. No two cycles are identical, but as we move closer to a Fed cut, we reassess the key aspects of that comparison.We had previously argued that the current interest rate cycle and the mid 90s cycle differ from the intervening cycles because the goal now is to bring inflation down, rather than preventing it from rising. Of course, inflation was already falling when the 1994 cycle started, in part, because of the recession in 1991.This cycle -- because much of the inflation was driven by COVID-related shocks, like supply chains for consumer goods and shifts in housing for shelter inflation -- inflation started falling rapidly from its peak before the first hike could have possibly had any effect. In recent months, our economic growth forecasts have been regularly revised upward, even as we have largely hit our expected path for inflation.A labor supply shock appears to be a contributing factor that accounts for some of that forecast deviation, although fiscal policy likely contributed to the real side's strength as well. Supply shocks to the labor market are an interesting point of comparison for the two cycles. In the 1990s, labor force growth was still benefiting from this multi-decade rise in labor force participation among females. The aggregate labor force participation rate did not reach its peak until 2000.Now, as we've noted in several publications, the surge in immigration is providing a similar supply side boost, at least for a couple of years. But the key lesson for me for the policy cycle is that monetary policy is not on a pre-set, predetermined course merely rising, peaking and then falling. Cycles can be nuanced. In 1994, the Fed hiked the funds rate to 6 per cent, paused at that peak and then cut 75 basis points over 1995 and 1996. After that, the next policy move was actually a hike, not a cut.Currently, we think the Fed starts cutting rates in June; and for now, we expect that cutting to continue into next year. But as our US team has noted, the supply side revisions mean that the path for policy next year is just highly uncertain and subject to review. From 1994 to 1996, job gains trended down, much like they have over the past two years.That slowing was reflective of a broader slowing in the economy that prompted the Fed to stop hiking and partially reverse course. So, should we expect the same now, only a very partial reversal? Well, it's too soon to tell, and as we've argued, the faster labor supply growth expands both aggregate demand and aggregate supply -- so a somewhat tighter policy stance could be appropriate.In 1996, inflation stopped falling, and subsequently rose into 1997, and it was that development that supported the Fed's decision to maintain their somewhat restrictive policy. But we can't forget, afterward, inflation resumed its downward trajectory, with core PCE inflation eventually falling below 1.5 per cent, suggesting that that need to stop cutting and resume hiking, well, probably needs to be re-examined.So, no two cycles match, and the comparison may break down. To date, the rapid hikes, pause and pivot, along with a seeming soft landing, keeps that comparison alive. The labor supply...]]>279alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1115fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-is-the-us-dollar-headed--75652675----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss one of the most debated topics in world markets right now, the strength of the US dollar.It's Wednesday, May 1st, at 3 pm in London.Michael Zezas: Currencies around the world are falling as a strong US dollar continues its reign. This is an unusual situation. So much so that the finance ministers of Japan, South Korea, and the United States released a joint statement last month to address the effects being felt in Asia. The US dollar's dominance can have vast implications for the global economy and the world stock markets.So, I wanted to sit down with my colleagues, James and David, who are Morgan Stanley's currency strategy experts for emerging markets and developed markets. James, just how dominant is the US dollar right now and what's driving the strength?James Lord: So, we should distinguish between the role the US dollar plays as the world's dominant reserve currency and its value, which can go up and down for other reasons.Right now, the dollar remains just as dominant in the international monetary system as it has been over the past several decades, whilst it also happens to be very strong in terms of its value, as you mentioned. That strength in its value is really being driven by the continued outperformance of the US economy and the ongoing rise in US interest rates, while growth in the rest of the world is more subdued.The dollar's international role remains dominant simply because no other economy or market can match the depth of the US capital markets and the liquidity that it provides, both as a means of raising capital, but also as a store of value for investment; while also offering the strong protection of property rights, strong sovereign credit ratings, the rule of law, and an open capital account. There simply isn't another market that can challenge the US in that respect.Michael Zezas: And can you talk a bit more specifically about the various ways in which the dollar impacts the global economy?James Lord: So, one of the strongest impacts is through the price of the dollar, and the price of dollar debt, which have an impact beyond the borders of the US economy. Because the majority of foreign currency denominated debt that corporates outside of the US issue is denominated in US dollars, the interest rate that's set by the US Federal Reserve has a big impact on the cost of borrowing. It's also the same for many emerging market sovereigns that also issue heavily in US dollars. The US dollar is also used heavily in international trade, cross border lending, because the majority of international trade is denominated in US dollars. So, when US interest rates rise, it also tightens monetary conditions for the rest of the world. That is why the US Federal Reserve is often referred to as the world's central bank, even though Fed only sets policy with respect to the US economy.And the US dollar strengthens, as it has been over the past 10 years, it also makes it more challenging for countries that borrow in dollars to repay that debt, unless they have enough dollar assets.Again, that's another tightening of financial conditions for the rest of the world. I think it was a US Treasury Secretary from several decades ago who said that the US dollar is our currency, but your problem. And that neatly sums up the global influence the US dollar has.Michael Zezas: And David, nothing seems to typify the strength of the US dollar recently, like the currency moves we're seeing with the Japanese Yen. It looks very weak at the moment, and yet the Japanese stock market is very strong.David Adams: Yeah, weak is an understatement for the Japanese yen. In nominal terms, the yen is at its weakest level versus the dollar since 1990. And if we look in real terms, it hasn't been this weak since the late 1960s. Why it's weak is pretty easy to explain, though. It's monetary policy divergence. Theory tells us that as long as capital is free to move, a country can't both control its interest rates and control the exchange rate at the same time.G10 economies typically choose to control rates and leave their currencies to float, and the US and Japan are no exception. So, while the while the Fed's policy rate has risen to multi-decade highs, Japan's has been left basically unchanged, consistent with its economic fundamentals.Now, you mentioned Japanese equities, which is also increasingly important to this story. As foreign investors have deployed more cash into the Japanese stock market, a lot of them have hedged their FX [foreign exchange] exposure, which means they're buying back dollars in the forward market. The more that Japanese equities rise, the more hedges they add, increasing dollar demand versus the yen.So, put simply, the best outcome for dollar yen to keep rising is for US rates versus Japan and Japanese equities to both keep marching higher. And for a lot of investors, this seems increasingly like their base case.Michael Zezas: That makes sense. And yet, despite the dollar's clear dominance at the moment, the consensus view on the dollar is that it's going to get weaker. Why is that the case and what's the market missing?James Lord: Yeah, the consensus has been on the wrong side of the dollar call for quite a few years now, with a persistently bearish outlook, which has largely been incorrect. I think for the most part this is because the consensus has underestimated the strength of the US economy. It wasn't that long ago when the consensus was calling for a hard landing in the US economy and a pretty deep easing cycle from the Fed. And yet here we are with GDP growth north of 2 per cent and murmurings of another rate hike entering the narrative. I also wonder whether this debate about de-dollarization, whereby the dollar's global influence starts to wane, has impacted the sentiment of forecasters a bit as well.We have seen over the past three to four years much more noise in the media on this topic, and there appears to be a correlation between the extent to which the consensus is expecting dollar weakness and the number of media articles that are discussing the dollar's status as the world's major reserve currency.Maybe that's coincidence, but it's also consistent with our view that the market generally worries too much about this issue and the impact that it could have on the dollar's outlook.Michael Zezas: Now there've been a few notable changes to Morgan Stanley's macro forecasts over the last few weeks. Our US economist, Ellen Zentner revised up her forecast for US growth and inflation. And she also pushed back our expectations for the first Fed cut. Along with this, our US rate strategy team also revised their 10-year treasury yield expectations higher. Do these updates to the macro-outlook impact your bullish view on the dollar, both near term and longer term?David Adams: So, higher US rates are often helpful for the dollar, but we think some nuance is required. It's not that US rates are moving; it's why they're moving. And our four-regime dollar framework shows that increases or decreases in rates can give us very different dollar outcomes depending on the reason why rates are moving.So far this year, rates have been moving higher in a pretty benign risk environment. And in a world where US real interest rates rise alongside equities; the dollar tends to go nowhere in the aggregate. It gains versus low yielding funders like the Japanese yen, the Swiss franc, and the euro, but it tends to weaken versus those higher beta currencies with positive carry, like the Mexican peso. It's why we've been neutral on the dollar overall since the start of the year, but we still emphasize dollar strength, especially versus the euro.If rising rates were to start weighing on equities, that would lead the dollar to start rallying broadly, what we call Regime 3 of our framework. It's not our base case, but it's a risk we think markets are starting to get more nervous about. It suggests that the balance of risks are increasingly towards a higher dollar rather than a lower one.Michael Zezas: And finally, Dave, I wanted to ask about potential risks to the US dollar's current strength.David Adams: I'd say the clearest dollar negative risk for me is a rebound in European and Chinese growth. It's hard for investors to get excited about selling the dollar without a clear alternative to buy. A big rebound in rest of world growth could easily make those alternatives look more attractive, though how probable that outcome is remains debatable.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, this discussion of risk to the strong dollar may be a good time to pause. There's so much more to talk about here. We've barely scratched the surface. So, let's continue the conversation in the near future when we can talk more about the dollar status as the world's dominant reserve currency and potential challenges to that position.James Lord: This sounds like a great idea, Mike. Talk to you soon.David Adams: Likewise. Thanks for having me on the show and look forward to our next conversation.Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/V0Y2HmCByjSZ9X5kg-lIsus73264MFDcgI9Thnd-yMYThu, 02 May 2024 00:14:00 +0000gtyOur experts discuss U.S. dollar strength and its far-reaching impact on the global economy and the world’s stock markets. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss one of the most debated topics in world markets right now, the strength of the US dollar.It's Wednesday, May 1st, at 3 pm in London.Michael Zezas: Currencies around the world are falling as a strong US dollar continues its reign. This is an unusual situation. So much so that the finance ministers of Japan, South Korea, and the United States released a joint statement last month to address the effects being felt in Asia. The US dollar's dominance can have vast implications for the global economy and the world stock markets.So, I wanted to sit down with my colleagues, James and David, who are Morgan Stanley's currency strategy experts for emerging markets and developed markets. James, just how dominant is the US dollar right now and what's driving the strength?James Lord: So, we should distinguish between the role the US dollar plays as the world's dominant reserve currency and its value, which can go up and down for other reasons.Right now, the dollar remains just as dominant in the international monetary system as it has been over the past several decades, whilst it also happens to be very strong in terms of its value, as you mentioned. That strength in its value is really being driven by the continued outperformance of the US economy and the ongoing rise in US interest rates, while growth in the rest of the world is more subdued.The dollar's international role remains dominant simply because no other economy or market can match the depth of the US capital markets and the liquidity that it provides, both as a means of raising capital, but also as a store of value for investment; while also offering the strong protection of property rights, strong sovereign credit ratings, the rule of law, and an open capital account. There simply isn't another market that can challenge the US in that respect.Michael Zezas: And can you talk a bit more specifically about the various ways in which the dollar impacts the global economy?James Lord: So, one of the strongest impacts is through the price of the dollar, and the price of dollar debt, which have an impact beyond the borders of the US economy. Because the majority of foreign currency denominated debt that corporates outside of the US issue is denominated in US dollars, the interest rate that's set by the US Federal Reserve has a big impact on the cost of borrowing. It's also the same for many emerging market sovereigns that also issue heavily in US dollars. The US dollar is also used heavily in international trade, cross border lending, because the majority of international trade is denominated in US dollars. So, when US interest rates rise, it also tightens monetary conditions for the rest of the world. That is why the US Federal Reserve is often referred to as the world's central bank, even though Fed only sets policy with respect to the US economy.And the US dollar strengthens, as it has been over the past 10 years, it also makes it more challenging for countries that borrow in dollars to repay that debt, unless they have enough dollar assets.Again, that's another tightening of financial conditions for the rest of the world. I think it was a US Treasury Secretary from several decades ago who said that the US dollar is our currency, but your problem. And that neatly sums up the global influence the US dollar has.Michael Zezas: And David, nothing seems to typify the strength of the US dollar recently, like the currency moves we're seeing with the Japanese Yen. It looks very weak at the moment, and yet the...]]>511alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1114fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/decarbonizing-real-estate--75652955----- Transcript -----

Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Research Analyst, covering the European building and construction sector for Morgan Stanley Research.Laurel Durkay: And I'm Laurel Durkay, head of the Global Listed Real Assets Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Cedar Ekblom: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the opportunities, risks, and latest investment trends when it comes to decarbonizing buildings.It's Tuesday, April 30th, at 2pm in London.Laurel Durkay: And 9am in New York.Cedar Ekblom: So, let's take a step back. Picture the gleaming towers of New York, London, or Hong Kong. Now think about these buildings breathing out carbon dioxide. The built environment is responsible for about a third of all global energy consumption and CO2 emissions. And so, if we want to get to Net Zero by 2050, which means emitting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we take out of it, decarbonizing the building stock is essential.We've been doing a lot of work in Europe from the research side to try and understand how the investment trends are linked to this topic. But Laurel, I wanted to have you on the podcast because I wanted to understand how you're coming at it from the other side as a real estate investor and portfolio manager.Laurel Durkay: Yeah, Cedar, so I've seen some of your notes and I actually wasn't too surprised by your conclusion that energy renovation is seeing rising investment momentum in Europe. And this is despite the high upfront costs which are driven by government regulation, build cost inflation and higher interest rates.Cedar Ekblom: Yeah, we decided to do this work because we've had a lot of incoming from investors around what's happening from an investment perspective because we have seen a few government policy sidesteps or backtracks in the last 12 to 18 months around this topic. And so, we did some proprietary survey work in the residential, non-residential and providers of capital space. And we had some really interesting outcomes.I think the most interesting was that despite the fact that government subsidies have been dialed back a little bit, and the cost of investment has gone up because of inflation, actually private investment is really robust. And I think it's because there is a clear economic incentive that both homeowners and non-residential building owners are actually talking to.I mean, the first one is that homeowners are telling us that they see a 12 per cent increase in their home equity value if they green that property. And when we look at the non-residential space, what we're seeing is that renovation budgets are up 4 per cent year over year, even in a backdrop of higher interest rates.We see a huge runway of investment to come through on this topic. It is multi-decade. It's not going to happen overnight.You're talking about 2.8 trillion euros of investment by 2030 on our estimates, and that number extending to potentially 5 trillion euros by 2050. And that's just in Europe.Laurel Durkay: So the scope and need for investment really is huge. What do you think are the hurdles to delivering this opportunity?Cedar Ekblom: It's such an interesting question. I mean, there are so many. It's a little bit daunting at points when you think about it, but we're looking at really complicated projects. We're looking at skills bottlenecks. We're looking at upfront costs being really high. We're also looking at energy policy, not necessarily being aligned in every region in Europe.So yes, it's going to cost you a lot, but basically the respondents to the surveys tend to suggest that the benefits are actually starting to outweigh those potential costs.So, Laurel, I think that there's been some really interesting overlaps between what you and I cover, but from different angles. Let me pivot to you. How do you think about sustainability when it comes to real estate investment in your seat?Laurel Durkay: Yeah, bottom line is that understanding and incorporating sustainability and real estate investing really is very important; and we need to be aware not only of the physical risks, but also those transition risks associated with buildings. Taking a step back, what I'm observing is that real estate is seeing the sustainability focus really play out from three different constituents, and that's from investors, from regulators, and from tenants.So, from that investor perspective, we're seeing increasing demand for sustainable linked financing investing. Think green bonds. In some cases, you're actually seeing more favorable spreads for green financing versus traditional -- and ultimately that means better cash flows for companies.We also have that coming from the government. What we see is a continued evolution on regulations, and there have been several real estate specific laws being adopted across the states.All of these have the objective of providing greater transparency on carbon emissions with the ultimate goal of reducing such emissions. Now lastly, for tenants, we're seeing increasing demand for sustainable and best in class buildings.There's actually a growing body of evidence that shows sustainability is impacting leasing decisions and resulting in rent premiumsCedar Ekblom: So, how do we think about integrating ESG into your investment process?Laurel Durkay: So, there's a number of different metrics that we're looking at. We've run a proprietary analysis really trying to identify the most financially material factors. And we've ultimately concluded that the most important factors to be looking at are the absolute level of emissions and then the progress towards reducing those emissions -- water and waste usage, green certified buildings -- among a number of other factors.Ultimately, what we need to do is put together a framework that helps us assess the expenditures in order to really adhere to the regulatory requirements that I was just describing and ultimately allow the buildings to enjoy operational cost savings from implementing sustainability measures.This is really about future proofing buildings and enhancing value.Cedar Ekblom: So, it sounds like really a topic around trying to understand where they may or may not be stranded assets. We've spoken a lot about this topic in Europe, but maybe you could talk a little bit about what's happening from a sort of policy backdrop in the US.Laurel Durkay: Yeah, so government really is driving a lot of this change, both at a federal and at a state level. So, from a federal perspective, it really is more of a carrot as opposed to a stick with regard to implementation and adoption, really rewarding those who embrace sustainability. Now, interestingly, from a state perspective, it's a bit more of a stick than a carrot.Buildings not in compliance will be subject to fines and penalties. I should also mention that the SEC is getting really involved with the adoption of new climate related disclosure requirements.Now this isn't real estate specific, but it is impactful, nonetheless. New requirements mandate companies to disclose material Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions.Right now, less than 30 per cent of US companies even attempt to disclose Scope 3, and that's even less for real estate. Now Cedar, these scope three emissions are really where our worlds intersect most given the built environment.So, for a typical property owner, Scope 1 emissions represent about 25 per cent. Scope 2 is about 55 per cent of their missions. And then the remainder is going to be this Scope 3. But if you look at a developer and an owner, that's where you see Scope 3 emissions range between 80 to 95 per cent of their total emissions.Cedar Ekblom: So, if we look towards the future, what are you hearing from clients and colleagues about where sustainability investment trends go from here?Laurel Durkay: I think the trends have to be towards reducing these Scope 3 emissions, or maybe I just I hope that's where the trend is. You really need for building developers and owners to focus on development processes, building products and materials, and you need to see innovation within that space.Now, how about from your side, Cedar? What are you hearing from various companies you cover about the trends they foresee?Cedar Ekblom: The building materials and products businesses are really bullish on the long-term investment horizon on this topic. And we can see that in some of the data in Europe. The new build environment is under a lot of pressure. Higher interest rates have impacted affordability, and we have some activity in new build down 20 to 30 per cent.And yet when you look at the renovation and the refurbishment sector, we actually have a much more resilient backdrop.So look, our companies are really bullish on this. We ultimately see this manifesting in a higher multiple for businesses linked to this theme over the medium term. In all honesty, we're really just at the beginning of this theme. We think there's a lot of runway of investment still to come and we're keeping an eye on it.So, with that, Laurel, I'd like to say, thanks for taking the time to talk.Laurel Durkay: It was great speaking with you, Cedar.Cedar Ekblom: And as a reminder to our listeners, if you've enjoyed thoughts on the market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to the podcast. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4D0TkOM-mC2w8bcBIJysrpU-RWGSLBw92OvuPePb5aQTue, 30 Apr 2024 22:14:33 +0000gtyOur analysts survey the hurdles, opportunities and investment trends in energy renovation.Please note that Laurel Durkay is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the...----- Transcript -----

Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Research Analyst, covering the European building and construction sector for Morgan Stanley Research.Laurel Durkay: And I'm Laurel Durkay, head of the Global Listed Real Assets Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Cedar Ekblom: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the opportunities, risks, and latest investment trends when it comes to decarbonizing buildings.It's Tuesday, April 30th, at 2pm in London.Laurel Durkay: And 9am in New York.Cedar Ekblom: So, let's take a step back. Picture the gleaming towers of New York, London, or Hong Kong. Now think about these buildings breathing out carbon dioxide. The built environment is responsible for about a third of all global energy consumption and CO2 emissions. And so, if we want to get to Net Zero by 2050, which means emitting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we take out of it, decarbonizing the building stock is essential.We've been doing a lot of work in Europe from the research side to try and understand how the investment trends are linked to this topic. But Laurel, I wanted to have you on the podcast because I wanted to understand how you're coming at it from the other side as a real estate investor and portfolio manager.Laurel Durkay: Yeah, Cedar, so I've seen some of your notes and I actually wasn't too surprised by your conclusion that energy renovation is seeing rising investment momentum in Europe. And this is despite the high upfront costs which are driven by government regulation, build cost inflation and higher interest rates.Cedar Ekblom: Yeah, we decided to do this work because we've had a lot of incoming from investors around what's happening from an investment perspective because we have seen a few government policy sidesteps or backtracks in the last 12 to 18 months around this topic. And so, we did some proprietary survey work in the residential, non-residential and providers of capital space. And we had some really interesting outcomes.I think the most interesting was that despite the fact that government subsidies have been dialed back a little bit, and the cost of investment has gone up because of inflation, actually private investment is really robust. And I think it's because there is a clear economic incentive that both homeowners and non-residential building owners are actually talking to.I mean, the first one is that homeowners are telling us that they see a 12 per cent increase in their home equity value if they green that property. And when we look at the non-residential space, what we're seeing is that renovation budgets are up 4 per cent year over year, even in a backdrop of higher interest rates.We see a huge runway of investment to come through on this topic. It is multi-decade. It's not going to happen overnight.You're talking about 2.8 trillion euros of investment by 2030 on our estimates, and that number extending to potentially 5 trillion euros by 2050. And that's just in Europe.Laurel Durkay: So the scope and need for investment really is huge. What do you think are the hurdles to delivering this opportunity?Cedar Ekblom: It's such an interesting question. I mean, there are so many. It's a little bit daunting at points when you think about it, but we're looking at really complicated projects. We're looking at skills bottlenecks. We're looking at upfront costs being really high. We're also looking at energy policy, not necessarily being aligned in every region in...]]>581alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1113fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-curious-connection-between-airlines-and-fashion--75652851----- Transcript -----
Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's North America Softlines, Retail and Brands Analyst.Ravi Shanker: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some really surprising parallels between fashion, retail, and airlines.It's Monday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Now, you're probably wondering why we're talking about airlines and fashion retail in the same sentence. And that's because even though they may seem worlds apart, they actually have a lot in common. They're both highly cyclical industries driven by consumer spending, inventory pressure, and brand attrition over time.And so, we would argue that what applies to one industry actually has relevance to the other industry as well. So, Alex, you've been observing some remarkable turnaround stories in your space recently. Can you paint a picture of what some fashion retail businesses have done to engineer a successful turnaround? Maybe go over some of the fundamentals first?Alex Straton: What I'll lead with here is that in my North America apparel retail coverage, turnarounds are incredibly hard to come by, to the point where I'd argue I'm skeptical when any business tries to architect one. And part of that difficulty directly pertains to your question, Ravi -- the fundamental backdrop of the industry.So, what are we working with here? Apparel is a low single digit growing category here in North America, where the average retailer operates at a mid single digit plus margin level. This is super meager compared to other more profitable industries that Ravi and I don't necessarily have the joy of covering. But part of why my industry is characterized by such low operating performance is the fact that there are incredibly low barriers to entry in the space. And you can really see that in two dynamics.The first being how fragmented the competitive landscape is. That means that there are many players as opposed to consolidation across a select few. Just think of how many options you have out there as you shop for clothing and then how much that has changed over time. And then second, and somewhat due to that fragmentation, the category has historically been deflationary, meaning prices have actually fallen over time as retailers compete mostly on price to garner consumer attention and market share.So put differently, historically, retailers’ key tool for drawing in the consumer and driving sales has been based on being price competitive, often through promotions and discounting, which, along with other structural headwinds, like declining mall traffic, e-commerce growth and then rising wages, rent and product input costs has actually meant the average retailers’ margin was in a steady and unfortunately structural decline prior to the pandemic.So, this reliance on promotions and discounting in tandem with those other pressures I just mentioned, not only hurt many retailers’ earnings power but in many cases also degraded consumer brand perception, creating a super tough cycle to break out of and thus turnarounds very tough to come by -- bringing it full circle.So, in a nutshell, what you should hear is apparel is a low barrier to entry, fragmented market with subsequently thin margins and little to no precedent for successful turnarounds. That's not to say a retail turnaround isn't possible, though, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So that's great background. And you've identified some very specific key levers that these fashion retail companies can pull in order to boost their profitability. What are some of these levers?Alex Straton: We do have a recent example in the space of a company that was able to break free of that rather vicious cycle I just went through, and it actually lifted its sales growth and profitability levels above industry average. From our standpoint, this super rare retail turnaround relied on five key levers, and the first was targeting a different customer demographic. Think going from a teens focused customer with limited brand loyalty to an older, wealthier and less fickle shopper; more reliable, but differently.Second, you know, evolving the product assortment. So, think mixing the assortment into higher priced, less seasonal items that come with better margins. To bring this to life, imagine a jeans and tees business widening its offering to include things like tailored pants and dresses that are often higher margin.Third, we saw that changing the pricing strategy was also key. You can retrain or reposition a brand as not only higher priced through the two levers I just mentioned, but also try and be less promotional overall. This is arguably, from my experience, one of the hardest things for a retailer to execute over time. So, this is the thing I would typically, you know, red flag if you hear it.Fourth, and this is very, very key, reducing the store footprint, re-examining your costs. So, as I mentioned in my coverage, cost inflation across the P&L (profit and loss) historically, consumers moving online over time, and what it means is retailers are sitting on a cost base that might not necessarily be right for the new demand or the new structure of the business. So, finding cost savings on that front can really do wonders for the margins.Fifth, and I list this last because it's a little bit more of a qualitative type of lever -- is that you can focus on digital. That really matters in this modern era. What we saw was a retailer use digital driven data to inform decision making across the business, aligning consumer experience across channels and doing this in a profitable way, which is no easy feat, to say the least.So, look, we identified five broad enablers of a turnaround. But there were, of course, little changes along the way that were also done.Ravi Shanker: Right.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, given what we've discussed, how do you think this turnaround model from fashion retail can apply to airlines?Ravi Shanker: Look, I mean, as we discussed, at the top here, we think there are significant similarities between the world of fashion retail and airlines; even though it may not seem obvious, at first glance. I mean, they're both very consumer discretionary type, demand environments. The vicious circle that you described, the price deflation, the competition, the brand attrition, all of that applies to retail and to airlines as well.And so, I think when you look at the five enablers of the turnaround or levers that you pull to make it happen, I think those can apply from retail to airlines as well. For instance, you target a different customer, one that likes to travel, one that is a premium customer and, and wants to sit in the front of the plane and spend more money.Second, you have a different product out there. Kind of you make your product better, and it's a better experience in the sky, and you give the customer an opportunity to subscribe to credit cards and loyalty program and have a full-service experience when they travel.Third, you change your distribution method. You kind of go more digital, as you said. We don't have inventory here, so it'd be more of -- you don't fly everywhere all the time and be everything to everyone. You are a more focused airline and give your customer a better experience. So, all of those things can drive better outcomes and better financial performance, both in the world of fashion retail as well as in the world of airlines.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, we've definitely identified some pretty startling similarities between fashion retail and airlines. Definitely more so than I appreciated when you called me a couple months ago to explore this topic. So, with that in mind, what are some of the differences and challenges to applying to airlines, a playbook taken from the world of fashion retail?Ravi Shanker: Right, so, look, I mean, they are obviously very different industries, right? For instance, clothing is a basic human staple; air travel and going on vacations is not. It's a lot more discretionary. The industry is a lot more consolidated in the airline space compared to the world of retail. Air travel is also a lot more premium compared to the entire retail industry. But when you look at premium retail and what some of those brands have done where brands really make a difference, the product really makes a difference. I think there are a lot more similarities than differences between those premium retail brands on the airline industry.So, Alex, going back to you, given the success of the turnaround model that you've discussed, do you think more retail businesses will adopt it? And are there any risks if that becomes a norm?Alex Straton: The reality is Ravi, I breezed through those five key enablers in a super clear manner. But, first, you know, the enablers of a turnaround in my view are only super clear in hindsight. And then secondly, one thing I want to just re-emphasize again is that a turnaround of the nature I described isn't something that happens overnight. Shifting something like your consumer base or changing investor perception of discounting activity is a multi year, incredibly difficult task; meaning turnarounds are also often multi year affairs, if ever successful at all.So, looking ahead, given how rare retail turnarounds have proven to be historically, I think while many businesses in my coverage area are super intrigued by some of this recent success; at the same time, I think they're eyes wide open that it's much easier said than done, with execution far from certain in any given turnaround.Ravi Shanker: Got it. I think the good news from my perspective is that hindsight and time both the best teachers, especially when put toget]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/F3CPX_aw86s4n9sA-tdV8bcK5__ZzqJHDaEAPFQGo6AMon, 29 Apr 2024 21:38:07 +0000gtyOur analysts find that despite the obvious differences between retail fashion and airlines, struggling brands in both industries can use a similar playbook for a turnaround. ----- Transcript ----- Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's North America Softlines, Retail and Brands Analyst.Ravi Shanker: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some really surprising parallels between fashion, retail, and airlines.It's Monday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Now, you're probably wondering why we're talking about airlines and fashion retail in the same sentence. And that's because even though they may seem worlds apart, they actually have a lot in common. They're both highly cyclical industries driven by consumer spending, inventory pressure, and brand attrition over time.And so, we would argue that what applies to one industry actually has relevance to the other industry as well. So, Alex, you've been observing some remarkable turnaround stories in your space recently. Can you paint a picture of what some fashion retail businesses have done to engineer a successful turnaround? Maybe go over some of the fundamentals first?Alex Straton: What I'll lead with here is that in my North America apparel retail coverage, turnarounds are incredibly hard to come by, to the point where I'd argue I'm skeptical when any business tries to architect one. And part of that difficulty directly pertains to your question, Ravi -- the fundamental backdrop of the industry.So, what are we working with here? Apparel is a low single digit growing category here in North America, where the average retailer operates at a mid single digit plus margin level. This is super meager compared to other more profitable industries that Ravi and I don't necessarily have the joy of covering. But part of why my industry is characterized by such low operating performance is the fact that there are incredibly low barriers to entry in the space. And you can really see that in two dynamics.The first being how fragmented the competitive landscape is. That means that there are many players as opposed to consolidation across a select few. Just think of how many options you have out there as you shop for clothing and then how much that has changed over time. And then second, and somewhat due to that fragmentation, the category has historically been deflationary, meaning prices have actually fallen over time as retailers compete mostly on price to garner consumer attention and market share.So put differently, historically, retailers’ key tool for drawing in the consumer and driving sales has been based on being price competitive, often through promotions and discounting, which, along with other structural headwinds, like declining mall traffic, e-commerce growth and then rising wages, rent and product input costs has actually meant the average retailers’ margin was in a steady and unfortunately structural decline prior to the pandemic.So, this reliance on promotions and discounting in tandem with those other pressures I just mentioned, not only hurt many retailers’ earnings power but in many cases also degraded consumer brand perception, creating a super tough cycle to break out of and thus turnarounds very tough to come by -- bringing it full circle.So, in a nutshell, what you should hear is apparel is a low barrier to entry, fragmented market with subsequently thin margins and little to no precedent for successful turnarounds. That's not to say a retail turnaround isn't possible, though, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So that's great background. And you've identified some very specific key levers that these fashion retail companies can pull in order to boost their profitability. What are some of these levers?Alex Straton: We do have a recent example in the space of a company that was able to break free of that...]]>599alternatives,economics,equities,fixed income,global,investing,macro,markets,strategyfalse1112fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-technology-help-us-live-longer-better--75652863----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in London. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the promise of technology that might help us live longer and better lives.  It’s Friday, the 26th of April, at 2pm in London.You may have heard me discuss Moonshots and Earthshots on this podcast before. Moonshots are ambitious solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology, predominantly software; while Earthshots, by contrast, are radical planet-focused technologies to accelerate decarbonization and mitigate global warming, predominantly hardware challenges.But today I want to address a third group of revolutionary solutions that I call Longshots. These are the most promising Longevity technologies. And in terms of the three big secular themes that Morgan Stanley is focused on – which are Decarbonization, Tech Diffusion, and Longevity – Longshots straddle the latter two. Unlike software-based Moonshots or hardware-based Earthshots, these Longshots face some of the greatest challenges of all. First, we know remarkably little about the process of ageing. Second, these are both hardware and software problems. And third, the regulatory hurdles are far more stringent in healthcare, when compared to most other emerging technology fields.      We believe the success of Longshots depends on a deep understanding of Longevity. And loosely speaking, you can think of that as a question of whether someone's phenotype can outweigh their genotype. In other words, can their lifestyle, choices, environment trump the genetics that are written into their DNA.Modern medicine, by focusing almost exclusively on treating disease rather than preventing it, has succeeded in keeping us alive for longer – but also sicker for longer. Preventing disease increases our health spans and reduces morbidity, and its associated costs.So, in this regard, can we learn anything from the centenarians - the people who live to a hundred and beyond? They number around 30 people in every 100,000 of the population. And many of them live healthy lives well into their eighties. And what makes them so rare is they are statistically better at avoiding what the medical industry calls the Four Horsemen: coronary disease, diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer’s. So, can Longshots help to replicate that successful healthy ageing story for a larger slice of the population?We look to technology for ways to delay the onset of these chronic diseases by 10 to 30 years, giving healthy life extension for all. That’s not an outlandish goal in theory; but in practice we need a new approach to medical research. And we will be watching how the ten key Longshots we have identified play into this.Two of these Longshots are already familiar to our listeners: Diabesity medication and Smart Chemotherapy treatments, with a combined addressable market – according to our analysts – of a quarter of a trillion dollars. The other eight Longshots include AI-enabled drug discovery, machine vision embryo selection dramatically increasing the odds of fertility via IVF, bioprinting of organs, brain-computer Interfaces, CRISPR, DNA synthesis, robotics and psychedelics. In assessing the maturity and investibility of these ten Longshots, we find that obesity medication, smart chemo, and AI-assisted drug discovery are better understood by the market and look more investible. Many of the others are seeing material outcome- and cost-improvements but they remain earlier-stage, more speculative, particularly for public market investors.In contrast to Moonshots and Earthshots, where venture investors make up the lion's share of most of the early-stage capital, Longshots have substantially higher exposure to government agencies that make investments in early-stage healthcare projects. Governments are making hundreds of bets on Longshots in searches for solutions to reduce overall healthcare spending – or at the very least get a better return on that investment – which in 2023 amounted to $4.5 trillion in the US, and a whopping $10 trillion globally.Clearly, the stakes are very high, and the market opportunity is vast, particularly as AI technologies advance in tandem. And so, we’ll keep you updated on the promise of these Longshots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Wvz1RGKg04qKSY7UmOZ1Pw2Rgf8-SpCi_PIiHWTKlI4Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:17:02 +0000gtyOur Head of Europe Thematic Research discusses revolutionary “Longshot” technologies that can potentially alter the course of human ageing, and which of them look most investible to the market. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in London. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the promise of technology that might help us live longer and better lives.  It’s Friday, the 26th of April, at 2pm in London.You may have heard me discuss Moonshots and Earthshots on this podcast before. Moonshots are ambitious solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology, predominantly software; while Earthshots, by contrast, are radical planet-focused technologies to accelerate decarbonization and mitigate global warming, predominantly hardware challenges.But today I want to address a third group of revolutionary solutions that I call Longshots. These are the most promising Longevity technologies. And in terms of the three big secular themes that Morgan Stanley is focused on – which are Decarbonization, Tech Diffusion, and Longevity – Longshots straddle the latter two. Unlike software-based Moonshots or hardware-based Earthshots, these Longshots face some of the greatest challenges of all. First, we know remarkably little about the process of ageing. Second, these are both hardware and software problems. And third, the regulatory hurdles are far more stringent in healthcare, when compared to most other emerging technology fields.      We believe the success of Longshots depends on a deep understanding of Longevity. And loosely speaking, you can think of that as a question of whether someone's phenotype can outweigh their genotype. In other words, can their lifestyle, choices, environment trump the genetics that are written into their DNA.Modern medicine, by focusing almost exclusively on treating disease rather than preventing it, has succeeded in keeping us alive for longer – but also sicker for longer. Preventing disease increases our health spans and reduces morbidity, and its associated costs.So, in this regard, can we learn anything from the centenarians - the people who live to a hundred and beyond? They number around 30 people in every 100,000 of the population. And many of them live healthy lives well into their eighties. And what makes them so rare is they are statistically better at avoiding what the medical industry calls the Four Horsemen: coronary disease, diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer’s. So, can Longshots help to replicate that successful healthy ageing story for a larger slice of the population?We look to technology for ways to delay the onset of these chronic diseases by 10 to 30 years, giving healthy life extension for all. That’s not an outlandish goal in theory; but in practice we need a new approach to medical research. And we will be watching how the ten key Longshots we have identified play into this.Two of these Longshots are already familiar to our listeners: Diabesity medication and Smart Chemotherapy treatments, with a combined addressable market – according to our analysts – of a quarter of a trillion dollars. The other eight Longshots include AI-enabled drug discovery, machine vision embryo selection dramatically increasing the odds of fertility via IVF, bioprinting of organs, brain-computer Interfaces, CRISPR, DNA synthesis, robotics and psychedelics. In assessing the maturity and investibility of these ten Longshots, we find that obesity medication, smart chemo, and AI-assisted drug discovery are better understood by the market and look more investible. Many of the others are seeing material outcome- and cost-improvements but they remain earlier-stage, more speculative, particularly for public market investors.In contrast to Moonshots and Earthshots, where venture investors make up the lion's share of most of the early-stage capital, Longshots have...]]>314false1111fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/meeting-the-demand-for-anti-obesity-treatment--75652872----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mark Purcell, head of Morgan Stanley’s European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the enormous ripple effects of anti-obesity drugs across the global economy. It’s Thursday, April the 25th, and it’s 2pm in London. Obesity is one of the biggest health challenges of our time. More than a billion people are living with obesity worldwide today, with 54 per cent of adults expected to be either overweight or obese by 2035. Growing rates of obesity worldwide combined with rising longevity are putting a heavy burden on healthcare systems.Our Global Pharma team has covered obesity extensively over the last 18 months. When we wrote our original report in the summer of 2022, the whole debate centered on establishing the patient-physician engagement. The historic precedent we looked at was the hypertension market in the 1980s when high blood pressure was considered a disease caused by stress rather than a chronic illness. And obesity was seen as the result of genetics or a lack of willpower.But through the influence of social media and an increasingly weight-centric approach to treating diabetes, demand for anti-obesity medications skyrocketed. Back in July 2022, we saw obesity as a $55 billion market. And at that point the key question was if and when these drugs would be reimbursed. If you fast-forward to July 2023, what we saw was reimbursement kicking in the U.S. much more quickly than we anticipated. There were almost 40 million people who had access to these medicines, and 80 percent of them were paying less than $25 out of pocket. By the end of 2023 we had the first landmark obesity trial called SELECT, and that finally established that weight management saves lives in individuals not living with diabetes. These SELECT data supported the cardiac protection GLP-1 medicines have already established for individuals living with diabetes. We expect weight management with anti-obesity medicines will improve the outlook for more than 200 chronic diseases, or so-called co-morbidities, including heart failure and kidney disease, as well as complications like sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and even potentially Alzheimer's disease.Now the debate is no longer about demand for these medicines, but it’s about supply. The major pharma companies in the space are investing almost $60 billion of capital expenditure in order to establish a supply chain that can satisfy this vast demand. And beyond supply, the other side of the current debate is the ripple effects from anti-obesity drugs. How will they impact the broader healthcare sector, consumer goods, food, apparel? And how do lower obesity rates impact life expectancy? So, with all this in mind, our base case, we estimate the global obesity market will now reach $105 billion in 2030. Right now, supply is being primarily diverted to the U.S., but in the long term we think that the market opportunity will become bigger outside the US. Furthermore, the size of the obesity market will be determined by co-morbidities and improved supply. So, if all these factors play out, our bull scenario is a $144 billion total addressable market. However, if supply constraints continue, then we can see a market more restricted to $55 billion as of 2030. So, things are developing fast, and we will continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3xthwY957lyD7vmXs5MkzLPKqZzynpyWDpnthkFfpYIThu, 25 Apr 2024 19:06:38 +0000gtyWith interest in anti-obesity medications growing significantly, the head of our European Pharmaceuticals Team examines just how large that market could become. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mark Purcell, head of Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mark Purcell, head of Morgan Stanley’s European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the enormous ripple effects of anti-obesity drugs across the global economy. It’s Thursday, April the 25th, and it’s 2pm in London. Obesity is one of the biggest health challenges of our time. More than a billion people are living with obesity worldwide today, with 54 per cent of adults expected to be either overweight or obese by 2035. Growing rates of obesity worldwide combined with rising longevity are putting a heavy burden on healthcare systems.Our Global Pharma team has covered obesity extensively over the last 18 months. When we wrote our original report in the summer of 2022, the whole debate centered on establishing the patient-physician engagement. The historic precedent we looked at was the hypertension market in the 1980s when high blood pressure was considered a disease caused by stress rather than a chronic illness. And obesity was seen as the result of genetics or a lack of willpower.But through the influence of social media and an increasingly weight-centric approach to treating diabetes, demand for anti-obesity medications skyrocketed. Back in July 2022, we saw obesity as a $55 billion market. And at that point the key question was if and when these drugs would be reimbursed. If you fast-forward to July 2023, what we saw was reimbursement kicking in the U.S. much more quickly than we anticipated. There were almost 40 million people who had access to these medicines, and 80 percent of them were paying less than $25 out of pocket. By the end of 2023 we had the first landmark obesity trial called SELECT, and that finally established that weight management saves lives in individuals not living with diabetes. These SELECT data supported the cardiac protection GLP-1 medicines have already established for individuals living with diabetes. We expect weight management with anti-obesity medicines will improve the outlook for more than 200 chronic diseases, or so-called co-morbidities, including heart failure and kidney disease, as well as complications like sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and even potentially Alzheimer's disease.Now the debate is no longer about demand for these medicines, but it’s about supply. The major pharma companies in the space are investing almost $60 billion of capital expenditure in order to establish a supply chain that can satisfy this vast demand. And beyond supply, the other side of the current debate is the ripple effects from anti-obesity drugs. How will they impact the broader healthcare sector, consumer goods, food, apparel? And how do lower obesity rates impact life expectancy? So, with all this in mind, our base case, we estimate the global obesity market will now reach $105 billion in 2030. Right now, supply is being primarily diverted to the U.S., but in the long term we think that the market opportunity will become bigger outside the US. Furthermore, the size of the obesity market will be determined by co-morbidities and improved supply. So, if all these factors play out, our bull scenario is a $144 billion total addressable market. However, if supply constraints continue, then we can see a market more restricted to $55 billion as of 2030. So, things are developing fast, and we will continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>240false1110fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/european-markets-react-to-upcoming-u-s-election--75653004----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how the U.S. election could impact European markets.It's Wednesday, April 24th at 10am in New York.Marina Zavolock: And 3pm in London.Michael Zezas: As the U.S. presidential election gets closer and the outcome remains highly uncertain, we're exploring the impact of a potential departure from the current status quo of President Biden in the White House. Today, my colleague Marina and I want to discuss just what that would mean for European equity markets.Marina, how closely is Europe following the election, and why?Marina Zavolock: So, European equities derive about 25 percent of their market cap weighted revenues from the U.S. And the U.S. is the largest export market for European firms outside of Europe. So, of course, interest in U.S. elections here is very high; and this is in terms of the exposures of European stocks, sectors, asset classes, and economics as a whole. European investors, I would say that their peak interest in U.S. elections was around the Republican primaries, and it's stayed elevated ever since.And Mike, I know you want to dig in specifically on how European markets would react in a change in status quo scenario. But first let's talk about your outlook on some of the key policies that may change if Biden loses the election. What are your thoughts on trade policy and tariffs?Michael Zezas: Trump's been clear about his view that countries levying higher tariffs on U.S. imports than the US levies on their imports is unfair, and he's willing to correct it with tariffs. And while in his term as president he focused more on China, he was interested in tariff escalation with Europe. But he reportedly was moved off that position by advisors and members of his own party who were wary of creating more noise in the transatlantic alliance. But this time around, the Republican party's views are much more aligned with Trump's. So, imports on European goods like autos could easily come into scope.Marina, how are you thinking about the impact of potentially higher tariffs on the European market? What sectors might be most affected?Marina Zavolock: The initial reaction to recent tariff related headlines we've been fielding from investors is around the risks to our bullish European equities view in particular. The general investor feedback we get is that European equities may continue to rally for now, but as we approach November and as we approach US elections, the downside risks from this event start to build.What our in-depth analysis demonstrates, however, is that it's far more nuanced than that. As I mentioned, Europe derives about 25 per cent of its weighted revenues from the US. But, when we've dug into that number, most of these revenues are in the form of services or local to local goods, meaning goods produced locally in the US and sold in the US -- but by European companies. Only about 6 per cent of Europe's overall weighted revenue exposure is to goods exported into the US. So, we find the risk is far more idiosyncratic from a change in tariff policy than broad based. And in terms of individual sectors most exposed to tariff risks, these include a lot of healthcare sectors -- med tech, life sciences, pharma, biotech -- aerospace as well, metals and mining; of course, autos as you mentioned, and a number of others.After tariffs, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is the next most common policy area we get asked about in Europe, given relatively high exposures for European utilities, construction materials, and the capital goods sector.Overall, we find European equities aggregate exposure to IRA is also low, is less than 2 percent of weighted revenues, so even lower than that of tariffs. But the stocks most exposed in Europe to IRA are underperforming the rest of the market. What are your scenarios around the IRA if Trump wins, Mike?Michael Zezas: Well, we think the money appropriated in the IRA is here to stay. Many of that program's investments overlap with geographies represented by Republicans in Congress, which means repealing the IRA may be a better talking point than a political strategy -- similar to how Republicans in 2017 failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act despite campaigning on that as a priority. But Trump could certainly slow the spending of that money through regulatory means such as ratcheting up the rules about how much of the materials involved have to be sourced from within the US.Now switching gears, Marina, you mentioned the performance of European stocks related to our election scenarios. Based on your recent work, you have very granular stock level data on relative exposure to potential administration policies. How are stocks with the greatest exposures behaving overall?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, this was a very interesting conclusion from our work. We thought that it's still fairly early ahead of US elections for stocks to start to diverge on the basis of potential policy changes. But what we found when we surveyed our analysts and collected data for over 350 European stocks with material US exposure is that when we break out these exposures and we aggregate them, the stocks with the highest level of potential risk exposure to Trump administration policies are underperforming the overall market. And the stocks with the greatest potential positive exposure, to Trump administration policies are outperforming.And then you have groups like moderate exposure that are in the middle, and these groups, no matter how we slice the data for different policies, are lining up. Exactly as you might expect, depending on their level of exposure as the market starts to price in some probability of either scenario coming through. We're also starting to see the volatility of the stocks most exposed start to rise. But this is a very early trend.The other big area that we get asked about is China. So, Europe has about 8 per cent of its weighted revenues exposed to China. It's the highest of any major developed market region in the world. What are your expectations about China policy under a new Trump administration?Michael Zezas: Well, it's bipartisan consensus now that China is a rival and that more protective barriers to trade are needed to protect the US' tech advantage in order to safeguard US national and economic security. But like with Europe, Trump appears more willing to use tariffs as a tool in this rivalry, which can create more rhetorical and fundamental noise in the economic relationship.Marina, how do you think this would impact Europe?Marina Zavolock: So, we've been talking about China as a risk factor for some time for a variety of reasons, and recently when I mentioned that European stocks are starting to react to potential change in administration policies. This hasn't so much been the case on China exposures. China exposures are behaving as they were before. We're not seeing any great divergences as we approach elections; though in our overall model, we do favor sectors with lower exposure to China.Mike, and how are you thinking about Ukraine? We have a huge amount of interest in the defense sector, and it's one of the best performing sectors in Europe this year.Michael Zezas: Yeah. So here Trump's been pretty clear that he'd like to push for a rapid reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine. What investors should pay attention to is that a Trump attempt at rapid reconciliation, perhaps in contrast with the European approach. And then when you couple that with potential tariffs on Europe from the US, it can send a signal to Europe that they have to shift their own defense and economic strategy. And one manifestation of that could be greater security spending, particularly defense spending in Europe and globally. It's a key reason why defense is a sector we favor in both the US and Europe.So, Marina, what are some of the bottom-line conclusions for investors?Marina Zavolock: I think there's two main conclusions from our work. First, the aggregate exposures in Europe to potential changes in policy from a Trump administration are pretty low and quite idiosyncratic by stock. We talked about a few of the greatest exposure areas, but in aggregate, if we take all the policy areas that we've analyzed, net exposure of Europe's revenues is about 7 per cent.Second, the stocks that are most exposed, either positively or negatively, are already moving based on those relative exposures, and we think that will continue, and these groups of stocks will also have increased volatility as we get closer to November.Michael Zezas: Marina, thanks for taking the time to talk.Marina Zavolock: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.
Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly informational, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsib]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/76r0CA1I0zgc4adw8Fv63Wqzs4-X-r4FMwHVLyq06CUWed, 24 Apr 2024 23:22:29 +0000gtyAs the U.S. presidential election remains closely contested, our experts discuss what a change in administration could mean for European equities in terms of trade, China relations and other key issues. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how the U.S. election could impact European markets.It's Wednesday, April 24th at 10am in New York.Marina Zavolock: And 3pm in London.Michael Zezas: As the U.S. presidential election gets closer and the outcome remains highly uncertain, we're exploring the impact of a potential departure from the current status quo of President Biden in the White House. Today, my colleague Marina and I want to discuss just what that would mean for European equity markets.Marina, how closely is Europe following the election, and why?Marina Zavolock: So, European equities derive about 25 percent of their market cap weighted revenues from the U.S. And the U.S. is the largest export market for European firms outside of Europe. So, of course, interest in U.S. elections here is very high; and this is in terms of the exposures of European stocks, sectors, asset classes, and economics as a whole. European investors, I would say that their peak interest in U.S. elections was around the Republican primaries, and it's stayed elevated ever since.And Mike, I know you want to dig in specifically on how European markets would react in a change in status quo scenario. But first let's talk about your outlook on some of the key policies that may change if Biden loses the election. What are your thoughts on trade policy and tariffs?Michael Zezas: Trump's been clear about his view that countries levying higher tariffs on U.S. imports than the US levies on their imports is unfair, and he's willing to correct it with tariffs. And while in his term as president he focused more on China, he was interested in tariff escalation with Europe. But he reportedly was moved off that position by advisors and members of his own party who were wary of creating more noise in the transatlantic alliance. But this time around, the Republican party's views are much more aligned with Trump's. So, imports on European goods like autos could easily come into scope.Marina, how are you thinking about the impact of potentially higher tariffs on the European market? What sectors might be most affected?Marina Zavolock: The initial reaction to recent tariff related headlines we've been fielding from investors is around the risks to our bullish European equities view in particular. The general investor feedback we get is that European equities may continue to rally for now, but as we approach November and as we approach US elections, the downside risks from this event start to build.What our in-depth analysis demonstrates, however, is that it's far more nuanced than that. As I mentioned, Europe derives about 25 per cent of its weighted revenues from the US. But, when we've dug into that number, most of these revenues are in the form of services or local to local goods, meaning goods produced locally in the US and sold in the US -- but by European companies. Only about 6 per cent of Europe's overall weighted revenue exposure is to goods exported into the US. So, we find the risk is far more idiosyncratic from a change in tariff policy than broad based. And in terms of individual sectors most exposed to tariff risks, these include a lot of healthcare sectors -- med tech, life sciences, pharma, biotech -- aerospace as well, metals and mining; of course, autos as you mentioned, and a number of others.After tariffs, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is the next most common policy area we get asked about in Europe, given relatively high exposures for European utilities, construction materials, and...]]>539false1109fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-economy-bigger-but-not-tighter--75652868----- Transcript -----
Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief US Economist.Guneet Dhingra: And I'm Guneet Dhingra, Head of US Rates Strategy.Ellen Zentner: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing some significant changes to our US economic outlook and US rates outlook for the rest of this year.It's Tuesday, April 23rd at 10am in New York.Guneet Dhingra: So, Ellen, last week you put out an updated view on your outlook -- with some substantial forecast changes. Can you give us the headlines on GDP, inflation and the Fed forecast path? And what has really changed versus your last update?Ellen Zentner: Sure Guneet. So, our last economic outlook update was in November last year. And since that time, really, the impetus for all of these changes came from immigration. So, we got new immigration data from the CBO, and just to give you a sense of the magnitude of upward revision, we thought we had an increase of 800,000 in 2023. It turns out it was 3.3 million. And so far, the flows of immigrants suggest that we're going to get about as many as last year, if not a little bit more. And so, what does that mean? Faster population growth, those are more mouths to feed. You've got a faster labor force growth. They can work. They are working. And data historically shows that their labor force participation rates are higher than native born Americans.So, you've got to take all this into account. And it means that you've got this big positive supply side shock. And so, when the labor market has been about balance now between demand and supply, as Chair Powell's been noting, you're now going to have supply outrun demand this year.And so, you basically got much more labor market slack. You've got -- and I'm going to steal Chair Powell's words here -- you've got a bigger economy, but not a tighter economy. So, it's faster GDP growth. We have taken out one Fed cut, and I know we're going to talk about that because inflation has surprised the upside recently. But you've got slower wage growth. More labor market slack. And so, we did not change our overall inflation numbers on the back of this better growth and better labor force growth.Guneet Dhingra: That's very helpful. That's a very interesting read in the economy, Ellen. Do you think the Fed is reading the supply side story the same way as you are? And said differently, is the Fed on the same page as you? And if not, when do you think they could be?Ellen Zentner: Yeah. So, you know, Chair Powell, if you go back to his speeches and the minutes from the Fed. They've been talking about immigration. I think we've known for a while that the numbers were bigger than previously thought. But how you interpret that into an outlook can be different. And it takes some time. It even took us some time -- about a month -- to finally digest all the numbers and figure out exactly what it meant for our outlook. So, here's the biggest, I think, change for them in terms of what it means. The break-even level for payrolls is just that much higher.Now what does break even mean? It means it's the pace of job gains you need to generate each month in order to just keep the unemployment rate steady. And six months ago, we all thought it was 100, 000, including the Chair. And now we think it's 265,000. That is eye popping. And it means that when you see these big labor market numbers -- 250, 000; 300,000. That's normal. And that's not a labor market that's too tight.And so, I think the easiest thing the Fed, has realized is that they don't need to worry about the labor market. There's a lot more slack there. There's going to be a lot more slack there this year. Wage growth has come down because of it. ECI, or Employment Cost Index, is going to come down for this year. The unemployment rate is going to be higher. They do still need to reflect that in their forecast. And that means that we could show, sort of, this flavor of bigger but not tighter economy when we get their forecast updates in June.Guneet Dhingra: I think the medium-term thesis is very compelling, Ellen, but how do you fit the three back-to-back upside surprises in CPI here? How does that fit with the labor supply story?Ellen Zentner: So, that is sort of disconnected from the bigger but not tighter economy, because we did have to take into account that inflation has surprised to the upside. I mean, these have been some real volatile prints in the last three months, and we're now tracking March core PCE at 0.25 per cent and we're going to get that number later this week. And so that's above the threshold that we think the Fed needs in order to gain confidence that that pace of deceleration we saw late last year, is not in danger of slowing down for them to gain further confidence.Ellen Zentner: And so, the way I would characterizes this is that it's a bigger but not tighter economy. But we also had to take into account these inflation upside surprises, which is really what led us to push the June cut off to July.So, after we get that March, core PCE print, let's see what that data holds, but we think a few prints around 0.2 per cent are needed to satisfy Chair Powell, and gain that consensus to cut. So, I want to stress to the listeners that, you know, our conviction that inflation will head toward target remains high.And it was also helped last week by fresh data on new tenant rents. So that is a leading indicator for rental inflation in our models. And it's slowed again. And suggests an even faster pace of deceleration ahead.But here's where I think it matters for the Fed. Whereas before, they were very convicted that this rental inflation story was going to play out, that rent inflation was going to come down. They used similar models to us. But because of the inflation data being so volatile over the past three months, rather than providing forward guidance on what you're going to do around rental inflation coming down, you want to see it. You want to see it in the data. And so that's why they've been so willing to say, you know what, we're just going to, we're going to hold longer here.Guneet Dhingra: Perfect. So just to get the Fed call on the record, what exactly are you calling for the Fed? And I know investors love the hypothetical question. What is the probability in your mind that the Fed doesn't cut at all in 2024?Ellen Zentner: Yeah, they do love scenario analysis. So here we go. So, our baseline is they cut in July. They skip September. By November, the inflation data is coming down to monthly prints that tell them they're on track for their 2 per cent goal and at risk of falling below it. So, from November to June next year, they're cutting every meeting to roughly around three and a half percent.Now, as you asked, what if inflation doesn't go down? So, inflation doesn't go down, you know, then the Fed's forecast and our forecast are going to be wrong and the three rate cuts they envision is predicated on that inflation forecast coming true. So, you know, the most important takeaway from that scenario is that the result would be a Fed on holder for longer. But as opposed to a hike being the next move -- and I think that's really important here. The Fed is still very strongly convicted on they will cut this year. This is about the timing. Now, the hold period could last into 2025, I mean, we don't know, but what happens if inflation accelerates from here?So, I'm going to provide another scenario here. So, there is a scenario where inflation accelerates on a backdrop of strong growth, which would suggest it might be sustained, and perhaps begins to lift inflation expectations. Now, you know, that's a recipe for a hold that then turns into additional hikes as the Fed realizes neutral is just higher than where rates currently sit. But at this point, I would put quite a low probability on that scenario. But from a risk weighted perspective, I suppose it should be taken into account.So, given all this and the changes that we've made, what is your expectation for rates for the rest of the year?Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, I think we also, based on the forecast revision you guys have, we also revised up our treasury yield forecast. We earlier had 10 year yields ending slightly below 4 per cent by the end of 2024. Now we have them at about 4.15 percent which again is a 20-basis point uplift from our forecast before this. But still, I think it's not the higher for longer number that people are expecting because when I look at the forecast you have on the Fed, I think Fed path you have is well below what the markets expect.I think the forecast you have has about seven cuts from July this year to the middle of next year. The market for contrast is only four. There's a pretty massive gap that opens up, I think, between the way we see it -- and ultimately that does come down to the interpretation of the data that we're seeing so far.So, for us, the forecast numbers are slightly higher than before, but the message still is: we are not in the hire for longer camp, and we do expect rates to end up below the market applied forwards.Ellen Zentner: All right. So, you know, I've talked a lot about immigration. One could say I've been pretty obsessed with it over the last couple of months. But from a rates perspective, you know, what are the broader implications of the immigration story for that? You know, this, this bigger but not tighter economy. How do you translate that into rates?Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, let me say your obsession has been contagious. You know, I've caught on to that bug, the immigration bug. And, you know, I've been I've been discussing this thesis with investors, quite a lot. And I think it seems to me as you framed it pretty nicely. It's a bigger but not a tighter economy.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pzaGQ8NoHM6cF2EoHxjTIpsPf04kAjrK1Tvvj0U-rcQTue, 23 Apr 2024 21:35:33 +0000gtyNew data on both immigration and inflation defied predictions and may have shifted the Fed’s perspective. Our Chief U.S. Economist and Head of U.S. Rates Strategy share their updated outlooks.   ----- Transcript ----- Ellen Zentner: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief US Economist.Guneet Dhingra: And I'm Guneet Dhingra, Head of US Rates Strategy.Ellen Zentner: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing some significant changes to our US economic outlook and US rates outlook for the rest of this year.It's Tuesday, April 23rd at 10am in New York.Guneet Dhingra: So, Ellen, last week you put out an updated view on your outlook -- with some substantial forecast changes. Can you give us the headlines on GDP, inflation and the Fed forecast path? And what has really changed versus your last update?Ellen Zentner: Sure Guneet. So, our last economic outlook update was in November last year. And since that time, really, the impetus for all of these changes came from immigration. So, we got new immigration data from the CBO, and just to give you a sense of the magnitude of upward revision, we thought we had an increase of 800,000 in 2023. It turns out it was 3.3 million. And so far, the flows of immigrants suggest that we're going to get about as many as last year, if not a little bit more. And so, what does that mean? Faster population growth, those are more mouths to feed. You've got a faster labor force growth. They can work. They are working. And data historically shows that their labor force participation rates are higher than native born Americans.So, you've got to take all this into account. And it means that you've got this big positive supply side shock. And so, when the labor market has been about balance now between demand and supply, as Chair Powell's been noting, you're now going to have supply outrun demand this year.And so, you basically got much more labor market slack. You've got -- and I'm going to steal Chair Powell's words here -- you've got a bigger economy, but not a tighter economy. So, it's faster GDP growth. We have taken out one Fed cut, and I know we're going to talk about that because inflation has surprised the upside recently. But you've got slower wage growth. More labor market slack. And so, we did not change our overall inflation numbers on the back of this better growth and better labor force growth.Guneet Dhingra: That's very helpful. That's a very interesting read in the economy, Ellen. Do you think the Fed is reading the supply side story the same way as you are? And said differently, is the Fed on the same page as you? And if not, when do you think they could be?Ellen Zentner: Yeah. So, you know, Chair Powell, if you go back to his speeches and the minutes from the Fed. They've been talking about immigration. I think we've known for a while that the numbers were bigger than previously thought. But how you interpret that into an outlook can be different. And it takes some time. It even took us some time -- about a month -- to finally digest all the numbers and figure out exactly what it meant for our outlook. So, here's the biggest, I think, change for them in terms of what it means. The break-even level for payrolls is just that much higher.Now what does break even mean? It means it's the pace of job gains you need to generate each month in order to just keep the unemployment rate steady. And six months ago, we all thought it was 100, 000, including the Chair. And now we think it's 265,000. That is eye popping. And it means that when you see these big labor market numbers -- 250, 000; 300,000. That's normal. And that's not a labor market that's too tight.And so, I think the easiest thing the Fed, has realized is that they don't need to worry about the labor market. There's a lot more slack there. There's going to be a lot more slack there this year. Wage growth has come down because of it. ECI, or Employment Cost Index, is going to come down for...]]>745false1108fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-equities-no-landing-in-sight--75652913----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of better economic growth and stickier inflation on stocks.It's Monday, April 22nd at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.In our first note of the year, I cited three potential macro-outcomes for 2024 with similar probability of occurring.First, a soft landing with slowing, below potential GDP growth and falling inflation toward the Fed's target of 2 per cent. Second, a no landing scenario under which GDP growth re-accelerated with stickier inflation. And third, a hard landing, or recession. Of course, each scenario has very different implications for asset prices generally and equity leadership, specifically. Just a few months ago, the consensus view skewed heavily toward a soft landing. However, the macro data have started to support the no landing outcome with recent growth and inflation data exceeding most forecasters' expectations – including the Fed’s. Over the past year, consensus views have gone from hard landing in the first quarter of 2023 to soft landing in the second quarter, back to hard landing in the third quarter to soft landing in the fourth quarter, and now to no landing currently. This shift has not been lost on markets with assets that benefit from higher inflation doing well over the past few months. However, while cyclically sensitive stocks and sectors have started to outperform, quality remains a key attribute for the leaders. We think this combination of quality and cyclical factors makes sense in the context of what is still a later, rather than early cycle re acceleration in growth. If it was more the latter, we would not be observing such persistent under performance of low-quality cyclicals and small caps. Furthermore, we continue to believe much of the upside in economic growth over the past year has been the result of government spending, funded by growing budget deficits. This has led to a crowding out of many smaller and lower quality businesses – and the lowest small business sentiment since 2012. As with most fiscal stimulus packages, the plan is for the bridge of support to buy time until a more durable growth outcome arrives – driven by organic private income, and consumption and spending. Until this potential outcome is more solidified, the equity market should continue to trade with a quality bias. The largest risk for stocks more broadly is higher 10-year Treasury yields as investors begin to demand a larger term premium due to higher inflation and the growing supply of bonds to pay for the endless deficits. While leadership within the equity market continues to broaden toward cyclicals it still makes sense to stay up the quality curve. Our recent upgrade of large cap Energy fits the shifting narrative to the no landing outcome, and it remains one of the cheapest ways to get exposure to the reflation theme. Other reflation trades are more extended in our view. Our primary concern for equities at this point is that aggressive fiscal spending has led to better economic growth. But it keeps upward pressure on inflation and prevents the Fed from cutting interest rates that many economic participants desperately need at this point. In short, a no landing outcome may make the crowding out problem even worse for smaller businesses, many consumers and even regional banks. This is all in-line with our 2024 outlook that suggests the major equity indices are overvalued while the best opportunities are likely beneath the surface in underappreciated sectors like energy that are positively levered to stickier inflation and higher interest rates. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1tB7M-1Km8v9G8iifMm2NE4tRVEKk40adhUO8A8C-TMMon, 22 Apr 2024 20:44:05 +0000gtyRecent data indicates the economy may avoid either a soft or hard landing for now. Our Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains why investors should seek out quality as the economy stays aloft. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of better economic growth and stickier inflation on stocks.It's Monday, April 22nd at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.In our first note of the year, I cited three potential macro-outcomes for 2024 with similar probability of occurring.First, a soft landing with slowing, below potential GDP growth and falling inflation toward the Fed's target of 2 per cent. Second, a no landing scenario under which GDP growth re-accelerated with stickier inflation. And third, a hard landing, or recession. Of course, each scenario has very different implications for asset prices generally and equity leadership, specifically. Just a few months ago, the consensus view skewed heavily toward a soft landing. However, the macro data have started to support the no landing outcome with recent growth and inflation data exceeding most forecasters' expectations – including the Fed’s. Over the past year, consensus views have gone from hard landing in the first quarter of 2023 to soft landing in the second quarter, back to hard landing in the third quarter to soft landing in the fourth quarter, and now to no landing currently. This shift has not been lost on markets with assets that benefit from higher inflation doing well over the past few months. However, while cyclically sensitive stocks and sectors have started to outperform, quality remains a key attribute for the leaders. We think this combination of quality and cyclical factors makes sense in the context of what is still a later, rather than early cycle re acceleration in growth. If it was more the latter, we would not be observing such persistent under performance of low-quality cyclicals and small caps. Furthermore, we continue to believe much of the upside in economic growth over the past year has been the result of government spending, funded by growing budget deficits. This has led to a crowding out of many smaller and lower quality businesses – and the lowest small business sentiment since 2012. As with most fiscal stimulus packages, the plan is for the bridge of support to buy time until a more durable growth outcome arrives – driven by organic private income, and consumption and spending. Until this potential outcome is more solidified, the equity market should continue to trade with a quality bias. The largest risk for stocks more broadly is higher 10-year Treasury yields as investors begin to demand a larger term premium due to higher inflation and the growing supply of bonds to pay for the endless deficits. While leadership within the equity market continues to broaden toward cyclicals it still makes sense to stay up the quality curve. Our recent upgrade of large cap Energy fits the shifting narrative to the no landing outcome, and it remains one of the cheapest ways to get exposure to the reflation theme. Other reflation trades are more extended in our view. Our primary concern for equities at this point is that aggressive fiscal spending has led to better economic growth. But it keeps upward pressure on inflation and prevents the Fed from cutting interest rates that many economic participants desperately need at this point. In short, a no landing outcome may make the crowding out problem even worse for smaller businesses, many consumers and even regional banks. This is all in-line with our 2024 outlook that suggests the major equity indices are overvalued while the best opportunities are likely beneath the surface in underappreciated sectors like energy that are positively levered to stickier inflation and higher interest rates. Thanks for...]]>250false1107fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mixed-signals-for-asia-and-emerging-markets--75652850----- Transcript -----
Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia & Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss whether U.S. macro resilience is too much of a good thing when it comes to its impact on Asia's equity markets.It's Friday 19th of April at 10am in Singapore.Our U.S. economics team has substantially lifted its forecast for 2024 and 2025 GDP growth following strong migration boosted activity and employment trends. Recent inflation readings have been bumpy, but our team still sees it moderating over the summer as core services and housing prices cool off. While the market has been focused on this silver lining of stronger global growth, the clouds are rolling in from expectations of a shallower and later easing of global monetary policy.Our team now believes that the first Fed rate cut won't come until July but does see two additional cuts coming in November and December. We've made similar adjustments in our outlook for Asia-ex-China's monetary policy easing cycle, seeing it coming later and shallower. Meanwhile, in Japan, our economists now expect two further hikes from the Bank of Japan -- in July this year, and again in January next year -- taking policy rates up to 0.5 per cent.But how does all this leave the Asia and EM equity outlook? In a word, mixed.We see this driving more divergence within Asia and EM, depending on how exposed each market is to stronger global growth, a stronger U.S. dollar or impacted by higher interest rates. On the positive side, Taiwan, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea have the most direct North American revenue exposure. And for Japan, the strong US dollar is also positive through the translation of foreign revenues back at this historically weak yen. However, in the short run, we do need to be mindful of any price momentum reversal as April is normally seasonally weak, and we do see dollar-yen approaching 155. So, any FX (foreign exchange) intervention could sharpen a price momentum reversal.Next up, we're paying close attention to India's equity market, where we have a secularly bullish view. India has remained resilient to date, consistent with our thesis that macro stability has become a key driver of the bull market. And this is in sharp contrast to prior cycles. For example, during the Taper tantrum of 2013, where India saw a sudden and sharp bear market as Fed expectations shifted.On the negative side then, we are seeing a breakdown in correlations of some markets with these higher Fed funds expectations, including in Indonesia and Brazil where policy space is being constrained, and in Australia where valuations were pushed up on hopes of an RBA easing cycle that won't come until next year in our view.So, this is indeed a mixed picture for Asia and EM, but we retain our core views that market leadership will continue coming from Japan and India through 2024. And so, what's the risk from here? The larger risk to Asia and EM markets, we think, comes from an even more inflationary and hawkish scenario where the Fed is forced to recommence rate hikes, ultimately bearing the risk of driving a hard landing to bring inflation back to target.In this scenario, we could see a pivot in leadership away from markets with high US revenue exposure, such as Taiwan and Japan, towards more domestically oriented and resilient late cycle markets, such as an emerging ASEAN partner, and potentially China and Hong Kong -- if additional stimulus is forthcoming there.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TV_rRbIT-xHI6vldOi-aR6u9Z3ANXKXCSC54dT2K_6YFri, 19 Apr 2024 19:51:55 +0000gtyJapan and India are currently set to lead growth in these markets, but a higher-for-longer rate environment in the U.S. could favor China, Hong Kong and others, according to our analyst. ----- Transcript ----- Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia & Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss whether U.S. macro resilience is too much of a good thing when it comes to its impact on Asia's equity markets.It's Friday 19th of April at 10am in Singapore.Our U.S. economics team has substantially lifted its forecast for 2024 and 2025 GDP growth following strong migration boosted activity and employment trends. Recent inflation readings have been bumpy, but our team still sees it moderating over the summer as core services and housing prices cool off. While the market has been focused on this silver lining of stronger global growth, the clouds are rolling in from expectations of a shallower and later easing of global monetary policy.Our team now believes that the first Fed rate cut won't come until July but does see two additional cuts coming in November and December. We've made similar adjustments in our outlook for Asia-ex-China's monetary policy easing cycle, seeing it coming later and shallower. Meanwhile, in Japan, our economists now expect two further hikes from the Bank of Japan -- in July this year, and again in January next year -- taking policy rates up to 0.5 per cent.But how does all this leave the Asia and EM equity outlook? In a word, mixed.We see this driving more divergence within Asia and EM, depending on how exposed each market is to stronger global growth, a stronger U.S. dollar or impacted by higher interest rates. On the positive side, Taiwan, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea have the most direct North American revenue exposure. And for Japan, the strong US dollar is also positive through the translation of foreign revenues back at this historically weak yen. However, in the short run, we do need to be mindful of any price momentum reversal as April is normally seasonally weak, and we do see dollar-yen approaching 155. So, any FX (foreign exchange) intervention could sharpen a price momentum reversal.Next up, we're paying close attention to India's equity market, where we have a secularly bullish view. India has remained resilient to date, consistent with our thesis that macro stability has become a key driver of the bull market. And this is in sharp contrast to prior cycles. For example, during the Taper tantrum of 2013, where India saw a sudden and sharp bear market as Fed expectations shifted.On the negative side then, we are seeing a breakdown in correlations of some markets with these higher Fed funds expectations, including in Indonesia and Brazil where policy space is being constrained, and in Australia where valuations were pushed up on hopes of an RBA easing cycle that won't come until next year in our view.So, this is indeed a mixed picture for Asia and EM, but we retain our core views that market leadership will continue coming from Japan and India through 2024. And so, what's the risk from here? The larger risk to Asia and EM markets, we think, comes from an even more inflationary and hawkish scenario where the Fed is forced to recommence rate hikes, ultimately bearing the risk of driving a hard landing to bring inflation back to target.In this scenario, we could see a pivot in leadership away from markets with high US revenue exposure, such as Taiwan and Japan, towards more domestically oriented and resilient late cycle markets, such as an emerging ASEAN partner, and potentially China and Hong Kong -- if additional stimulus is forthcoming there.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>235false1106fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-central-piece-of-the-genai-puzzle--75652932----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Max Yates from the European Capital Goods team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on the critical element of the AI revolution. It's Thursday, April 18, at 2pm in London. Over the last few weeks, several of my colleagues have come on to the show to talk about the exponential growth of data centers and just what it will take to power the GenAI revolution. Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Sustainability, forecasts that in 2027 data center power consumption just from GenAI will equal 80 percent of the consumption from all data centers in 2022.This shows the sheer scale of necessary additions and upgrades. And it also makes clear that the AI push provides very significant opportunities for Electrical Equipment companies. It’s these businesses that are the picks and shovels of the AI revolution. These companies provide key solutions such as Data Center Infrastructure Management software, connected equipment, racks, switchgears, and last but not least, cooling. Keep in mind that in this breakneck AI race, ever-increasing efficiency is essential. So, imagine we’re inside an actual data center. What you’d see is a huge number of racks, the steel frameworks that house the servers, cables, and other equipment. The power needed to run GenAI then creates a lot of heat.Our recent work on the data center market suggests two key takeaways when it comes to the electrical equipment.First, there’s a significant imbalance in supply-demand. Data center vacancy rates and rental prices all point to an intensifying capacity shortage. This explains why the top 10 cloud providers have increased their capital expenditures this year by 26 per cent. Equipment shortages and lead times are still an issue in the industry and large electrical equipment suppliers have a clear competitive advantage at the moment, with their stronger supply chains and ability to actually deliver this equipment. The second thing we found from our work, there are well-known and less well-known ways to deal with increasing power density. Now why is power density rising? Because what we’re trying to do is cram more high-power chips into the same amount of space. There’s more power per rack, higher computing workload that all has to be accommodated into less floor space. This higher power density, however, requires more powerful cooling solutions. But there’s also smaller changes that can support airflow management that are less talked about in the industry. This is things like busways, to reduce cable density and promote airflow. Smart equipment provides information on power consumption. And another key element is rear-door cooling, which pushes airflow through the servers.The other theme that’s gaining traction in the industry to facilitate a faster ramp up is the idea of modular data centers. This helps equipment suppliers plan supply chains but also customers to quickly ramp up and meet the new data center demand with more standardized data center offerings. However, there’s not yet an industry standard to manage higher data center power and rack density for AI. There will be new builds. There will also be data center upgrades. However, there’s no consensus yet on exactly how the power equipment will be configured, and when the data centers will be upgraded. And in what style and what way.      This is clearly a dynamic space to watch, and we’ll be keeping you updated.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to your podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/dRjFslIKxWMdVdvPLi4pgCrA2R36iVfXC1aFD_xUAUUThu, 18 Apr 2024 22:06:49 +0000gtyGenAI will likely drive the exponential growth of data centers. Listen as our Capital Goods Analyst shares key takeaways on the electrical equipment central to the data center market. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Max...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Max Yates from the European Capital Goods team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on the critical element of the AI revolution. It's Thursday, April 18, at 2pm in London. Over the last few weeks, several of my colleagues have come on to the show to talk about the exponential growth of data centers and just what it will take to power the GenAI revolution. Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Sustainability, forecasts that in 2027 data center power consumption just from GenAI will equal 80 percent of the consumption from all data centers in 2022.This shows the sheer scale of necessary additions and upgrades. And it also makes clear that the AI push provides very significant opportunities for Electrical Equipment companies. It’s these businesses that are the picks and shovels of the AI revolution. These companies provide key solutions such as Data Center Infrastructure Management software, connected equipment, racks, switchgears, and last but not least, cooling. Keep in mind that in this breakneck AI race, ever-increasing efficiency is essential. So, imagine we’re inside an actual data center. What you’d see is a huge number of racks, the steel frameworks that house the servers, cables, and other equipment. The power needed to run GenAI then creates a lot of heat.Our recent work on the data center market suggests two key takeaways when it comes to the electrical equipment.First, there’s a significant imbalance in supply-demand. Data center vacancy rates and rental prices all point to an intensifying capacity shortage. This explains why the top 10 cloud providers have increased their capital expenditures this year by 26 per cent. Equipment shortages and lead times are still an issue in the industry and large electrical equipment suppliers have a clear competitive advantage at the moment, with their stronger supply chains and ability to actually deliver this equipment. The second thing we found from our work, there are well-known and less well-known ways to deal with increasing power density. Now why is power density rising? Because what we’re trying to do is cram more high-power chips into the same amount of space. There’s more power per rack, higher computing workload that all has to be accommodated into less floor space. This higher power density, however, requires more powerful cooling solutions. But there’s also smaller changes that can support airflow management that are less talked about in the industry. This is things like busways, to reduce cable density and promote airflow. Smart equipment provides information on power consumption. And another key element is rear-door cooling, which pushes airflow through the servers.The other theme that’s gaining traction in the industry to facilitate a faster ramp up is the idea of modular data centers. This helps equipment suppliers plan supply chains but also customers to quickly ramp up and meet the new data center demand with more standardized data center offerings. However, there’s not yet an industry standard to manage higher data center power and rack density for AI. There will be new builds. There will also be data center upgrades. However, there’s no consensus yet on exactly how the power equipment will be configured, and when the data centers will be upgraded. And in what style and what way.      This is clearly a dynamic space to watch, and we’ll be keeping you updated.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to your podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.]]>252false1105fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-repercussions-of-rising-global-tensions--75652969----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about current geopolitical tensions and their impact on markets.It's Wednesday, April 17th at 10:30 am in New York.Continued tensions in Middle East kept geopolitics in focus with clients this week. But markets seem to be shrugging off the recent escalation in the conflict, with relative stability in oil prices and equities. This implies some faith in the idea that the involved parties benefit from no further escalation – and will design responses to one another that won’t lead to a broader conflict with bigger consequences. But obviously, this tricky dynamic bears watching, which we’ll be doing. In the meantime, there’s a key market theme that’s underscored by these tensions. And that’s the idea of Security as a secular market theme.This is a topic we’ve been collaborating with many research teams on, including Ed Stanley, our thematics analyst in Europe, and defense sector research teams globally. The idea here boils down to this. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US’ increased rivalry with China, questions about the future of NATO, and of course the Middle East conflict, all reminds us that we’re in a transition phase to a multipolar world where security is more tenuous. That requires a lot of spending by companies and governments to cope with this reality. In fact, we estimate that supply chains, food and health systems, IT, and more will require about $1.5 trillion of investment across the US and EU to protect against rising geopolitical risks. This means a lot more demand for global tech and industrials.And of course it means more demand for the defense sector. Regardless of whether US military aid plans continue to stall, there’s news of increased spending in China, Canada, and Europe. Our head defense analyst in Europe, Ross Law, and our head European Economist Jens Eisenschmidt have looked at this in recent weeks. They argue there’s scope for tens of billions of euros in extra spend annually in Europe, with a greater geopolitical shock putting that number into the hundreds of billions. It’s a key reason our equity research colleagues favor the US and EU defense sectors.Bottom line, geopolitical events continue to reflect the transition to a multipolar world. And as companies and governments seek security in this world, there will be market impacts. We’ll be tracking them here.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LdTiIROwgkWnbYrBcwIIrMrO4uqL3HlkuvhFyKQ-zkEWed, 17 Apr 2024 20:13:59 +0000gtyAs global conflicts escalate, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research unpacks the possible market outcomes as companies and governments seek to bolster security.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about current geopolitical tensions and their impact on markets.It's Wednesday, April 17th at 10:30 am in New York.Continued tensions in Middle East kept geopolitics in focus with clients this week. But markets seem to be shrugging off the recent escalation in the conflict, with relative stability in oil prices and equities. This implies some faith in the idea that the involved parties benefit from no further escalation – and will design responses to one another that won’t lead to a broader conflict with bigger consequences. But obviously, this tricky dynamic bears watching, which we’ll be doing. In the meantime, there’s a key market theme that’s underscored by these tensions. And that’s the idea of Security as a secular market theme.This is a topic we’ve been collaborating with many research teams on, including Ed Stanley, our thematics analyst in Europe, and defense sector research teams globally. The idea here boils down to this. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US’ increased rivalry with China, questions about the future of NATO, and of course the Middle East conflict, all reminds us that we’re in a transition phase to a multipolar world where security is more tenuous. That requires a lot of spending by companies and governments to cope with this reality. In fact, we estimate that supply chains, food and health systems, IT, and more will require about $1.5 trillion of investment across the US and EU to protect against rising geopolitical risks. This means a lot more demand for global tech and industrials.And of course it means more demand for the defense sector. Regardless of whether US military aid plans continue to stall, there’s news of increased spending in China, Canada, and Europe. Our head defense analyst in Europe, Ross Law, and our head European Economist Jens Eisenschmidt have looked at this in recent weeks. They argue there’s scope for tens of billions of euros in extra spend annually in Europe, with a greater geopolitical shock putting that number into the hundreds of billions. It’s a key reason our equity research colleagues favor the US and EU defense sectors.Bottom line, geopolitical events continue to reflect the transition to a multipolar world. And as companies and governments seek security in this world, there will be market impacts. We’ll be tracking them here.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>169false1104fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-will-the-genai-revolution-be-powered--75652845----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, Head of the US Power and Utilities team.Stephen Byrd: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss just what it would take to power the Gen AI revolution.It's Tuesday, April 16th at 10am in New York.Last summer, scientists used GenAI to find a new antibiotic for a nasty superbug. It took the AI system all of an hour and a half to analyze about 7,000 chemical compounds; something that human scientists would have toiled over for months, if not years. It's clear that GenAI can open up breathtaking possibilities, but you have to stop and think. What kind of compute power is needed for all of this?A few weeks ago, our colleague Emmet Kelly, who covers European Telecom, discussed the exponential growth of European data centers on this podcast. And today, Dave and I want to continue the conversation about this critical moment of powering the GenAI revolution.So, Dave, what is your current assessment of the global power demand from data centers?David Arcaro: Yeah, Stephen, we're expecting rapid growth in the power demand coming from data centers across the world. We're currently estimating data centers consume about one and a half per cent of global electricity today. We're expecting that to grow to almost four percent in 2027. And in the US, data centers represent roughly three percent of total electricity consumption now, and we expect that to escalate to eight per cent of the total US by 2027.And there will be even more dramatic impacts at the local and regional level. The data center landscape tends to be highly concentrated, and the next wave of GenAI data centers is likely to be much larger than the previous generation.So, the impact on specific regions will be magnified. To give an example, in Georgia, the utility there has previously forecasted just half a percent of annual growth in electricity use but is now calling for nine per cent of annual growth in electricity consumption, and that's largely driven by data centers.It's a dynamic that we haven't seen in decades in the utility space.Stephen Byrd: You know, what I find interesting about what you just said, Dave, is -- it is impressive to see growth go from one and a half to four per cent, but it's really these local dynamics where what we're seeing is just much more concentrated, and that's where we start to see the real issues with the infrastructure growing quickly enough.So, it's becoming obvious that the existing power grid infrastructure is not meeting the growth and capacity needs of data centers. And that's something that you refer to as the tortoise and the hare. How big of a mismatch are we exactly talking about here, Dave?David Arcaro: It's definitely a big mismatch. To your point before, the US electricity growth across the country has been flattish over the last 10 years.So, this is a step change in expectations now, from the impact from Gen AI going forward. And we're looking at over 100 per cent annual growth in the power consumed by data centers now in the US over the next four years. And for comparison, the US utility industry is growing at about 8 per cent a year.These data centers that are coming are huge. They can be 10 to 50 times as big as the last generation of data centers in terms of their power consumption. And this means it takes time to connect to the electric grid and get power. 12 to 18 months in the best case, three to five years plus in other locations, often because they might need to wait for the electric utility grid to catch up, waiting for grid upgrades and assessments and new power plants to get built.Stephen Byrd: Well, I think those delays are going to be fairly problematic for the fast-moving GenAI sector. So essentially there's a lot of pressure on data center developers to secure a power source as quickly as possible. And in our note, we described the mathematics around that. The time value to get these data centers online is absolutely enormous. But you've just described the power grid infrastructure as a tortoise.So, are there any other alternatives? How about nuclear power plants in this context?David Arcaro: There's a lot of urgency, as you can tell from the data center companies, to get online as fast as possible. It's a fast-moving market, very competitive, they need the power, they need to run these GenAI models as soon as possible. And the utility industry is not used to responding to demand that's coming this quickly.It's a slower moving industry. There's policies and processes and regulation that all utilities have to get through. They're not prepared strategically to move as quickly as the data center industry is moving. So, data center developers are getting creative and they're looking at all options to get power.And one that has an appealing value proposition is nuclear plants. By placing a data center at an existing nuclear plant, this can avoid the need to go through that lengthy electric grid connection process, providing a much faster timeline to get the data center powered up.And that has big benefits for the data center companies, as you can imagine. Nuclear plants also have other advantages. They have land available on site. They have water for cooling, security. It's 24x7 clean power with no emissions, and it's already up and running, so you don't have to go and build much.Over time, we do expect renewables to play a major role as well in powering data centers along with traditional power from the electric grid and even new gas plants, but the benefits of coming online quickly in this market we think, give nuclear an edge.So, Stephen, as much as I can talk about the massive power needs of Gen AI, we can't ignore the issue of sustainability. So, what have you been thinking about when it comes to assessing the potential carbon footprint of powering data centers? What concerns are you seeing?Stephen Byrd: You know, Dave, this field is evolving so quickly that we've had to evolve our assessment of the carbon footprint of GenAI quite quickly as well. You know, traditionally what we would have seen is a data center gets connected to the grid. And then that data center developer would often sign a power contract with a renewable developer. And that results in a very low carbon footprint, if zero in many cases. But going forward, we do see the potential for increased natural gas usage in power plants, higher than we had originally forecast.And that's driven really by two dynamics. The first is the increased potential to site data centers directly at nuclear power plants, which you described, and there are a lot of benefits to doing so. In effect, what's going to happen then is, those data centers will siphon away that nuclear power, so less nuclear power goes to the grid. Something has to make up that deficit. That something is often going to be natural gas fired power plants.The second dynamic that we could see happening is an increased potential for just onsite natural gas fire power generation at the data centers that could provide shorter time to power, and also provide quite good power reliability.Now, when we sum these up and we look at the projected carbon footprint of data centers going forward, we could see an additional 70 million tons a year. We're about half a per cent of 2022 global CO2 emissions for data centers. That is quite a bit higher than we had previously forecast.Now that said, a wild card would be the hyperscalers and others who may decide to consciously offset this by signing additional power contracts with new renewables that could reduce this quite a bit. So, it's very much in flux right now. We frankly don't know what the carbon footprint is really going to look like.David Arcaro: You know, there's so much urgency to bring data centers online quickly that in the past many of these big hyperscalers especially have had quite ambitious sustainability goals and decarbonization goals. I'd say it's an open question on our end as to how flexible they might get in the near term or how strictly they do apply those decarbonization …Stephen Byrd: Exactly…David Arcaro: … targets going forward as they, y’know, also try to compete in an urgent grab for power in the near term.Stephen Byrd: That's exactly right. That's… You laid that tension out quite well.David Arcaro: And finally, from your global perspective, what regions are best positioned to keep pace with the power needs of Gen AI?Stephen Byrd: You know, Dave, I am thinking a lot about what you said a minute ago, about the size of these datacentres moving from, you know, quite small – often we would see datacentres at just 10 or 15 megawatts. Now the new designs are often above 100 megawatts.And now we're starting to hear and see some signs of truly mega data centers, essentially massive supercomputers that could be a thousand megawatts, a couple of thousand megawatts, and could cost tens of billions of dollars to build. So, when we think about that dynamic, that's a lot of power for any one location. So, to go back to your question, we think about the locations. It's very local specific.The dynamics all have to line up correctly, for this to work. So, we see pockets of opportunity around the world. Examples would be Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, Malaysia, Portugal -- these are locations for a variety of reasons where policy support is there, the infrastructure growth potential is there, and for a number of reasons, just it's the right confluence of dynamics. Most of the world doesn't have that confluence, so it's going to be very specific. And I think we're also setting up for a lot of concentration in those locations where all these dynamics line up.David Arcaro: You know, historically,]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kupsVCELpkD6wObbUxsgr6-GZR1pK7mvaquKr2gykFETue, 16 Apr 2024 22:17:31 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Sustainability Research and U.S. Utilities Analyst discuss the rapidly growing power needs of the GenAI enablers and how to meet them. ----- Transcript ----- Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, Head of the US Power and Utilities team.Stephen Byrd: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss just what it would take to power the Gen AI revolution.It's Tuesday, April 16th at 10am in New York.Last summer, scientists used GenAI to find a new antibiotic for a nasty superbug. It took the AI system all of an hour and a half to analyze about 7,000 chemical compounds; something that human scientists would have toiled over for months, if not years. It's clear that GenAI can open up breathtaking possibilities, but you have to stop and think. What kind of compute power is needed for all of this?A few weeks ago, our colleague Emmet Kelly, who covers European Telecom, discussed the exponential growth of European data centers on this podcast. And today, Dave and I want to continue the conversation about this critical moment of powering the GenAI revolution.So, Dave, what is your current assessment of the global power demand from data centers?David Arcaro: Yeah, Stephen, we're expecting rapid growth in the power demand coming from data centers across the world. We're currently estimating data centers consume about one and a half per cent of global electricity today. We're expecting that to grow to almost four percent in 2027. And in the US, data centers represent roughly three percent of total electricity consumption now, and we expect that to escalate to eight per cent of the total US by 2027.And there will be even more dramatic impacts at the local and regional level. The data center landscape tends to be highly concentrated, and the next wave of GenAI data centers is likely to be much larger than the previous generation.So, the impact on specific regions will be magnified. To give an example, in Georgia, the utility there has previously forecasted just half a percent of annual growth in electricity use but is now calling for nine per cent of annual growth in electricity consumption, and that's largely driven by data centers.It's a dynamic that we haven't seen in decades in the utility space.Stephen Byrd: You know, what I find interesting about what you just said, Dave, is -- it is impressive to see growth go from one and a half to four per cent, but it's really these local dynamics where what we're seeing is just much more concentrated, and that's where we start to see the real issues with the infrastructure growing quickly enough.So, it's becoming obvious that the existing power grid infrastructure is not meeting the growth and capacity needs of data centers. And that's something that you refer to as the tortoise and the hare. How big of a mismatch are we exactly talking about here, Dave?David Arcaro: It's definitely a big mismatch. To your point before, the US electricity growth across the country has been flattish over the last 10 years.So, this is a step change in expectations now, from the impact from Gen AI going forward. And we're looking at over 100 per cent annual growth in the power consumed by data centers now in the US over the next four years. And for comparison, the US utility industry is growing at about 8 per cent a year.These data centers that are coming are huge. They can be 10 to 50 times as big as the last generation of data centers in terms of their power consumption. And this means it takes time to connect to the electric grid and get power. 12 to 18 months in the best case, three to five years plus in other locations, often because they might need to wait for the electric utility grid to catch up, waiting for grid upgrades and assessments and new power plants to get built.Stephen Byrd: Well, I think those delays are going to be fairly problematic for the...]]>650false1103fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-sobering-view-on-the-spirits-sector--75652877----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about a surprising trend in the global spirits market.It's Monday, April 15, at 2pm in London. We all remember vividly the COVID-19 period when we spent much more on goods than services, particularly on goods that could be delivered to our homes. Not surprisingly, spirits consumption experienced a super-cycle during the pandemic. But as the world returned to normal, the demand for spirits has dropped off. The market believes that after a period of normalization, the US spirits market will return to mid-single-digit growth in line with history; but we think that’s too optimistic.Changes in demographics and consumer behavior make it much more likely that the US market will grow only modestly from here. There are several key challenges to the volume of US alcohol consumption in the coming years. Sobriety and moderation of alcohol intake are two rising trends. In addition, there’s the increased use of GLP-1 anti-obesity drugs, which appear to quell users' appetite for alcoholic beverages. And finally, there’s stiffer regulation, including the lowering of alcohol limits for driving.A slew of recent survey data points to consumer intention to reduce alcohol intake. A February 2023 IWSR survey reported that 50 per cent of US drinkers are moderating their consumption. Meanwhile, a January 2024 NCSolutions survey reported that 41 per cent of respondents are trying to drink less, an increase of 7 percentage points from the prior year. And importantly, this intention was most concentrated among younger drinkers, with 61 per cent of Gen Z planning to drink less in 2024, up from 40 per cent in the prior year's survey. Meanwhile, 49 per cent of Millennials had a similar intention, up 26 per cent year on year.Why is all this happening? And why now? Perhaps the increasingly vocal commentary by public bodies linking alcohol to cancer is really hitting home. Last November, the World Health Organization stated that "the higher the amount of alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer" but also that "half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by ‘light’ and ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption. A recent Gallup survey of Americans indicated that young adults are particularly concerned that moderate drinking is unhealthy, with 52 per cent holding this view, up from 34 per cent five years ago. Another explanation for the increased prevalence of non-drinking among the youngest group of drinkers may be demographic makeup: the proportion of non-White 18- to 34-year-olds has nearly doubled over the past two decades.And equally, the cost of alcohol, which saw steep price increases in the last couple of years, seems to be a reason for increased moderation. Spending on alcohol stepped up materially over the COVID-19 period when there were more limited opportunities for spending. With life returning to normal post pandemic, consumers have other – more attractive or more pressing – opportunities for expenditure.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Uh-sZw7mKCn9VPbXZM8ZF7KcvYd6bgrwrHk1C4gGwbITue, 16 Apr 2024 00:14:58 +0000gtyMarkets are suggesting that spirits consumption will return to historical growth levels post-pandemic, but our Head of European Consumer Staples Research disagrees. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about a surprising trend in the global spirits market.It's Monday, April 15, at 2pm in London. We all remember vividly the COVID-19 period when we spent much more on goods than services, particularly on goods that could be delivered to our homes. Not surprisingly, spirits consumption experienced a super-cycle during the pandemic. But as the world returned to normal, the demand for spirits has dropped off. The market believes that after a period of normalization, the US spirits market will return to mid-single-digit growth in line with history; but we think that’s too optimistic.Changes in demographics and consumer behavior make it much more likely that the US market will grow only modestly from here. There are several key challenges to the volume of US alcohol consumption in the coming years. Sobriety and moderation of alcohol intake are two rising trends. In addition, there’s the increased use of GLP-1 anti-obesity drugs, which appear to quell users' appetite for alcoholic beverages. And finally, there’s stiffer regulation, including the lowering of alcohol limits for driving.A slew of recent survey data points to consumer intention to reduce alcohol intake. A February 2023 IWSR survey reported that 50 per cent of US drinkers are moderating their consumption. Meanwhile, a January 2024 NCSolutions survey reported that 41 per cent of respondents are trying to drink less, an increase of 7 percentage points from the prior year. And importantly, this intention was most concentrated among younger drinkers, with 61 per cent of Gen Z planning to drink less in 2024, up from 40 per cent in the prior year's survey. Meanwhile, 49 per cent of Millennials had a similar intention, up 26 per cent year on year.Why is all this happening? And why now? Perhaps the increasingly vocal commentary by public bodies linking alcohol to cancer is really hitting home. Last November, the World Health Organization stated that "the higher the amount of alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer" but also that "half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by ‘light’ and ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption. A recent Gallup survey of Americans indicated that young adults are particularly concerned that moderate drinking is unhealthy, with 52 per cent holding this view, up from 34 per cent five years ago. Another explanation for the increased prevalence of non-drinking among the youngest group of drinkers may be demographic makeup: the proportion of non-White 18- to 34-year-olds has nearly doubled over the past two decades.And equally, the cost of alcohol, which saw steep price increases in the last couple of years, seems to be a reason for increased moderation. Spending on alcohol stepped up materially over the COVID-19 period when there were more limited opportunities for spending. With life returning to normal post pandemic, consumers have other – more attractive or more pressing – opportunities for expenditure.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.
]]>241false1102fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/unpacking-correlation--75652916----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why the same factors can have different outcomes for interest rates and credit spreads.It's Friday, April 12th at 2pm in London.  Most of 2024 remains to be written. But so far, the financial story has been a tale of two surprises. First, the US Economy continues to be much stronger and hotter than expected, with growth and job creation exceeding initial estimates. Then second, due in part to that strong economy, interest rates have risen materially, with the yield on the US 10-year government bond about half-a-percent higher since early January. More specifically, market attention over the last week has refocused on whether these higher interest rates are a problem for other markets. In math terms, this is the great debate around bond-equity or bond-spread correlation, the extent to which assets move with bond yields, and a really important variable when it comes to thinking about overall portfolio diversification. But this somewhat abstract mathematical idea of correlation can also be simplified. The factors that are driving yields higher might look very different for other asset classes, such as credit. That could argue for a different correlation. Let’s think about how.Consider first why yields have been rising. Economic data has been good, with strong job growth and rising Purchasing Manager Indices or PMIs, conditions that are usually tough for government bonds. Supply has been heavy, with the issuance of Treasuries up substantially relative to last year. The so-called carry on government bonds is bad as the yield on government bond yields is generally lower, much lower, than the yield on cash. And the time-of-year is unhelpful: since 1990, April has been the worst month of the year for government bonds.But take all those same things thought the eyes of a different asset class, such as credit, and they look – well – different. Good economic data should be good for credit; historically, low-but-rising PMIs, as we’ve been seeing recently, is the most credit-friendly regime. Corporate bond supply hasn’t risen nearly as much as the supply for government bonds. The carry for credit is positive, thanks to still-steep credit curves. And the time of year looks very different: over that same period since 1990, April has been the best month of the year for corporate credit – as well as broader stock markets.Government bonds are currently being buffeted by multiple headwinds. Hot economic data, heavy supply, poor yields relative to cash, and unhelpful seasonality. The good news? Well, Morgan Stanley’s interest rate strategists expect these headwinds to be temporary, and still forecast lower yields by year-end. But for other asset classes, including credit, it’s also important to note that that same data, supply, carry and seasonality debate – fundamentally look very different in other asset classes.We think that means that Credit spreads can stay at historically tight levels in April and beyond, even as government bond yields have risen.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZpPpL69pz3Ypx3xGaIfCTHoJa_A7HBIKHCtV8ksVKGAFri, 12 Apr 2024 21:15:33 +0000gtyThe math of ‘bond-equity correlation' is complicated. Our head of Corporate Credit Research breaks it down, along with the impact of bond rates on other asset classes. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why the same factors can have different outcomes for interest rates and credit spreads.It's Friday, April 12th at 2pm in London.  Most of 2024 remains to be written. But so far, the financial story has been a tale of two surprises. First, the US Economy continues to be much stronger and hotter than expected, with growth and job creation exceeding initial estimates. Then second, due in part to that strong economy, interest rates have risen materially, with the yield on the US 10-year government bond about half-a-percent higher since early January. More specifically, market attention over the last week has refocused on whether these higher interest rates are a problem for other markets. In math terms, this is the great debate around bond-equity or bond-spread correlation, the extent to which assets move with bond yields, and a really important variable when it comes to thinking about overall portfolio diversification. But this somewhat abstract mathematical idea of correlation can also be simplified. The factors that are driving yields higher might look very different for other asset classes, such as credit. That could argue for a different correlation. Let’s think about how.Consider first why yields have been rising. Economic data has been good, with strong job growth and rising Purchasing Manager Indices or PMIs, conditions that are usually tough for government bonds. Supply has been heavy, with the issuance of Treasuries up substantially relative to last year. The so-called carry on government bonds is bad as the yield on government bond yields is generally lower, much lower, than the yield on cash. And the time-of-year is unhelpful: since 1990, April has been the worst month of the year for government bonds.But take all those same things thought the eyes of a different asset class, such as credit, and they look – well – different. Good economic data should be good for credit; historically, low-but-rising PMIs, as we’ve been seeing recently, is the most credit-friendly regime. Corporate bond supply hasn’t risen nearly as much as the supply for government bonds. The carry for credit is positive, thanks to still-steep credit curves. And the time of year looks very different: over that same period since 1990, April has been the best month of the year for corporate credit – as well as broader stock markets.Government bonds are currently being buffeted by multiple headwinds. Hot economic data, heavy supply, poor yields relative to cash, and unhelpful seasonality. The good news? Well, Morgan Stanley’s interest rate strategists expect these headwinds to be temporary, and still forecast lower yields by year-end. But for other asset classes, including credit, it’s also important to note that that same data, supply, carry and seasonality debate – fundamentally look very different in other asset classes.We think that means that Credit spreads can stay at historically tight levels in April and beyond, even as government bond yields have risen.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>217false1101fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-energy-the-minerals-and-materials-at-risk--75652694----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research in the Americas. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a highly topical issue: the impact of US-China trade tensions on the energy transition. It is Thursday, April 11, at 12 pm in New York.Last week, you may have heard my colleagues discuss the geopolitics at play around US-China trade tensions and the energy transition. Today I’m going to elaborate on that discussion, spearheaded by my team, with a deeper dive into the materials and minerals at risk and exactly what is at stake for several industries in the US.When we talk about clean technologies such as electric vehicles, energy storage and solar, it is important to note that minerals such as rare earths, graphite, and lithium — just to name a few — are crucial to their performance. At present, China is a dominant producer of many of those key minerals, whether at the mining level – which is the case with gallium, rare earths and natural graphite; at the refining level – the case for cobalt and lithium; or at the downstream level – that is, the final product, such as batteries and EVs.If trade tensions between the US and China rise, we believe China could implement new or incremental export bans on some of these minerals that are key for western nations’ energy transition as well as for their broad economic and national security.So, we have analyzed over 10 materials and found that the highest risks of disruption exist for rare earths and related equipment, as well as for graphite, gallium, and cobalt. Some minerals have already seen certain export bans but given the lack of diversification across the value chain, we actually see the potential for incremental restrictions.So, this led us to ask our research analysts: how should investors view rising trade tensions in the context of clean technologies’ penetration, specifically?While electric vehicles appear most at risk, we see the largest negative impacts for the clean technology sector as well as for large-scale renewable energy developers. This has to do with China dominating around 70 per cent of the battery supply chain and still having strong indirect ties in the solar supply chain. But there are important nuances to consider for renewable energy developers, such as their ability to pass the higher costs to customers, whether this higher cost could hurt the economics of projects and therefore demand, and the unequal impacts between large and small players – where large, tier 1 developers could actually gain share in the market as they have proven to navigate better through supply chain bottlenecks in the past.On the Autos side, slower EV adoption would naturally impact sentiment on EV-tilted stocks; but as our sector analyst highlights, this could also mean lighter losses near term, as well as market share preservation for the largest EV players in the market. US Metals & Mining stocks would likely see positive moves as further trade tensions incentivize onshoring of mining and increase demand for US-made equipment.Given strong bipartisan support in the US for a more hawkish approach to China, our policy experts believe that the US presidential election is unlikely to lead to easing trade restrictions. Nonetheless, in terms of the energy transition theme, a Republican win could create volatility for trade and corporate confidence, while a Democrat administration would be more sensitive to the balance between protectionism and achieving global climate goals.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7cmRc8DXvVvhRhav9a9K8xCl5Z_UGTScAIp_Nbjtc5cThu, 11 Apr 2024 18:58:12 +0000gtyWith global temperatures rising and an increasing urgency to speed progress on the energy transition, our Head of Sustainability Equity Research examines the key materials needed—and the risks of disruption from US-China trade tensions. -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research in the Americas. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a highly topical issue: the impact of US-China trade tensions on the energy transition. It is Thursday, April 11, at 12 pm in New York.Last week, you may have heard my colleagues discuss the geopolitics at play around US-China trade tensions and the energy transition. Today I’m going to elaborate on that discussion, spearheaded by my team, with a deeper dive into the materials and minerals at risk and exactly what is at stake for several industries in the US.When we talk about clean technologies such as electric vehicles, energy storage and solar, it is important to note that minerals such as rare earths, graphite, and lithium — just to name a few — are crucial to their performance. At present, China is a dominant producer of many of those key minerals, whether at the mining level – which is the case with gallium, rare earths and natural graphite; at the refining level – the case for cobalt and lithium; or at the downstream level – that is, the final product, such as batteries and EVs.If trade tensions between the US and China rise, we believe China could implement new or incremental export bans on some of these minerals that are key for western nations’ energy transition as well as for their broad economic and national security.So, we have analyzed over 10 materials and found that the highest risks of disruption exist for rare earths and related equipment, as well as for graphite, gallium, and cobalt. Some minerals have already seen certain export bans but given the lack of diversification across the value chain, we actually see the potential for incremental restrictions.So, this led us to ask our research analysts: how should investors view rising trade tensions in the context of clean technologies’ penetration, specifically?While electric vehicles appear most at risk, we see the largest negative impacts for the clean technology sector as well as for large-scale renewable energy developers. This has to do with China dominating around 70 per cent of the battery supply chain and still having strong indirect ties in the solar supply chain. But there are important nuances to consider for renewable energy developers, such as their ability to pass the higher costs to customers, whether this higher cost could hurt the economics of projects and therefore demand, and the unequal impacts between large and small players – where large, tier 1 developers could actually gain share in the market as they have proven to navigate better through supply chain bottlenecks in the past.On the Autos side, slower EV adoption would naturally impact sentiment on EV-tilted stocks; but as our sector analyst highlights, this could also mean lighter losses near term, as well as market share preservation for the largest EV players in the market. US Metals & Mining stocks would likely see positive moves as further trade tensions incentivize onshoring of mining and increase demand for US-made equipment.Given strong bipartisan support in the US for a more hawkish approach to China, our policy experts believe that the US presidential election is unlikely to lead to easing trade restrictions. Nonetheless, in terms of the energy transition theme, a Republican win could create volatility for trade and corporate confidence, while a Democrat administration would be more sensitive to the balance between protectionism and achieving global climate goals.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or...]]>247false1100fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-us-elections-inflation-s-possible-paths--75652855----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist.Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be taking a look at how the 2024 elections could impact the outlook for inflation.It's Wednesday, April 10th at 4pm in New York.Seth, earlier this morning, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for March, and it's probably an understatement to say it's been a much-anticipated report -- because it gives us some signal into both the pace of inflation and any potential fed rate cut path for 2024. I want to get into the longer-term picture around what the upcoming US election could mean for inflation. But first, I'd love your immediate take on this morning's data.Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Mike. This morning's CPI data were absolutely critical. You are right. Much anticipated by markets. Everyone looking for a read through from those data to what it means for the Fed. I think there's no two ways about it. The market saw the stronger than expected inflation data as reducing the likelihood that the Fed would start cutting rates in June.June was our baseline for when the Fed would start cutting rates. And I think we are going to have to sharpen our pencils and ask just how much is this going to make the Fed want to wait? I think over time, however, we still see inflation drifting down over the course of this year and into next year, and so we still think the Fed will get a few rate hikes in.But you wanted to talk longer term, you wanted to talk about elections. And when I think about how elections could affect inflation, it's usually through fiscal policy. Through choices by the President and the Congress to raise taxes or lower taxes, and by choices by the Congress and the President to increase or decrease spending.So, when you think about this upcoming election, what are the main scenarios that you see for fiscal policy and an expansion, perhaps, of the deficit?Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's important to understand first that the type of election outcome that historically has catalyzed a deficit expansion is one where one party gets complete control of both the White House and both chambers of Congress.In 2025, what we think this would manifest in if the Democrats had won, is kind of a mix of tax extensions, as well as some spending items that they weren't able to complete during Biden's first term -- probably somewhat offset by some tax increases. On net, we think that would be incremental about $500 billion over 10 years, or maybe $40 [billion] to $50 billion in the first year.If Republicans are in a position of control, then we think you're looking at an extension of most of the expiring corporate tax cuts -- expire at the end of 2025 -- that is up to somewhere around a trillion dollars spread over 10 years, or maybe a hundred to $150 billion in the first year.Seth Carpenter: So, what I'm hearing you say is a wide range of possible outcomes, because you didn't even touch on what might happen if you've got a split government, so even smaller fiscal expansion.So, when I take that range from a truly modest expansion, if at all, with a split government, to a slight expansion from the Democrats, a slightly bigger one from a Republican sweep, I'm hearing numbers that clearly directionally should lead to some inflationary pressures -- but I'm not really sure they're big enough to really start to move the needle in terms of inflationary outcomes.And I guess the other part that we have to keep in mind is the election’s happening in November of this year. The new president, if there's a new president, the new Congress would take seats in the beginning of the year next year. And so, there's always a bit of a lag between when a new government takes control and when legislation gets passed; and then there's another lag between the legislation and the outcome on the economy.And by the time we get to call it the end of 2025 or the beginning of 2026, I think we really will have seen a lot of dissipation of the inflation that we have now. So, it doesn't really sound like, at least from those baseline scenarios that we're talking about a huge impetus for inflation. Would you think that's fair?Michael Zezas: I think that's fair. And then it sort of begs the question of, if not from fiscal policy, is there something we need to consider around monetary policy? And so around the Fed, Chair Powell's term ends in January of 2026 -- meaning potential for a new Fed chair, depending on the next US president.So, Seth, what do you think the election could mean for monetary policy then?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that's a great question, Mike. And it's one that, as you know well, we tend to get from clients, which is why you and I jointly put out some research with other colleagues on just what scope is there for there to be a -- call it particularly accommodative Fed chair under that Republican sweep scenario.I would say my take is -- not the biggest risk to worry about right now. There are two seats on the Federal Reserve Board that are going to come open for whoever wins the election as president to appoint. That's the chair, clearly very important. And then one of the members of the Board of Governors.But it's critical to remember there's a whole committee. So, there are seven members of the Board of Governors plus five voting members, across the Federal Reserve Bank presidents. And to get a change in policy that is so big, that would have massive inflationary impacts, I really think you'd have to have the whole committee on board. And I just don't see that happening.The Fed is set up institutionally to try to insulate from exactly that sort of, political influence. So, I don't think we would ever get a Fed that would simply rubber stamp any president's desire for monetary policy.Michael Zezas: I think that makes a lot of sense. And then clients tend to ask about two other concerns; with particularly concerns with the Republican sweep scenario, which would be the impact of potentially higher trade tariffs and restrictions on immigration. What's your read here in terms of whether or not either of these are reliable in terms of their impact on inflation?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, super topical. And I would say at the very least, we have some experience now with tariff policy. And what did we see during the last episode where there was the trade war with China? I think it's very natural to assume that higher tariffs mean that the cost of imported goods are going to be higher, which would lead to higher inflation; and to some extent that was true, but it was a much smaller, much more muted effect than I think you might otherwise assume given numbers like 25 per cent tariffs or has been kicked around a few times, maybe 60 per cent tariffs. And the reason for that change is a few things.One, not all of the goods being brought in under tariffs are final consumer goods where the price would just go straight through to something like the CPI. A lot of them were intermediate goods. And so, what we saw in the last round of tariffs was some disruption to US manufacturing, disruption to production in the United States because the cost of production went up.And so, it was as much a supply shock as it was anything else. For those final consumer goods, you could see some pass through; but remember, there's also the offset through the exchange rate, that matters a lot. And, consumers, they have a willingness to pay, or maybe a willingness not to pay, and so, sellers aren't always able to pass through the full cost of the tariffs. And so, as a result, I think the net effect there is some modestly higher inflation, but really, it's important to keep in mind that hit to economic activity that, over time, could actually go in the opposite direction and be disinflationary.Immigration, very different story, and it has been very much in the news recently. And we have seen a huge surge in immigration last year. We expect it to continue this year. And we think it's contributing to the faster run rate that we've seen in the economy without continued inflationary pressure. So, I think it's a natural question to ask -- if immigration was restricted, would we see labor shortages? Would that drive up inflation? And the answer is maybe.However, a few things are really critical. One, the Fed is still in restrictive territory now, and they're only going to start to lower rates if and when we see inflation come down. So the starting point will matter a lot. And second, when we did our projections, we took a lot of input from where the CBO's estimates are, and they've already been assuming that immigration flows really start to normalize a bit in 2025 and a lot more in 2026. Back to run rates that are more like pre-COVID rates. And so, against that backdrop, I think a change in immigration policy might be less inflationary because we'd already be in a situation where those flows were coming down.But that's a good time for me to turn things around, Mike, and throw it right back to you. So, you've been thinking about the elections. You run thematic research here. I've heard you say to clients more than once that there is some scope, but limited scope for macro markets to think about the outcome from the election, but lots of scope from a micro perspective. So, if we were thinking about the effect of the election on equity markets, on individual sectors, what would be your early read on where we should be focusing most?Michael Zezas: So we've long been saying that the reliable market impacts from th]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/sbJY2Ne0eiLsflCtwB8BD-jfLIDwKkZcdho3N5VJX9gWed, 10 Apr 2024 23:51:33 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist joins our Head of Fixed Income Research to review the most recent Consumer Price Index data, and they lay out potential outcomes in the upcoming U.S. elections that could impact the course of inflation’s trajectory.   -----...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist.Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be taking a look at how the 2024 elections could impact the outlook for inflation.It's Wednesday, April 10th at 4pm in New York.Seth, earlier this morning, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for March, and it's probably an understatement to say it's been a much-anticipated report -- because it gives us some signal into both the pace of inflation and any potential fed rate cut path for 2024. I want to get into the longer-term picture around what the upcoming US election could mean for inflation. But first, I'd love your immediate take on this morning's data.Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Mike. This morning's CPI data were absolutely critical. You are right. Much anticipated by markets. Everyone looking for a read through from those data to what it means for the Fed. I think there's no two ways about it. The market saw the stronger than expected inflation data as reducing the likelihood that the Fed would start cutting rates in June.June was our baseline for when the Fed would start cutting rates. And I think we are going to have to sharpen our pencils and ask just how much is this going to make the Fed want to wait? I think over time, however, we still see inflation drifting down over the course of this year and into next year, and so we still think the Fed will get a few rate hikes in.But you wanted to talk longer term, you wanted to talk about elections. And when I think about how elections could affect inflation, it's usually through fiscal policy. Through choices by the President and the Congress to raise taxes or lower taxes, and by choices by the Congress and the President to increase or decrease spending.So, when you think about this upcoming election, what are the main scenarios that you see for fiscal policy and an expansion, perhaps, of the deficit?Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's important to understand first that the type of election outcome that historically has catalyzed a deficit expansion is one where one party gets complete control of both the White House and both chambers of Congress.In 2025, what we think this would manifest in if the Democrats had won, is kind of a mix of tax extensions, as well as some spending items that they weren't able to complete during Biden's first term -- probably somewhat offset by some tax increases. On net, we think that would be incremental about $500 billion over 10 years, or maybe $40 [billion] to $50 billion in the first year.If Republicans are in a position of control, then we think you're looking at an extension of most of the expiring corporate tax cuts -- expire at the end of 2025 -- that is up to somewhere around a trillion dollars spread over 10 years, or maybe a hundred to $150 billion in the first year.Seth Carpenter: So, what I'm hearing you say is a wide range of possible outcomes, because you didn't even touch on what might happen if you've got a split government, so even smaller fiscal expansion.So, when I take that range from a truly modest expansion, if at all, with a split government, to a slight expansion from the Democrats, a slightly bigger one from a Republican sweep, I'm hearing numbers that clearly directionally should lead to some inflationary pressures -- but I'm not really sure they're big enough to really start to move the needle in terms of inflationary outcomes.And I guess the other part that we have to keep in mind is the election’s happening in November of...]]>677false1099fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-is-driving-big-moves-in-the-oil-market--75652826----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications of recent strong moves in oil markets.It's Tuesday, April 9th at 3pm in New York.A lot is going on in the commodity markets, particularly in the oil market. Oil prices have made a powerful move. What is driving these moves? And how should investors think about this in the context of adjacent markets in equities and credit?Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist and Head of European Energy Research, Martijn Rats, raised crude oil price forecast for the third quarter to $94 per barrel. The rally in recent weeks is a result of positive fundamental news and rising geopolitical tensions.On the fundamental side, we've had better than expected demand from China and steeper than forecast fall in US production. Further, oil prices have also found support from growing potential for supply uncertainty in the Middle East. Martijn thinks that the last few dollars of rally in oil prices should be interpreted as a premium for rising geopolitical risks. The revision to the third quarter forecast should therefore be seen to reflect these growing geopolitical risks.Our US equity strategists, led by Mike Wilson, have recently upgraded the energy sector. The underlying rationale behind the upgrade is that the energy sector relative performance has really lagged crude oil prices; and unlike many other sectors within the US stock world, valuation in energy stocks is very compelling.Furthermore, the relative earnings revisions in energy stocks are beginning to inflect higher and the sector is actually exhibiting best breadth of any sector across the US equity spectrum. Higher oil prices are also important for credit markets. To quote Brian Gibbons, Morgan Stanley's Head of Energy Credit Research, for credit bonds of oil focused players, flat production levels and strong commodity prices should support free cash flow generation, which in turn should go to both shareholder returns and debt reduction.In summary, there is a lot going on in the energy markets. Oil prices have still some room to move higher in the short term. We find opportunities both in equity and credit markets to express our constructive view on oil prices.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to this podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xw-IaxdSx3wl4jFVyFGkqLmyUDrjM-dhgKmtcxrpgzITue, 09 Apr 2024 22:35:12 +0000gtyOur Chief Fixed Income Strategist surveys the latest big swings in the oil market, which could lead to opportunities in equities and credit around the energy sector. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications of recent strong moves in oil markets.It's Tuesday, April 9th at 3pm in New York.A lot is going on in the commodity markets, particularly in the oil market. Oil prices have made a powerful move. What is driving these moves? And how should investors think about this in the context of adjacent markets in equities and credit?Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist and Head of European Energy Research, Martijn Rats, raised crude oil price forecast for the third quarter to $94 per barrel. The rally in recent weeks is a result of positive fundamental news and rising geopolitical tensions.On the fundamental side, we've had better than expected demand from China and steeper than forecast fall in US production. Further, oil prices have also found support from growing potential for supply uncertainty in the Middle East. Martijn thinks that the last few dollars of rally in oil prices should be interpreted as a premium for rising geopolitical risks. The revision to the third quarter forecast should therefore be seen to reflect these growing geopolitical risks.Our US equity strategists, led by Mike Wilson, have recently upgraded the energy sector. The underlying rationale behind the upgrade is that the energy sector relative performance has really lagged crude oil prices; and unlike many other sectors within the US stock world, valuation in energy stocks is very compelling.Furthermore, the relative earnings revisions in energy stocks are beginning to inflect higher and the sector is actually exhibiting best breadth of any sector across the US equity spectrum. Higher oil prices are also important for credit markets. To quote Brian Gibbons, Morgan Stanley's Head of Energy Credit Research, for credit bonds of oil focused players, flat production levels and strong commodity prices should support free cash flow generation, which in turn should go to both shareholder returns and debt reduction.In summary, there is a lot going on in the energy markets. Oil prices have still some room to move higher in the short term. We find opportunities both in equity and credit markets to express our constructive view on oil prices.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to this podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>175false1098fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/looking-back-for-the-future--75652947----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the current interest rate cycle and the parallels we can draw from the 1990s.It's Monday, April 8th, at 10am in New York.Last year, we reiterated the view that the 1990s remain a useful cycle to consider for understanding the current cycle. Our European equity strategy colleagues shared our view, and they've used that episode to inform their ‘out of consensus, bullish initiation on European equities’ in January. No two cycles are identical, but as we move closer to a Fed cut, we reassess the key aspects of that comparison.We had previously argued that the current interest rate cycle and the mid 90s cycle differ from the intervening cycles because the goal now is to bring inflation down, rather than preventing it from rising. Of course, inflation was already falling when the 1994 cycle started, in part, because of the recession in 1991.This cycle -- because much of the inflation was driven by COVID-related shocks, like supply chains for consumer goods and shifts in housing for shelter inflation -- inflation started falling rapidly from its peak before the first hike could have possibly had any effect. In recent months, our economic growth forecasts have been regularly revised upward, even as we have largely hit our expected path for inflation.A labor supply shock appears to be a contributing factor that accounts for some of that forecast deviation, although fiscal policy likely contributed to the real side's strength as well. Supply shocks to the labor market are an interesting point of comparison for the two cycles. In the 1990s, labor force growth was still benefiting from this multi-decade rise in labor force participation among females. The aggregate labor force participation rate did not reach its peak until 2000.Now, as we've noted in several publications, the surge in immigration is providing a similar supply side boost, at least for a couple of years. But the key lesson for me for the policy cycle is that monetary policy is not on a pre-set, predetermined course merely rising, peaking and then falling. Cycles can be nuanced. In 1994, the Fed hiked the funds rate to 6 per cent, paused at that peak and then cut 75 basis points over 1995 and 1996. After that, the next policy move was actually a hike, not a cut.Currently, we think the Fed starts cutting rates in June; and for now, we expect that cutting to continue into next year. But as our US team has noted, the supply side revisions mean that the path for policy next year is just highly uncertain and subject to review. From 1994 to 1996, job gains trended down, much like they have over the past two years.That slowing was reflective of a broader slowing in the economy that prompted the Fed to stop hiking and partially reverse course. So, should we expect the same now, only a very partial reversal? Well, it's too soon to tell, and as we've argued, the faster labor supply growth expands both aggregate demand and aggregate supply -- so a somewhat tighter policy stance could be appropriate.In 1996, inflation stopped falling, and subsequently rose into 1997, and it was that development that supported the Fed's decision to maintain their somewhat restrictive policy. But we can't forget, afterward, inflation resumed its downward trajectory, with core PCE inflation eventually falling below 1.5 per cent, suggesting that that need to stop cutting and resume hiking, well, probably needs to be re-examined.So, no two cycles match, and the comparison may break down. To date, the rapid hikes, pause and pivot, along with a seeming soft landing, keeps that comparison alive. The labor supply shock parallel is notable, but it also points to what might be, just might be, another possible parallel.In the late 1990s, there was a rise in labor productivity, and we've written here many times about the potential contributions that AI might bring to labor productivity in coming years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JjneByaTkeaHYbjdfhkYgSMX3hyQYC59hmrvrpA9MQAMon, 08 Apr 2024 20:08:16 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist explains why the rapid hikes, pause and pivot of the current interest rate cycle are reminiscent of the 1990s. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the current interest rate cycle and the parallels we can draw from the 1990s.It's Monday, April 8th, at 10am in New York.Last year, we reiterated the view that the 1990s remain a useful cycle to consider for understanding the current cycle. Our European equity strategy colleagues shared our view, and they've used that episode to inform their ‘out of consensus, bullish initiation on European equities’ in January. No two cycles are identical, but as we move closer to a Fed cut, we reassess the key aspects of that comparison.We had previously argued that the current interest rate cycle and the mid 90s cycle differ from the intervening cycles because the goal now is to bring inflation down, rather than preventing it from rising. Of course, inflation was already falling when the 1994 cycle started, in part, because of the recession in 1991.This cycle -- because much of the inflation was driven by COVID-related shocks, like supply chains for consumer goods and shifts in housing for shelter inflation -- inflation started falling rapidly from its peak before the first hike could have possibly had any effect. In recent months, our economic growth forecasts have been regularly revised upward, even as we have largely hit our expected path for inflation.A labor supply shock appears to be a contributing factor that accounts for some of that forecast deviation, although fiscal policy likely contributed to the real side's strength as well. Supply shocks to the labor market are an interesting point of comparison for the two cycles. In the 1990s, labor force growth was still benefiting from this multi-decade rise in labor force participation among females. The aggregate labor force participation rate did not reach its peak until 2000.Now, as we've noted in several publications, the surge in immigration is providing a similar supply side boost, at least for a couple of years. But the key lesson for me for the policy cycle is that monetary policy is not on a pre-set, predetermined course merely rising, peaking and then falling. Cycles can be nuanced. In 1994, the Fed hiked the funds rate to 6 per cent, paused at that peak and then cut 75 basis points over 1995 and 1996. After that, the next policy move was actually a hike, not a cut.Currently, we think the Fed starts cutting rates in June; and for now, we expect that cutting to continue into next year. But as our US team has noted, the supply side revisions mean that the path for policy next year is just highly uncertain and subject to review. From 1994 to 1996, job gains trended down, much like they have over the past two years.That slowing was reflective of a broader slowing in the economy that prompted the Fed to stop hiking and partially reverse course. So, should we expect the same now, only a very partial reversal? Well, it's too soon to tell, and as we've argued, the faster labor supply growth expands both aggregate demand and aggregate supply -- so a somewhat tighter policy stance could be appropriate.In 1996, inflation stopped falling, and subsequently rose into 1997, and it was that development that supported the Fed's decision to maintain their somewhat restrictive policy. But we can't forget, afterward, inflation resumed its downward trajectory, with core PCE inflation eventually falling below 1.5 per cent, suggesting that that need to stop cutting and resume hiking, well, probably needs to be re-examined.So, no two cycles match, and the comparison may break down. To date, the rapid hikes, pause and pivot, along with a seeming soft landing, keeps that comparison alive. The labor supply shock parallel is notable, but it also...]]>272false1097fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-hot-summer-for-oil--75652956----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss recent developments in the oil market. It is Friday, April the 5th at 4 PM in London. At the start of the year, the outlook for the oil market looked somewhat unexciting. With the recovery from COVID largely behind us, growth in oil demand was slowing down. At the same time, supply from countries outside of OPEC (Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries) had been growing strongly and we expected that this would continue in 2024. In fact, at the start of the year it looked likely that growth in non-OPEC supply would meet, or even exceed, all growth in global demand. When that occurs, room in the oil market for OPEC oil is static at best, which in turn means OPEC needs to keep restraining production to keep the balance in the market. Even if it does that, it results in a decline in market share and a build-up of spare capacity. History has often warned against such periods.Still, by early February, the oil market started to look tighter than initially expected. Demand started to surprise positively – partly in jet fuel, as aviation was stronger than expected; partly in bunker fuel as the Suez Canal issues meant that ships needed to take longer routes; and partly in oil as petrochemical feedstock, as the global expansion of steam cracker capacity continues. At the same time, production in several non-OPEC countries had a weak start of the year, particularly in the United States where exceptionally cold weather in the middle of January caused widespread freeze offs at oil wells, putting stronger demand and weaker supply together, and the inventory builds that we expected in the early part of the year did not materialise. By mid-February, we could argue that the oil market looked balanced this year, rather than modestly oversupplied; and by early March, we were able to forecast that oil market fundamentals were strong enough to drive Brent crude oil to $90 a barrel over the summer.Since then, Brent has honed in on that $90 mark quicker than expected. Over the last week or so, the oil market has shown a powerful rally that has the hallmarks of simply tightening fundamentals but also with some geopolitical risk premium creeping back into the price. For now, our base-case forecast for the summer is still for Brent to trade around $90 per barrel as that is where we currently see fundamental support. However, the oil market typically enjoys a powerful seasonal demand tailwind over the summer. And that still lies ahead. And, geopolitical risk is still elevated, for which oil can be a useful diversifier. With those factors, our $95 bull case can also come into play.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AwL5x490DxgAZxp7TLLTkXGwEdShkdbDFFQLs_BW7lkFri, 05 Apr 2024 20:10:51 +0000gtyOil demand has been higher than expected so far in 2024. Our Global Commodities Strategist explains what could drive oil to $95 per barrel by summer. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss recent developments in the oil market. It is Friday, April the 5th at 4 PM in London. At the start of the year, the outlook for the oil market looked somewhat unexciting. With the recovery from COVID largely behind us, growth in oil demand was slowing down. At the same time, supply from countries outside of OPEC (Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries) had been growing strongly and we expected that this would continue in 2024. In fact, at the start of the year it looked likely that growth in non-OPEC supply would meet, or even exceed, all growth in global demand. When that occurs, room in the oil market for OPEC oil is static at best, which in turn means OPEC needs to keep restraining production to keep the balance in the market. Even if it does that, it results in a decline in market share and a build-up of spare capacity. History has often warned against such periods.Still, by early February, the oil market started to look tighter than initially expected. Demand started to surprise positively – partly in jet fuel, as aviation was stronger than expected; partly in bunker fuel as the Suez Canal issues meant that ships needed to take longer routes; and partly in oil as petrochemical feedstock, as the global expansion of steam cracker capacity continues. At the same time, production in several non-OPEC countries had a weak start of the year, particularly in the United States where exceptionally cold weather in the middle of January caused widespread freeze offs at oil wells, putting stronger demand and weaker supply together, and the inventory builds that we expected in the early part of the year did not materialise. By mid-February, we could argue that the oil market looked balanced this year, rather than modestly oversupplied; and by early March, we were able to forecast that oil market fundamentals were strong enough to drive Brent crude oil to $90 a barrel over the summer.Since then, Brent has honed in on that $90 mark quicker than expected. Over the last week or so, the oil market has shown a powerful rally that has the hallmarks of simply tightening fundamentals but also with some geopolitical risk premium creeping back into the price. For now, our base-case forecast for the summer is still for Brent to trade around $90 per barrel as that is where we currently see fundamental support. However, the oil market typically enjoys a powerful seasonal demand tailwind over the summer. And that still lies ahead. And, geopolitical risk is still elevated, for which oil can be a useful diversifier. With those factors, our $95 bull case can also come into play.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>186false1096fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-threat-to-clean-energy-in-the-us--75652823----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore from the US Public Policy Research Team.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how tensions in the US-China economic relationship could impact US attempts to transition to clean energy.It's Thursday, April 4th at 10am in New York.Ariana, in past episodes, I've talked about governments around the world really pushing for a transition to clean energy, putting resources into moving away from fossil fuels and moving towards more environmentally friendly alternatives. But this transition won't be easy. And I wanted to discuss with you one challenge in the US that perhaps isn't fully appreciated. This is the tension between US climate goals and the goal of reducing economic links with China. So, let's start there.What's our outlook for tensions in the near term?Ariana Salvatore: So, first off, to your point, the world needs over two times the current annual supply of several key minerals to meet global climate pledges by 2030. However, China is a dominant player in upstream, midstream, and downstream activities related to many of the required minerals.So, obviously, as you mentioned, trade tensions play a major role in the US ability to acquire those materials. We think friction between the US and China has been relatively controlled in recent years; but we also think there are a couple factors that could possibly change that on the horizon.First, China's over-invested in excess manufacturing capacity at a time when domestic demand is weak, driving the release of extra supply to the rest of the world at very low prices. That, of course, impacts the ability of non-Chinese players to compete. And second, obviously a large focus of ours is the US election cycle, which in general tends to bring out the hawk in both Democrats and Republicans alike when it comes to China policy.Michael Zezas: Right. So, all of that is to say there's a real possibility that these tensions could escalate again. What might that look like from a policy perspective?Ariana Salvatore: Well, as we established before, both parties are clearly interested in policies that would build barriers protecting technologies critical to US economic and national security. These could manifest through things like additional tariffs, as well as incremental non-tariff barriers, or restrictions on Chinese goods via export controls.Now, importantly, this could in turn cause China to act, as it has done in the recent past, by implementing export bans on minerals or related technology -- key to advancing President Biden's climate agenda, and over which China has a global dominant position.Specifically on the mineral front. China dominates 98 per cent of global production of gallium, more than 90 per cent of the global refined natural graphite market, and more than 80 per cent of the global refined markets of both rare earths and lithium. So, we've noted that those minerals are at the highest risk of disruption from potential escalation intentions.But Michael, from a market's perspective, are there any sectors that stand out as potential beneficiaries from this dynamic?Michael Zezas: So, our research colleagues have flagged that traditional US autos would see mostly positive implications from this outcome as EV penetration would likely stagnate further in the event of higher trade tensions. Similarly, US metals and mining stocks would likely benefit on the back of increased support from the government for US production, as well as increased demand for locally sourced materials.On the flip side, Ariana, any clear risks that our analysts are watching for?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so a clear impact here would be in the clean tech sector, which faces the greatest risk of supply chain disruption in an environment with increasing trade barriers in the alternative energy space. And that's mainly a function of the severe dependencies that exist on China for battery hardware. Our analysts also flagged US large scale renewable energy developers for potential downside impacts in this scenario -- again, specifically due to their exposure to battery and solar panel supply chains, most of which stems from China domiciled industries.Michael Zezas: Makes sense and clearly another reason we’ll have to keep tracking the US-China dynamic for investors. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/V3B7vrqyCtyXPYj1Bf9SkGeoUv1cKTpw2kUA8DTsVJwThu, 04 Apr 2024 21:31:45 +0000gtyExperts from our research team discuss how tensions with China could limit US access to essential technologies and minerals. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore from the US Public Policy Research Team.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how tensions in the US-China economic relationship could impact US attempts to transition to clean energy.It's Thursday, April 4th at 10am in New York.Ariana, in past episodes, I've talked about governments around the world really pushing for a transition to clean energy, putting resources into moving away from fossil fuels and moving towards more environmentally friendly alternatives. But this transition won't be easy. And I wanted to discuss with you one challenge in the US that perhaps isn't fully appreciated. This is the tension between US climate goals and the goal of reducing economic links with China. So, let's start there.What's our outlook for tensions in the near term?Ariana Salvatore: So, first off, to your point, the world needs over two times the current annual supply of several key minerals to meet global climate pledges by 2030. However, China is a dominant player in upstream, midstream, and downstream activities related to many of the required minerals.So, obviously, as you mentioned, trade tensions play a major role in the US ability to acquire those materials. We think friction between the US and China has been relatively controlled in recent years; but we also think there are a couple factors that could possibly change that on the horizon.First, China's over-invested in excess manufacturing capacity at a time when domestic demand is weak, driving the release of extra supply to the rest of the world at very low prices. That, of course, impacts the ability of non-Chinese players to compete. And second, obviously a large focus of ours is the US election cycle, which in general tends to bring out the hawk in both Democrats and Republicans alike when it comes to China policy.Michael Zezas: Right. So, all of that is to say there's a real possibility that these tensions could escalate again. What might that look like from a policy perspective?Ariana Salvatore: Well, as we established before, both parties are clearly interested in policies that would build barriers protecting technologies critical to US economic and national security. These could manifest through things like additional tariffs, as well as incremental non-tariff barriers, or restrictions on Chinese goods via export controls.Now, importantly, this could in turn cause China to act, as it has done in the recent past, by implementing export bans on minerals or related technology -- key to advancing President Biden's climate agenda, and over which China has a global dominant position.Specifically on the mineral front. China dominates 98 per cent of global production of gallium, more than 90 per cent of the global refined natural graphite market, and more than 80 per cent of the global refined markets of both rare earths and lithium. So, we've noted that those minerals are at the highest risk of disruption from potential escalation intentions.But Michael, from a market's perspective, are there any sectors that stand out as potential beneficiaries from this dynamic?Michael Zezas: So, our research colleagues have flagged that traditional US autos would see mostly positive implications from this outcome as EV penetration would likely stagnate further in the event of higher trade tensions. Similarly, US metals and mining stocks would likely benefit on the back of increased support from the government for US production, as well as increased demand for locally sourced materials.On the flip side, Ariana, any clear risks that our analysts are watching for?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so a clear impact here would be in the clean tech sector, which...]]>291false1095fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-growing-importance-of-where-data-lives--75652936----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Emmet Kelly, Head of Morgan Stanley’s European Telecom team. Today I’ll be talking about data sovereignty. It’s Wednesday, April 3rd, at 5pm in London.It’s never been easier to manage your life with just a click of a button or tap on the screen. You can take a photo, upload it to social media, and share it with friends and family. You can pay your bills online – from utilities and groceries to that personal splurge. You can even renew your library card or driver’s license or access your emails from years and years ago.But where is all this data stored? Our recent work shows that consumers are increasingly sensitive about this issue. Among European consumers, for example, more than 80 percent think it’s either very or somewhat important to know where their data is stored. And two-thirds of European consumers would like their data to be stored in their country of residence. A further 20 percent would be willing to pay more to store data locally, especially consumers in Spain and Germany. These results suggest that in the future, processing and storage of European data is more likely to be near shored rather than be based abroad.A few weeks ago, I came on this podcast to talk about our expectation that European data centers will grow five-fold over the next decade. Our research showed that key drivers would include increased cloudification, artificial intelligence and data sovereignty. We believe the most under-appreciated driver of this exponential growth is the question of where data is stored and processed. This is data sovereignty; and it’s a concern for European consumers.Data sovereignty means having legal control and jurisdiction over the storage and processing of data. It also means that data is subject to the laws of the country where that data was gathered and processed. More than 100 countries have data sovereignty laws in place, and laws governing the transfer of data between countries will only proliferate from here. In Europe, for example, we estimate that less than 50 per cent of cloud data is stored locally, within the European continent. The remainder is stored either in the US – notably in Virginia, which is the key data center hub in the United States; or, to a lesser extent, in lower-cost locations within Emerging Markets or in Asia.Complicating the issue of data sovereignty further are the so-called “extraterritorial laws” or "extra-territorial jurisdiction." These dictate the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal geographic boundaries. From a data perspective, even if data is stored and/or processed in Europe, it may also be subject to extraterritorial laws. Essentially, foreign, non-European governments could still gain access to European data.This is something to keep in mind as we put data sovereignty in the context of the transition to a multipolar world – a major theme which Morgan Stanley Research has been mapping out since 2019. The rewiring of the global economy is well under way and data security is a key imperative for policy makers against the backdrop of accelerating tech diffusion and also geopolitical tensions. Our baseline de-risking scenario for the rewiring of global trade extends to data security and implies a robust case for the near shoring of European data and data center growth.With so little of the European data pie stored or processed in Europe, the potential upside from near-shoring is considerable. Bottom line, we think investors should pay close attention to the issue of data sovereignty, especially as it plays out in Europe over the coming decade.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nak5UyEcnH1rSxR_wJ1EoTNvrZZANf4J1FsHbtx-QzgWed, 03 Apr 2024 21:14:15 +0000gtyConsumers are increasingly sensitive about where their personal data is being processed and stored. The head of our European Telecom team explains the complexity around data sovereignty and why investors should care about the issue. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Emmet Kelly, Head of Morgan Stanley’s European Telecom team. Today I’ll be talking about data sovereignty. It’s Wednesday, April 3rd, at 5pm in London.It’s never been easier to manage your life with just a click of a button or tap on the screen. You can take a photo, upload it to social media, and share it with friends and family. You can pay your bills online – from utilities and groceries to that personal splurge. You can even renew your library card or driver’s license or access your emails from years and years ago.But where is all this data stored? Our recent work shows that consumers are increasingly sensitive about this issue. Among European consumers, for example, more than 80 percent think it’s either very or somewhat important to know where their data is stored. And two-thirds of European consumers would like their data to be stored in their country of residence. A further 20 percent would be willing to pay more to store data locally, especially consumers in Spain and Germany. These results suggest that in the future, processing and storage of European data is more likely to be near shored rather than be based abroad.A few weeks ago, I came on this podcast to talk about our expectation that European data centers will grow five-fold over the next decade. Our research showed that key drivers would include increased cloudification, artificial intelligence and data sovereignty. We believe the most under-appreciated driver of this exponential growth is the question of where data is stored and processed. This is data sovereignty; and it’s a concern for European consumers.Data sovereignty means having legal control and jurisdiction over the storage and processing of data. It also means that data is subject to the laws of the country where that data was gathered and processed. More than 100 countries have data sovereignty laws in place, and laws governing the transfer of data between countries will only proliferate from here. In Europe, for example, we estimate that less than 50 per cent of cloud data is stored locally, within the European continent. The remainder is stored either in the US – notably in Virginia, which is the key data center hub in the United States; or, to a lesser extent, in lower-cost locations within Emerging Markets or in Asia.Complicating the issue of data sovereignty further are the so-called “extraterritorial laws” or "extra-territorial jurisdiction." These dictate the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal geographic boundaries. From a data perspective, even if data is stored and/or processed in Europe, it may also be subject to extraterritorial laws. Essentially, foreign, non-European governments could still gain access to European data.This is something to keep in mind as we put data sovereignty in the context of the transition to a multipolar world – a major theme which Morgan Stanley Research has been mapping out since 2019. The rewiring of the global economy is well under way and data security is a key imperative for policy makers against the backdrop of accelerating tech diffusion and also geopolitical tensions. Our baseline de-risking scenario for the rewiring of global trade extends to data security and implies a robust case for the near shoring of European data and data center growth.With so little of the European data pie stored or processed in Europe, the potential upside from near-shoring is considerable. Bottom line, we think investors should pay close attention to the issue of data sovereignty, especially as it plays out in Europe over the coming decade.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to...]]>262false1094fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-elections-potential-implications-for-businesses-and-consumers--75652860----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Research Team.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, head of the North America Softlines Retail and Brands team.Ariana Salvatore: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some key policy issues that may play into the U.S. presidential election and their potential impact on businesses and consumers.It's Tuesday, April 2nd, at 10 am in New York.Election season is fully underway here in the U.S. and as in past election cycles, trade policy and tax reform are once again a big concern.With that in mind, I wanted to discuss the potential implications on the retail space with my colleague Alex. So, let's start there. In general, Alex, how are retail stocks impacted leading up to the U.S. presidential elections?Alex Straton: So, look, this kind of surprised us when we had looked into some of this data. But if you look at the last six elections or so, on a full year basis, trading activity can be super volatile in my coverage; and it depends on what's at stake.But what we do broadly observe is back half underperformance to a bigger magnitude than is typical in a normal year. So, there is pressure on these stocks, in a way that you don't see in non-election years. Makes sense, right? Kind of a makes sense hypothesis that we confirmed. But I think the more interesting nugget about Softlines, Retail and Brand stocks leading into elections is that the higher frequency data can actually look worse than what actually comes to fruition in the top line or the sales numbers.So, by that I mean, you'll see surveys out of our economics team or out of, you know, big economics forums that say, ‘Oh, sentiment is getting worse.’ And then we'll see things like traffic is getting worse, these higher frequency indicators; and they actually end up almost exacerbating the impact than what we actually see when we get the true revenue results later on.So, my point being -- beware, as you see this degradation in the data; that doesn't necessarily mean that these businesses fundamentals are going to deteriorate to the same degree. In fact, it shows you that -- yes, maybe they're a little bit worse, but not to that extent.Alex Straton: So, Ariana, let's look at the policy side. More specifically, let's talk about some potential changes in tax policy that's been a hot topic for companies I cover. So, what's on the horizon, top down?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so, lots of changes to think about the horizon here.Just for some quick context, back in 2017, Republicans under former President Trump passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and that included a whole host of corporate and individual tax cuts. The way that law was structured was set to start rolling off around 2022, and most, if not all, of the bill is set to expire by the end of 2025.So that means that regardless of the election outcome, the next Congress will have to focus on tax policy, either by extending those cuts, or allowing some or all of them to roll off. So, in general, we think a Democratic sweep scenario would make it more likely that you would see the corporate rate, perhaps tick up a few points; while in a Republican sweep, we think you probably would maintain that 21 per cent corporate rate; and perhaps extend some of the other expiring corporate provisions.So, Alex, how do you expect these potential changes in the corporate tax side to impact the retailers and the brands that you cover?Alex Straton: Yeah. So, high level, I think about it on a sub-sector basis. And so, the headline you should hear is that my brand or wholesale coverage, which has more international revenue experience exposure, is better off than my retail coverage, which has more domestic or North America exposure.And it all just comes back to having more or less foreign exposure. The more North America exposure you have, the more subject you are to a change in tax rate. The more foreign exposure you have, the less subject you are to a change in tax rate. So that's the high-level way to think about it.We did run some analyses across our coverage, and if we do see the US corporate tax rate, let's say, lowered to 15 per cent hypothetically, we'll call that the Trump outcome, if you will. We calculate about a 5 per cent average benefit to 2025 earnings across our coverage. Now on the other hand, if we see something like a corporate tax rate that goes to 25 per cent, Biden outcome -- let's just label it that. We calculate 3 per cent average downside to the 2025 EPS estimates in our coverage.So that's how we sized it. It's not a huge swing, right? And the only reason why there's what I would call more of a benefit than a downside impact of that analysis is because of where the current tax rate sits and the relative magnitudes we took around it.Alex Straton: Now back over to you. You've highlighted trade policy as another key issue for the [20]24 election. Why is it so crucial in this election cycle compared to prior ones we've seen?Ariana Salvatore: Right. So, in contrast to some of the tax changes that we were just talking about, those would require full congressional agreement, right?So, you need either sweep scenario to make changes to tax policy in a really significant way. Trade policy is completely different because it is very much at the discretion of the president alone. So, to that end, we've envisioned a few different scenarios that can range from things like targeted tariffs on particular goods or trading partners, you know, something akin to the first Trump administration; to things like a universal baseline tariff scenario, and that's more similar to some of the more recent proposals that the former president has been talking about on the campaign trail.So, there are a whole host of different circumstances that can lead to each of those outcomes, but it's critically important, that level of discretion that I mentioned before. And we think for that reason, that investors really need to contemplate each of these different scenarios and what they could mean for, you know, macro markets and their individual stocks that they cover. Because, frankly, a lot can change.So, to that point, how do you think changes in trade policy are going to affect the side of the retail sector that you cover? Obviously, you mentioned North American exposure, so I imagine that's going to be critical again.But what kind of businesses will be most affected under the different scenarios that I just mentioned?Alex Straton: Yeah, so the way we examined this on our end, so from a Softlines, Retail, and Brands perspective, was looking at what a incremental China tariff means.I do think there's important background for people to understand in my space that differs this time around versus an election cycle, you know, four or eight years ago, whatever it may have been -- in that my companies have intentionally diversified out of China.The fact I love to give people is that US apparel imports from China has fallen from nearly 40 per cent to 20 per cent in the last, you know, decade or so; with 10 points of that in the last five years alone. So, the headline you should hear is there's not as much China exposure as there used to be. So that's good if there is a tariff put on for my companies. But with that backdrop, turning to the numbers, we have about 20 per cent cost of goods sold exposure to China on average across Softlines, Retail and Brands businesses.So, if that goes up by an incremental 10 per cent what we calculate is about a 15 per cent impact to 2025 earnings across my coverage. One final thing I would say is that it's very rare for businesses to have a North America based supply chain. But there are some companies -- very few, but select ones -- that do have a majority domestic supply chain. You can think about some of the favorite jeans you might wear on an everyday basis. Maybe more often than not, you don't realize they're actually made in America. And that's a benefit in a scenario like that.Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Alex, thanks for taking the time to talk.Alex Straton: It was great speaking with you, Ariana. Thanks for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5a8znhaAk1Hl4KmViUeTmZaibcensP3X1K2zim2XbUcTue, 02 Apr 2024 20:29:05 +0000gtyWe discuss how the upcoming US elections could affect trade and tax policy, and which scenarios are most favorable to retailers and brands.  ----- Transcript ----- Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Research Team.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, head of the North America Softlines Retail and Brands team.Ariana Salvatore: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some key policy issues that may play into the U.S. presidential election and their potential impact on businesses and consumers.It's Tuesday, April 2nd, at 10 am in New York.Election season is fully underway here in the U.S. and as in past election cycles, trade policy and tax reform are once again a big concern.With that in mind, I wanted to discuss the potential implications on the retail space with my colleague Alex. So, let's start there. In general, Alex, how are retail stocks impacted leading up to the U.S. presidential elections?Alex Straton: So, look, this kind of surprised us when we had looked into some of this data. But if you look at the last six elections or so, on a full year basis, trading activity can be super volatile in my coverage; and it depends on what's at stake.But what we do broadly observe is back half underperformance to a bigger magnitude than is typical in a normal year. So, there is pressure on these stocks, in a way that you don't see in non-election years. Makes sense, right? Kind of a makes sense hypothesis that we confirmed. But I think the more interesting nugget about Softlines, Retail and Brand stocks leading into elections is that the higher frequency data can actually look worse than what actually comes to fruition in the top line or the sales numbers.So, by that I mean, you'll see surveys out of our economics team or out of, you know, big economics forums that say, ‘Oh, sentiment is getting worse.’ And then we'll see things like traffic is getting worse, these higher frequency indicators; and they actually end up almost exacerbating the impact than what we actually see when we get the true revenue results later on.So, my point being -- beware, as you see this degradation in the data; that doesn't necessarily mean that these businesses fundamentals are going to deteriorate to the same degree. In fact, it shows you that -- yes, maybe they're a little bit worse, but not to that extent.Alex Straton: So, Ariana, let's look at the policy side. More specifically, let's talk about some potential changes in tax policy that's been a hot topic for companies I cover. So, what's on the horizon, top down?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so, lots of changes to think about the horizon here.Just for some quick context, back in 2017, Republicans under former President Trump passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and that included a whole host of corporate and individual tax cuts. The way that law was structured was set to start rolling off around 2022, and most, if not all, of the bill is set to expire by the end of 2025.So that means that regardless of the election outcome, the next Congress will have to focus on tax policy, either by extending those cuts, or allowing some or all of them to roll off. So, in general, we think a Democratic sweep scenario would make it more likely that you would see the corporate rate, perhaps tick up a few points; while in a Republican sweep, we think you probably would maintain that 21 per cent corporate rate; and perhaps extend some of the other expiring corporate provisions.So, Alex, how do you expect these potential changes in the corporate tax side to impact the retailers and the brands that you cover?Alex Straton: Yeah. So, high level, I think about it on a sub-sector basis. And so, the headline you should hear is that my brand or wholesale coverage, which has more international revenue experience exposure, is better off than my retail coverage, which has more domestic or North America exposure.And it all just comes back to...]]>457false1093fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-immigration-s-rise-could-boost-economic-growth--75652895----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. And today, I'll be talking about immigration, economic growth, and the implications for monetary policy.It's Monday, April 1st, at 10am in New York.Global migration is emerging as an important macro trend. Some migration patterns change during and after COVID, and such changes can have first order effects on the population and labor force of an economy.That fact has meant that several central banks have discussed immigration in the context of their economic outlook; and we focus here on the Fed and the Reserve Bank of Australia, the RBA.In the US, recent population estimates from the CBO and the census suggests that immigration has been and is still driving faster growth in the population and labor supply, helping to explain some of last year's upside surprise in non-farm payrolls. In Australia, the issue is even longer standing, and accelerated migration in recent years has provided important support to consumption and inflation.From a macro perspective, immigration can boost both aggregate demand and aggregate supply. More specifically, more immigration can lead to stronger consumption spending, a larger labor force, and may drive investment spending.The permanence of the immigration, like some immigrants are temporary students or just visiting workers, the skill level of the migrants and the speed of labor force integration are consequential -- in determining whether supply side or demand side effects dominate. Demand side effects tend to be more inflationary and supply side effects more disinflationary.In Australia, the acceleration in immigration has played an important driver in population growth and aggregate demand. In the decade before COVID, net migration added about a percentage point to the population growth annually. In 2022 and 2023, the growth rate accelerated beyond two percent. The pace of growth and migration and the type of migration have supported consumption spending and made housing demand outpace housing supply.Our Australia economists note that net migration will likely remain a tailwind for spending in 2024 -- but with significant uncertainty about the magnitude. In stark contrast, recent evidence in the US suggests that the surge in immigration has had a relatively stronger impact on aggregate supply. Growth in 2023 surprised to the upside, even relative to our rosier than consensus outlook.Academic research on US states suggests that over the period from 1970 to 2006, immigration tended to increase capital about one for one with increases in labor -- because the capital labor ratio in states receiving more immigrants remained relatively constant. That is, the inflow of immigrants stimulated an increase in investment.Of course, the sector of the economy that attracts the immigrants matters a lot. Immigrants joining sectors with lesser capital intensiveness may show less of this capital boosting effect.So, what are the implications for monetary policy? Decidedly, mixed. In the short run, more demand from any of the above sources will tend to be inflationary, and that suggests a higher policy rate is needed. But, as any supply boosting effects manifest, easier policy is called for to allow the economy to grow into that higher potential. So, a little bit here, a little bit there. Over the long run, though, only a persistently faster growth rate in immigration, as opposed to a one-off surge, would be able to raise the equilibrium rate, the so-called R star, on a permanent basis.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VderNfGtkMC3TPbCyL0Zx1Put5DQVTX-PVRM-I9-dQ0Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:42:10 +0000gtyOur Global Chief Economist surveys recent US and Australian census data to explain immigration’s impact on labor supply and demand, as well as the implications for monetary policy.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. And today, I'll be talking about immigration, economic growth, and the implications for monetary policy.It's Monday, April 1st, at 10am in New York.Global migration is emerging as an important macro trend. Some migration patterns change during and after COVID, and such changes can have first order effects on the population and labor force of an economy.That fact has meant that several central banks have discussed immigration in the context of their economic outlook; and we focus here on the Fed and the Reserve Bank of Australia, the RBA.In the US, recent population estimates from the CBO and the census suggests that immigration has been and is still driving faster growth in the population and labor supply, helping to explain some of last year's upside surprise in non-farm payrolls. In Australia, the issue is even longer standing, and accelerated migration in recent years has provided important support to consumption and inflation.From a macro perspective, immigration can boost both aggregate demand and aggregate supply. More specifically, more immigration can lead to stronger consumption spending, a larger labor force, and may drive investment spending.The permanence of the immigration, like some immigrants are temporary students or just visiting workers, the skill level of the migrants and the speed of labor force integration are consequential -- in determining whether supply side or demand side effects dominate. Demand side effects tend to be more inflationary and supply side effects more disinflationary.In Australia, the acceleration in immigration has played an important driver in population growth and aggregate demand. In the decade before COVID, net migration added about a percentage point to the population growth annually. In 2022 and 2023, the growth rate accelerated beyond two percent. The pace of growth and migration and the type of migration have supported consumption spending and made housing demand outpace housing supply.Our Australia economists note that net migration will likely remain a tailwind for spending in 2024 -- but with significant uncertainty about the magnitude. In stark contrast, recent evidence in the US suggests that the surge in immigration has had a relatively stronger impact on aggregate supply. Growth in 2023 surprised to the upside, even relative to our rosier than consensus outlook.Academic research on US states suggests that over the period from 1970 to 2006, immigration tended to increase capital about one for one with increases in labor -- because the capital labor ratio in states receiving more immigrants remained relatively constant. That is, the inflow of immigrants stimulated an increase in investment.Of course, the sector of the economy that attracts the immigrants matters a lot. Immigrants joining sectors with lesser capital intensiveness may show less of this capital boosting effect.So, what are the implications for monetary policy? Decidedly, mixed. In the short run, more demand from any of the above sources will tend to be inflationary, and that suggests a higher policy rate is needed. But, as any supply boosting effects manifest, easier policy is called for to allow the economy to grow into that higher potential. So, a little bit here, a little bit there. Over the long run, though, only a persistently faster growth rate in immigration, as opposed to a one-off surge, would be able to raise the equilibrium rate, the so-called R star, on a permanent basis.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a...]]>235false1092fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-housing-will-lower-fees-means-higher-sales--75652990----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research.James Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some proposed changes to the US housing market. It's Thursday, March 28th, at 1pm in New York.Jay Bacow: Jim, two weeks ago, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) settled a case that could fundamentally change how commissions are paid to brokers. Acknowledging that there's a few months until this is all going to get approved, it looks like sellers are no longer going to have to compensate buyers’ agents. Which means that the closing cost that sellers have to pay is going to come down from the current 5 to 6 per cent to brokers to something more in the context of 3.5 to 4 percent -- based on estimates from many economists. What does this mean for the housing market?James Egan: So, this is certainly a settlement worth paying attention to.There are a lot of moving pieces here, but some of our first thoughts. Look, if we're lowering the ultimate transaction costs when it comes to selling homes, we do think that -- all else equal and probably a little bit more into the future -- it's going to lead to a higher volume of transactions. Or a higher level of turnover in the housing market.Now sellers no longer having to compensate buyers’ agents. That becoming something that buyers will need to do -- that could, at least from a perception perspective, increase the cost for buyers at a place, where we're already at one of our least affordable points in several decades. So, when we think about an increased level of transaction volumes; if that means, especially in the near term, or especially where we are right now, a little bit of an increase in for-sale inventory, combined with some of the affordability issues -- maybe it weighs a little bit on home prices. But our bottom line here is we think from a home price perspective, largely unchanged here. From a transaction volume perspective, all else equal, you could see a little bit of a pickup.Jay Bacow: All right. But Jim, haven't you been calling for some of the story already with increased housing activity, causing home prices to end 2024 slightly below 2023. Does this then change the narrative at all?James Egan: No, I don't think this changes the narrative. If we go back into that call just a little bit, our call for the marginal decrease in year over year home price growth was driven by growth in for-sale inventory this year. We're seeing that steady growth in existing listings over the past couple of months.Now, the most recent housing start print was also positive from this perspective. Single unit housing starts were up for the eighth month in a row and have now increased 11 per cent from their local lows, which were in June of 2023. I think it's also worth pointing out over that same time frame, five plus unit starts, multi-unit housing, they're down in almost every single one of those months -- all but one of them. And they're down 19 per cent from that same month, June of 2023. But that's probably something for another podcast.Jay Bacow Alright. Well, I think there's two more things we should include in this podcast. First, this settlement isn't the only factor that could increase housing activity. Recently, around the State of the Union [address], President Biden announced a number of plans that could also contribute.Now, some of them require congressional approval, including a $10,000 middle-income first-time homebuyer tax credit. And then a separate $10,000 tax credit to middle class families that would sell their home below the median income in the county to help account for some of these lock-in effects that you mentioned.Jay Bacow: However, he also announced a pilot program that would eliminate total insurance fees for some low-risk refinance transactions. And that one doesn't require congressional approval; it's getting put in place as we speak, and that would save homeowners about $750 in closing costs on a refinance.James Egan: Interesting. So, if I'm hearing you correctly, the ones that would require congressional approval, they're more on the -- what we would call housing activity side: sales, purchase volumes. Whereas the one that didn't was on the refinance side. Now, presumably there's not much refinance activity going on right now.Jay Bacow: That's a correct presumption. Right now, we estimate that only about 3 per cent of homeowners have a critical incentive to refinance 25 basis points versus a prevailing mortgage rate. So, this is going to matter a lot more if we rally in rates. Realistically, we think we need a mortgage rate to get closer to 5 per cent than the current level for this to really matter.But I imagine that's probably a similar case with the NAR settlement as well.James Egan: Exactly. And that's why I made a point to say, all else equal, we think this is going to lead to a higher volume of transactions or a higher turnover rate in the housing market. It's because of that lock-in effect. Right now, so much of the homeowning distribution is well below the prevailing mortgage rate, that any real impacts of this we think are just going to be on the margins.Jay Bacow: Alright, so there's a lot of changes are coming to the housing market. They're likely to impact the market more if rates rally and are more of the back half of the year, next year event than this summer.Jim, thanks for taking the time to talk.James Egan: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thanks for listening.If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Pp-BLNNTX7E-cpvqhQMdyNqTOmn2-R85LCCpKP-B6ZMThu, 28 Mar 2024 21:32:35 +0000gtyA landmark settlement with the National Association of Realtors will change the way brokers are paid commissions. How would this affect people looking to buy or sell homes? Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research discuss. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research.James Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some proposed changes to the US housing market. It's Thursday, March 28th, at 1pm in New York.Jay Bacow: Jim, two weeks ago, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) settled a case that could fundamentally change how commissions are paid to brokers. Acknowledging that there's a few months until this is all going to get approved, it looks like sellers are no longer going to have to compensate buyers’ agents. Which means that the closing cost that sellers have to pay is going to come down from the current 5 to 6 per cent to brokers to something more in the context of 3.5 to 4 percent -- based on estimates from many economists. What does this mean for the housing market?James Egan: So, this is certainly a settlement worth paying attention to.There are a lot of moving pieces here, but some of our first thoughts. Look, if we're lowering the ultimate transaction costs when it comes to selling homes, we do think that -- all else equal and probably a little bit more into the future -- it's going to lead to a higher volume of transactions. Or a higher level of turnover in the housing market.Now sellers no longer having to compensate buyers’ agents. That becoming something that buyers will need to do -- that could, at least from a perception perspective, increase the cost for buyers at a place, where we're already at one of our least affordable points in several decades. So, when we think about an increased level of transaction volumes; if that means, especially in the near term, or especially where we are right now, a little bit of an increase in for-sale inventory, combined with some of the affordability issues -- maybe it weighs a little bit on home prices. But our bottom line here is we think from a home price perspective, largely unchanged here. From a transaction volume perspective, all else equal, you could see a little bit of a pickup.Jay Bacow: All right. But Jim, haven't you been calling for some of the story already with increased housing activity, causing home prices to end 2024 slightly below 2023. Does this then change the narrative at all?James Egan: No, I don't think this changes the narrative. If we go back into that call just a little bit, our call for the marginal decrease in year over year home price growth was driven by growth in for-sale inventory this year. We're seeing that steady growth in existing listings over the past couple of months.Now, the most recent housing start print was also positive from this perspective. Single unit housing starts were up for the eighth month in a row and have now increased 11 per cent from their local lows, which were in June of 2023. I think it's also worth pointing out over that same time frame, five plus unit starts, multi-unit housing, they're down in almost every single one of those months -- all but one of them. And they're down 19 per cent from that same month, June of 2023. But that's probably something for another podcast.Jay Bacow Alright. Well, I think there's two more things we should include in this podcast. First, this settlement isn't the only factor that could increase housing activity. Recently, around the State of the Union [address], President Biden announced a number of plans that could also contribute.Now, some of them require congressional approval, including a $10,000 middle-income first-time homebuyer tax credit. And then a separate $10,000 tax credit to middle class families that would sell their home below the median income in...]]>327false1091fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-credit-scores-inflated--75652972----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Heather Berger: And I'm Heather Berger, Asset-Backed Security Strategist.Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the trend of migrating US consumer credit scores and the potential effect on equities and fixed income. It's Wednesday, March 27th at 10am in New York.Heather, I really wanted to talk to you today because we've all seen some recent news reports about delinquencies and defaults in consumer credit ticking higher over the last two years. That means more people missing payments on their car loans and credit cards, suggesting the consumer is increasingly in a stressed position. But at the same time, that seems to be at odds with what's been an upward trend in consumers’ credit scores, which on its face should suggest the consumer is in a healthier position.So, it all begs the question: what's really going on here with the consumer, and what does it mean for markets? Now, you and your colleagues have been doing some really fascinating work showing that in order to get to the truth here, we have to understand that there's a measurement problem. There’s quirks in the data that, when you understand them, mean you have a more accurate picture of the health of the consumer. And that, in turn, can clarify some opportunities in the fixed income and equity markets.So, this measurement problem seems to center around the idea of credit score migration. Can you start by explaining what exactly is credit score migration?Heather Berger: Sure. So, credit scores are used as a way to estimate expected default risk on consumer loans. And these scores are really the most standardized and widespread way of evaluating consumer credit quality. Scores are meant to be relative metrics at any point in time. So, a 700 score today is meant to indicate less default risk than a 600 score today, but a 700 score today isn't necessarily the same as a 700 score a few years ago.Credit scores have been increasing throughout the past decade; most extremely from 2020 to 2021, largely due to COVID related factors such as stimulus checks. The average credit score is up 10 points in the past four years, and this trend has broadly been referred to as credit score migration.Michael Zezas: So, just so we can have a concrete example, can you talk about how this has affected one particular consumer credit category?Heather Berger: Well, as you mentioned earlier, delinquencies and defaults have been rising across consumer loan types, whether it's autos, credit cards, or personal loans. The macro backdrop has definitely contributed to this, as inflation has weighed on consumers real disposable income, but we do think that score migration has had an impact as well, considering the large changes over the past few years.Looking at auto loans, for example, with the same credit scores from 2022 versus loans from 2018, we see that delinquency rates on the 2022 loans are up to 60 per cent higher than on the 2018 loans. We estimate that 30 to 50 per cent of this increase can be due to effects of credit score migration.Michael Zezas: And is there anything we can assume here about the actual health of the US consumer? Do we see delinquencies improving or getting worse?Heather Berger: I think one of the main takeaways here is that since score migration impacts performance metrics, we shouldn't necessarily extrapolate delinquency data to broader consumer health. Despite the high delinquency rates, our economists do expect consumers to remain afloat.They're forecasting a modest slowdown in consumer spending this year as we move off a hot labor market and continue to face elevated interest rates.Michael Zezas: So, let's shift to the market impacts here. Maybe you could tell us what your colleagues in equity research saw as the impact on the banks and consumer finance sectors. And in your area of expertise, what are the impacts for asset-backed securities?Heather Berger: We think that across both of these spaces, taking into account changes in credit scores will be important to use in models moving forward; and this can help us to more accurately assess the risks of consumer loans and to predict performance. Movements in credit scores have actually been muted in the past year, which is a big change from the large increases we saw a few years ago.So, score migration should now have a smaller impact on consumer performance and delinquency rates. This means that performance will be driven by macro factors and lending standards. As inflation comes down and with lending standards tight, we view this as a positive for asset backed securities, and our colleagues view it as a positive for their coverage of consumer finance equities.Michael Zezas: Heather, this has been really insightful. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Heather Berger: Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple podcast app or wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/k3HSCsWmQkvViB2MOnwIy4LfkRAnQvLQzYe0yxDM2EYWed, 27 Mar 2024 20:37:32 +0000gtyConsumer credit scores have ticked higher in the last two years – but so have the rate of delinquencies and defaults. Our Global Head of Fixed Income discusses “credit score migration” with the firm's Asset-Backed Security Strategist. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Heather Berger: And I'm Heather Berger, Asset-Backed Security Strategist.Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the trend of migrating US consumer credit scores and the potential effect on equities and fixed income. It's Wednesday, March 27th at 10am in New York.Heather, I really wanted to talk to you today because we've all seen some recent news reports about delinquencies and defaults in consumer credit ticking higher over the last two years. That means more people missing payments on their car loans and credit cards, suggesting the consumer is increasingly in a stressed position. But at the same time, that seems to be at odds with what's been an upward trend in consumers’ credit scores, which on its face should suggest the consumer is in a healthier position.So, it all begs the question: what's really going on here with the consumer, and what does it mean for markets? Now, you and your colleagues have been doing some really fascinating work showing that in order to get to the truth here, we have to understand that there's a measurement problem. There’s quirks in the data that, when you understand them, mean you have a more accurate picture of the health of the consumer. And that, in turn, can clarify some opportunities in the fixed income and equity markets.So, this measurement problem seems to center around the idea of credit score migration. Can you start by explaining what exactly is credit score migration?Heather Berger: Sure. So, credit scores are used as a way to estimate expected default risk on consumer loans. And these scores are really the most standardized and widespread way of evaluating consumer credit quality. Scores are meant to be relative metrics at any point in time. So, a 700 score today is meant to indicate less default risk than a 600 score today, but a 700 score today isn't necessarily the same as a 700 score a few years ago.Credit scores have been increasing throughout the past decade; most extremely from 2020 to 2021, largely due to COVID related factors such as stimulus checks. The average credit score is up 10 points in the past four years, and this trend has broadly been referred to as credit score migration.Michael Zezas: So, just so we can have a concrete example, can you talk about how this has affected one particular consumer credit category?Heather Berger: Well, as you mentioned earlier, delinquencies and defaults have been rising across consumer loan types, whether it's autos, credit cards, or personal loans. The macro backdrop has definitely contributed to this, as inflation has weighed on consumers real disposable income, but we do think that score migration has had an impact as well, considering the large changes over the past few years.Looking at auto loans, for example, with the same credit scores from 2022 versus loans from 2018, we see that delinquency rates on the 2022 loans are up to 60 per cent higher than on the 2018 loans. We estimate that 30 to 50 per cent of this increase can be due to effects of credit score migration.Michael Zezas: And is there anything we can assume here about the actual health of the US consumer? Do we see delinquencies improving or getting worse?Heather Berger: I think one of the main takeaways here is that since score migration impacts performance metrics, we shouldn't necessarily extrapolate delinquency data to broader consumer health. Despite the high delinquency rates, our economists do expect consumers to remain afloat.They're forecasting a modest slowdown in consumer spending this year as we move off a hot labor market and continue to...]]>283false1090fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/finding-late-cycle-winners--75652988----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about an opportunity for energy stocks to keep working in the near term.It's Tuesday, March 26th at 9:30 am in New York. So let’s get after it.Over the past five months, global stocks are up about 25 percent while many other asset prices were up double digits or more. What’s driving this appreciation? Many factors are at work. But for stock indices, it’s been mostly about easier financial conditions and higher valuations rather than improving fundamentals. Granted, higher asset prices often beget even higher prices – as investors feel compelled to participate. From our perspective, it’s hard to justify the higher index level valuations based on fundamentals alone, given that 2024 and 2025 earnings forecasts have barely budged over this time period.  We rolled out our “Boom-Bust” thesis in 2020 based on the shift to fiscally dominant policy in response to the pandemic. At that point, our positive view on stocks was based on the boom in earnings that we expected over the 2020-2021 period as the economy roared back from pandemic lows. Our outlook anticipated both accelerating top line growth and massive operating leverage as companies could reduce headcount and other costs while people were locked down at home. The result was the fastest earnings growth in 30 years and record high margins and profitability. In other words, the boom in stocks was justified by the earnings boom that followed. Stock valuations were also supported by arguably the most generous monetary policy in history. The Fed continued Quantitative Easing throughout 2021, a year when S&P earnings grew 48 percent to an all-time high.Today, stock valuations have reached similarly high levels achieved back in 2020 and [20]21 – in anticipation of improving growth after the earnings deterioration most companies saw last year. While the recent easing of financial conditions may foreshadow such an acceleration in earnings, bottom-up expectations for 2024 and [20]25 S&P 500 earnings remain flat post the Fed’s fourth quarter dovish shift. Meanwhile, small cap earnings estimates are down 10 percent and 7 percent for 2024 and [20]25, respectively since October. We think one reason for the muted earnings revisions since last fall, particularly in small caps, is the continued policy mix of heavy fiscal stimulus and tight front-end interest rates. We see this crowding out many companies and consumers.  The question for investors at this stage is whether the market can finally broaden out in a more sustainable fashion. As we noted last week, we are starting to see breadth improve for several sectors. Looking forward, we believe a durable broadening comes down to whether other stocks and sectors can deliver on earnings growth. One sector showing strong breadth is Industrials, a classic late-cycle winner and a beneficiary of the major fiscal outlays for things like the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS Act, as well as the AI-driven data center buildout. A new sector displaying strong breadth is Energy, the best performer month-to-date but still lagging considerably since the October rally began. Taking the Fed’s recent messaging that they are less concerned about inflation or loosening financial conditions, commodity-oriented cyclicals and Energy in particular could be due for a catch-up. The sector’s relative performance versus the S&P 500 has lagged crude oil prices, and valuation still looks compelling. Relative earnings revisions appear to be inflecting as well. Some listeners may be surprised that Energy has contributed more to the change in S&P 500 earnings since the pandemic than any other sector. Yet it remains one of the cheapest and most under-owned areas of the market.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OkhIE0ojFpUjoKyUrPJ_j3EL5AJY3rVbxXqCiUH4CXUTue, 26 Mar 2024 21:31:34 +0000gtyAs investors look for clues on market durability, our Chief U.S. Equity Strategist highlights which sectors could show more widely distributed gains in the near term. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about an opportunity for energy stocks to keep working in the near term.It's Tuesday, March 26th at 9:30 am in New York. So let’s get after it.Over the past five months, global stocks are up about 25 percent while many other asset prices were up double digits or more. What’s driving this appreciation? Many factors are at work. But for stock indices, it’s been mostly about easier financial conditions and higher valuations rather than improving fundamentals. Granted, higher asset prices often beget even higher prices – as investors feel compelled to participate. From our perspective, it’s hard to justify the higher index level valuations based on fundamentals alone, given that 2024 and 2025 earnings forecasts have barely budged over this time period.  We rolled out our “Boom-Bust” thesis in 2020 based on the shift to fiscally dominant policy in response to the pandemic. At that point, our positive view on stocks was based on the boom in earnings that we expected over the 2020-2021 period as the economy roared back from pandemic lows. Our outlook anticipated both accelerating top line growth and massive operating leverage as companies could reduce headcount and other costs while people were locked down at home. The result was the fastest earnings growth in 30 years and record high margins and profitability. In other words, the boom in stocks was justified by the earnings boom that followed. Stock valuations were also supported by arguably the most generous monetary policy in history. The Fed continued Quantitative Easing throughout 2021, a year when S&P earnings grew 48 percent to an all-time high.Today, stock valuations have reached similarly high levels achieved back in 2020 and [20]21 – in anticipation of improving growth after the earnings deterioration most companies saw last year. While the recent easing of financial conditions may foreshadow such an acceleration in earnings, bottom-up expectations for 2024 and [20]25 S&P 500 earnings remain flat post the Fed’s fourth quarter dovish shift. Meanwhile, small cap earnings estimates are down 10 percent and 7 percent for 2024 and [20]25, respectively since October. We think one reason for the muted earnings revisions since last fall, particularly in small caps, is the continued policy mix of heavy fiscal stimulus and tight front-end interest rates. We see this crowding out many companies and consumers.  The question for investors at this stage is whether the market can finally broaden out in a more sustainable fashion. As we noted last week, we are starting to see breadth improve for several sectors. Looking forward, we believe a durable broadening comes down to whether other stocks and sectors can deliver on earnings growth. One sector showing strong breadth is Industrials, a classic late-cycle winner and a beneficiary of the major fiscal outlays for things like the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS Act, as well as the AI-driven data center buildout. A new sector displaying strong breadth is Energy, the best performer month-to-date but still lagging considerably since the October rally began. Taking the Fed’s recent messaging that they are less concerned about inflation or loosening financial conditions, commodity-oriented cyclicals and Energy in particular could be due for a catch-up. The sector’s relative performance versus the S&P 500 has lagged crude oil prices, and valuation still looks compelling. Relative earnings revisions appear to be inflecting as well. Some listeners may be surprised that Energy has contributed more to the change in S&P 500 earnings since the...]]>260false1089fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-evolution-of-private-credit--75652974----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications of the rapid growth in private credit for the broader credit markets.  It’s Monday, March 25th at 12 noon in New York.The evolution of private credit is reshaping the landscape of leveraged finance. Investors of all stripes and all around the world are taking notice. The rapid expansion of private credit in the last few years has come against a much different backdrop in the public credit markets – a contraction in the high yield bond market and lackluster growth in the broadly syndicated loan market. What the emergence of private credit means for the public credit and the broader credit markets is a topic of active debate.Just to be clear, let me define what we mean by private credit. Private credit is debt extended to corporate borrowers on a bilateral basis or involving very small number of lenders, typically non-banks. Lenders originate and negotiate terms directly with borrowers without the syndication process that is the norm in public markets for both bonds and loans. These private credit loans are typically not publicly rated; they’re not typically traded in secondary markets; tend to have stronger lender protections and offer a spread premium to public markets.Given the higher overall borrowing costs as well the need to provide stronger covenant protection to lenders, what motivates borrowers to tap private credit versus public credit? Three key factors explain the recent rapid growth in private credit and show how private credit both competes and complements the public credit markets.First, small and medium-sized companies that used to rely on banks had to find alternative sources of credit as banks curtailed lending in response to regulatory capital pressures. A majority of these borrowers have very limited access to syndicated bond and loan markets, given their modest size of borrowings.Second, because of the small number of lenders per deal – frequently just one – private credit offers both speed and certainty of execution along with flexibility of term. The last two years of monetary policy tightening has meant that there was a lot of uncertainty around how high policy rates would go and how long they will stay elevated – which has led investors to pull back. The speed and certainty of private credit ended up taking market share from public markets against this background, given this uncertainty in the public markets.Third, the pressure on interest coverage ratios from higher rates resulted in a substantial pick-up in rating agency downgrades into the B- and CCC rating categories. At these distressed ratings levels, public markets are not very active, and private credit became the only viable source of financing.Where do we go from here? With confidence growing that policy tightening is behind us and the next Fed move will be a cut, the conditions that contributed to deal execution uncertainty are certainly fading. Public markets, both broadly syndicated loan and high yield bond markets, are showing signs of strong revival. The competitive advantage of execution certainty that private credit lenders were offering has become somewhat less material. Further, given the amount of capital raised for private credit that is waiting to be deployed – the so-called dry powder – the spread premium in private credit may also need to come down to be competitive with the public markets.So private credit is both a competitor and a complement to the public markets. Its competitive attractiveness will ebb and flow, but we expect its complementary benefit as an avenue for credit where public markets are challenged to remain as well as grow.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get this podcast – and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lurwnspE2W0Zum_g6my9ZSX6MSfEr7lPAC88o0F3AzgMon, 25 Mar 2024 21:39:55 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why private credit markets have expanded rapidly in recent years, and how they may fare if public credit makes an expected comeback. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications of the rapid growth in private credit for the broader credit markets.  It’s Monday, March 25th at 12 noon in New York.The evolution of private credit is reshaping the landscape of leveraged finance. Investors of all stripes and all around the world are taking notice. The rapid expansion of private credit in the last few years has come against a much different backdrop in the public credit markets – a contraction in the high yield bond market and lackluster growth in the broadly syndicated loan market. What the emergence of private credit means for the public credit and the broader credit markets is a topic of active debate.Just to be clear, let me define what we mean by private credit. Private credit is debt extended to corporate borrowers on a bilateral basis or involving very small number of lenders, typically non-banks. Lenders originate and negotiate terms directly with borrowers without the syndication process that is the norm in public markets for both bonds and loans. These private credit loans are typically not publicly rated; they’re not typically traded in secondary markets; tend to have stronger lender protections and offer a spread premium to public markets.Given the higher overall borrowing costs as well the need to provide stronger covenant protection to lenders, what motivates borrowers to tap private credit versus public credit? Three key factors explain the recent rapid growth in private credit and show how private credit both competes and complements the public credit markets.First, small and medium-sized companies that used to rely on banks had to find alternative sources of credit as banks curtailed lending in response to regulatory capital pressures. A majority of these borrowers have very limited access to syndicated bond and loan markets, given their modest size of borrowings.Second, because of the small number of lenders per deal – frequently just one – private credit offers both speed and certainty of execution along with flexibility of term. The last two years of monetary policy tightening has meant that there was a lot of uncertainty around how high policy rates would go and how long they will stay elevated – which has led investors to pull back. The speed and certainty of private credit ended up taking market share from public markets against this background, given this uncertainty in the public markets.Third, the pressure on interest coverage ratios from higher rates resulted in a substantial pick-up in rating agency downgrades into the B- and CCC rating categories. At these distressed ratings levels, public markets are not very active, and private credit became the only viable source of financing.Where do we go from here? With confidence growing that policy tightening is behind us and the next Fed move will be a cut, the conditions that contributed to deal execution uncertainty are certainly fading. Public markets, both broadly syndicated loan and high yield bond markets, are showing signs of strong revival. The competitive advantage of execution certainty that private credit lenders were offering has become somewhat less material. Further, given the amount of capital raised for private credit that is waiting to be deployed – the so-called dry powder – the spread premium in private credit may also need to come down to be competitive with the public markets.So private credit is both a competitor and a complement to the public markets. Its competitive attractiveness will ebb and flow, but we expect its complementary benefit as an avenue for credit where public markets are...]]>266false1088fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-as-expected-still-give-new-information--75652977----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about this week’s central bank meetings, and why as expected outcomes can still mean new information for credit investors.It's Friday, March 22nd at 2pm in London.When a good friend was interviewing at Morgan Stanley, many years ago, he was asked a version of the ‘Monty Hall Problem.’ Imagine that you’re on a game show with a prize behind one of three doors. You make your guess of door 1, 2 or 3. And then the host opens one of the doors you didn’t pick, showing that it’s empty. Should you change your original guess?While it’s a bit of a paradox, you should. Your original odds of finding the prize were 1-in-3. But by showing you a door with a wrong answer, the odds have improved. The host gave you new information. And that’s what came to mind this week, after important meetings from the Federal Reserve and Bank of Japan. Both banks acted in-line with our economists’ expectations. But those meetings and what came after still provided some valuable new information. Information that, in our view, was helpful to credit.On Tuesday, the Bank of Japan raised interest rates for the first time since 2016, ended Yield Curve Control, and ended its purchases of equities. All of these measures had been previously used to help boost too-low inflation. But they have also resulted in a significant weakening of Japan’s currency, the Yen. And that, in turn, had made it attractive for Japanese investors to invest in overseas bonds in other currencies – which were gaining value as the Yen weakened.So, one risk heading into this week was that these big changes in the Bank of Japan would reverse these other trends. It would strengthen the currency and make buying corporate bonds from the US or Europe less attractive to Japanese investors. But this meeting has now come and gone, and the Yen saw little movement. That is helpful, new information. Before Tuesday, it was impossible to know how the currency would react.Then on Wednesday, the Fed confirmed its expectation from December that it was planning to cut interest rates three times this year. On the surface, that was another ‘as expected’ outcome. But it still contained new information. The Fed’s forecast suggested more confidence that stronger 2024 growth wouldn’t lead to higher inflation. And that endorsed the idea that the productive capacity of the US economy is improving. Solid growth and lower inflation co-existing, thanks to better productivity, will be closer to a 1990s style outcome. And that was a pretty good scenario for credit.This week’s central bank meetings have come and gone without big surprises. But sometimes ‘as expected’ can still deliver new information. We continue to expect credit valuations to hold at richer-than-average levels, and like US leveraged loans, as a high yielding market well-suited for a mid-90s scenario.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0sIAe8hE2T0BBLEFPK2ePM2wRw1-sqySIN3VawU-G7EFri, 22 Mar 2024 21:44:37 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit notes that while recent central bank meetings offered few surprises, there was still plenty to be gleaned that could affect credit valuations.   ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about this week’s central bank meetings, and why as expected outcomes can still mean new information for credit investors.It's Friday, March 22nd at 2pm in London.When a good friend was interviewing at Morgan Stanley, many years ago, he was asked a version of the ‘Monty Hall Problem.’ Imagine that you’re on a game show with a prize behind one of three doors. You make your guess of door 1, 2 or 3. And then the host opens one of the doors you didn’t pick, showing that it’s empty. Should you change your original guess?While it’s a bit of a paradox, you should. Your original odds of finding the prize were 1-in-3. But by showing you a door with a wrong answer, the odds have improved. The host gave you new information. And that’s what came to mind this week, after important meetings from the Federal Reserve and Bank of Japan. Both banks acted in-line with our economists’ expectations. But those meetings and what came after still provided some valuable new information. Information that, in our view, was helpful to credit.On Tuesday, the Bank of Japan raised interest rates for the first time since 2016, ended Yield Curve Control, and ended its purchases of equities. All of these measures had been previously used to help boost too-low inflation. But they have also resulted in a significant weakening of Japan’s currency, the Yen. And that, in turn, had made it attractive for Japanese investors to invest in overseas bonds in other currencies – which were gaining value as the Yen weakened.So, one risk heading into this week was that these big changes in the Bank of Japan would reverse these other trends. It would strengthen the currency and make buying corporate bonds from the US or Europe less attractive to Japanese investors. But this meeting has now come and gone, and the Yen saw little movement. That is helpful, new information. Before Tuesday, it was impossible to know how the currency would react.Then on Wednesday, the Fed confirmed its expectation from December that it was planning to cut interest rates three times this year. On the surface, that was another ‘as expected’ outcome. But it still contained new information. The Fed’s forecast suggested more confidence that stronger 2024 growth wouldn’t lead to higher inflation. And that endorsed the idea that the productive capacity of the US economy is improving. Solid growth and lower inflation co-existing, thanks to better productivity, will be closer to a 1990s style outcome. And that was a pretty good scenario for credit.This week’s central bank meetings have come and gone without big surprises. But sometimes ‘as expected’ can still deliver new information. We continue to expect credit valuations to hold at richer-than-average levels, and like US leveraged loans, as a high yielding market well-suited for a mid-90s scenario.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>216false1087fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/european-financials-why-confidence-has-returned--75652959----- Transcript -----
Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to thoughts on the Market. I'm Bruce Hamilton, head of European Diversified Financials Research.Alvaro Serrano: And I'm Alvaro Serrano, head of European Banks Research.Bruce Hamilton: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some of the key takeaways from Morgan Stanley's just concluded 20th European Financials Conference. It's Thursday, March 21st at 3 pm in London.Alvaro, we were both at the European Financials Conference in London. More than 100 companies attended the event. 95 percent of the attendees were from CE level management. There was a lot to take in.Investor sentiment heading into the conference seemed noticeably more upbeat than last year's, thanks in part to stronger-for-longer net interest income (NII), an M&A cycle that is heating up, attractive capital returns, and increasing activity in private markets.Now you were the conference chair, Alvaro. And you have a unique overview of this event. What's, in your view, the single most important takeaway?Alvaro Serrano: Thanks, Bruce. Look, I think for me that if I had to summarize in two words is ‘risk on.’ I think the tone of the conference has been positive almost across the board. The lower rate outlook has increased market confidence. And corporates were pointing that out. They've seen stronger activity, so far this year, in many product lines. They've called out loan demand being stronger. They've called out debt capital market activity being stronger. They've announced M&A -- we know is up strongly and asset management inflows are up strong as well. So yes, a strong start to the year - confidence is back, and I would summarize it as risk on.Bruce Hamilton: Got it. And in terms of the other key themes and debates that emerged from company presentations at the conference.Alvaro Serrano: Yeah, look, I think the main themes following up from what I was saying earlier are: First of all, I would say leadership change. Within the sector, we've been calling for leadership change in our outlook. And I think what we heard at the conference supports this. So, given market activities coming back, I think a lot of investors were more keen to look for more resilient revenue models; maybe less peripheral banks, less NII retail-centric banks. And looking for more fee growth that could benefit from that market recovery.The second point I would point out is UK. There’s definitely a change in sentiment around the UK in the polling questions. It came out as a preferred region, and I think what's behind that preference is that we're seeing an inflection point in NII.And I think the third and final theme for me is investment banking and wealth recovery. Look, wealth may not recover already in Q1. But as this confidence builds up, we definitely expect inflows to pick up in the second half, both in quantity and margin.Bruce Hamilton: So, based on your own work and what you heard at the conference, what's your overall view on the financial sector and what drives that from here?Alvaro Serrano: We continue positive the sector. Look, the valuation is depressed. The multiples, the PE multiples on six times. Historically, it's been much closer to double-digit. We think, recovering PMIs should help re-rate that multiple. And while we do wait for those PMIs to recover, you're being paid 11 per cent yield between dividends and buybacks.I think the confidence build up that we're seeing in the tone of the conference suggests an early indicator of those PMIs recovering, if you ask me. And then in the panels, we've had plenty of discussions around asset quality. Obviously, commercial real estate exposure is a big theme. But we think it's a manageable problem. It's less than 5 per cent of the loan books, within that office is less than a third. And within that US office spaces is a fraction. So overall, we think it's a manageable problem and our highest single conviction in the sectors that the yields are sustainable and resilient.So, with a strong valuation underpin, we continue, positive of the sector.Bruce, why don't I turn it over to you? Given your focus on private markets, exchanges, and asset management sub-sectors within diversified financials, can you talk us through private markets and deal activity space?Bruce Hamilton: Yeah, our fireside chats with panels, and with private market management teams, saw more optimistic commentary on capital markets activity. And similarly fundraising improvements are expected to be closely linked to cash flows from exit activity flowing back to institutional clients, who can then reallocate to new funds.So there's a little delay. But overall, the direction of travel clearly feels positive and pointed to a reacceleration in the private markets’ flywheel in due course, which has been, of course, the rationale behind the more positive view we have taken on this subsector since our outlook piece in November last year.Alvaro Serrano: AI is obviously a dominant theme across sectors and industries globally. Also, by the way, a frequent topic in the discussion of this podcast. Can you give us an update on AI and its implications for wealth and asset management?Bruce Hamilton: Sure. I mean, our discussions with asset management CEOs highlighted the transformative potential of AI, as they see it as a source of significant efficiency potential across the value chain. From sales and marketing, through investments and research, to middle and back office -- in areas such as report writing, research synthesis and client servicing. The benefits of starting early, with leaders having been working on this for 12 months or more, seems clear given the need to manage risks, for example, ensuring data quality to avoid hallucinations.One asset management CEO indicated that his firm had identified 85 use cases, with 35 already in production. The initial opportunities for asset managers were seen as principally in driving cost efficiencies; though in wealth management a greater revenue potential we think exists given the scope to improve the effectiveness of wealth advisors in targeting and servicing clients.Exchanges also noted scope for AI to both support revenue momentum. For example, via chatbots, assisting clients in accessing data more effectively. And in driving efficiency in report writing, as well as in costs. So, think about scope to drive efficiencies in areas such as client servicing and data ingestion and organization where large language models (LLMs) are already driving efficiency gains for employees.Alvaro Serrano: Finally, let's talk about private credit, another big theme. What did you hear, at the conference around the growth of private credit? And what's your outlook from here?Bruce Hamilton: Sure. So, the players were positive on the potential for growth in private credit from here. In the near-term deployment opportunities probably look stronger in the private credit space relative to private equity, where some differences in buyer-seller expectations is still acting as a bit of a constraint. There are opportunities given bank retrenchments, even if the Basel III endgame is expected to be less negative than initial draft proposals. And the appetite from insurance -- institutional, as well as retail clients for the diversification benefits and attractive yields on offer -- remains pretty significant.Both private market specialists and traditional asset managers continue to explore ways to extend their capabilities in the space, with some adopting an organic approach and others looking to accelerate scaling via M&A.We expect that as we look forward, that some recovery in the bank's syndicated lending markets is likely to reduce the record market share enjoyed by private credit in private equity deals last year. However, we think a more vibrant overall deal environment is likely to drive opportunities for both bank syndicated and private credit looking forward.The democratization theme with wealth clients increasing allocations to private markets remains an additional powerful growth theme as we look forward; both for private credit providers, as well as players active in private equity infrastructure and real estate.I'm sure there'll be lots more to unpack from the conference in the near future. Let's wrap it up for this episode. Alvaro, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.Alvaro Serrano: Great speaking with you, Bruce.Bruce Hamilton: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jQYEQMUBYNhp-bthLuL69-vObrS1B0FyteZS4uT_ucQThu, 21 Mar 2024 23:13:44 +0000gtyThe perspective from our recent European Financials Conference looked positive for UK markets, loan demand and M&A activity. Our European heads of Diversified Financials and Banks Research discuss. ----- Transcript ----- Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to thoughts on the Market. I'm Bruce Hamilton, head of European Diversified Financials Research.Alvaro Serrano: And I'm Alvaro Serrano, head of European Banks Research.Bruce Hamilton: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some of the key takeaways from Morgan Stanley's just concluded 20th European Financials Conference. It's Thursday, March 21st at 3 pm in London.Alvaro, we were both at the European Financials Conference in London. More than 100 companies attended the event. 95 percent of the attendees were from CE level management. There was a lot to take in.Investor sentiment heading into the conference seemed noticeably more upbeat than last year's, thanks in part to stronger-for-longer net interest income (NII), an M&A cycle that is heating up, attractive capital returns, and increasing activity in private markets.Now you were the conference chair, Alvaro. And you have a unique overview of this event. What's, in your view, the single most important takeaway?Alvaro Serrano: Thanks, Bruce. Look, I think for me that if I had to summarize in two words is ‘risk on.’ I think the tone of the conference has been positive almost across the board. The lower rate outlook has increased market confidence. And corporates were pointing that out. They've seen stronger activity, so far this year, in many product lines. They've called out loan demand being stronger. They've called out debt capital market activity being stronger. They've announced M&A -- we know is up strongly and asset management inflows are up strong as well. So yes, a strong start to the year - confidence is back, and I would summarize it as risk on.Bruce Hamilton: Got it. And in terms of the other key themes and debates that emerged from company presentations at the conference.Alvaro Serrano: Yeah, look, I think the main themes following up from what I was saying earlier are: First of all, I would say leadership change. Within the sector, we've been calling for leadership change in our outlook. And I think what we heard at the conference supports this. So, given market activities coming back, I think a lot of investors were more keen to look for more resilient revenue models; maybe less peripheral banks, less NII retail-centric banks. And looking for more fee growth that could benefit from that market recovery.The second point I would point out is UK. There’s definitely a change in sentiment around the UK in the polling questions. It came out as a preferred region, and I think what's behind that preference is that we're seeing an inflection point in NII.And I think the third and final theme for me is investment banking and wealth recovery. Look, wealth may not recover already in Q1. But as this confidence builds up, we definitely expect inflows to pick up in the second half, both in quantity and margin.Bruce Hamilton: So, based on your own work and what you heard at the conference, what's your overall view on the financial sector and what drives that from here?Alvaro Serrano: We continue positive the sector. Look, the valuation is depressed. The multiples, the PE multiples on six times. Historically, it's been much closer to double-digit. We think, recovering PMIs should help re-rate that multiple. And while we do wait for those PMIs to recover, you're being paid 11 per cent yield between dividends and buybacks.I think the confidence build up that we're seeing in the tone of the conference suggests an early indicator of those PMIs recovering, if you ask me. And then in the panels, we've had plenty of discussions around asset quality. Obviously, commercial real estate exposure is a big theme. But we think it's a manageable problem. It's less than 5 per cent of the loan books, within that office...]]>492false1086fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-us-elections-global-investors-key-questions--75652697----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about overseas investors' view on the US election. It's Wednesday, Mar 20th at 10:30 am in New York. I was in Japan last week. And as has been the case with other clients outside the US, the upcoming American elections were a key concern. To that end, we’re sharing the three most frequently asked questions, as well as our answers, about the impact of the U.S. election on markets coming from clients outside the US.First, clients are curious what the election could mean for what’s recently been a very rosy outlook for Japan. The central bank is taking steps toward normalizing monetary policy which, combined with corporate reforms, is driving renewed investment. And it doesn’t hurt that multinationals are finding it more challenging to do new business in China due to U.S. policy restrictions. In our view, regardless of the election outcome, these positive secular trends will continue. While its true that Republicans are voicing greater interest in tariffs on US friend and foe alike, in our view there are other geographies more likely to bear the impact of stricter trade policy from the US – such as Europe, Mexico, and China; areas where there’s clearer overlap between US trade interests and the geopolitical preferences of the Republican party.Second, clients wanted to know what the election would mean for US-China policy. The first thing to understand is that both parties are interested in policies that build barriers protecting technologies critical to US economic and national security. For Democrats, this has meant a focus on extending non-tariff barriers such as export and investment restrictions; many of which end up affecting the trade relationship between the US and China, and over time have resulted in US direct investment tilting away from China and toward the rest of the world.  Republicans support these policies too. But key party leaders, including former President and current candidate Trump, also want to use tariffs as a tool to negotiate better trade agreements; and, potentially as a fall back, to harmonize tariff levels between countries. So, the election is unlikely to yield an outcome that eases trade tension between the US and China. But an outcome where Republicans win could create more volatility for global trade flows and corporate confidence, creating more economic uncertainty in the near term. Third and finally, clients wanted to know if there were any election outcomes that would reliably change the trajectory of US growth, inflation, and accordingly the trajectory for treasury yields. In particular there was interest in outcomes that could cause yields to move higher. Our take here is that there’s been no solidly reliable outcome that points in that direction -- at least not yet. While it's likely that a potential Trump presidency would favor tax cuts and tariffs, it’s not clear that either of these definitively lead to inflation. Cutting taxes for companies with healthy balance sheets doesn’t necessarily yield more investment. Tariffs increase the cost of the thing being tariffed, but that could lead to prices of other goods in the economy suffering from weaker demand. Relatedly, the idea that a more dovish Fed could enable inflation is not a foregone conclusion because – as we’ve discussed on prior episodes – the President's ability to influence monetary policy is more limited than you might think.Still, because of the pileup of these factors, it wouldn’t be surprising to see rates rise at some point this year on election risk perceptions. But it's not clear this would be a sustained move, and so it's not causing us yet to recommend clients’ position for it. For clients looking for more reliable market moves from the election, we’re still focused on key sectoral impacts: sectors like industrials and telecom which could benefit from tax cuts in a Republican win scenario; and sectors like clean tech which benefit in a Democratic win scenario, on greater certainty for the spend of energy transition money in the IRA.  Of course, as markets change and price in different outcomes, interesting macro markets opportunities will emerge -- and we’ll be here to tell you all about it.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1iLfruCAuTBZxoCVZqB8nEjuo3SEeXf-hot3iSRsGLUWed, 20 Mar 2024 20:21:18 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research outlines the potential impact the upcoming U.S. elections could have on increasing treasury yields, US-China policy and Japan’s current trajectory. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about overseas investors' view on the US election. It's Wednesday, Mar 20th at 10:30 am in New York. I was in Japan last week. And as has been the case with other clients outside the US, the upcoming American elections were a key concern. To that end, we’re sharing the three most frequently asked questions, as well as our answers, about the impact of the U.S. election on markets coming from clients outside the US.First, clients are curious what the election could mean for what’s recently been a very rosy outlook for Japan. The central bank is taking steps toward normalizing monetary policy which, combined with corporate reforms, is driving renewed investment. And it doesn’t hurt that multinationals are finding it more challenging to do new business in China due to U.S. policy restrictions. In our view, regardless of the election outcome, these positive secular trends will continue. While its true that Republicans are voicing greater interest in tariffs on US friend and foe alike, in our view there are other geographies more likely to bear the impact of stricter trade policy from the US – such as Europe, Mexico, and China; areas where there’s clearer overlap between US trade interests and the geopolitical preferences of the Republican party.Second, clients wanted to know what the election would mean for US-China policy. The first thing to understand is that both parties are interested in policies that build barriers protecting technologies critical to US economic and national security. For Democrats, this has meant a focus on extending non-tariff barriers such as export and investment restrictions; many of which end up affecting the trade relationship between the US and China, and over time have resulted in US direct investment tilting away from China and toward the rest of the world.  Republicans support these policies too. But key party leaders, including former President and current candidate Trump, also want to use tariffs as a tool to negotiate better trade agreements; and, potentially as a fall back, to harmonize tariff levels between countries. So, the election is unlikely to yield an outcome that eases trade tension between the US and China. But an outcome where Republicans win could create more volatility for global trade flows and corporate confidence, creating more economic uncertainty in the near term. Third and finally, clients wanted to know if there were any election outcomes that would reliably change the trajectory of US growth, inflation, and accordingly the trajectory for treasury yields. In particular there was interest in outcomes that could cause yields to move higher. Our take here is that there’s been no solidly reliable outcome that points in that direction -- at least not yet. While it's likely that a potential Trump presidency would favor tax cuts and tariffs, it’s not clear that either of these definitively lead to inflation. Cutting taxes for companies with healthy balance sheets doesn’t necessarily yield more investment. Tariffs increase the cost of the thing being tariffed, but that could lead to prices of other goods in the economy suffering from weaker demand. Relatedly, the idea that a more dovish Fed could enable inflation is not a foregone conclusion because – as we’ve discussed on prior episodes – the President's ability to influence monetary policy is more limited than you might think.Still, because of the pileup of these factors, it wouldn’t be surprising to see rates rise at some point this year on election risk perceptions. But it's not clear this...]]>266false1085fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-equities-a-quarter-of-dispersion--75652966----- Transcript -----
Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our key investment views in Asia. It's Tuesday, Mar 19th at 9 am in Singapore.It's been quite a first quarter in Asian equities with a wide degree of dispersion in market returns. At one end of the spectrum Japan’s Nikkei index is up 16 percent. At the other end, despite a recent rally, the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong is down 2 percent for the year. Meanwhile, the AI thematic has helped Taiwan into second place regionally, with a 10 percent gain; but Korea has risen by a lot less.Our highest conviction views remains that we’re in the midst of multi-year secular bull markets in Japan and India, whilst at the same time China is in a secular bear market. So, let’s lay out the building blocks of those theses.Firstly, Japan’s Return on Equity Journey. We think that markets – like stocks – reward improvement in profitability or ROE. The drivers of the ROE improvement are numerous but include domestic reflation, a weaker Yen, a productive capex cycle and improved capital management by Japan’s leading firms. And these together have led to improving net income margins in two-thirds of industries versus a decade ago. We forecast robust EPS growth of around 9 percent in 2024, with similar growth in 2025. Now that’s assuming our foreign exchange strategists’ USD/JPY forecast of 140 for the fourth quarter of this year is accurate. This week the BOJ – the Bank of Japan – is considering whether to exit its Negative Interest Rate Policy and abolish or flex yield curve control. If it does so, that will be a sign – along with recent strong wage gains – that Japan has definitively exited deflation.Secondly, India’s Decade. Multipolar world trends are supporting foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and portfolio flows to India, whilst positive demographics from a rapidly growing working age population are also supporting the equity market. India is holding national elections in May, and we will be watching the policy framework thereafter. But our base case is little change; success that India has achieved in macro-stability is underpinning a strong capex and profits outlook.Finally, China’s Deflationary Challenge. China continues to battle what we’ve termed its 3D challenge of Debt (now standing at 300 per cent of GDP), Demographics and Deflation. And profitability has fallen steadily in recent years – so going in the opposite direction from Japan; approximately halving since the middle of the last decade, whilst earnings have missed for nine straight quarters. We think more forceful countercyclical measures are needed to boost demand in China given incipient balance sheet recession due to headwinds from property and local government austerity.Finally, to summarize some of our sector and style views. We still like Korea and Taiwan’s semiconductors, into an expected 2024 recovery in traditional product areas such as smart phone, as well as the new theme of AI related demand. We are positive on Financials in India, Indonesia and Singapore; Industrials in India and Mexico; and Consumer Discretionary in India. On the quant and style side, we’re neutral on value versus growth as we expect the path to lower yields to be bumpy – as inflation risk remains. And we have recently recommended investors to reduce momentum exposure for risk management purposes given the strong outperformance year to date.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen – and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xPeApeC4Ik6pxZt6atFrm9JS-x6WQE1Ub5_LxDa1txMTue, 19 Mar 2024 21:03:23 +0000gtyOur Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist reviews an up-and-down first quarter for markets across the region, and gives an update on which sectors investors should be eyeing.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our key investment views in Asia. It's Tuesday, Mar 19th at 9 am in Singapore.It's been quite a first quarter in Asian equities with a wide degree of dispersion in market returns. At one end of the spectrum Japan’s Nikkei index is up 16 percent. At the other end, despite a recent rally, the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong is down 2 percent for the year. Meanwhile, the AI thematic has helped Taiwan into second place regionally, with a 10 percent gain; but Korea has risen by a lot less.Our highest conviction views remains that we’re in the midst of multi-year secular bull markets in Japan and India, whilst at the same time China is in a secular bear market. So, let’s lay out the building blocks of those theses.Firstly, Japan’s Return on Equity Journey. We think that markets – like stocks – reward improvement in profitability or ROE. The drivers of the ROE improvement are numerous but include domestic reflation, a weaker Yen, a productive capex cycle and improved capital management by Japan’s leading firms. And these together have led to improving net income margins in two-thirds of industries versus a decade ago. We forecast robust EPS growth of around 9 percent in 2024, with similar growth in 2025. Now that’s assuming our foreign exchange strategists’ USD/JPY forecast of 140 for the fourth quarter of this year is accurate. This week the BOJ – the Bank of Japan – is considering whether to exit its Negative Interest Rate Policy and abolish or flex yield curve control. If it does so, that will be a sign – along with recent strong wage gains – that Japan has definitively exited deflation.Secondly, India’s Decade. Multipolar world trends are supporting foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and portfolio flows to India, whilst positive demographics from a rapidly growing working age population are also supporting the equity market. India is holding national elections in May, and we will be watching the policy framework thereafter. But our base case is little change; success that India has achieved in macro-stability is underpinning a strong capex and profits outlook.Finally, China’s Deflationary Challenge. China continues to battle what we’ve termed its 3D challenge of Debt (now standing at 300 per cent of GDP), Demographics and Deflation. And profitability has fallen steadily in recent years – so going in the opposite direction from Japan; approximately halving since the middle of the last decade, whilst earnings have missed for nine straight quarters. We think more forceful countercyclical measures are needed to boost demand in China given incipient balance sheet recession due to headwinds from property and local government austerity.Finally, to summarize some of our sector and style views. We still like Korea and Taiwan’s semiconductors, into an expected 2024 recovery in traditional product areas such as smart phone, as well as the new theme of AI related demand. We are positive on Financials in India, Indonesia and Singapore; Industrials in India and Mexico; and Consumer Discretionary in India. On the quant and style side, we’re neutral on value versus growth as we expect the path to lower yields to be bumpy – as inflation risk remains. And we have recently recommended investors to reduce momentum exposure for risk management purposes given the strong outperformance year to date.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen – and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>246false1084fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/finding-the-equity-sweet-spot--75652911----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the risk of higher interest rates and equity valuations. It's Monday, March 18th at 11:30 am in New York. So let’s get after it.Long term interest rates peaked in October of last year and coincided with the lows in equities. The rally began with the Treasury's guidance for less coupon issuance than expected. This surprise occurred at a time when many bond managers were short duration. When combined with the Fed’s fourth quarter policy shift, there was a major squeeze in bonds. As a result, 30-year Treasury bonds returned 19 per cent over the October-December 2023 period, beating the 14 per cent return in the S&P 500. Nearly all of the equity return over this period was attributable to higher valuations tied to the fall in interest rates.Fast forward to this year, and the story has been much different. Bond yields have risen considerably as investors took profits on longer term bonds, and the Fed walked back several of the cuts that had been priced in for this year. The flip side is that the growth data has been weaker in aggregate which argues for lower rates. Call it a tug of war between weaker growth and higher inflation than expected.There is also the question of supply which continues to grow with the expanded budget deficit. From an equity standpoint, the rise in interest rates this year has not had the typically negative effect on valuations.  In other words, equity investors appear to have moved past the Fed, inflation and rates – and are now squarely focused on earnings growth that the consensus expects to considerably improve.  As noted in prior podcasts, the consensus earnings per share (EPS) growth estimates for this year are high, and above our expectations – in the context of sticky cost structures and falling pricing power as fiscal spend crowds out both labor and capital for the average company. In our view, this crowding out is one reason why fundamentals and performance have remained relatively muted outside of the large cap, quality winners. We have been expecting a broadening out in leadership to other large cap/quality stocks away from tech and communication services; and recently that has started to happen. Strong breadth and improving fundamentals support our relative preference for Industrials within broader cyclicals.Other areas of relative strength more recently include Energy, Materials and Utilities. Some of this is tied to the excitement over Artificial Intelligence and the impact that will have on power consumption. The end result is lower valuations for the index overall as investors rotate from the expensive winners in technology to laggards that are cheaper and may do better in an environment with higher commodity prices.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen --and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/x50jH6tf52Zbdw_ZItgN8qd2tF8E5zArot_72VZO0eAMon, 18 Mar 2024 21:14:53 +0000gtyOur CIO and Chief Equity Strategist discusses the continued uncertainty in the markets, and how investors are now looking at earnings growth and improving valuations. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the risk of higher interest rates and equity valuations. It's Monday, March 18th at 11:30 am in New York. So let’s get after it.Long term interest rates peaked in October of last year and coincided with the lows in equities. The rally began with the Treasury's guidance for less coupon issuance than expected. This surprise occurred at a time when many bond managers were short duration. When combined with the Fed’s fourth quarter policy shift, there was a major squeeze in bonds. As a result, 30-year Treasury bonds returned 19 per cent over the October-December 2023 period, beating the 14 per cent return in the S&P 500. Nearly all of the equity return over this period was attributable to higher valuations tied to the fall in interest rates.Fast forward to this year, and the story has been much different. Bond yields have risen considerably as investors took profits on longer term bonds, and the Fed walked back several of the cuts that had been priced in for this year. The flip side is that the growth data has been weaker in aggregate which argues for lower rates. Call it a tug of war between weaker growth and higher inflation than expected.There is also the question of supply which continues to grow with the expanded budget deficit. From an equity standpoint, the rise in interest rates this year has not had the typically negative effect on valuations.  In other words, equity investors appear to have moved past the Fed, inflation and rates – and are now squarely focused on earnings growth that the consensus expects to considerably improve.  As noted in prior podcasts, the consensus earnings per share (EPS) growth estimates for this year are high, and above our expectations – in the context of sticky cost structures and falling pricing power as fiscal spend crowds out both labor and capital for the average company. In our view, this crowding out is one reason why fundamentals and performance have remained relatively muted outside of the large cap, quality winners. We have been expecting a broadening out in leadership to other large cap/quality stocks away from tech and communication services; and recently that has started to happen. Strong breadth and improving fundamentals support our relative preference for Industrials within broader cyclicals.Other areas of relative strength more recently include Energy, Materials and Utilities. Some of this is tied to the excitement over Artificial Intelligence and the impact that will have on power consumption. The end result is lower valuations for the index overall as investors rotate from the expensive winners in technology to laggards that are cheaper and may do better in an environment with higher commodity prices.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen --and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>195false1083fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rate-cut-uncertainty--75652864----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll be talking about the ramifications of the fed rate cuts, and what it could mean for credit – and what would benefit if rates stay higher for longer. It's Friday, March 15th at 2pm in London.The big story in markets this week was inflation. U.S. Consumer Price inflation continues to moderate on a year-over-year basis, but the recent path has been bumpier than expected. And as U.S. Economic growth in the first quarter continues to track above initial expectations, there’s growing debate around whether the U.S. economy is still too strong to justify the Federal Reserve lowering rates.Morgan Stanley’s economic base case is that these inflation readings will remain bumpy – but will trend lower over the course of the year. And if we couple that with our expectations that job growth will moderate, we think this still supports the idea that the Federal Reserve will start to lower interest rates starting in June.Yet the bumpiness of this recent data does raise questions. What if the Federal Reserve lowers rates later? Or what if they lower rates less than we expect?For credit, we think the biggest beneficiary of this scenario would be leveraged loans. For background, these represent lending to below-investment grade borrowers, similar to the universe for high yield bonds. But loans are floating rate; their yields to investors rise and fall with central bank policy rates.Coming into 2024, there were a number of concerns around the levered loan market. Worries around growth had led markets at the start of the year to imply significant rate cuts from the Fed. And that’s a double whammy, so to speak, for loans; as loans are both economically sensitive to that weaker growth scenario and would see their yields to investors decline faster if there are more rate cuts. Meanwhile, an important previous buyer of loans, so-called Collateralized Loan Obligations, or CLOs, had been relatively dormant.Yet today many of those factors are all looking better. Estimates for US 2024 GDP growth have been creeping up. CLO activity has been restarting. And some of this recent growth and inflation data means that markets are now expecting far fewer rate cuts – which means that the yield on loans would also remain higher for longer. And that’s all happening at a time when the spread on loans is relatively elevated, relative to similar fixed rate high yield bonds.A question of whether or not U.S. inflation will be sticky remains a key debate. While we think inflation resumes its improvement, we like leveraged loans as a high yielding, floating rate instrument that has a number of key advantages – if rates stay higher, for longer, than we expect.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DI8NS71Emswrdt8BTgvRSr073ZM7EM5JT3LM-6L3RuQFri, 15 Mar 2024 20:37:21 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why leveraged loans would benefit if bumpy inflation data leads the Federal Reserve to delay interest rate cuts. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll be talking about the ramifications of the fed rate cuts, and what it could mean for credit – and what would benefit if rates stay higher for longer. It's Friday, March 15th at 2pm in London.The big story in markets this week was inflation. U.S. Consumer Price inflation continues to moderate on a year-over-year basis, but the recent path has been bumpier than expected. And as U.S. Economic growth in the first quarter continues to track above initial expectations, there’s growing debate around whether the U.S. economy is still too strong to justify the Federal Reserve lowering rates.Morgan Stanley’s economic base case is that these inflation readings will remain bumpy – but will trend lower over the course of the year. And if we couple that with our expectations that job growth will moderate, we think this still supports the idea that the Federal Reserve will start to lower interest rates starting in June.Yet the bumpiness of this recent data does raise questions. What if the Federal Reserve lowers rates later? Or what if they lower rates less than we expect?For credit, we think the biggest beneficiary of this scenario would be leveraged loans. For background, these represent lending to below-investment grade borrowers, similar to the universe for high yield bonds. But loans are floating rate; their yields to investors rise and fall with central bank policy rates.Coming into 2024, there were a number of concerns around the levered loan market. Worries around growth had led markets at the start of the year to imply significant rate cuts from the Fed. And that’s a double whammy, so to speak, for loans; as loans are both economically sensitive to that weaker growth scenario and would see their yields to investors decline faster if there are more rate cuts. Meanwhile, an important previous buyer of loans, so-called Collateralized Loan Obligations, or CLOs, had been relatively dormant.Yet today many of those factors are all looking better. Estimates for US 2024 GDP growth have been creeping up. CLO activity has been restarting. And some of this recent growth and inflation data means that markets are now expecting far fewer rate cuts – which means that the yield on loans would also remain higher for longer. And that’s all happening at a time when the spread on loans is relatively elevated, relative to similar fixed rate high yield bonds.A question of whether or not U.S. inflation will be sticky remains a key debate. While we think inflation resumes its improvement, we like leveraged loans as a high yielding, floating rate instrument that has a number of key advantages – if rates stay higher, for longer, than we expect.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>203false1082fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economics-roundtable-updating-our-2024-outlook--75652856----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. On this episode, on this special episode of the podcast, we'll hold our second roundtable discussion covering Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the second quarter of 2024.It's Thursday, March the 14th at 10 am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And it's 2 pm in London.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong.Seth Carpenter: Excellent. So, things around the world have changed significantly since our roundtable last quarter. US growth is notably stronger with few signs of a substantial slowdown. Inflation is falling, but giving some hints that things could stay -- maybe -- hotter for longer.In Europe, things are evolving mostly as anticipated, but energy prices are much lower, and some data suggest hope for a recovery. Meanwhile, in China, debt deflation risks are becoming a reality. And the last policy communication shows no sign of reflation. And finally, Japan continues to confirm the shift in equilibrium, and we are expecting the policy rate change imminently.So, let's dig into these developments. I am joined by the leaders of the economics team in key regions. Ellen Zentner is our Chief US Economist, and she's here with me in New York. Chetan Ahya is our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt is our Chief Europe Economist.Ellen, I'm going to start with you and the US. Have the stronger data fundamentally changed your view on the US economy or the Fed?Ellen Zentner: So, coming off of 2023, growth was just stronger than expected. And so, carrying that into 2024, we have revised upward our GDP forecast from 1.6 per cent Q4 over Q4 to 1.8 per cent. So already we've got stronger growth this year. We have not changed our inflation forecast though; because this could be another year of stronger data coming from supply side normalization, and in particular the labor market -- where it's come amid higher productivity and decelerating inflation. So, I think we're in store for another year like that. And I would say if I add risks, it would be risk to the upside on growth.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that makes sense. But if there's risk to the upside on growth -- surely there's some risk that the extra strength in growth, or even some of the slightly stronger inflation that we've seen, that all of that could persist; and the Fed could delay their first cut beyond the June meeting, which is what you've got penciled in for the first cut. So how do you think about the risks to the timing for the Fed?Ellen Zentner: So, I think you've got a strong backdrop for growth. You've got relatively easy financial conditions. And Fed policymakers have noted that that could pose upside risks to the economy and to inflation. And so, they're very carefully parsing every data point that comes in. Chair Powell said they need a bit more confidence on inflation coming down. And so that means that the year over year rate on core PCE -- their preferred measure of inflation -- needs to continue to take down.I think that the risk is more how long they stay on hold -- than if the next move is a hike, which investors have been very focused on. Do we get to that point? And so certainly if we don't see the next couple of months and further improvement, then I think it just does lead for a longer hold time for the Fed.Seth Carpenter: All right. A risk of a longer hold time. Chetan, how do you think about that risk?Chetan Ahya: That risk is important to consider. We recently published on the idea that Asian central banks will have to wait for the Fed. Even though inflation across Asia is settling back into target ranges, central banks appear to be concerned that real rate differentials versus US are negative and still widening, keeping Asian currencies relatively weak.This backdrop means that central banks are still concerned about future upside to inflation and that it may not durably stay within the target. Finally, growth momentum in Asia excluding China has been holding up despite the move in higher real rates -- allowing central banks more room to be patient before cutting rates.Seth Carpenter: I got it. Okay, so Jens, what about for the ECB? Does the same consideration apply if the Fed were to delay its cutting cycle?Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm glad you're asking that question, Seth, because that's sort of the single most asked question by our clients. And the answer is, well, yes and no. In our baseline, first of all, to stress this, the ECB cuts before the Fed, if only by a week. So, we think the ECB will go on June 6th to be precise. And what we have heard, last Thursday from the ECB meeting exactly confirms that point. The ECB is set to go in June, barring a major catastrophe on growth or disappointments on inflation.I think what is key if that effect cuts less than what Ellen expects currently; the ECB may also cut less later in the year than we expect.So just to be precise, we think about a hundred basis points. And of course, that may be subject to downward revision if the Fed decides to go later. So, it's not an idle or phenomenon. It's rather a rather a matter of degree.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay, so that's really helpful to put the, the Fed in the context of global central banks. But, Ellen, let me come back to you. If I'm going to look from here through the end of the year, I trip over the election. So, how are you thinking about what the US election means for the Fed and for the economy as a whole?Ellen Zentner: Sure. So, I think the important thing to remember is that the Fed has a domestic directive. And so, if there is something impacting the outlook -- regardless, election, geopolitics, anything -- then it comes under their purview to support the economy. And so, you know, best example I can give maybe is the Bush Gore election, when we didn't know who was going to be president for more than two months.And it had to go to the Supreme Court, and at that time, the uncertainty among households, among businesses on who will be the next president really created this air pocket in the economy. So that's sort of the best example I can give where an election was a bit disruptive, although the economy bounced back on the other side of that.Seth Carpenter: But can I push you there? So, it sounds like what you're saying is it's not the election per se that the Fed cares about. the Fed's not entering into the political fray. It's more what the ramification of the election is for the economy. Is that a fair statement?Ellen Zentner: Absolutely. Absolutely fair.Chetan Ahya: One issue the election does force us to confront is the prospect of geopolitical tension, and in particular the fact that President Trump has discussed further tariffs. For China, it is worth considering the implications, given the current weakness.Seth Carpenter:  That’s a really good point, Chetan, but before we even get there, maybe it's worth having you just give us a view on where things stand now in China. Is there hope of reflationary fiscal policy?Chetan Ahya: Unfortunately, doesn’t seem like a lot right now. We have been highlighting that China needs to stimulate domestic demand with expansionary fiscal policy targeted towards boosting consumption. And it is in this context that we were closely watching policy announcement during the National People's Congress a couple of weeks ago.Unfortunately, the announcement in NPC suggests that there are very limited reflationary policies being implemented right now. More importantly, the broad policy focus remains firmly on supporting investment and the supply side; and not enough on the consumption side. So, it does seem that we are far away from getting that required reflationary and rebalancing policies we think is needed to lift China back to moderate 2 to 3 per cent inflation trajectory.Jens Eisenschmidt: I would jump in here and say that part of the ongoing weakness we see in Europe and in particularly Germany is tied to the slowdown in global trade and the weakness Chetan is talking about for China.Seth Carpenter: Okay, Jens, if you're going to jump in, that's great. Could you just let us know where do you think things go in Europe then for the rest of this year and into next year?Jens Eisenschmidt: So, we see indeed a small rebound. So, things are not looking great on numbers. But, you know, where we are coming from is close to recessionary territory; so everything that's up looks will look better.So, we have 0. 5 on year and year growth rates; 1 percent next year; 0.5 for this year. In terms of quarterly profiles -- so, essentially we are hitting at some point later this year a velocity between 0.2 to 0.3, which is close to potential growth for the Euro area, which we estimate at 1.1.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay, so outside of the U. S. then. China's week. Europe's lackluster Chetan, I gotta come back to you. Give us some good news. Talk to us about the outlook for Japan. We were early adopters of the Japan reflation story. What does it look like now?Chetan Ahya: Well, the outlook in Japan is the exact opposite of China. We are constructive on Japan's macro-outlook, and we see Japan transitioning to a moderate but sustainable inflation and higher normal GDP growth environment.Japan has already experienced one round of inflation and one round of wage growth. But to get to sustained inflation, we need to see wage growth to stay strong and more evidence of wage passing through to inflation. In this context, we are closely watching the next round of wage negotiations between the trade unions and the corporate sector.We expect the outcome of first round of negotiations to be announced on March 15th, and we think that this will reflect a strong acceleration in wage growth]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WLhQ3QK2q2V8wfvAiw1DW1H5zEbAeRS1H_cThtcnZw4Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:16:06 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s chief economists have their quarterly roundtable discussion, focusing on the state of inflation across global regions, the possible effect of the US election on the economy and more. ----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. On this episode, on this special episode of the podcast, we'll hold our second roundtable discussion covering Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the second quarter of 2024.It's Thursday, March the 14th at 10 am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And it's 2 pm in London.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong.Seth Carpenter: Excellent. So, things around the world have changed significantly since our roundtable last quarter. US growth is notably stronger with few signs of a substantial slowdown. Inflation is falling, but giving some hints that things could stay -- maybe -- hotter for longer.In Europe, things are evolving mostly as anticipated, but energy prices are much lower, and some data suggest hope for a recovery. Meanwhile, in China, debt deflation risks are becoming a reality. And the last policy communication shows no sign of reflation. And finally, Japan continues to confirm the shift in equilibrium, and we are expecting the policy rate change imminently.So, let's dig into these developments. I am joined by the leaders of the economics team in key regions. Ellen Zentner is our Chief US Economist, and she's here with me in New York. Chetan Ahya is our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt is our Chief Europe Economist.Ellen, I'm going to start with you and the US. Have the stronger data fundamentally changed your view on the US economy or the Fed?Ellen Zentner: So, coming off of 2023, growth was just stronger than expected. And so, carrying that into 2024, we have revised upward our GDP forecast from 1.6 per cent Q4 over Q4 to 1.8 per cent. So already we've got stronger growth this year. We have not changed our inflation forecast though; because this could be another year of stronger data coming from supply side normalization, and in particular the labor market -- where it's come amid higher productivity and decelerating inflation. So, I think we're in store for another year like that. And I would say if I add risks, it would be risk to the upside on growth.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that makes sense. But if there's risk to the upside on growth -- surely there's some risk that the extra strength in growth, or even some of the slightly stronger inflation that we've seen, that all of that could persist; and the Fed could delay their first cut beyond the June meeting, which is what you've got penciled in for the first cut. So how do you think about the risks to the timing for the Fed?Ellen Zentner: So, I think you've got a strong backdrop for growth. You've got relatively easy financial conditions. And Fed policymakers have noted that that could pose upside risks to the economy and to inflation. And so, they're very carefully parsing every data point that comes in. Chair Powell said they need a bit more confidence on inflation coming down. And so that means that the year over year rate on core PCE -- their preferred measure of inflation -- needs to continue to take down.I think that the risk is more how long they stay on hold -- than if the next move is a hike, which investors have been very focused on. Do we get to that point? And so certainly if we don't see the next couple of months and further improvement, then I think it just does lead for a longer hold time for the Fed.Seth Carpenter: All right. A risk of a longer hold time. Chetan, how do you think about that risk?Chetan Ahya: That risk is important to consider. We recently published on the idea that Asian central banks will have to wait for the Fed. Even though inflation across Asia is settling back into target ranges, central banks appear to be concerned that real rate differentials versus US are negative and...]]>724false1081fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/revving-up-the-speed-of-e-commerce-delivery--75652725----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what’s happening in the eCommerce parcel delivery space. It’s Wednesday, March 13, at 10 AM in New York.Most people love the convenience of online shopping. You click, you pay. Next thing you know, your doorbell rings. Turns out, we’ve become so used to this kind of instant gratification that many customers now abandon an online cart – if the delivery process takes too long. eCommerce parcel delivery companies are taking notice of consumers' growing impatience and are putting a lot of effort into making parcel transit shorter, faster and tighter. A couple of factors drive this trend. First, we have the retailers’ desire to store inventory at more locations; closer to the end-consumer versus the centralized, nationalized distribution centers of the old model. Second, connecting those inventory locations quickly, easily and cheaply by truck rather than long-haul transportation modes like air or rail. As a result, companies can offer consumers one-day or same-day delivery in a highly cost-effective manner.This means a shift from long-distance transit via air towards ground transportation – be it express or non-express ground. Such a transition could be a drag on margins at major parcel companies. These players are fully aware of the risk; and they’re making their own structural changes and downsizing their air business. However, even as big parcel companies are trying to keep up with the times and evolving consumer pressures, the transition from long-haul air to short-haul truck makes parcel delivery a less complex operation to run – and that may attract more competitors over time.Another factor at play is the continued popularity of curbside pickup, also known as Click And Collect or even delivery from the store – these are options that became ubiquitous during the pandemic. Even post-pandemic, major retailers have been attempting to move inventory closer to customers and lowering the cost to ship to homes by treating their physical brick and mortar stores as last-mile fulfillment options.As inventories have been getting leaner over the last few quarters, Click & Collect, Ship from Store, and other similar services have seen their popularity rise. Indeed, several retailers have expanded their physical footprint to accommodate these options. Or they have leveraged their current stores to offer more of these capabilities.We think this could have a significant impact on eCommerce supply chains for incumbent parcel companies. In the current long-distance eCommerce supply chain model, the long-haul middle-mile portion accounts for the bulk of the profitability for a parcel carrier. By substituting that middle-mile parcel move with regular inventory channel fill, parcel companies could be effectively excluded from the process, in our view. Given their entrenched long-haul networks, it could be difficult for the parcel companies to be consistently profitable doing last-mile deliveries alone. Instead, this last mile delivery market could go to delivery companies, regional delivery providers, or even in-house delivery solutions.This is a rapidly evolving landscape, and we’ll continue to keep you updated on major new developments.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/GV5vY_adg66kfMdFkNv20KT60veNuf5iqH8kTVrjLjYWed, 13 Mar 2024 21:35:00 +0000gtyOur Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst unboxes the latest trends around parcel transit times and systems in the U.S. and their impact on the future of e-commerce supply chains. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what’s happening in the eCommerce parcel delivery space. It’s Wednesday, March 13, at 10 AM in New York.Most people love the convenience of online shopping. You click, you pay. Next thing you know, your doorbell rings. Turns out, we’ve become so used to this kind of instant gratification that many customers now abandon an online cart – if the delivery process takes too long. eCommerce parcel delivery companies are taking notice of consumers' growing impatience and are putting a lot of effort into making parcel transit shorter, faster and tighter. A couple of factors drive this trend. First, we have the retailers’ desire to store inventory at more locations; closer to the end-consumer versus the centralized, nationalized distribution centers of the old model. Second, connecting those inventory locations quickly, easily and cheaply by truck rather than long-haul transportation modes like air or rail. As a result, companies can offer consumers one-day or same-day delivery in a highly cost-effective manner.This means a shift from long-distance transit via air towards ground transportation – be it express or non-express ground. Such a transition could be a drag on margins at major parcel companies. These players are fully aware of the risk; and they’re making their own structural changes and downsizing their air business. However, even as big parcel companies are trying to keep up with the times and evolving consumer pressures, the transition from long-haul air to short-haul truck makes parcel delivery a less complex operation to run – and that may attract more competitors over time.Another factor at play is the continued popularity of curbside pickup, also known as Click And Collect or even delivery from the store – these are options that became ubiquitous during the pandemic. Even post-pandemic, major retailers have been attempting to move inventory closer to customers and lowering the cost to ship to homes by treating their physical brick and mortar stores as last-mile fulfillment options.As inventories have been getting leaner over the last few quarters, Click & Collect, Ship from Store, and other similar services have seen their popularity rise. Indeed, several retailers have expanded their physical footprint to accommodate these options. Or they have leveraged their current stores to offer more of these capabilities.We think this could have a significant impact on eCommerce supply chains for incumbent parcel companies. In the current long-distance eCommerce supply chain model, the long-haul middle-mile portion accounts for the bulk of the profitability for a parcel carrier. By substituting that middle-mile parcel move with regular inventory channel fill, parcel companies could be effectively excluded from the process, in our view. Given their entrenched long-haul networks, it could be difficult for the parcel companies to be consistently profitable doing last-mile deliveries alone. Instead, this last mile delivery market could go to delivery companies, regional delivery providers, or even in-house delivery solutions.This is a rapidly evolving landscape, and we’ll continue to keep you updated on major new developments.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>241false1080fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-ai-is-advancing--75653016Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley Research's US thematic strategist. I'm joined by Ben Swinburne, who leads coverage of the media and entertainment, advertising, and cable and satellite industries, and Kieran Kenny, who covers internet. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll discuss some key themes from Morgan Stanley's recently concluded Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in San Francisco.It's Tuesday, March 12th, at 10am in New York.Ben, Kieran, we have to lead off on AI. It was a tech conference. As we've written about in the past, most companies want to either be AI enablers or AI adopters. And we believe that 2024 will be the year of the adopters. We scraped transcripts of the presentations at the conference and found that AI was mentioned 155 times.There was a particular focus on Generative AI or Gen AI. And one of the means of adopting AI that was repeatedly mentioned was using chatbots for customer service. And chatbots can easily handle commonly asked questions without needing a customer service person to speak live. Kieran, can we start by talking about some of the most interesting ways companies and internet are adopting AI?Kieran Kenny: So, there's a wide range of use cases so far. What we're seeing more recently is growing adoption for, to your point, AI assistance for customer support types of use cases. We're also seeing increased adoption from advertisers; for generative AI, for image and text creation for advertisements. And in the video game space, we're also seeing demand for generative AI based content creation tools -- to give you a sense of some of the use cases. The most common use case, though, is adoption of generative AI coding assistant tools, which we're seeing that pretty pervasively across the internet space.Michelle Weaver: Great. And I know you've done a bunch of work around AI. What are some of the areas you think we'll see the quickest AI driven efficiency gains?Kieran Kenny: I think most likely you'll see the efficiency gains come first in the code assistant use cases. That when we go through and scan company disclosures for efficiency gains related to generative AI and look through some of the empirical studies -- code assistant tools tend to show the most consistent productivity gains in the 20 to 50 per cent range. And because R&D expenses are such a large percent of revenue for internet. It's on average 25 percent. There's a really strong incentive for companies to adopt those tools to drive productivity amongst their software engineers. So, we think that's the area you're likely going to see the benefits first.Michelle Weaver: Great. Thanks, Kieran. Ben, what do you think some of the most interesting ways companies in your coverage are leveraging AI?Benjamin Swinburne: I would echo some of the points that Kieran made, particularly around content creation and dealing with customers.You know, in the content creation area, we're seeing AI leveraged in creative services. So, creating content for marketing purposes is an area we're seeing the ad agencies look for opportunities. In the audio industry, we've seen AI used to more efficiently and more effectively translate podcasts and audio books to different languages, which can be then distributed around the world.One leading streaming audio company has an AI DJ that they used to drive recommendations for listeners. And on the customer front, we're seeing a lot of companies in the cable industry, basically distribute AI tools into their call centers and into their network diagnostics -- so they can predict where network failures may happen before they happen. Or help call center agents better help customers with issues more effectively using, you know, AI and big data.Michelle Weaver: Great. Super interesting. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg, too, in terms of what we'll see with AI adoption. Ben, I also noticed that there was a lot of discussion from media companies around live events and whether that's high demand for concert tickets, streaming services offering live events, or demand for theme parks. Can you tell us a little bit about consumer experiences in the media space?Benjamin Swinburne: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we believe that there are secular drivers of consumer spending towards experiences, for a variety of reasons. And we're seeing that happen; show up in the results and outlook for a number of companies in our coverage. We had some really positive commentary from a number of companies in the theme park space around current trends, which are pacing better than expected from the conference. We've seen leading streaming companies increase their investment in live content, particularly live sports, which is uniquely powerful and driving customer acquisition and attracting advertising dollars.And probably no place is consumer spending continuing to grow and grow off record levels as quickly as they are in concerts. Where we really see -- while it's a minority of the population that drives the concert industry. Our survey work and what we heard at the conference last week is that consumers value that live communal experience more than ever. And we're seeing that show up in financial results.Michelle Weaver: The last theme I want to talk about is operational efficiency and profitable growth. Our research has shown that companies that demonstrate high operational efficiency have outperformed on a relative basis over the past two years; and operational efficiency and cost cutting came up repeatedly and fireside conversations with the phrase ‘do more with less’ being used quite a few times. And it was clear that at the conference companies are very aware of the importance of being the best operators, given the expectations for more tepid economic growth in 2024.Kieran, what did you hear about profitable growth or the importance of efficiency within internet?Kieran Kenny: For many of our companies, including one of the largest social media slash advertising companies in the space, 2023 was very much a year of efficiency. But that focus is persisting through 2024 and is likely to continue going forward. So, I think a lot of companies are pointing to that one social media company as the North Star of their ability to operate with a leaner cost structure, to be more disciplined in their investments. And ultimately do that in a way where hopefully it can reaccelerate revenue growth and not be detrimental to revenue growth. So, efficiency and AI, well they go hand in hand. Both of those are two of the biggest focus areas for internet companies broadly.Michelle Weaver: Ben, same question for you. What did you hear about the importance of efficiency in the media world?Benjamin Swinburne: Yeah, we’re seeing focus on efficiency, both in sort of an offensive and a defensive posture. I mean, there are companies who are seeing accelerating revenue growth, demonstrating real pricing power in their business who are also reducing headcount and focusing on operating leverage. So, there's no question that efficiency, particularly in the technology industries, has probably never been a bigger focus than it is right now.We're also seeing companies that are heavily driven by -- you know, service companies driven by labor costs looking at offshoring. That's a big theme in our space. Probably more on the defensive side, companies facing real secular challenges on the revenue front are looking for efficiencies, particularly around content spending. That typically shows up in a shift to more unscripted content, which is less expensive or producing more content offshore with lower cost of production.Michelle Weaver: Ben, Kieran, thank you for taking the time to talk. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jUswf1s1DSZzaVotyOgObcRKq5b52-C8nh6fch-5HDATue, 12 Mar 2024 21:39:25 +0000gtyOur roundtable of experts recaps highlights from the 2024 Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference, including AI innovation, trends in live entertainment and the need for operational efficiency. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle...Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley Research's US thematic strategist. I'm joined by Ben Swinburne, who leads coverage of the media and entertainment, advertising, and cable and satellite industries, and Kieran Kenny, who covers internet. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll discuss some key themes from Morgan Stanley's recently concluded Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in San Francisco.It's Tuesday, March 12th, at 10am in New York.Ben, Kieran, we have to lead off on AI. It was a tech conference. As we've written about in the past, most companies want to either be AI enablers or AI adopters. And we believe that 2024 will be the year of the adopters. We scraped transcripts of the presentations at the conference and found that AI was mentioned 155 times.There was a particular focus on Generative AI or Gen AI. And one of the means of adopting AI that was repeatedly mentioned was using chatbots for customer service. And chatbots can easily handle commonly asked questions without needing a customer service person to speak live. Kieran, can we start by talking about some of the most interesting ways companies and internet are adopting AI?Kieran Kenny: So, there's a wide range of use cases so far. What we're seeing more recently is growing adoption for, to your point, AI assistance for customer support types of use cases. We're also seeing increased adoption from advertisers; for generative AI, for image and text creation for advertisements. And in the video game space, we're also seeing demand for generative AI based content creation tools -- to give you a sense of some of the use cases. The most common use case, though, is adoption of generative AI coding assistant tools, which we're seeing that pretty pervasively across the internet space.Michelle Weaver: Great. And I know you've done a bunch of work around AI. What are some of the areas you think we'll see the quickest AI driven efficiency gains?Kieran Kenny: I think most likely you'll see the efficiency gains come first in the code assistant use cases. That when we go through and scan company disclosures for efficiency gains related to generative AI and look through some of the empirical studies -- code assistant tools tend to show the most consistent productivity gains in the 20 to 50 per cent range. And because R&D expenses are such a large percent of revenue for internet. It's on average 25 percent. There's a really strong incentive for companies to adopt those tools to drive productivity amongst their software engineers. So, we think that's the area you're likely going to see the benefits first.Michelle Weaver: Great. Thanks, Kieran. Ben, what do you think some of the most interesting ways companies in your coverage are leveraging AI?Benjamin Swinburne: I would echo some of the points that Kieran made, particularly around content creation and dealing with customers.You know, in the content creation area, we're seeing AI leveraged in creative services. So, creating content for marketing purposes is an area we're seeing the ad agencies look for opportunities. In the audio industry, we've seen AI used to more efficiently and more effectively translate podcasts and audio books to different languages, which can be then distributed around the world.One leading streaming audio company has an AI DJ that they used to drive recommendations for listeners. And on the customer front, we're seeing a lot of companies in the cable industry, basically distribute AI tools into their call centers and into their network diagnostics -- so they can predict where network failures may happen before they happen. Or help call center agents better help...]]>453false1079fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ai-scale-and-privacy--75652873----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matt Cost, from the Morgan Stanley US Internet team.Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about some key trends that emerged in conversations with internet companies at Morgan Stanley’s 2024 Technology Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco.It’s Monday, Mar 11th at 8am in New York.So, we had a busy four days at the conference last week. It was our biggest gathering yet for what’s really the marquee TMT event of the year. And we brought together companies and investors from all over the world for keynotes and meetings and a lot of moments in between to connect with industry insiders about the latest trends in their space.I want to start with talking about AI. It was a big topic for almost every company we saw. But I’d say that for me, the video game companies stood out the most. Some C-suite executives that we spoke to talked about how their companies could become up to 30 per cent more efficient, as they leverage new AI tools to build and operate their games. But they also talked about the need to reinvest those efficiencies to make sure their products are the biggest, the best, and the most competitive they can be.This is against a video game market backdrop that remains more mixed though we did hear about some green shoots in mobile games; since there are a number of newly launched games there that are getting good traction – which is actually something we haven’t seen in a few years at this point. On the M&A front, after a wave of game industry consolidation we’ve seen over the past few years, we did hear companies acknowledge that scale matters more than ever – if you want to compete in this space.When it comes to the advertising companies, it’s clear that we’ve seen a marked improvement in the health of the online ad markets since October and November of [20]23, but there are still pockets of strength and weakness, particularly for smaller players where competition is the most intense.We’re also seeing a major focus on privacy, which has been a long-term trend in the space. But in the near term, the industry does expect browser cookies to go away later this year. And investors are trying to decide who that might hurt – and in some cases who it might potentially help. And when it comes to AI in the ad space, we’ve heard a mostly positive story about the potential for more personalized and better targeted ads in the future.Finally on the property tech side. Despite the fact that the residential real estate market is still pretty subdued in the US, many players in the space feel that two years into higher mortgage rates, they have leaner business models that set them up well to benefit when the market does come back. We also heard greater confidence from companies that they don’t expect to see major disruption from the ongoing legal disputes around real estate broker commissions. But that does remain one of the uncertainties in the space that investors are the most focused on into 2024 and beyond.For more on the Morgan Stanley TMT conference, check out the episode tomorrow, where my colleagues will dive deeper into thematic takeaways from this year's event.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6NNo10zg-mbFSHkjSaMS4JQDQoxrLZGDCIFglbd7bCYMon, 11 Mar 2024 20:36:11 +0000gtyMatt Cost of the firm’s U.S. Internet team shares his key takeaways from the 2024 Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference, including the online ad market’s rebound and the future of property tech.   ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matt Cost, from the Morgan Stanley US Internet team.Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about some key trends that emerged in conversations with internet companies at Morgan Stanley’s 2024 Technology Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco.It’s Monday, Mar 11th at 8am in New York.So, we had a busy four days at the conference last week. It was our biggest gathering yet for what’s really the marquee TMT event of the year. And we brought together companies and investors from all over the world for keynotes and meetings and a lot of moments in between to connect with industry insiders about the latest trends in their space.I want to start with talking about AI. It was a big topic for almost every company we saw. But I’d say that for me, the video game companies stood out the most. Some C-suite executives that we spoke to talked about how their companies could become up to 30 per cent more efficient, as they leverage new AI tools to build and operate their games. But they also talked about the need to reinvest those efficiencies to make sure their products are the biggest, the best, and the most competitive they can be.This is against a video game market backdrop that remains more mixed though we did hear about some green shoots in mobile games; since there are a number of newly launched games there that are getting good traction – which is actually something we haven’t seen in a few years at this point. On the M&A front, after a wave of game industry consolidation we’ve seen over the past few years, we did hear companies acknowledge that scale matters more than ever – if you want to compete in this space.When it comes to the advertising companies, it’s clear that we’ve seen a marked improvement in the health of the online ad markets since October and November of [20]23, but there are still pockets of strength and weakness, particularly for smaller players where competition is the most intense.We’re also seeing a major focus on privacy, which has been a long-term trend in the space. But in the near term, the industry does expect browser cookies to go away later this year. And investors are trying to decide who that might hurt – and in some cases who it might potentially help. And when it comes to AI in the ad space, we’ve heard a mostly positive story about the potential for more personalized and better targeted ads in the future.Finally on the property tech side. Despite the fact that the residential real estate market is still pretty subdued in the US, many players in the space feel that two years into higher mortgage rates, they have leaner business models that set them up well to benefit when the market does come back. We also heard greater confidence from companies that they don’t expect to see major disruption from the ongoing legal disputes around real estate broker commissions. But that does remain one of the uncertainties in the space that investors are the most focused on into 2024 and beyond.For more on the Morgan Stanley TMT conference, check out the episode tomorrow, where my colleagues will dive deeper into thematic takeaways from this year's event.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>192false1078fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/m-a-rebound-ahead--75653034----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, March 8th at 2:00pm in London.Usually, company activity follows the broader trends in markets. But last year, it diverged. 2023 was generally a strong year for economic growth and the stock market. But Mergers and Acquisition activity was anemic. By our count, global M&A activity in 2023, adjusted for the size of the economy, was the lowest in 30 years. We think that’s going to change. There are both near-term and longer-term reasons why we think the buying and selling of companies can pick up. We think we’re going to see the return of M&A.Near term, we think corporate confidence, which is essential to any large transaction, is improving. While stocks and the economy were ultimately strong last year, a lot of 2023 was still dominated by fears of rising yields, elevated inflation and persistent expectations of recession. Recall that as recently as October of 2023, the median stock in the S&P 500 was actually down about 5 per cent for the year.All of those factors that were hitting corporate confidence, today are looking better. And with Morgan Stanley’s expectation for 2024, and economic soft landing, we think that improvement will continue. But don’t just take our word for it. The companies that traffic directly in M&A were notably more upbeat about their pipelines when they reported earnings in January.Incidentally, this is also the message that we get from Morgan Stanley’s industry experts. We recently polled Morgan Stanley Equity Analysts across 150 industry groups around the world. Half of them saw M&A activity increasing in their industry over the next 12 months. Only 6 per cent expected it to decline.But there’s also a longer run story here.We think we can argue that depressed corporate activity has actually been a multi-year story. If we think about what factors historically explained M&A activity, such as stock market performance, overall valuations, volatility, Central Bank policy, and so on – the activity that we’ve seen over the last three years has undershot what these variables would usually expect by somewhere between $4-11 trillion. We think that speaks to a multi-year hit to corporate confidence and increased uncertainty from COVID and its aftermath; as that confidence returns, some of this gap might be made up.And there are other longer-term drivers. We believe Private Equity firms have been sitting on their holdings for an unusually long period of time, putting more pressure on them to do deals and return money to investors. Europe is just starting to emerge from an even longer-drought of activity, while reforms in Japan are encouraging more corporate action. We are positive on both European and Japanese equity markets. And other multi-year secular trends – from rising demand in AI capabilities, to clean energy transition, to innovation in life sciences – should also structurally support more M&A over the next cycle.Mergers and Acquisition activity has been unusually low. We think that’s changing, and investors should expect much more of this activity going forward.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/w5yLhpMljPNT5RQOTU_9SnBI0PuOYMILPbKhosr7qqQFri, 08 Mar 2024 21:11:35 +0000gtyOur Head of Corporate Credit Research cites near-term and long-term factors indicating that investors should expect a major boost in merger and acquisition activity. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, March 8th at 2:00pm in London.Usually, company activity follows the broader trends in markets. But last year, it diverged. 2023 was generally a strong year for economic growth and the stock market. But Mergers and Acquisition activity was anemic. By our count, global M&A activity in 2023, adjusted for the size of the economy, was the lowest in 30 years. We think that’s going to change. There are both near-term and longer-term reasons why we think the buying and selling of companies can pick up. We think we’re going to see the return of M&A.Near term, we think corporate confidence, which is essential to any large transaction, is improving. While stocks and the economy were ultimately strong last year, a lot of 2023 was still dominated by fears of rising yields, elevated inflation and persistent expectations of recession. Recall that as recently as October of 2023, the median stock in the S&P 500 was actually down about 5 per cent for the year.All of those factors that were hitting corporate confidence, today are looking better. And with Morgan Stanley’s expectation for 2024, and economic soft landing, we think that improvement will continue. But don’t just take our word for it. The companies that traffic directly in M&A were notably more upbeat about their pipelines when they reported earnings in January.Incidentally, this is also the message that we get from Morgan Stanley’s industry experts. We recently polled Morgan Stanley Equity Analysts across 150 industry groups around the world. Half of them saw M&A activity increasing in their industry over the next 12 months. Only 6 per cent expected it to decline.But there’s also a longer run story here.We think we can argue that depressed corporate activity has actually been a multi-year story. If we think about what factors historically explained M&A activity, such as stock market performance, overall valuations, volatility, Central Bank policy, and so on – the activity that we’ve seen over the last three years has undershot what these variables would usually expect by somewhere between $4-11 trillion. We think that speaks to a multi-year hit to corporate confidence and increased uncertainty from COVID and its aftermath; as that confidence returns, some of this gap might be made up.And there are other longer-term drivers. We believe Private Equity firms have been sitting on their holdings for an unusually long period of time, putting more pressure on them to do deals and return money to investors. Europe is just starting to emerge from an even longer-drought of activity, while reforms in Japan are encouraging more corporate action. We are positive on both European and Japanese equity markets. And other multi-year secular trends – from rising demand in AI capabilities, to clean energy transition, to innovation in life sciences – should also structurally support more M&A over the next cycle.Mergers and Acquisition activity has been unusually low. We think that’s changing, and investors should expect much more of this activity going forward.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>217false1077fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-european-data-centers-are-set-for-major-growth--75652951---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Emmet Kelly, head of Morgan Stanley's European Telecom team. Today, I'll be talking about the rise of data centers in Europe.The subject of data centers has, until now, largely been confined to the U.S. However, we believe that this is all about to change; and we also think the market significantly underestimates the size and scope of this potential growth in Europe.Why do we believe that the European data center market is set for such strong growth? Well, we've identified three reasons.The first reason is cloud computing. The primary driver of data center demand today is cloud and digitalization.Cloud represents the lion's share of data center growth in Europe on our numbers. Roughly 60 percent of growth by 2035. The second driver is AI. What's interesting is training AI models needs to be done within a single data center, and that's driving demand for large data center campuses across the globe.The third driver is data sovereignty. Data sovereignty is becoming increasingly important to both companies and also to consumers. Essentially, consumers want their data to be stored at home, and they want this to be subject to local law. A common parallel I've received is: would you want your bank account to be stored in a different country? The answer is probably no. And therefore, we believe that data will be increasingly near-shored across EuropeSo what's limiting European data center growth today? There are a number of hurdles in place and these bottlenecks include energy, capital, planning permission, and also regulationSo how do we get around that? Well, having chatted with my colleagues in the utilities and renewables teams, it's been quite clear that Europe needs to invest a lot of money in renewable energy, up to 35 billion euros over the next decade in Europe. This will bring a lot of onshore wind, offshore wind, solar and hydro energy to the market.In terms of the big data center markets in Europe, we've identified five big data center markets, commonly referred to as FLAP-D.Now this acronym does not roll off the tongue, but it does stand for Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Dublin. Today, there are constraints in three of those markets, in Ireland, in Frankfurt and also in Amsterdam. We therefore believe that London and Paris should see outsized growth in data centers over the next decade or so.We also believe we'll see the emergence of new secondary data center markets.So, who stands to benefit from the explosive growth of European data centers? Among the key beneficiaries, we would highlight the picks and shovels. I'm talking about electric engineering, construction. I'm talking capital goods. We've also got the hyperscalers, the large providers of cloud computing and storage services. And then there is the co-locators as well. Beyond this, it's also worth looking at private capital and private equity companies as being positively exposed too.Thanks for listening. If you do enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wJk3yJ3ik2HbBYdsRs-C0hN_VVVUsUfGLiVjJwy94kMThu, 07 Mar 2024 22:17:50 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley’s Europe Telecom Analyst outlines three factors pointing to a boom, the obstacles to overcome and the associated industries most likely to benefit. ---- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Emmet Kelly, head of Morgan...---- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Emmet Kelly, head of Morgan Stanley's European Telecom team. Today, I'll be talking about the rise of data centers in Europe.The subject of data centers has, until now, largely been confined to the U.S. However, we believe that this is all about to change; and we also think the market significantly underestimates the size and scope of this potential growth in Europe.Why do we believe that the European data center market is set for such strong growth? Well, we've identified three reasons.The first reason is cloud computing. The primary driver of data center demand today is cloud and digitalization.Cloud represents the lion's share of data center growth in Europe on our numbers. Roughly 60 percent of growth by 2035. The second driver is AI. What's interesting is training AI models needs to be done within a single data center, and that's driving demand for large data center campuses across the globe.The third driver is data sovereignty. Data sovereignty is becoming increasingly important to both companies and also to consumers. Essentially, consumers want their data to be stored at home, and they want this to be subject to local law. A common parallel I've received is: would you want your bank account to be stored in a different country? The answer is probably no. And therefore, we believe that data will be increasingly near-shored across EuropeSo what's limiting European data center growth today? There are a number of hurdles in place and these bottlenecks include energy, capital, planning permission, and also regulationSo how do we get around that? Well, having chatted with my colleagues in the utilities and renewables teams, it's been quite clear that Europe needs to invest a lot of money in renewable energy, up to 35 billion euros over the next decade in Europe. This will bring a lot of onshore wind, offshore wind, solar and hydro energy to the market.In terms of the big data center markets in Europe, we've identified five big data center markets, commonly referred to as FLAP-D.Now this acronym does not roll off the tongue, but it does stand for Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Dublin. Today, there are constraints in three of those markets, in Ireland, in Frankfurt and also in Amsterdam. We therefore believe that London and Paris should see outsized growth in data centers over the next decade or so.We also believe we'll see the emergence of new secondary data center markets.So, who stands to benefit from the explosive growth of European data centers? Among the key beneficiaries, we would highlight the picks and shovels. I'm talking about electric engineering, construction. I'm talking capital goods. We've also got the hyperscalers, the large providers of cloud computing and storage services. And then there is the co-locators as well. Beyond this, it's also worth looking at private capital and private equity companies as being positively exposed too.Thanks for listening. If you do enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>241false1076fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/three-long-term-trends-by-the-numbers--75652866----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about key secular themes impacting markets.It's Wednesday, Mar 6th at 10:30 am in New York.We kicked off 2024 by highlighting the three secular themes we think will make the difference between being ahead of or behind the curve in markets – longevity, AI tech diffusion, and decarbonization. How’s it going so far? We’ve got some initial insights and opportunities at the sector level worth sharing, and here they are through the lens of three big numbers.The first number is €5 trillion – that’s how much our global economics and European utilities teams estimate will be spent in Europe by 2030 on efforts to decarbonize the energy system. These attempts will boost both growth and inflation, though by how much remains unclear. A more concrete investment takeaway is to focus on the sectors that will be on the receiving end of decarbonization spending: utilities and grid operators.The second set of numbers are US$140 billion and US$77 billion – these are our colleagues' total addressable market projections for smart-chemo, over the next 15 years, and obesity treatments, by 2030. In terms of our longevity theme, we see companies increasingly investing in and achieving breakthroughs that can extend life. While the theme will have myriad macro impacts that we’re still exploring, the tangible takeaway here is that there are clear beneficiaries in pharma to pursue.The last number we’re focusing on is US$500 billion. That’s the opportunity associated with a fivefold increase in the size of the European data center market out to 2035. That should be driven by the need to ramp up to deal with key tech trends, like Generative AI.So, while those numbers drive some pretty clear equity sector takeaways, the macro market implications are somewhat more complicated. For example, on longevity, a common client question is whether health breakthroughs will have a beneficial impact for bond investors by shrinking fiscal deficits. Among US investors, for example, one theory is that breakthroughs in preventative care will reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending. But even if that proved true, we still have to consider potential offsetting effects, such as whether new healthcare costs will arise. After all, if people are living longer, more active lives, they might need more of other types of healthcare, like orthopedic treatments. Simply put, the macro market impacts are complicated, but critical to understand. We remain on the case. In the meantime, there’s clearer opportunities from our big themes in utilities, pharma, and other key sectors.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/a8nHfpeDbE7Tb8J9q2mfPDUOJCBE70W--ij2v-vqKPAWed, 06 Mar 2024 21:42:29 +0000gtyOur Global Head of Fixed Income shares some startling data on decarbonization, the widespread use of AI and longevity.   ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about key secular themes impacting markets.It's Wednesday, Mar 6th at 10:30 am in New York.We kicked off 2024 by highlighting the three secular themes we think will make the difference between being ahead of or behind the curve in markets – longevity, AI tech diffusion, and decarbonization. How’s it going so far? We’ve got some initial insights and opportunities at the sector level worth sharing, and here they are through the lens of three big numbers.The first number is €5 trillion – that’s how much our global economics and European utilities teams estimate will be spent in Europe by 2030 on efforts to decarbonize the energy system. These attempts will boost both growth and inflation, though by how much remains unclear. A more concrete investment takeaway is to focus on the sectors that will be on the receiving end of decarbonization spending: utilities and grid operators.The second set of numbers are US$140 billion and US$77 billion – these are our colleagues' total addressable market projections for smart-chemo, over the next 15 years, and obesity treatments, by 2030. In terms of our longevity theme, we see companies increasingly investing in and achieving breakthroughs that can extend life. While the theme will have myriad macro impacts that we’re still exploring, the tangible takeaway here is that there are clear beneficiaries in pharma to pursue.The last number we’re focusing on is US$500 billion. That’s the opportunity associated with a fivefold increase in the size of the European data center market out to 2035. That should be driven by the need to ramp up to deal with key tech trends, like Generative AI.So, while those numbers drive some pretty clear equity sector takeaways, the macro market implications are somewhat more complicated. For example, on longevity, a common client question is whether health breakthroughs will have a beneficial impact for bond investors by shrinking fiscal deficits. Among US investors, for example, one theory is that breakthroughs in preventative care will reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending. But even if that proved true, we still have to consider potential offsetting effects, such as whether new healthcare costs will arise. After all, if people are living longer, more active lives, they might need more of other types of healthcare, like orthopedic treatments. Simply put, the macro market impacts are complicated, but critical to understand. We remain on the case. In the meantime, there’s clearer opportunities from our big themes in utilities, pharma, and other key sectors.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>191false1075fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-us-consumers-will-spend-2024-tax-refunds--75652960----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the US federal tax refunds season. It’s March 5, at 10 AM in New York. The IRS began accepting tax returns for the 2023 tax year on January 29, 2024. This is about a week later than when they started accepting tax returns in 2023. As a result, the number of refunds and the total amount of refunds issued by the end of February is about 12 per cent below where they were at the same time last year. However, if we look at the average refund amount that households are getting in the third and fourth week of the tax refund season, they are about in line with the prior year. As such, we expect that total refunds will ramp up to an average amount similar to last year; so that’s about $3100 per person. While data show that refunds can fluctuate notably on a weekly and daily basis, total tax refunds through the end of February ran about in line compared to the same period over the past five years. Let’s remember though that they’re not going to be as high as 2022 when refunds were much larger due to COVID-related stimulus programs. So, we can compare it to the past five years apart from 2022.February through April remains the period where most tax refunds are received and spent, with the greatest impact on consumer spending in March. Our own AlphaWise survey of household intentions around the refunds reveals that households typically spend about a third of their refunds on everyday purchases – such as grocery, gas, apparel. Another third goes toward paying off debt, and the remaining third into savings. Last year, higher inflation pushed more households to use their refunds on everyday purchases. This year, it is likely that everyday purchases will remain a top priority, but we do think that more refunds will go in towards paying off debt than last year. There’s a couple of reasons why we think this. First, there was an expiration of the student loan moratorium at the end of 2023. This is affecting millions of student loan borrowers and putting more pressure on their debt service obligations. And then we’re also seeing rising credit card and consumer loan delinquencies, which reveal pressure to pay down debt. If we look at spending intentions by income group, upper income households are more likely to save any tax refund they may get or spend it on home improvement and vacations. So, a bit more on the discretionary side.When we think about tax liabilities instead of refunds, anomalous factors make this year’s tax season a poor comparison to last year – because last year several states got an extended deadline due to natural disasters. A delayed Tax Day largely impacts filers who have a tax liability or a complicated financial situation and prefer to file later. This has larger implications for the fiscal deficit since delayed tax remittances caused a larger deficit in the third quarter of 2023, and then it narrowed in the fourth quarter when remittances came in. But in terms of refunds and consumer spending, filers who expect refunds tend to file early and on time. An extension of the deadline has very little impact on this group of consumers.All in all, based on early data, we think that total tax refunds this year will be similar to last year, though higher than pre-COVID years due to inflation. Barring factors that can lead to a significant shift of the filing deadline, we should see a more normal timeline for tax remittances, but it is still important to track closely how the tax season evolves.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AJtdXUbXxr5kxR0kJ-j_FWrYQgatbZKaFRKMOs-t99YTue, 05 Mar 2024 22:08:40 +0000gtyWith tax season underway, our U.S. economist explains what the average refund will look like and how people are likely to spend it. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the US federal tax refunds season. It’s March 5, at 10 AM in New York. The IRS began accepting tax returns for the 2023 tax year on January 29, 2024. This is about a week later than when they started accepting tax returns in 2023. As a result, the number of refunds and the total amount of refunds issued by the end of February is about 12 per cent below where they were at the same time last year. However, if we look at the average refund amount that households are getting in the third and fourth week of the tax refund season, they are about in line with the prior year. As such, we expect that total refunds will ramp up to an average amount similar to last year; so that’s about $3100 per person. While data show that refunds can fluctuate notably on a weekly and daily basis, total tax refunds through the end of February ran about in line compared to the same period over the past five years. Let’s remember though that they’re not going to be as high as 2022 when refunds were much larger due to COVID-related stimulus programs. So, we can compare it to the past five years apart from 2022.February through April remains the period where most tax refunds are received and spent, with the greatest impact on consumer spending in March. Our own AlphaWise survey of household intentions around the refunds reveals that households typically spend about a third of their refunds on everyday purchases – such as grocery, gas, apparel. Another third goes toward paying off debt, and the remaining third into savings. Last year, higher inflation pushed more households to use their refunds on everyday purchases. This year, it is likely that everyday purchases will remain a top priority, but we do think that more refunds will go in towards paying off debt than last year. There’s a couple of reasons why we think this. First, there was an expiration of the student loan moratorium at the end of 2023. This is affecting millions of student loan borrowers and putting more pressure on their debt service obligations. And then we’re also seeing rising credit card and consumer loan delinquencies, which reveal pressure to pay down debt. If we look at spending intentions by income group, upper income households are more likely to save any tax refund they may get or spend it on home improvement and vacations. So, a bit more on the discretionary side.When we think about tax liabilities instead of refunds, anomalous factors make this year’s tax season a poor comparison to last year – because last year several states got an extended deadline due to natural disasters. A delayed Tax Day largely impacts filers who have a tax liability or a complicated financial situation and prefer to file later. This has larger implications for the fiscal deficit since delayed tax remittances caused a larger deficit in the third quarter of 2023, and then it narrowed in the fourth quarter when remittances came in. But in terms of refunds and consumer spending, filers who expect refunds tend to file early and on time. An extension of the deadline has very little impact on this group of consumers.All in all, based on early data, we think that total tax refunds this year will be similar to last year, though higher than pre-COVID years due to inflation. Barring factors that can lead to a significant shift of the filing deadline, we should see a more normal timeline for tax remittances, but it is still important to track closely how the tax season evolves.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>233false1074fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/hedging-in-a-robust-equity-market--75652997----- Transcript -----
Stephan Kessler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stefan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research, QIS Research in short.Aris Tentes: And I am Aris Tentes, also from the QIS research team.Stephan Kessler: Along with our colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll discuss different strategies to hedge equity portfolios.It's Monday, the 4th of March at 10am in London.The US equity market has been climbing to record levels, and it seems that long only investors -- and especially investors with long time horizons -- are inclined to keep their positions. But even in the current market environment, it still makes sense to take some risk off the table. With this in mind, we took a closer look at some of the potential hedging strategies for high conviction calls with a quantitative lens. Long only portfolios of high conviction names of opportunities for excess returns, or alpha; but also of exposures to broad market risk, or beta, embedded in these names.While investors are keen to access the idiosyncratic excess return in individual stocks, they often overlook the systematic market and risk factors that come with owning stocks. Rather than treating these risks as uncontrolled noise, it makes sense to think about hedging such risks.Aris, let me pass over to you for some popular approaches to hedging such risk exposures.Aris Tentes: Yes, thank you, Stefan.Today, investors can use a range of approaches to remove systematic risk exposures. The first one, and maybe the most established approach, is to hedge out broad market risks by shorting equity index futures. Now, this has the benefit of being a low-cost implementation due to the high liquidity of a futures contract.Second, a more refined approach, is to hedge risks by focusing on specific characteristics of these stocks, or so-called factors, such as market capitalization, growth, or value. Now this strategy is a way to hedge a specific risk driver without affecting the other characteristics of the portfolio. However, a downside of both approaches is that the hedges might interfere with the long alpha names, some of which might end up being effectively shorted.Stephan Kessler: Okay, so, so these are two interesting approaches. Now you mentioned that there is a potential challenge in which shorting out specific parts of the portfolio and removing risks, we effectively end up shorting individual equities. Can you tell us some approaches which can be used to overcome this issue?Aris Tentes: Oh, yes. Actually, we suggest an approach based on quantitative tools, which may be the most refined way of overcoming the issues with the other approaches I talked about. Now, this one can hedge risk without interfering with the long alpha positions. And another benefit is that it provides the flexibility of customization.Stephan Kessler: Aris, maybe it's worth actually mentioning why better hedges are important.Aris Tentes: So actually, better hedges can make the portfolio more resilient to factor and sector rotations. With optimized hedges, a one percentile style or sector rotation shock leads to only minor losses of no more than a tenth of a percentage point. As a result, risk adjusted returns increase noticeably.Stephan Kessler: That makes sense. Overall, hedging with factor portfolios gives the most balanced results for diversified, high conviction portfolios. One exception would be portfolios with a small number of names, where the universe remaining for the optimized hedge portfolio is broad enough to construct a robust hedge. This can lead to returns that are stronger than for the other approaches.However, if the portfolio has many names, the task becomes harder and the factor hedging approach becomes the most attractive way to hedge. Having discussed the benefits of factor hedging, I think we also should talk about the implementation side. Shorting outright futures to remove market beta is rather straightforward. However, it leaves many other sectors and factor risks uncontrolled. To remove such risks, pure factor portfolios are readily available in the marketplace.Investors can buy or sell those pure factor portfolios to remove or target factor and sector risk exposures as they deem adequate. Pure factor portfolios are constructed in a way that investment in them does not affect other factor orsector exposures. Hence, we refer to them as “pure.” Running a tailored hedge rather than using factor hedging building blocks can be beneficial in some situations -- but comes, of course, at a substantially increased complexity.Those are some key considerations we have around performance enhancement through thoughtful hedging approaches.Aris, thank you so much for helping outline these ideas with me.Aris Tentes: Great speaking with you, Stefan.Stephan Kessler: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CVEt3VjHJtAxS4KxcbiiKI0tsIJvNm9-5v4V-AY5FTkMon, 04 Mar 2024 22:02:27 +0000gtyThe U.S. stock market is rising to new highs, but investors should still try to minimize risk in their portfolios. Our analysts list a few key strategies to navigate this dynamic. ----- Transcript ----- Stephan Kessler: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Stephan Kessler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stefan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research, QIS Research in short.Aris Tentes: And I am Aris Tentes, also from the QIS research team.Stephan Kessler: Along with our colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll discuss different strategies to hedge equity portfolios.It's Monday, the 4th of March at 10am in London.The US equity market has been climbing to record levels, and it seems that long only investors -- and especially investors with long time horizons -- are inclined to keep their positions. But even in the current market environment, it still makes sense to take some risk off the table. With this in mind, we took a closer look at some of the potential hedging strategies for high conviction calls with a quantitative lens. Long only portfolios of high conviction names of opportunities for excess returns, or alpha; but also of exposures to broad market risk, or beta, embedded in these names.While investors are keen to access the idiosyncratic excess return in individual stocks, they often overlook the systematic market and risk factors that come with owning stocks. Rather than treating these risks as uncontrolled noise, it makes sense to think about hedging such risks.Aris, let me pass over to you for some popular approaches to hedging such risk exposures.Aris Tentes: Yes, thank you, Stefan.Today, investors can use a range of approaches to remove systematic risk exposures. The first one, and maybe the most established approach, is to hedge out broad market risks by shorting equity index futures. Now, this has the benefit of being a low-cost implementation due to the high liquidity of a futures contract.Second, a more refined approach, is to hedge risks by focusing on specific characteristics of these stocks, or so-called factors, such as market capitalization, growth, or value. Now this strategy is a way to hedge a specific risk driver without affecting the other characteristics of the portfolio. However, a downside of both approaches is that the hedges might interfere with the long alpha names, some of which might end up being effectively shorted.Stephan Kessler: Okay, so, so these are two interesting approaches. Now you mentioned that there is a potential challenge in which shorting out specific parts of the portfolio and removing risks, we effectively end up shorting individual equities. Can you tell us some approaches which can be used to overcome this issue?Aris Tentes: Oh, yes. Actually, we suggest an approach based on quantitative tools, which may be the most refined way of overcoming the issues with the other approaches I talked about. Now, this one can hedge risk without interfering with the long alpha positions. And another benefit is that it provides the flexibility of customization.Stephan Kessler: Aris, maybe it's worth actually mentioning why better hedges are important.Aris Tentes: So actually, better hedges can make the portfolio more resilient to factor and sector rotations. With optimized hedges, a one percentile style or sector rotation shock leads to only minor losses of no more than a tenth of a percentage point. As a result, risk adjusted returns increase noticeably.Stephan Kessler: That makes sense. Overall, hedging with factor portfolios gives the most balanced results for diversified, high conviction portfolios. One exception would be portfolios with a small number of names, where the universe remaining for the optimized hedge portfolio is broad enough to construct a robust hedge. This can lead to returns that are stronger than for the other approaches.However, if the portfolio has many names, the task becomes harder and the factor hedging approach becomes the most...]]>308false1073fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-predictive-power-of-pmis--75652870----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, March 1st at 2pm in London.A perennial problem investors face is the tendency of markets to lead the economic data. We’re always on the lookout for indicators that can be more useful, and especially more useful at identifying turning points. And so today, I want to give special attention to one of our favorite economic indicators for doing this: the Purchasing Manager Indices, or PMIs. And how they help with the challenge that economic data can sometimes give us.PMIs works by surveying individuals working in the manufacturing and services sector – and asking them how they’re viewing current conditions across a variety of metrics: how much are they producing? How many orders are they seeing? Are prices going up or down? These sorts of surveys have been around for a while: the Institute of Supply Management has been running the most famous version of the manufacturing PMI since 1948.But these PMIs have some intriguing properties that are especially helpful for investors looking to get an edge on the economic outlook.First, the nature of manufacturing makes the sector cyclical and more sensitive to subtle turns of the economy. If we’re looking for something at the leading edge of the broader economic outlook, manufacturing PMI may just be that thing. And that’s a property that we think still applies -- even as manufacturing over time has become a much smaller part of the overall economic pie. Second, the nature of the PMI survey and how it’s conducted – which asks questions whether conditions are improving or deteriorating – helps address that all important rate of change. In other words, PMIs can help give us insight into the overall strength of manufacturing activity, whether that activity is improving or deteriorating, and whether that improvement or deterioration is accelerating. For anyone getting flashbacks to calculus, yes, it potentially can show us both a first and a second derivative.Why should investors care so much about PMIs?For markets, historically, Manufacturing PMIs tend to be most supportive for credit when they have been recently weak but starting to improve. Our explanation for this is that recent weakness often means there is still some economic uncertainty out there; and investors aren’t as positive as they otherwise could be. And then improving means the conditions likely are headed to a better place. In both the US and Europe, currently, Manufacturings are in this “recently weak, but improving” regime – an otherwise supported backdrop for credit.If you’re wondering why I’m mentioning PMI now – the latest readings of PMI were released today; they tend to be released on the 1st of each month. In the Eurozone, they suggest activity remains weak-but-improving, and they were a little bit better than expected. In the US, recent data was weaker than expected, although still showing a trend of improvement since last summer.PMIs are one of many data points investors may be considering. But in Credit, where turning points are especially important, it’s one of our favorites. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ImxdtxN593oYUL725BOgjKSF_B1SKne8mqIev2I6O4sFri, 01 Mar 2024 21:27:49 +0000gtyOur head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the Purchasing Manager’s Index is a key indicator for investors to get a read on the economic outlook. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, March 1st at 2pm in London.A perennial problem investors face is the tendency of markets to lead the economic data. We’re always on the lookout for indicators that can be more useful, and especially more useful at identifying turning points. And so today, I want to give special attention to one of our favorite economic indicators for doing this: the Purchasing Manager Indices, or PMIs. And how they help with the challenge that economic data can sometimes give us.PMIs works by surveying individuals working in the manufacturing and services sector – and asking them how they’re viewing current conditions across a variety of metrics: how much are they producing? How many orders are they seeing? Are prices going up or down? These sorts of surveys have been around for a while: the Institute of Supply Management has been running the most famous version of the manufacturing PMI since 1948.But these PMIs have some intriguing properties that are especially helpful for investors looking to get an edge on the economic outlook.First, the nature of manufacturing makes the sector cyclical and more sensitive to subtle turns of the economy. If we’re looking for something at the leading edge of the broader economic outlook, manufacturing PMI may just be that thing. And that’s a property that we think still applies -- even as manufacturing over time has become a much smaller part of the overall economic pie. Second, the nature of the PMI survey and how it’s conducted – which asks questions whether conditions are improving or deteriorating – helps address that all important rate of change. In other words, PMIs can help give us insight into the overall strength of manufacturing activity, whether that activity is improving or deteriorating, and whether that improvement or deterioration is accelerating. For anyone getting flashbacks to calculus, yes, it potentially can show us both a first and a second derivative.Why should investors care so much about PMIs?For markets, historically, Manufacturing PMIs tend to be most supportive for credit when they have been recently weak but starting to improve. Our explanation for this is that recent weakness often means there is still some economic uncertainty out there; and investors aren’t as positive as they otherwise could be. And then improving means the conditions likely are headed to a better place. In both the US and Europe, currently, Manufacturings are in this “recently weak, but improving” regime – an otherwise supported backdrop for credit.If you’re wondering why I’m mentioning PMI now – the latest readings of PMI were released today; they tend to be released on the 1st of each month. In the Eurozone, they suggest activity remains weak-but-improving, and they were a little bit better than expected. In the US, recent data was weaker than expected, although still showing a trend of improvement since last summer.PMIs are one of many data points investors may be considering. But in Credit, where turning points are especially important, it’s one of our favorites. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>216false1072fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/making-sense-of-confusing-economic-data--75652995----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about what investors should take away from recent economic data. It's Thursday, February 29, at 4pm in New York.There’s been a string of confusing US inflation reports recently, and macro markets have reacted with vigor to the significant upside surprises in the data. Before these inflation reports, our economists thought that January Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation, or PCE inflation, would come at 0.23 per cent for the month. On the back of the Consumer Price Index inflation report for January, our economists increased their PCE inflation forecast to 0.29 per cent month-over-month. Then after the Producers’ Price Index, or PPI inflation report, they revised that forecast even higher – to 0.43 per cent month-over-month. Today, core PCE inflation actually printed at 0.42 per cent - very close to our economists’ revised forecast.That means the economy produced nearly twice as much inflation in January as our economists thought it would originally. The January CPI and PPI inflation reports seem to suggest that while inflation is off the record peaks it had reached, the path down is not going to be smooth and easy. Now, the question is: How much weight should investors put on this data? The answer depends on how much weight Federal Open Market Committee participants place on it. After all, the way in which FOMC participants reacted to activity data in the third quarter of 2023 – which was to hold rates steady despite encouraging inflation data – sent US Treasury yields sharply higher.Sometimes data is irrational. So we would take the recent inflation data with a grain of salt. Let me give you an example of the divergence in recent data that’s just that – an outlying number that investors should treat with some skepticism. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS, calculates two measures of rent for the CPI index: Owner’s equivalent rent, or OER, and rents for primary residences. Both measures use very similar underlying rent data. But the BLS weights different aspects of that rent data differently for OER than for rents.OER increased by 0.56 per cent month-over-month in January, while primary residence rents increased 0.36 per cent month-over-month. This is extremely rare. If the BLS were to release the inflation data every day of the year, this type of discrepancy would occur only twice in a lifetime – or every 43 years.The confusing nature of recent economic data suggests to us that investors should interpret the data as the Fed would. Our economists don't think that recent data changed the views of FOMC participants and they still expect a first rate cut at the June FOMC meeting. All in all, we suggest that investors move to a neutral stance on the US treasury market while the irrationality of the data passes by.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/G6EAjasiE70tUNsLYrvEyBTiqcuDvPnoeY_ZeHtZyLoFri, 01 Mar 2024 00:13:15 +0000gtyOur Global Macro Strategist explains the complex nature of recent U.S. economic reports, and which figures should matter most to investors. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about what investors should take away from recent economic data. It's Thursday, February 29, at 4pm in New York.There’s been a string of confusing US inflation reports recently, and macro markets have reacted with vigor to the significant upside surprises in the data. Before these inflation reports, our economists thought that January Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation, or PCE inflation, would come at 0.23 per cent for the month. On the back of the Consumer Price Index inflation report for January, our economists increased their PCE inflation forecast to 0.29 per cent month-over-month. Then after the Producers’ Price Index, or PPI inflation report, they revised that forecast even higher – to 0.43 per cent month-over-month. Today, core PCE inflation actually printed at 0.42 per cent - very close to our economists’ revised forecast.That means the economy produced nearly twice as much inflation in January as our economists thought it would originally. The January CPI and PPI inflation reports seem to suggest that while inflation is off the record peaks it had reached, the path down is not going to be smooth and easy. Now, the question is: How much weight should investors put on this data? The answer depends on how much weight Federal Open Market Committee participants place on it. After all, the way in which FOMC participants reacted to activity data in the third quarter of 2023 – which was to hold rates steady despite encouraging inflation data – sent US Treasury yields sharply higher.Sometimes data is irrational. So we would take the recent inflation data with a grain of salt. Let me give you an example of the divergence in recent data that’s just that – an outlying number that investors should treat with some skepticism. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS, calculates two measures of rent for the CPI index: Owner’s equivalent rent, or OER, and rents for primary residences. Both measures use very similar underlying rent data. But the BLS weights different aspects of that rent data differently for OER than for rents.OER increased by 0.56 per cent month-over-month in January, while primary residence rents increased 0.36 per cent month-over-month. This is extremely rare. If the BLS were to release the inflation data every day of the year, this type of discrepancy would occur only twice in a lifetime – or every 43 years.The confusing nature of recent economic data suggests to us that investors should interpret the data as the Fed would. Our economists don't think that recent data changed the views of FOMC participants and they still expect a first rate cut at the June FOMC meeting. All in all, we suggest that investors move to a neutral stance on the US treasury market while the irrationality of the data passes by.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>223false1071fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/should-investors-care-about-a-government-shutdown--75653082----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the market impacts of a potential US government shutdown.It's Wednesday, February 28th at 2pm in New York.Here we go again. The big effort in Washington D.C. this week is about avoiding a government shutdown. The deadline to pass funding bills to avoid this outcome is this weekend. And while many investors tell us they’re fatigued thinking about this issue, others still see the headlines and understandably have concerns about what this could mean for financial markets. Here’s our quick take on it, specifically why investors need not view this as a markets’ catalyst. At least not yet.In the short term, a shutdown is not a major economic catalyst. Our economists have previously estimated that a shutdown shaves only about .05 percentage points off GDP growth per week, and the current shutdown risk would only affect a part of the government. So, it's difficult to say that this shutdown would mean a heck of a lot for the US growth trajectory or perhaps put the Fed on a more dovish path – boosting performance of bonds relative to stocks. A longer-term shutdown could have that kind of impact as the effects of less government money being spent and government employees missing paychecks can compound over time. But shutdowns beyond a few days are uncommon.Another important distinction for investors is that a government shutdown is not the same as failing to raise the debt ceiling. So, it doesn’t create risk of missed payments on Treasuries. On the latter, the government is legally constrained as to raising money to pay its bills. But in the case of a shutdown, the government can still issue bonds to raise money and repay debt, it just has limited authority to spend money on typical government services. So then should investors just simply shrug and move on with their business if the government shuts down? Well, it's not quite that simple. The frequency of shutdown risks in recent years underscores the challenge of political polarization in the U.S. That theme continues to drive some important takeaways for investors, particularly when it comes to the upcoming US election. In short, unless one party takes control of both Congress and the White House, there’s little domestic policy change on the horizon that directly impacts investors. But one party taking control can put some meaningful policies into play. For example, a Republican sweep increases the chances of repealing the inflation reduction act – a challenge to the clean tech sector. It also increases the chances of extending tax cuts, which could benefit small caps and domestic-focused sectors. And it also increases the chances of foreign policies that might interfere with current trends in global trade through the levying of tariffs and rethinking geopolitical alliances. That in turn creates incentive for on and near-shoring…an incremental cost challenge to multinationals.So, we’ll keep watching and keep you in the loop if our thinking changes.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mh6JCa6gcUJr96pz9HTMXQjwZ1BO8Hhe2AOq6wWVJtIWed, 28 Feb 2024 22:11:21 +0000gtyAs the deadline to fund the government rapidly approaches, Michael Zezas explains what economic effect a possible shutdown could have and whether investors should be concerned.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the market impacts of a potential US government shutdown.It's Wednesday, February 28th at 2pm in New York.Here we go again. The big effort in Washington D.C. this week is about avoiding a government shutdown. The deadline to pass funding bills to avoid this outcome is this weekend. And while many investors tell us they’re fatigued thinking about this issue, others still see the headlines and understandably have concerns about what this could mean for financial markets. Here’s our quick take on it, specifically why investors need not view this as a markets’ catalyst. At least not yet.In the short term, a shutdown is not a major economic catalyst. Our economists have previously estimated that a shutdown shaves only about .05 percentage points off GDP growth per week, and the current shutdown risk would only affect a part of the government. So, it's difficult to say that this shutdown would mean a heck of a lot for the US growth trajectory or perhaps put the Fed on a more dovish path – boosting performance of bonds relative to stocks. A longer-term shutdown could have that kind of impact as the effects of less government money being spent and government employees missing paychecks can compound over time. But shutdowns beyond a few days are uncommon.Another important distinction for investors is that a government shutdown is not the same as failing to raise the debt ceiling. So, it doesn’t create risk of missed payments on Treasuries. On the latter, the government is legally constrained as to raising money to pay its bills. But in the case of a shutdown, the government can still issue bonds to raise money and repay debt, it just has limited authority to spend money on typical government services. So then should investors just simply shrug and move on with their business if the government shuts down? Well, it's not quite that simple. The frequency of shutdown risks in recent years underscores the challenge of political polarization in the U.S. That theme continues to drive some important takeaways for investors, particularly when it comes to the upcoming US election. In short, unless one party takes control of both Congress and the White House, there’s little domestic policy change on the horizon that directly impacts investors. But one party taking control can put some meaningful policies into play. For example, a Republican sweep increases the chances of repealing the inflation reduction act – a challenge to the clean tech sector. It also increases the chances of extending tax cuts, which could benefit small caps and domestic-focused sectors. And it also increases the chances of foreign policies that might interfere with current trends in global trade through the levying of tariffs and rethinking geopolitical alliances. That in turn creates incentive for on and near-shoring…an incremental cost challenge to multinationals.So, we’ll keep watching and keep you in the loop if our thinking changes.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>202false1070fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-is-the-price-of-food-still-rising--75652858----- Transcript -----
Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the US economics team.Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman; Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail Analyst.Sarah Wolfe: Today on the podcast, we'll discuss what's happening with food prices and how that's affecting the US consumer. It's Tuesday, February 27th at 10am in New York.It was almost exactly a year ago when I came on this podcast to talk about why eggs cost so much at the start of 2023. Here we are. It's a year later and food in the US still costs more. The overall inflation basket and personal consumption expenditures inflation was 2.6 per cent year over year in December; but dining out prices are still up 5.2 per cent. I'd like to admit that grocery prices are a little bit better. They're just a tad over 1 per cent. So we've seen a little bit more disinflation there. But overall food is still up and it's still expensive.Simeon, can you give us a little bit more color on what's actually going on here?Simeon Gutman: Yeah, so food prices measured by the CPI, as you mentioned, up about a per cent. The good news, Sarah, is that your eggs are actually deflating by about 30 per cent at the moment; so maybe you can buy a couple more eggs. But in general, we're following this descent that we started -- about almost two years ago where food prices were up double digits. A year ago, we were up mid single digits. And now we're down to this one per cent level. Looks like they're gonna hold. But so prices are coming in; but not necessarily deflating, but dis-inflating.Sarah Wolfe: Can you help me understand that a little bit better? You mentioned that some commodity prices are coming down, like food prices. So why is overall inflation for food still rising? And dining out, grocery stores, both of them are still seeing price increases.Simeon Gutman: Well, commodity prices, which is the most visible input to a lot of food items -- that's coming down in a lot of cases, and I'll mention some that haven't. But there's many other components into food pricing, besides the pure commodity. That's labor; you have freight; you have transportation. Those costs -- there's still some inflation running through the system -- and those costs make up a decent chunk of the total product costs. And that's why we're still seeing prices higher year over year on average for the entire group of products.Sarah Wolfe: How are grocery sales actually performing though? Are we seeing demand destruction from the higher pricing? Or has unit growth actually been holding up well?Simeon Gutman: First of all, total grocery sales are just slightly negative. We saw a little ray of hope in January, positive for the month; but likely driven by some stocking up ahead of weather events that happened in the country. So we were barely positive. It looked like we were getting out of the negative territory; but the first few weeks of February, we're back into the negative territory. Negative one, negative two per cent.Units are negative. Negative three to four per cent. If we look at CPI as sort of a proxy for the product categories that are doing better than others: dairy and fruit units, those are up mid to high single digits. And as I mentioned, we're seeing egg prices down significantly. We're also seeing a lot of deflation with fish and seafood as well as meat.So, and if you use that as a way to think about the various product categories that consumers are demanding, but overall industry sales are flat to slightly negative; and we think this negative cadence continues going forward.Sarah, let me turn it to you. You monitor the U. S. consumer closely. How big a bite of the US wallet is food right now? Groceries, eating out at restaurants, etc., and how does that compare to prior periods?Sarah Wolfe: Let's start high level with essential spending, which I consider to be groceries, energy and shelter. That typically averages about 40 per cent of household disposable income pre-COVID. And now if you add on all the price increases we've seen across all three categories, it's an additional 5 per cent of disposable income today.And this matters a lot when you're a lower income household and already over 90 per cent of your disposable income was going towards these essential categories pre-COVID. If I look at grocery prices alone, they're up 20 per cent on average since the start of the pandemic. And prior to COVID on a per household basis, they were spending $4,600 a year on groceries. And now that's $5,700 a year. More than a thousand dollars more each year on groceries.The last time we saw such extreme food inflation was the 1980s. Granted, I have to mention that we've also seen a really notable rise in disposable income too. So if you look at grocery spending as a share of disposable income, it's only marginally higher than it was pre-COVID. It was six and a half per cent, now it's seven per cent.What's really driving higher wallet share towards food is this dining out category -- and it's a price and unit story. On the pricing side, we have high labor costs, high food prices still. And on the unit side, there's still a much more notable preference to dine out to enjoy services.And so you mentioned that unit growth has been a lot weaker for groceries. That's not what we're seeing in the dining out space. And overall, it's been driving total food spend as a share of disposable income to high since the early 1990s.Simeon Gutman: So food spending is up a lot. But the situation is somewhat confusing. You have US inflation data and forecasts seem to be suggesting that food prices should be coming down. That doesn't seem to be happening. We're still looking for inflation. Can you talk about the macro factors behind these persistently high food prices?Sarah Wolfe: So as you mentioned, we have seen disinflation, right? So grocery prices are down from 12 per cent year over year in the summer of 2022 to about 1.5 per cent today. Dining out is down from 8 per cent to about 5 per cent. So there's a bit of progress on inflation growth. But price levels are not coming down. They're still rising and that definitely does not feel good to households.The reason we're still seeing a rise in prices, as you've mentioned, are supply chain disruptions, there was an avian flu, and we see very high labor costs. Some of the forward-looking indicators are pointing to more progress on inflation for food, so we know that labor costs are starting to moderate as supply demand imbalances in the labor market are getting a bit better. We know that supply chain disruptions have been unwinding. But all these things together are not pointing to price deflation. Only disinflation. So growth, but at a slower pace.Simeon Gutman: Yeah, so some of this backdrop continues. When can the US consumer expect some kind of relief, and then what data and indicators are you watching closely?Sarah Wolfe: Unfortunately, prices are still going up in our forecast, but they're going to stabilize around one to one and a half per cent year over year for grocery. So kind of where we are right now, that's what we expect for the next year and a half or so. But the price levels are going to remain elevated.As I mentioned in the last response. We know we're watching the supply chain indicators to see if commodity prices start to come up again. If freight costs start to come up again because of geopolitical tensions. We're not seeing any notable rise there yet but we're watching it very closely. And we're also watching what happens with the labor market. Do we continue to see slack in the labor market that'll bring down wages and bring down labor costs? Or do we continue to run a very tight labor market.Simeon, thanks for taking the time to talk.Simeon Gutman: Great speaking with you, Sarah.Sarah Wolfe: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/oqcfllVcn4CFE6cCEGxoK7rwqFX2r_27_C2iHcGWoFQTue, 27 Feb 2024 23:11:01 +0000gtyAs grocery and dining costs continue to increase, our analysts break down how this has affected consumers and when food prices may stabilize. ----- Transcript ----- Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the US economics...----- Transcript -----
Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the US economics team.Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman; Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail Analyst.Sarah Wolfe: Today on the podcast, we'll discuss what's happening with food prices and how that's affecting the US consumer. It's Tuesday, February 27th at 10am in New York.It was almost exactly a year ago when I came on this podcast to talk about why eggs cost so much at the start of 2023. Here we are. It's a year later and food in the US still costs more. The overall inflation basket and personal consumption expenditures inflation was 2.6 per cent year over year in December; but dining out prices are still up 5.2 per cent. I'd like to admit that grocery prices are a little bit better. They're just a tad over 1 per cent. So we've seen a little bit more disinflation there. But overall food is still up and it's still expensive.Simeon, can you give us a little bit more color on what's actually going on here?Simeon Gutman: Yeah, so food prices measured by the CPI, as you mentioned, up about a per cent. The good news, Sarah, is that your eggs are actually deflating by about 30 per cent at the moment; so maybe you can buy a couple more eggs. But in general, we're following this descent that we started -- about almost two years ago where food prices were up double digits. A year ago, we were up mid single digits. And now we're down to this one per cent level. Looks like they're gonna hold. But so prices are coming in; but not necessarily deflating, but dis-inflating.Sarah Wolfe: Can you help me understand that a little bit better? You mentioned that some commodity prices are coming down, like food prices. So why is overall inflation for food still rising? And dining out, grocery stores, both of them are still seeing price increases.Simeon Gutman: Well, commodity prices, which is the most visible input to a lot of food items -- that's coming down in a lot of cases, and I'll mention some that haven't. But there's many other components into food pricing, besides the pure commodity. That's labor; you have freight; you have transportation. Those costs -- there's still some inflation running through the system -- and those costs make up a decent chunk of the total product costs. And that's why we're still seeing prices higher year over year on average for the entire group of products.Sarah Wolfe: How are grocery sales actually performing though? Are we seeing demand destruction from the higher pricing? Or has unit growth actually been holding up well?Simeon Gutman: First of all, total grocery sales are just slightly negative. We saw a little ray of hope in January, positive for the month; but likely driven by some stocking up ahead of weather events that happened in the country. So we were barely positive. It looked like we were getting out of the negative territory; but the first few weeks of February, we're back into the negative territory. Negative one, negative two per cent.Units are negative. Negative three to four per cent. If we look at CPI as sort of a proxy for the product categories that are doing better than others: dairy and fruit units, those are up mid to high single digits. And as I mentioned, we're seeing egg prices down significantly. We're also seeing a lot of deflation with fish and seafood as well as meat.So, and if you use that as a way to think about the various product categories that consumers are demanding, but overall industry sales are flat to slightly negative; and we think this negative cadence continues going forward.Sarah, let me turn it to you. You monitor the U. S. consumer closely. How big a bite of the US wallet is food right now? Groceries, eating out at restaurants, etc., and how does that compare to prior periods?Sarah Wolfe: Let's start high level with...]]>469false1069fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-gap-between-corporate-haves-and-have-nots--75652992----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the investment implications of the unusual policy mix we face.It's Monday, February 26th at 12pm in New York. So let’s get after it.Four years ago, I wrote a note entitled, The Other 1 Percenters, in which I discussed the ever-growing divide between the haves and have-nots. This divide was not limited to consumers but also included corporates as well. Fast forward to today, and it appears this gap has only gotten wider.Real GDP growth is similar to back then, while nominal GDP growth is about 100 basis points higher due to inflation. Nevertheless, the earnings headwinds are just as strong despite higher nominal GDP – as many companies find it harder to pass along higher costs without damaging volumes. As a result, market performance is historically narrow. With the top five stocks accounting for a much higher percentage of the S&P 500 market cap than they did back in early 2020. In short, the equity market understands that this economy is not that great for the average company or consumer but is working very well for the top 1 per cent.  In my view, the narrowness is also due to a very unusual mix of loose fiscal and tight monetary policy. Since the pandemic, the fiscal support for the economy has run very hot. Despite the fact we are operating in an extremely tight labor market, significant fiscal spending has continued.In many ways, this hefty government spending may be working against the Fed. And could explain why the economy has been slow to respond to generationally aggressive interest rate hikes. Most importantly, the government’s heavy hand appears to be crowding out the private economy and making it difficult for many companies and individuals. Hence the very narrow performance in stocks and the challenges facing the average consumer.  The other policy variable at work is the massive liquidity being provided by various funding facilities – like the reverse repo to pay for these deficits. Since the end of 2022, the reverse repo has fallen by over $2 trillion. It’s another reason that financial conditions have loosened to levels not seen since the federal funds rate was closer to 1 per cent. This funding mechanism is part of the policy mix that may be making it challenging for the Fed’s rate hikes to do their intended work on the labor market and inflation. It may also help explain why the Fed continues to walk back market expectations about the timing of the first cut and perhaps the number of cuts that are likely to continue this year.  Higher interest rates are having a dampening effect on interest-rate-sensitive businesses like housing and autos as well as low to middle income consumers. This is exacerbating the 1 percenter phenomena and helps explain why the market’s performance remains so stratified. For many businesses and consumers, rates remain too high. However, the recent hotter than expected inflation reports suggest the Fed may not be able to deliver the necessary rate cuts for the markets to broaden out – at least until the government curtails its deficits and stops crowding out the private economy. Parenthetically, the funding of fiscal deficits may be called into question by the bond market when the reverse repo runs out later this year. Bottom line: despite investors' desire for the equity market to broaden out, we continue to recommend investors focus on high-quality growth and operational efficiency factors when looking for stocks outside of the top five which appear to be fully priced. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UjS5zhUzWWQbzwDmBtzj26PLjn6Pl6Ua1vO1P7WcaPkMon, 26 Feb 2024 22:59:09 +0000gtyOur Chief U.S. Equity Strategist reviews how the unusual mix of loose fiscal policy and tight monetary policy has benefited a small number of companies – and why investors should still look beyond the top five stocks. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the investment implications of the unusual policy mix we face.It's Monday, February 26th at 12pm in New York. So let’s get after it.Four years ago, I wrote a note entitled, The Other 1 Percenters, in which I discussed the ever-growing divide between the haves and have-nots. This divide was not limited to consumers but also included corporates as well. Fast forward to today, and it appears this gap has only gotten wider.Real GDP growth is similar to back then, while nominal GDP growth is about 100 basis points higher due to inflation. Nevertheless, the earnings headwinds are just as strong despite higher nominal GDP – as many companies find it harder to pass along higher costs without damaging volumes. As a result, market performance is historically narrow. With the top five stocks accounting for a much higher percentage of the S&P 500 market cap than they did back in early 2020. In short, the equity market understands that this economy is not that great for the average company or consumer but is working very well for the top 1 per cent.  In my view, the narrowness is also due to a very unusual mix of loose fiscal and tight monetary policy. Since the pandemic, the fiscal support for the economy has run very hot. Despite the fact we are operating in an extremely tight labor market, significant fiscal spending has continued.In many ways, this hefty government spending may be working against the Fed. And could explain why the economy has been slow to respond to generationally aggressive interest rate hikes. Most importantly, the government’s heavy hand appears to be crowding out the private economy and making it difficult for many companies and individuals. Hence the very narrow performance in stocks and the challenges facing the average consumer.  The other policy variable at work is the massive liquidity being provided by various funding facilities – like the reverse repo to pay for these deficits. Since the end of 2022, the reverse repo has fallen by over $2 trillion. It’s another reason that financial conditions have loosened to levels not seen since the federal funds rate was closer to 1 per cent. This funding mechanism is part of the policy mix that may be making it challenging for the Fed’s rate hikes to do their intended work on the labor market and inflation. It may also help explain why the Fed continues to walk back market expectations about the timing of the first cut and perhaps the number of cuts that are likely to continue this year.  Higher interest rates are having a dampening effect on interest-rate-sensitive businesses like housing and autos as well as low to middle income consumers. This is exacerbating the 1 percenter phenomena and helps explain why the market’s performance remains so stratified. For many businesses and consumers, rates remain too high. However, the recent hotter than expected inflation reports suggest the Fed may not be able to deliver the necessary rate cuts for the markets to broaden out – at least until the government curtails its deficits and stops crowding out the private economy. Parenthetically, the funding of fiscal deficits may be called into question by the bond market when the reverse repo runs out later this year. Bottom line: despite investors' desire for the equity market to broaden out, we continue to recommend investors focus on high-quality growth and operational efficiency factors when looking for stocks outside of the top five which appear to be fully priced. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple...]]>224false1068fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/eyeing-a-market-of-many--75653025----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape – and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, February 23rd at 2pm in London.In theory, investing in corporate securities like stocks or corporate bonds should be about, well, the performance of those companies. But since the outbreak of COVID in 2020, financial markets have often felt driven by other, higher powers. The last several years have seen a number of big picture questions in focus: How fast could the economy recover? How much quantitative easing or quantitative tightening would we see? Would high inflation eventually moderate? And, more recently, when would central banks stop hiking rates, and start to cut.All of these are important, big picture questions. But you can see where a self-styled investor may feel a little frustrated. None of those debates, really, concerns the underlying performance of a company, and the factors that might distinguish a good operator from a bad one.If you’ve shared this frustration, we have some good news. While these big-picture debates may still dominate the headlines, underlying performance is starting to tell a different story. We’re seeing an unusual amount of dispersion between individual equities and credits. It is becoming a market of many.We see this in so-called pairwise correlation, or the average correlation between any two stocks in an equity index. Globally, that’s been unusually low relative to the last 15 years. Notably options markets are implying that this remains the case. We see this in credit, where solid overall performance has occurred along-side significant dispersion by sector, maturity, and individual issuer, especially in telecom, media and technology.We see this within equities, where my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist, notes that the S&P 500 and global stocks more broadly have decoupled from Federal Reserve rate expectations.And we see this in performance. More dispersion between stocks and credit would, in theory, create a better environment for Active Managers, who attempt to pick those winners and losers. And that’s what we’ve seen. Per my colleagues in Morgan Stanley Investment Management, January 2024 was the best month for active management since 2007.The post-COVID period has often felt dominated by large, macro debates. But more recently, things have been changing. Individual securities are diverging from one another, and moving with unusual independence. That creates its own challenges, of course. But it also suggests a market where picking the right names can be rewarded. And we think that will be music to many investors' ears.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KfomN4SvOBXuTUF1fmZMe8Miz_t-4nq2FSJh2LpCeTEFri, 23 Feb 2024 22:00:18 +0000gtyThe valuations of stocks and corporate bonds, which have been driven largely by macroeconomic factors since 2020, are finally starting to reflect companies’ underlying performance. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains what that means for...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape – and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, February 23rd at 2pm in London.In theory, investing in corporate securities like stocks or corporate bonds should be about, well, the performance of those companies. But since the outbreak of COVID in 2020, financial markets have often felt driven by other, higher powers. The last several years have seen a number of big picture questions in focus: How fast could the economy recover? How much quantitative easing or quantitative tightening would we see? Would high inflation eventually moderate? And, more recently, when would central banks stop hiking rates, and start to cut.All of these are important, big picture questions. But you can see where a self-styled investor may feel a little frustrated. None of those debates, really, concerns the underlying performance of a company, and the factors that might distinguish a good operator from a bad one.If you’ve shared this frustration, we have some good news. While these big-picture debates may still dominate the headlines, underlying performance is starting to tell a different story. We’re seeing an unusual amount of dispersion between individual equities and credits. It is becoming a market of many.We see this in so-called pairwise correlation, or the average correlation between any two stocks in an equity index. Globally, that’s been unusually low relative to the last 15 years. Notably options markets are implying that this remains the case. We see this in credit, where solid overall performance has occurred along-side significant dispersion by sector, maturity, and individual issuer, especially in telecom, media and technology.We see this within equities, where my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist, notes that the S&P 500 and global stocks more broadly have decoupled from Federal Reserve rate expectations.And we see this in performance. More dispersion between stocks and credit would, in theory, create a better environment for Active Managers, who attempt to pick those winners and losers. And that’s what we’ve seen. Per my colleagues in Morgan Stanley Investment Management, January 2024 was the best month for active management since 2007.The post-COVID period has often felt dominated by large, macro debates. But more recently, things have been changing. Individual securities are diverging from one another, and moving with unusual independence. That creates its own challenges, of course. But it also suggests a market where picking the right names can be rewarded. And we think that will be music to many investors' ears.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>189false1067fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/behind-the-rapid-growth-of-the-private-credit-market--75652887----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we’ll have a conversation with Joyce Jiang, our US leveraged finance strategist, on the topic of private credit.It's Thursday, February 22nd at noon in New York.Joyce, thank you for joining. Private credit is all over the news. Let’s first understand – what is private credit. Can you define it for us?Joyce Jiang: There isn't a consensus on the definition of private credit. But broadly speaking, private credit is a form of lending extended by non-bank lenders. It's negotiated privately on a bilateral basis or with a small number of lenders, bypassing the syndication process which is standard with public credit.This is a rather broad definition and various types of debt can fall under this umbrella term; such as infrastructure, real estate, or asset-backed financing. But what's most relevant to leveraged finance – is direct lending loans to corporate borrowers.Private credit lenders typically hold deals until maturity, and these loans aren't traded in the secondary market. So, funding costs in private credit tend to be higher as investors need to be compensated for the illiquidity risk. For example, between 2017 and now, the average spread premium of direct lending loans is 250 basis points higher compared to single B public loans.Vishy Tirupattur: That’s very helpful Joyce. The size of the private credit market has indeed attracted significant attention due to its rapid growth. You often see estimates in the media of [the] size being around $1.5 to $1.7 trillion. Some market participants expect the market to reach $2.7 trillion by 2027. Joyce, is this how we should think about the market? Especially in the context of public corporate credit market?Joyce Jiang: I've seen these numbers as well. But to be clear, they reflect assets under management of global private debt funds. So not directly comparable to the market size of high yield bonds or broadly syndicated loans.In our estimate, the total outstanding amount of US direct lending loans is in the range of $630-710 billion. So, we see the direct lending space as roughly half the size of the high yield bonds or broadly syndicated loan markets in the US.Vishy Tirupattur: Understood. Can you provide some color on the nature of private credit borrowers and their credit quality in the private credit space?Joyce Jiang: Traditionally, private credit targets small and medium-sized companies that do not have access to the public credit market. Their EBITDA is typically one-tenth the size of the companies with broadly syndicated loans. However, this is not representative of every direct lending fund because some funds may focus on upper middle-market companies, while others target smaller entities.Based on the data that’s available to us, total leverage and EBITDA coverage in private credit are comparable to a single B to CCC profile in the public space. Additionally, factors such as smaller size, less diversified business profiles, and limited funding access may also weigh on credit quality.Given this lower quality skew and smaller size, there have been concerns around how these companies can navigate the 500 basis point of rate hikes. However, based on available data, two years into the hiking cycle, coverage has deteriorated – mainly due to the floating-rate heavy nature of these capital structures. But on the bright side, leverage generally remained stable. Similar to what we’ve seen in public credit.Now let me turn it around to you, Vishy. What about defaults in private credit and how do they compare to public credit markets?Vishy Tirupattur: So when it comes to defaults, unlike in the public markets, data that cover the entire private credit market is not really there. We have to depend on the experience of sample portfolios from a variety of sources. These data tend to vary a lot, given the differences in defining what a default is and how to calculate default rates, and so on. So, all of this is a little bit tricky. We should also keep in mind that the data we do have on private credit is over the last few years only. So, we should be careful about generalizing too much.That said, based on available data we can say that the private credit defaults have remained broadly in the same range as the public credit. In other words, not substantially higher default rates in the private credit markets compared to the public credit defaults.A few things we should keep in mind as we consider this relatively benign default picture. What contributes to this?First, private credit deals have stronger lender protections. This is in contrast to the broadly syndicated loan market – which is, as you know, predominantly covenant-lite market. Maintenance covenants in private credit can really act as circuit breakers, reining in borrower behavior before things deteriorate a lot. Second, private credit deals usually involve only a very small number of lenders. So it’s easier to negotiate a restructuring or a workout plan. All of this contributes to the default experience we’ve observed in private credit markets.Joyce Jiang: And finally, what are your thoughts on the future of private credit?Vishy Tirupattur: The rapid growth of private credit is really reshaping the landscape of leveraged finance on the whole. Last year, as banks retreated, private credit stepped in and filled the gap – attracting many borrowers, especially those without access to the public market. Now, as rate cuts come into view, we see public credit regaining some of the lost ground. So how private credit adapts to this changing environment is something we’ll be monitoring closely. With substantial dry powder ready to be deployed, the competition between public and private credit is likely to intensify, potentially impacting the overall market.Joyce, let's wrap it up here, Thanks for coming on the podcast.Joyce Jiang: Thanks for having me.Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you all for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KnqXZauxpu0WkrSq2mIEUa5CwORLWWQwpi6wpWFod4UThu, 22 Feb 2024 21:43:15 +0000gtyAs traditional financial institutions tightened their lending standards last year, private credit stepped in to fill some of the gaps. But with rates now falling, public lenders are poised to compete again on the terrain that private credit has...----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we’ll have a conversation with Joyce Jiang, our US leveraged finance strategist, on the topic of private credit.It's Thursday, February 22nd at noon in New York.Joyce, thank you for joining. Private credit is all over the news. Let’s first understand – what is private credit. Can you define it for us?Joyce Jiang: There isn't a consensus on the definition of private credit. But broadly speaking, private credit is a form of lending extended by non-bank lenders. It's negotiated privately on a bilateral basis or with a small number of lenders, bypassing the syndication process which is standard with public credit.This is a rather broad definition and various types of debt can fall under this umbrella term; such as infrastructure, real estate, or asset-backed financing. But what's most relevant to leveraged finance – is direct lending loans to corporate borrowers.Private credit lenders typically hold deals until maturity, and these loans aren't traded in the secondary market. So, funding costs in private credit tend to be higher as investors need to be compensated for the illiquidity risk. For example, between 2017 and now, the average spread premium of direct lending loans is 250 basis points higher compared to single B public loans.Vishy Tirupattur: That’s very helpful Joyce. The size of the private credit market has indeed attracted significant attention due to its rapid growth. You often see estimates in the media of [the] size being around $1.5 to $1.7 trillion. Some market participants expect the market to reach $2.7 trillion by 2027. Joyce, is this how we should think about the market? Especially in the context of public corporate credit market?Joyce Jiang: I've seen these numbers as well. But to be clear, they reflect assets under management of global private debt funds. So not directly comparable to the market size of high yield bonds or broadly syndicated loans.In our estimate, the total outstanding amount of US direct lending loans is in the range of $630-710 billion. So, we see the direct lending space as roughly half the size of the high yield bonds or broadly syndicated loan markets in the US.Vishy Tirupattur: Understood. Can you provide some color on the nature of private credit borrowers and their credit quality in the private credit space?Joyce Jiang: Traditionally, private credit targets small and medium-sized companies that do not have access to the public credit market. Their EBITDA is typically one-tenth the size of the companies with broadly syndicated loans. However, this is not representative of every direct lending fund because some funds may focus on upper middle-market companies, while others target smaller entities.Based on the data that’s available to us, total leverage and EBITDA coverage in private credit are comparable to a single B to CCC profile in the public space. Additionally, factors such as smaller size, less diversified business profiles, and limited funding access may also weigh on credit quality.Given this lower quality skew and smaller size, there have been concerns around how these companies can navigate the 500 basis point of rate hikes. However, based on available data, two years into the hiking cycle, coverage has deteriorated – mainly due to the floating-rate heavy nature of these capital structures. But on the bright side, leverage generally remained stable. Similar to what we’ve seen in public credit.Now let me turn it around to you, Vishy. What about defaults in private credit and how do they compare...]]>414false1066fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-atlantic-sized-divide-in-monetary-policy--75653042----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll be talking about the challenges for monetary policy on both sides of the Atlantic.It’s Wednesday, Feb 21st at 10am in New York.The Fed, the Bank of England, and the ECB all hiked rates to fight inflation, and now we are looking for each of them to cut rates this year. For our call for a June Fed rate cut, both growth and inflation matter. But our call for a May and June start on the east side of the Atlantic depends only on inflation. “Data dependent” here has two different meanings.At the January Fed meeting, Chair Powell said continued disinflation like in prior months was needed to cut. But he also emphasized that disinflation needs to be sustainably on track; not simply touching 2 per cent. Until Thursday’s retail sales data, the market narrative began to flirt with a possible re-acceleration of the US economy, spoiling that latter condition of inflation going sustainably to target. January inflation data showed strength in services in particular, and payrolls showed a tight labor market that might pick up steam.The retail sales data pushed in the opposite direction, and we think that the slower growth will prevail over time. And for now, market pricing is more or less consistent with our call for 100 basis points of cuts this year, starting in June.Now the Fed’s situation is in stark contrast to that of the Bank of England. Last week’s UK data showed a technical recession in the second half of 2023. And while the UK economy is not collapsing, a strongly surging economy is not a risk either. But until the last print, inflation in the UK had been stubbornly sticky. The January print came in line with our UK economist’s call, but below consensus. But still, one swallow does not mean spring, and the recent inflation data do not guarantee our call for a May rate cut will happen. Rather, broader evidence that inflation will fall notably is needed; and for that reason, the risks to our call are clearly skewed to a later cut.For the ECB, the inflation focus is the same. And on Thursday, President Lagarde warned against cutting rates too soon – a particularly telling comment in light of the weak growth in the Euro area. Recent data releases suggest that not only did Germany’s GDP decline by three-tenths of a per cent in Q4 of 2023; the second largest economy, France, also experienced stagnation in the second half of the year. And with this weakness expected to persist – well, we forecast a weak half per cent growth this year and about only 1 per cent growth in 2025.So, why is this dichotomy so stark? The simple answer is the weak state of the economy in the UK and in Europe. More fundamentally, the drivers of inflation started with a jump in food and energy prices, and then surging consumer goods prices as disrupted supply chains met consumer spending shifting toward goods. That inflation has since abated but services inflation tends to be more tied to the real side of the economy. And for the US in particular, housing inflation is driven by the state of the labor market over time.The Bank of England and the ECB are waiting for services inflation to respond to the already weak economy, and there is little risk of a reacceleration of inflation if that happens. In contrast, the Fed cannot have conviction that inflation won’t reaccelerate because of the continued resilience on the real side of the economy. The retail sales data will help, but the pattern needs to continue.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HEhW3snC63ST5w2Fyd99YfemLd-WrcrGpHDvxag7yowWed, 21 Feb 2024 19:34:27 +0000gtyCentral banks in the U.S. and Europe are looking to cut rates this year, but the path to those cuts differs greatly. Our Global Chief Economist explains this stark dichotomy. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll be talking about the challenges for monetary policy on both sides of the Atlantic.It’s Wednesday, Feb 21st at 10am in New York.The Fed, the Bank of England, and the ECB all hiked rates to fight inflation, and now we are looking for each of them to cut rates this year. For our call for a June Fed rate cut, both growth and inflation matter. But our call for a May and June start on the east side of the Atlantic depends only on inflation. “Data dependent” here has two different meanings.At the January Fed meeting, Chair Powell said continued disinflation like in prior months was needed to cut. But he also emphasized that disinflation needs to be sustainably on track; not simply touching 2 per cent. Until Thursday’s retail sales data, the market narrative began to flirt with a possible re-acceleration of the US economy, spoiling that latter condition of inflation going sustainably to target. January inflation data showed strength in services in particular, and payrolls showed a tight labor market that might pick up steam.The retail sales data pushed in the opposite direction, and we think that the slower growth will prevail over time. And for now, market pricing is more or less consistent with our call for 100 basis points of cuts this year, starting in June.Now the Fed’s situation is in stark contrast to that of the Bank of England. Last week’s UK data showed a technical recession in the second half of 2023. And while the UK economy is not collapsing, a strongly surging economy is not a risk either. But until the last print, inflation in the UK had been stubbornly sticky. The January print came in line with our UK economist’s call, but below consensus. But still, one swallow does not mean spring, and the recent inflation data do not guarantee our call for a May rate cut will happen. Rather, broader evidence that inflation will fall notably is needed; and for that reason, the risks to our call are clearly skewed to a later cut.For the ECB, the inflation focus is the same. And on Thursday, President Lagarde warned against cutting rates too soon – a particularly telling comment in light of the weak growth in the Euro area. Recent data releases suggest that not only did Germany’s GDP decline by three-tenths of a per cent in Q4 of 2023; the second largest economy, France, also experienced stagnation in the second half of the year. And with this weakness expected to persist – well, we forecast a weak half per cent growth this year and about only 1 per cent growth in 2025.So, why is this dichotomy so stark? The simple answer is the weak state of the economy in the UK and in Europe. More fundamentally, the drivers of inflation started with a jump in food and energy prices, and then surging consumer goods prices as disrupted supply chains met consumer spending shifting toward goods. That inflation has since abated but services inflation tends to be more tied to the real side of the economy. And for the US in particular, housing inflation is driven by the state of the labor market over time.The Bank of England and the ECB are waiting for services inflation to respond to the already weak economy, and there is little risk of a reacceleration of inflation if that happens. In contrast, the Fed cannot have conviction that inflation won’t reaccelerate because of the continued resilience on the real side of the economy. The retail sales data will help, but the pattern needs to continue.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>241false1065fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/accelerating-the-shift-from-ai-enablers-to-ai-adopters--75653020----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Edward Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the latest developments around AI Adopters. It’s Tuesday, February the 20th, at 2pm in London.The current technology shift driven by AI is progressing faster than any tech shift that came before it. I came on the show at the beginning of the year to present our thesis – while 2023 was the “Year of the Enablers,” those first line hardware and software companies; 2024 is going to be the “Year of the Adopters,” companies leveraging the Enablers’ hardware and software to better use and monetize their own data for this generative AI world.And the market is still sort of treating this as a “show me” story. Enablers are still driving returns. Around half of the S&P’s performance this year can be attributed to three Enabler stocks. Yet, be it Consumer or – more importantly – Enterprise adoption, monthly data we’re tracking suggests AI adoption is continuing at a rapid pace.So let me paint a picture of what we’re actually seeing so far this year.There has been a widening array of consumer-facing chatbots. Some better for general purpose questions; some better at dealing with maths or travel itineraries; others specialized for creating images or videos for influencers or content creators. But those proving to be the stickiest, or more importantly leading to major behavioral day-to-day changes, are coding assistants, where the productivity upside is now a well-documented greater than 50 per cent efficiency gain.From a more enterprise perspective, open-source models are interesting to track. And we do, almost daily, to see what’s going on. The people and companies downloading these models are likely to be using them as a starting point – for fine-tuning their own models.Within that, text models which form the backbone of most chatbots you will have interacted with, now account for less than 50 per cent of all models openly available for download. What’s gaining popularity in its place is multi-modal models. This is: models capable of ingesting and outputting a combination of text, image, audio or video.Their applications can range from disruption within the music industry, personalized beauty advice, applications in autonomous driving, or machine vision in healthcare. The list goes on and on. The speed of AI diffusion into non-tech sectors is really bewildering.Despite all these data points, suggesting consumer and enterprise adoption is progressing at a rapid clip, Adopter stocks continue to underperform those picks-and-shovels Enablers I mentioned. The Adopters have re-rated modestly in the first month and a half of the year – but not the whole group. Of course, this is a rapidly changing landscape. And many companies have yet to report their outlook for the year ahead. We’ll continue to keep you informed of the newest developments as the years progress.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/J8fJu0uCTtHjgzMwbilpspgnHWPYueRsCRw6CoInyMkTue, 20 Feb 2024 22:04:06 +0000gtyOur Head of Thematic Research in Europe previews the possible next phase of the AI revolution, and what investors should be monitoring as the technology gains adoption. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Edward Stanley,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Edward Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the latest developments around AI Adopters. It’s Tuesday, February the 20th, at 2pm in London.The current technology shift driven by AI is progressing faster than any tech shift that came before it. I came on the show at the beginning of the year to present our thesis – while 2023 was the “Year of the Enablers,” those first line hardware and software companies; 2024 is going to be the “Year of the Adopters,” companies leveraging the Enablers’ hardware and software to better use and monetize their own data for this generative AI world.And the market is still sort of treating this as a “show me” story. Enablers are still driving returns. Around half of the S&P’s performance this year can be attributed to three Enabler stocks. Yet, be it Consumer or – more importantly – Enterprise adoption, monthly data we’re tracking suggests AI adoption is continuing at a rapid pace.So let me paint a picture of what we’re actually seeing so far this year.There has been a widening array of consumer-facing chatbots. Some better for general purpose questions; some better at dealing with maths or travel itineraries; others specialized for creating images or videos for influencers or content creators. But those proving to be the stickiest, or more importantly leading to major behavioral day-to-day changes, are coding assistants, where the productivity upside is now a well-documented greater than 50 per cent efficiency gain.From a more enterprise perspective, open-source models are interesting to track. And we do, almost daily, to see what’s going on. The people and companies downloading these models are likely to be using them as a starting point – for fine-tuning their own models.Within that, text models which form the backbone of most chatbots you will have interacted with, now account for less than 50 per cent of all models openly available for download. What’s gaining popularity in its place is multi-modal models. This is: models capable of ingesting and outputting a combination of text, image, audio or video.Their applications can range from disruption within the music industry, personalized beauty advice, applications in autonomous driving, or machine vision in healthcare. The list goes on and on. The speed of AI diffusion into non-tech sectors is really bewildering.Despite all these data points, suggesting consumer and enterprise adoption is progressing at a rapid clip, Adopter stocks continue to underperform those picks-and-shovels Enablers I mentioned. The Adopters have re-rated modestly in the first month and a half of the year – but not the whole group. Of course, this is a rapidly changing landscape. And many companies have yet to report their outlook for the year ahead. We’ll continue to keep you informed of the newest developments as the years progress.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>213false1064fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/commercial-real-estate-s-uncertain-future--75653027----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the challenges of the commercial real estate markets. It's Friday, Feb 16th at 3 pm in New York.Commercial real estate – CRE in short – is back in the spotlight in the aftermath of the loan losses and dividend cuts announced by New York Community Bancorp. Lenders and investors in Japan, Germany, and Canada have also reported sizable credit losses or write-downs related to US commercial real estate. The challenges in CRE have been on a slow burn for several quarters. In our view, the CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of both lenders and property types. We see meaningful challenges in both of them.From the lenders’ perspective, we now estimate that about a trillion and a half of commercial real estate debt matures by the end of 2025 and needs to be refinanced; about half of this sits on bank balance sheets.The regulatory landscape for regional banks is changing dramatically. While the timeline for implementing these changes is not finalized, the proposed changes could raise the cost of regional bank liabilities and limit their ability to deploy capital; thereby pressuring margins and profitability. This suggests that the largest commercial real estate lender – the regional banking sector – might be the most vulnerable.Office as a property type is confronting a secular challenge. The pandemic brought meaningful changes to workplace practice. Hybrid work has now evolved into the norm, with most workers coming into the office only a few days a week, even as other outdoor activities such as air travel or dining out have returned to their pre-Covid patterns. This means that property valuations, leasing arrangements, and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. This shift has already begun and there is more to come.It goes without saying, therefore, that regional banks with office predominant in their CRE exposures will face even more challenges.Where do we go from here? Property valuations will take time to adjust to shifts in demand, and repurposing office properties for other uses is far from straightforward. Upgrading older buildings turns out to be expensive, especially in the context of energy efficiency improvements that both tenants and authorities now demand. The bottom line is that the CRE challenges should persist, and a quick resolution is very unlikely.Is it systemic? We get this question a lot. Whether or not CRE challenge escalates to a broader system-wide stress depends really on one’s definition of what systemic risk is. In our view, this risk is unlikely to be systemic along the lines of the global financial crisis of 2008. That said, strong linkages between the regional banks and CRE may impair these banks’ ability to lend to households and small businesses. This, in turn, could lead to lower credit formation, with the potential to weigh on economic growth over the longer term.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/s-qONXrg7ZwvVmXS82ctQRMT1Z5OHjYoj70KbKp2eWwFri, 16 Feb 2024 20:30:00 +0000gtyOur Fixed Income Strategist outlines commercial real estate’s post-pandemic challenges, which could make regional bank lenders vulnerable.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the challenges of the commercial real estate markets. It's Friday, Feb 16th at 3 pm in New York.Commercial real estate – CRE in short – is back in the spotlight in the aftermath of the loan losses and dividend cuts announced by New York Community Bancorp. Lenders and investors in Japan, Germany, and Canada have also reported sizable credit losses or write-downs related to US commercial real estate. The challenges in CRE have been on a slow burn for several quarters. In our view, the CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of both lenders and property types. We see meaningful challenges in both of them.From the lenders’ perspective, we now estimate that about a trillion and a half of commercial real estate debt matures by the end of 2025 and needs to be refinanced; about half of this sits on bank balance sheets.The regulatory landscape for regional banks is changing dramatically. While the timeline for implementing these changes is not finalized, the proposed changes could raise the cost of regional bank liabilities and limit their ability to deploy capital; thereby pressuring margins and profitability. This suggests that the largest commercial real estate lender – the regional banking sector – might be the most vulnerable.Office as a property type is confronting a secular challenge. The pandemic brought meaningful changes to workplace practice. Hybrid work has now evolved into the norm, with most workers coming into the office only a few days a week, even as other outdoor activities such as air travel or dining out have returned to their pre-Covid patterns. This means that property valuations, leasing arrangements, and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. This shift has already begun and there is more to come.It goes without saying, therefore, that regional banks with office predominant in their CRE exposures will face even more challenges.Where do we go from here? Property valuations will take time to adjust to shifts in demand, and repurposing office properties for other uses is far from straightforward. Upgrading older buildings turns out to be expensive, especially in the context of energy efficiency improvements that both tenants and authorities now demand. The bottom line is that the CRE challenges should persist, and a quick resolution is very unlikely.Is it systemic? We get this question a lot. Whether or not CRE challenge escalates to a broader system-wide stress depends really on one’s definition of what systemic risk is. In our view, this risk is unlikely to be systemic along the lines of the global financial crisis of 2008. That said, strong linkages between the regional banks and CRE may impair these banks’ ability to lend to households and small businesses. This, in turn, could lead to lower credit formation, with the potential to weigh on economic growth over the longer term.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>227false1063fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-the-u-s-election-could-mean-for-nato--75652910----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of the US election on global security and markets. It's Thursday, February 15th at 3pm in New York.Last week I was in London, spending time with clients who – understandably – are starting to plan for the potential impacts of the US election. A common question was how much could change around current partnerships between the US and Europe on national security and trade ties, in the event that Republicans win the White House. The concern is fed by a raft of media attention to the statements of Republican candidate, Former President Trump, that are skeptical of some of the multinational institutions that the US is involved in – such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. Investors are naturally concerned about whether a new Trump administration could meaningfully change the US-Europe relationship. In short, the answer is yes. But there’s some important context to keep in mind before jumping to major investment conclusions.For example, Congress passed a law last year requiring a two-thirds vote to affirm any exit from NATO, which we think is too high a hurdle to clear given the bipartisan consensus favoring NATO membership. So, a chaotic outcome for global security caused by the dissolution of NATO isn’t likely, in our view.That said, an outcome where Europe and other US allies increasingly feel as if they have to chart their own course on defense is plausible even if the US doesn’t leave NATO. A combination of President Trump’s rhetoric on NATO, a possible shift in the US’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the very real threat of levying tariffs could influence European policymakers to move in a more self-reliant direction. While it's not the chaotic shift that might have been caused by a dissolution of NATO, it still adds up over time to a more multipolar world. For investors, such an outcome could create more regular volatility across markets. But we could also see markets reflect this higher geopolitical uncertainty with outperformance of sectors most impacted by the need to spend on all types of security – that includes traditional suppliers of military equipment as well companies providing cyber security. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ap3BCwngeoLJTa-c8cuEvvrQf3_uE3mHzox8dOrXSWQThu, 15 Feb 2024 22:34:23 +0000gtyMichael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, gives his take on how the U.S. election may influence European policy on national security, with implications for the defense and cybersecurity sectors. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of the US election on global security and markets. It's Thursday, February 15th at 3pm in New York.Last week I was in London, spending time with clients who – understandably – are starting to plan for the potential impacts of the US election. A common question was how much could change around current partnerships between the US and Europe on national security and trade ties, in the event that Republicans win the White House. The concern is fed by a raft of media attention to the statements of Republican candidate, Former President Trump, that are skeptical of some of the multinational institutions that the US is involved in – such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. Investors are naturally concerned about whether a new Trump administration could meaningfully change the US-Europe relationship. In short, the answer is yes. But there’s some important context to keep in mind before jumping to major investment conclusions.For example, Congress passed a law last year requiring a two-thirds vote to affirm any exit from NATO, which we think is too high a hurdle to clear given the bipartisan consensus favoring NATO membership. So, a chaotic outcome for global security caused by the dissolution of NATO isn’t likely, in our view.That said, an outcome where Europe and other US allies increasingly feel as if they have to chart their own course on defense is plausible even if the US doesn’t leave NATO. A combination of President Trump’s rhetoric on NATO, a possible shift in the US’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the very real threat of levying tariffs could influence European policymakers to move in a more self-reliant direction. While it's not the chaotic shift that might have been caused by a dissolution of NATO, it still adds up over time to a more multipolar world. For investors, such an outcome could create more regular volatility across markets. But we could also see markets reflect this higher geopolitical uncertainty with outperformance of sectors most impacted by the need to spend on all types of security – that includes traditional suppliers of military equipment as well companies providing cyber security. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>160false1061fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-rising-risk-of-global-trade-tensions-for-asia--75652832----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the risk of re-emerging trade tensions and how this might impact the growth outlook for Asia. It’s Thursday, Feb 15, at 9 AM in Hong Kong.Trade tensions took a back seat during the pandemic when supply-chain disruptions led to a mismatch in the supply-demand of goods and created inflationary pressures around the world. However, these inflationary pressures are now receding and, in addition, there are two developments that we think may cause trade tensions to emerge once again.First is China’s over-investment and excess capacity. China continues to expand manufacturing capacity at a time when domestic demand is weakening and its producers are continuing to push excess supply to the rest of the world.China’s role as a large end-market and sizeable competitor means it holds significant influence over pricing power in other parts of the world. This is especially the case in sectors where China’s exports represent significant market share.For instance, China is already a formidable competitor in traditional, lower value-added segments like household appliances, furniture, and clothing. But it has also emerged as a leading competitor in new strategic sectors where it is competing head-on with the Developed Market economies. Take sectors related to energy transition.China has already begun cutting prices for key manufactured goods, such as cars, solar cells, lithium batteries and older-generation semiconductors over the last two quarters.The second development is the upcoming US presidential election. The media is reporting that if reelected, former President Trump would consider trade policy options, such as imposing additional tariffs on imports from China, or taking 10 per cent across-the-board tariffs on imports from around the world, including China.Drawing on our previous work and experience from 2018, we believe the adverse impact on corporate confidence and capital expenditure will be more damaging than the direct effects of tariffs. The uncertainty around trade policy may reduce the incentive for the corporate sector to invest. Moreover, this time around, the starting point of growth is weaker than was the case in 2018, suggesting that there are fewer buffers to absorb the effects of this potential downside.Will supply chain diversification efforts help provide an offset? To some extent yes, in a scenario where the US imposes tariffs on just China. The acceleration of friend-shoring would help; but ultimately the lower demand from China would still be a net negative. However, in the event that the US imposes symmetric tariffs on all imports from all economies, the effects would likely be worse.Bottom line, if trade tensions do re-emerge, we think it will detract from Asia’s growth outlook.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FONwxt5Q2g9Cx_K8wDKYurzoynflSB3D4cY_Dx8DZm4Thu, 15 Feb 2024 04:24:20 +0000gtyKey developments in China and the U.S. will impact global trade and the growth outlook for Asia in 2024. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the risk of re-emerging trade tensions and how this might impact the growth outlook for Asia. It’s Thursday, Feb 15, at 9 AM in Hong Kong.Trade tensions took a back seat during the pandemic when supply-chain disruptions led to a mismatch in the supply-demand of goods and created inflationary pressures around the world. However, these inflationary pressures are now receding and, in addition, there are two developments that we think may cause trade tensions to emerge once again.First is China’s over-investment and excess capacity. China continues to expand manufacturing capacity at a time when domestic demand is weakening and its producers are continuing to push excess supply to the rest of the world.China’s role as a large end-market and sizeable competitor means it holds significant influence over pricing power in other parts of the world. This is especially the case in sectors where China’s exports represent significant market share.For instance, China is already a formidable competitor in traditional, lower value-added segments like household appliances, furniture, and clothing. But it has also emerged as a leading competitor in new strategic sectors where it is competing head-on with the Developed Market economies. Take sectors related to energy transition.China has already begun cutting prices for key manufactured goods, such as cars, solar cells, lithium batteries and older-generation semiconductors over the last two quarters.The second development is the upcoming US presidential election. The media is reporting that if reelected, former President Trump would consider trade policy options, such as imposing additional tariffs on imports from China, or taking 10 per cent across-the-board tariffs on imports from around the world, including China.Drawing on our previous work and experience from 2018, we believe the adverse impact on corporate confidence and capital expenditure will be more damaging than the direct effects of tariffs. The uncertainty around trade policy may reduce the incentive for the corporate sector to invest. Moreover, this time around, the starting point of growth is weaker than was the case in 2018, suggesting that there are fewer buffers to absorb the effects of this potential downside.Will supply chain diversification efforts help provide an offset? To some extent yes, in a scenario where the US imposes tariffs on just China. The acceleration of friend-shoring would help; but ultimately the lower demand from China would still be a net negative. However, in the event that the US imposes symmetric tariffs on all imports from all economies, the effects would likely be worse.Bottom line, if trade tensions do re-emerge, we think it will detract from Asia’s growth outlook.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

]]>202false1062fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ripple-effects-of-the-red-sea-disruptions--75653124----- Transcript -----
Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Cedar Ekblom: And I'm Cedar Ekblom, Shipping and Logistics Analyst.Jens Eisenschmidt: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the ongoing Red Sea disruptions and the various markets and economic dislocations caused by it. It's Tuesday, February 13th, 6pm in Frankfurt.Marina Zavolock: And 5pm in London.Marina Zavolock: 12 per cent of global trade and 30 per cent of container trade passes through the Suez Canal in Egypt, which connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Safety concerns stemming from the recent attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea have driven the majority of container liners to divert trade around the Cape of Good Hope, pushing up container freight rates more than 200 per cent versus December of last year on the Asia to Europe route.Last week, our colleague Michael Zezas touched briefly on the situation in the Red Sea. Now we'd like to dig deeper and examine this from three key lenses. The European economy, the impact on equity markets and industries, as well as on global container shipping in particular.Marina Zavolock: So Cedar, let's start with you. You’ve had a high conviction call since freight rates peaked in the middle of January – that container shipping rates overshot and were likely to decline. We've started to see the decline. How do you see this developing from here?Cedar Ekblom: Thanks, Marina. Well, if we take a step back and we think about how far container rates have come from the peak, we're about 15 per cent lower than where we were in the middle of January. But we're still nearly 200 per cent ahead of where we were on the 1st of December before the disruption started.Cedar Ekblom: The reason why we're so convicted that freight rates are heading lower from here really comes down to the supply demand backdrop in container shipping. We have an outlook of significant excess supply playing out in [20]24 and extending into [20]25. During the COVID boom, container companies enjoyed very high freight rates and generated a lot of cash as a result. And they've put that cash to use in ordering new ships. All of this supply is starting to hit the market. So ultimately, we have a situation of too much supply relative to container demand.Another thing that we've noticed is that ships are speeding up. We have great data on this. And since boats have been diverted around the Cape of Good Hope, we've seen an increase in sailing speeds, which ultimately blunts the supply impact from those ships being diverted.And then finally, if we look at the amount of containers actually moving through the Suez Canal, this is down nearly 80 per cent year over year.Sure, we're not at zero yet, and there is ultimately [a] downside to no ships moving through the canal. But we think we are pretty close to the point of maximum supply side tension. That gives us conviction that freight rates are going lower from here.Jens Eisenschmidt: Thank you, Cedar, for this clear overview of the outlook for the container shippers. Marina, let's widen our lens and talk about the broader impact of the Red Sea situation. What are the ripple effects to other sectors and industries and are they in any way comparable to supply chain disruptions we saw as a result of the COVID pandemic?Marina Zavolock: So what we've done in equity strategy is we've worked with over 10 different sector analyst teams where we've seen the most prominent impacts from the situation in the Red Sea. We've worked as well with our commodity strategy team. And what we were interested in is finding the dislocations in stock moves related to the Red Sea disruptions in light of Cedar's high conviction and differentiated view.And what we found is that if you take the stocks that are pricing in the most earnings upside, and you look at them on a ratio basis versus the stocks that have priced in the most earnings downside. That performance along with container freight rates peaked sometime in January and has been declining. But there's more to go in light of Cedar's view in that decline.We believe that these moves will continue to fade and the bottom group, the European retailers that are most exposed. They have fully priced in the bear case of Red Sea disruptions continuing and also that the freight rate levels more importantly stay at these recent peaks. So we believe that ratio will continue to fade on both sides.The second point is you have some sectors, like European Airlines, where there's also been an impact. Air freight yields have risen by 25 per cent in Europe. And we believe that there is the potential for more persistent spillover in demand for certain customers that look to speed up delivery times.The third point is that in case of an escalation scenario in the Red Sea, we believe that it's less the container shipping companies at this point that would be impacted and we actually see the European refiners as most exposed to any kind of escalation scenario.And lastly, and I think this is going to tie into Jens’ economics.We see a fairly idiosyncratic and broadly limited impact on Europe overall. Yes, Europe is the most exposed region of developed market regions globally – but this is nowhere near a COVID 2.0 style supply chain disruption in our view.Marina Zavolock: And Jens, if I could turn it back to you, how do you estimate the impact of these Red Sea disruptions on the European economy?Jens Eisenschmidt: That's indeed one thing we were sort of getting busy on and trying to find a way to get a handle on what has happened there and what would be the implications. And of course, the typical thing, what you do is you go back in time and look [at] what has happened last time. We were seeing changes to say delivery time. So basically disruptions in supply chains.And of course, the big COVID induced supply chain disruptions had [a] significant impact on both inflation and output. And so, it's of course a normal thing to ask yourself, could this be again happening and what would we need to see?And of course, we have to be careful here because that essentially is assuming that the underlying structure of the shock is similar to the one we have seen in the past, which of course it's not the case.But you know, again, it's instructive at least to see what the current level of supply chain disruptions as measurable in these PMI sub-indices. What they translate to in inflation? And so we get a very muted impact so far. We have 10 basis points for the EU area, 15 basis points for the UK. But again, that's probably an upper bound estimate because the situation is slightly different than it was back then.Back then under COVID, there was clearly a limit to demand. So demand was actually pushing hard against the limits of good supply. And so that has to be more inflationary than in the current situation where actually demand, if anything, is weakened by [the] central bank chasing inflation targets and also weak global backdrop.So, essentially we would say, yes, there could be some small uptick in inflation, but it's really limited. And that's talking about here, core goods inflation. The other point that you could sort of be worried about is commodity prices and here in particular energy commodities.But so far the price action here is very, very limited.If anything, so far, TTF prices are, you know, going in the other direction. So all, all in all, we don't really see a risk here for commodity prices, at least. If the tensions in the Red Sea are not persisting longer and intensify further – and here really, this chimes very well in the analysis of Cedar and also with Marina – what you just mentioned.That doesn't really look like any supply chain disruption we have seen on the COVID. And it also doesn't really look like that it would, sort of, last for so long. And we have the backdrop of a oversupply of containers. So all in all, we think the impact is pretty limited. But let's sort of play the devil's advocate and say, what would happen to inflation if this were to persist?And again, the backdrop would be similar to COVID. Then we could think of 70 basis points, both in the Euro area and the UK added to inflation. And of course that's sizable. And that's precisely why you have central bankers around the world, not particularly concerned about it – but certainly mentioning it in their public statements that this is a development to watch.Marina Zavolock: Thank you Jens, and thank you Cedar for taking the time to talk.Cedar Ekblom: Great speaking with you both.Jens Eisenschmidt: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/u6i5g4nazJKnzQTkoPlMNNZXLaVQpNeONXGs8FbwOcsWed, 14 Feb 2024 00:04:22 +0000gtyOur expert panel discusses how the Red Sea situation is affecting the global economy and equity markets, as well as key sectors and the shipping industry. ----- Transcript ----- Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Jens...----- Transcript -----
Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Cedar Ekblom: And I'm Cedar Ekblom, Shipping and Logistics Analyst.Jens Eisenschmidt: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the ongoing Red Sea disruptions and the various markets and economic dislocations caused by it. It's Tuesday, February 13th, 6pm in Frankfurt.Marina Zavolock: And 5pm in London.Marina Zavolock: 12 per cent of global trade and 30 per cent of container trade passes through the Suez Canal in Egypt, which connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Safety concerns stemming from the recent attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea have driven the majority of container liners to divert trade around the Cape of Good Hope, pushing up container freight rates more than 200 per cent versus December of last year on the Asia to Europe route.Last week, our colleague Michael Zezas touched briefly on the situation in the Red Sea. Now we'd like to dig deeper and examine this from three key lenses. The European economy, the impact on equity markets and industries, as well as on global container shipping in particular.Marina Zavolock: So Cedar, let's start with you. You’ve had a high conviction call since freight rates peaked in the middle of January – that container shipping rates overshot and were likely to decline. We've started to see the decline. How do you see this developing from here?Cedar Ekblom: Thanks, Marina. Well, if we take a step back and we think about how far container rates have come from the peak, we're about 15 per cent lower than where we were in the middle of January. But we're still nearly 200 per cent ahead of where we were on the 1st of December before the disruption started.Cedar Ekblom: The reason why we're so convicted that freight rates are heading lower from here really comes down to the supply demand backdrop in container shipping. We have an outlook of significant excess supply playing out in [20]24 and extending into [20]25. During the COVID boom, container companies enjoyed very high freight rates and generated a lot of cash as a result. And they've put that cash to use in ordering new ships. All of this supply is starting to hit the market. So ultimately, we have a situation of too much supply relative to container demand.Another thing that we've noticed is that ships are speeding up. We have great data on this. And since boats have been diverted around the Cape of Good Hope, we've seen an increase in sailing speeds, which ultimately blunts the supply impact from those ships being diverted.And then finally, if we look at the amount of containers actually moving through the Suez Canal, this is down nearly 80 per cent year over year.Sure, we're not at zero yet, and there is ultimately [a] downside to no ships moving through the canal. But we think we are pretty close to the point of maximum supply side tension. That gives us conviction that freight rates are going lower from here.Jens Eisenschmidt: Thank you, Cedar, for this clear overview of the outlook for the container shippers. Marina, let's widen our lens and talk about the broader impact of the Red Sea situation. What are the ripple effects to other sectors and industries and are they in any way comparable to supply chain disruptions we saw as a result of the COVID pandemic?Marina Zavolock: So what we've done in equity strategy is we've worked with over 10 different sector analyst teams where we've seen the most prominent impacts from the situation in the Red Sea. We've worked as well with our commodity strategy team. And what we were interested in is finding the dislocations in stock moves related to the Red Sea disruptions in...]]>549false1060fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/three-reasons-the-u-s-consumer-outlook-remains-strong--75652971----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe from the US Economics Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives; today I’ll give you an update on the US consumer. It’s Monday, February 12, at 10 AM in New York.Lately, there's been a lot of mixed data on the health of the US consumer. We saw a very strong holiday spending in November and December; very strong jobs  reports in recent months. But we’re forecasting somewhat softer data in January for retail sales. And we know that delinquencies have been rising for households.When we look towards the rest of 2024, we're still expecting a healthy US consumer based on three key factors. The first is the labor market. Obviously, the labor market has been holding up very well and we’ve actually been seeing a reacceleration in payrolls in the last few months. What this means is that real disposable income has been stronger, and it’s going to remain solid in our forecast horizon. We do overall expect some cooling in disposable income though, as the labor market softens. Overall, this is the most important thing though for consumer spending. If people have jobs, they spend money.The second is interest rates. This has actually been one of the key calls for why we did not expect the US consumer to be in a recession two and half years ago, when the Fed started raising interest rates. There’s a substantial amount of fixed rate debt, and as a result less sensitivity to debt service obligations. We estimate that 90 per cent of household debt is locked in at a fixed rate. So over the last couple of years, as the Fed has been raising interest rates, we’ve seen just that: less sensitivity to higher interest rates. Right now, debt service costs are still below their 2019 levels. We’re expecting to see a little upward pressure here over the course of this year – as rates are higher for longer, as housing activity picks up a bit; but we expect there will be a cap on it.The last thing is what’s happening on the wealth side. We’ve seen a 50 percent accumulation in real estate wealth since the start of the pandemic. And we’re expecting to see very little deterioration in housing wealth this year. So people are still feeling pretty good; still have a lot of home equity in their homes. So overall, good for consumer spending. Good for household sentiment.So to sum it up, this year, we’re seeing a slowing in the US consumer, but still relatively strong. And the fundamentals are still looking good.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ivetMtbxIkdl1KgJd2hrKVG7zha2Q91lFwR34tq9wCAMon, 12 Feb 2024 22:45:06 +0000gtyDespite a likely softening of the labor market, U.S. consumer spending should remain healthy for 2024. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe from the US Economics Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe from the US Economics Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives; today I’ll give you an update on the US consumer. It’s Monday, February 12, at 10 AM in New York.Lately, there's been a lot of mixed data on the health of the US consumer. We saw a very strong holiday spending in November and December; very strong jobs  reports in recent months. But we’re forecasting somewhat softer data in January for retail sales. And we know that delinquencies have been rising for households.When we look towards the rest of 2024, we're still expecting a healthy US consumer based on three key factors. The first is the labor market. Obviously, the labor market has been holding up very well and we’ve actually been seeing a reacceleration in payrolls in the last few months. What this means is that real disposable income has been stronger, and it’s going to remain solid in our forecast horizon. We do overall expect some cooling in disposable income though, as the labor market softens. Overall, this is the most important thing though for consumer spending. If people have jobs, they spend money.The second is interest rates. This has actually been one of the key calls for why we did not expect the US consumer to be in a recession two and half years ago, when the Fed started raising interest rates. There’s a substantial amount of fixed rate debt, and as a result less sensitivity to debt service obligations. We estimate that 90 per cent of household debt is locked in at a fixed rate. So over the last couple of years, as the Fed has been raising interest rates, we’ve seen just that: less sensitivity to higher interest rates. Right now, debt service costs are still below their 2019 levels. We’re expecting to see a little upward pressure here over the course of this year – as rates are higher for longer, as housing activity picks up a bit; but we expect there will be a cap on it.The last thing is what’s happening on the wealth side. We’ve seen a 50 percent accumulation in real estate wealth since the start of the pandemic. And we’re expecting to see very little deterioration in housing wealth this year. So people are still feeling pretty good; still have a lot of home equity in their homes. So overall, good for consumer spending. Good for household sentiment.So to sum it up, this year, we’re seeing a slowing in the US consumer, but still relatively strong. And the fundamentals are still looking good.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>169false1059fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/rooting-for-a-positive-rate-of-change--75653041--------Transcript--------
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 9th at 2pm in London.Almost every week, investors are confronted with a host of economic data. A perennial question hovers over each release: should we focus more on the level of that particular economic indicator; or its rate of change. In many cases, we find that the rate of change is more important for credit. If so, recent data has brought some encouraging developments with surveys of US Manufacturing, as well as bank lending.I’m mindful that the concept of “economic data” is about as abstract as you can get. So let’s dig into those specific manufacturing and lending releases. Every quarter, the Federal Reserve conducts what is known as their Senior Loan Officer [Opinion] Survey, where they ask senior loan officers – at banks – about how they’re doing their lending. The most recent release showed that more officers are tightening their lending standards than easing them. But the balance between the two is actually getting a little better, or looser, than last quarter. So, should we care more about the fact that lending standards are tight? Or that they’re getting a little less tight than before?Or consider the Purchasing Managers Index, or PMI, from the Institute of Supply Management. This is a survey of purchasing managers at American manufacturers, asking them about business conditions. The latest readings show conditions are still weaker than normal. But things are getting better, and have improved over the last six months.In both cases, if we look back at history, the rate of change of the indicator has mattered more. As a credit investor, you’ve preferred tight credit conditions that are getting better versus easy credit that’s getting worse. You’ve preferred weaker manufacturing activity that’s inflecting higher instead of strong conditions that are softening. In that sense, at least for credit, recent readings of both of these indicators are a good thing – all else equal.But why do we get this result? Why, in many cases, does the rate of change matter more than the level?There are many different possibilities, and we’d stress this is far from an iron rule. But one explanation could be that markets tend to be quite aware of conditions and forward looking. In that sense, the level of the data at any given point in time is more widely expected; less of a surprise, and less likely to move the market.But the rate of change can – and we’d stress can – offer some insight into where the data might be headed. That future is less known. And thus anything that gives a hint of where things are headed is more likely to not already be reflected in current prices. No rule applies in all situations. But for credit, when in doubt, root for a positive rate of change.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WBI5Jij9tW8sAoaJ-uzoBQA-0xBauXAzgYUfC4SE7TIFri, 09 Feb 2024 17:34:09 +0000gtyInvestors in credit markets pay close attention to the latest economic data. Our head of Corporate Credit Research explains why they should be less focused on the newest numbers and more focused on whether and how those numbers are changing....--------Transcript--------
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 9th at 2pm in London.Almost every week, investors are confronted with a host of economic data. A perennial question hovers over each release: should we focus more on the level of that particular economic indicator; or its rate of change. In many cases, we find that the rate of change is more important for credit. If so, recent data has brought some encouraging developments with surveys of US Manufacturing, as well as bank lending.I’m mindful that the concept of “economic data” is about as abstract as you can get. So let’s dig into those specific manufacturing and lending releases. Every quarter, the Federal Reserve conducts what is known as their Senior Loan Officer [Opinion] Survey, where they ask senior loan officers – at banks – about how they’re doing their lending. The most recent release showed that more officers are tightening their lending standards than easing them. But the balance between the two is actually getting a little better, or looser, than last quarter. So, should we care more about the fact that lending standards are tight? Or that they’re getting a little less tight than before?Or consider the Purchasing Managers Index, or PMI, from the Institute of Supply Management. This is a survey of purchasing managers at American manufacturers, asking them about business conditions. The latest readings show conditions are still weaker than normal. But things are getting better, and have improved over the last six months.In both cases, if we look back at history, the rate of change of the indicator has mattered more. As a credit investor, you’ve preferred tight credit conditions that are getting better versus easy credit that’s getting worse. You’ve preferred weaker manufacturing activity that’s inflecting higher instead of strong conditions that are softening. In that sense, at least for credit, recent readings of both of these indicators are a good thing – all else equal.But why do we get this result? Why, in many cases, does the rate of change matter more than the level?There are many different possibilities, and we’d stress this is far from an iron rule. But one explanation could be that markets tend to be quite aware of conditions and forward looking. In that sense, the level of the data at any given point in time is more widely expected; less of a surprise, and less likely to move the market.But the rate of change can – and we’d stress can – offer some insight into where the data might be headed. That future is less known. And thus anything that gives a hint of where things are headed is more likely to not already be reflected in current prices. No rule applies in all situations. But for credit, when in doubt, root for a positive rate of change.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>198false1058fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/trends-in-the-2024-credit-landscape--75652880----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist in Morgan Stanley Research.David Miller: And I'm David Miller, Head of Global Private Credit and Equity for Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Vishy Tirupattur: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be taking a deep dive into the 2024 credit landscape, both from a private credit and public credit perspective.Vishy Tirupattur: So, David, you and I come at credit from two different avenues and roles. I cover credit, and other areas of fixed income, from a sell side research perspective. And you work for our investment management division, covering both private credit and private equity. Just to set the table for our listeners, maybe we could start off by you telling listeners how private credit investing differs from public credit.David Miller: Great. The main differences are: First, privately negotiated loans between lenders and borrowers. They're typically closely held versus widely distributed in public credit. The loans are typically held to maturity and those strategies are typically has that long duration, sort of look. Private credit -- really -- has three things of why their borrowers are valuing it. Certainty, that's committed capital; certainty of pricing. There's speed. There's no ratings -- fewer parties, working on deals. And then flexibility -- structures can be created to meet the needs of borrowers versus more highly standardized parts of the public credit spectrum. Lastly and importantly, you typically get an illiquidity premium in private credit for that holding to maturity and not being able to trade.Vishy Tirupattur: So, as we look forward to 2024, from your perspective, David, what would you say are some of the trends in private credit?David Miller: So private credit, broadly speaking, continues to grow -- because of bank regulations, volatility in capital markets. And it is taking some share over the past couple of years from the broadly syndicated markets. The deal structures are quite strong, with large equity contributions -- given rates have gone up and leverage has come down. Higher quality businesses typically are represented, simply as private equity is the main driver here and there tend to be selling their better businesses. And default rates remain reasonably low. Although we're clearly seeing some pressure, on interest coverage, overall. But volumes are starting to pick up and we're seeing pipelines grow into [20]24 here.Vishy Tirupattur: So obviously, it's interesting, David, that you brought up, interest rates. You know, it's a big conversation right now about the timing of the potential interest rate cuts. But then we also have to keep in mind that we have come through nearly two years of interest rate hikes. How have these 550 basis points of rate hikes impacted the private credit market?David Miller: The rate hikes have generally been positive. But there are some caveats to that. Obviously, the absolute return in the asset class has gone up significantly. So that's a strong positive, for the new deals. The flip side is -- transaction volumes have come down in the private credit market. Still okay but not at peak levels. Now older deals, right, particularly ones from 2021 when rates were very low -- you're seeing some pressure there, no doubt. The last thing I will say, what's noteworthy from the increase in rates is a much bigger demand for what I'll call capital solutions. And that's junior capital, any type of security that has pick or structure to alleviate some of that pressure. And we're quite excited about that opportunity.Vishy Tirupattur: David, what sectors and businesses do you particularly like for private credit? And conversely, what are the sectors and businesses you'd like to avoid?David Miller: Firstly, we really like recurring or re-occurring revenue businesses with stable and growing cash flows through the cycle, low capital intensity, and often in consolidating industries. That allows us to grow with our borrowers over time. You know, certain sectors we continue to like: insurance brokerage, residential services, high quality software businesses that have recurring contracts, and some parts of the healthcare spectrum that really focus on reducing costs and increasing efficiency. The flip side, cyclicals. Any type of retail, restaurants, energy, materials, that are deeply cyclical, capital intensive and have limited pricing power and high concentration of customers.So, now I get to ask some questions. So, Vishy, I'd love to turn it to you. How do returns, spreads, and yields in private credit compare to the public credit markets?Vishy Tirupattur: So, David, yields and spreads in private credit markets have been consistently higher relative to the broadly syndicated loan market for the last six or seven years -- for which we have decent data on. You know, likely reflecting, as you mentioned earlier, illiquidity premia and perhaps potentially investor perception of the underlying credit quality. The basis in yields and spreads between the two markets has narrowed somewhat over the last couple of years. Between 2014 and the first half of 2023, private credit, on average, generated higher returns and recorded less volatility relative to the broadly syndicated loan market. For example, since the third quarter of 2014, the private credit market realized negative total returns just in one quarter. And you compare that to eight quarters of negative returns on the broadly syndicated loan market.David Miller: Something we both encounter is the idea of covenants -- which simply put, are additional terms on lending agreements around cash flow, leverage, liquidity. How do covenants help investors of private credit?Vishy Tirupattur: Over the last several years, the one thing that stands out in the public credit markets -- especially in the leveraged loan market -- is the loosening of the covenant protection to lenders. Cov-Lite, which means, nearly no maintenance covenants, has effectively become the norm in the broadly syndicated loan market. This is one place that I think private credit markets really stand out. In our view, covenant quality is meaningfully better in private credit. This is mainly because given the much smaller number of lenders in typical private credit deals, private credit has demonstrably stronger loan documentation and creditor protections. Maintenance covenants are typically included. And to a great extent, these covenant breaches could act potentially as circuit breakers to better manage outcomes, you know, as credit gets weaker.David, we also hear a lot about the risk of defaults, in private credit markets. How much concern do you have around defaults?David Miller: We are watching, obviously stress on credits and the default rates overall, and they are at historically quite low levels. We do expect them to tick up over time. But there are some reasons why we clearly like private credit from that perspective. First, as mentioned, the covenant protections typically are a little better. If you look historically, depending on the data, private credit, default rates have been, somewhat lower than public leveraged credit and its been quite a resilient asset class, for a number of reasons. We like the amount of private equity dry powder that sits waiting to support some of the companies that are underperforming. And it's important to remember that private credit lenders typically have an easier time resolving some of these stresses and workouts given that they're quite bilateral or a very small group, to make decisions and reach those negotiated settlements. So overall, we feel like there will be a category of businesses that are underperforming and are in structural decline and that will default. But that number will be still very low relative to the universe of overall private credit.Vishy Tirupattur: So David, it’s been great speaking with you.David Miller: Thanks for having me on the podcast, Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OXp6bieure3HuXMC1MvZ3REM6aAKXBki233HkDGsLyAThu, 08 Feb 2024 20:56:55 +0000gtyOur credit experts from Research and Investment Management give their overview of private and public credit markets, comparing their strengths and weaknesses following two years of rate hikes. ----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist in Morgan Stanley Research.David Miller: And I'm David Miller, Head of Global Private Credit and Equity for Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Vishy Tirupattur: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be taking a deep dive into the 2024 credit landscape, both from a private credit and public credit perspective.Vishy Tirupattur: So, David, you and I come at credit from two different avenues and roles. I cover credit, and other areas of fixed income, from a sell side research perspective. And you work for our investment management division, covering both private credit and private equity. Just to set the table for our listeners, maybe we could start off by you telling listeners how private credit investing differs from public credit.David Miller: Great. The main differences are: First, privately negotiated loans between lenders and borrowers. They're typically closely held versus widely distributed in public credit. The loans are typically held to maturity and those strategies are typically has that long duration, sort of look. Private credit -- really -- has three things of why their borrowers are valuing it. Certainty, that's committed capital; certainty of pricing. There's speed. There's no ratings -- fewer parties, working on deals. And then flexibility -- structures can be created to meet the needs of borrowers versus more highly standardized parts of the public credit spectrum. Lastly and importantly, you typically get an illiquidity premium in private credit for that holding to maturity and not being able to trade.Vishy Tirupattur: So, as we look forward to 2024, from your perspective, David, what would you say are some of the trends in private credit?David Miller: So private credit, broadly speaking, continues to grow -- because of bank regulations, volatility in capital markets. And it is taking some share over the past couple of years from the broadly syndicated markets. The deal structures are quite strong, with large equity contributions -- given rates have gone up and leverage has come down. Higher quality businesses typically are represented, simply as private equity is the main driver here and there tend to be selling their better businesses. And default rates remain reasonably low. Although we're clearly seeing some pressure, on interest coverage, overall. But volumes are starting to pick up and we're seeing pipelines grow into [20]24 here.Vishy Tirupattur: So obviously, it's interesting, David, that you brought up, interest rates. You know, it's a big conversation right now about the timing of the potential interest rate cuts. But then we also have to keep in mind that we have come through nearly two years of interest rate hikes. How have these 550 basis points of rate hikes impacted the private credit market?David Miller: The rate hikes have generally been positive. But there are some caveats to that. Obviously, the absolute return in the asset class has gone up significantly. So that's a strong positive, for the new deals. The flip side is -- transaction volumes have come down in the private credit market. Still okay but not at peak levels. Now older deals, right, particularly ones from 2021 when rates were very low -- you're seeing some pressure there, no doubt. The last thing I will say, what's noteworthy from the increase in rates is a much bigger demand for what I'll call capital solutions. And that's junior capital, any type of security that has pick or structure to alleviate some of that pressure. And we're quite excited about that opportunity.Vishy Tirupattur: David, what sectors and businesses do you particularly like for private credit? And conversely, what...]]>492false1057fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/which-geopolitical-events-matter-most-to-investors--75653013 ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of geopolitical events on markets. It's Wednesday, February 7 at 5 pm in London.Geopolitical conflicts around the globe seem to be escalating in recent weeks. Increased US military involvement in the Middle East, fresh uncertainty about Ukraine’s resources in its conflict with Russia, and lingering concerns about the US-China relationship are in focus. And since financial markets and economies around the world have become more interconnected, it's more important than ever for investors to separate signals from noise in how these events can impact markets. So here’s a few key takeaways that, in our view, do just that.First, fighting in the red sea may influence the supply chain, but the results are probably smaller than you’d think. Yes, there’s been a more than 200 per cent increase in the cost of freight containers moving through a channel that accounts for 12 per cent of global trade. But, the diversion of the freight traffic to longer routes around Africa really just represents a one-time lengthening of the delivery of goods to port. That’s because there’s an oversupply of containers that were built in response to bottlenecks created by increased demand for goods during the pandemic. So now that there’s a steady flow of containers with goods in them, even if they are avoiding the Red Sea, the impact on availability of goods to consumers is manageable, with only a modest effect on inflation expected by our economists.Second, ramifications on oil prices from the Middle East conflict should continue to be modest. While it might seem nonsensical that fighting in the Middle East hasn’t led to higher oil prices, that’s more or less what’s happened. But that’s because disruptions to the flow of oil don’t appear to be in the interest of any of the actors involved, as it would create political and economic risk on all sides. So, if you’re concerned about movements in the price of oil as a catalyst for growth or inflation, then our team recommends looking at the traditional supply and demand drivers for oil, which appear balanced around current prices.Finally, as the US election campaigns gear up, so does rhetoric around the US-China economic relationship. And here we see some things worth paying attention to. Simply put, higher tariffs imposed by the US are a real risk in the event that party control of the White House changes. That’s the stated position of Republicans’ likely candidate – former President Trump – and we see no reason to doubt that, based on how the former President levied tariffs last time he was in office. As our chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya recently noted, such an outcome creates downside risk for the China economy, at a time when downside risk is accumulating for other structural reasons. It's one reason our Asia equity strategy team continues to prefer other markets in Asia, in particular Japan.Of course, these situations and their market implications can obviously evolve quickly. We'll be paying close attention, and keeping you in the loop.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nZIqIUhnY5VLBUUwMjpWt_MxklBpawOcKnPBV0VXtxcWed, 07 Feb 2024 21:58:59 +0000gtyWith multiple, ongoing geopolitical conflicts, our analyst says investors should separate signals from noise in how these events can impact markets.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s)... ----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of geopolitical events on markets. It's Wednesday, February 7 at 5 pm in London.Geopolitical conflicts around the globe seem to be escalating in recent weeks. Increased US military involvement in the Middle East, fresh uncertainty about Ukraine’s resources in its conflict with Russia, and lingering concerns about the US-China relationship are in focus. And since financial markets and economies around the world have become more interconnected, it's more important than ever for investors to separate signals from noise in how these events can impact markets. So here’s a few key takeaways that, in our view, do just that.First, fighting in the red sea may influence the supply chain, but the results are probably smaller than you’d think. Yes, there’s been a more than 200 per cent increase in the cost of freight containers moving through a channel that accounts for 12 per cent of global trade. But, the diversion of the freight traffic to longer routes around Africa really just represents a one-time lengthening of the delivery of goods to port. That’s because there’s an oversupply of containers that were built in response to bottlenecks created by increased demand for goods during the pandemic. So now that there’s a steady flow of containers with goods in them, even if they are avoiding the Red Sea, the impact on availability of goods to consumers is manageable, with only a modest effect on inflation expected by our economists.Second, ramifications on oil prices from the Middle East conflict should continue to be modest. While it might seem nonsensical that fighting in the Middle East hasn’t led to higher oil prices, that’s more or less what’s happened. But that’s because disruptions to the flow of oil don’t appear to be in the interest of any of the actors involved, as it would create political and economic risk on all sides. So, if you’re concerned about movements in the price of oil as a catalyst for growth or inflation, then our team recommends looking at the traditional supply and demand drivers for oil, which appear balanced around current prices.Finally, as the US election campaigns gear up, so does rhetoric around the US-China economic relationship. And here we see some things worth paying attention to. Simply put, higher tariffs imposed by the US are a real risk in the event that party control of the White House changes. That’s the stated position of Republicans’ likely candidate – former President Trump – and we see no reason to doubt that, based on how the former President levied tariffs last time he was in office. As our chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya recently noted, such an outcome creates downside risk for the China...]]>201false1056fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-japan-can-teach-the-world-about-longevity--75652905----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Robert Feldman: And I'm Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Seth Carpenter: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will talk about longevity, and what the rest of the world can learn from Japan. It’s Tuesday, February 6th, at 8 a. m. in New York.Robert Feldman: And it's 10 p. m. in Tokyo.Seth Carpenter: Over the past year, I am guessing that lots of listeners to this podcast have heard many, many stories about new anti obesity drugs, cutting edge cancer treatments. And so today, we're going to address what is perhaps a bigger theme at play here.Now, the micro human side of things is clearly huge, clearly important. But Robert and I are macroeconomists, and so we're going to think about what the potential for longer human lifespans is. For the economics. So as life spans increase, we're probably going to see micro and macro ramifications for demographics, consumer habits, the healthcare system, government spending, and long-term financial planning.And so, it follows that investors may want to consider these ramifications across a wide range of sectors. So, Robert, I wanted to talk to you in particular because you've been following this theme in your research on Japan -- which is perhaps at the earliest stage of this with the fastest aging population across developed economies.So, start us off. Perhaps share some more about the demographic challenges that Japan is facing and what's unique about their experience.Robert Feldman: Thanks, Seth. First, let me start by saying that Japan is not so much unique as it is early. For example, in the 1960s, Japan's total fertility rate averaged about two children per woman. But it hasn't been above two since 1975. Now it's about 1.34. Population as a whole peaked in 2010 and now is down by about 2.4 per cent.What about government spending on pensions and healthcare? Well, those went from about 16 per cent of GDP in 1994 to about 27 per cent now. So the speed of these increases is extremely fast. That said, Japan has one very unusual feature. Labor force participation rates have climbed quite sharply, especially for women. So, more people are working and they're working longer.But at the same time, Japan has actually been pretty successful in holding down costs of many longevity related spending categories. Japan has a nationalized healthcare system. So, the government has lots of power over drug prices, which it has held down. It’s shortened hospital stays. They're still too long -- but it has shortened them. It has also raised retirement ages and has a very clever pension indexing system.Seth Carpenter: All right, so if I can sum this up then, Robert. Japanese workers are working longer, the Japan economy is spending less on health care. So, does this mean that we can just say Japan has solved most or all of the challenges associated with longer lifespans?Robert Feldman: Well, it’s not exactly reduced spending on healthcare. It just hasn't gone up as much as it might have.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that's a good distinction.Robert Feldman: Yes. Anyway, Japan has not solved all the problems, not by a long shot. So, for example, productivity growth is very important for holding debt costs down. But productivity growth -- and I like the simplest measure, just real output per worker -- has been anemic in Japan.So, when productivity growth is low and aging is fast, it's kind of hard to pay the cost of longevity; even if labor force growth is high and Japan has been able to suppress ageing costs. That's the wrinkle here.Seth Carpenter: Okay. So then, if we shifted to think about the fiscal perspective on things. The debt side of things. Is the longer-lived nature of the population; is that going to end up being something like a debt time bomb?Robert Feldman: Well, I don’t think so. At least not yet. And there are two factors behind my view. One is the potential for productivity growth to accelerate a lot. And the other is some special things about Japan's debt dynamics. Let me start with growth. There is huge room here for productivity growth here in Japan. We still has a lot of labor that's underused. The labor force is very well educated, and it's very disciplined. Therefore, it can be re-skilled for more productive jobs. There's also a lot more room for cost reduction in social spending categories, especially by using IT and AI. In addition, healthier people are more productive workers.On the debt dynamic side, the national debt is about 250 percent of GDP. Very high. But Japan owns 1.23 trillion dollars of foreign exchange reserves. So, Japan is borrowing a lot at very, very low short-term rates, and very low long-term rates as well. They're below one per cent. That said it’s earning high foreign interest rates on its external assets. In addition, about half the national debt is owned by the central bank. And so when the central bank, the Bank of Japan, collects coupons from the government, it pays them right back to the government in its year end profit.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so that helps put things into perspective. So, if we're looking forward, do you have any concrete measures that you think Japan as a society, the Japanese government might undertake? And what some of those potential outcomes might be?Robert Feldman: Well, I'm expecting incremental change that Japan is very good at. Social policy is hard to make. There's a lot of politics involved. Even in the prime minister's policy speech the other day, he mentioned a number of things. There will be changes. For example, ways to keep costs down but also to improve productivity. There will some changes in retirement ages. There will be some flexible labor market rules. This is important because ideas move with people; and when people move more, then productivity should go up. There will be continued easing of the immigration rules for highly skilled workers. Japan now has about 2 million foreign workers and the number will probably keep going up. Medical costs reforms are also very important. For example, it’s important for Japan to allow non doctors to do some things that heretofore only doctors have been permitted to do. Faster deployment of new technologies in high import sectors like energy and agriculture -- this should save us a lot of money in terms of not buying imports that we don't need once technology is deployed domestically. Now, can I ask you some questions?Seth Carpenter: Of course.Robert Feldman: Okay. So. From where you sit as a global economist, what aspects of Japan's experience do you think are particularly relevant to other economies?Seth Carpenter: I would say the part where you were touching on the debt dynamics is particularly salient, right? We know that in the COVID era, lots of countries sort of ran up a really large increase in their national debt. And so, trying to figure out what sort of debt dynamics are sustainable over the long run I think are critical. And I think the factors that you point out in terms of an aging population, sort of, have to be considered in that context.I think more broadly, the idea of an aging population is pretty widespread. It is not universal, obviously. But we know, for example, that in China, the population growth is coming down. We know that for a long time in Europe, there has been this aging of the population and a fall in fertility rates. So, I think a lot of the same phenomena are relevant. And like you said at the beginning: it's not that Japan is unique, it's that Japan is early.Robert Feldman: I have another question for you is, and also on this longevity theme -- about the difference between developed and emerging markets. What are the notable differences between those two groups of countries?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I mean, I think we can make some generalizations. It is more often the case that slowing population growth, falling fertility rates, aging population is more of a developed market economy than an emerging market economy phenomenon. So, I think in that regard, it's important. I will say, however, that there are some exceptions to every rule.And I mentioned China that, you know, maybe straddles those two worlds -- developed versus emerging market. And they’re also seeing this slowing in their population growth. But I think within that, what's also interesting is we are seeing more and more pressures on migration. Immigration could be part of the solution. I think you highlighted this about Japan. And therein lies, at times, some of the geopolitical tensions between developed market economies and emerging market economies. But I think, at the same time, it could be part of the solution to any of the challenges posed by longevity.Seth Carpenter: But, I have to say, we probably need to wrap it up there.Robert, for me, it is always a pleasure to get to talk to you and hear some of your wisdom.Robert Feldman: Thank you, Seth. This is great. Always happy to talk with you. And if you want to have me back, I'll be there.Seth Carpenter: That's fantastic. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0H7e0wBZ6zg_marwDz-NCWW3-YCEAqmuerBFv4RlPBAWed, 07 Feb 2024 00:08:14 +0000gtyJapan’s experience as one of the first countries to have an aging population offers a glimpse of what’s to come for other countries on the same path. See what an older population could mean in terms of social policy, productivity, immigration reform,...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Robert Feldman: And I'm Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Seth Carpenter: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will talk about longevity, and what the rest of the world can learn from Japan. It’s Tuesday, February 6th, at 8 a. m. in New York.Robert Feldman: And it's 10 p. m. in Tokyo.Seth Carpenter: Over the past year, I am guessing that lots of listeners to this podcast have heard many, many stories about new anti obesity drugs, cutting edge cancer treatments. And so today, we're going to address what is perhaps a bigger theme at play here.Now, the micro human side of things is clearly huge, clearly important. But Robert and I are macroeconomists, and so we're going to think about what the potential for longer human lifespans is. For the economics. So as life spans increase, we're probably going to see micro and macro ramifications for demographics, consumer habits, the healthcare system, government spending, and long-term financial planning.And so, it follows that investors may want to consider these ramifications across a wide range of sectors. So, Robert, I wanted to talk to you in particular because you've been following this theme in your research on Japan -- which is perhaps at the earliest stage of this with the fastest aging population across developed economies.So, start us off. Perhaps share some more about the demographic challenges that Japan is facing and what's unique about their experience.Robert Feldman: Thanks, Seth. First, let me start by saying that Japan is not so much unique as it is early. For example, in the 1960s, Japan's total fertility rate averaged about two children per woman. But it hasn't been above two since 1975. Now it's about 1.34. Population as a whole peaked in 2010 and now is down by about 2.4 per cent.What about government spending on pensions and healthcare? Well, those went from about 16 per cent of GDP in 1994 to about 27 per cent now. So the speed of these increases is extremely fast. That said, Japan has one very unusual feature. Labor force participation rates have climbed quite sharply, especially for women. So, more people are working and they're working longer.But at the same time, Japan has actually been pretty successful in holding down costs of many longevity related spending categories. Japan has a nationalized healthcare system. So, the government has lots of power over drug prices, which it has held down. It’s shortened hospital stays. They're still too long -- but it has shortened them. It has also raised retirement ages and has a very clever pension indexing system.Seth Carpenter: All right, so if I can sum this up then, Robert. Japanese workers are working longer, the Japan economy is spending less on health care. So, does this mean that we can just say Japan has solved most or all of the challenges associated with longer lifespans?Robert Feldman: Well, it’s not exactly reduced spending on healthcare. It just hasn't gone up as much as it might have.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that's a good distinction.Robert Feldman: Yes. Anyway, Japan has not solved all the problems, not by a long shot. So, for example, productivity growth is very important for holding debt costs down. But productivity growth -- and I like the simplest measure, just real output per worker -- has been anemic in Japan.So, when productivity growth is low and aging is fast, it's kind of hard to pay the cost of longevity; even if labor force growth is high and Japan has been able to suppress ageing costs. That's the wrinkle here.Seth Carpenter: Okay. So then,...]]>572false1055fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-longer-wait-for-rate-cuts--75652933----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U. S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, February 5th at 11 am in New York.So let's get after it. Going into the last week, investors had a number of factors to consider. The busiest week of earnings season that included several mega cap tech stocks, a Fed meeting, and some of the most relevant monthly economic data for markets. Around these data releases, we saw significant moves in many macro markets, as well as individual securities.We started the week with a soft Dallas Fed Manufacturing Index reading, which followed the weak New York Manufacturing Survey two weeks earlier. Meanwhile, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index and the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey both pushed higher.As the week progressed, we got more data that supported the view that the economy may not be slowing as much as many had started to believe, including perhaps the Fed. In contrast to the Dallas and New York Fed Manufacturing Surveys, The ISM manufacturing PMI ticked higher, and surprised to the upside by a few points.More importantly, the orders component ticked above 50 to 52, which tends to lead the headline index. The fact that the overall equity market responded favorably to these data makes sense in the context of still present growth uncertainty. However, the fact that cyclical stocks that are levered to manufacturing continue to underperform tells me the market is still very undecided about the macro outcome this year -- as am I.Finally, the headline non-farm payrolls number on Friday was extremely strong at 353, 000. Manufacturing jobs surprised to the upside, giving credence to the uptick in the ISM Manufacturing PMI cited earlier. However, the release also incorporated the annual revisions, which may be overstating the strength in labor markets.Employment trends from the Household Survey remain much softer, as do hours worked, quit rates, and layoff announcements. In short, the labor market is fine, but still weakening, as desired by the Fed. The one area of unequivocal strength remains government spending and hiring, which could be working against the Fed's goals.The bond market went with the stronger read of the data and traded sharply lower on Friday, as so this morning. It has also pushed out the timing of the first Fed interest rate cut, taking the odds of a March cut all the way down to just 20 per cent. Recall this probability was as high as 90 per cent around the end of last year.Perhaps the market is starting to take the Fed at its word. They aren't planning to cut rates in March. The equity market tried to look through this rate move on Friday driven by a historically narrow move in large cap quality growth stocks. This is very much in line with our recommendation since the beginning of the year to stick with large cap quality growth.For now, the internals of the stock market appear to agree with our view that a stickier rate backdrop is a disproportionate headwind for stocks with poor balance sheets and a lack of pricing power. In other words, lower quality cyclicals and many areas of small caps. Perhaps the most important data to support this conclusion is that earnings results and prospects for 2024 remain weak for these kinds of companies.On this front, we continue to get questions from investors on what it will take for small caps to work from here on a relative basis. The Russell 2000, the small cap index, has underperformed the S&P 500 by 7 per cent year to date and is still more than 20 per cent below all time highs reached over two years ago.While some think this is an opportunity, our view is that we need more confirmation that we're headed for a higher nominal growth regime driven more by the private economy rather than inefficient government spending.As we've discussed in the past, small caps are particularly economically sensitive and reliant on pricing power to offset their lack of scale.As they await more definitive confirmation on whether a higher nominal growth environment is coming, small caps are being weighed down by a weakening margin profile, higher leverage, and borrowing costs. In short, stick with what works in a late cycle environment where the macro remains uncertain. Large cap, high quality growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xrIzA1rjUBHWjJ_-npYRxbYyoyjjJkqEi0-U0WEfcKIMon, 05 Feb 2024 23:27:57 +0000gtyAs positive economic data makes it less likely that the Fed will cut rates in March, our Chief US Equity Strategist explains what this could mean for small-cap stocks.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U. S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, February 5th at 11 am in New York.So let's get after it. Going into the last week, investors had a number of factors to consider. The busiest week of earnings season that included several mega cap tech stocks, a Fed meeting, and some of the most relevant monthly economic data for markets. Around these data releases, we saw significant moves in many macro markets, as well as individual securities.We started the week with a soft Dallas Fed Manufacturing Index reading, which followed the weak New York Manufacturing Survey two weeks earlier. Meanwhile, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index and the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey both pushed higher.As the week progressed, we got more data that supported the view that the economy may not be slowing as much as many had started to believe, including perhaps the Fed. In contrast to the Dallas and New York Fed Manufacturing Surveys, The ISM manufacturing PMI ticked higher, and surprised to the upside by a few points.More importantly, the orders component ticked above 50 to 52, which tends to lead the headline index. The fact that the overall equity market responded favorably to these data makes sense in the context of still present growth uncertainty. However, the fact that cyclical stocks that are levered to manufacturing continue to underperform tells me the market is still very undecided about the macro outcome this year -- as am I.Finally, the headline non-farm payrolls number on Friday was extremely strong at 353, 000. Manufacturing jobs surprised to the upside, giving credence to the uptick in the ISM Manufacturing PMI cited earlier. However, the release also incorporated the annual revisions, which may be overstating the strength in labor markets.Employment trends from the Household Survey remain much softer, as do hours worked, quit rates, and layoff announcements. In short, the labor market is fine, but still weakening, as desired by the Fed. The one area of unequivocal strength remains government spending and hiring, which could be working against the Fed's goals.The bond market went with the stronger read of the data and traded sharply lower on Friday, as so this morning. It has also pushed out the timing of the first Fed interest rate cut, taking the odds of a March cut all the way down to just 20 per cent. Recall this probability was as high as 90 per cent around the end of last year.Perhaps the market is starting to take the Fed at its word. They aren't planning to cut rates in March. The equity market tried to look through this rate move on Friday driven by a historically narrow move in large cap quality growth stocks. This is very much in line with our recommendation since the beginning of the year to stick with large cap quality growth.For now, the internals of the stock market appear to agree with our view that a stickier rate backdrop is a disproportionate headwind for stocks with poor balance sheets and a lack of pricing power. In other words, lower quality cyclicals and many areas of small caps. Perhaps the most important data to support this conclusion is that earnings results and prospects for 2024 remain weak for these kinds of companies.On this front, we continue to get questions from investors on what it will take for small caps to work from here on a relative basis. The Russell 2000, the small cap index, has underperformed the S&P 500 by 7 per cent year to date and is still more than 20 per cent below all time highs reached over two years ago.While some think...]]>262false1054fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-the-housing-market-back--75653086----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co Head of Securitized Products Research.Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be talking about mortgage rates, home sales volumes and the U. S. housing market.Jay Bacow: Alright Jim. Mortgage rates are down. Sales volumes are up. [Is] the housing market back?Jim Egan: Sales volumes might finally be inflecting higher, or at least they might actually be finding that bottom. If we look at the seasonally adjusted annualized figures that came in in December, pending home sales increased 8 per cent to their highest level since July. Purchase applications, which -- little bit more high frequency, we have them through January -- they're up 23 percent from the lows that they put in in late October or early November.Jay Bacow: Alright, that sounds good, but seasonally adjusted annualized figure sounds like a mouthful. Can you lay that out a little easier for us?Jim Egan: I think that these numbers just need to be put [00:01:00] into a little bit more context. Yes, pending home sales were up 8 per cent month over month. But if I look at just the December print, it was the weakest pending home sales print for that month in the history of that index. Now, relative to 2022, it is improving. It was only down 1 per cent from December of 2022, and that's the lowest decrease we've had since 2021. But these numbers still aren't strong.Going around the horn to some of the other demand statistics, existing home sales finished 2023 down 19 per cent. But they also strengthened into year end only down 9 per cent in the fourth quarter. New home sales, as we've mentioned on this podcast before. That is the demand statistic that has actually been showing growth up 4 per cent in 2023 versus 2022. Up 15 per cent in the second half of 2023 versus the second half of 2022.Jay Bacow: Alright, so we’ve got a pickup or an inflection in housing activity, and we’ve had mortgage rates coming down. Affordability is also independent of home prices. So where does all this stand?    Jim Egan: Right? [00:02:00] So because of those home price increases that you've mentioned, the monthly payment on the medium price home is still up almost $100 year over year. But the path of affordability, the deterioration that we've been talking about -- it's as small as it's been since February 2021. And if we're not looking at this on a year over year basis; if we're just looking at this on a month, over month, or every two-month basis. The two-month increase that we've seen in affordability is the steepest increase, or the steepest drop in unaffordability, if you will, since January of 2009.Suffice it to say, we think this is a much healthier housing market than 2009.Jay Bacow: Alright. Now what about the supply side? Because obviously, [there’s] a lot of ways we can get supply. One of the more straightforward methods is for someone just to build a new home. How’s that data looking?  [00: 03:00]Jim Egan: We are building more homes. As new home sales have moved higher, single unit housing starts have moved higher as well. Now from cycle peak, which we estimate as April 2022, single unit starts fell about 23 per cent through the middle of 2023. And another thing that we've talked about on this podcast in the past is that build timelines have been elongating. And that was leading to a backlog in homes actually under construction.That decrease allowed that backlog to clear a little bit, and since the middle of 2023, June till the end of the year, single unit starts were actually up 7 per cent. We are building more homes.Jay Bacow: Alright. So new home sales are clearly, literally new homes. But people can also list their existing homes. What's that data look like?Jim Egan: Listing volumes are higher as well. In fact, as of this month, I can no longer say that we are at historic lows when it comes to for sale inventory. While inventory has also climbed throughout the second half of 2022 into the first half of 2023, [00:04:00] that historic low statement is something I could have made every month for the past 8 months.It's a statement I could have made for 41 of the past 54 months. Months of supply did retreat a little bit in December. But when we think about our models for housing activity and really for home prices, it's that growth in the absolute amount of for sale inventory that really plays a big role.Jay Bacow: Alright. I don’t have a PhD in economics. You’re the housing strategist. If we have more supply, does that mean prices are coming down?Jim Egan: That's what we think. We continue to think that these for sale inventory increases that are happening alongside what we do continue to believe will be sales growth in 2024 -- and we think we're seeing the first signs of now -- are going to be enough to bring home prices moderately negative in 2024. And alongside these recent activity prints, the most recent home price print was actually just a little bit softer than we thought it would be.We had forecasted about it a 15-basis point decrease in home prices in November. We saw an 18-basis point [00:05:00] decrease. It's not unusual for home prices to decrease month over month in November. But this is kind of from our perspective a little bit of validation from a home price forecast perspective.We're calling for them to fall 3 percent year over year in 2024. We think this is very moderate. We do not think this is a correction. We believe the housing market is on a very healthy foundation. Looks like we're moving towards sales increases. But we do still think you'll see a little bit of price weakness next year.  Jay Bacow: Jim, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jim Egan: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app; and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1WxFK_wzON394q3QBwXO52U1xac_K7bgZAkwiM79q7gFri, 02 Feb 2024 22:34:37 +0000gtyMortgage rates are down, sales volumes are rising and housing is gradually getting more affordable. Our analysts discuss why they think the U.S. housing market is on a healthy foundation.  ----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co Head of Securitized Products Research.Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be talking about mortgage rates, home sales volumes and the U. S. housing market.Jay Bacow: Alright Jim. Mortgage rates are down. Sales volumes are up. [Is] the housing market back?Jim Egan: Sales volumes might finally be inflecting higher, or at least they might actually be finding that bottom. If we look at the seasonally adjusted annualized figures that came in in December, pending home sales increased 8 per cent to their highest level since July. Purchase applications, which -- little bit more high frequency, we have them through January -- they're up 23 percent from the lows that they put in in late October or early November.Jay Bacow: Alright, that sounds good, but seasonally adjusted annualized figure sounds like a mouthful. Can you lay that out a little easier for us?Jim Egan: I think that these numbers just need to be put [00:01:00] into a little bit more context. Yes, pending home sales were up 8 per cent month over month. But if I look at just the December print, it was the weakest pending home sales print for that month in the history of that index. Now, relative to 2022, it is improving. It was only down 1 per cent from December of 2022, and that's the lowest decrease we've had since 2021. But these numbers still aren't strong.Going around the horn to some of the other demand statistics, existing home sales finished 2023 down 19 per cent. But they also strengthened into year end only down 9 per cent in the fourth quarter. New home sales, as we've mentioned on this podcast before. That is the demand statistic that has actually been showing growth up 4 per cent in 2023 versus 2022. Up 15 per cent in the second half of 2023 versus the second half of 2022.Jay Bacow: Alright, so we’ve got a pickup or an inflection in housing activity, and we’ve had mortgage rates coming down. Affordability is also independent of home prices. So where does all this stand?    Jim Egan: Right? [00:02:00] So because of those home price increases that you've mentioned, the monthly payment on the medium price home is still up almost $100 year over year. But the path of affordability, the deterioration that we've been talking about -- it's as small as it's been since February 2021. And if we're not looking at this on a year over year basis; if we're just looking at this on a month, over month, or every two-month basis. The two-month increase that we've seen in affordability is the steepest increase, or the steepest drop in unaffordability, if you will, since January of 2009.Suffice it to say, we think this is a much healthier housing market than 2009.Jay Bacow: Alright. Now what about the supply side? Because obviously, [there’s] a lot of ways we can get supply. One of the more straightforward methods is for someone just to build a new home. How’s that data looking?  [00: 03:00]Jim Egan: We are building more homes. As new home sales have moved higher, single unit housing starts have moved higher as well. Now from cycle peak, which we estimate as April 2022, single unit starts fell about 23 per cent through the middle of 2023. And another thing that we've talked about on this podcast in the past is that build timelines have been elongating. And that was leading to a backlog in homes actually under construction.That decrease allowed that backlog to clear a little bit, and since the middle of 2023, June till the end of the year, single unit starts were actually up 7 per cent. We are building more homes.Jay Bacow: Alright. So new home sales are clearly, literally new homes. But people...]]>352false1053fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-longevity-is-influencing-consumer-spending--75652919----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European consumer staples team at Morgan Stanley, and today I’ll be talking the increasingly important longevity theme and its impact on consumers. It’s Thursday, the first of February, at 3 PM in London.It's no secret that global life expectancy is increasing. The rise of modern medicine, improved working conditions, urbanization, and greater access to food and water have all contributed to a greater life expectancy. According to the United Nations, global life expectancy has risen more than 54% since 1950, reaching about 71 years in 2021, with Asia improving the most. At the same time people are living longer, birth rates for most developed economies have dropped. Higher levels of education, the increasing proportion of women in the workforce, and modern medicine have all contributed to lower birth rates. In fact, over the last several decades, the global population has aged significantly, with the median global age increasing 8 years since 1950, hitting 30 years in 2021. Looking ahead, the United Nations expects the percentage of population aged 65+ will continue to increase at a faster rate than younger populations. An ageing population has far-reaching implications, but let’s consider the spending power of older adults. Real disposable income among older adults has increased throughout the years. In 2022, an older adult had about 50% more than in 2000. As a result, older adults today have more money to spend on consumer goods and services than in the last decades. Here are three categories within the Consumer Staples sector that could benefit from the rise in longevity.First, Consumer Health. As consumers skew older and their disposable income increases it bodes well for a wide range of consumer health products – think Vitamins, Minerals and Supplements (VMS), denture care, cold and flu remedies and more.Second, Active Nutrition, including protein supplements and probiotic-rich foods such as kimchi, kombucha, or yogurt, is a likely beneficiary of the longevity theme. This sub-category is currently growing mid- to high single digits on average (over 10% for protein-related categories), and we see room for further long-term growth.Finally, Medical Nutrition. With age comes increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, including cancers, and with malnutrition. Addressing malnutrition improves the cost, and effectiveness, of medical treatment and also allows for shorter hospital stays. To that end, healthcare providers are increasing turning to medical nutritional solutions--driving demand for these products.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/B7yQ2y0F_zFXjn3uw094__vLgWVn7zTBA7L9zkulCGEThu, 01 Feb 2024 22:07:22 +0000gtyOur analyst explains what parts of the consumer staples sector could benefit from an aging global population. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European consumer staples team at Morgan Stanley, and...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European consumer staples team at Morgan Stanley, and today I’ll be talking the increasingly important longevity theme and its impact on consumers. It’s Thursday, the first of February, at 3 PM in London.It's no secret that global life expectancy is increasing. The rise of modern medicine, improved working conditions, urbanization, and greater access to food and water have all contributed to a greater life expectancy. According to the United Nations, global life expectancy has risen more than 54% since 1950, reaching about 71 years in 2021, with Asia improving the most. At the same time people are living longer, birth rates for most developed economies have dropped. Higher levels of education, the increasing proportion of women in the workforce, and modern medicine have all contributed to lower birth rates. In fact, over the last several decades, the global population has aged significantly, with the median global age increasing 8 years since 1950, hitting 30 years in 2021. Looking ahead, the United Nations expects the percentage of population aged 65+ will continue to increase at a faster rate than younger populations. An ageing population has far-reaching implications, but let’s consider the spending power of older adults. Real disposable income among older adults has increased throughout the years. In 2022, an older adult had about 50% more than in 2000. As a result, older adults today have more money to spend on consumer goods and services than in the last decades. Here are three categories within the Consumer Staples sector that could benefit from the rise in longevity.First, Consumer Health. As consumers skew older and their disposable income increases it bodes well for a wide range of consumer health products – think Vitamins, Minerals and Supplements (VMS), denture care, cold and flu remedies and more.Second, Active Nutrition, including protein supplements and probiotic-rich foods such as kimchi, kombucha, or yogurt, is a likely beneficiary of the longevity theme. This sub-category is currently growing mid- to high single digits on average (over 10% for protein-related categories), and we see room for further long-term growth.Finally, Medical Nutrition. With age comes increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, including cancers, and with malnutrition. Addressing malnutrition improves the cost, and effectiveness, of medical treatment and also allows for shorter hospital stays. To that end, healthcare providers are increasing turning to medical nutritional solutions--driving demand for these products.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>211false1052fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-m-a-ready-to-bounce-back--75653026----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Wally Cheng: And I'm Wally Cheng, Head of West Coast Tech M&A for Investment Banking. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on the outlook ahead for mergers and acquisitions in US tech. 
Michael Zezas: Wally, I really wanted to talk with you because 2023 was arguably the toughest year for U.S. mergers and acquisition markets since the global financial crisis. And we saw a three prong set of challenges in the form of rising interest rates, geopolitical conflicts and recession concerns. And that seems to have weighed on deal activity across the globe. Looking back, the first quarter of 2023 marked the lowest point of the M&A market, and since then we've seen deal activity tick higher. But from your perspective in tech banking, where are we right now and what should investors be watching for this year? 
Wally Cheng: The punch line answer that, Mike, is they should be looking for a bounce back in M&A in 2024 for all the reasons that you mentioned. Activity was very muted in 23. You highlighted rising interest rates. You highlighted geopolitical risks, wars, etc.. In that kind of environment deals just don't get done. There's not a meeting of the minds between buyer and seller. We're in a different environment now, I think what's happened over the last quarter or so is an appreciation or an acceptance of the new normal. The world has a lot of uncertainty around it, and that's no longer a new thing. It's a thing that buyers and sellers now know that they have to face for the foreseeable future. So my expectation for 2024 is much more activity, and we're seeing green shoots of that. And we saw a lot of that happening towards the end of last year. A number of large strategic deals that complemented the flow of private equity driven deals that we've seen for the last couple of years. The playing field now going into the full year of 2024 is really about all groups of buyers and sellers being active. What do I mean by that? I mean, on the buyer side, it's both corporate buyers and private equity buyers. Both active. First half of 2023 was only sponsors. Second half of 2023 was largely only strategics. Now they are both playing in the game. That's on the buyer's side. On the seller side, for the reasons that are articulated, sellers are no longer playing for a material change in the operating environment and a return or snap back, back to 2021 valuation levels. That was a blip on the screen, going to be a very long time to get back to there, if ever, and they're being much more sober and reasonable and realistic about valuations that they can get. So we're seeing much more of a meeting of the minds between buyer and seller. All buyer groups are active. 
Michael Zezas: So drilling down into your area of expertise a little bit more. It's been a slower tech IPO market recently. What's the impact of a slower IPO market on M&A? 
Wally Cheng: That is going to drive more M&A. And what I mean by that is when private companies can't get public, and return money to their private shareholders, they have to seek other ways of doing that. And that's M&A. Last year, and the year before were historically low in terms of IPO volume. Every year, on average over the last decade or so, there's been roughly 40 tech IPOs, last year and the year before less than ten. We're not expecting much more than that this year either. So with that kind of IPO volume, the huge number of private companies, by last count, about 1300 private companies of $1 billion in greater valuation were sitting in the private domain in technology. And of those 1300 companies, just a few of them are going to make it public in the next few years, which means they're going to have to seek other ways of monetizing for their shareholders. And that's going to be through M&A. 
Michael Zezas: So there's obviously a lot of discussion right now about when the Fed will begin cutting interest rates this year. But in any case, the consensus is that even when they are cutting, you're likely to see levels of interest rates also will be somewhat higher than what we saw in the decade between the financial crisis and the pandemic. So what's the potential impact on the next wave of M&A activity from having somewhat higher interest rates? 
Wally Cheng: It will be a factor that is going to hold back a more robust M&A market. But I think the real impact of it is going to be twofold. One is there are going to be many more stock deals. So deals where stock is used as an acquisition currency to buy the target. And then two is I think there's going to be a lot more activity from buyers who have a lot of cash firepower sitting on their balance already. They're going to press their advantage in an environment like this, where for many buyers who don't have that same luxury of cash on their balance sheet and require outside financing at the higher rates that you mentioned to go finance deals, which will make those deals a little bit more difficult to justify economically. So if you've got very inexpensive cash sitting on your balance sheet, now's the time to go use it. 
Michael Zezas: Drilling down a bit here, what sub sectors within technology do you think will see the most M&A activity? 
Wally Cheng: Number one software. And number two Semis with an asterisks on Semis, which I'll get to in a second. In both of those industries consolidation is imperative. In software. Customers are looking for best of platform solutions not best of breed anymore. So in a landscape where there are a thousand plus software companies valued at greater than $1 billion that are either public or private today there's going to be a lot of M&A happening, to get to a product offering that looks more like a best of platform solution for their customers. Similarly, in Semis, the dynamic is the same, a little bit more driven by scale, and that is really what's driving M&A in Semis. There's about 100 semiconductor companies that are public today with more than $1 billion in value. Our expectation is that the need for scale is going to drive that number down to about a third of that through M&A over the next 5 to 10 years. The asterisks that I mentioned on the semiconductor activity is that in order to get the semiconductor deal done today, given the global nature of their revenue, is that they require regulatory approval from governments all over the globe. And in today's environment, where East and West are in a tug of war for tech supremacy, those approvals are really difficult to get. Are they impossible? No. Does it take longer to get them? Yes. So buyers and sellers in semis are really, really taking a hard look at whether or not they can get regulatory approval before announcing their deals, because the last thing they want to do is announce a deal, wait for two years to get it approved, it not be approved, and they've got damaged companies coming out of the end of that. Michael Zezas: Got it. So geopolitical concerns, still a limiting factor for cross-border M&A, but overall we're seeing tailwinds for M&A activity picking up. 
Wally Cheng: You got it. 
Michael Zezas: Well Wally thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Wally Cheng: Super speaking to you Mike. Thanks. 
Michael Zezas: As a reminder if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/R9I0Q4qbCbJSYu0el4neO1F92tYms0yfoWvaeeJHWmsThu, 01 Feb 2024 00:12:35 +0000gtyWhile 2023 was an active year for U.S. mergers and acquisitions, according to Wally Cheng, Head of West Coast M&A in our Technology Investment Banking Group, 2024 is positioned to be a busy year.Wally Cheng is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s...----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Wally Cheng: And I'm Wally Cheng, Head of West Coast Tech M&A for Investment Banking. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on the outlook ahead for mergers and acquisitions in US tech. 
Michael Zezas: Wally, I really wanted to talk with you because 2023 was arguably the toughest year for U.S. mergers and acquisition markets since the global financial crisis. And we saw a three prong set of challenges in the form of rising interest rates, geopolitical conflicts and recession concerns. And that seems to have weighed on deal activity across the globe. Looking back, the first quarter of 2023 marked the lowest point of the M&A market, and since then we've seen deal activity tick higher. But from your perspective in tech banking, where are we right now and what should investors be watching for this year? 
Wally Cheng: The punch line answer that, Mike, is they should be looking for a bounce back in M&A in 2024 for all the reasons that you mentioned. Activity was very muted in 23. You highlighted rising interest rates. You highlighted geopolitical risks, wars, etc.. In that kind of environment deals just don't get done. There's not a meeting of the minds between buyer and seller. We're in a different environment now, I think what's happened over the last quarter or so is an appreciation or an acceptance of the new normal. The world has a lot of uncertainty around it, and that's no longer a new thing. It's a thing that buyers and sellers now know that they have to face for the foreseeable future. So my expectation for 2024 is much more activity, and we're seeing green shoots of that. And we saw a lot of that happening towards the end of last year. A number of large strategic deals that complemented the flow of private equity driven deals that we've seen for the last couple of years. The playing field now going into the full year of 2024 is really about all groups of buyers and sellers being active. What do I mean by that? I mean, on the buyer side, it's both corporate buyers and private equity buyers. Both active. First half of 2023 was only sponsors. Second half of 2023 was largely only strategics. Now they are both playing in the game. That's on the buyer's side. On the seller side, for the reasons that are articulated, sellers are no longer playing for a material change in the operating environment and a return or snap back, back to 2021 valuation levels. That was a blip on the screen, going to be a very long time to get back to there, if ever, and they're being much more sober and reasonable and realistic about valuations that they can get. So we're seeing much more of a meeting of the minds between buyer and seller. All buyer groups are active. 
Michael Zezas: So drilling down into your area of expertise a little bit more. It's been a slower tech IPO market recently. What's the impact of a slower IPO market on M&A? 
Wally Cheng: That is going to drive more M&A. And what I mean by that is when private companies can't get public, and return money to their private shareholders, they have to seek other ways of doing that. And that's M&A. Last year, and the year before were historically low in terms of IPO volume. Every year, on average over the last decade or so, there's been roughly 40 tech IPOs, last year and the year before less than...]]>478false1051fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/markets-are-ready-for-more-bonds--75653032----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our outlook for global fixed income supply and demand in 2024. It's Tuesday, January 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. This year is shaping out to be a big year for bond markets. We see global fixed income growth supply rising 12% to almost $11 trillion in 2024, and expect U.S. Treasury gross supply alone to increase 30% to $4 trillion in 2024. So the big questions investors are grappling with are one, what drives this increase in supply? And two, will there be sufficient demand and from where to meet the supply?
One of the drivers for this rise in supply is quantitative tightening or QT. As G4 central banks have undertaken aggressive measures to curb inflation, they've shrunk their balance sheets by about $250 trillion. Yes, that's trillion with a T, since January 2023, and we expect them to do so by another $245 trillion in 2024. With central bank buying of coupon bonds dropping off, someone else will need to step in. 
A prevailing narrative in 2023 was that markets would get overwhelmed by the amount of fixed income issuance, either because of quantitative tightening or maturing corporate bonds, and this would push yields higher. Yields were indeed pushed higher last year, but it wasn't on the back of supply, instead, the economy turned out to be stronger than expected. And we think that 2024 will be no different. Gross and net issuance across global fixed income products will likely rise versus last year, but demand should be there to meet supply, especially in the second half of 2024, when central banks are expected to start cutting rates and rates volatility normalizes. 
With that said, what is interesting to note is the shift in the type of buyers of bonds. Bank portfolios are the most likely to see a decrease in net buying, while we anticipate that demand will pick up for overseas investors, especially in the second half of the year. 
Meanwhile, we think demand from U.S. pension funds remains strong. They've been big buyers of treasuries in the last few quarters, and should continue to support demand on the very long end of the curve. 
Another important point is that foreign private demand for U.S. treasuries never really went away. Foreign official demand exhibits cyclicality with the fed rate cycle, that is, it decreases as the Fed hike rates and increases when the Fed cuts. Private demand from Japan is particularly cyclical, and we are already seeing signs of Japanese investors returning to the scene as the fed cycle peaks. We also think Japanese investors will find Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS, attractive this year, but will likely commit capital only when volatility in both rates and the bases normalize. 
Bottom line: as global fixed income supply rises in 2024, we think there will be sufficient demand to meet this increase. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/t6F-Jyt-lesm4nzfuntjlc04m_cyeoZUikdQXjzx9woTue, 30 Jan 2024 20:28:08 +0000gtyWho is going to buy nearly $11 trillion in new fixed-income assets in 2024? Find out where our Chief Cross-Asset strategist expects to see demand. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our outlook for global fixed income supply and demand in 2024. It's Tuesday, January 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. This year is shaping out to be a big year for bond markets. We see global fixed income growth supply rising 12% to almost $11 trillion in 2024, and expect U.S. Treasury gross supply alone to increase 30% to $4 trillion in 2024. So the big questions investors are grappling with are one, what drives this increase in supply? And two, will there be sufficient demand and from where to meet the supply?
One of the drivers for this rise in supply is quantitative tightening or QT. As G4 central banks have undertaken aggressive measures to curb inflation, they've shrunk their balance sheets by about $250 trillion. Yes, that's trillion with a T, since January 2023, and we expect them to do so by another $245 trillion in 2024. With central bank buying of coupon bonds dropping off, someone else will need to step in. 
A prevailing narrative in 2023 was that markets would get overwhelmed by the amount of fixed income issuance, either because of quantitative tightening or maturing corporate bonds, and this would push yields higher. Yields were indeed pushed higher last year, but it wasn't on the back of supply, instead, the economy turned out to be stronger than expected. And we think that 2024 will be no different. Gross and net issuance across global fixed income products will likely rise versus last year, but demand should be there to meet supply, especially in the second half of 2024, when central banks are expected to start cutting rates and rates volatility normalizes. 
With that said, what is interesting to note is the shift in the type of buyers of bonds. Bank portfolios are the most likely to see a decrease in net buying, while we anticipate that demand will pick up for overseas investors, especially in the second half of the year. 
Meanwhile, we think demand from U.S. pension funds remains strong. They've been big buyers of treasuries in the last few quarters, and should continue to support demand on the very long end of the curve. 
Another important point is that foreign private demand for U.S. treasuries never really went away. Foreign official demand exhibits cyclicality with the fed rate cycle, that is, it decreases as the Fed hike rates and increases when the Fed cuts. Private demand from Japan is particularly cyclical, and we are already seeing signs of Japanese investors returning to the scene as the fed cycle peaks. We also think Japanese investors will find Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS, attractive this year, but will likely commit capital only when volatility in both rates and the bases normalize. 
Bottom line: as global fixed income supply rises in 2024, we think there will be sufficient demand to meet this increase. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>208false1050fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/opportunities-in-corporate-credit-for-2024--75652894----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. 
David Hamburger: And I'm David Hamburger, Head of U.S. Sector Corporate Credit Research and Lead Analyst for High Yield TMT here at Morgan Stanley. 
Andrew Sheets: And on today's special episode, the podcast, Dave and I will be discussing corporate credit analysis, the TMT sector and what may be ahead for credit investors. 
Andrew Sheets: David, I think it's safe to say that a lot of listeners are going to be a lot more familiar with what an equity analyst does. So before we get into your sector, I think it'd be great to just take a step back and how do you think about the role of a credit analyst, and how does your job differ from your equity analyst colleagues that sit across on the other side of the floor? 
David Hamburger: So, you know, we're primarily focused on the other side of the balance sheet compared to the equity analyst. So we'll be looking at the liabilities that companies have. Those liabilities do trade in the market and people invest in bonds, loans and otherwise. And importantly, the thing that we really do focus on the most is a company's willingness and ability to service debt and repay that debt. We are certainly concerned with how companies generate shareholder value. But importantly, it's really, really crucial and critical to understand a company's ability again and willingness to repay the debt that's on the balance sheet and the liability part of the balance sheet in particular. 
Andrew Sheets: We're also coming into 2024 at a pretty interesting time for corporate credit markets. You know, you've had yields on some of these high yield bond issuers or loan issuers, a double from where they were in 2021/2022. So you have a market that is offering higher yields than in the past, but also with quite a bit of volatility dispersion between better and weaker balance sheets, and quite a bit that's going on, that's getting investors attention. 
David Hamburger: Yeah. There are a lot of opportunities in corporate credit in general. And you know, people sometimes lose sight of the fact that there's quite a diversity of investment opportunities, whether you're looking at many different sectors in energy, consumer retail or importantly, the TMT sector that we look at, and you can really find situations that suit your risk profile and how much risk appetite an investor might have. 
Andrew Sheets: So let's dive a bit into that sector and how you're thinking about it. And again, there might be some investors that are very familiar with the idea of TMT credit and TMT standing for technology, media and telecom. What has been the story in TMT credit over the last five years? What has brought the sector to its current position? 
David Hamburger: I would say the thing that people have really focused on are some of the technological changes that emerged from the Covid pandemic. If you consider and you look at, you know, where we'll focus a lot of our attention on the telecom and cable sectors. And you look at what transpired during the pandemic. You really had two trends that were overarching. The first was connectivity. I mean, everyone was homebound in a situation where, you know, we were not going into work, going to our normal social interactions that we normally had. And connectivity was paramount. The second thing that it that helped spur huge technological advances, I think during that period of time, you probably saw what the types of technological advances that might have taken a cycle of a couple of years in just a few months, strikingly. And so what had transpired then is really we're seeing the fallout of some of those trends where you saw a number of consumers look at the opportunity to better connect through wireless, through broadband services, new technologies that those companies needed to embrace in order to reach the consumer and reach those new subscribers. And it's really been a trend that, you know, we continue to follow. And has really probably been that had the largest impact on this sector overall. 
Andrew Sheets: I think it's safe to say that consumers access to more media now than they've ever had before, which is a nice thing. But how do you think about the opportunities and the challenges that's created for companies, and how companies are dealing with that just seismic and rapid shift in the landscape. 
David Hamburger: So companies need to be extremely nimble. Management teams need a vision and have a lot of foresight how those technologies will evolve. For many of these companies and for this industry in general, that tend to be very high barriers to entry. Why is that? They're extremely capital intensive. So if you look at like a cable company or a telecom company, even a lot of the big media companies spend an incredible amount of money on their networks, on service, on content production and otherwise. And so importantly, what has ultimately been one of the most defining aspects of this period of time has been companies that are nimble, but really that have financial flexibility. When rates were very low and we had very accommodating credit markets, that helped facilitate a lot of that investment that companies needed. But now when we saw the rising rate environment, it really impacted the fact that a lot of these companies had elevated leverage, that needed it in order to undertake these intensive capital programs. So I would say what really has defined the trend in the space, is those companies with strong balance sheets, financial flexibility, management teams that have remained nimble, have succeeded and thrive in this environment. But on the contrary, companies that were extremely elevated amount of leverage on the balance sheet, found themselves with less financial flexibility to perform and compete. And we're really seeing the fallout from that trend over the last two years. 
Andrew Sheets: So, David, I think you've set that up really well. And so, I guess, as you think about the importance of flexibility, and you kind of highlighted the advantages of being more nimble and being more flexible. Do you think this is going to be a story where the market has already rewarded those better, more nimble companies? Or is this a theme that still has further to play out as the market does further differentiation between the two? 
David Hamburger: Yeah, it certainly has more room to run here in terms of differentiation. A lot of it is really around those new technologies. You begin to see this technological advances around more bandwidth and better networks and upgrades. And so, you know, that creates more competition. But at the same time, as we've seen the acceleration of the adoption of more connectivity, it becomes a more mature market. And so those competitive risks get exacerbated by some of the things like market maturation and even saturation. And as well, you can't minimize things like government subsidies that helped Americans stay connected. And so that dynamic continues to create a tension in the sector in terms of the haves and the have nots and the ability to better compete, the financial wherewithal to compete, and management teams that are very adept and nimble at, you know, embracing those new opportunities. And I think ultimately, what you will see is you're going to see further rationalization of the sector as a result of this, where you'll begin to see and particularly if rates start to come down, one of those follow throughs, or one of the potential outcomes of that is really a potential for more M&A in the space. 
Andrew Sheets: So, David, we started this conversation acknowledging that a credit investor and an equity investor might be looking at the same company, but approach that from a different point of view and different areas of emphasis. And I guess to conclude this conversation, as you look ahead, if you think about your sector, who do you think is in the driver's seat right now in the eyes of management, do you think it's more friendly to the equity holder, more friendly to the bondholder? Or does it really vary company by company? David Hamburger: A lot of it varies. Certainly in the interest rate regime we've been under for the last couple of years, the companies and their management teams have been more mindful of the balance sheet and more mindful of leverage. You know, we as credit investors, we're always kind of looking at the downside and the downside risks, because clearly we would just want those companies to pay back debt and always examining again the willingness and ability to do so. But to the extent that there's excess capital and excess financial flexibility, all things equal, you want to make sure they're staying nimble and investing in the business and remaining competitive. And one of the things is, you know, we look at this sectors now with a little more caution because of the amount of leverage, because, you know, there might be a tendency to look at the need to the business and to invest more aggressively should rates begin to come back down. We think the, you know, the higher leverage in the face of rising competition and intensity around consumer and enterprise demand, give us pause with regard to the, you know, these companies ability to to continue to focus on the balance sheet and creditors. And I think that's why, again, you're seeing a lot of these stress situations in this sector in particular. 
Andrew Sheets: David, thank you for taking the time to talk. 
David Hamburger: It's been my pleasure. Thank you. 
Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the App]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WHJW3WYnRxpYqEhMwmtGZUTsYMuXKG58DlSqwfzzKYMTue, 30 Jan 2024 00:07:28 +0000gtyWith the rise of technology, media and telecom credit markets, our analyst explains how companies are looking to manage the rapidly changing landscape.  ----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of...----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. 
David Hamburger: And I'm David Hamburger, Head of U.S. Sector Corporate Credit Research and Lead Analyst for High Yield TMT here at Morgan Stanley. 
Andrew Sheets: And on today's special episode, the podcast, Dave and I will be discussing corporate credit analysis, the TMT sector and what may be ahead for credit investors. 
Andrew Sheets: David, I think it's safe to say that a lot of listeners are going to be a lot more familiar with what an equity analyst does. So before we get into your sector, I think it'd be great to just take a step back and how do you think about the role of a credit analyst, and how does your job differ from your equity analyst colleagues that sit across on the other side of the floor? 
David Hamburger: So, you know, we're primarily focused on the other side of the balance sheet compared to the equity analyst. So we'll be looking at the liabilities that companies have. Those liabilities do trade in the market and people invest in bonds, loans and otherwise. And importantly, the thing that we really do focus on the most is a company's willingness and ability to service debt and repay that debt. We are certainly concerned with how companies generate shareholder value. But importantly, it's really, really crucial and critical to understand a company's ability again and willingness to repay the debt that's on the balance sheet and the liability part of the balance sheet in particular. 
Andrew Sheets: We're also coming into 2024 at a pretty interesting time for corporate credit markets. You know, you've had yields on some of these high yield bond issuers or loan issuers, a double from where they were in 2021/2022. So you have a market that is offering higher yields than in the past, but also with quite a bit of volatility dispersion between better and weaker balance sheets, and quite a bit that's going on, that's getting investors attention. 
David Hamburger: Yeah. There are a lot of opportunities in corporate credit in general. And you know, people sometimes lose sight of the fact that there's quite a diversity of investment opportunities, whether you're looking at many different sectors in energy, consumer retail or importantly, the TMT sector that we look at, and you can really find situations that suit your risk profile and how much risk appetite an investor might have. 
Andrew Sheets: So let's dive a bit into that sector and how you're thinking about it. And again, there might be some investors that are very familiar with the idea of TMT credit and TMT standing for technology, media and telecom. What has been the story in TMT credit over the last five years? What has brought the sector to its current position? 
David Hamburger: I would say the thing that people have really focused on are some of the technological changes that emerged from the Covid pandemic. If you consider and you look at, you know, where we'll focus a lot of our attention on the telecom and cable sectors. And you look at what transpired during the pandemic. You really had two trends that were overarching. The first was connectivity. I mean, everyone was homebound in a situation where, you know, we were not going into work, going to our normal social interactions that we normally had. And connectivity was paramount. The second thing that it that helped spur huge technological advances, I think during that period of time, you probably saw what the types of technological advances that might have taken a cycle of a couple of years in just a few months, strikingly. And so what had transpired then is really we're seeing the fallout of some of those trends where you saw a number of consumers look at...]]>541false1049fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-it-s-time-to-be-bullish-on-european-equities--75652883----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our new approach to European equity markets. It's Friday, January 26th at 4:00 pm in London. 
My team and I recently launched coverage of European equities, with a goal of offering investors a more dynamic and modern approach to stocks in the region. Bottom line  we're bullish on European equities and see 11% upside to our year end target for MSCI Europe. This rises to 16% on a total return basis if we incorporate dividends and buybacks. Let me walk you through our thinking. 
We seek to bring traditional equity strategist to the modern data era by blending traditional European equity strategy metrics such as a focus on PMIs, valuations, flows, etc., with bottom up data driven analysis, unconventional factors, an in-depth cycle playbook and integration of important thematics such as AI diffusion, the rise of European M&A and geopolitics. 
For our cycle playbook, we worked closely with our global economics team to determine which specific cycle in long term history is most similar to today. Our work led us to the mid 1990s and specifically 1995, a soft landing in the US and a soft-ish, still very weak growth environment in Europe. This was a period where there was a major focus by market participants over rates and inflation, bad macroeconomic data was seen as good given its implication for future rate cuts, and there was an undercurrent of technological innovation. Other similarities included overoptimistic market pricing on fed rate cuts after the pivot, a later pivot from European central banks, and concerns about deficit reduction and a budget deal in the US. After an initial sharp Fed pivot related rally, there was a tactical pullback in 1995 in the market, and at this point leadership changed. From a bond proxy leverage cyclical driven rally, very similar to the one we saw into year end, to a rally driven more by idiosyncratic stock specific fundamentals and themes. At the headline level, the market continued to grind higher on the hope trade of future rate cuts and nearing bottom to earnings revisions, and the eventual return of flows into equities from money market funds. Like 1995, we are also seeing a return to M&A from cycle lows, which should further support this rally. Notably, Europe's low valuation starting point and rerating path so far is exactly in line with the 1995 Fed pivot playbook. 
From a factor perspective and to uncover that stock specific, idiosyncratic alpha, I mentioned earlier, we studied over 80 different factors or metrics and uncovered ten that work sustainably to drive relative performance in European equities over time. These range from the conventional, like earnings revisions to the unconventional, such as accruals, an accounting measure that works very well in Europe to predict future earnings quality. 

Bringing everything together, our cycle, factor and thematic analysis, we arrive at 16% total return upside to European equities this year and overweights on European software, aerospace and defense, diversified financials, pharmaceuticals and telecoms, among other sectors. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xXCPY1z7nxlQaBdpZQljYO8u-DfGRbVeDDKSO1UOhnsFri, 26 Jan 2024 21:52:29 +0000gtyListen as our strategist cites which present-day factors and historical precedents should have investors expecting a big year in European equities. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our new approach to European equity markets. It's Friday, January 26th at 4:00 pm in London. 
My team and I recently launched coverage of European equities, with a goal of offering investors a more dynamic and modern approach to stocks in the region. Bottom line  we're bullish on European equities and see 11% upside to our year end target for MSCI Europe. This rises to 16% on a total return basis if we incorporate dividends and buybacks. Let me walk you through our thinking. 
We seek to bring traditional equity strategist to the modern data era by blending traditional European equity strategy metrics such as a focus on PMIs, valuations, flows, etc., with bottom up data driven analysis, unconventional factors, an in-depth cycle playbook and integration of important thematics such as AI diffusion, the rise of European M&A and geopolitics. 
For our cycle playbook, we worked closely with our global economics team to determine which specific cycle in long term history is most similar to today. Our work led us to the mid 1990s and specifically 1995, a soft landing in the US and a soft-ish, still very weak growth environment in Europe. This was a period where there was a major focus by market participants over rates and inflation, bad macroeconomic data was seen as good given its implication for future rate cuts, and there was an undercurrent of technological innovation. Other similarities included overoptimistic market pricing on fed rate cuts after the pivot, a later pivot from European central banks, and concerns about deficit reduction and a budget deal in the US. After an initial sharp Fed pivot related rally, there was a tactical pullback in 1995 in the market, and at this point leadership changed. From a bond proxy leverage cyclical driven rally, very similar to the one we saw into year end, to a rally driven more by idiosyncratic stock specific fundamentals and themes. At the headline level, the market continued to grind higher on the hope trade of future rate cuts and nearing bottom to earnings revisions, and the eventual return of flows into equities from money market funds. Like 1995, we are also seeing a return to M&A from cycle lows, which should further support this rally. Notably, Europe's low valuation starting point and rerating path so far is exactly in line with the 1995 Fed pivot playbook. 
From a factor perspective and to uncover that stock specific, idiosyncratic alpha, I mentioned earlier, we studied over 80 different factors or metrics and uncovered ten that work sustainably to drive relative performance in European equities over time. These range from the conventional, like earnings revisions to the unconventional, such as accruals, an accounting measure that works very well in Europe to predict future earnings quality. 

Bringing everything together, our cycle, factor and thematic analysis, we arrive at 16% total return upside to European equities this year and overweights on European software, aerospace and defense, diversified financials, pharmaceuticals and telecoms, among other sectors. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>227false1048fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-the-u-s-presidential-election-change-fed-policy--75653033----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. 
Matthew Hornbach: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss whether the election will change Fed policy this year. It's Thursday, January 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Matthew Hornbach: All eyes are on the Fed as 2024 gets underway. Investors are concerned not only about the timing and the magnitude of the expected rate cuts this year, but also on the liquidity in the funding markets, which is intricately linked to the Fed's ongoing quantitative tightening operations, or QT. Seth, let's dig right into it. Does the outcome of the US presidential election in November change your team's baseline view that the Fed will lower rates starting in June? 
Seth Carpenter: Matt, I think the short answer to your question is no. So our baseline forecast is, the Fed starts cutting rates in June. And over the second half of the year, it gets a total of 100 basis points worth of cuts in. But that forecast is predicated on the downward trajectory for inflation and the economy's slowing but not falling off of a cliff, or put simply, it's based on the Fed following their statutory objectives for stable prices and full employment, and not the political cycle. 
Matthew Hornbach: So, Seth, we often hear from investors that they believe that the election will have an impact on Fed policy and we also hear from FOMC participants from time to time about this topic. But why is it that FOMC participants dismiss this wisdom or conventional wisdom amongst investors that the election might interfere with Fed policy? 
Seth Carpenter: I think that question has a really simple answer, which is that the FOMC participants, they're the ones sitting around the table making the decisions, and they don't see themselves as being influenced by the politics. I mean, I can say I was at the Fed for 15 years. I was a staffer preparing memos, doing briefings to the committee in the 2000 election, the 2004 election, the 2008 election, the 2012 election. And I can honestly say from my firsthand experience, there really wasn't anything about the fact of the election that was doing anything to influence the way that monetary policy was being decided. Their eyes were fixed on those statutory objectives of full employment and stable prices. But let me turn it around to you, Matt, because I know that you did a lot of homework. You went back through the historical record and you looked at policy decisions in years when there were elections, in years when there weren't elections. When you do that really careful analysis, what comes out of that pattern? What do you see in the policy decisions that the committee took? 
Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. We looked at actual policy rate changes going all the way back to 1971. So really getting in that period of time when inflation was also a problem in the 1970s and early 1980s. And we went all the way through the present day. And what we found was that the Fed doesn't shy away from changing policy, whether it be an election year, a general election year, a midterm election year or no election in a given year. They change policy all the time. You know, then we looked at, well, does the policy changes that occur in election years or non election years, does it differ in notable ways? Does the Fed tend to cut rates more in election years or hike rates more in non election years? And we didn't find any notable pattern at all. It just became very apparent in the data that we looked at that there isn't a political bias in terms of the policy rate, whether to change it or not, change it, to move it up, to move it down. The Fed seems, based on the data, to act in the best interest of what's going on in the economy at the time. 
Seth Carpenter: That makes sense to me, and that's very much consistent with my experience there. But let me push a little bit more, because I know that you didn't just do that wave of analysis and then stop. You always burn the midnight oil here, and you went back through the actual transcripts. Because one thing I know I hear from clients and you must hear it as well, is surely the FOMC has to be aware that the election is going on. How could they not be aware of it? It's got to come up during the meetings. It has to come up during the meeting. So when you look at the transcripts themselves, what was said during the meetings, how much do they talk about the election? 
Matthew Hornbach: They're definitely aware that there's an election, as I think most people around the world would be. And when they talk about the elections, you know, typically it comes up almost every election year. You typically get a handful of FOMC participants that bring up the election. 2008 was an interesting exception, where only one person mentioned the election the entire year. 
Seth Carpenter: They may have been thinking about other things. Matthew Hornbach: They may have other things on their mind, like the great financial crisis that was unfolding. But what we found is that not that many people actually bring it up every election year, but there are a handful here in there that talk about it. You typically find that in the first half of the calendar year, there's not that much discussion about the election. But as the election approaches in November, you get more discussion that ends up showing up in the transcript. So you typically find that the month of October, November and December will have the most discussion about the election by FOMC participants. The second thing we found, Seth, was that when they talk about the election, they typically talk about it in sort of two lines of thinking. One is with respect to fiscal policy. Elections can change fiscal policy, either going into the election or coming out of the election, fiscal policy can differ. And so they typically focus on the state of play with respect to fiscal policy. In 2012, which is when you were there at the fed. I'm sure you noticed that there were lots of discussions about the fiscal cliff. So we noticed that in the transcripts as well. Similarly, in 2016, in December, after the election, in 2016, when the markets were starting to price in the prospect of tax cuts and fiscal stimulus, there was a lot of discussion on the Fed at the time about fiscal policy. Seth Carpenter: Matt, it sounds like you're staking out the controversial view that the central bank of the country is paying attention to the macroeconomic environment and the main factors that drive the macro economy. 
Matthew Hornbach: That's absolutely right. We also found that they discussed the election in terms of the uncertainty that elections caused businesses and consumers. They typically grow more concerned about business investment as we head into an election and businesses pulling back on that investment for a short period of time, until they have clarity about the election outcome. So that's generally what they're talking about when they discuss the election, fiscal policy and uncertainty. 
Seth Carpenter: All right. So I feel a little bit relieved that my firsthand experience is fully consistent with all the digging that you did through the transcript through multiple decades. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. So, Seth, with that, let me just thank you for taking the time to talk with me. 
Seth Carpenter: Matt, I could talk to you all day, but particularly on this topic, it was a pleasure to be here. 
Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TqIfbDLhoWbs9oIrsU6LgdyYgSjmDehsK6C6_EjqJjgThu, 25 Jan 2024 21:16:37 +0000gtyInvestors are concerned that the upcoming election might interfere with policy decisions. Here’s why our view is different. ----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy...----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. 
Matthew Hornbach: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss whether the election will change Fed policy this year. It's Thursday, January 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Matthew Hornbach: All eyes are on the Fed as 2024 gets underway. Investors are concerned not only about the timing and the magnitude of the expected rate cuts this year, but also on the liquidity in the funding markets, which is intricately linked to the Fed's ongoing quantitative tightening operations, or QT. Seth, let's dig right into it. Does the outcome of the US presidential election in November change your team's baseline view that the Fed will lower rates starting in June? 
Seth Carpenter: Matt, I think the short answer to your question is no. So our baseline forecast is, the Fed starts cutting rates in June. And over the second half of the year, it gets a total of 100 basis points worth of cuts in. But that forecast is predicated on the downward trajectory for inflation and the economy's slowing but not falling off of a cliff, or put simply, it's based on the Fed following their statutory objectives for stable prices and full employment, and not the political cycle. 
Matthew Hornbach: So, Seth, we often hear from investors that they believe that the election will have an impact on Fed policy and we also hear from FOMC participants from time to time about this topic. But why is it that FOMC participants dismiss this wisdom or conventional wisdom amongst investors that the election might interfere with Fed policy? 
Seth Carpenter: I think that question has a really simple answer, which is that the FOMC participants, they're the ones sitting around the table making the decisions, and they don't see themselves as being influenced by the politics. I mean, I can say I was at the Fed for 15 years. I was a staffer preparing memos, doing briefings to the committee in the 2000 election, the 2004 election, the 2008 election, the 2012 election. And I can honestly say from my firsthand experience, there really wasn't anything about the fact of the election that was doing anything to influence the way that monetary policy was being decided. Their eyes were fixed on those statutory objectives of full employment and stable prices. But let me turn it around to you, Matt, because I know that you did a lot of homework. You went back through the historical record and you looked at policy decisions in years when there were elections, in years when there weren't elections. When you do that really careful analysis, what comes out of that pattern? What do you see in the policy decisions that the committee took? 
Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. We looked at actual policy rate changes going all the way back to 1971. So really getting in that period of time when inflation was also a problem in the 1970s and early 1980s. And we went all the way through the present day. And what we found was that the Fed doesn't shy away from changing policy, whether it be an election year, a general election year, a midterm election year or no election in a given year. They change policy all the time. You know, then we looked at, well, does the policy changes that occur in election years or non election years, does it differ in notable ways? Does the Fed tend to cut rates more in election years or hike rates more in non election years? And we didn't find any notable pattern at all. It just became very apparent in the data that we looked at that there isn't a political bias in terms of the policy rate, whether to change it or not, change it, to move it up, to move it down. The Fed seems, based on the...]]>417false1047fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-matters-most-to-markets-in-the-u-s-election--75653071----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the US election on markets. It's Wednesday, January 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We're two states into the Republican primary election season. Former President Trump has won both contests, underscoring what polls have been suggesting for months now. That he's the heavy favorite to be the party's nominee for the presidency. But other than that, have we learned anything that might matter to markets? Not particularly in our view. This election will clearly be consequential, the markets, but for the moment we're more in watch and learn mode. Here's two reasons to consider. 
First, knowing who the Republican candidate will be doesn't tell us much about who will become president. While we've heard from some clients that they rate President Biden's chances of reelection as low, and therefore, knowing who will be the Republican nominee is the same as knowing who will be president, we don't agree with this logic. Sitting presidents have had low approval ratings this far ahead of an election and still won before. Also, polls may show that economic factors like inflation are a political weakness for Biden today, but those circumstances could change given how quickly inflation is easing. Now, this doesn't mean we expect Biden will win, it's just that we think it's far from clear who the favorite is in this election. Our second point is that, even if we know who wins, we don't necessarily know what reliable market impact this would have. That's because there are many crosscurrents to the policies each party is pursuing. Democrats may be interested in more social spending, which could boost consumption, but they may also be interested in taxes to fund it, which could cut against growth. Republicans may be interested in lower taxes, but the presumptive nominee is also interested in increased tariffs, which could mitigate tax impacts. To top it off, neither party may be able to do much with the presidency unless they also control Congress, something that polls show will be difficult to achieve. 
So, this all begs the question. What will make this election matter to markets? The answer, in our view, is time and market context. As we get closer to the election, what's in the price of equity in bond markets will largely shape the stakes for investors. For example, if markets are priced for weak economic outcomes, investors may embrace a unified government outcome regardless of party, as it opens the door to fiscal stimulus measures. Of course, this is only one scenario that may matter, but you can see the point on how context is important. So as the stakes become clearer, we'll define them here and let you know more about it. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/j7-FlYDjIQBywFcK3IV5QrrlgWrGB0JmIn37dPeo3dUWed, 24 Jan 2024 22:31:25 +0000gtyWhile it’s too early to tell who will win the U.S. presidential election ­­­– or how markets will respond to it – there are a few factors that investors should consider. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the US election on markets. It's Wednesday, January 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We're two states into the Republican primary election season. Former President Trump has won both contests, underscoring what polls have been suggesting for months now. That he's the heavy favorite to be the party's nominee for the presidency. But other than that, have we learned anything that might matter to markets? Not particularly in our view. This election will clearly be consequential, the markets, but for the moment we're more in watch and learn mode. Here's two reasons to consider. 
First, knowing who the Republican candidate will be doesn't tell us much about who will become president. While we've heard from some clients that they rate President Biden's chances of reelection as low, and therefore, knowing who will be the Republican nominee is the same as knowing who will be president, we don't agree with this logic. Sitting presidents have had low approval ratings this far ahead of an election and still won before. Also, polls may show that economic factors like inflation are a political weakness for Biden today, but those circumstances could change given how quickly inflation is easing. Now, this doesn't mean we expect Biden will win, it's just that we think it's far from clear who the favorite is in this election. Our second point is that, even if we know who wins, we don't necessarily know what reliable market impact this would have. That's because there are many crosscurrents to the policies each party is pursuing. Democrats may be interested in more social spending, which could boost consumption, but they may also be interested in taxes to fund it, which could cut against growth. Republicans may be interested in lower taxes, but the presumptive nominee is also interested in increased tariffs, which could mitigate tax impacts. To top it off, neither party may be able to do much with the presidency unless they also control Congress, something that polls show will be difficult to achieve. 
So, this all begs the question. What will make this election matter to markets? The answer, in our view, is time and market context. As we get closer to the election, what's in the price of equity in bond markets will largely shape the stakes for investors. For example, if markets are priced for weak economic outcomes, investors may embrace a unified government outcome regardless of party, as it opens the door to fiscal stimulus measures. Of course, this is only one scenario that may matter, but you can see the point on how context is important. So as the stakes become clearer, we'll define them here and let you know more about it. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>170false1046fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/taking-the-long-view--75653128----- Transcription -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. 
Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the latest market trends and what they may mean for our retail clients. It's Tuesday, January 23rd at 4 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 11 a.m. here in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to have you back on. So wealth management clients are typically investing for the long term in order to meet specific goals such as retirement. And with that in mind, let's start with the current market backdrop. You know, we've entered the year with increased market confidence. We've seen implied volatility near some of the lowest levels that we've seen in several years. And yet we've also seen some mixed economic data to start the year. So as you look out into 2024, what are the major risks that you're focused on? Lisa Shalett: Well, I think one of the first things that, you know, we're trying to impress upon our clients, who tend to be long term, who tend to be multi-asset class investors, very often owning a simple classical 60/40 portfolio, is that we've been in this very interesting potential regime change, where both bonds and stocks are sensitive to the same thing. And that is the level and rate of change of interest rates. And that's meant that the 60/40 portfolio and stocks and bonds are actually positively correlated with one another. And so the very first thing we're talking to clients about is the extent to which we believe they need to focus on diversification. I think a second factor that we're talking, you know, to clients a lot about is liquidity. Now in the macro sense, we know that one of the reasons that markets have been able to resist some of the pressure is coming from the fed. Raising rates 550 basis points in kind of 15, 16 month period has been because there have been huge offsets in the macro backdrop providing liquidity to the marketplace. So we're talking about the fact that some of those supports to liquidity may, in fact, fall away and go from being tailwinds to being headwinds in 2024. So what does that mean? That means that we need to have perhaps more realistic expectations for overall returns. The third and final thing that we're spending a lot of time with clients on is this idea of what is fair valuation, right? In the last eight weeks of the year, clients were, you know, very I think enamored is probably the right word with the move in the last eight weeks of the year, of course, people had, you know, the fear of missing out. And yet we had to point out that valuations were kind of reaching limits, and we therefore haven't been shocked at this January, the first couple of weeks, markets have maybe stalled out a little bit, having to kind of digest the rate that we've come and the level that we're at. So those are some of the themes that, you know, we've begun to talk about, at least with regard to portfolio construction. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, that's a great framing of it. You know, you mentioned the importance of rates to the equity story, this unusually high correlation that we've had between bonds and stocks. And you have this debate in the market, will the Fed make its first rate cut in March? Will it make its first rate cut in June, like the Morgan Stanley research call is calling for? Is that the same thing? And how important to you in terms of the overall market outlook is this question of when the Fed actually makes its first interest rate cut? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. For our client base and long term investors, you know, we try to push back pretty aggressively on this idea that any of us can time the market and that there's a big distinction and difference between a march cut and a may or June cut. And so what we've said is, you know, the issue is, again, less about when they actually begin, but why do they begin? And one of the reasons that they may begin later than sooner would be that inflation is lumpy. And I know that some of the economists on our global macro team have that perspective that, you know, the heavy lifting, if you will, or the easy money on the inflation trade has been made. And we were able to get from 9 to 4 on many inflation metrics, but getting from 4 to 2 may require patience as we have to, you know, kind of wait for things like owner occupied rents and housing related costs to come down. We have to wait for the lags in wage growth to come out of some of the calculations, and that may require a pickup in unemployment. We may have to wait for some of the services areas where there has been inflation, things related to automotive insurance and things related to health care for some of those items to settle down as well. And so that might be one of the issues that impacts timing. 
Andrew Sheets: So moving to your second key point around market liquidity. Another factor I want to ask you about, which I think is kind of adjacent to that debate, is what about all this cash? You know, we've heard a lot about record inflows into US money market funds over 2023. You have around $6 trillion sitting in US money market funds. How do you see that story playing out, and how do you think investors should think about that question of should I redeploy my cash, given it's still offering relatively high yields? 
Lisa Shalett: So for our clients, you know, one of the things that we're very focused on, again, because we're taking that much longer time frame is saying, look, how does the current 5.3, 5.25 money market yield compare with expected returns for stocks and bonds over the next couple of years? And in that framing from where we sit, what we're saying is cash is reasonably competitive still. Now if rates come down very, very quickly right, we again get back to that question of why. If rates are coming down very quickly because we have disinflationary growth then, then that might be a signal that it's time to redeploy into riskier assets. Alternatively, if they're cutting because they see deteriorating economic conditions, staying in cash for a little while longer during a slowdown might also be the right thing, even though your yields might be going from five to 4 to 3 and a half. And from where we sit, I think our clients know that our capital market assumptions have erred on the conservative side, no doubt about it. But, you know, we think U.S. equities are apt to return at best in 2024 something in the 4 or 5, 6 range against a backdrop where earnings growth could be 10%. And for, you know, investment grade credit, which I know is your expertise. We're saying, you know, we think that rate risk is moderate from here, that it's asymmetric. 
Andrew Sheets: Lisa, just to bring in your third point on valuations, especially valuations and a potentially higher real rate environment. What should investors do in your opinion to build those diversified portfolios given the valuation reality that they're having to deal with? 
Lisa Shalett: So look, I think our perspective is that in a world where, you know, real interest rates are higher, the dynamics around balance sheet quality really come into the fore dynamics around those business models, where you have to ask yourself, are the companies that I own, are the credits that I own truly able to earn their cost of capital? And you know, those questions tend to put pressure on excess valuations. So when we're building portfolios, at least right now, we have a bias to press up against the current skew in the market, right. We're currently skewed to growth versus value. So we've got a preference for value. We've got some skew towards mega-cap versus large mid or small cap. So we're skewing large mid and small cap and active management versus the cap weighted management. We've had this huge skew towards a US bias in our client portfolios, and we're trying to push back against that and say in a relative value context, other regions like parts of emerging markets, like Japan, like parts of Europe are showing genuine interest. So part of this idea of higher real rates in the US is this idea that other asset classes, other regions than this mega cap U.S. growth bias that has really dominated the themes over the last 18 months, that that might get challenged. 
Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. We hope to have you back soon. 
Lisa Shalett: It's always great speaking with you, Andrew. 
Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MlLa3Goe-udxF9vgZgmkmJGnzAXVPFbE1UeUymRXbIUTue, 23 Jan 2024 20:16:12 +0000gtyLisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discusses long-term investors’ biggest concern – the amount and timing of interest rate moves.Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Wealth Management Division and is...----- Transcription -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. 
Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the latest market trends and what they may mean for our retail clients. It's Tuesday, January 23rd at 4 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 11 a.m. here in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to have you back on. So wealth management clients are typically investing for the long term in order to meet specific goals such as retirement. And with that in mind, let's start with the current market backdrop. You know, we've entered the year with increased market confidence. We've seen implied volatility near some of the lowest levels that we've seen in several years. And yet we've also seen some mixed economic data to start the year. So as you look out into 2024, what are the major risks that you're focused on? Lisa Shalett: Well, I think one of the first things that, you know, we're trying to impress upon our clients, who tend to be long term, who tend to be multi-asset class investors, very often owning a simple classical 60/40 portfolio, is that we've been in this very interesting potential regime change, where both bonds and stocks are sensitive to the same thing. And that is the level and rate of change of interest rates. And that's meant that the 60/40 portfolio and stocks and bonds are actually positively correlated with one another. And so the very first thing we're talking to clients about is the extent to which we believe they need to focus on diversification. I think a second factor that we're talking, you know, to clients a lot about is liquidity. Now in the macro sense, we know that one of the reasons that markets have been able to resist some of the pressure is coming from the fed. Raising rates 550 basis points in kind of 15, 16 month period has been because there have been huge offsets in the macro backdrop providing liquidity to the marketplace. So we're talking about the fact that some of those supports to liquidity may, in fact, fall away and go from being tailwinds to being headwinds in 2024. So what does that mean? That means that we need to have perhaps more realistic expectations for overall returns. The third and final thing that we're spending a lot of time with clients on is this idea of what is fair valuation, right? In the last eight weeks of the year, clients were, you know, very I think enamored is probably the right word with the move in the last eight weeks of the year, of course, people had, you know, the fear of missing out. And yet we had to point out that valuations were kind of reaching limits, and we therefore haven't been shocked at this January, the first couple of weeks, markets have maybe stalled out a little bit, having to kind of digest the rate that we've come and the level that we're at. So those are some of the themes that, you know, we've begun to talk about, at least with regard to portfolio construction. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, that's a great framing of it. You know, you mentioned the importance of rates to the equity story, this unusually high correlation that we've had between bonds and stocks. And you have this debate in the market, will the Fed make its first rate cut in March? Will it make its first rate cut in June, like the Morgan Stanley research...]]>552false1045fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chasing-the-end-of-the-economic-cycle--75652890----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 22nd at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
For the past several weeks, we've engaged with many clients from very different disciplines about our outlook for 2024. From these conversations, the primary takeaway is that there isn't much conviction about how this year will play out or how to position one's portfolio. After one of the biggest rallies in history in both bonds and stocks to finish the year, there's a sense that markets need to take a rest before the next theme emerges. Our view isn't that different, except that from our perspective, not much has changed from three months ago other than the price of most assets. 
In our view, we remain very much in a late cycle environment, during which markets will oscillate between good and bad outcomes for the economy. The data continue to support this view, with both positive and negative reports on the economy, earnings and other risk factors. However, as noted, the price of assets are materially higher than three months ago, mainly due to the Fed's pivot from higher for longer, to we're done hiking and likely to be easing in 2024. In addition to the timing and pace of interest rate cuts, investors are also starting to ponder if and when the Fed will end its quantitative tightening or QT campaign. Since embarking on this latest round of QT, the Fed's balance sheet has shrunk by approximately $1.5 trillion. However, it's still $500 billion above the June 2020 levels immediately after the $3 trillion surge to offset the Covid lockdowns. To say that the Fed's balance sheet is normalized to desirable levels is debatable. Nevertheless, our economists and rate strategists think the fed will begin to taper the QT efforts starting sometime this summer. More importantly, we think equity prices now reflect this pivot, and the jury is out on whether it will actually increase the pace of growth and prevent a recession this year. 
Three weeks ago, we published our first note of the year, laying out what we think are three equally likely macro scenarios this year that have very different implications for asset markets. The first scenario is a soft landing with below potential GDP growth and falling inflation. Based on published sell side forecasts and discussions with clients, this is the consensus view, although lower than typical consensus probability of occurring. The second outcome is a soft landing with accelerating growth and stickier inflation, and the third outcome is a hard landing. There's been very little pushback to our suggestion of these three scenarios with equally likely probabilities, and why clients are not that convinced about the next move for asset markets, or what leads and lags. As an aside, this isn't that different from last year's late cycle backdrop, when macro events dictated several large swings in equity prices both up and down. We expect more of the same in 2024. While stock picking is always important, macro will likely remain a primary focus for the direction of the average stock price. 
In our view, the data tells us it's late cycle and the Fed will be easing this year. Under such conditions, quality growth outperforms just like last year. While lower quality cyclicals outperformed during the final two months of 2023, we believe this was mainly due to short covering and performance chasing into year end, rather than a more sustainable change in leadership based on a full reset in the cycle, like 1994. So far in 2024, that's exactly what's happened. The laggards of 2023 are back to lagging and the winners are back to winning. When in doubt, it pays to go with the highest probability winner. In this case it's high quality and defensive growth which will do best under two of the three macro scenarios we think are most likely to pan out this year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JIZzIi3Xrfo1sH5yJuz_s3KhFheuf8MUv_xsEjbixTwMon, 22 Jan 2024 21:31:39 +0000gtyAs the current economic cycle plays out, history suggests that stock prices could be in for large price swings in both directions. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 22nd at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
For the past several weeks, we've engaged with many clients from very different disciplines about our outlook for 2024. From these conversations, the primary takeaway is that there isn't much conviction about how this year will play out or how to position one's portfolio. After one of the biggest rallies in history in both bonds and stocks to finish the year, there's a sense that markets need to take a rest before the next theme emerges. Our view isn't that different, except that from our perspective, not much has changed from three months ago other than the price of most assets. 
In our view, we remain very much in a late cycle environment, during which markets will oscillate between good and bad outcomes for the economy. The data continue to support this view, with both positive and negative reports on the economy, earnings and other risk factors. However, as noted, the price of assets are materially higher than three months ago, mainly due to the Fed's pivot from higher for longer, to we're done hiking and likely to be easing in 2024. In addition to the timing and pace of interest rate cuts, investors are also starting to ponder if and when the Fed will end its quantitative tightening or QT campaign. Since embarking on this latest round of QT, the Fed's balance sheet has shrunk by approximately $1.5 trillion. However, it's still $500 billion above the June 2020 levels immediately after the $3 trillion surge to offset the Covid lockdowns. To say that the Fed's balance sheet is normalized to desirable levels is debatable. Nevertheless, our economists and rate strategists think the fed will begin to taper the QT efforts starting sometime this summer. More importantly, we think equity prices now reflect this pivot, and the jury is out on whether it will actually increase the pace of growth and prevent a recession this year. 
Three weeks ago, we published our first note of the year, laying out what we think are three equally likely macro scenarios this year that have very different implications for asset markets. The first scenario is a soft landing with below potential GDP growth and falling inflation. Based on published sell side forecasts and discussions with clients, this is the consensus view, although lower than typical consensus probability of occurring. The second outcome is a soft landing with accelerating growth and stickier inflation, and the third outcome is a hard landing. There's been very little pushback to our suggestion of these three scenarios with equally likely probabilities, and why clients are not that convinced about the next move for asset markets, or what leads and lags. As an aside, this isn't that different from last year's late cycle backdrop, when macro events dictated several large swings in equity prices both up and down. We expect more of the same in 2024. While stock picking is always important, macro will likely remain a primary focus for the direction of the average stock price. 
In our view, the data tells us it's late cycle and the Fed will be easing this year. Under such conditions, quality growth outperforms just like last year. While lower quality cyclicals outperformed during the final two months of 2023, we believe this was mainly due to short covering and performance chasing into year end, rather than a more sustainable change in leadership based on a full reset in the cycle, like 1994. So far in 2024, that's exactly what's happened. The laggards of 2023 are back to lagging and...]]>243false1044fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-andrew-sheets-why-2024-is-off-to-a-rocky-start--75653145----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 
2023 saw a strong finish to a strong year, with stocks higher, spreads and yields lower and minimal market volatility. That strength in turn flowed from three converging hopeful factors. 
First, there was great economic data, which generally pointed to a US economy that was growing with inflation moderating. Second, we had helpful so-called technical factors such as depressed investor sentiment and the historical tendency for markets, especially credit markets, to do well in the last two months of the year. And third, we had reasonable valuations which had cheapened up quite a bit in October. 
Even more broadly, 2024 offered and still offers a lot to look forward to. Morgan Stanley's economists see global growth holding up as inflation in the U.S. and Europe come down. Major central banks from the US to Europe to Latin America should start cutting rates in 2024, while so-called quantitative tightening or the shrinking of central bank balance sheets should begin to wind down. And more specifically, for credit, we see 2024 as a year of strong demand for corporate bonds, against more modest levels of bond issuance, a positive balance of supply versus demand. 
So why, given all of these positives, has January gotten off to a rocky, sluggish start? It's perhaps because those good things don't necessarily arrive right away. 
Starting with the economic data, Morgan Stanley's economists forecast that the recent decline in inflation, so helpful to the rally over November and December, will see a bumpier path over the next several months, leaving the Fed to wait until June to make their first rate cut. The overall trend is still for lower, better inflation in 2024, but the near-term picture may be a little murky. 
Moving to those so-called technical factors, investor sentiment now is substantially higher than where it was in October, making it harder for events to positively surprise. And for credit, seasonally strong performance in November and December often gives way to somewhat weaker January and February returns. At least if we look at the performance over the last ten years. 
And finally, valuations where the cheapening in October was so helpful to the recent rally, have entered the year richer, across stocks, bonds and credit. 
None of these, in our view, are insurmountable problems, and the base case expectation from Morgan Stanley's economists means there is still a lot to look forward to in 2024. From better growth, to lower inflation, to easier monetary policy. The strong end of 2023 may just mean that some extra patience is required to get there. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nzOOk3gJP3RA3ynD1zjdc8U9vAG5hsND4-iZ0GOKyoQSat, 20 Jan 2024 00:10:36 +0000gtyOriginal Release on January 5, 2024: Should investors be concerned about a sluggish beginning to the year, or do they just need to be patient? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 
2023 saw a strong finish to a strong year, with stocks higher, spreads and yields lower and minimal market volatility. That strength in turn flowed from three converging hopeful factors. 
First, there was great economic data, which generally pointed to a US economy that was growing with inflation moderating. Second, we had helpful so-called technical factors such as depressed investor sentiment and the historical tendency for markets, especially credit markets, to do well in the last two months of the year. And third, we had reasonable valuations which had cheapened up quite a bit in October. 
Even more broadly, 2024 offered and still offers a lot to look forward to. Morgan Stanley's economists see global growth holding up as inflation in the U.S. and Europe come down. Major central banks from the US to Europe to Latin America should start cutting rates in 2024, while so-called quantitative tightening or the shrinking of central bank balance sheets should begin to wind down. And more specifically, for credit, we see 2024 as a year of strong demand for corporate bonds, against more modest levels of bond issuance, a positive balance of supply versus demand. 
So why, given all of these positives, has January gotten off to a rocky, sluggish start? It's perhaps because those good things don't necessarily arrive right away. 
Starting with the economic data, Morgan Stanley's economists forecast that the recent decline in inflation, so helpful to the rally over November and December, will see a bumpier path over the next several months, leaving the Fed to wait until June to make their first rate cut. The overall trend is still for lower, better inflation in 2024, but the near-term picture may be a little murky. 
Moving to those so-called technical factors, investor sentiment now is substantially higher than where it was in October, making it harder for events to positively surprise. And for credit, seasonally strong performance in November and December often gives way to somewhat weaker January and February returns. At least if we look at the performance over the last ten years. 
And finally, valuations where the cheapening in October was so helpful to the recent rally, have entered the year richer, across stocks, bonds and credit. 
None of these, in our view, are insurmountable problems, and the base case expectation from Morgan Stanley's economists means there is still a lot to look forward to in 2024. From better growth, to lower inflation, to easier monetary policy. The strong end of 2023 may just mean that some extra patience is required to get there. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>194false1043fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mexico-nearshoring-keeps-going-strong--75653131----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley Latin American Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on our outlook for nearshoring in Mexico. It's Thursday, January 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we've discussed frequently on this podcast, we're seeing a rapid transition from a globalized economy to one that is more regionalized and Mexico has been a key beneficiary of this trend. Last spring, notably, it surpassed China to become the US largest trading partner. But many market participants believe that the nearshoring narrative in Mexico is losing steam following the strong performance of nearshoring-exposed names in 2022 and 23. We disagree.  In our view, nearshoring is not cyclical, it's a multi-year structural narrative that is still gaining strength. We continue to believe that nearshoring and subsequent waves could be a long and sustained investment in ways that could bring about new ecosystems in Mexico's well-established manufacturing hubs in the North and Bajío regions. What's more, we believe the next waves of opportunity to be a more comprehensive impact on GDP growth. 
The next wave of opportunity will be investment, which we believe is key for 24. After bottoming out below 20% in 2021 the investment to GDP ratio in Mexico is now above 24%. This increase is driven by increasing capital expenditure for machinery and equipment and foreign direct investment, which is breaking through record levels. In the US, manufacturing construction has risen from about $80 billion annually to $220 billion, and it continues to rise. This is mirrored by nonresidential spending in Mexico, which has grown by a similar magnitude. This is key. The nearshoring process reflects the rewiring of global supply chains, and it's happening simultaneously on both sides of the US-Mexico border. 
Therefore, we believe that the surge in investment driven by nearshoring could lift Mexico's potential GDP. We estimate that potential GDP growth in Mexico could rise from 1.9% in 2022 to 2.4% by 2027, a significant surge that would allow the pace of real growth to pick up in '25 to '27 post a US driven slowdown. Indeed, in a scenario where the output gap gradually closes by end of 2027, real GDP growth could hover around 3% by '25-'27. 
Evidence of nearshoring is overwhelming. Mexico is rapidly growing its 15% market share among US manufacturing imports, gaining ground from China and other US major trading partners. Moreover, as the supply chains and manufacturing ecosystems that facilitate growing exports expanding simultaneously on both sides of the border, investment efforts are also occurring in tandem. The debate is no longer whether re-shoring or nearshoring are happening, but it's about understanding how quickly new capacity can be activated, as well as how much capital can be deployed, how quickly and where. 
The key risk when it comes to nearshoring is electricity. There's no industrial revolution without electricity. We've argued that Mexico needs $30 to $40 billion of additional electricity generation and transmission capacity over the next 5 to 6 years to power its potential. This will require a sense of urgency, legal clarity, and collaboration between Mexico policymakers and their US and Canadian peers, aimed at aligning Mexico's policy objectives with the Paris Climate Accord that will push renewable energy back toward the path of growth. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, take a moment to rate us and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show. 

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tKqj6lQsgnKsqEJw7ye--cW6lDja3dNlTspKpuVor4QThu, 18 Jan 2024 19:02:00 +0000gtyMany investors think the boom in Mexico nearshoring is losing steam. See what they may be missing. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley Latin American Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley Latin American Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on our outlook for nearshoring in Mexico. It's Thursday, January 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we've discussed frequently on this podcast, we're seeing a rapid transition from a globalized economy to one that is more regionalized and Mexico has been a key beneficiary of this trend. Last spring, notably, it surpassed China to become the US largest trading partner. But many market participants believe that the nearshoring narrative in Mexico is losing steam following the strong performance of nearshoring-exposed names in 2022 and 23. We disagree.  In our view, nearshoring is not cyclical, it's a multi-year structural narrative that is still gaining strength. We continue to believe that nearshoring and subsequent waves could be a long and sustained investment in ways that could bring about new ecosystems in Mexico's well-established manufacturing hubs in the North and Bajío regions. What's more, we believe the next waves of opportunity to be a more comprehensive impact on GDP growth. 
The next wave of opportunity will be investment, which we believe is key for 24. After bottoming out below 20% in 2021 the investment to GDP ratio in Mexico is now above 24%. This increase is driven by increasing capital expenditure for machinery and equipment and foreign direct investment, which is breaking through record levels. In the US, manufacturing construction has risen from about $80 billion annually to $220 billion, and it continues to rise. This is mirrored by nonresidential spending in Mexico, which has grown by a similar magnitude. This is key. The nearshoring process reflects the rewiring of global supply chains, and it's happening simultaneously on both sides of the US-Mexico border. 
Therefore, we believe that the surge in investment driven by nearshoring could lift Mexico's potential GDP. We estimate that potential GDP growth in Mexico could rise from 1.9% in 2022 to 2.4% by 2027, a significant surge that would allow the pace of real growth to pick up in '25 to '27 post a US driven slowdown. Indeed, in a scenario where the output gap gradually closes by end of 2027, real GDP growth could hover around 3% by '25-'27. 
Evidence of nearshoring is overwhelming. Mexico is rapidly growing its 15% market share among US manufacturing imports, gaining ground from China and other US major trading partners. Moreover, as the supply chains and manufacturing ecosystems that facilitate growing exports expanding simultaneously on both sides of the border, investment efforts are also occurring in tandem. The debate is no longer whether re-shoring or nearshoring are happening, but it's about understanding how quickly new capacity can be activated, as well as how much capital can be deployed, how quickly and where. 
The key risk when it comes to nearshoring is electricity. There's no industrial revolution without electricity. We've argued that Mexico needs $30 to $40 billion of additional electricity generation and transmission capacity over the next 5 to 6 years to power its potential. This will require a sense of urgency, legal clarity, and collaboration between Mexico policymakers and their US and Canadian peers, aimed at aligning Mexico's policy objectives with the Paris Climate Accord that will push renewable energy back toward the path of growth. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, take a moment to rate us and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show. 

]]>216false1042fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/three-investment-themes-for-2024-and-beyond--75653190----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about three key investment themes for 2024. It's Wednesday, January 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Markets will have plenty of potential near-term catalysts to contend with in 2024. There's elections, geopolitical risks as tensions rise with regional conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, and key debates about the timing and pace of central bank rate cuts. We'll be working hard to understand those debates, which will influence how markets perform this year. But what if you're thinking a bit longer term? If that's you, we've got you covered. As it's become our annual tradition, we’re rolling out three secular themes that Morgan Stanley research will be focused on developing collaborative, in-depth research for, in an effort to identify ways for investors to create potential alpha in their portfolio for many years to come. 
The first theme is our newest one, longevity. It's the idea that recent breakthroughs in health care could accelerate the trend toward longer and higher quality human lives. To that end, my research colleagues have been focused on the potential impacts of innovations that include GLP-1 drugs and smart chemo. Further, there's reason to believe similar breakthroughs are on the horizon given the promise of AI assisted pharmaceutical development. And when people lead longer lives, you'd expect their economic behavior to change. So there's potential investment implications not just for the companies developing health care solutions, but also for consumer companies, as our team expects that, for example, people may consume 20 to 30% less calories on a daily basis. And even asset managers are impacted, as people start to manage their investments differently, in line with financing a longer life span. In short, there's great value in understanding the ripple effects into the broader investment world. 
The second theme is a carryover from last year, the ongoing attempts to decarbonize the world and transition to clean energy. Recent policies like the Inflation Reduction Act in the US include substantial subsidies for clean energy development. And so we think it's clear that governments and companies will continue to push in this direction. The result may be a tripling of renewable energy capacity by 2030. And while this is happening, climate change is still asserting itself and investment should pick up in physical capital to protect against the impact. So all these efforts put in motion substantial amounts of capital, meaning investors need to be aware of the sectors which will be crimped by new costs and others that will see the benefits of that spend, such as clean energy. 
Our third theme is also a carryover, the development of AI. In 2023, companies we deemed AI enablers, or ones who were actively developing and seeking to deploy that technology, gained about $6 trillion in stock market value. In 2024, we think we'll be able to start seeing how much of that is hype and how much of that is reality, with enduring impacts that can create long term value for investors. We expect clear use cases and impacts to productivity and company's bottom lines to come more into focus and plan active research to that end in the financials, health care, semiconductor, internet and software sectors, just to name a few. So stay tuned. We think these debates could define asset performance for many years to come. And so we're dedicated to learning as much as we can on them this year and passing on the lessons and market insights to you. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/sp8AMxpCWd9e6a1GHRgt0o32LXD_rgmLoD7YlFS2NnIWed, 17 Jan 2024 20:03:29 +0000gtyElections, geopolitical risks and rate cuts are driving markets in the short term. But there are three trends that could provide long-term investment opportunities. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about three key investment themes for 2024. It's Wednesday, January 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Markets will have plenty of potential near-term catalysts to contend with in 2024. There's elections, geopolitical risks as tensions rise with regional conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, and key debates about the timing and pace of central bank rate cuts. We'll be working hard to understand those debates, which will influence how markets perform this year. But what if you're thinking a bit longer term? If that's you, we've got you covered. As it's become our annual tradition, we’re rolling out three secular themes that Morgan Stanley research will be focused on developing collaborative, in-depth research for, in an effort to identify ways for investors to create potential alpha in their portfolio for many years to come. 
The first theme is our newest one, longevity. It's the idea that recent breakthroughs in health care could accelerate the trend toward longer and higher quality human lives. To that end, my research colleagues have been focused on the potential impacts of innovations that include GLP-1 drugs and smart chemo. Further, there's reason to believe similar breakthroughs are on the horizon given the promise of AI assisted pharmaceutical development. And when people lead longer lives, you'd expect their economic behavior to change. So there's potential investment implications not just for the companies developing health care solutions, but also for consumer companies, as our team expects that, for example, people may consume 20 to 30% less calories on a daily basis. And even asset managers are impacted, as people start to manage their investments differently, in line with financing a longer life span. In short, there's great value in understanding the ripple effects into the broader investment world. 
The second theme is a carryover from last year, the ongoing attempts to decarbonize the world and transition to clean energy. Recent policies like the Inflation Reduction Act in the US include substantial subsidies for clean energy development. And so we think it's clear that governments and companies will continue to push in this direction. The result may be a tripling of renewable energy capacity by 2030. And while this is happening, climate change is still asserting itself and investment should pick up in physical capital to protect against the impact. So all these efforts put in motion substantial amounts of capital, meaning investors need to be aware of the sectors which will be crimped by new costs and others that will see the benefits of that spend, such as clean energy. 
Our third theme is also a carryover, the development of AI. In 2023, companies we deemed AI enablers, or ones who were actively developing and seeking to deploy that technology, gained about $6 trillion in stock market value. In 2024, we think we'll be able to start seeing how much of that is hype and how much of that is reality, with enduring impacts that can create long term value for investors. We expect clear use cases and impacts to productivity and company's bottom lines to come more into focus and plan active research to that end in the financials, health care, semiconductor, internet and software sectors, just to name a few. So stay tuned. We think these debates could define asset performance for many years to come. And so we're dedicated to learning as much as we can on them this year and passing on the lessons and market insights to you. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the...]]>214false1041fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-growth-outlook-for-china-s-tech-sector--75653029----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley's Asia Technology Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the impact of macro factors on China's technology sector. It's Tuesday, January 16th at 10 a.m. in Hong Kong. Over the past year, you've heard my colleagues discuss what we call China's 3D journey. The 3Ds being debt, deflation and demographics. As we enter 2024, it looks like China is now facing greater pressure from these 3Ds, which would cap its economic growth at a slow pace for longer. Given this investor’s currently debating the potential risks of a prolonged deflation environment. In fact, the situation in China, including the rapid contraction of property sales and investment, default risk and initial signs of deflation, has led to comparisons with Japan's extended period of deflation, which was driven by property downturn and the demographic challenge of an aging population. 
At the same time, within the past decade, China has quickly emerged as one of the most important end demand markets for the global information and communication technology industry, accounting for 12% of market share in 2023 versus just 7% back in 2006. This trend is fueled by China's economic growth driving demand for IT infrastructure and China's large population base driving demand for consumer electronics. China has also become the largest end demand market for the semiconductor industry, accounting for about 36 to 40% of global semiconductor revenues in the last decade. As it aims to achieve self-sufficiency and semiconductor localization, China has been aggressively expanding its production capacity. It  currently accounts for about 25% of global capacity. Over the long term, we believe China's economic slowdown will likely lead to lower trade flows in other countries, misallocation of resources across sectors and countries, and reduced cross-border dissemination of knowledge and technology. China's semiconductor manufacturing, in particular, will continue to face significant challenges. As the world transitions to a multipolar model and supply chains get rewired, a further gradual de-risking of robotic manufacturing away from China is underway, and that includes semiconductor manufacturing. In a more extreme scenario, a complete trade decoupling would resemble the 1980s, when the competition between the US and Japan in the semiconductor industry intensified significantly. Our economics team believes that China can beat the debt deflation loop threat decisively next 2 to 3 years. It's important to note, however, that risks are skewed to the downside, with a delayed policy response potentially leading to prolonged deflation. And this could send nominal GDP growth to 2.2% in 2025 to 2027. And based on the historical relationship between nominal GDP growth and the information and communication technology total addressable market, we estimate that China's ICT market and semiconductor market could potentially decline 5 to 7% in 2024, and perhaps as much as 20% by 2030, in a bear case scenario. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EqP4wI37Q_lSZDJqnGbqP8i9hoEY1eA9O3v8yE2oQL4Tue, 16 Jan 2024 20:05:06 +0000gtyAlthough China has emerged as one of the world’s largest end markets for technology, its tech sector faces some significant macro hurdles. Here’s what investors need to know. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley's Asia Technology Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the impact of macro factors on China's technology sector. It's Tuesday, January 16th at 10 a.m. in Hong Kong. Over the past year, you've heard my colleagues discuss what we call China's 3D journey. The 3Ds being debt, deflation and demographics. As we enter 2024, it looks like China is now facing greater pressure from these 3Ds, which would cap its economic growth at a slow pace for longer. Given this investor’s currently debating the potential risks of a prolonged deflation environment. In fact, the situation in China, including the rapid contraction of property sales and investment, default risk and initial signs of deflation, has led to comparisons with Japan's extended period of deflation, which was driven by property downturn and the demographic challenge of an aging population. 
At the same time, within the past decade, China has quickly emerged as one of the most important end demand markets for the global information and communication technology industry, accounting for 12% of market share in 2023 versus just 7% back in 2006. This trend is fueled by China's economic growth driving demand for IT infrastructure and China's large population base driving demand for consumer electronics. China has also become the largest end demand market for the semiconductor industry, accounting for about 36 to 40% of global semiconductor revenues in the last decade. As it aims to achieve self-sufficiency and semiconductor localization, China has been aggressively expanding its production capacity. It  currently accounts for about 25% of global capacity. Over the long term, we believe China's economic slowdown will likely lead to lower trade flows in other countries, misallocation of resources across sectors and countries, and reduced cross-border dissemination of knowledge and technology. China's semiconductor manufacturing, in particular, will continue to face significant challenges. As the world transitions to a multipolar model and supply chains get rewired, a further gradual de-risking of robotic manufacturing away from China is underway, and that includes semiconductor manufacturing. In a more extreme scenario, a complete trade decoupling would resemble the 1980s, when the competition between the US and Japan in the semiconductor industry intensified significantly. Our economics team believes that China can beat the debt deflation loop threat decisively next 2 to 3 years. It's important to note, however, that risks are skewed to the downside, with a delayed policy response potentially leading to prolonged deflation. And this could send nominal GDP growth to 2.2% in 2025 to 2027. And based on the historical relationship between nominal GDP growth and the information and communication technology total addressable market, we estimate that China's ICT market and semiconductor market could potentially decline 5 to 7% in 2024, and perhaps as much as 20% by 2030, in a bear case scenario. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>194false1040fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-next-for-money-market-funds--75653018----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 12th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest stories in recent years has been the rise of the money market fund. Today, an investor in a US dollar money market fund earns a yield of about 5.3%, a full 1% higher than the yield on a 30 year US government bond and almost 4% higher than the yield on the S&P 500. All investment strategy at the moment, to some extent, flows from the starting point that holding cash pays pretty well. 
Unsurprisingly, those high yields in money market funds for little volatility have been popular. Per data from the Investment Company Institute, U.S. money market fund assets now stand at about $6 trillion, over $1 trillion higher than a year ago, which flows into these funds accelerating over the last few months. 
But we think this could change looking into 2024. The catalyst will be greater confidence that the Federal Reserve has not just stopped raising interest rates, but will start to cut them. If short term rates are set to fall, the outlook for holders of a money market fund changes. Suddenly they may want to lock in those high current yields. 
Morgan Stanley expects the declines and what these money market funds may earn to be significant. We see the Fed reducing rates by 100 basis points in 2024, and another 200 basis points in 2025, leaving short term rates to be a full 3% lower than current levels over the next two years. In Europe, rates on money market funds may fall 2% over the same period. 
While lower short term interest rates can make holding money market funds less attractive, they make holding bonds more attractive. Looking back over the last 40 years, the end of Federal Reserve rate increases, as well as the start of interest rate cuts has often driven higher returns for high quality bonds. 
But would a shift out of money market funds into bonds make sense for household allocations? We think so. Looking at data from the Federal Reserve back to the 1950s, we see that household allocation to bonds remain relatively low, while exposures to the stock market remain historically high. And this is the reason why we think any flows out of money market funds are more likely to go into bonds than stocks. Stock market exposure is already high, and stocks represent a much more volatile asset than bonds, relative to holding cash. 
While the US money market funds saw $1 trillion of inflows into 2024 flows to investment grade and high yield saw almost nothing. That is starting to change. With the Fed done raising rates, we expect higher flows into credit, especially in 1 to 5 year investment grade bonds, the part of the credit market that could be the easiest first step for investors coming out of cash and looking for something to move into. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0tgZk6V9ghRe0OZa7HPYl2T9Qs-_xUCgWChkiJbb8HoFri, 12 Jan 2024 20:20:58 +0000gtyChanging Fed policy in 2024 is likely to bring down yields from these increasingly popular funds. Here’s what investors can consider instead. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 12th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest stories in recent years has been the rise of the money market fund. Today, an investor in a US dollar money market fund earns a yield of about 5.3%, a full 1% higher than the yield on a 30 year US government bond and almost 4% higher than the yield on the S&P 500. All investment strategy at the moment, to some extent, flows from the starting point that holding cash pays pretty well. 
Unsurprisingly, those high yields in money market funds for little volatility have been popular. Per data from the Investment Company Institute, U.S. money market fund assets now stand at about $6 trillion, over $1 trillion higher than a year ago, which flows into these funds accelerating over the last few months. 
But we think this could change looking into 2024. The catalyst will be greater confidence that the Federal Reserve has not just stopped raising interest rates, but will start to cut them. If short term rates are set to fall, the outlook for holders of a money market fund changes. Suddenly they may want to lock in those high current yields. 
Morgan Stanley expects the declines and what these money market funds may earn to be significant. We see the Fed reducing rates by 100 basis points in 2024, and another 200 basis points in 2025, leaving short term rates to be a full 3% lower than current levels over the next two years. In Europe, rates on money market funds may fall 2% over the same period. 
While lower short term interest rates can make holding money market funds less attractive, they make holding bonds more attractive. Looking back over the last 40 years, the end of Federal Reserve rate increases, as well as the start of interest rate cuts has often driven higher returns for high quality bonds. 
But would a shift out of money market funds into bonds make sense for household allocations? We think so. Looking at data from the Federal Reserve back to the 1950s, we see that household allocation to bonds remain relatively low, while exposures to the stock market remain historically high. And this is the reason why we think any flows out of money market funds are more likely to go into bonds than stocks. Stock market exposure is already high, and stocks represent a much more volatile asset than bonds, relative to holding cash. 
While the US money market funds saw $1 trillion of inflows into 2024 flows to investment grade and high yield saw almost nothing. That is starting to change. With the Fed done raising rates, we expect higher flows into credit, especially in 1 to 5 year investment grade bonds, the part of the credit market that could be the easiest first step for investors coming out of cash and looking for something to move into. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>189false1039fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-path-ahead-for-natural-gas-and-shale--75653039----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North American Energy Research Team and the Lead Commodity Strategist for Global Gas and LNG Markets. Today, I'll be talking about some of the big debates around natural gas and shale in 2024. It's Thursday, January 11th at 10 a.m. in New York. The evolution of shale as a viable, low cost energy resource, has been one of the biggest structural changes in global oil and gas markets of the past few decades. In oil, this turned the U.S. into the world's largest producer, while falling costs also led to sharp deflation in prices and global oversupply. For U.S. natural gas, which is more regionally isolated, it allowed the market to double in size from 2010 to 2020, with demand growing rapidly across nearly every major end-market. Over this period, the U.S. transitioned from a net importer of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to one of the world's largest exporters. But despite this robust growth, prices actually declined 80% over the period as falling cost of U.S. shale and pipeline expansions unlocked low cost supply. 
Now looking ahead after a multi-year pause, the US is set to begin another cycle of LNG expansion. This comes in response to some of the market shocks from the Russia/Ukraine conflict, including loss of Russian gas into Europe, as well as strong demand growth in Asia, where LNG serves as a key energy transition fuel. In total, projects that are currently under construction should nearly double US LNG export capacity by the later part of this decade. While the last wave didn't drive prices higher, this time can be different as it comes at a time when some investors feel like peak shale might be on the horizon. Shale is maturing, well costs and break-evens are generally no longer falling, and pipe expansions have slowed significantly due to regulatory challenges. While many of these issues are more apparent on the oil side, there are challenges for gas as well. Notably, the lowest cost US supply region, the Marcellus in Appalachia, is constrained by lack of infrastructure. As a result, meeting this demand likely elicits a call on supply growth from higher cost regions relative to last cycle. This not only includes the Haynesville, a gas play in Louisiana, but also the Eagle Ford in Texas and Basins in Oklahoma, potentially requiring prices in the $4 to $5 per MMBtu range to incentivize sufficient investment. 
Investors are split on the natural gas outlook. Bears argue that abundant, low cost domestic supply will meet LNG demand without higher prices, just like last time, while bulls backed higher prices this time around. Now, strong supply and a mild start to the winter heating season has actually pushed Henry Hub prices lower to close out 2023, bringing year-to-date declines to 50%. While this drives a softer set up for the first half of 2024, lower prices also come with a silver lining. This should help moderate potential investment in new supply ahead of the pending wave of LNG expansions. As a result, we believe the bearish near-term setup may prove bullish for the second half of 2024 and 2025. A dynamic many stocks in the sector do not fully reflect. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BaZ5m7dKDXGNgQH2nW0wMF5SCU5xSbPic3npNImpveEThu, 11 Jan 2024 18:38:30 +0000gtyInvestors are split on the outlook for natural gas as “peak shale” may be on the horizon. Here’s what to expect in 2024. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North American Energy...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North American Energy Research Team and the Lead Commodity Strategist for Global Gas and LNG Markets. Today, I'll be talking about some of the big debates around natural gas and shale in 2024. It's Thursday, January 11th at 10 a.m. in New York. The evolution of shale as a viable, low cost energy resource, has been one of the biggest structural changes in global oil and gas markets of the past few decades. In oil, this turned the U.S. into the world's largest producer, while falling costs also led to sharp deflation in prices and global oversupply. For U.S. natural gas, which is more regionally isolated, it allowed the market to double in size from 2010 to 2020, with demand growing rapidly across nearly every major end-market. Over this period, the U.S. transitioned from a net importer of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to one of the world's largest exporters. But despite this robust growth, prices actually declined 80% over the period as falling cost of U.S. shale and pipeline expansions unlocked low cost supply. 
Now looking ahead after a multi-year pause, the US is set to begin another cycle of LNG expansion. This comes in response to some of the market shocks from the Russia/Ukraine conflict, including loss of Russian gas into Europe, as well as strong demand growth in Asia, where LNG serves as a key energy transition fuel. In total, projects that are currently under construction should nearly double US LNG export capacity by the later part of this decade. While the last wave didn't drive prices higher, this time can be different as it comes at a time when some investors feel like peak shale might be on the horizon. Shale is maturing, well costs and break-evens are generally no longer falling, and pipe expansions have slowed significantly due to regulatory challenges. While many of these issues are more apparent on the oil side, there are challenges for gas as well. Notably, the lowest cost US supply region, the Marcellus in Appalachia, is constrained by lack of infrastructure. As a result, meeting this demand likely elicits a call on supply growth from higher cost regions relative to last cycle. This not only includes the Haynesville, a gas play in Louisiana, but also the Eagle Ford in Texas and Basins in Oklahoma, potentially requiring prices in the $4 to $5 per MMBtu range to incentivize sufficient investment. 
Investors are split on the natural gas outlook. Bears argue that abundant, low cost domestic supply will meet LNG demand without higher prices, just like last time, while bulls backed higher prices this time around. Now, strong supply and a mild start to the winter heating season has actually pushed Henry Hub prices lower to close out 2023, bringing year-to-date declines to 50%. While this drives a softer set up for the first half of 2024, lower prices also come with a silver lining. This should help moderate potential investment in new supply ahead of the pending wave of LNG expansions. As a result, we believe the bearish near-term setup may prove bullish for the second half of 2024 and 2025. A dynamic many stocks in the sector do not fully reflect. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>196false1038fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-global-oil-markets-surprise-in-2024--75652980----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martjin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the 2024 Global Outlook for oil. It's Wednesday, the 10th of January at 2 p.m. in London. 
Around six months ago, oil market forecasters widely forecasted a tight second half for 2023 with considerable inventory draws. This expectation was partially driven by two factors. One, OPEC cuts, and in particular the additional voluntary cut of about 1 million barrels a day announced by Saudi Arabia back in June that took the country's production to 9 million barrels a day, about 10% lower than the average of the first half of 2023. The second factor was a positive view on demand, which had mostly surprised to the upside in the first half of 2023. The market indeed tightened in the third quarter and inventories drew sharply at the time. As a result, Dated Brant rallied and briefly reached $98 a barrel in late September. 
However, this was not to last in the fourth quarter. Demand disappointed, growth and non-OPEC supply remained relentless and inventories built again. Needless to say, these trends have been reflected in prices. Not only did spot prices decline, Dated Brant fell to about $74 a barrel in mid-December, but a number of other indicators, such as calendar spreads for example, signaled a broad weakening of the oil complex. 
Looking ahead, we expect a relatively precarious balance in 2024. Demand growth is set to slow as the post-Covid recovery tailwinds have largely run out of steam by now. Despite low investment in production capacity in recent years, the growth in non-OPEC supply is set to remain strong in 2024 and probably also in 2025, enough to meet all global demand growth. Naturally, this limits the room in the oil market for OPEC oil. When OPEC cuts production in response, as it has recently been doing, this puts downward pressure on its market share and upward pressure on its spare capacity. 
History warns of such periods. On several occasions when non-OPEC supply growth outpaced global demand, eventually, a period of lower prices was needed to reverse that balance. However, we argue that is not quite what lies ahead for 2024. OPEC cohesion has been robust in recent years and will likely continue this year. We expect the production cuts agreed to in late November 2023 to eventually be extended through all of 2024, and we don't exclude a further deepening of those cuts either. 
This would limit the pace of inventory builds in 2024, but probably not prevent them. In our base case projections, we still see inventories built modestly at a rate of about a few hundred thousand barrels a day this year, and our initial 2025 estimates also imply a modest oversupply next year. 
As a result, we see lower oil prices ahead, but again, not a large difference. We estimate Dated Brant will remain close to $80 a barrel in the first half of 2024, but may gradually decline towards the end of the year, trading in the low to mid $70s in 2025. That may also support our economists' call for inflation to moderate further this year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/b0nwtzEY1LDJ4-GH5uPhqQicGay8P7x-mBtwYpBAxWsWed, 10 Jan 2024 19:43:32 +0000gtyWorld oil demand is slowing, non-OPEC supply remains strong and OPEC is likely to follow through on planned cuts. Here’s how investors can understand this precarious balance. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martjin Rats,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martjin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the 2024 Global Outlook for oil. It's Wednesday, the 10th of January at 2 p.m. in London. 
Around six months ago, oil market forecasters widely forecasted a tight second half for 2023 with considerable inventory draws. This expectation was partially driven by two factors. One, OPEC cuts, and in particular the additional voluntary cut of about 1 million barrels a day announced by Saudi Arabia back in June that took the country's production to 9 million barrels a day, about 10% lower than the average of the first half of 2023. The second factor was a positive view on demand, which had mostly surprised to the upside in the first half of 2023. The market indeed tightened in the third quarter and inventories drew sharply at the time. As a result, Dated Brant rallied and briefly reached $98 a barrel in late September. 
However, this was not to last in the fourth quarter. Demand disappointed, growth and non-OPEC supply remained relentless and inventories built again. Needless to say, these trends have been reflected in prices. Not only did spot prices decline, Dated Brant fell to about $74 a barrel in mid-December, but a number of other indicators, such as calendar spreads for example, signaled a broad weakening of the oil complex. 
Looking ahead, we expect a relatively precarious balance in 2024. Demand growth is set to slow as the post-Covid recovery tailwinds have largely run out of steam by now. Despite low investment in production capacity in recent years, the growth in non-OPEC supply is set to remain strong in 2024 and probably also in 2025, enough to meet all global demand growth. Naturally, this limits the room in the oil market for OPEC oil. When OPEC cuts production in response, as it has recently been doing, this puts downward pressure on its market share and upward pressure on its spare capacity. 
History warns of such periods. On several occasions when non-OPEC supply growth outpaced global demand, eventually, a period of lower prices was needed to reverse that balance. However, we argue that is not quite what lies ahead for 2024. OPEC cohesion has been robust in recent years and will likely continue this year. We expect the production cuts agreed to in late November 2023 to eventually be extended through all of 2024, and we don't exclude a further deepening of those cuts either. 
This would limit the pace of inventory builds in 2024, but probably not prevent them. In our base case projections, we still see inventories built modestly at a rate of about a few hundred thousand barrels a day this year, and our initial 2025 estimates also imply a modest oversupply next year. 
As a result, we see lower oil prices ahead, but again, not a large difference. We estimate Dated Brant will remain close to $80 a barrel in the first half of 2024, but may gradually decline towards the end of the year, trading in the low to mid $70s in 2025. That may also support our economists' call for inflation to moderate further this year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>204false1037fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-these-gen-ai-s-next-big-winners--75653048----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our views on the broad impacts of AI across global markets. It's Tuesday, the 9th of January at 2 p.m. in London. 
AI has established itself as a critical theme of the last 12 months, but we are clearly in the early innings of its diffusion. More specifically, 2023 was very successful for AI players that we call the enablers, those first line of hardware and software companies that play into the generative AI debate. 
But after the first wave of excitement, how does that trend percolate through the rest of the market, and how much of the hype will translate to sustainable earnings uplift? What is the next move for this entire debate, which so captivated markets in 2023? 
Our team mapped out the next stage of the debate across all regions and industries, and came to three key conclusions. The first, looking back at 2023, the enablers did extraordinarily well, and that shouldn't come as a surprise to any of our regular listeners. Some of those companies saw triple digit returns last year, and we estimate that more than $6 trillion of market cap was added to those names globally. 
But that brings us to our second key conclusion. Namely, looking forward, we think that investors should now turn their attention to the adopters. Meaning companies that are leveraging the enablers software and hardware to better use their own data and monetize that for the AI world. Looking back last year, where the enablers returned more comfortably double digit and triple digit returns, the adopters only gained on average around 6%. 
Of course, we're only in the early innings of the AI revolution, and the market is still treating these adopters as a "show me" story. We think that 2024 is going to be transformative for this adopter group, and we expect to see a wave of product launches using large language models and generative AI, particularly in the second half of 2024. 
Our third key conclusion is around the rate of change. And what do we mean by this? Well, in 2023, the enabler stocks, where AI was moderately important to the investment debate, increased their total market cap by around 28%. But if AI increases in importance to the point where analysts deem it to be core to the thesis for that particular stock, we expect it can add another 40% to market cap of this group based on last year's performance. 
A final point worth noting is that investors should pay close attention to the give and take between enabler and adopter groups. As I mentioned, the adopters were relatively more muted in their performance last year than the enablers. However, we believe in 2024 we will see the virtuous cycle between these two groups come into greater focus for investors. Enablers, consensus upgrades and valuations will depend increasingly on the enterprise IT budgets being deployed by the adopters in 2024-25. The adopters, in turn, are in a race to build both revenue generating and productivity enhancing tools, which completes the virtuous circle by feeding the enablers revenue line. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5O--QX3tMHyY89kmOJbqF6l6Wnd_wuOzsIQ0MQehJXYTue, 09 Jan 2024 19:12:12 +0000gtyCompanies that offer generative AI solutions saw their valuations rise in 2023. This year, investors should look at the companies adopting these solutions. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our views on the broad impacts of AI across global markets. It's Tuesday, the 9th of January at 2 p.m. in London. 
AI has established itself as a critical theme of the last 12 months, but we are clearly in the early innings of its diffusion. More specifically, 2023 was very successful for AI players that we call the enablers, those first line of hardware and software companies that play into the generative AI debate. 
But after the first wave of excitement, how does that trend percolate through the rest of the market, and how much of the hype will translate to sustainable earnings uplift? What is the next move for this entire debate, which so captivated markets in 2023? 
Our team mapped out the next stage of the debate across all regions and industries, and came to three key conclusions. The first, looking back at 2023, the enablers did extraordinarily well, and that shouldn't come as a surprise to any of our regular listeners. Some of those companies saw triple digit returns last year, and we estimate that more than $6 trillion of market cap was added to those names globally. 
But that brings us to our second key conclusion. Namely, looking forward, we think that investors should now turn their attention to the adopters. Meaning companies that are leveraging the enablers software and hardware to better use their own data and monetize that for the AI world. Looking back last year, where the enablers returned more comfortably double digit and triple digit returns, the adopters only gained on average around 6%. 
Of course, we're only in the early innings of the AI revolution, and the market is still treating these adopters as a "show me" story. We think that 2024 is going to be transformative for this adopter group, and we expect to see a wave of product launches using large language models and generative AI, particularly in the second half of 2024. 
Our third key conclusion is around the rate of change. And what do we mean by this? Well, in 2023, the enabler stocks, where AI was moderately important to the investment debate, increased their total market cap by around 28%. But if AI increases in importance to the point where analysts deem it to be core to the thesis for that particular stock, we expect it can add another 40% to market cap of this group based on last year's performance. 
A final point worth noting is that investors should pay close attention to the give and take between enabler and adopter groups. As I mentioned, the adopters were relatively more muted in their performance last year than the enablers. However, we believe in 2024 we will see the virtuous cycle between these two groups come into greater focus for investors. Enablers, consensus upgrades and valuations will depend increasingly on the enterprise IT budgets being deployed by the adopters in 2024-25. The adopters, in turn, are in a race to build both revenue generating and productivity enhancing tools, which completes the virtuous circle by feeding the enablers revenue line. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today. ]]>214false1036fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-anti-obesity-drugs-disrupt-the-medtech-industry--75652928----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Patrick Wood, Morgan Stanley's MedTech analyst. And today, I'll be talking about the potential impact of anti-obesity medications on the MedTech industry. It's Monday, January 8th at 10 a.m. in New York. Anti-obesity drugs have made significant gains in popularity over the past year, and by and large, the market expects them to disrupt numerous MedTech markets as widespread adoption leads to population-level weight reduction and co-morbidity improvement. 
To a certain extent, we agree with the premise that obesity is linked to high health care spend and therefore anti-obesity drugs could represent a risk to device sales. Our research suggests that moderate obesity is associated with about $1,500 a year higher spend on healthcare per capita, with an even greater impact in severe obesity at about $3000 bucks a year. But  we think it would be a mistake to assume reduced rates of obesity are intrinsically negative for medtech makers overall. 
In fact, we think anti-obesity drugs may ultimately prove to be a net positive for MedTech companies as the drugs increased life expectancy and increased demand for procedures or therapies that would not have been a good option for patients who are obese. In some cases, severe obesity can actually be contraindication for ortho or spine surgery, with many patients denied procedures until they shed a certain amount of weight for fear of complications, infection, and other issues. In this context, anti-obesity drugs could actually boost procedure volumes for certain patients. 
Another factor to consider, we believe the importance of life expectancy shifts as a result of potentially lower obesity rates cannot be ignored. In fact, our analysis suggests that obesity reduces life expectancy by about ten years in younger adults and five years in middle age adults. 
Think of it this way, from the standpoint of total healthcare consumption, one incremental year of life expectancy in old age could equate to as much as ten years of obesity in terms of overall healthcare spending. Adults 65 plus spend 2 to 3 times more per year on average, than adults 45 to 64, with a significant $10 to $25,000 step up in dollar terms. 
Furthermore, rates of sudden cardiac death increased dramatically in high body mass index patients, eliminating the possibility of medical intervention to address the underlying obesity issue or the associated co-morbidities. 
Given all this, we think anti-obesity drugs will ultimately prove to be a net benefit for cardiovascular device makers overall, even in certain categories where body mass index is correlated with higher procedure rates. In markets such as structural heart, where we're replacing things like heart valves, we believe the number of patients reaching old age, that is 70 plus, is most important in regards to volumes. Though rates of obesity are contributing factors as well, orthopedics is more of a mixed bag. The strongest evidence we've seen here is on lower BMI's leading to reduced procedure volumes though pertaining to osteoarthritis in the knees and degenerative disc disease in spine. But we think the argument that fewer people with obesity means fewer knee replacements or fewer incidences of spine disease is actually only half the picture. Clearly, age may be a factor here, and our sense is that hip volumes in particular are not dependent on high BMI's as much as on an aging population. 
To sum up, we believe that anti-obesity drugs won't dismantle core MedTech markets. There are more layers to the story here.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/k6KaL4QPObsH6ja-DuZIVY-K6gDBF1NihPYz4QMdHRQMon, 08 Jan 2024 19:50:49 +0000gtyInvestors worry that anti-obesity drugs could dent demand for medical procedures and devices. Here’s what they could be missing. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Patrick Wood, Morgan Stanley's MedTech analyst. And today,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Patrick Wood, Morgan Stanley's MedTech analyst. And today, I'll be talking about the potential impact of anti-obesity medications on the MedTech industry. It's Monday, January 8th at 10 a.m. in New York. Anti-obesity drugs have made significant gains in popularity over the past year, and by and large, the market expects them to disrupt numerous MedTech markets as widespread adoption leads to population-level weight reduction and co-morbidity improvement. 
To a certain extent, we agree with the premise that obesity is linked to high health care spend and therefore anti-obesity drugs could represent a risk to device sales. Our research suggests that moderate obesity is associated with about $1,500 a year higher spend on healthcare per capita, with an even greater impact in severe obesity at about $3000 bucks a year. But  we think it would be a mistake to assume reduced rates of obesity are intrinsically negative for medtech makers overall. 
In fact, we think anti-obesity drugs may ultimately prove to be a net positive for MedTech companies as the drugs increased life expectancy and increased demand for procedures or therapies that would not have been a good option for patients who are obese. In some cases, severe obesity can actually be contraindication for ortho or spine surgery, with many patients denied procedures until they shed a certain amount of weight for fear of complications, infection, and other issues. In this context, anti-obesity drugs could actually boost procedure volumes for certain patients. 
Another factor to consider, we believe the importance of life expectancy shifts as a result of potentially lower obesity rates cannot be ignored. In fact, our analysis suggests that obesity reduces life expectancy by about ten years in younger adults and five years in middle age adults. 
Think of it this way, from the standpoint of total healthcare consumption, one incremental year of life expectancy in old age could equate to as much as ten years of obesity in terms of overall healthcare spending. Adults 65 plus spend 2 to 3 times more per year on average, than adults 45 to 64, with a significant $10 to $25,000 step up in dollar terms. 
Furthermore, rates of sudden cardiac death increased dramatically in high body mass index patients, eliminating the possibility of medical intervention to address the underlying obesity issue or the associated co-morbidities. 
Given all this, we think anti-obesity drugs will ultimately prove to be a net benefit for cardiovascular device makers overall, even in certain categories where body mass index is correlated with higher procedure rates. In markets such as structural heart, where we're replacing things like heart valves, we believe the number of patients reaching old age, that is 70 plus, is most important in regards to volumes. Though rates of obesity are contributing factors as well, orthopedics is more of a mixed bag. The strongest evidence we've seen here is on lower BMI's leading to reduced procedure volumes though pertaining to osteoarthritis in the knees and degenerative disc disease in spine. But we think the argument that fewer people with obesity means fewer knee replacements or fewer incidences of spine disease is actually only half the picture. Clearly, age may be a factor here, and our sense is that hip volumes in particular are not dependent on high BMI's as much as on an aging population. 
To sum up, we believe that anti-obesity drugs won't dismantle core MedTech markets. There are more layers to the story here.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>213false1035fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-why-2024-is-off-to-a-rocky-start--75653141----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 
2023 saw a strong finish to a strong year, with stocks higher, spreads and yields lower and minimal market volatility. That strength in turn flowed from three converging hopeful factors. 
First, there was great economic data, which generally pointed to a US economy that was growing with inflation moderating. Second, we had helpful so-called technical factors such as depressed investor sentiment and the historical tendency for markets, especially credit markets, to do well in the last two months of the year. And third, we had reasonable valuations which had cheapened up quite a bit in October. 
Even more broadly, 2024 offered and still offers a lot to look forward to. Morgan Stanley's economists see global growth holding up as inflation in the U.S. and Europe come down. Major central banks from the US to Europe to Latin America should start cutting rates in 2024, while so-called quantitative tightening or the shrinking of central bank balance sheets should begin to wind down. And more specifically, for credit, we see 2024 as a year of strong demand for corporate bonds, against more modest levels of bond issuance, a positive balance of supply versus demand. 
So why, given all of these positives, has January gotten off to a rocky, sluggish start? It's perhaps because those good things don't necessarily arrive right away. 
Starting with the economic data, Morgan Stanley's economists forecast that the recent decline in inflation, so helpful to the rally over November and December, will see a bumpier path over the next several months, leaving the Fed to wait until June to make their first rate cut. The overall trend is still for lower, better inflation in 2024, but the near-term picture may be a little murky. 
Moving to those so-called technical factors, investor sentiment now is substantially higher than where it was in October, making it harder for events to positively surprise. And for credit, seasonally strong performance in November and December often gives way to somewhat weaker January and February returns. At least if we look at the performance over the last ten years. 
And finally, valuations where the cheapening in October was so helpful to the recent rally, have entered the year richer, across stocks, bonds and credit. 
None of these, in our view, are insurmountable problems, and the base case expectation from Morgan Stanley's economists means there is still a lot to look forward to in 2024. From better growth, to lower inflation, to easier monetary policy. The strong end of 2023 may just mean that some extra patience is required to get there. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/30AoVfDftpy9W1Gkx4KggLGMpn9fDJ9Y17EDcDdow2kFri, 05 Jan 2024 19:36:43 +0000gtyShould investors be concerned about a sluggish beginning to the year, or do they just need to be patient? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 
2023 saw a strong finish to a strong year, with stocks higher, spreads and yields lower and minimal market volatility. That strength in turn flowed from three converging hopeful factors. 
First, there was great economic data, which generally pointed to a US economy that was growing with inflation moderating. Second, we had helpful so-called technical factors such as depressed investor sentiment and the historical tendency for markets, especially credit markets, to do well in the last two months of the year. And third, we had reasonable valuations which had cheapened up quite a bit in October. 
Even more broadly, 2024 offered and still offers a lot to look forward to. Morgan Stanley's economists see global growth holding up as inflation in the U.S. and Europe come down. Major central banks from the US to Europe to Latin America should start cutting rates in 2024, while so-called quantitative tightening or the shrinking of central bank balance sheets should begin to wind down. And more specifically, for credit, we see 2024 as a year of strong demand for corporate bonds, against more modest levels of bond issuance, a positive balance of supply versus demand. 
So why, given all of these positives, has January gotten off to a rocky, sluggish start? It's perhaps because those good things don't necessarily arrive right away. 
Starting with the economic data, Morgan Stanley's economists forecast that the recent decline in inflation, so helpful to the rally over November and December, will see a bumpier path over the next several months, leaving the Fed to wait until June to make their first rate cut. The overall trend is still for lower, better inflation in 2024, but the near-term picture may be a little murky. 
Moving to those so-called technical factors, investor sentiment now is substantially higher than where it was in October, making it harder for events to positively surprise. And for credit, seasonally strong performance in November and December often gives way to somewhat weaker January and February returns. At least if we look at the performance over the last ten years. 
And finally, valuations where the cheapening in October was so helpful to the recent rally, have entered the year richer, across stocks, bonds and credit. 
None of these, in our view, are insurmountable problems, and the base case expectation from Morgan Stanley's economists means there is still a lot to look forward to in 2024. From better growth, to lower inflation, to easier monetary policy. The strong end of 2023 may just mean that some extra patience is required to get there. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>187false1034fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/can-japanese-equities-rally-in-2024--75653159----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss one of the big debates in the market around Japanese equities in 2024. It's Thursday, January 4th at 10 a.m. in Singapore.. As we kick off the new year, one of the most debated investor questions is whether Japanese equities can again perform well if the Yen is now over weakening, but instead strengthens over 2024 as expectations of Fed rate cuts play out. The market is understandably concerned that if the Yen appreciates significantly, Japanese equities will underperform, given the impact on competitiveness and the effects translation of foreign earnings. As a result, global investors remain underweight on Japanese equities versus their benchmark weight, despite the notably improved sentiment on the underlying Japanese economy. 
So in contrast to these concerns, we believe that Japanese equities and the Yen can simultaneously rally in 2024, which will mean even stronger returns for unhedged dollar based investors than for the local index. Our currency strategists forecast modest further gains in the Yen, with a pick up to 140 against the US dollar by end 2024 versus 143 today. And despite this, we see corporate earnings growth still achieving 9% in 2024, underpinned by nominal GDP recovery and corporate reforms. 
So what is the reason for the break in the usually negative relationship between the yen and Japanese equities? 
We still see three drivers supporting the market. First, there’s the return of nominal GDP growth. The Japanese economy is finally exiting deflation that has been prevalent since the 1990s, and we believe a virtuous cycle of higher nominal growth in Japan has started thanks to joint efforts from the Bank of Japan and the corporate sector to move to a positive feedback loop between price hikes and wage growth, underpinned by a productive CapEx cycle. Our chief Japan economist, Takeshi Yamaguchi, forecasts nominal GDP growth for 2023 to have achieved 5%, but to remain above 3% growth in 2024, and a healthy 2 to 2.5 % for the foreseeable future. 
The second driver is corporate reforms, which have been the most crucial driver of underlying Japanese equities performance, and we expect the trend improvement of return on equity to continue. The sea change in corporate governance in Japan has led to major changes in buyback and dividend policies, which combined are almost quadruple the levels they were at ten years ago. And we're seeing a broadening trend of underlying business restructuring underpinned by more engagement from investors, both foreign and domestic. 
Finally, Japan has been a net beneficiary of investment inflows and CapEx orders in the transition to a more multipolar world. And with those flows, while equity valuations are cheap to history, in contrast to the US market, we expect them to be supported by further foreign inflows and domestic inflows that will be boosted by the launch of the new Nippon Individual Savings Account Program this month. 
Bottom line Japan equities remain our top pick globally. We see the TOPIX index moving further into a secular bull market with our December 2024 target for the index standing at 2,600, which implies 10% upside in Yen terms and more in US dollar terms from current levels. 
Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qT6WEfOKU6JRXzUQXkD4IfWagnRdQn7BvWrnaHiZ_WMThu, 04 Jan 2024 19:31:04 +0000gtyMany investors believe that the value of Japanese stocks will dip as the yen gets stronger. Here’s why we’re forecasting ~10% growth. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss one of the big debates in the market around Japanese equities in 2024. It's Thursday, January 4th at 10 a.m. in Singapore.. As we kick off the new year, one of the most debated investor questions is whether Japanese equities can again perform well if the Yen is now over weakening, but instead strengthens over 2024 as expectations of Fed rate cuts play out. The market is understandably concerned that if the Yen appreciates significantly, Japanese equities will underperform, given the impact on competitiveness and the effects translation of foreign earnings. As a result, global investors remain underweight on Japanese equities versus their benchmark weight, despite the notably improved sentiment on the underlying Japanese economy. 
So in contrast to these concerns, we believe that Japanese equities and the Yen can simultaneously rally in 2024, which will mean even stronger returns for unhedged dollar based investors than for the local index. Our currency strategists forecast modest further gains in the Yen, with a pick up to 140 against the US dollar by end 2024 versus 143 today. And despite this, we see corporate earnings growth still achieving 9% in 2024, underpinned by nominal GDP recovery and corporate reforms. 
So what is the reason for the break in the usually negative relationship between the yen and Japanese equities? 
We still see three drivers supporting the market. First, there’s the return of nominal GDP growth. The Japanese economy is finally exiting deflation that has been prevalent since the 1990s, and we believe a virtuous cycle of higher nominal growth in Japan has started thanks to joint efforts from the Bank of Japan and the corporate sector to move to a positive feedback loop between price hikes and wage growth, underpinned by a productive CapEx cycle. Our chief Japan economist, Takeshi Yamaguchi, forecasts nominal GDP growth for 2023 to have achieved 5%, but to remain above 3% growth in 2024, and a healthy 2 to 2.5 % for the foreseeable future. 
The second driver is corporate reforms, which have been the most crucial driver of underlying Japanese equities performance, and we expect the trend improvement of return on equity to continue. The sea change in corporate governance in Japan has led to major changes in buyback and dividend policies, which combined are almost quadruple the levels they were at ten years ago. And we're seeing a broadening trend of underlying business restructuring underpinned by more engagement from investors, both foreign and domestic. 
Finally, Japan has been a net beneficiary of investment inflows and CapEx orders in the transition to a more multipolar world. And with those flows, while equity valuations are cheap to history, in contrast to the US market, we expect them to be supported by further foreign inflows and domestic inflows that will be boosted by the launch of the new Nippon Individual Savings Account Program this month. 
Bottom line Japan equities remain our top pick globally. We see the TOPIX index moving further into a secular bull market with our December 2024 target for the index standing at 2,600, which implies 10% upside in Yen terms and more in US dollar terms from current levels. 
Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

]]>201false1033fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/new-year-new-investment-themes--75653099----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll take a look back at 2023, which has been an extraordinary year. And we'll also touch on what 2024 could have in store for investors. It's Wednesday, January the 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Paul Walsh: At the start of last year, we identified ten overarching long term themes that we believed would command investor focus throughout 2023 and beyond. And they ranged from macro developments like inflation, China's reopening and India's economic transformation to micro oriented themes such as Chat GPT, obesity, drugs and a number of others. Of course, the year did throw in a few curveballs, so I wanted to sit down with Ed Stanley to review some of the major themes that did hold investor interest last year, and that will likely continue to unfold in 2024. 
Paul Walsh: The whole energy and utilities space has been a topic of constant debate, be it at the energy transition or what's been going on around energy security. And then slightly more sort of sector specific with some of the micro dynamics, we've had the value of innovation in pharma at work around GLP-1s proving to be tremendously popular, as one would expect. And clearly the proliferation of artificial intelligence has really been, you know, the other non macro big theme this year, which has been tremendously prevalent, pretty much whichever corner you've looked in. If I take a little bit of a step back, Ed, and I think about the global themes that we've tried to own this year, namely multipolar world, decarbonization and tech diffusion, from a thematics perspective what themes worked and what played out in the way that you thought, and where have we seen things happening that were unexpected? 
Ed Stanley: I think the three big themes that you talk about remain as relevant, if not more relevant now than when we started the year. If you think about tech diffusion, A.I. has been the theme of the year. In multipolar world, we've had more conflict this year, and obviously  that kind of sharpens people's minds to what stocks will and won't work in this kind of backdrop. And then if you think about the decarb theme as the final structural theme, higher interest rates are making investors really question whether the net zero transition is on track. So those three themes remain super relevant. We talked about the China reopening that sort of worked and then it was a bit of a disappointment mid and later on in the year. I'd say we got the micro probably better nailed down than the macro, but in a volatile year, I think we did a fairly good job of picking what to watch out for. 
Paul Walsh: What themes have people not been talking about that have been on your radar screen over recent years that you think could make a resurgence as we look forwards? 
Ed Stanley: There is a kind of joke in the tech world that we go in three year cycles, so we have A.I, then we have Web3, which is de facto crypto, and then we go back to AR/VR and we run in these cycles waiting for whatever breakthrough comes next. We've had crypto having another rally and we've had A.I this year, so we've had sort of all of them this year, but those are always rotating on the back burner. There are always things like unexpected news in quantum computing that could have overflow and disruption effects across the economy, which most investors are not thinking about until it becomes relevant. So I think there are a lot of things in the background which very easily could thrust themselves into the core of the debate.
Paul Walsh: Well, let's talk a little bit about that and think about what we should be looking out for 2024. So how are you thinking about how the sort of themes and the landscape across the themes is going to develop into 2024 Ed, and what listeners should be thinking about? 
Ed Stanley: I think if you think on the top down three structural themes, there is very little to change our view that those remain pretty quarter to our thinking. If you think maybe geographically and then from a micro perspective, geographically, not much has changed on our view on the US, we're threading a needle on that. I think what is more of a shift is a much greater focus on Japan and India relative to China and the US. I think the debate will shift a bit, we won't leave generative A.I behind by any means, but we will shift probably more to talking about EDGE A.I. That is where A.I. is being done on your consumer device, in effect rather than in a data center. And this is something where we see many more catalysts. We see the prospect of killer apps emerging in 2024 to really thrust that debate into people's consciousness. So I think you'll be hearing more about EDGE. So now is the time to get clued up on that if it's not on your radar screen. I think if we're keeping up with the healthcare space, obesity will obviously carry on as a debate, but I think, you know, another piece is on smart chemo. And this is a great topic where there are more catalysts coming up. Not an awful lot is being priced into the underlying equities. Where I think there are exciting things to look forward to. And then the final one is what happens to decarbon renewables. This is a huge debate, but this is the question where you have highly polarized views on both sides. Paul Walsh: Ed, thanks for sharing your views and for all of your great insights through 2023. And we really look forward to what I'm sure will be an interesting and exciting 2024. 
Ed Stanley: Thank you. 
Paul Walsh: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and do share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pzMaWNROX43hvAUdrWQPi4PRVf0eQUOcaanhmx8B-WsWed, 03 Jan 2024 22:11:18 +0000gtyTune in as our analysts take a look back at the major themes from 2023 and a look ahead to what investors should be eyeing in 2024. ----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of...----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll take a look back at 2023, which has been an extraordinary year. And we'll also touch on what 2024 could have in store for investors. It's Wednesday, January the 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Paul Walsh: At the start of last year, we identified ten overarching long term themes that we believed would command investor focus throughout 2023 and beyond. And they ranged from macro developments like inflation, China's reopening and India's economic transformation to micro oriented themes such as Chat GPT, obesity, drugs and a number of others. Of course, the year did throw in a few curveballs, so I wanted to sit down with Ed Stanley to review some of the major themes that did hold investor interest last year, and that will likely continue to unfold in 2024. 
Paul Walsh: The whole energy and utilities space has been a topic of constant debate, be it at the energy transition or what's been going on around energy security. And then slightly more sort of sector specific with some of the micro dynamics, we've had the value of innovation in pharma at work around GLP-1s proving to be tremendously popular, as one would expect. And clearly the proliferation of artificial intelligence has really been, you know, the other non macro big theme this year, which has been tremendously prevalent, pretty much whichever corner you've looked in. If I take a little bit of a step back, Ed, and I think about the global themes that we've tried to own this year, namely multipolar world, decarbonization and tech diffusion, from a thematics perspective what themes worked and what played out in the way that you thought, and where have we seen things happening that were unexpected? 
Ed Stanley: I think the three big themes that you talk about remain as relevant, if not more relevant now than when we started the year. If you think about tech diffusion, A.I. has been the theme of the year. In multipolar world, we've had more conflict this year, and obviously  that kind of sharpens people's minds to what stocks will and won't work in this kind of backdrop. And then if you think about the decarb theme as the final structural theme, higher interest rates are making investors really question whether the net zero transition is on track. So those three themes remain super relevant. We talked about the China reopening that sort of worked and then it was a bit of a disappointment mid and later on in the year. I'd say we got the micro probably better nailed down than the macro, but in a volatile year, I think we did a fairly good job of picking what to watch out for. 
Paul Walsh: What themes have people not been talking about that have been on your radar screen over recent years that you think could make a resurgence as we look forwards? 
Ed Stanley: There is a kind of joke in the tech world that we go in three year cycles, so we have A.I, then we have Web3, which is de facto crypto, and then we go back to AR/VR and we run in these cycles waiting for whatever breakthrough comes next. We've had crypto having another rally and we've had A.I this year, so we've had sort of all of them this year, but those are always rotating on the back burner. There are always things like unexpected news in quantum computing that could have overflow and disruption effects across the economy, which most investors are not thinking about until it becomes relevant. So I think there are a lot of things in the background which very easily could thrust themselves into the core of the debate.
Paul Walsh: Well, let's talk a little bit about that and think about what we should be looking out for 2024. So how are you thinking about how the sort of themes...]]>352false1032fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-u-s-autos-outlook-should-investors-be-concerned--75653105----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Head of the Global Autos and Shared Mobility Team. Today I'll be talking about our U.S. autos outlook for 2024. It's Tuesday, January 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Heading into 2024, we remain concerned about the future of the U.S. auto industry, in some ways, even more so than during the great financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. But as the auto industry pivots away from big spending on EVs and autonomous vehicles to a relatively more parsimonious era of capital discipline, we see significant upside value unlock for investors. 
It's been a good run for the automakers. Just think how supportive the overall macroeconomic environment has been for the U.S. auto industry since 2010. U.S. GDP growth averaged well over 2%. Historically low interest rates helped consumers afford big ticket auto purchases. The Chinese auto consumers snapped up Western brands funding rich dividend streams for U.S. automakers. Used car prices were mostly stable or rising, supporting the auto lending complex. And COVID driven inventory scarcity lifted average transaction prices to all time highs, buoying auto companies margins. 
Looking back, the relatively strong performance of auto companies contributed to ever growing levels of CapEx and R&D in increasingly unfamiliar areas, ranging from battery cell development to software and A.I inference chips, to fully autonomous robotaxis. For years, investors largely supported Detroit's investments in Auto 2.0, with a glass half-full view of legacy car companies' ability to venture into profitable electric vehicle territory. But we're reaching a critical juncture now, and we believe the decisions that will be made over the next 12 months with respect to capital allocation and spending discipline will determine the overall industry and individual automakers performance. 
We forecast U.S. new car sales to reach 16 million units in 2024, an increase of around 2% from the November 2023 run rate of 15.7 million units. To achieve this growth, we believe car and truck prices need to fall materially. Given stubbornly high interest rates hampering affordability, a 16 million unit seasonally adjusted annual selling rate may require a combination of price cuts and transaction prices down on the order of 5% year-on-year, leaving the value of U.S. auto sales relatively stable year-on-year. 
We expect a continued melting in used car prices, but not a very sharp fall from here, owing to a continued low supply of certified pre-owned inventory in good condition coming off lease as we approach the third anniversary of the COVID lows. As new inventory continues to recover, we expect steady downward pressure on used prices on the order of 5 or 10% from December 23 to December 24. 
In terms of EV demand, we expect growth on the order of 15 to 20% in the U.S., keeping penetration in the 8% range. We continue to expect legacy automakers to pull back on EV offerings due largely to a lack of profitability. Startup EV carmakers will likely see constrained production, including by their own choice, into a slowing demand environment where we expect to see hybrid and plug-in hybrid volume making a comeback, potentially rising 40 to 50%. 
So what themes do we think investors should prepare for? First in an accelerating EV penetration world, we believe internal combustion exposed companies and suppliers may outperform EV exposed suppliers categorically. Secondly, we believe many companies in our coverage have an opportunity to greatly improve capital allocation and efficiency as they dial back expansionary CapEx and prioritize cash generating parts of the portfolio. And finally, we would be increasingly selective on picking winners exposed to long term secular trends like electrification and autonomy, focusing on those firms that can scale such technologies profitably. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DdWvwsh56tMk_TMxr3pcB3xbBKjMbYd9LAJT-qdDINITue, 02 Jan 2024 21:37:28 +0000gtyThe auto industry is pivoting from big spending to capital discipline. Our analyst highlights possible areas where investors may find opportunities this year. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Head of the Global Autos and Shared Mobility Team. Today I'll be talking about our U.S. autos outlook for 2024. It's Tuesday, January 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Heading into 2024, we remain concerned about the future of the U.S. auto industry, in some ways, even more so than during the great financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. But as the auto industry pivots away from big spending on EVs and autonomous vehicles to a relatively more parsimonious era of capital discipline, we see significant upside value unlock for investors. 
It's been a good run for the automakers. Just think how supportive the overall macroeconomic environment has been for the U.S. auto industry since 2010. U.S. GDP growth averaged well over 2%. Historically low interest rates helped consumers afford big ticket auto purchases. The Chinese auto consumers snapped up Western brands funding rich dividend streams for U.S. automakers. Used car prices were mostly stable or rising, supporting the auto lending complex. And COVID driven inventory scarcity lifted average transaction prices to all time highs, buoying auto companies margins. 
Looking back, the relatively strong performance of auto companies contributed to ever growing levels of CapEx and R&D in increasingly unfamiliar areas, ranging from battery cell development to software and A.I inference chips, to fully autonomous robotaxis. For years, investors largely supported Detroit's investments in Auto 2.0, with a glass half-full view of legacy car companies' ability to venture into profitable electric vehicle territory. But we're reaching a critical juncture now, and we believe the decisions that will be made over the next 12 months with respect to capital allocation and spending discipline will determine the overall industry and individual automakers performance. 
We forecast U.S. new car sales to reach 16 million units in 2024, an increase of around 2% from the November 2023 run rate of 15.7 million units. To achieve this growth, we believe car and truck prices need to fall materially. Given stubbornly high interest rates hampering affordability, a 16 million unit seasonally adjusted annual selling rate may require a combination of price cuts and transaction prices down on the order of 5% year-on-year, leaving the value of U.S. auto sales relatively stable year-on-year. 
We expect a continued melting in used car prices, but not a very sharp fall from here, owing to a continued low supply of certified pre-owned inventory in good condition coming off lease as we approach the third anniversary of the COVID lows. As new inventory continues to recover, we expect steady downward pressure on used prices on the order of 5 or 10% from December 23 to December 24. 
In terms of EV demand, we expect growth on the order of 15 to 20% in the U.S., keeping penetration in the 8% range. We continue to expect legacy automakers to pull back on EV offerings due largely to a lack of profitability. Startup EV carmakers will likely see constrained production, including by their own choice, into a slowing demand environment where we expect to see hybrid and plug-in hybrid volume making a comeback, potentially rising 40 to 50%. 
So what themes do we think investors should prepare for? First in an accelerating EV penetration world, we believe internal combustion exposed companies and suppliers may outperform EV exposed suppliers categorically. Secondly, we believe many companies in our coverage have an opportunity to greatly improve capital allocation and efficiency as they dial back expansionary CapEx and prioritize cash generating parts of the portfolio. And finally, we would be increasingly selective on picking winners exposed to long term...]]>246false1031fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-macro-economy-the-2024-outlook-part-2--75653091----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets in 2024. It's Tuesday, November 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Yesterday you heard from Seth Carpenter, our Global Chief Economist, and Mike Wilson, our Chief Investment Officer and the Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. I am joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist, James Lord, the Global Head of Currency and Emerging Markets Strategy, Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Credit Research, and Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, 2023 was quite a year for long end government bond yields globally. We saw dramatic curve inversion and long end yields reaching levels we had not seen in well over a decade. We've also seen both dramatic sell offs and dramatic rallies, even just in the last few weeks. Against this background, how do you see the outlook for government bond yields in 2024? 
Matt Hornbach: So we're calling our 2024 outlook for government bond markets the land of confusion. And it's because bond markets were whipped around so much by central banks in 2023 and in 2022. In the end, what central banks gave in terms of accommodative monetary policy in 2020 and 2021, they more than took away in 2022 and this past year. At least when it came to interest rate related monetary policies. 2024, of course, is going to be a pretty confusing year for investors because, as you've heard, our economists do think that rates are going to be coming down, but so too will balance sheets. 
But for the past couple of years, both G10 and EM central banks have raised rates to levels that we haven't seen in decades. Considering the possibility that equilibrium rates have trended lower over the past few decades, central bank policy rates may be actually much more restricted today than at any point since the 1970s. But, you know, we can't say the same for central bank balance sheets, even though they've been shrinking for well over a year now. They're still larger than before the pandemic. 
Now, our economists forecast continued declines in the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. But nevertheless, in aggregate, the balance sheet sizes of these G4 central banks will remain above their pre-pandemic levels at the end of 2024 and 2025.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, across the developed markets. Where do you see the best opportunity for investors in the government bond markets? 
Matt Hornbach: So Vishy we think most of the opportunities in 2024 will be in Europe given the diverging paths between eurozone countries. Germany, Austria and Portugal will benefit from supportive supply numbers, while another group, including Italy, Belgium and Ireland will likely witness a higher supply dynamic. Our call for a re widening of EGB spreads should actually last longer than we originally anticipated. 
Elsewhere in Europe, we're expecting the Bank of England to deliver 100 basis points of cumulative cuts by the end of 2024, and that compares to significantly less that's priced in by the market. Hence, our forecasts for gilts imply a much lower level of yields and a steeper yield curve than what you see implied in current forward rates. So the UK probably presents the best duration and curve opportunity set in 2024. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Matt. James, a strong dollar driven by upside surprises to U.S. growth and higher for longer narrative that has a world during the year characterized the strong dollar view for much of the year. How do you assess 2024 to be? And what differences do you expect between developed markets and emerging market currency markets? 
James Lord: So we expect the recent strengthening of US dollar to continue for a while longer. This stronger for a longer view on the US dollar is driven by some familiar drivers to what we witnessed in 2023, but with a little bit of nuance. So first, growth. US growth, while slowing, is expected to outperform consensus expectations and remain near potential growth rates in the first half of 2024. This is going to contrast quite sharply with recessionary or near recessionary conditions in Europe and pretty uncompelling rates of growth in China. 
The second reason we see continued dollar strength is rate differentials. So when we look at our US and European rate strategy teams forecasts, they have rates moving in favor of the dollar. Final reason is defense, really. The dollar likely is going to keep outperforming other currencies around the world due to its pretty defensive characteristics in a world of continued low growth, and downside risks from very tight central bank monetary policy and geopolitical risks. The dollar not only offers liquidity and safe haven status, but also high yields, which is of course making it pretty appealing. 
We don't expect this early strength in US Dollar to last all year, though, as fiscal support for the US economy falls back and the impact of high rates takes over, US growth slows down and the Fed starts to cut around the middle of the year. And once it starts cutting, our U.S. econ team expects it to cut all the way back to 2.25 to 2.5% by the end of 2025. So a deep easing cycle. As that outlook gets increasingly priced into the US rates, market rate differentials start moving against the dollar to push the currency down. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, we are ending 2023 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, especially at the higher quality end of the trade market. How do you expect this quality based divergence across global trade markets to play out in 2024? 
Andrew Sheets: That's right. We see a generally supportive environment for credit in 2024, aided by supportive fundamentals, supportive technicals and average valuations. Corporate credit, especially investment grade, is part of a constellation of high quality fixed income that we see putting up good returns next year, both outright and risk adjusted. 
When we talk about credit being part of this constellation of quality and looking attractive relative to other assets, it's important to appreciate the cross-asset valuations, especially relative to equities, really have moved. For most of the last 20 years the earnings yield on the S&P 500, that is the total earnings you get from the index relative to what you pay for it, has been much higher than the yield on U.S. triple B rated corporate bonds. But that's now flipped with the yield on corporate bonds now higher to one of the greatest extents we've seen outside of a crisis in 20 years. Theoretically, this higher yield on corporate bonds relative to the equity market should suggest a better relative valuation of the former. 
So what are we seeing now from companies? Well companies are buying back less stock and also issuing less debt than expected, exactly what you'd expect if companies saw the cost of their debt as high relative to where the equities are valued. 
A potential undershoot in corporate bonds supply could be met with higher bond demand. We've seen enormous year to date flows into money market funds that have absolutely dwarfed the flows into credit. But if the Fed really is done raising rates and is going to start to cut rates next year, as Morgan Stanley's economists expect, this could help push some of this money currently sitting in money market funds into bond funds, as investors look to lock in higher yields for longer. 
Against this backdrop, we think the credit valuations, for lack of a better word, are fine. With major markets in both the U.S. and Europe generally trading around their long term median and high yield looking a little bit expensive to investment grade within this. Valuations in Asia are the richest in our view, and that's especially true given the heightened economic uncertainty we see in the region. We think that credit curves offer an important way for investors to maximize the return of these kind of average spreads. And we like the 3 to 5 year part of the U.S. credit curve and the 5 to 10 year part of the investment grade curve in Europe the most. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. Jay, 2023 was indeed a tough year for the agency in the US market, but for the US housing market it held up quite remarkably, despite the higher mortgage rates. As you look ahead to 2024, what is the outlook for US housing and the agency MBS markets and what are the key drivers of your expectations? 
Jay Bacow: Let's start off with the broader housing market before we get into the views for agency mortgages. Given our outlook for rates to rally next year, my co-head of securitized products research Jim Egan, who also runs US housing, thinks that we should expect affordability to improve and for sale inventory to increase. Both of these developments are constructive for housing activity, but the latter provides a potential counterbalance for home prices. 
Now, affordability will still be challenged, but the direction of travel matters. He expects housing activity to be stronger in the second half of '24 and for new home sales to increase more than existing home sales over the course of the full year. Home prices should see modest declines as the growth in inventory offsets the increased demand. But it's important to stress here that we believe homeowners retain strong hands in the cycle. We don't believe they will be forced sellers into materially weaker bids, and as such, we don't expect a]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Lt4mW_FCp137ri55rL7G9s4mhQ_oJWlChxJSuWWKN4IFri, 29 Dec 2023 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on November 14th, 2023: Our roundtable discussion on the future of the global economy and markets continues, as our analysts preview what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, housing and more. ----- Transcript -----Vishy...----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets in 2024. It's Tuesday, November 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Yesterday you heard from Seth Carpenter, our Global Chief Economist, and Mike Wilson, our Chief Investment Officer and the Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. I am joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist, James Lord, the Global Head of Currency and Emerging Markets Strategy, Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Credit Research, and Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, 2023 was quite a year for long end government bond yields globally. We saw dramatic curve inversion and long end yields reaching levels we had not seen in well over a decade. We've also seen both dramatic sell offs and dramatic rallies, even just in the last few weeks. Against this background, how do you see the outlook for government bond yields in 2024? 
Matt Hornbach: So we're calling our 2024 outlook for government bond markets the land of confusion. And it's because bond markets were whipped around so much by central banks in 2023 and in 2022. In the end, what central banks gave in terms of accommodative monetary policy in 2020 and 2021, they more than took away in 2022 and this past year. At least when it came to interest rate related monetary policies. 2024, of course, is going to be a pretty confusing year for investors because, as you've heard, our economists do think that rates are going to be coming down, but so too will balance sheets. 
But for the past couple of years, both G10 and EM central banks have raised rates to levels that we haven't seen in decades. Considering the possibility that equilibrium rates have trended lower over the past few decades, central bank policy rates may be actually much more restricted today than at any point since the 1970s. But, you know, we can't say the same for central bank balance sheets, even though they've been shrinking for well over a year now. They're still larger than before the pandemic. 
Now, our economists forecast continued declines in the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. But nevertheless, in aggregate, the balance sheet sizes of these G4 central banks will remain above their pre-pandemic levels at the end of 2024 and 2025.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, across the developed markets. Where do you see the best opportunity for investors in the government bond markets? 
Matt Hornbach: So Vishy we think most of the opportunities in 2024 will be in Europe given the diverging paths between eurozone countries. Germany, Austria and Portugal will benefit from supportive supply numbers, while another group, including Italy, Belgium and Ireland will likely witness a higher supply dynamic. Our call for a re widening of EGB spreads should actually last longer than we originally anticipated. 
Elsewhere in Europe, we're expecting the Bank of England to deliver 100 basis points of cumulative cuts by the end of 2024, and that compares to significantly less that's priced in by the market. Hence, our forecasts for gilts imply a much lower level of yields and a steeper yield curve than what you see implied in current forward rates. So the UK probably presents the best duration and curve opportunity set in 2024. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Matt. James, a strong dollar driven by upside surprises to U.S. growth and higher for longer narrative that has a world during the year...]]>667false1030fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-macro-economy-the-2024-outlook--75653077----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur:  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today on the podcast we'll be hosting a very special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets by 2024. I am joined by my colleagues, Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. It's Monday, November 13th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks to both of you for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, so I am going to go right into it. Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2024, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy? 
Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Vishy. As we look forward over the next couple of years, there are a few key themes that we're seeing in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy. First, looks like global growth has stepped down this year relative to last year and we're expecting another modest step down in the global economy for 2024 and into 2025. Overall, what we're seeing in the developed market economies is restrictive monetary policy in general restraining growth, whereas we have much more mixed results in the emerging market world.
Inflation, though, is a clear theme around the world. Overall, we see the surge in inflation. That has been a theme in global markets for the past couple of years as having peaked and starting to come down. It's coming down primarily through consumer goods, but we do see that trend continuing over the next several years. 
That backdrop of inflation having peaked and coming down along with weaker growth means that we're setting ourselves up for overall a bit of an easing cycle for monetary policy. We are looking for the Fed and the ECB each to start an easing cycle in June of this year. For the Fed, it's because we see growth slowing down and inflation continuing to track down along the path that we see and that the Fed will come around to seeing. 
I would say the stark exception to this among developed market economies is the Bank of Japan. We have seen them already get to the de facto end of yield curve control. We think by the time we get to the January policy meeting, they will completely eliminate yield curve control formally and go from negative interest rate policy to zero interest rate policy. And then over the course of the next year or so, we think we're going to see very gradual, very tentative increases in the policy rate for Japan. So for every story, there's a little bit of a cross current going on. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Can you talk about some of the vulnerabilities for the global economy? What worries you most about your central case, about the global economy? 
Seth Carpenter: We put into the outlook a downside scenario where the current challenges in China, the risks, as we've said, of a debt deflation cycle, they really take over. What this would mean is that the policy response in beijing is insufficient to overcome the underlying dynamics there as debt is coming down, as inflation is weak and those things build on themselves. Kind of a smaller version of the lost decade of Japan. We think from there we could see some of that weakness just exported around the globe. And for us, that's one of the key downside risks to the global economy. I'd say in the opposite direction, the upside risk is maybe some of the strength that we see in the United States is just more persistent than we realize. Maybe it's the case that monetary policy really hasn't done enough. And we just heard Chair Powell talk about the possibility that if inflation doesn't come down or the economy doesn't slow enough, they could do more. And so we built in an alternate scenario to the upside where the US economy is just fundamentally stronger. Let me pass it back to you Vishy. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you Seth. Mike, next I'd like to go to you. 2023 was a challenging year for earnings growth, but we saw significant multiple expansion. How do you expect 2024 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities you see for equity markets in 2024? 
Mike Wilson: 2023 was obviously, you know, kind of a challenging year, I think, for a lot of equity managers because of this incredible dispersion that we saw between, kind of, how economies performed around the world and how that bled into company performance. And it was very different region by region. So, you know, first off, I would say US growth, the economic level was better than expected, better than the consensus expected for sure, and even better than our economists view, which was for a soft landing. China was, on the other hand, much worse than expected. The reopening really never materialized in any meaningful way, and that bled into both EM and European growth. 
I would say India and Japan surprised in the upside from a growth standpoint, and Japan was by far the star market this year. The index was up a lot, but also the average stock performed extremely well, which is very different than the US. India also had pretty good performance equity wise, but in the US we had this incredible divergence between the average stock and the S&P 500 benchmark index, with the average stock underperforming by as much as 12 or 1300 basis points. That's pretty unusual. So how do we explain that and what does that mean for next year? Well, look, we think that the fiscal support is starting to fade. It's in our forecast now. In other words, economic growth is likely to soften up, not a recession yet for 2024, but growth will be deteriorating. And we think that will bleed into further earnings deterioration. 
So for 2024, we continue to favor Japan, where the earnings of breadth has been the best looks to us, and that's in a new secular bull market. In the US, it's really a tale of two worlds. It's companies that have cost leadership or operational efficiency, a thing we've been espousing for the last two years. Those types of companies should continue to outperform into the first half of next year. And then eventually we suspect, will be flipping pretty aggressively to companies that have poor operational efficiency because we're going to want to catch the upside leverage as the economy kind of accelerates again in the back half of 2024 or maybe into 2025. But it's too early for that in our view.
Vishy Tirupattur: How do you expect the market breadth to evolve over 2024? Can you elaborate on your vision for market correction first and then recovery in the later part of 2024? 
Mike Wilson: Yes. In terms of the market breadth, we do ultimately think market breadth will bottom and start to turn up. But, you know, we have to resolve, kind of, the index price first. And this is why we've continued to maintain our $3900 price target for the S&P 500 for, you know, roughly year end of this year. That, of course, would argue you're not going to get a big rally in the year-end. And the reason we feel that way, it's an important observation, is that market breadth has deteriorated again very significantly over the last three months. And breadth typically leads the overall index. So until breadth bottoms out, it's very difficult for us to get bullish at the index level as well. So the way we see it playing out is over the next 3 to 6 months, we think the overall index will catch down to what the market breadth has been telling us and should lead us out of what has been, I think a pretty, you know, persistent bear market for the last two years, particularly for the average stock. 
And so we suspect we're going to be making some significant changes in both our sector recommendations. New themes will emerge. Some of that will be around existing themes. Perhaps AI will start to actually have a meaningful impact on overall productivity, something we see really evolving in 2025, more than 2024. But the market will start to get ahead of that. And so I think it's going to be another year to be very flexible. I'd say the best news is that although 2023 has been somewhat challenging for the average stock, it's been a great year for dispersion, meaning stock picking. And we think that's really the key theme going into 2024, stick with that high dispersion and stock picking mentality. And then, of course, there'll be an opportunity to kind of flip the factors and kind of what's working into the second half of next year. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our special year ahead roundtable, where we'll share our forecasts for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4Dp7AqB5M1KBAd-7Nk5VtP0jMfYbam7bWab0dxNtxPIThu, 28 Dec 2023 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on November 13th, 2023: As global growth takes a hit and inflation begins to cool, how does the road ahead look for central banks and investors? Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur hosts a roundtable with Chief Economist...----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur:  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today on the podcast we'll be hosting a very special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets by 2024. I am joined by my colleagues, Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. It's Monday, November 13th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks to both of you for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, so I am going to go right into it. Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2024, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy? 
Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Vishy. As we look forward over the next couple of years, there are a few key themes that we're seeing in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy. First, looks like global growth has stepped down this year relative to last year and we're expecting another modest step down in the global economy for 2024 and into 2025. Overall, what we're seeing in the developed market economies is restrictive monetary policy in general restraining growth, whereas we have much more mixed results in the emerging market world.
Inflation, though, is a clear theme around the world. Overall, we see the surge in inflation. That has been a theme in global markets for the past couple of years as having peaked and starting to come down. It's coming down primarily through consumer goods, but we do see that trend continuing over the next several years. 
That backdrop of inflation having peaked and coming down along with weaker growth means that we're setting ourselves up for overall a bit of an easing cycle for monetary policy. We are looking for the Fed and the ECB each to start an easing cycle in June of this year. For the Fed, it's because we see growth slowing down and inflation continuing to track down along the path that we see and that the Fed will come around to seeing. 
I would say the stark exception to this among developed market economies is the Bank of Japan. We have seen them already get to the de facto end of yield curve control. We think by the time we get to the January policy meeting, they will completely eliminate yield curve control formally and go from negative interest rate policy to zero interest rate policy. And then over the course of the next year or so, we think we're going to see very gradual, very tentative increases in the policy rate for Japan. So for every story, there's a little bit of a cross current going on. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Can you talk about some of the vulnerabilities for the global economy? What worries you most about your central case, about the global economy? 
Seth Carpenter: We put into the outlook a downside scenario where the current challenges in China, the risks, as we've said, of a debt deflation cycle, they really take over. What this would mean is that the policy response in beijing is insufficient to overcome the underlying dynamics there as debt is coming down, as inflation is weak and those things build on themselves. Kind of a smaller version of the lost decade of Japan. We think from there we could see some of that weakness just exported around the globe. And for us, that's one of the key downside risks to the global economy. I'd say in the opposite direction, the upside risk is maybe some of the strength that we see in the United States is just more persistent than we realize. Maybe it's the case that monetary policy really hasn't done enough. And we...]]>555false1029fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-2024-asia-equities-outlook-india-vs-china--75653119----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'm going to be discussing our continued preference for Indian equities versus China equities. It's Thursday, December 7th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
MSCI India is tracking towards a third straight year of outperformance of MSCI China, and India is currently our number one pick. Indeed, we're running our largest overweight at 100 basis points versus benchmark. In contrast, we reduced China back to equal weight in the summer of this year. So going into 2024, we're currently anticipating a fourth straight year of India outperformance versus China. 
Central to our bullish view on India versus China, is the trend in earnings. Starting in early 2021, MSCI India earnings per share in US dollar terms has grown by 61% versus a decline of 18% for MSCI China. As a result, Indian earnings have powered ahead on a relative basis, and this is the best period for India earnings relative to China in the modern history of the two equity markets. 
There are two fundamental factors underpinning this trend in India's favor, both of which we expect to continue to be present in 2024. The first is India's relative economic growth, particularly in nominal GDP terms. Our economists have written frequently in recent months on China's persistent 3D challenges, that is its battle with debt, deflation and demographics. And they're forecasting another subdued year of around 5% nominal GDP growth in 2024. In contrast, their thesis on India's decade suggests nominal GDP growth will be well into double digits as both aggregate demand and crucially supply move ahead on multiple fronts. 
The second factor is currency stability. Our FX team anticipate that for India, prudent macro management, particularly on the fiscal deficit, geopolitical dynamics and inward multinational investment, can lead to continued Rupee stability in real effective terms versus volatility in previous cycles. For the Chinese Yuan, in contrast, the real effective exchange rates has begun to slide lower as foreign direct investment flows have turned negative for the first time and domestic capital flight begins to pick up. 
Push backs we get on continuing to prefer India to China in 2024, are firstly around potential volatility of the Indian markets in an election year. But secondly, a bigger concern is relative valuations. Now, as always, we feel it's important to contextualize valuations versus return on equity and return on equity trajectory. Currently, India is trading a little over 3.7x price to book for around 15% ROE. This means it has one of the highest ROE's in emerging markets, but is the most expensive market. And in price to book terms, second only to the US globally. China is trading on a much lower price to book of 1.3x, but its ROE is 10% and indeed on an ROE adjusted basis, it's not particularly cheap versus other emerging markets such as Korea or South Africa. Importantly for India, we expect ROE to remain high as earnings compound going forward, and corporate leverage can build from current levels as nominal and real interest rates remain low to history. So the outlook is positive. But for China, the outlook is very different. And in a recent detailed piece, drawing on sector inputs from our bottom up colleagues, we concluded that whilst the base case would be for ROE stabilization, if reflation is successful, there's also a bear case for ROE to fall further to around 7% over the medium term, or less than half that of India today. 
Finally, within the two markets we’re overweight India, financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. And these are sectors which typically do best in a strong underlying growth environment. They're the same sectors on which we're cautious in China. There our focus is on A-shares rather than large cap index names, and we like niche technology, hardware and clean energy plays which benefit from China's policy objectives. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2k8E_ZlCJAN_uw76NQCWsedl00kaXE8fS_qs3fbSUWEWed, 27 Dec 2023 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on December 7th, 2023: Will India equities continue to outperform China equities in 2024? The two key factors investors should track. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'm going to be discussing our continued preference for Indian equities versus China equities. It's Thursday, December 7th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
MSCI India is tracking towards a third straight year of outperformance of MSCI China, and India is currently our number one pick. Indeed, we're running our largest overweight at 100 basis points versus benchmark. In contrast, we reduced China back to equal weight in the summer of this year. So going into 2024, we're currently anticipating a fourth straight year of India outperformance versus China. 
Central to our bullish view on India versus China, is the trend in earnings. Starting in early 2021, MSCI India earnings per share in US dollar terms has grown by 61% versus a decline of 18% for MSCI China. As a result, Indian earnings have powered ahead on a relative basis, and this is the best period for India earnings relative to China in the modern history of the two equity markets. 
There are two fundamental factors underpinning this trend in India's favor, both of which we expect to continue to be present in 2024. The first is India's relative economic growth, particularly in nominal GDP terms. Our economists have written frequently in recent months on China's persistent 3D challenges, that is its battle with debt, deflation and demographics. And they're forecasting another subdued year of around 5% nominal GDP growth in 2024. In contrast, their thesis on India's decade suggests nominal GDP growth will be well into double digits as both aggregate demand and crucially supply move ahead on multiple fronts. 
The second factor is currency stability. Our FX team anticipate that for India, prudent macro management, particularly on the fiscal deficit, geopolitical dynamics and inward multinational investment, can lead to continued Rupee stability in real effective terms versus volatility in previous cycles. For the Chinese Yuan, in contrast, the real effective exchange rates has begun to slide lower as foreign direct investment flows have turned negative for the first time and domestic capital flight begins to pick up. 
Push backs we get on continuing to prefer India to China in 2024, are firstly around potential volatility of the Indian markets in an election year. But secondly, a bigger concern is relative valuations. Now, as always, we feel it's important to contextualize valuations versus return on equity and return on equity trajectory. Currently, India is trading a little over 3.7x price to book for around 15% ROE. This means it has one of the highest ROE's in emerging markets, but is the most expensive market. And in price to book terms, second only to the US globally. China is trading on a much lower price to book of 1.3x, but its ROE is 10% and indeed on an ROE adjusted basis, it's not particularly cheap versus other emerging markets such as Korea or South Africa. Importantly for India, we expect ROE to remain high as earnings compound going forward, and corporate leverage can build from current levels as nominal and real interest rates remain low to history. So the outlook is positive. But for China, the outlook is very different. And in a recent detailed piece, drawing on sector inputs from our bottom up colleagues, we concluded that whilst the base case would be for ROE stabilization, if reflation is successful, there's also a bear case for ROE to fall further to around 7% over the medium term, or less than half that of India today. 
Finally, within the two markets we’re overweight India, financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. And these are sectors which typically...]]>296false1028fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-an-early-guide-to-the-2024-u-s-elections--75652986----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, from the U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Michael Zezas: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss our early views around the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It's Wednesday, December 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: With U.S. elections less than a year away now, it's likely much will change in terms of the drivers of the outcome and its market impact. Still, we believe early preparation will help investors navigate the campaign. And so starting now, we'll bring your updated views and forecasts until the U.S. elects its next president in November of 2024. Arianna, we've noted that this upcoming election will affect particular sectors rather than the broader macro market. What's driving this view? 
Ariana Salvatore: There are really two reasons that we've been pointing to. First, lawmakers have achieved a lot of their policy priorities that impact the deficit over the past few election cycles. If you think about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or the infrastructure bill back in 2021, for example. Now they're turning to policy that holds more sectoral impacts than macro. The second reason is that inflation is still a very high priority issue for voters. As we've noted, an elevated level of concern around inflation really disincentivizes politicians from pushing for legislation that could expand the deficit because it's seen as contrary to that mandate of fiscal austerity that comes in a high inflation environment. There is one exception to this. As we've noted before, lawmakers will have to deal with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think the different configurations post 2024 each produce a unique outcome, but we expect in any scenario, that will only add modestly to the deficit. 
Michael Zezas: And digging into specific sectors. What policies are you watching and which sectors should investors keep an eye out for in the event these policies pass? 
Ariana Salvatore: Following the election, we think Congress will turn to legislative items like AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. Obviously, each unique election outcome will facilitate its own level and type of policy transformation. But we think you could possibly see the biggest divergence from the status quo in a Republican sweep. In particular, in that case, we'd expect lawmakers to launch an effort to roll back, at least partially, the Inflation Reduction Act or the IRA, though we ultimately don't think a full scale repeal will be likely. We also expect to see something on AI regulation based on what's currently in party consensus, easing energy permitting requirements and probably extending the bulk of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means sectors to watch out for would be clean tech, AI exposed stocks and sectors most sensitive to tax changes like tech and health care. Mike, as we mentioned, with this focus on legislation that impacts certain sectors, we don't expect this to be a macro election. So is there anything that would shift the balance toward greater macro concerns? 
Michael Zezas: Well, if it looks like a recession is getting more likely as the election gets close, it's going to be natural for investors to start thinking about whether or not the election outcome might catalyze a fiscal response to economic weakness. And in that situation, you'd expect that outcomes where one party doesn't control both Congress and the White House would lead to smaller and somewhat delayed responses. Whereas an outcome where one party controls both the White House and Congress, you would probably get a bigger fiscal response that comes faster. Those are two outcomes that would mean very different things to the interest rates market, for example, which would have to reflect differences in new bond supply to finance any fiscal response, and of course, the resulting difference in the growth trajectory. 
Ariana Salvatore: All right so, keeping with the macro theme for a moment. How do our expectations for geopolitics and foreign policy play into our assessment of the election outcomes? 
Michael Zezas: Yeah, this is a difficult one to answer, mostly because it's unclear how different election outcomes would net impact different geopolitical situations. So, for example, investors often ask us about what outcomes would matter for a place like Mexico, where they're concerned that some election outcomes might create economic challenges for Mexico around the US-Mexico border. However, those outcomes could also improve the prospects for near shoring, which improves foreign direct investment into Mexico. It's really unclear whether those cross-currents would be a net positive or a net negative. So we don't really think there's much specific to guide investors on, at least at the moment. Finally, Arianna, to sum up, how is the team tracking the presidential race and which indicators are particularly key, the focus on? 
Ariana Salvatore: Well, recent history suggests that it will be a close race. For context, the 2022 midterms marked the fourth time in four years that less than 1% of votes effectively determined which side would control the House, the Senate or the White House. That means that elections are nearly impossible to predict. But we think there are certain indicators that can tell us which outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. For example, we think inflation could influence voters. As a top voter issue and a topic that the GOP is better perceived as equipped to handle, persistent concerns around inflation could signal potential upside for Republicans. Inflation also tracks very closely with the president's approval rating. So on the other hand, if you see decelerating inflation in conjunction with overall improving economic data, that might indicate some tailwinds for Democrats across the board. We're going to be tracking other indicators as well, like the generic ballot, President Biden's approval rating and prediction markets, which could signal that different outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. 
Michael Zezas: Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. 
Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yarqLDLw0UtBV7ujpRxg8BknD69OONGxASt9yL_6uL8Tue, 26 Dec 2023 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on December 6th, 2023: Although much will change before the elections, investors should watch for potential impacts on issues such as AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome...----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, from the U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Michael Zezas: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss our early views around the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It's Wednesday, December 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: With U.S. elections less than a year away now, it's likely much will change in terms of the drivers of the outcome and its market impact. Still, we believe early preparation will help investors navigate the campaign. And so starting now, we'll bring your updated views and forecasts until the U.S. elects its next president in November of 2024. Arianna, we've noted that this upcoming election will affect particular sectors rather than the broader macro market. What's driving this view? 
Ariana Salvatore: There are really two reasons that we've been pointing to. First, lawmakers have achieved a lot of their policy priorities that impact the deficit over the past few election cycles. If you think about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or the infrastructure bill back in 2021, for example. Now they're turning to policy that holds more sectoral impacts than macro. The second reason is that inflation is still a very high priority issue for voters. As we've noted, an elevated level of concern around inflation really disincentivizes politicians from pushing for legislation that could expand the deficit because it's seen as contrary to that mandate of fiscal austerity that comes in a high inflation environment. There is one exception to this. As we've noted before, lawmakers will have to deal with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think the different configurations post 2024 each produce a unique outcome, but we expect in any scenario, that will only add modestly to the deficit. 
Michael Zezas: And digging into specific sectors. What policies are you watching and which sectors should investors keep an eye out for in the event these policies pass? 
Ariana Salvatore: Following the election, we think Congress will turn to legislative items like AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. Obviously, each unique election outcome will facilitate its own level and type of policy transformation. But we think you could possibly see the biggest divergence from the status quo in a Republican sweep. In particular, in that case, we'd expect lawmakers to launch an effort to roll back, at least partially, the Inflation Reduction Act or the IRA, though we ultimately don't think a full scale repeal will be likely. We also expect to see something on AI regulation based on what's currently in party consensus, easing energy permitting requirements and probably extending the bulk of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means sectors to watch out for would be clean tech, AI exposed stocks and sectors most sensitive to tax changes like tech and health care. Mike, as we mentioned, with this focus on legislation that impacts certain sectors, we don't expect this to be a macro election. So is there anything that would shift the balance toward greater macro concerns? 
Michael Zezas: Well, if it looks like a recession is getting more likely as the election gets close, it's going to be natural for investors to start thinking about whether or not the election outcome might catalyze a fiscal response to economic weakness. And in that situation, you'd expect that outcomes where one party doesn't control both Congress and the White House would lead to smaller and somewhat delayed responses. Whereas an outcome where one party controls both the White House...]]>383false1027fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-credit-markets-take-a-sunny-view--75653087----- Transcript -----[00:00:02] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 22nd at 4 p.m. in London. [00:00:18] Sometimes it's hard to explain why a market is moving. This is not one of them. U.S. economic data has been unquestionably good over the last two months, delivering an unusual combination of better than expected growth with lower than expected inflation. In the U.K. and Euro area, inflation has been declining even faster. 
[00:00:35] Central banks, seeing this encouraging decline in inflationary pressure, have signaled an end to their recent rate hiking campaigns and hinted that next year will bring cuts. These shifts have been significant. The market's expectation of one year interest rates in the eurozone in one year's time have fallen almost 1% in the last month alone. In the U.S., they've fallen about 1.25% over the last two. 
[00:00:56] As you've heard us discuss on this program throughout the year, inflation is incredibly important to the current macroeconomic story. Much of the concerns this year, especially at the beginning, were based on a widespread view that in an economy near full employment, high inflation could only be brought down with much weaker growth, leaving investors with the unappetizing choice of either a recession or permanently higher inflation. 
[00:01:17] But the last two months have presented a notable glass half full, more optimistic challenge to that story. In the U.S., there are signs the economy is increasing capacity, which in economic terms allows for more output without higher prices. U.S. energy production has hit record levels, with the U.S. currently producing 40% more oil than Saudi Arabia. More workers are joining the labor force. New business formations are high and supply chain stresses are improving. All of that has helped reduce inflationary pressure and reinforce the idea that policy shifts in the Federal Reserve towards easier monetary policy can be credible over the next several years. 
[00:01:52] In Europe, growth has been weaker, but this has meant inflation is coming down even faster, bolstering the view that the European Central Bank has taken interest rates much higher than it needs to, and could also reverse these significantly over the next 12 months. 
[00:02:04] For a market that spent much of the last two years worried about being stuck between this rock and a hard place with growth and inflation, the data over the last two months is welcome news and we remain positive on corporate credit. While levels have rallied more than we expected, we think this is balanced, for now, with these better than expected economic developments. 
[00:02:22] Within the credit rally, however, we see dispersion. Long term U.S. investment grade bonds, a highly volatile sector, have done so well that spreads are now near the tightest levels in 20 years. We think this looks overdone. In contrast, performance in the lowest rated and also volatile cohort of triple C issuers has lagged significantly. While we've previously had a higher quality bias within credit, we think U.S. and European triple C's can now start to catch up, given some of the better macroeconomic developments we've been seeing in the recent months. 
[00:02:51] Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/F95KHCVTSxnaNjKikYxotfFh8GsW9adU6a6NMfE5sMUFri, 22 Dec 2023 15:56:40 +0000gtyHow has corporate credit fared through slow growth and high inflation? Here’s our view on what comes next for this market. ----- Transcript -----[00:00:02] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Credit Research at Morgan...----- Transcript -----[00:00:02] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 22nd at 4 p.m. in London. [00:00:18] Sometimes it's hard to explain why a market is moving. This is not one of them. U.S. economic data has been unquestionably good over the last two months, delivering an unusual combination of better than expected growth with lower than expected inflation. In the U.K. and Euro area, inflation has been declining even faster. 
[00:00:35] Central banks, seeing this encouraging decline in inflationary pressure, have signaled an end to their recent rate hiking campaigns and hinted that next year will bring cuts. These shifts have been significant. The market's expectation of one year interest rates in the eurozone in one year's time have fallen almost 1% in the last month alone. In the U.S., they've fallen about 1.25% over the last two. 
[00:00:56] As you've heard us discuss on this program throughout the year, inflation is incredibly important to the current macroeconomic story. Much of the concerns this year, especially at the beginning, were based on a widespread view that in an economy near full employment, high inflation could only be brought down with much weaker growth, leaving investors with the unappetizing choice of either a recession or permanently higher inflation. 
[00:01:17] But the last two months have presented a notable glass half full, more optimistic challenge to that story. In the U.S., there are signs the economy is increasing capacity, which in economic terms allows for more output without higher prices. U.S. energy production has hit record levels, with the U.S. currently producing 40% more oil than Saudi Arabia. More workers are joining the labor force. New business formations are high and supply chain stresses are improving. All of that has helped reduce inflationary pressure and reinforce the idea that policy shifts in the Federal Reserve towards easier monetary policy can be credible over the next several years. 
[00:01:52] In Europe, growth has been weaker, but this has meant inflation is coming down even faster, bolstering the view that the European Central Bank has taken interest rates much higher than it needs to, and could also reverse these significantly over the next 12 months. 
[00:02:04] For a market that spent much of the last two years worried about being stuck between this rock and a hard place with growth and inflation, the data over the last two months is welcome news and we remain positive on corporate credit. While levels have rallied more than we expected, we think this is balanced, for now, with these better than expected economic developments. 
[00:02:22] Within the credit rally, however, we see dispersion. Long term U.S. investment grade bonds, a highly volatile sector, have done so well that spreads are now near the tightest levels in 20 years. We think this looks overdone. In contrast, performance in the lowest rated and also volatile cohort of triple C issuers has lagged significantly. While we've previously had a higher quality bias within credit, we think U.S. and European triple C's can now start to catch up, given some of the better macroeconomic developments we've been seeing in the recent months. 
[00:02:51] Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>195false1026fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-falling-rates-mean-lower-home-prices--75653150----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. 
Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research. Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast we'll be discussing what the recent rally in mortgage rates means to the mortgage and housing Markets. It's Thursday, December 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jim Egan: Now, Jay, the last time that we were on this podcast, we talked about what an 8% mortgage rate can mean to the homeowner. Now, mortgage rates have come down. They're getting quoted with a 6% handle. What happened? And where do we see mortgage rates going from here? 
Jay Bacow: The combination of data and Fed speak made the markets expect a lot more cuts from the Fed in 2024. Markets are pricing in close to 150 basis points of cuts, and that's caused a pretty large rally in rates. Primary mortgage rates to the homeowner are generally based off of secondary mortgage rate execution in the market, along with treasury rates. And you've seen a little over a hundred basis point rally in Treasury rates and a little over 150 basis point rally and secondary market execution. 
Jim Egan: Okay, So mortgage rates are down 150 basis points. Jay Bacow: Not quite. Lenders don't really drop the primary rate as fast as a secondary rate goes down because they're not going to be able to deal with the added volume of inquiries until they add staffing. So we don't think primary rates are going to come down quite as much as secondary market rates have come down right now. But if rates stay here for some time, then we'd expect mortgage rates to settle in, in the context of about 6.5% or so. 
Jim Egan: Basically, what you're saying is when originators can hire enough officers to deal with the refinance and purchase inquiries, then they'll drop rates, effectively, don't cut profits if you can't make it up in volume. 
Jay Bacow: Exactly right. Now, what we would point out is there's only about 5% of the market that has a mortgage rate above 6.5%. So we wouldn't really expect a huge wave of refi activity. But what we would expect is that as market is pricing in more cuts, is that investors are going to feel more comfortable buying mortgages. For instance, right now the yields on mortgages that investors earn is similar to the yield that they can earn with Fed funds. However, the market is expecting that 150 basis point move lower in Fed funds next year, but they're not really expecting the back end of the yield curve to move that much. And so we think that investors like domestic banks, will be looking to move their cash out of the Fed's interest on reserves and into securities, and the probability of that happening is higher now than it was before all these cuts got priced in. But that's sort of investor behavior. What does this rally mean for the housing market writ large, in particular I guess I'm thinking like housing activity. You know, you put out a forecast a month ago. Do we think it's going to pick up now given the rally? 
Jim Egan: So when we published our year ahead forecast, we were expecting affordability to improve and to improve in line with the decreases in mortgage rates that you were discussing a little bit earlier in this podcast. But if interest rates were to stay here, that improvement would obviously be occurring far more quickly than we had originally anticipated. Jay Bacow: Now, I guess I would think that more affordable housing would equal a higher volume of home sales. But we moved up to that almost 8% mortgage rate so fast and then we've rallied so quickly, and a lot of this happened during this slower seasonal period. So what are you thinking about the implication for home sales in general? 
Jim Egan: As you're pointing out, it's not really that straightforward here. The affordability improvement that we were expecting to see over the entire course of 2024 is something that we've only seen seven or eight other times in the course of the past 40 years. In most of those instances, sales volumes actually fell during that first year of affordability improvement, and that is before they climbed significantly in the 12 to 24 months after, that affordability improved. When you combine that historical experience with the fact that, look, despite this improvement in affordability, it's still very stretched and inventories, for sale inventories, are still very low. Jay, As you just mentioned, 95% of mortgaged homeowners have a rate below 6.5%. We just don't think that that spells material increases in home sales from here. Jay Bacow: Okay. But there's a lot of room between no change and material increase, so what are you forecasting? 
Jim Egan: Despite the comments that I just made, an additional factor that we do need to consider is honestly, how much further can sales volumes really fall from here? There is some non-economic level of transaction volumes that has to occur. Think about people that need to move for jobs, in situations like that, and we think we're roughly there. Through the first three quarters of 2023, total sales volumes are at their lowest levels since 2011. But this is a much larger housing market than 2011. When we look at sales as a percentage of the total owned stock of housing, we're at the lows from the great financial crisis. That isn't to say that sales can't fall from these levels, but we think it's much more likely that they climb, especially considering this rate move and the affordability improvement that comes along with it. Our original forecast was for existing home sales to climb 2.5% in 2024 and for new home sales to climb 7.5%. If this affordability improvement were to really solidify here, we would expect sales volumes to be stronger than those forecasts. 
Jay Bacow: All right. More activity means more supply and I learned in Economics 101 that more supply generally means lower prices. But housing is more affordable, and I guess that means more demand. I learned in Jim Egan housing 101 that you have a four pillar framework. So how do you balance these four pillars and what does this mean for home prices next year? 
Jim Egan: For our listeners, our four pillar framework for the U.S. housing market is one, the demand for shelter. So we're looking at household formations as the marginal demand for both ownership and rentership shelter. Two, supply in the U.S. housing market. That's three fold; it's the listing of existing homes for sale, it's the building of new homes and it's distressed, so think of defaults and foreclosures in the housing market. The third pillar is the affordability of the U.S. housing market, which we've been discussing. And the fourth is the availability of mortgage credit. And Jay you're right, these factors influence home prices in different ways. While we do expect sales to increase, we're also expecting for sale inventory to increase next year, even if only at the margins. What our models are telling us is that increasing off of multi-decade lows from an inventory perspective is enough to push home prices down a little bit in 2024, despite the increase in demand that we're forecasting. We're calling for home prices to fall by about 3% year-over-year by the end of next year. 
Jay Bacow: That doesn't seem like a lot given that home prices are up about 45% since the start of the pandemic. 
Jim Egan: Right. And I would stress that we think this is a moderation, not a correction in home prices. We also don't think that there's a lot of downside below that 3% number, as homeowners do remain strong hands in this cycle. And by that, we mean we don't think that they're going to be forced to sell into materially weaker bids. That has and will continue to provide a lot of support to home prices in the cycle. We just don't think that that support means that home prices can't decline marginally on a year-over-year basis in 2024. 
Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, it's always great talking to you about the mortgage and housing market. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Gd1-WcamMg_XyGaB2AfTV69sETII6Ku6ZYAoVyI3cHYThu, 21 Dec 2023 20:16:11 +0000gtyAs mortgage rates come down from 8% closer to 6.5%, the 2024 housing market will see changes in inventory, home prices and sales. ----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products...----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. 
Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research. Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast we'll be discussing what the recent rally in mortgage rates means to the mortgage and housing Markets. It's Thursday, December 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jim Egan: Now, Jay, the last time that we were on this podcast, we talked about what an 8% mortgage rate can mean to the homeowner. Now, mortgage rates have come down. They're getting quoted with a 6% handle. What happened? And where do we see mortgage rates going from here? 
Jay Bacow: The combination of data and Fed speak made the markets expect a lot more cuts from the Fed in 2024. Markets are pricing in close to 150 basis points of cuts, and that's caused a pretty large rally in rates. Primary mortgage rates to the homeowner are generally based off of secondary mortgage rate execution in the market, along with treasury rates. And you've seen a little over a hundred basis point rally in Treasury rates and a little over 150 basis point rally and secondary market execution. 
Jim Egan: Okay, So mortgage rates are down 150 basis points. Jay Bacow: Not quite. Lenders don't really drop the primary rate as fast as a secondary rate goes down because they're not going to be able to deal with the added volume of inquiries until they add staffing. So we don't think primary rates are going to come down quite as much as secondary market rates have come down right now. But if rates stay here for some time, then we'd expect mortgage rates to settle in, in the context of about 6.5% or so. 
Jim Egan: Basically, what you're saying is when originators can hire enough officers to deal with the refinance and purchase inquiries, then they'll drop rates, effectively, don't cut profits if you can't make it up in volume. 
Jay Bacow: Exactly right. Now, what we would point out is there's only about 5% of the market that has a mortgage rate above 6.5%. So we wouldn't really expect a huge wave of refi activity. But what we would expect is that as market is pricing in more cuts, is that investors are going to feel more comfortable buying mortgages. For instance, right now the yields on mortgages that investors earn is similar to the yield that they can earn with Fed funds. However, the market is expecting that 150 basis point move lower in Fed funds next year, but they're not really expecting the back end of the yield curve to move that much. And so we think that investors like domestic banks, will be looking to move their cash out of the Fed's interest on reserves and into securities, and the probability of that happening is higher now than it was before all these cuts got priced in. But that's sort of investor behavior. What does this rally mean for the housing market writ large, in particular I guess I'm thinking like housing activity. You know, you put out a forecast a month ago. Do we think it's going to pick up now given the rally? 
Jim Egan: So when we published our year ahead forecast, we were expecting affordability to improve and to improve in line with the decreases in mortgage rates that you were discussing a little bit earlier in this podcast. But if interest rates were to stay here, that improvement would obviously be occurring far more quickly than we had originally anticipated. Jay Bacow: Now, I guess I would think that more affordable housing would equal a higher volume of home sales. But we moved up to that almost 8% mortgage rate so fast and then we've rallied so quickly, and a lot of this happened during this slower seasonal period. So what are you thinking about the implication for home sales in general? 
Jim Egan: As you're pointing...]]>462false1025fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-why-geopolitics-may-matter-more-in-2024--75653155----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be looking ahead to geopolitical catalysts for markets in 2024. It's Wednesday, December 20th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
2023 was a year that, in our view, stood out as one where geopolitics surprisingly impacted markets far less than in recent years. But investors shouldn't get complacent because 2024 is full of potential geopolitical catalysts for markets. Let's start by looking back. 
The year that was had plenty of potential catalysts that could have arisen from the political economy. The U.S. flirted again with default by taking a painfully long time to raise the debt ceiling. Its credit rating suffered a downgrade along the way, but the volatility was barely noticeable in the equity and bond markets. Later in the year, a major military conflict broke out in the Middle East, creating a threat of major escalation and confrontation among nations both inside and outside the region, as well as disruptions to the global supply of oil. Still, markets shrugged with the price of oil mostly keeping steady and major global equity indices continuing on their prior trend. 
How were markets immune to these events? There's explanations specific to each event. For the debt ceiling, despite the brinkmanship, the probability that Congress wouldn't actually lift the debt ceiling was always quite small. For the Middle East, disruptions of the supply of global oil was not in anyone's interest. But there was also a bigger explanation for investors who look past this. The more important debate all year was whether central banks could turn the tide on inflation, and if so, could they avoid recession along the way. 
2024 should be a different story. The debate about inflation in developed markets looks increasingly settled, but the growth debate lingers. While our economists see the U.S. avoiding a recession or having a soft landing, recession remains a key risk. Meaning even small impacts from geopolitical events could meaningfully shift investors perceptions about whether positive or negative economic growth is the base case next year, with asset valuations shifting at the same time. And there will be plenty of events to watch. U.S. elections are clearly one area of focus with implications for Fed policy, global trade and ongoing assistance to Ukraine, whose conflict with Russia continues to carry risks to the European outlook. But it's not just the U.S. There are as many as 40 elections in key countries next year, including in India and Mexico, two secular growth stories our strategist favor. So stay tuned to geopolitics in 2024, we certainly will and we'll continue to share our insight into what it all means for markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DmyKElhxhCjyAM-uxPCnZ_oAkxiLWVVOSoyH-6HtmjgWed, 20 Dec 2023 21:16:23 +0000gtyWhile the U.S. debt ceiling challenge and the conflict in the Middle East left markets largely undisturbed this year, 2024 could tell a different story. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be looking ahead to geopolitical catalysts for markets in 2024. It's Wednesday, December 20th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
2023 was a year that, in our view, stood out as one where geopolitics surprisingly impacted markets far less than in recent years. But investors shouldn't get complacent because 2024 is full of potential geopolitical catalysts for markets. Let's start by looking back. 
The year that was had plenty of potential catalysts that could have arisen from the political economy. The U.S. flirted again with default by taking a painfully long time to raise the debt ceiling. Its credit rating suffered a downgrade along the way, but the volatility was barely noticeable in the equity and bond markets. Later in the year, a major military conflict broke out in the Middle East, creating a threat of major escalation and confrontation among nations both inside and outside the region, as well as disruptions to the global supply of oil. Still, markets shrugged with the price of oil mostly keeping steady and major global equity indices continuing on their prior trend. 
How were markets immune to these events? There's explanations specific to each event. For the debt ceiling, despite the brinkmanship, the probability that Congress wouldn't actually lift the debt ceiling was always quite small. For the Middle East, disruptions of the supply of global oil was not in anyone's interest. But there was also a bigger explanation for investors who look past this. The more important debate all year was whether central banks could turn the tide on inflation, and if so, could they avoid recession along the way. 
2024 should be a different story. The debate about inflation in developed markets looks increasingly settled, but the growth debate lingers. While our economists see the U.S. avoiding a recession or having a soft landing, recession remains a key risk. Meaning even small impacts from geopolitical events could meaningfully shift investors perceptions about whether positive or negative economic growth is the base case next year, with asset valuations shifting at the same time. And there will be plenty of events to watch. U.S. elections are clearly one area of focus with implications for Fed policy, global trade and ongoing assistance to Ukraine, whose conflict with Russia continues to carry risks to the European outlook. But it's not just the U.S. There are as many as 40 elections in key countries next year, including in India and Mexico, two secular growth stories our strategist favor. So stay tuned to geopolitics in 2024, we certainly will and we'll continue to share our insight into what it all means for markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>174false1024fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/will-the-fed-s-pivot-favor-bonds-over-equities--75653056----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. In this special episode I'm joined by my colleague and Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy, Serena Tang. Along with our colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, we'll be talking about how our views have evolved since we published our 2024 outlook over a month ago. It's Tuesday, December 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Hello, Serena. Thank you for joining me in the show. 
Serena Tang: Very happy to join you. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Since we published our 2024 outlook, we've had some big moves across markets. So how do you think our views have changed from your perch as the Head of Cross-Asset Strategy? 
Serena Tang: Markets have moved a lot and have moved very, very quickly. When we first published our outlook just a month ago, you and I both had investors push back on our macro strategy team's forecast of U.S. ten year Treasury yields at below 4%. And you know what? We are at those levels now. In a similar vein, MSCI EM, which is the broad index of emerging market equities that we track, that is at our equity strategies price target. And we are now also through our base case target for U.S. high grade corporate bonds. So I would say this has shifted our short term views. Our U.S. rate strategy team, they've recently gone tactically neutral on government bonds as the markets have repriced quickly, maybe a bit too quickly. Now, that being said, on a strategic horizon, my team and I have been arguing for a strong preference for high quality fixed income over higher beta assets going into 2024. In large part because risky assets like equities, like high yield corporate bonds, they have been pricing in a perfect landing and not paying investors enough premium for the risk that the world may be less than perfect. And the assets which have valuation cushion right now, especially after rally we've seen these past few weeks, is still high grade fixed income. You know U.S. yields are close to post global financial crisis highs, while equity risk premiums have been falling most of this past year. So, yes, markets have moved, but our strategic view of being overweight in high quality fixed income over higher beta markets have not changed. So for you Vishy, you know, when we published our year ahead outlook, we had some pushback, not just on the rates view but also on a forecast for the Fed to cut four times next year. The market is clearly moved beyond that now. What do you think has driven that rally? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Serena, the pushback we had was really about the motivation and timing of the Fed cuts. As you know, our economists are calling for cuts starting in June as the economy and inflation begin to decelerate. Some people initially pushed back on this idea, that the Fed starts cutting rates before we get to the 2% core PCE target rate. After the downward surprise in CPI last week and more so after the FOMC meeting, which came across more dovish than the markets as well as us expected, the market narrative, including the pushback we've been getting, have dramatically changed. Clearly, the markets interpreted the messaging from the FOMC statement, the dot plot and the press conference to be unequivocally dovish. The changes in the market narratives notwithstanding, we continue to expect 100 basis point cuts over 2024. I would note that in a world where inflation is falling, standard economic models would prescribe rate cuts and in 2024 inflation is projected to fall further. And because the Fed targets the level of real leads to maintain the same level of restraint, the Fed needs to cut nominal rates in line with falling inflation. This is the reasoning we see behind Fed's projection for cutting cycle to begin next year. Cutting the policy rate is not to stimulate the economy, but really to move monetary policy towards a more normalized level. While the real rate will be likely lower at the end of next year than it is today, it will still remain elevated above neutral, nevertheless. 
Serena Tang: So do you think the markets are right to go with the Fed pivot narrative at this point in time? What are the market's pricing in right now for what the Fed will do in 2024? And compared to our U.S. economist forecasts, do you see the market pricing as too bullish or bearish? 
Vishy Tirupattur: The market pricing now reflects about 140 basis points of rate cuts in 2024, and market is assigning a nearly two thirds probability of a cut materializing in March. In our view, for a march cut to be realized, we need to continue to see downward surprises in incoming inflation and growth data. To quote Chair Powell on inflation, "I'm not calling into question the progress. It's great. We just need to see more" end quote. So we don't think the Fed would be confident that enough progress has been achieved by March. So that means cuts arrive in June, if there are no further downside surprises to our inflation path. So we think market has gotten a bit ahead of itself and thus will remain tactically neutral on duration? So Serena, if the pivot is real, why are you not more bullish on equities or fixed income? Also, why are you not bullish on higher beta fixed income? 
Serena Tang: Right. As I mentioned earlier, there's a strong valuation case for fixed income over equities. The latter is pretty much priced to perfection, while the former is not. But also in an environment where the Fed pivot is real and I think you and I both believe the Fed will start easing policy next year, the rally we've seen is not entirely surprising. My team's done some work looking into past episodes of rate hikes and cuts and pauses and what it means for cross-asset performance. Now, 3 to 6 months after the last Fed hike, normally everything rallies, which makes sense. Equities rates, credit, all these markets are just very relieved there is no more policy tightening. But in 3 to 6 months going into that first Fed cut, that's when you see bonds outperform equities, investment grade bonds outperform lower quality and quality within equities outperforming as investors recognize that easing usually comes along with decelerating growth. And I think that moment of epiphany is still to come. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Serena. Thank you for joining me. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bpiSzmOTJHmX0j82kSAm3LxKZdighdhzz2H39f0y-YETue, 19 Dec 2023 21:34:06 +0000gtyHear our perspective on market action following the Fed's change in direction, and what it means for our 2024 outlook.  ----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed...----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. In this special episode I'm joined by my colleague and Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy, Serena Tang. Along with our colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, we'll be talking about how our views have evolved since we published our 2024 outlook over a month ago. It's Tuesday, December 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Hello, Serena. Thank you for joining me in the show. 
Serena Tang: Very happy to join you. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Since we published our 2024 outlook, we've had some big moves across markets. So how do you think our views have changed from your perch as the Head of Cross-Asset Strategy? 
Serena Tang: Markets have moved a lot and have moved very, very quickly. When we first published our outlook just a month ago, you and I both had investors push back on our macro strategy team's forecast of U.S. ten year Treasury yields at below 4%. And you know what? We are at those levels now. In a similar vein, MSCI EM, which is the broad index of emerging market equities that we track, that is at our equity strategies price target. And we are now also through our base case target for U.S. high grade corporate bonds. So I would say this has shifted our short term views. Our U.S. rate strategy team, they've recently gone tactically neutral on government bonds as the markets have repriced quickly, maybe a bit too quickly. Now, that being said, on a strategic horizon, my team and I have been arguing for a strong preference for high quality fixed income over higher beta assets going into 2024. In large part because risky assets like equities, like high yield corporate bonds, they have been pricing in a perfect landing and not paying investors enough premium for the risk that the world may be less than perfect. And the assets which have valuation cushion right now, especially after rally we've seen these past few weeks, is still high grade fixed income. You know U.S. yields are close to post global financial crisis highs, while equity risk premiums have been falling most of this past year. So, yes, markets have moved, but our strategic view of being overweight in high quality fixed income over higher beta markets have not changed. So for you Vishy, you know, when we published our year ahead outlook, we had some pushback, not just on the rates view but also on a forecast for the Fed to cut four times next year. The market is clearly moved beyond that now. What do you think has driven that rally? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Serena, the pushback we had was really about the motivation and timing of the Fed cuts. As you know, our economists are calling for cuts starting in June as the economy and inflation begin to decelerate. Some people initially pushed back on this idea, that the Fed starts cutting rates before we get to the 2% core PCE target rate. After the downward surprise in CPI last week and more so after the FOMC meeting, which came across more dovish than the markets as well as us expected, the market narrative, including the pushback we've been getting, have dramatically changed. Clearly, the markets interpreted the messaging from the FOMC statement, the dot plot and the press conference to be unequivocally dovish. The changes in the market narratives notwithstanding, we continue to expect 100 basis point cuts over 2024. I would note that in a world where inflation is falling, standard economic models would prescribe rate cuts and in 2024 inflation is projected to fall further. And because the Fed targets the level of real leads to maintain the same level of restraint, the Fed needs to cut nominal rates in line with falling inflation. This is the reasoning we see behind Fed's projection for cutting cycle to begin next...]]>396false1023fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-does-the-u-s-equity-rally-still-have-steam--75653076----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing me a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 18th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Going into last week, the key question for investors was whether Fed Chair Jay Powell would push back on the significant loosening of financial conditions over the prior six weeks. Not only did he not push back, his message was consistent with the notion that the Fed is likely done hiking and will begin cutting interest rates next year. Markets took the change in guidance as an all clear sign to ramp up risk further. 
Given that policy rates are well into restrictive territory, the Fed likely doesn't want to wait to shift to more accommodative policy until it's too late to achieve a soft landing. That's a bullish outcome for stocks because it means the odds of a soft landing outcome have gone up even if this dovish shift also increases the risk of inflation reaccelerating. Given the price reaction to the news last week, it appears that markets are of the view that the Fed isn't making a policy mistake by shifting more dovish too soon. 
For investors looking to capitalize on this shift, it's important to note that markets started to price this dovish tilt back in November, with one of the sharpest declines in interest rates and loosening of financial conditions. As discussed in prior podcast, this accounted for most of the 15% rally in equity valuations over the past six weeks. While Powell's dovish shift has given investors a catalyst to pursue higher valuations, the markets may have moved in advance of last week's dovish transition. We think equity prices will now be more dependent on the effect that this dovish shift has on growth rather than valuations alone. If growth doesn't improve, the rally will run out of steam. If it does improve, there could be further to go in the upside and we would also see a change in market leadership and a broadening of stock performance. 
On that note, since the lows in October, small cap stocks have done better and breadth has improved. However, when looking at past cycles we find that smallcaps underperform both before and after Fed rate cuts. This speaks to the notion that the Fed typically cuts rates as nominal growth is slowing and small caps tend to be quite economically sensitive. Thus, the introduction of rate cuts may not drive sustainable outperformance for small caps or lower quality stocks by itself. However, if the earlier than anticipated dovish shift in the context of a still healthy economic backdrop can drive a cyclical rebound in nominal growth next year, small caps look compelling over a longer investment horizon. In our view, the probability of this outcome has gone up given last week's Fed meeting, but it's far from a slam dunk after such a strong rally. 
From here it'll be important to watch relative earnings revisions, high frequency macro data and small business confidence for signs that a more durable period of cap outperformance is coming. For now, relative earnings revisions remain negative for small caps and relative margin estimates have just recently taken another turn lower. Meanwhile, purchasing manager indices remain below the expansion contraction line of fifty and small business confidence remains low in a historical context and is yet to turn convincingly higher. That said, these indicators may now start to turn in a more favorable manner given last week's events. 
The bottom line, small caps and lower quality stocks have rallied sharply with the S&P 500 since October. We believe most of this outperformance is due to short covering and the seasonal tendency for the year's laggards to do better into the end of the year in January. For this trend to continue beyond that, we will need to see nominal GDP reaccelerate and for inflation to stabilize at current levels rather than fall further toward the Fed's target of 2%. While this may seem counterintuitive, we remind listeners that the average stock does better when inflation is rising, not falling and that may be what the market is now anticipating. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6owYph9zGyrYwNJCJajEHD3WXaj9pV74yS7RvTEslhQMon, 18 Dec 2023 21:15:33 +0000gtyHear how the Fed’s announcement of upcoming rate cuts could affect equity markets—particularly small-cap stocks. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing me a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 18th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Going into last week, the key question for investors was whether Fed Chair Jay Powell would push back on the significant loosening of financial conditions over the prior six weeks. Not only did he not push back, his message was consistent with the notion that the Fed is likely done hiking and will begin cutting interest rates next year. Markets took the change in guidance as an all clear sign to ramp up risk further. 
Given that policy rates are well into restrictive territory, the Fed likely doesn't want to wait to shift to more accommodative policy until it's too late to achieve a soft landing. That's a bullish outcome for stocks because it means the odds of a soft landing outcome have gone up even if this dovish shift also increases the risk of inflation reaccelerating. Given the price reaction to the news last week, it appears that markets are of the view that the Fed isn't making a policy mistake by shifting more dovish too soon. 
For investors looking to capitalize on this shift, it's important to note that markets started to price this dovish tilt back in November, with one of the sharpest declines in interest rates and loosening of financial conditions. As discussed in prior podcast, this accounted for most of the 15% rally in equity valuations over the past six weeks. While Powell's dovish shift has given investors a catalyst to pursue higher valuations, the markets may have moved in advance of last week's dovish transition. We think equity prices will now be more dependent on the effect that this dovish shift has on growth rather than valuations alone. If growth doesn't improve, the rally will run out of steam. If it does improve, there could be further to go in the upside and we would also see a change in market leadership and a broadening of stock performance. 
On that note, since the lows in October, small cap stocks have done better and breadth has improved. However, when looking at past cycles we find that smallcaps underperform both before and after Fed rate cuts. This speaks to the notion that the Fed typically cuts rates as nominal growth is slowing and small caps tend to be quite economically sensitive. Thus, the introduction of rate cuts may not drive sustainable outperformance for small caps or lower quality stocks by itself. However, if the earlier than anticipated dovish shift in the context of a still healthy economic backdrop can drive a cyclical rebound in nominal growth next year, small caps look compelling over a longer investment horizon. In our view, the probability of this outcome has gone up given last week's Fed meeting, but it's far from a slam dunk after such a strong rally. 
From here it'll be important to watch relative earnings revisions, high frequency macro data and small business confidence for signs that a more durable period of cap outperformance is coming. For now, relative earnings revisions remain negative for small caps and relative margin estimates have just recently taken another turn lower. Meanwhile, purchasing manager indices remain below the expansion contraction line of fifty and small business confidence remains low in a historical context and is yet to turn convincingly higher. That said, these indicators may now start to turn in a more favorable manner given last week's events. 
The bottom line, small caps and lower quality stocks have rallied sharply with the S&P 500 since October. We believe most of this outperformance is due to short covering and the seasonal...]]>236false1022fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/economic-roundtable-what-s-in-store-for-24--75653035----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. On this special episode of the podcast, we're going to hold a roundtable discussion focusing on Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook for 2024. It's Friday, December 15th at 4 p.m. in London. 
Ellen Zentner: 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: 5 p.m. in Frankfurt. 
Chetan Ahya: And midnight in Hong Kong. 
Seth Carpenter: So today I am joined by the leaders of the economics teams in key regions for a roundtable discussion that we're going to start to share each quarter. I'm with Ellen Zentner, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe economist. I want to talk with you three about the outlook for the global economy in 2024. Clearly, we're going to need to hit on growth, inflation, and we'll talk about how the various central banks are likely to respond. Let's start with the U.S., Ellen, how do you see the U.S. economy faring next year? What's just like the broad contours of that forecast? 
Ellen Zentner: Sure. Well, you know, the soft landing call that we've had since early 2022, we're rolling forward into a third year. I think what's important is why do we expect to finally get the slowing in the economy? We think that the fiscal impulse, which has been positive and made the Fed's job harder, is finally overcome by monetary policy lags that overcome and become more of a strain on the economy. We've got a slowing consumer. That's basically because labor demand is slowing and labor income is slowing. But again I think the whole view, the outlook is that the economy is slowing but not falling off a cliff. That's going to lead deflation in core goods to continue and disinflation in services so that inflation is coming down. So the Fed, after having remained on hold for quite some time, we think will start to cut in June of next year and ultimately deliver four rate cuts through the course of the year. And then another 200 basis points as we move through 2025. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, if I can jump in here with a view from Europe. So it's striking how similar and at the same time different the views are here, in the sense that the starting point for Europe is much weaker growth. Yet we also get a big disinflation on the way we see actually euro area inflation ending at the ECBs target, or reaching the ECB target at the fourth quarter of 2024. Now for growth, we do have, as I said, a weak patch we are in. It's actually a technical recession with two negative quarters, Q3 and Q4 and 23. And then we are actually accelerating from there, but not an awful lot. So because we see potential growth very low, but consumption actually is picking up. So that's essentially the opposite in some sense, the flip side, but still very weak growth overall. 
Seth Carpenter: Okay, Jens. So against that backdrop of your outlook for Europe, what does that mean for the ECB? And in particular, it sort of looks like if the Fed's cutting in June, does the ECB have to wait until the Fed cuts or can it go before the Fed? How are you thinking about policy in Europe? 
Jens Eisenschmidt: No, I think that's a great question also, because we get that a lot from clients and we get a lot this sort of based on past regularities observation that the ECB will never cut before the Fed. And technically speaking, we have actually now forecast the ECB cutting before the Fed just one week. So they cut in June as well. And I think the issue here is really hardwired in the way we see the disinflation process and the information arriving at the doorstep of the ECB. They are really monitoring wages and are really worried about the wage developments. So they really want to have clarity about Q1 in particular wages, Q1 24. This clarity will only arrive late May, early June. And so June really for them is the first opportunity to cut in the face of weak inflation data. 
Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Jens. That makes a lot of sense. So if I'm reading you right, though, part of the weakness in Europe, especially in Germany, comes from the weakness in China, which is a  target for exports from Germany. So let's turn to you, Chetan. What is the baseline outlook for China? It's been a little bit disappointing. How do you see China evolving in 2024? 
Chetan Ahya: Well, in our base case, we expect China's GDP growth to improve marginally from an underlying base of 4% in 2023 to 4.2% in 2024, as the effects from coordinated monetary and fiscal easing kicks in. However, a part of the reason why we see only a modest improvement is because the economy is constrained by the three D challenges of high levels of debt, weakening demographics and deflationary pressures. And within that, what will influence the near-term outlook the most is how policymakers will address the deflation challenge. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: Chetan,  I get a lot of clients, though, questioning the outlook for China and thinking that this is quite optimistic. So what is the downside case for China that you have in your forecast? 
Chetan Ahya: Well in the downside case, we think the risk is China falls into that deflation loop. To recall, in our base case, we expect policymakers to stimulate domestic demand with coordinated monetary and fiscal easing. But if that does not materialize, deflationary pressures will persist, nominal GDP growth and corporate revenue growth will decelerate, Corporate profits will decline, forcing them to cut wage growth. This, against the backdrop of declining property prices, will mean consumers will turn risk averse, leading to the formation of a negative feedback loop. In this scenario, we could see real GDP growth at 2.7% and nominal GDP growth at just about 1%. 
Seth Carpenter: Wow. That would be a pretty bleak outcome in the downside scenario, Chetan. Maybe if we shift a little bit because we have a pretty compelling story for Japan that there's been a positive structural shift there. Why don't you walk us through the outlook for Japan for next year? 
Chetan Ahya: Well, we think Japan is entering a new era of higher nominal GDP growth. We expect Japan's nominal GDP growth to be at 3.8% in 2024, compared with the relatively flat trend for decades. The most important driver to this is policymakers concerted effort to deflate the economy with coordinated monetary and fiscal easing. We think Japan has decisively exited deflation, and its underlying inflation should be supported by sustained wage growth. Indeed, we are getting early signals that the wage increase in 2024 could be higher than the 2.1% that we saw in the 2023 spring wage negotiations. 
Seth Carpenter: Super helpful, Chetan. And it reminds me that a baseline forecast is critical, but thinking about the ways in which we can be wrong is just as important for markets as they think through where things are going to go. So, Ellen, let me turn to you. If we are going to be wrong about our Fed call, what's likely to drive that forecast error and which direction would it most likely be? 
Ellen Zentner: It's a great question because oftentimes you can get the narrative on the economy right, you can even get the numbers right sometimes, but you can get the Fed reaction function wrong. And so I think what we'll be looking for here is how well Chair Powell sends the message that you can cut rates in line with falling inflation and keep the policy stance just as restrictive. And if that's something that he really gives a full throated view around, then it could lead them to cutting in March, one quarter earlier than we've expected, because inflation has been coming down faster than expected. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: If I may chime in here for the ECB, I think we have essentially pretty high conviction that this will be June. And that has to do with what I explained before, that there is essentially a cascading of information and for the ECB, the biggest upside risk to inflation is wages. And they really want to have clarity on that. So it would take a much larger fall in inflation that we observe until, say, March for them to really move before June and we think June is it. But of course the latest is inflation that we are getting that was sort of a little bit more than was expected might have or is a risk actually to our 25 basis point cut calls. So it could well be a 50. In particular if we see more of these big prints. 
Seth Carpenter: Ellen, Chetan, Jens, thanks so much for joining and for everyone listening. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/krLukyEjoz5L0aMuH9TJBU-G1HfbCM4945qqh5uml2gSat, 16 Dec 2023 00:21:43 +0000gtyJoin our first quarterly roundtable where Morgan Stanley’s chief economists discuss the outlook for the U.S., Europe, China, and Japan. ----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. On this special episode of the podcast, we're going to hold a roundtable discussion focusing on Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook for 2024. It's Friday, December 15th at 4 p.m. in London. 
Ellen Zentner: 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: 5 p.m. in Frankfurt. 
Chetan Ahya: And midnight in Hong Kong. 
Seth Carpenter: So today I am joined by the leaders of the economics teams in key regions for a roundtable discussion that we're going to start to share each quarter. I'm with Ellen Zentner, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe economist. I want to talk with you three about the outlook for the global economy in 2024. Clearly, we're going to need to hit on growth, inflation, and we'll talk about how the various central banks are likely to respond. Let's start with the U.S., Ellen, how do you see the U.S. economy faring next year? What's just like the broad contours of that forecast? 
Ellen Zentner: Sure. Well, you know, the soft landing call that we've had since early 2022, we're rolling forward into a third year. I think what's important is why do we expect to finally get the slowing in the economy? We think that the fiscal impulse, which has been positive and made the Fed's job harder, is finally overcome by monetary policy lags that overcome and become more of a strain on the economy. We've got a slowing consumer. That's basically because labor demand is slowing and labor income is slowing. But again I think the whole view, the outlook is that the economy is slowing but not falling off a cliff. That's going to lead deflation in core goods to continue and disinflation in services so that inflation is coming down. So the Fed, after having remained on hold for quite some time, we think will start to cut in June of next year and ultimately deliver four rate cuts through the course of the year. And then another 200 basis points as we move through 2025. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, if I can jump in here with a view from Europe. So it's striking how similar and at the same time different the views are here, in the sense that the starting point for Europe is much weaker growth. Yet we also get a big disinflation on the way we see actually euro area inflation ending at the ECBs target, or reaching the ECB target at the fourth quarter of 2024. Now for growth, we do have, as I said, a weak patch we are in. It's actually a technical recession with two negative quarters, Q3 and Q4 and 23. And then we are actually accelerating from there, but not an awful lot. So because we see potential growth very low, but consumption actually is picking up. So that's essentially the opposite in some sense, the flip side, but still very weak growth overall. 
Seth Carpenter: Okay, Jens. So against that backdrop of your outlook for Europe, what does that mean for the ECB? And in particular, it sort of looks like if the Fed's cutting in June, does the ECB have to wait until the Fed cuts or can it go before the Fed? How are you thinking about policy in Europe? 
Jens Eisenschmidt: No, I think that's a great question also, because we get that a lot from clients and we get a lot this sort of based on past regularities observation that the ECB will never cut before the Fed. And technically speaking, we have actually now forecast the ECB cutting before the Fed just one week. So they cut in June as well. And I think the issue here is really hardwired in the way we see the disinflation process and the information arriving at the doorstep of the ECB. They are really monitoring wages and are really worried about the wage developments. So they really want to have clarity about Q1...]]>487false1021fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sustainability-mixed-signals-on-decarbonization-after-cop28--75653121----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some takeaways from the recent UN Climate Change Conference. It's Thursday, December 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Achieving net zero emissions is a top priority as the world moves into a new phase of climate urgency. Decarbonization, or energy transition, is one of the three big themes Morgan Stanley research has followed closely throughout this year. As we approach the end of 2023. I wanted to give you an update on the space, especially as the U.N. Climate Change Conference or COP 28 just concluded in Dubai. 
First, there have been multiple announcements from the conference around the issue of decarbonizing the energy sector, which accounts for about three-quarters of total greenhouse gas emissions. The first was a surprisingly broad effort to curb methane gas emissions. Fifty oil and gas producers, accounting for 40% of global oil production, signed an agreement to cut methane emissions to 0.2% by 2030 and to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. Methane accounts for 45 to 50% of oil and gas emissions, and the energy sector is responsible for about 40% of human activity methane globally. Important to note, this agreement will be monitored for compliance by three entities, the U.N. International Methane Emissions Observatory, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the International Energy Agency. 
Second, 118 countries reached an agreement to commit to tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030, an action that boosts the global effort to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. A smaller group of countries also agreed to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050. 
And third, several governments have reached an agreement on the Loss and Damage Startup Fund, designed to provide developing nations with the necessary resources to respond to climate disasters. The fund is especially important because it could alleviate the debt burden of countries that are under-resourced and overexposed to climate events and to improve their climate resiliency. 
So what do all of these developments mean for the energy transition theme? Overall, our outlook is mixed, and at a global level, we do see challenges on the way to achieving a range of emissions reductions goals. On the positive side, we see many data points indicating advances in energy transition technology and a more rapid scaling up of clean energy deployment. We are also encouraged to see a major focus on reducing methane emissions and a small but potentially growing focus on providing financial support for regions most exposed to climate change risks. On the negative side, however, we see multiple signs that fossil fuel demand is not likely to decline as rapidly as needed to reach a variety of emissions reduction goals. We see persistent challenges across the board, for instance, in raising capital to finance energy transition efforts, especially in emerging markets. This is in part driven by greater weather extremes stressing power grids, as well as a broad geopolitical focus favoring energy security. An example of this dynamic is India. Not only does India depend on coal for over 70% of its national power generation, but it intends to bolster further its coal power generation capacity despite the global efforts to move towards renewable energy, and this is really driven by a focus on energy security. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qSiWkAYnz168NtX9Zgc0IeBVtYxe4mAwiKHjXiH-S_wThu, 14 Dec 2023 21:42:37 +0000gtyThe U.N. Climate Change Conference, COP28, delivered positive news around technology, clean energy and methane emissions. But investors should be wary about slower progress in other areas. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some takeaways from the recent UN Climate Change Conference. It's Thursday, December 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Achieving net zero emissions is a top priority as the world moves into a new phase of climate urgency. Decarbonization, or energy transition, is one of the three big themes Morgan Stanley research has followed closely throughout this year. As we approach the end of 2023. I wanted to give you an update on the space, especially as the U.N. Climate Change Conference or COP 28 just concluded in Dubai. 
First, there have been multiple announcements from the conference around the issue of decarbonizing the energy sector, which accounts for about three-quarters of total greenhouse gas emissions. The first was a surprisingly broad effort to curb methane gas emissions. Fifty oil and gas producers, accounting for 40% of global oil production, signed an agreement to cut methane emissions to 0.2% by 2030 and to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. Methane accounts for 45 to 50% of oil and gas emissions, and the energy sector is responsible for about 40% of human activity methane globally. Important to note, this agreement will be monitored for compliance by three entities, the U.N. International Methane Emissions Observatory, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the International Energy Agency. 
Second, 118 countries reached an agreement to commit to tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030, an action that boosts the global effort to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. A smaller group of countries also agreed to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050. 
And third, several governments have reached an agreement on the Loss and Damage Startup Fund, designed to provide developing nations with the necessary resources to respond to climate disasters. The fund is especially important because it could alleviate the debt burden of countries that are under-resourced and overexposed to climate events and to improve their climate resiliency. 
So what do all of these developments mean for the energy transition theme? Overall, our outlook is mixed, and at a global level, we do see challenges on the way to achieving a range of emissions reductions goals. On the positive side, we see many data points indicating advances in energy transition technology and a more rapid scaling up of clean energy deployment. We are also encouraged to see a major focus on reducing methane emissions and a small but potentially growing focus on providing financial support for regions most exposed to climate change risks. On the negative side, however, we see multiple signs that fossil fuel demand is not likely to decline as rapidly as needed to reach a variety of emissions reduction goals. We see persistent challenges across the board, for instance, in raising capital to finance energy transition efforts, especially in emerging markets. This is in part driven by greater weather extremes stressing power grids, as well as a broad geopolitical focus favoring energy security. An example of this dynamic is India. Not only does India depend on coal for over 70% of its national power generation, but it intends to bolster further its coal power generation capacity despite the global efforts to move towards renewable energy, and this is really driven by a focus on energy security. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>221false1020fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-u-s-election-clean-energy-and-healthcare--75653015----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research from Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the U.S. elections on markets. It's Wednesday, December 13th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Following our publication last week of our early look for investors at the U.S. election, we've had plenty of discussion with clients trying to sort out what the event might mean for markets. Here's the three most frequently asked questions we've received and of course, our answers. 
First, could the election be a catalyst to undo planned investment into the clean energy industry? This question often gets asked as, under what conditions could the Inflation Reduction Act be repealed? That Act allocated substantial sums to investment in clean energy alternatives, a boon for the industry. In our view, we don't see that act being repealed, even if Republicans who oppose the act take control of both Congress and the White House. We think there's too many negative local economic consequences to undoing that investment, to get a sufficient number of Republicans to vote for the repeal. However, clean energy investors should note that a Republican administration might be able to slow the spend of that money using the regulatory process. 
Second, should healthcare investors be concerned that there's an election outcome that could substantially change the U.S. healthcare system? This was a concern in prior elections where Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, an outcome current President Trump has recommitted to in his current campaign. Republicans couldn't make good on that promise, despite unified government control in 2017 and 2018. And here we think history would repeat itself with even a Republican majority having difficulty finding sufficient votes if it means restricting health care delivery to some of their voters. That said, investors in sectors that would be negatively impacted by a repeal of the Affordable Care Act could see market effects if Republicans start surging in the polls, as markets would then have to account for the possibility, albeit modest, of repeal. 
Finally, when might political campaigns begin impacting markets? We don't have a clear answer here. In 2016 and 2020, health care stocks started reflecting campaign statements early in the year. Whereas macro market effects, such as the sensitivity of the Mexican peso to then candidate Trump's comments around renegotiating trade agreements, didn't kick in until much closer to November. The bottom line is that we don't really know, which is why we're here to help you prepare now. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kCJl2Ldp5jW58iKVUVtpb4BGhEHAh5ahVcc9y62fMa0Wed, 13 Dec 2023 23:46:56 +0000gtyInvestors are concerned about the potential impact of the upcoming U.S. presidential election in a number of sectors. Here’s what to watch. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and...----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research from Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the U.S. elections on markets. It's Wednesday, December 13th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Following our publication last week of our early look for investors at the U.S. election, we've had plenty of discussion with clients trying to sort out what the event might mean for markets. Here's the three most frequently asked questions we've received and of course, our answers. 
First, could the election be a catalyst to undo planned investment into the clean energy industry? This question often gets asked as, under what conditions could the Inflation Reduction Act be repealed? That Act allocated substantial sums to investment in clean energy alternatives, a boon for the industry. In our view, we don't see that act being repealed, even if Republicans who oppose the act take control of both Congress and the White House. We think there's too many negative local economic consequences to undoing that investment, to get a sufficient number of Republicans to vote for the repeal. However, clean energy investors should note that a Republican administration might be able to slow the spend of that money using the regulatory process. 
Second, should healthcare investors be concerned that there's an election outcome that could substantially change the U.S. healthcare system? This was a concern in prior elections where Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, an outcome current President Trump has recommitted to in his current campaign. Republicans couldn't make good on that promise, despite unified government control in 2017 and 2018. And here we think history would repeat itself with even a Republican majority having difficulty finding sufficient votes if it means restricting health care delivery to some of their voters. That said, investors in sectors that would be negatively impacted by a repeal of the Affordable Care Act could see market effects if Republicans start surging in the polls, as markets would then have to account for the possibility, albeit modest, of repeal. 
Finally, when might political campaigns begin impacting markets? We don't have a clear answer here. In 2016 and 2020, health care stocks started reflecting campaign statements early in the year. Whereas macro market effects, such as the sensitivity of the Mexican peso to then candidate Trump's comments around renegotiating trade agreements, didn't kick in until much closer to November. The bottom line is that we don't really know, which is why we're here to help you prepare now. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>164false1019fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-china-outlook-can-growth-rebound--75652964----- Transcript -----Laura Wang:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. 
Robin Xing: And I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. 
Laura Wang: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our 2024 outlook for China's economy and equity market and what investors should focus on next year. It's Tuesday, December 12th, 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Laura Wang: Robin, China's post reopening recovery has been lackluster in 2023, disappointing expectations. We've seen significant challenges in housing and local government financing vehicles, which are pressuring the Chinese economy to the verge of a debt deflation loop. Can you explain some of these current dynamics? 
Robin Xing: China is in this difficult battle against the it's 3D problems, namely debt, deflation and demographics. China has stepped up reflationary measures since the July Politburo meeting, including immediate budgetary expansion, kick start of local government debt resolution and easing on the housing sector. Growth also bottomed out from its second quarter trough. That said, the reflationary journey remains gradual and bumpy. In particular, the downturn in the housing sector and its spillover to local government are still lingering. And it might take some time until it converges to a new steady state. Against this backdrop, we expect China to continue to roll out stronger and more coordinated fiscal, monetary and housing easing policies. 
Laura Wang: What measures does China need to undertake to avoid a debt deflation loop? 
Robin Xing: Well, there is no easy way out. We think China needs a systematic macro solution, including both cyclical stimulus and structural reforms, to decisively fend off a debt deflation loop. In particular, we proposed a 5R action plan. Reflation, Rebalance, Restructuring, Reform and Rekindle. So that includes reflecting the economy with policy stimulus to support aggregate demand. Rebalancing the economy towards consumption with structural initiatives such as fiscal transfer to the households. Restructuring balance sheets of troubled sectors, including property and financing league of Local Government. Reforming the SOE's of the public sector and rekindle the private sectors animal spirit. So far, Beijing has only completed 25% of the 5R strategy, led by some stimulus in reflation sector and also restructuring its local debt. We expect the progress to reach 50% by end 2024, and China could lead to this debt deflation loop in about two years after 2025. 
Laura Wang: Debt and deflation are 2 of the 3D's in what you call China's 3D journey. Demographics is the third challenge on this list. Why are demographics an economic headwind and how is China handling this challenge now? Robin Xing: Well, Laura, there is a little dispute on China's aging population. This will diminish capital returns and drag growth. So in our long term growth forecast, labor quantity will lower overall GDP growth by 40 basis points every year between 2025 to 2030. Though the declining labor quantity is unlikely to be reversed, Beijing would make more efforts in better utilizing higher labor quality, which has been increasing steadily. On that front, Beijing could step up reviving private sector confidence, which will bring more jobs and translate to labor with higher education into stronger output. Detailed measures could include, they start to issue the financial license to FinTech and resumption of offshore IPO by firms with sensitive data. That could send a clearer message to the end of regulatory reset since 2021. 
Laura Wang: With all these macro backdrops, what are your expectations for GDP growth in 2024 and 2025, and what are some of the biggest economic challenges facing China over this forecast horizon? 
Robin Xing: Well, we expect a modest growth recovery next year. Real GDP growth could edge up mildly from 4% two year kegger in 2023 to a slightly better 4.2% in 24. And the GDP deflator, which is a broader defined inflation indicator, it could rebound from a -.8% in this year, to .6% in 2024. But this is still way below a 2 to 3%, the level of inflation. So China will continue to grow and reflate at a subpar rate next year. The biggest challenge here is stabilizing the aggregate demand amid continued housing and the local government deleveraging. That requires more debt initially, particularly by the central government, to cushion this downturn. We expect a 1.5% point widening in China's government deficit next year. Led by a rising official budget and some increase in local special purpose bond. Monetary policy will likely remain accommodative as well. We expect a 25 basis point cut and the cumulatively another 20 basis points interest rate cuts in 2024. Now, Laura, turning it over to you. Over the past the year, the debate on investing in China has shifted profoundly towards long term structural challenges, we just discussed. And you have argued that this would continue into 2024. So what is your outlook for Chinese equities within the global EM framework over the next year? 
Laura Wang: We see a largely range bound market at best in our base case for China equity market at the index level. For example, our price target for MSCI China by end of 2024 is 60, suggesting very limited upside from its current level. Such upside puts China very much on par with what we expect from the broader emerging market index, MSCI EM. Therefore, we retain our equal weight rating on China within our EM API allocation framework. There will still be quite strong headwinds on corporate earnings as we go through the earnings results season for the rest of the year and then into the first quarter of 2024. This could lead to continuous downward revisions of consensus estimates. For example, we Morgan Stanley expect 9% earnings growth for MSCI China in 2024 compared to consensus at 16%, which we think is overly positive. Such downward revisions could also cap the valuation rerating opportunities. 
Robin Xing: Given this backdrop, Laura, how should investors be positioned in 2024 in terms of Chinese equities? 
Laura Wang: The Asia market, if we use CSI 300 as a proxy, has been outperforming the offshore MSCI China index for five years in a row. We expect this trend to continue at least in the next 3 to 6 months, given that the top down easing policies are starting to pivot to further support economic growth. And Robin, you are still expecting some easing on the monetary side with PSI rate cuts and the triple R cuts. Those usually tend to have a bigger impact on the Asia market than on the offshore space. Plus, I think we're also expecting some further currency weakness in the first half of next year and A-shares tend to be more resilient in such a scenario. 
Robin Xing: Finally, Laura, what is the market missing right now when it comes to Chinese equities? 
Laura Wang: As investors are still debating over the beta opportunities being largely absent for the past couple of years. We think some investors may easily come to the conclusion that there are not good investment opportunities in China anymore. We disagree with that. There are still plenty of alpha generating opportunities and particularly high quality names in the growth categories who can offer a strong earnings and ROE track record, good management teams and limited reliance on foreign technology input or on domestic government policy support. We believe those names can offer strong downside protection and help minimize your portfolio's volatility, while also offer the upside from their respective growing sectors when the market turns around. We have put together selected names that we believe meeting these criteria, and we call them the China best business model. Laura Wang: Robin, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk. 
Robin Xing: Great speaking with you, Laura. 
Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fOy0aq3AY6-VeqL1mF9c-B-Mop5j8LEduVqsq3Offy0Tue, 12 Dec 2023 22:53:31 +0000gtyChina continues to face the triple challenge of debt, deflation and demographics. But are investors missing an opportunity in China equities?  ----- Transcript -----Laura Wang:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Laura Wang:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. 
Robin Xing: And I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. 
Laura Wang: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our 2024 outlook for China's economy and equity market and what investors should focus on next year. It's Tuesday, December 12th, 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Laura Wang: Robin, China's post reopening recovery has been lackluster in 2023, disappointing expectations. We've seen significant challenges in housing and local government financing vehicles, which are pressuring the Chinese economy to the verge of a debt deflation loop. Can you explain some of these current dynamics? 
Robin Xing: China is in this difficult battle against the it's 3D problems, namely debt, deflation and demographics. China has stepped up reflationary measures since the July Politburo meeting, including immediate budgetary expansion, kick start of local government debt resolution and easing on the housing sector. Growth also bottomed out from its second quarter trough. That said, the reflationary journey remains gradual and bumpy. In particular, the downturn in the housing sector and its spillover to local government are still lingering. And it might take some time until it converges to a new steady state. Against this backdrop, we expect China to continue to roll out stronger and more coordinated fiscal, monetary and housing easing policies. 
Laura Wang: What measures does China need to undertake to avoid a debt deflation loop? 
Robin Xing: Well, there is no easy way out. We think China needs a systematic macro solution, including both cyclical stimulus and structural reforms, to decisively fend off a debt deflation loop. In particular, we proposed a 5R action plan. Reflation, Rebalance, Restructuring, Reform and Rekindle. So that includes reflecting the economy with policy stimulus to support aggregate demand. Rebalancing the economy towards consumption with structural initiatives such as fiscal transfer to the households. Restructuring balance sheets of troubled sectors, including property and financing league of Local Government. Reforming the SOE's of the public sector and rekindle the private sectors animal spirit. So far, Beijing has only completed 25% of the 5R strategy, led by some stimulus in reflation sector and also restructuring its local debt. We expect the progress to reach 50% by end 2024, and China could lead to this debt deflation loop in about two years after 2025. 
Laura Wang: Debt and deflation are 2 of the 3D's in what you call China's 3D journey. Demographics is the third challenge on this list. Why are demographics an economic headwind and how is China handling this challenge now? Robin Xing: Well, Laura, there is a little dispute on China's aging population. This will diminish capital returns and drag growth. So in our long term growth forecast, labor quantity will lower overall GDP growth by 40 basis points every year between 2025 to 2030. Though the declining labor quantity is unlikely to be reversed, Beijing would make more efforts in better utilizing higher labor quality, which has been increasing steadily. On that front, Beijing could step up reviving private sector confidence, which will bring more jobs and translate to labor with higher education into stronger output. Detailed measures could include, they start to issue the financial license to FinTech and resumption of offshore IPO by firms with sensitive data. That could send a clearer message to the end of regulatory reset since 2021. 
Laura Wang: With all these macro backdrops, what are your expectations for GDP growth in 2024 and 2025, and what are some of the biggest economic challenges facing China over this...]]>525false1018fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-could-bond-market-consolidation-weigh-on-u-s-equities--75652973----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 11th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week we discussed the increasing importance of interest rates in terms of dictating equity prices over the past six months. First, the sharp move higher in rates between July and October weighed heavily on stocks with the Russell 2000 selling up by 20% and the S&P 500 by 10%. Over the following six weeks, the opposite occurred as ten year yields fell by 90 basis points due to a perceived dovish pivot by the Fed and less longer dated bond issuance guidance from the Treasury. This move, lowering yields, helped the S&P 500 regain all of its losses from the prior three months, while several other indices, including the Russell 2000, clawed back 50% or more of their prior losses. This week, we remain focused on the bond market, which may be due for some consolidation after seeing such strong gains and that could weigh on equities in the near term. 
Friday's job data was important in this regard, with the stronger than expected release taking ten year U.S. Treasury yields higher by a modest 8 basis points. Though 135 basis points of Fed cuts that were priced into the bond market a week ago were now reduced to 110 basis points as of Friday's close. This reaction makes sense to us and there may be more to go in the near-term if inflation data released this week comes in a little hotter than consensus expects. Finally, the Fed is also meeting this week and will have taken notice of the data as well. With the unemployment rate falling by almost 2/10 in November, and inflation data potentially remaining bumpy over the next 3 to 6 months, the Fed may push back on the bond markets' more aggressive interest rate cuts. 
Given the severe underperformance of small caps this year, clients are more interested to know if the introduction of Fed rate cuts could reverse it. To address this question, we took a more in-depth look at small cap value and growth relative performance around prior Fed rate cuts. Interestingly, small cap value and growth underperformed large cap value and growth in the months before and after the Fed's first rate cut. Large cap growth is historically the best performing category following the first rate cut, and it also tends to see strong performance before the cut. We think these data reflect the notion that growth is typically slowing. When the Fed initially pivots to more accommodative policy. Given small caps greater sensitivity to economic activity, they tend to underperform in this context. Therefore, the more important determinant of small cap relative outperformance from here will be the rate of change on economic and earnings growth. Given our less optimistic growth outlook, we stick with a large cap defensive growth bias for one's portfolio. 
In addition to the recent fall in interest rates, the liquidity picture has also been a key driver of elevated equity valuations, in our view. More specifically, the draining of the reverse repo facility has continued to help fund the Treasuries elevated amount of issuance over the past six months. That issuance provided the financing for the fiscal deficit, which has been a key factor in stronger than expected GDP growth this year, especially in the third quarter. With over $800 billion remaining in a reverse repo facility, that balance should be drained towards zero next year and continue to play a supportive role both through Treasury funding and asset prices. 
Finally, our work suggests the Producer Price Index is a very good leading indicator for sales growth. Recent softness in the Producer Price Index does not yet point to a positive inflection in revenue growth. As a result we'll be closely watching this week's Producer Price Index release for signs that pricing trends are either stabilizing or decelerating further. Interestingly, small business surveys indicate that corporates intend to raise prices in 2024, a strategy that looks unlikely in our view. Our work leveraging company transcripts indicate that mentions of pricing power and related terms have been concentrated in hotels, restaurants, leisure, commercial services and supplies, household durables, specialty retailers and software over the last 90 days. And this is another area to watch closely for confirmation of inflation trends. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RMv7uUP2szQDF1tQ1gpCYax29jo66fg3ziDyHp9fD-cMon, 11 Dec 2023 20:58:12 +0000gtyHere’s how upcoming inflation data and this week’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting could affect the U.S. bond and equity markets.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 11th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week we discussed the increasing importance of interest rates in terms of dictating equity prices over the past six months. First, the sharp move higher in rates between July and October weighed heavily on stocks with the Russell 2000 selling up by 20% and the S&P 500 by 10%. Over the following six weeks, the opposite occurred as ten year yields fell by 90 basis points due to a perceived dovish pivot by the Fed and less longer dated bond issuance guidance from the Treasury. This move, lowering yields, helped the S&P 500 regain all of its losses from the prior three months, while several other indices, including the Russell 2000, clawed back 50% or more of their prior losses. This week, we remain focused on the bond market, which may be due for some consolidation after seeing such strong gains and that could weigh on equities in the near term. 
Friday's job data was important in this regard, with the stronger than expected release taking ten year U.S. Treasury yields higher by a modest 8 basis points. Though 135 basis points of Fed cuts that were priced into the bond market a week ago were now reduced to 110 basis points as of Friday's close. This reaction makes sense to us and there may be more to go in the near-term if inflation data released this week comes in a little hotter than consensus expects. Finally, the Fed is also meeting this week and will have taken notice of the data as well. With the unemployment rate falling by almost 2/10 in November, and inflation data potentially remaining bumpy over the next 3 to 6 months, the Fed may push back on the bond markets' more aggressive interest rate cuts. 
Given the severe underperformance of small caps this year, clients are more interested to know if the introduction of Fed rate cuts could reverse it. To address this question, we took a more in-depth look at small cap value and growth relative performance around prior Fed rate cuts. Interestingly, small cap value and growth underperformed large cap value and growth in the months before and after the Fed's first rate cut. Large cap growth is historically the best performing category following the first rate cut, and it also tends to see strong performance before the cut. We think these data reflect the notion that growth is typically slowing. When the Fed initially pivots to more accommodative policy. Given small caps greater sensitivity to economic activity, they tend to underperform in this context. Therefore, the more important determinant of small cap relative outperformance from here will be the rate of change on economic and earnings growth. Given our less optimistic growth outlook, we stick with a large cap defensive growth bias for one's portfolio. 
In addition to the recent fall in interest rates, the liquidity picture has also been a key driver of elevated equity valuations, in our view. More specifically, the draining of the reverse repo facility has continued to help fund the Treasuries elevated amount of issuance over the past six months. That issuance provided the financing for the fiscal deficit, which has been a key factor in stronger than expected GDP growth this year, especially in the third quarter. With over $800 billion remaining in a reverse repo facility, that balance should be drained towards zero next year and continue to play a supportive role both through Treasury funding and asset prices. 
Finally, our work suggests the Producer Price Index is a very good leading...]]>257false1017fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/david-adams-a-contrarian-call-on-the-u-s-dollar--75653132----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 FX Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our views on the US dollar. It's Friday, December 8th at 3 p.m. in London. 
The US dollar has fallen about 4% since it peaked in October and has retraced about half of its gains since July. We think this correction should be faded and we're affirming our call for Euro/Dollar to fall back to parity by the spring of next year, meaning the US dollar will rise a further 8% versus the Euro. 
This is a controversial and out of consensus call, but we think the market is still underpricing weakness in Europe and strength in the U.S., and a continued widening in growth and rate differentials should weigh on the pair. 
A lot of investors claim that the US dollar should weaken further as the US economy slows from its growth rate this summer. We agree US growth is likely to slow, but by far less than investors think. Our US economics team thinks the US growth will be about 1% stronger than consensus estimates, with the biggest gap for data leading into the second quarter of next year. This is a dollar-positive outcome. 
We also hear from investors a lot that weakness in Europe is fully priced, but we respectfully disagree. Sure, there's a lot of cuts priced in for the European Central Bank, but not as much as there should be once the ECB more formally acknowledges that cuts are coming.
The real risk here is that markets begin to price in ECB rate cuts below the long-run estimate of the neutral rate of 2%, and in a world where the ECB is cutting, this is a real possibility. 
A fast and deep cutting cycle in Europe would sharply contrast with the Fed, whose rhetoric continues to emphasize higher for longer, a view amplified by strong domestic growth. Divergence in economic data between Europe and the US should keep the euro falling versus the greenback. 
Now, I'm the first to admit that an 8% move in a few months time is a pretty big move and moves that large don't happen that often. If we look at options pricing, the market is pricing in an even lower risk of such a move compared to historical frequencies. And it's worth remembering that large moves do happen. Eurodollar fell 10% in a four month window two different times last year. So while this call may be bold and buck consensus, we think the fundamental story still holds. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/sp3cuVf6tW8FpIOorZJG1J2jF8M99skhxNBtlGgohVYFri, 08 Dec 2023 22:10:32 +0000gtyWill the U.S. dollar weaken further as the economy slows? What will its value be compared to the Euro by spring 2024? Our analyst tackles those key currency questions and more. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 FX Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our views on the US dollar. It's Friday, December 8th at 3 p.m. in London. 
The US dollar has fallen about 4% since it peaked in October and has retraced about half of its gains since July. We think this correction should be faded and we're affirming our call for Euro/Dollar to fall back to parity by the spring of next year, meaning the US dollar will rise a further 8% versus the Euro. 
This is a controversial and out of consensus call, but we think the market is still underpricing weakness in Europe and strength in the U.S., and a continued widening in growth and rate differentials should weigh on the pair. 
A lot of investors claim that the US dollar should weaken further as the US economy slows from its growth rate this summer. We agree US growth is likely to slow, but by far less than investors think. Our US economics team thinks the US growth will be about 1% stronger than consensus estimates, with the biggest gap for data leading into the second quarter of next year. This is a dollar-positive outcome. 
We also hear from investors a lot that weakness in Europe is fully priced, but we respectfully disagree. Sure, there's a lot of cuts priced in for the European Central Bank, but not as much as there should be once the ECB more formally acknowledges that cuts are coming.
The real risk here is that markets begin to price in ECB rate cuts below the long-run estimate of the neutral rate of 2%, and in a world where the ECB is cutting, this is a real possibility. 
A fast and deep cutting cycle in Europe would sharply contrast with the Fed, whose rhetoric continues to emphasize higher for longer, a view amplified by strong domestic growth. Divergence in economic data between Europe and the US should keep the euro falling versus the greenback. 
Now, I'm the first to admit that an 8% move in a few months time is a pretty big move and moves that large don't happen that often. If we look at options pricing, the market is pricing in an even lower risk of such a move compared to historical frequencies. And it's worth remembering that large moves do happen. Eurodollar fell 10% in a four month window two different times last year. So while this call may be bold and buck consensus, we think the fundamental story still holds. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>151false1016fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-asia-equities-outlook-india-vs-china--75653117----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'm going to be discussing our continued preference for Indian equities versus China equities. It's Thursday, December 7th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
MSCI India is tracking towards a third straight year of outperformance of MSCI China, and India is currently our number one pick. Indeed, we're running our largest overweight at 100 basis points versus benchmark. In contrast, we reduced China back to equal weight in the summer of this year. So going into 2024, we're currently anticipating a fourth straight year of India outperformance versus China. 
Central to our bullish view on India versus China, is the trend in earnings. Starting in early 2021, MSCI India earnings per share in US dollar terms has grown by 61% versus a decline of 18% for MSCI China. As a result, Indian earnings have powered ahead on a relative basis, and this is the best period for India earnings relative to China in the modern history of the two equity markets. 
There are two fundamental factors underpinning this trend in India's favor, both of which we expect to continue to be present in 2024. The first is India's relative economic growth, particularly in nominal GDP terms. Our economists have written frequently in recent months on China's persistent 3D challenges, that is its battle with debt, deflation and demographics. And they're forecasting another subdued year of around 5% nominal GDP growth in 2024. In contrast, their thesis on India's decade suggests nominal GDP growth will be well into double digits as both aggregate demand and crucially supply move ahead on multiple fronts. 
The second factor is currency stability. Our FX team anticipate that for India, prudent macro management, particularly on the fiscal deficit, geopolitical dynamics and inward multinational investment, can lead to continued Rupee stability in real effective terms versus volatility in previous cycles. For the Chinese Yuan, in contrast, the real effective exchange rates has begun to slide lower as foreign direct investment flows have turned negative for the first time and domestic capital flight begins to pick up. 
Push backs we get on continuing to prefer India to China in 2024, are firstly around potential volatility of the Indian markets in an election year. But secondly, a bigger concern is relative valuations. Now, as always, we feel it's important to contextualize valuations versus return on equity and return on equity trajectory. Currently, India is trading a little over 3.7x price to book for around 15% ROE. This means it has one of the highest ROE's in emerging markets, but is the most expensive market. And in price to book terms, second only to the US globally. China is trading on a much lower price to book of 1.3x, but its ROE is 10% and indeed on an ROE adjusted basis, it's not particularly cheap versus other emerging markets such as Korea or South Africa. Importantly for India, we expect ROE to remain high as earnings compound going forward, and corporate leverage can build from current levels as nominal and real interest rates remain low to history. So the outlook is positive. But for China, the outlook is very different. And in a recent detailed piece, drawing on sector inputs from our bottom up colleagues, we concluded that whilst the base case would be for ROE stabilization, if reflation is successful, there's also a bear case for ROE to fall further to around 7% over the medium term, or less than half that of India today. 
Finally, within the two markets we’re overweight India, financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. And these are sectors which typically do best in a strong underlying growth environment. They're the same sectors on which we're cautious in China. There our focus is on A-shares rather than large cap index names, and we like niche technology, hardware and clean energy plays which benefit from China's policy objectives. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UJolv0gbEFhlySP-7qayzgM22YUtIfqybJsu3VB81dsThu, 07 Dec 2023 22:44:05 +0000gtyWill India equities continue to outperform China equities in 2024? The two key factors investors should track. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'm going to be discussing our continued preference for Indian equities versus China equities. It's Thursday, December 7th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
MSCI India is tracking towards a third straight year of outperformance of MSCI China, and India is currently our number one pick. Indeed, we're running our largest overweight at 100 basis points versus benchmark. In contrast, we reduced China back to equal weight in the summer of this year. So going into 2024, we're currently anticipating a fourth straight year of India outperformance versus China. 
Central to our bullish view on India versus China, is the trend in earnings. Starting in early 2021, MSCI India earnings per share in US dollar terms has grown by 61% versus a decline of 18% for MSCI China. As a result, Indian earnings have powered ahead on a relative basis, and this is the best period for India earnings relative to China in the modern history of the two equity markets. 
There are two fundamental factors underpinning this trend in India's favor, both of which we expect to continue to be present in 2024. The first is India's relative economic growth, particularly in nominal GDP terms. Our economists have written frequently in recent months on China's persistent 3D challenges, that is its battle with debt, deflation and demographics. And they're forecasting another subdued year of around 5% nominal GDP growth in 2024. In contrast, their thesis on India's decade suggests nominal GDP growth will be well into double digits as both aggregate demand and crucially supply move ahead on multiple fronts. 
The second factor is currency stability. Our FX team anticipate that for India, prudent macro management, particularly on the fiscal deficit, geopolitical dynamics and inward multinational investment, can lead to continued Rupee stability in real effective terms versus volatility in previous cycles. For the Chinese Yuan, in contrast, the real effective exchange rates has begun to slide lower as foreign direct investment flows have turned negative for the first time and domestic capital flight begins to pick up. 
Push backs we get on continuing to prefer India to China in 2024, are firstly around potential volatility of the Indian markets in an election year. But secondly, a bigger concern is relative valuations. Now, as always, we feel it's important to contextualize valuations versus return on equity and return on equity trajectory. Currently, India is trading a little over 3.7x price to book for around 15% ROE. This means it has one of the highest ROE's in emerging markets, but is the most expensive market. And in price to book terms, second only to the US globally. China is trading on a much lower price to book of 1.3x, but its ROE is 10% and indeed on an ROE adjusted basis, it's not particularly cheap versus other emerging markets such as Korea or South Africa. Importantly for India, we expect ROE to remain high as earnings compound going forward, and corporate leverage can build from current levels as nominal and real interest rates remain low to history. So the outlook is positive. But for China, the outlook is very different. And in a recent detailed piece, drawing on sector inputs from our bottom up colleagues, we concluded that whilst the base case would be for ROE stabilization, if reflation is successful, there's also a bear case for ROE to fall further to around 7% over the medium term, or less than half that of India today. 
Finally, within the two markets we’re overweight India, financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. And these are sectors which typically do best in a strong underlying growth...]]>263false1015fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/an-early-guide-to-the-2024-u-s-elections--75653161----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, from the U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Michael Zezas: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss our early views around the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It's Wednesday, December 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: With U.S. elections less than a year away now, it's likely much will change in terms of the drivers of the outcome and its market impact. Still, we believe early preparation will help investors navigate the campaign. And so starting now, we'll bring your updated views and forecasts until the U.S. elects its next president in November of 2024. Arianna, we've noted that this upcoming election will affect particular sectors rather than the broader macro market. What's driving this view? 
Ariana Salvatore: There are really two reasons that we've been pointing to. First, lawmakers have achieved a lot of their policy priorities that impact the deficit over the past few election cycles. If you think about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or the infrastructure bill back in 2021, for example. Now they're turning to policy that holds more sectoral impacts than macro. The second reason is that inflation is still a very high priority issue for voters. As we've noted, an elevated level of concern around inflation really disincentivizes politicians from pushing for legislation that could expand the deficit because it's seen as contrary to that mandate of fiscal austerity that comes in a high inflation environment. There is one exception to this. As we've noted before, lawmakers will have to deal with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think the different configurations post 2024 each produce a unique outcome, but we expect in any scenario, that will only add modestly to the deficit. 
Michael Zezas: And digging into specific sectors. What policies are you watching and which sectors should investors keep an eye out for in the event these policies pass? 
Ariana Salvatore: Following the election, we think Congress will turn to legislative items like AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. Obviously, each unique election outcome will facilitate its own level and type of policy transformation. But we think you could possibly see the biggest divergence from the status quo in a Republican sweep. In particular, in that case, we'd expect lawmakers to launch an effort to roll back, at least partially, the Inflation Reduction Act or the IRA, though we ultimately don't think a full scale repeal will be likely. We also expect to see something on AI regulation based on what's currently in party consensus, easing energy permitting requirements and probably extending the bulk of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means sectors to watch out for would be clean tech, AI exposed stocks and sectors most sensitive to tax changes like tech and health care. Mike, as we mentioned, with this focus on legislation that impacts certain sectors, we don't expect this to be a macro election. So is there anything that would shift the balance toward greater macro concerns? 
Michael Zezas: Well, if it looks like a recession is getting more likely as the election gets close, it's going to be natural for investors to start thinking about whether or not the election outcome might catalyze a fiscal response to economic weakness. And in that situation, you'd expect that outcomes where one party doesn't control both Congress and the White House would lead to smaller and somewhat delayed responses. Whereas an outcome where one party controls both the White House and Congress, you would probably get a bigger fiscal response that comes faster. Those are two outcomes that would mean very different things to the interest rates market, for example, which would have to reflect differences in new bond supply to finance any fiscal response, and of course, the resulting difference in the growth trajectory. 
Ariana Salvatore: All right so, keeping with the macro theme for a moment. How do our expectations for geopolitics and foreign policy play into our assessment of the election outcomes? 
Michael Zezas: Yeah, this is a difficult one to answer, mostly because it's unclear how different election outcomes would net impact different geopolitical situations. So, for example, investors often ask us about what outcomes would matter for a place like Mexico, where they're concerned that some election outcomes might create economic challenges for Mexico around the US-Mexico border. However, those outcomes could also improve the prospects for near shoring, which improves foreign direct investment into Mexico. It's really unclear whether those cross-currents would be a net positive or a net negative. So we don't really think there's much specific to guide investors on, at least at the moment. Finally, Arianna, to sum up, how is the team tracking the presidential race and which indicators are particularly key, the focus on? 
Ariana Salvatore: Well, recent history suggests that it will be a close race. For context, the 2022 midterms marked the fourth time in four years that less than 1% of votes effectively determined which side would control the House, the Senate or the White House. That means that elections are nearly impossible to predict. But we think there are certain indicators that can tell us which outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. For example, we think inflation could influence voters. As a top voter issue and a topic that the GOP is better perceived as equipped to handle, persistent concerns around inflation could signal potential upside for Republicans. Inflation also tracks very closely with the president's approval rating. So on the other hand, if you see decelerating inflation in conjunction with overall improving economic data, that might indicate some tailwinds for Democrats across the board. We're going to be tracking other indicators as well, like the generic ballot, President Biden's approval rating and prediction markets, which could signal that different outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. 
Michael Zezas: Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. 
Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NRdW8s4fKyN_4ogQAK0aEqYdA3oWET7zqZmzejvsMvYWed, 06 Dec 2023 21:38:10 +0000gtyAlthough much will change before the elections, investors should watch for potential impacts on issues such as AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, from the U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Michael Zezas: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss our early views around the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It's Wednesday, December 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: With U.S. elections less than a year away now, it's likely much will change in terms of the drivers of the outcome and its market impact. Still, we believe early preparation will help investors navigate the campaign. And so starting now, we'll bring your updated views and forecasts until the U.S. elects its next president in November of 2024. Arianna, we've noted that this upcoming election will affect particular sectors rather than the broader macro market. What's driving this view? 
Ariana Salvatore: There are really two reasons that we've been pointing to. First, lawmakers have achieved a lot of their policy priorities that impact the deficit over the past few election cycles. If you think about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or the infrastructure bill back in 2021, for example. Now they're turning to policy that holds more sectoral impacts than macro. The second reason is that inflation is still a very high priority issue for voters. As we've noted, an elevated level of concern around inflation really disincentivizes politicians from pushing for legislation that could expand the deficit because it's seen as contrary to that mandate of fiscal austerity that comes in a high inflation environment. There is one exception to this. As we've noted before, lawmakers will have to deal with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think the different configurations post 2024 each produce a unique outcome, but we expect in any scenario, that will only add modestly to the deficit. 
Michael Zezas: And digging into specific sectors. What policies are you watching and which sectors should investors keep an eye out for in the event these policies pass? 
Ariana Salvatore: Following the election, we think Congress will turn to legislative items like AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. Obviously, each unique election outcome will facilitate its own level and type of policy transformation. But we think you could possibly see the biggest divergence from the status quo in a Republican sweep. In particular, in that case, we'd expect lawmakers to launch an effort to roll back, at least partially, the Inflation Reduction Act or the IRA, though we ultimately don't think a full scale repeal will be likely. We also expect to see something on AI regulation based on what's currently in party consensus, easing energy permitting requirements and probably extending the bulk of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means sectors to watch out for would be clean tech, AI exposed stocks and sectors most sensitive to tax changes like tech and health care. Mike, as we mentioned, with this focus on legislation that impacts certain sectors, we don't expect this to be a macro election. So is there anything that would shift the balance toward greater macro concerns? 
Michael Zezas: Well, if it looks like a recession is getting more likely as the election gets close, it's going to be natural for investors to start thinking about whether or not the election outcome might catalyze a fiscal response to economic weakness. And in that situation, you'd expect that outcomes where one party doesn't control both Congress and the White House would lead to smaller and somewhat delayed responses. Whereas an outcome where one party controls both the White House and Congress, you would probably get a...]]>349false1014fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2024-asia-economics-outlook-still-divergent--75653067----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss 2024 Economics Outlook for Asia. It's Tuesday, December 5 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. It used to be the case that business cycles across Asian economies were in sync. But after the Covid shock, global trade and global growth have moved out of sync. Growth in Asia has diverged at times from global growth momentum. 
Moreover, in this cycle, the inflation picture is very different across Asian economies. So in contrast to previous cycles, we have to be more focused on nominal GDP growth. Real GDP growth, which is nominal GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, has been divergent across Asian economies during this cycle. And we think Asia's recovery will remain asynchronous vis a vis the rest of the world. Looking at the three largest economies in the region, we are more constructive on the outlook for nominal GDP growth for India and Japan, while we think China's nominal GDP growth will be constrained. 
Why is this? First, we think China is facing a challenge in managing aggregate demand and inflationary pressures from deleveraging of local government and property companies balance sheets. Policymakers have embarked on coordinated monetary and fiscal easing, which would help to bring about a modest recovery in 2024. But the deleveraging challenges are intense, and so the path ahead will still be bumpy. Moreover, we believe that inflation will remain low, which means corporate pricing power will be weak, and that could present a challenge for corporate profitability. 
Second, we are seeing a momentous shift in Japan's nominal GDP growth trajectory. Japan has exited deflation decisively, supported mainly by its accommodative policy and with some help from global factors. Against this backdrop, nominal GDP growth reached a 30 year high in the second quarter of 2023. Improving inflation dynamics mean that we see that Bank of Japan exiting negative rates and removing yield curve control in early 2024. But we believe the BOJ will not tighten macro policies aggressively, which should ensure a robust nominal GDP growth of 3.8% in 2024. 
Finally, we believe that India remains the best opportunity within the region. Nominal GDP growth is expanding rapidly and we think a pickup in private capital investment cycle will sustain productivity growth. Policymakers have been implementing supply side reform and that has already boosted public CapEx. A virtuous cycle is already underway in India and nominal GDP growth will be expanding at double digit growth rates. 
To sum up, Asia's recovery remains asynchronous relative to the rest of the world, and idiosyncratic drivers still matter more during the cycle. We are constructive on the outlook for India and Japan, however, structural challenges will constrain China's growth path. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and Apple podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/eBIBJEIhCNyQAyxvsm8JrjEp6a8QWn9GckNuE_R8vcsTue, 05 Dec 2023 20:46:37 +0000gtyAsia’s economic recovery could continue to be out of step with the rest of the world. Hear which countries are positioned for growth and which might face challenges.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss 2024 Economics Outlook for Asia. It's Tuesday, December 5 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. It used to be the case that business cycles across Asian economies were in sync. But after the Covid shock, global trade and global growth have moved out of sync. Growth in Asia has diverged at times from global growth momentum. 
Moreover, in this cycle, the inflation picture is very different across Asian economies. So in contrast to previous cycles, we have to be more focused on nominal GDP growth. Real GDP growth, which is nominal GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, has been divergent across Asian economies during this cycle. And we think Asia's recovery will remain asynchronous vis a vis the rest of the world. Looking at the three largest economies in the region, we are more constructive on the outlook for nominal GDP growth for India and Japan, while we think China's nominal GDP growth will be constrained. 
Why is this? First, we think China is facing a challenge in managing aggregate demand and inflationary pressures from deleveraging of local government and property companies balance sheets. Policymakers have embarked on coordinated monetary and fiscal easing, which would help to bring about a modest recovery in 2024. But the deleveraging challenges are intense, and so the path ahead will still be bumpy. Moreover, we believe that inflation will remain low, which means corporate pricing power will be weak, and that could present a challenge for corporate profitability. 
Second, we are seeing a momentous shift in Japan's nominal GDP growth trajectory. Japan has exited deflation decisively, supported mainly by its accommodative policy and with some help from global factors. Against this backdrop, nominal GDP growth reached a 30 year high in the second quarter of 2023. Improving inflation dynamics mean that we see that Bank of Japan exiting negative rates and removing yield curve control in early 2024. But we believe the BOJ will not tighten macro policies aggressively, which should ensure a robust nominal GDP growth of 3.8% in 2024. 
Finally, we believe that India remains the best opportunity within the region. Nominal GDP growth is expanding rapidly and we think a pickup in private capital investment cycle will sustain productivity growth. Policymakers have been implementing supply side reform and that has already boosted public CapEx. A virtuous cycle is already underway in India and nominal GDP growth will be expanding at double digit growth rates. 
To sum up, Asia's recovery remains asynchronous relative to the rest of the world, and idiosyncratic drivers still matter more during the cycle. We are constructive on the outlook for India and Japan, however, structural challenges will constrain China's growth path. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and Apple podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>183false1013fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-are-markets-following-the-right-playbook--75653065----- Transcript -----Welcome to thoughts of the market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 4th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
After a very challenging three month stretch for stocks ending in October, the S&P 500 recouped all its losses in November, while the small cap and S&P 500 equal weight indices only regained about half. This left the performance gap between the average stock and the market cap weighted index near its widest level of the year as equity market performance remains historically narrow. In other words, the market accurately reflects today's challenging operating environment for most companies. In many ways, it's a reflection of how most consumers are suffering amid high absolute prices in most spending categories. On Friday, the equity markets took on a different complexion, with small caps and lower quality stocks outperforming significantly. This occurred as rates continued to fall sharply, despite Jay Powell's comments that it was premature for markets to price in rate cuts early next year. With 130 basis points of cuts now priced into the Fed's fund futures market through the year end of 2024, investors have set a high bar for cuts to be delivered. Our analysis on equity returns post prior peaks in the Fed funds rate shows a strong disparity in performance between cycles where inflation was historically elevated versus those where inflation was relatively benign. 
The equity market appears to be betting on the playbook from the last four cycles when inflation was benign, suggesting we are early to mid-cycle for this particular economic expansion. However, our analysis of the earnings and macro data continue to suggest we are late cycle, which argues for continued outperformance of our defensive growth and late cycle cyclicals barbell strategy. 
The primary argument supporting our position relates to the labor market, which appears to be short on supply at a price companies can afford. This is why labor demand continues to soften and why consumer spending is slowing. Having said that, we can stay in the late cycle regime for long periods of time with 2023 representing one of those classic late cycle periods. This is why large-cap quality is outperform and why Friday's rally in small caps and lower quality stocks is unlikely to be sustained. 
Recently, we have received an increasing amount of client questions on the relative performance of industry groups and factors around the Fed's first interest rate cut of the cycle. Value stocks tend to outperform growth into the cut and underperform post the cut. Quality tends to outperform meaningfully into the cut and then sees more volatile performance after. Interestingly, defenses tend to outperform cyclicals and small caps fairly persistently, both before and after the initial cut. This helps to support the notion at the beginning of the Fed cutting cycle is not typically the catalyst for a meaningful broadening out of leadership. 
Another topic of interest from investors more recently has been industry group performance around presidential elections. On an equal weighted basis, performance shows a modest bias towards value, quality and defensive large caps. Post-election, we do tend to see a broadening out in leadership with small caps and cyclicals generally showing better performance. Value maintains its outperformance. Financials tend to show strong relative performance both before and after elections. And interestingly, health care's relative performance tends to hold up until three months prior to the election. Within the health care sector, equipment and services tends to outperform pharma and biotech post the election. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/38x9xy03abshFlELvSOWLkRjhNAZyXpoE0jI9z_6Vx4Mon, 04 Dec 2023 22:44:59 +0000gtyU.S. equities markets appear to be betting on an outdated playbook that worked when inflation was benign. But analysis of earnings and macro data suggests an updated playbook may be necessary. What investors should watch now. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----Welcome to thoughts of the market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 4th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
After a very challenging three month stretch for stocks ending in October, the S&P 500 recouped all its losses in November, while the small cap and S&P 500 equal weight indices only regained about half. This left the performance gap between the average stock and the market cap weighted index near its widest level of the year as equity market performance remains historically narrow. In other words, the market accurately reflects today's challenging operating environment for most companies. In many ways, it's a reflection of how most consumers are suffering amid high absolute prices in most spending categories. On Friday, the equity markets took on a different complexion, with small caps and lower quality stocks outperforming significantly. This occurred as rates continued to fall sharply, despite Jay Powell's comments that it was premature for markets to price in rate cuts early next year. With 130 basis points of cuts now priced into the Fed's fund futures market through the year end of 2024, investors have set a high bar for cuts to be delivered. Our analysis on equity returns post prior peaks in the Fed funds rate shows a strong disparity in performance between cycles where inflation was historically elevated versus those where inflation was relatively benign. 
The equity market appears to be betting on the playbook from the last four cycles when inflation was benign, suggesting we are early to mid-cycle for this particular economic expansion. However, our analysis of the earnings and macro data continue to suggest we are late cycle, which argues for continued outperformance of our defensive growth and late cycle cyclicals barbell strategy. 
The primary argument supporting our position relates to the labor market, which appears to be short on supply at a price companies can afford. This is why labor demand continues to soften and why consumer spending is slowing. Having said that, we can stay in the late cycle regime for long periods of time with 2023 representing one of those classic late cycle periods. This is why large-cap quality is outperform and why Friday's rally in small caps and lower quality stocks is unlikely to be sustained. 
Recently, we have received an increasing amount of client questions on the relative performance of industry groups and factors around the Fed's first interest rate cut of the cycle. Value stocks tend to outperform growth into the cut and underperform post the cut. Quality tends to outperform meaningfully into the cut and then sees more volatile performance after. Interestingly, defenses tend to outperform cyclicals and small caps fairly persistently, both before and after the initial cut. This helps to support the notion at the beginning of the Fed cutting cycle is not typically the catalyst for a meaningful broadening out of leadership. 
Another topic of interest from investors more recently has been industry group performance around presidential elections. On an equal weighted basis, performance shows a modest bias towards value, quality and defensive large caps. Post-election, we do tend to see a broadening out in leadership with small caps and cyclicals generally showing better performance. Value maintains its outperformance. Financials tend to show strong relative performance both before and after elections. And interestingly, health care's relative performance tends to...]]>223false1012fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-november-s-early-holiday-gift-to-investors--75653214----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 1st at 2 p.m. in London. November 2023 is now in the history books. It was outstanding. US bonds rose 4.5%, the best month since 1985. Global stocks rose 9%, the best month in three years. Spreads on an investment grade and high yield bonds tightened significantly. With the exception of commodities and Chinese stocks, which both struggled, November was an early holiday gift to investors of many stripes. 
While the size of the rally in November was unusual, the direction didn't just spring from thin air. Generally speaking, economic data in November strongly endorsed the idea of a soft landing. Soft landing, where inflation falls without a sharp drop in economic activity are historically rare. But they are Morgan Stanley's economic forecast for the year ahead. And in November, investors unwrapped data suggesting the story remains on track. 
In the US, core consumer price inflation declined more than expected. Core PCE inflation, a slightly different measure that the Federal Reserve prefers, has fallen down to an annualized pace of just 2.5% over the last six months. Gas prices are down 16% since the summer, rental inflation has stalled and the U.S. auto production is normalizing, improving the trend in three big drivers of the higher inflation we've seen over the last two years. 
Go back 12 months and most forecasts, including our own, assume that lower inflation would be the result of higher interest rates driving a slowdown in growth. But the economy has been good. Over the last 12 months, the U.S. economy has grown 3%, .5% better than the average since 1990. 
The story in Europe is a little different from the one in America, but it still rhymes. In Europe, recent inflation data has also come in lower than expected. While economic data has been somewhat weaker. Still, we see signs that the worst of Europe's economic growth will be confined to 2023 and continue to forecast the weakest growth right now, with somewhat better European growth in 2024. 
Why does this matter? While the returns of November were unusual and unlikely to repeat, it's a good reminder not to overcomplicate things. Good data, by which we mean lower inflation and reasonable growth, is a good outcome that markets will reward, and remains the Morgan Stanley economic base case. Deviating on either variable is a risk, especially for an asset class like credit. Following the data and keeping an open mind, remains important. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DHx43YQjBHU8esF2z2rSxjuUo5N9Ig5hMAX83hUA0IYFri, 01 Dec 2023 20:43:06 +0000gtyThe market rally of the last few weeks is based on strong economic data, suggesting that the U.S. and Europe remain on track for a “soft landing.”  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 1st at 2 p.m. in London. November 2023 is now in the history books. It was outstanding. US bonds rose 4.5%, the best month since 1985. Global stocks rose 9%, the best month in three years. Spreads on an investment grade and high yield bonds tightened significantly. With the exception of commodities and Chinese stocks, which both struggled, November was an early holiday gift to investors of many stripes. 
While the size of the rally in November was unusual, the direction didn't just spring from thin air. Generally speaking, economic data in November strongly endorsed the idea of a soft landing. Soft landing, where inflation falls without a sharp drop in economic activity are historically rare. But they are Morgan Stanley's economic forecast for the year ahead. And in November, investors unwrapped data suggesting the story remains on track. 
In the US, core consumer price inflation declined more than expected. Core PCE inflation, a slightly different measure that the Federal Reserve prefers, has fallen down to an annualized pace of just 2.5% over the last six months. Gas prices are down 16% since the summer, rental inflation has stalled and the U.S. auto production is normalizing, improving the trend in three big drivers of the higher inflation we've seen over the last two years. 
Go back 12 months and most forecasts, including our own, assume that lower inflation would be the result of higher interest rates driving a slowdown in growth. But the economy has been good. Over the last 12 months, the U.S. economy has grown 3%, .5% better than the average since 1990. 
The story in Europe is a little different from the one in America, but it still rhymes. In Europe, recent inflation data has also come in lower than expected. While economic data has been somewhat weaker. Still, we see signs that the worst of Europe's economic growth will be confined to 2023 and continue to forecast the weakest growth right now, with somewhat better European growth in 2024. 
Why does this matter? While the returns of November were unusual and unlikely to repeat, it's a good reminder not to overcomplicate things. Good data, by which we mean lower inflation and reasonable growth, is a good outcome that markets will reward, and remains the Morgan Stanley economic base case. Deviating on either variable is a risk, especially for an asset class like credit. Following the data and keeping an open mind, remains important. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>174false1010fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/pamela-kaufman-anti-obesity-meds-could-bite-into-food-sales--75653125----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Pamela Kaufman, Morgan Stanley's Tobacco and Packaged Food Analyst. Today I'll be talking about how obesity medicines are impacting food spending. It's Thursday, November 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
With Thanksgiving behind us, we've now entered the holiday season when many of us are focused on shopping, travel and, of course, food. 
The last 12 to 18 months have seen overwhelming growth in popularity for a glucagon-like peptide 1 or GLP-1 anti-obesity medications. These medications were first approved for the treatment of type two diabetes more than 15 years ago and for the treatment of obesity more than 8 years ago. But the inflection point came only recently when the formulation and delivery of GLP-1 drugs improved from once daily injections to once weekly injections, and even an oral formulation. There were also some key FDA approvals that opened the doors for widespread use. 
How effective are these new and improved GLP-1 drugs? Essentially, they target areas of the brain that regulate appetite and food consumption so that patients feel full longer, have a reduced appetite and consume less food. Studies show that patients taking the injectable GLP-1 medicines can lose approximately 10 to 20% of their body weight. 
One of the key debates in the market right now is how the growing use of GLP-1 drugs will affect various industries within the larger food ecosystem. The fact that patients on anti-obesity drugs experience a significant reduction in appetite impacts their food habits and consumption. 
The "Food Meets Pharma" debate is one we've been tracking closely, and our most recent work indicates that shoppers with obesity spend about 1% more on groceries compared to shoppers without obesity. But we see a larger difference across less healthy categories. Over the last year, obese shoppers spent more on candy, frozen meals and beverages, but less on produce, fish and beans and grains. In addition, shoppers with obesity spend more at large fast food chains. 
Our own survey data and various medical studies point to a drastic 60 to 70% reduction in consumption of less healthy categories in patients taking GLP-1 drugs, driven by the significant changes observed in their food consumption and preferences. 
As drug use grows, we can see an increasing impact across various food and beverage related industries in the U.S. For example, among our beverages coverage, U.S. shoppers with obesity spend more on carbonated soft drinks and salty snacks. Shoppers with obesity also spend more on fast food and on a relative basis, less at fast casual restaurants and casual diners. But obesity medicines are starting to change these habits. Furthermore, 62% of GLP-1 patients report consuming less alcohol since starting on the medications, with 56% of those consuming less reporting at least a 75% reduction in alcohol consumption. 
So what's our outlook for drug adoption? Morgan Stanley research estimates that the global obesity prescription market will reach $77 billion in the next decade, with $51 billion in the U.S. By 2035, my colleagues expect 7% of the U.S. population will be on anti-obesity medication. Given these projections, the "Food Meets Pharma" debate will remain relevant and something investors should watch closely. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gfudALd7I9UTn0POWRKCLsnWBer0Aftt4t_unbLEF8gThu, 30 Nov 2023 22:25:04 +0000gtyThe growing popularity of medicines that curb appetite is having an impact on consumption of less-healthy foods. Here’s what that could mean for packaged snacks, soda, alcohol and fast food. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Pamela Kaufman, Morgan Stanley's Tobacco and Packaged Food Analyst. Today I'll be talking about how obesity medicines are impacting food spending. It's Thursday, November 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
With Thanksgiving behind us, we've now entered the holiday season when many of us are focused on shopping, travel and, of course, food. 
The last 12 to 18 months have seen overwhelming growth in popularity for a glucagon-like peptide 1 or GLP-1 anti-obesity medications. These medications were first approved for the treatment of type two diabetes more than 15 years ago and for the treatment of obesity more than 8 years ago. But the inflection point came only recently when the formulation and delivery of GLP-1 drugs improved from once daily injections to once weekly injections, and even an oral formulation. There were also some key FDA approvals that opened the doors for widespread use. 
How effective are these new and improved GLP-1 drugs? Essentially, they target areas of the brain that regulate appetite and food consumption so that patients feel full longer, have a reduced appetite and consume less food. Studies show that patients taking the injectable GLP-1 medicines can lose approximately 10 to 20% of their body weight. 
One of the key debates in the market right now is how the growing use of GLP-1 drugs will affect various industries within the larger food ecosystem. The fact that patients on anti-obesity drugs experience a significant reduction in appetite impacts their food habits and consumption. 
The "Food Meets Pharma" debate is one we've been tracking closely, and our most recent work indicates that shoppers with obesity spend about 1% more on groceries compared to shoppers without obesity. But we see a larger difference across less healthy categories. Over the last year, obese shoppers spent more on candy, frozen meals and beverages, but less on produce, fish and beans and grains. In addition, shoppers with obesity spend more at large fast food chains. 
Our own survey data and various medical studies point to a drastic 60 to 70% reduction in consumption of less healthy categories in patients taking GLP-1 drugs, driven by the significant changes observed in their food consumption and preferences. 
As drug use grows, we can see an increasing impact across various food and beverage related industries in the U.S. For example, among our beverages coverage, U.S. shoppers with obesity spend more on carbonated soft drinks and salty snacks. Shoppers with obesity also spend more on fast food and on a relative basis, less at fast casual restaurants and casual diners. But obesity medicines are starting to change these habits. Furthermore, 62% of GLP-1 patients report consuming less alcohol since starting on the medications, with 56% of those consuming less reporting at least a 75% reduction in alcohol consumption. 
So what's our outlook for drug adoption? Morgan Stanley research estimates that the global obesity prescription market will reach $77 billion in the next decade, with $51 billion in the U.S. By 2035, my colleagues expect 7% of the U.S. population will be on anti-obesity medication. Given these projections, the "Food Meets Pharma" debate will remain relevant and something investors should watch closely. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>250false1009fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ravi-shanker-a-new-golden-age-of-travel-ahead--75653093----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our view on airline travel in 2024. It's Wednesday, November 29th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Travel plans are in most people's minds over the holiday season, and many of us just experienced firsthand the hectic Thanksgiving holiday weekend. On the Sunday after Thanksgiving, the US Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, screened more than 2.9 million passengers, which was the most ever for a single day. Overall, the TSA's reported number of travelers last week was up 4.2% versus 2019 and has been tracking up nearly 6% versus 2019 for the month of November. This is impressive given that November is typically a slower leisure travel month. 
Furthermore, despite record travel over the last several weeks, airlines achieved record low cancellations over the Thanksgiving weekend as well. This all bodes well for the upcoming holidays. We continue to expect a strong holiday season ahead, as demand for air travel is showing no signs of slowing. And despite concerns around choppy macro conditions, we continue to see no signs of a cliff in demand. Meanwhile, our survey work indicates that holiday travel intentions remain robust among all consumers and not just high income households. 
At the same time, corporate travel budgets in 2024 are trending in line with expectations, and business travel is likely to mirror domestic leisure travel just on a delayed basis. Smaller enterprises continue to lead the way for corporate travel demand. Among companies with less than $1 billion in revenue, 41% are already back to pre 2020 travel volumes. Right now, the primary barriers to corporate travel appear to be cost concerns as well as the economic and market outlook. This suggests that constraints on corporate travel may be cyclical rather than structural. 
One final observation which relates to both international business and leisure travel is that US passport issuance is also up. According to US government data, as of early November, 2023 had already seen the issuance of over 24 million passports. That's 9% higher compared to 2022. This is a new record which demonstrates that people want to travel now more than ever, particularly internationally. Over the past 25 years, the number of US passports issued per year has noticeably increased after major economic events such as the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s, the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, with the latest being post-Covid in 2022. We continue to believe that this is not a one and done travel spike, but a durable growth trend. All told, it looks like we may be entering a new golden age of travel in the 2020s. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and shared Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EpFltsYuM1iP_fWariu_PrwOPR_PC5_-6a4OhjwRrowWed, 29 Nov 2023 21:15:01 +0000gtyWith a strong holiday season expected, and a rise in U.S. passport issuance, there’s good reason to believe the travel industry will see durable growth in the year ahead. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our view on airline travel in 2024. It's Wednesday, November 29th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Travel plans are in most people's minds over the holiday season, and many of us just experienced firsthand the hectic Thanksgiving holiday weekend. On the Sunday after Thanksgiving, the US Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, screened more than 2.9 million passengers, which was the most ever for a single day. Overall, the TSA's reported number of travelers last week was up 4.2% versus 2019 and has been tracking up nearly 6% versus 2019 for the month of November. This is impressive given that November is typically a slower leisure travel month. 
Furthermore, despite record travel over the last several weeks, airlines achieved record low cancellations over the Thanksgiving weekend as well. This all bodes well for the upcoming holidays. We continue to expect a strong holiday season ahead, as demand for air travel is showing no signs of slowing. And despite concerns around choppy macro conditions, we continue to see no signs of a cliff in demand. Meanwhile, our survey work indicates that holiday travel intentions remain robust among all consumers and not just high income households. 
At the same time, corporate travel budgets in 2024 are trending in line with expectations, and business travel is likely to mirror domestic leisure travel just on a delayed basis. Smaller enterprises continue to lead the way for corporate travel demand. Among companies with less than $1 billion in revenue, 41% are already back to pre 2020 travel volumes. Right now, the primary barriers to corporate travel appear to be cost concerns as well as the economic and market outlook. This suggests that constraints on corporate travel may be cyclical rather than structural. 
One final observation which relates to both international business and leisure travel is that US passport issuance is also up. According to US government data, as of early November, 2023 had already seen the issuance of over 24 million passports. That's 9% higher compared to 2022. This is a new record which demonstrates that people want to travel now more than ever, particularly internationally. Over the past 25 years, the number of US passports issued per year has noticeably increased after major economic events such as the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s, the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, with the latest being post-Covid in 2022. We continue to believe that this is not a one and done travel spike, but a durable growth trend. All told, it looks like we may be entering a new golden age of travel in the 2020s. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and shared Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>209false1008fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-education-companies-can-benefit-from-ai--75653097----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brenda Duverce from the Morgan Stanley Sustainability Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today I'll discuss the potential impact of generative AI on the global education market. It's Tuesday, November 28th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
When ChatGPT was first introduced, it disrupted the education system with the threat of plagiarism and misinformation, and some school systems have banned it. Some companies in the educational technology space were initially affected by this, but have since recovered as the risks have become clearer. Still, investors appear to be overly focused on the risks GenAI poses to education companies, missing the potential upside GenAI can unlock. 
From a sustainability perspective, we view GenAI as an opportunity to drive improvements to society in general, with education being one core use case. We would highlight two areas where GenAI will be key. One, in improving the overall education experience and two, in helping to reskill or upskill an evolving workforce. 
Starting with the quality of the education experience, GenAI has the potential to transform learning and teaching, from automating tasks with chatbots to creating adaptive learning solutions. Applications such as auto grading, large language model based tutors and retention management can drive efficiencies and increase productivity. 
We see efficiencies driving $200 billion of value creation and education over the next three years. In the fragmented education market, we expect lower costs to flow through to prices as companies pass along cost savings to maximize volumes.  The second key area that we highlight from a sustainability angle is the reskilling and upskilling of the workforce. We think the market may be under appreciating the role education companies can have in this respect. Many fear that GenAI would lead to substantial job losses in various areas of the economy, and the market sometimes assumes that job loss leads to permanent displacement of workers long term. But we argue this isn't necessarily true. Workers typically re-enter the labor force with an updated skill set. 
Take, for instance, the introduction of ATMs and the concerns that ATMs would replace bank tellers and lead to significant job loss. This didn't prove to be the case. Over time, there were fewer tellers per bank branch, but the overall number of tellers continued to rise. Furthermore, the bank teller role evolved as customers sought a better experience and bank tellers responded by reskilling. Another example of this type of disruption was the introduction of the spreadsheet in the accounting industry. Many argued that spreadsheets would replace accounting jobs. However, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates the opposite, the number of accountants and financial managers rose significantly. 
When it comes to reskilling or upskilling workers impacted by GenAI, we think this could cost somewhere around $16 billion within the next three years. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zxt32443FrP6GVQubnISrli-royJFC4d7h7OSEs0210Tue, 28 Nov 2023 22:35:26 +0000gtyInvestors in the education sector have focused on threats from generative AI, but may be missing the potential for greater efficiency and new opportunities in workforce reskilling. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brenda...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brenda Duverce from the Morgan Stanley Sustainability Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today I'll discuss the potential impact of generative AI on the global education market. It's Tuesday, November 28th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
When ChatGPT was first introduced, it disrupted the education system with the threat of plagiarism and misinformation, and some school systems have banned it. Some companies in the educational technology space were initially affected by this, but have since recovered as the risks have become clearer. Still, investors appear to be overly focused on the risks GenAI poses to education companies, missing the potential upside GenAI can unlock. 
From a sustainability perspective, we view GenAI as an opportunity to drive improvements to society in general, with education being one core use case. We would highlight two areas where GenAI will be key. One, in improving the overall education experience and two, in helping to reskill or upskill an evolving workforce. 
Starting with the quality of the education experience, GenAI has the potential to transform learning and teaching, from automating tasks with chatbots to creating adaptive learning solutions. Applications such as auto grading, large language model based tutors and retention management can drive efficiencies and increase productivity. 
We see efficiencies driving $200 billion of value creation and education over the next three years. In the fragmented education market, we expect lower costs to flow through to prices as companies pass along cost savings to maximize volumes.  The second key area that we highlight from a sustainability angle is the reskilling and upskilling of the workforce. We think the market may be under appreciating the role education companies can have in this respect. Many fear that GenAI would lead to substantial job losses in various areas of the economy, and the market sometimes assumes that job loss leads to permanent displacement of workers long term. But we argue this isn't necessarily true. Workers typically re-enter the labor force with an updated skill set. 
Take, for instance, the introduction of ATMs and the concerns that ATMs would replace bank tellers and lead to significant job loss. This didn't prove to be the case. Over time, there were fewer tellers per bank branch, but the overall number of tellers continued to rise. Furthermore, the bank teller role evolved as customers sought a better experience and bank tellers responded by reskilling. Another example of this type of disruption was the introduction of the spreadsheet in the accounting industry. Many argued that spreadsheets would replace accounting jobs. However, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates the opposite, the number of accountants and financial managers rose significantly. 
When it comes to reskilling or upskilling workers impacted by GenAI, we think this could cost somewhere around $16 billion within the next three years. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>194false1007fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-debating-the-outlook--75653166----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about some of the key debates we engaged in during our year ahead outlook process. It's Monday, November 27th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We published our Year Ahead Global Economics and Strategy Outlook last Sunday and more detailed asset class and country specific outlooks have been streaming out since. At Morgan Stanley Research the outlooks are the culmination of a process involving much deliberation and spirited debate among economists and strategists across all regions and asset classes we cover. While we strive for cohesion and consistency in our outlook across economies and markets, we are convinced that in a highly interconnected world, facing numerous uncertainties, challenging each other's views makes the final product much stronger. In that spirit, here are some of the key debates we engaged in along the way. 
Slowdown but not recession? In their baseline scenario, our economists expect a significant slowdown in developed market economies while inflation is tamed and outright recession is avoided. Unsurprisingly, the prospect of a substantial slowdown that does not devolve into a recession was debated at length. Our economists maintain that while recessions remain a risk everywhere, they expect any recession, such as the one in the United Kingdom, to be shallow. Since inflation is falling with full employment, real incomes should hold up, leaving consumption resilient despite more volatile investment spending. 
Our economists call for policy easing to start across several DM economies in the middle of 2024 was also much discussed. For the U.S., our economists call for 100 basis points of rate cuts starting around the second half of the year and the cuts begin even before inflation target has been achieved and without a spike in the unemployment rate. The motivation here is not that the Fed will cut to stimulate the economy, but the cuts are a move towards a more normalized monetary policy. As the economy begins to slow and net new jobs created fall below replacement levels, we think that the Fed sees the need to normalize policy instead of maintaining policy at very restrictive levels. 
The China question. Relative to the expectations in our mid-year outlook, China growth surprised to the downside. We clearly overestimated the ability and willingness of China policymakers to restore vigor to the economy. Thus, as we debated China, we spent time on the policy measures needed to offset the drag from the looming 3D trap of debt, deflation and demographics. We look for subpar improvement in both growth and inflation in 2024, with real GDP growth reaching a below consensus 4.2%. More central government led stimulus will only cushion the economy against continued deleveraging in the housing sector and local government financial vehicles.
Real estate challenges. U.S. residential and commercial real estate markets diverged dramatically over the course of 2023, and their trajectory in the year ahead was an important debate. The dramatic affordability challenges posed by higher mortgage rates caused a significant pullback in existing home sales, renewing decreases in inventory that provided near-term support for home prices. On the other hand, the combination of challenges for key lenders such as regional banks and secular challenges to select property types such as offers coupled with an imminent and persistent wall of maturities that need to be refinanced, drove commercial real estate prices and sales meaningfully lower. Looking ahead, as rates come down, we expect affordability to improve and for sale inventory of homes to increase. U.S. home prices should see modest declines, about 3% as the growth in inventory offsets the increased demand, with fundamental stressors still largely unresolved, we expect the outlook for commercial real estate to remain challenging. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/t5wz-FvkqhA5L5mmFqTMzu-4hKVPxjL6d0KtiAl2VacMon, 27 Nov 2023 22:40:07 +0000gtyMorgan Stanley published its 2024 macroeconomic and investment outlooks last week after spirited debates among our economists and strategists. Three topics animated much of this year’s discussion: lingering concerns about recession; China; and the...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about some of the key debates we engaged in during our year ahead outlook process. It's Monday, November 27th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We published our Year Ahead Global Economics and Strategy Outlook last Sunday and more detailed asset class and country specific outlooks have been streaming out since. At Morgan Stanley Research the outlooks are the culmination of a process involving much deliberation and spirited debate among economists and strategists across all regions and asset classes we cover. While we strive for cohesion and consistency in our outlook across economies and markets, we are convinced that in a highly interconnected world, facing numerous uncertainties, challenging each other's views makes the final product much stronger. In that spirit, here are some of the key debates we engaged in along the way. 
Slowdown but not recession? In their baseline scenario, our economists expect a significant slowdown in developed market economies while inflation is tamed and outright recession is avoided. Unsurprisingly, the prospect of a substantial slowdown that does not devolve into a recession was debated at length. Our economists maintain that while recessions remain a risk everywhere, they expect any recession, such as the one in the United Kingdom, to be shallow. Since inflation is falling with full employment, real incomes should hold up, leaving consumption resilient despite more volatile investment spending. 
Our economists call for policy easing to start across several DM economies in the middle of 2024 was also much discussed. For the U.S., our economists call for 100 basis points of rate cuts starting around the second half of the year and the cuts begin even before inflation target has been achieved and without a spike in the unemployment rate. The motivation here is not that the Fed will cut to stimulate the economy, but the cuts are a move towards a more normalized monetary policy. As the economy begins to slow and net new jobs created fall below replacement levels, we think that the Fed sees the need to normalize policy instead of maintaining policy at very restrictive levels. 
The China question. Relative to the expectations in our mid-year outlook, China growth surprised to the downside. We clearly overestimated the ability and willingness of China policymakers to restore vigor to the economy. Thus, as we debated China, we spent time on the policy measures needed to offset the drag from the looming 3D trap of debt, deflation and demographics. We look for subpar improvement in both growth and inflation in 2024, with real GDP growth reaching a below consensus 4.2%. More central government led stimulus will only cushion the economy against continued deleveraging in the housing sector and local government financial vehicles.
Real estate challenges. U.S. residential and commercial real estate markets diverged dramatically over the course of 2023, and their trajectory in the year ahead was an important debate. The dramatic affordability challenges posed by higher mortgage rates caused a significant pullback in existing home sales, renewing decreases in inventory that provided near-term support for home prices. On the other hand, the combination of challenges for key lenders such as regional banks and secular challenges to select property types such as offers coupled with an imminent and persistent wall of maturities that need to be refinanced, drove commercial real estate prices and sales...]]>247false1006fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-matt-cost-how-ai-could-disrupt-gaming--75653079----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost from the Morgan Stanley US Internet Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how A.I could change the video game industry. It's Tuesday, November 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
New A.I tools are starting to transform multiple industries, and it's hardly a surprise that the game industry could see a major impact as well. As manual tasks become more automated and the user experience becomes increasingly personalized, A.I. tools are starting to change the way that games are made and operated. Building video games involves many different disciplines, including software development, art and writing, among others. Many of these processes could become more automated over time, reducing the cost and complexity of making games and likely reducing barriers to entry. And since we expect the industry to spend over $100 billion this year building and operating games, there's a significant profit opportunity for the industry to become more efficient. 
Automated content creation could also offer more tailored experiences and purchase options to consumers in real time, potentially boosting engagement and consumer spending. Consider, for example, a game that not only makes offers when a consumer is most likely to spend money, but also generates in-game items designed to appeal to that specific person's preferences in real time. 
Beyond A.I generated content, we also need to consider the impact of user generated content. Some popular titles already depend on the users to shape the game around them, and this is another core area that could be transformed by A.I.. Faster and easier to use content creation tools could make it easier for games to tap into the creativity of their users. And as we've seen with major social platforms, relying on users to create content can be a big opportunity. 
With all that said, these transformational opportunities create downside risk as well. Today's large game publishers rely on their scale and domain expertise to differentiate their products from competitors. But while new A.I. tools could make game development more efficient, they could also lower barriers to entry for new competitors to jump into the fray and put pressure on the incumbents. 
Another risk is that A.I. tools could fail to drive the hope for efficiencies and cost savings in the first place. Not all technology breakthroughs in the past have helped the industry become more profitable. In some cases, industry leaders have decided to reinvest cost savings back into their products to make sure that they deliver bigger and better games to stay ahead of the competition. With that in mind, the biggest challenge for today's industry leaders could be making sure that they find ways to differentiate their products as A.I. tools make it easier for new firms to compete. 
Where does all of that leave us? Although a number of A.I. tools are already being used in the game industry today, adoption is just beginning to tick up and there's a lot of room for the tools to improve. With that in mind, we think we're just on the cusp of this A.I. driven revolution, and we may have to get through a few more castles to find the princess. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iUQWAotHHPx0EActrn--UZQu3-Nl8TkCK1pXFp7brAoFri, 24 Nov 2023 16:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on November, 7th 2023: AI could help video game companies boost engagement and consumer spending, but could also introduce competition by making it easier for new companies to enter the industry. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost from the Morgan Stanley US Internet Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how A.I could change the video game industry. It's Tuesday, November 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
New A.I tools are starting to transform multiple industries, and it's hardly a surprise that the game industry could see a major impact as well. As manual tasks become more automated and the user experience becomes increasingly personalized, A.I. tools are starting to change the way that games are made and operated. Building video games involves many different disciplines, including software development, art and writing, among others. Many of these processes could become more automated over time, reducing the cost and complexity of making games and likely reducing barriers to entry. And since we expect the industry to spend over $100 billion this year building and operating games, there's a significant profit opportunity for the industry to become more efficient. 
Automated content creation could also offer more tailored experiences and purchase options to consumers in real time, potentially boosting engagement and consumer spending. Consider, for example, a game that not only makes offers when a consumer is most likely to spend money, but also generates in-game items designed to appeal to that specific person's preferences in real time. 
Beyond A.I generated content, we also need to consider the impact of user generated content. Some popular titles already depend on the users to shape the game around them, and this is another core area that could be transformed by A.I.. Faster and easier to use content creation tools could make it easier for games to tap into the creativity of their users. And as we've seen with major social platforms, relying on users to create content can be a big opportunity. 
With all that said, these transformational opportunities create downside risk as well. Today's large game publishers rely on their scale and domain expertise to differentiate their products from competitors. But while new A.I. tools could make game development more efficient, they could also lower barriers to entry for new competitors to jump into the fray and put pressure on the incumbents. 
Another risk is that A.I. tools could fail to drive the hope for efficiencies and cost savings in the first place. Not all technology breakthroughs in the past have helped the industry become more profitable. In some cases, industry leaders have decided to reinvest cost savings back into their products to make sure that they deliver bigger and better games to stay ahead of the competition. With that in mind, the biggest challenge for today's industry leaders could be making sure that they find ways to differentiate their products as A.I. tools make it easier for new firms to compete. 
Where does all of that leave us? Although a number of A.I. tools are already being used in the game industry today, adoption is just beginning to tick up and there's a lot of room for the tools to improve. With that in mind, we think we're just on the cusp of this A.I. driven revolution, and we may have to get through a few more castles to find the princess. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>185false1004fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-us-economy-what-generative-ai-means-for-the-labor-market--75653081----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the Global Chief Economist. 
Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how generative A.I. could reshape the US economy and the labor market. It's Thursday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: If we think back to the early 90's, few could have predicted just how revolutionary the Internet would become. Creating entirely new professions and industries with a wide ranging impact on labor and global economies. And yet with generative A.I. here we are again on the cusp of a revolution. So, Seth, as our global chief economist, you've been assessing the overarching macro implications of the Gen A.I. phenomenon. And while it's still early days, I know you've been thinking about the range of impacts Gen A.I could have on the global economy. I wondered if you could walk us through the broad parameters of your thinking around macro impacts and maybe starting with the productivity and the labor market side of things? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Stephen. And I agree with you, the possibilities here are immense. The hardest part of all of this is trying to gauge just how big the effects might be, when they might happen and how soon anyone is going to be able to pick up on the true changes and things. But let's talk a little bit about those two components, productivity and the labor market. They are very closely connected to each other. So one of the key things about generative A.I is it could make lots of types of processes, lots of types of jobs, things that are very knowledge base intensive. You could do the same amount of work with fewer people or, and I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, you could do lots more work with the same number of people. And I think that distinction is really critical, lots of people and I'm sure you've heard this before, lots of people have a fear that generative A.I is going to come in and destroy lots of jobs and so we'll just have lots of people who are out of work. And I guess I'm at the margin a lot more optimistic than that. I really do think what we're going to end up seeing is more output with the same amount of workers, and indeed, as you alluded to before, more types of jobs than we've seen before. That doesn't exactly answer your question so let's jump into those broad parameters. If productivity goes up, what that means is we should see faster growth in the economy than we're used to seeing and I think that means things like GDP should be growing faster and that should have implications for equities. In addition, because more can get done with the same inputs, we should see some of the inflationary pressures that we're seeing now dissipate even more quickly. And what does that mean? Well, that means that at least in the short run, the central bank, the Fed in the U.S., can allow the economy to run a little bit hotter than you would have thought otherwise, because the inflationary pressures aren't there after all. Those are the two for me, the key things one, faster growth in the economy with the same amount of inputs and some lower inflationary pressures, which makes the central bank's job a little bit easier. 
Stephen Byrd: And Seth, as you think about specific sectors and regions of the global economy that might be most impacted by the adoption of Gen A.I., does anything stand out to you? 
Seth Carpenter: I mean, I really do think if we're focusing just on generative A.I, it really comes down, I think a lot to what can generative A.I do better. It's a lot of these large language models, a lot of that sort of knowledge based side of things. So the services sector of the economy seems more ripe for turnover than, say, the plain old fashion manufacturing sector. Now, I don't want to push that too far because there are clearly going to be lots of ways that people in all sectors will learn how to apply these technology. But I think the first place we see adoption is in some of the knowledge based sectors. So some of the prime candidates people like to point to are things like the legal profession where review of documents can be done much more quickly and efficiently with Gen A.I. In our industry, Stephen in the financial services industry, I have spoken with clients who are working to find ways to consume lots more information on lots of different types of firms so that as they're assessing equity market investments, they have better information, faster information and can invest in a broader set of firms than they had before. I really look to the knowledge based sectors of the economy as the first target. You know, so that Stephen is mostly how I'm thinking about it, but one of the things I love about these conversations with you is that I get to start asking questions and so here it is right back at you. I said that I thought generative A.I is not going to leave large swaths of the population unemployed, but I've heard you say that generative A.I is really going to set the stage for an unprecedented demand in reskilling workers. What kind of private sector support from corporations and what sort of public sector support from governments do you expect to see? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah Seth, I mean, that point about reskilling, I think, is one of the most important elements of the work that we've been doing together. This could be the biggest reskilling initiative that we'll ever see, given how broad generative A.I really is and how many different professions generative A.I could impact. Now, when we think about the job impacts, we do see potential benefits from private public partnerships. They would be really focused on reskilling and upskilling workers and respond to the changes to the very nature of work that's going to be driven by Gen A.I. And an example of some real promising efforts in that regard was the White House industry joint efforts in this regard to think about ways to reskill the workforce. That said, there really are multiple unknowns with respect to the pace and the depth of the employment impacts from A.I. So it's very challenging to really scope out the magnitude and cadence a nd that makes joint planning for reskilling and upskilling highly challenging. 
Seth Carpenter: I hear what you're saying, Stephen, and it is always hard looking into the future to try to suss out what's going on but when we think about the future of work, you talked about the possibility that Gen A.I could change the nature of work. Speculate here a little bit for me. What do you think? What could be those changes in terms of the actual nature of work? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you know, that's what's really fascinating about Gen A.I and also potentially in terms of the nature of work and the need to be flexible. You know, I think job gains and losses will heavily depend on whether skills can be really transferred, whether new skills can be picked up. For those with skills that are easy to transfer to other tasks in occupations, you know, disruptions could be short lived. To this point the tech sector recently experienced heavy layoffs, but employees were quickly absorbed by the rest of the economy because of overall tight labor market, something you've written a lot about Seth. And in fact, the number of tech layoffs was around 170,000 in the first quarter of 2023. That's a 17 fold increase over the previous year. While most of these folks did find a new job within three months of being laid off, so we do see this potential for movements, reskilling, etc., to be significant. But it certainly depends a lot on the skill set and how transferable that skill set really is. 
Seth Carpenter: How do you start to hire people at the beginning of this sort of revolution? And so when you think about those changes in the labor market, do you think there are going to be changes in the way people hire folks? Once Gen A.I becomes more widespread. Do you think workers end up getting hired based on the skill set that they can demonstrate on some sort of credentials? Are we going to see somehow in either diplomas or other sorts of certificates, things that are labeled A.I? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, I think there is going to be a big shift away from credentials and more heavily towards skills, specific skill sets. Especially skills that involve creativity and also skills involving just complex human interactions, human negotiations as well. And it's going to be critical to prioritize skills over credentials going forward as, especially as we think about reskilling and retraining a number of workers, that's going to be such a broad effort. I think the future work will require hiring managers to prioritize these skills, especially these soft skills that I think are going to be more difficult for A.I models to replace. We highlight a number of skills that really will be more challenging to automate versus those that are less challenging. And I think that essentially is a guidepost to think about where reskilling should really be focused. 
Seth Carpenter: Well, Stephen, I have to say I'd be able to talk with you about these sorts of things all day long, but I think we've run out of time. So let me just say, thank you for taking some time to talk to me today. 
Stephen Byrd: It was great speaking with you, Seth.
Seth Carpenter: And thanks to the listeners for listening. If you enjoyed Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qy1-Vq9LhrpC_zLSqcpEUSb42OcREquYdOuU9T5r1ScWed, 22 Nov 2023 19:26:22 +0000gtyOriginal Release on November, 2nd 2023: Generative AI could transform the nature of work and boost productivity, but companies and governments will need to invest in reskilling. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market....----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the Global Chief Economist. 
Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how generative A.I. could reshape the US economy and the labor market. It's Thursday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: If we think back to the early 90's, few could have predicted just how revolutionary the Internet would become. Creating entirely new professions and industries with a wide ranging impact on labor and global economies. And yet with generative A.I. here we are again on the cusp of a revolution. So, Seth, as our global chief economist, you've been assessing the overarching macro implications of the Gen A.I. phenomenon. And while it's still early days, I know you've been thinking about the range of impacts Gen A.I could have on the global economy. I wondered if you could walk us through the broad parameters of your thinking around macro impacts and maybe starting with the productivity and the labor market side of things? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Stephen. And I agree with you, the possibilities here are immense. The hardest part of all of this is trying to gauge just how big the effects might be, when they might happen and how soon anyone is going to be able to pick up on the true changes and things. But let's talk a little bit about those two components, productivity and the labor market. They are very closely connected to each other. So one of the key things about generative A.I is it could make lots of types of processes, lots of types of jobs, things that are very knowledge base intensive. You could do the same amount of work with fewer people or, and I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, you could do lots more work with the same number of people. And I think that distinction is really critical, lots of people and I'm sure you've heard this before, lots of people have a fear that generative A.I is going to come in and destroy lots of jobs and so we'll just have lots of people who are out of work. And I guess I'm at the margin a lot more optimistic than that. I really do think what we're going to end up seeing is more output with the same amount of workers, and indeed, as you alluded to before, more types of jobs than we've seen before. That doesn't exactly answer your question so let's jump into those broad parameters. If productivity goes up, what that means is we should see faster growth in the economy than we're used to seeing and I think that means things like GDP should be growing faster and that should have implications for equities. In addition, because more can get done with the same inputs, we should see some of the inflationary pressures that we're seeing now dissipate even more quickly. And what does that mean? Well, that means that at least in the short run, the central bank, the Fed in the U.S., can allow the economy to run a little bit hotter than you would have thought otherwise, because the inflationary pressures aren't there after all. Those are the two for me, the key things one, faster growth in the economy with the same amount of inputs and some lower inflationary pressures, which makes the central bank's job a little bit easier. 
Stephen Byrd: And Seth, as you think about specific sectors and regions of the global economy that might be most impacted by the adoption of Gen A.I., does anything stand out to you? 
Seth Carpenter: I mean, I really do think if we're focusing just on generative A.I, it really comes down, I think a lot to what can generative A.I do better. It's a lot of these large language models, a lot of that sort of knowledge based side of things....]]>514false1005fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-consumer-mixed-holiday-spending-expectations--75653024----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe and the U.S Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we wanted to give you an update on the U.S. consumer and a preview of our holiday spending expectations this year. It's Tuesday, November 21st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: Sarah, recent data releases and your modeling suggests that U.S. consumer spending will begin to slow more meaningfully in 2024 and 2025. And you've argued that the slowdown in consumption is driven by a cooling labor market which weighs on real disposable income and elevated rates, putting further pressure on debt service costs. Given all this, would you say that the U.S. consumer is still healthy as we approach the holiday season and the end of the year? 
Sarah Wolfe: You're exactly right. Consumer spending in the third quarter was very strong, and we know that there's going to be some more of that underlying momentum pulled into the fourth quarter, which includes holiday shopping season. Just last week, we got the October retail sales report, which did show a notable deceleration in consumer spending from the third quarter into the fourth quarter, but still positive retail sales. There are a few reasons, however, that, you know, we take pause at saying that the holiday shopping season is going to be very strong. The first is that there is this growing discrepancy between the health of a struggling lower middle income household versus the solid higher income household. The second is the expiration of the student loan forbearance. We know that about half of borrowers have started making payments as of October. And the third is the wallet shift away from goods and toward services that will impact the type of holiday spending. I would like to hone in on this discrepancy between the health of the lower middle income household and higher income households. We've highlighted that lower middle income households have been pulling back more in discretionary and they've been trading down as they're disproportionately being hit by tighter lending standards, higher inflation, higher debt service costs. And that's likely going to reflect the type of holiday spending that we see this year. In particular, higher income households have just more buying power, they're more willing to spend on experiences. And so we could just see that holiday shopping that's more skewed towards higher income spenders and that's more experience oriented will be the winners of this holiday shopping season. 
Michelle Weaver: What specific trends have you seen in U.S. consumer spending in the third quarter? And what do you expect for the final quarter of this year? 
Sarah Wolfe: Consumer spending in the third quarter was really strong because the labor market largely was very resilient, and as a result, we saw that there was just more momentum for goods and services spending, so both reaccelerated into the third quarter. However, what we could see is that there still is this clear preference shift on experiences over goods in particular accommodations, travel, etc. And so I think that's going to feed through into the type of holiday shopping that we see this year. 
Michelle Weaver: And I know that during Covid, consumers were able to save a lot more money than usual. How are these excess savings balances looking now and what do you expect going forward? 
Sarah Wolfe: We estimate that about 40% of the excess savings stockpile has been spent down, so there's still a pretty hefty 60% of excess savings sitting among households. However, we do not expect much more drawdown in excess savings across 2024. The reason is that our work shows that the excess savings stockpile is increasingly being held by the highest income households. They, first of all, have a lower propensity to consume out of savings, but more importantly, they had been willing to spend down their excess savings over the past two years. But that was to fuel their pent up demand for the services, economy recovery. And now that we've seen a full recovery on that side of the economy, there's really just less desire, less willingness to spend out of excess savings. Further, we're seeing that there's been an increasing movement from liquid to less liquid assets. So more and more of that savings is not just sitting in cash under the bed and so it's less likely to make its way into consumer spending. Michelle, based on your recent survey work in collaboration with U.S. Equity Analyst, what are you seeing in terms of holiday spending intentions for U.S. consumers this year compared to last year? 
Michelle Weaver: So the majority of holiday shoppers are planning to keep their holiday budgets roughly the same this year. And this means that retailers will be competing for a similarly sized budget pool versus last year and have to offer competitive prices to get shoppers to choose their products. As consumers seek out deals and discounts, they're also likely to stagger their purchases throughout the holiday season. 
Sarah Wolfe: Can we dig a little bit more into what people plan to spend their money on for the holiday season? I talked about how we're seeing this clear preference away from goods and towards services in the economic data. Is that where you're hearing in the survey data about holiday spending intentions? 
Michelle Weaver: Definitely, the services over goods shift that's been playing out since the end of the pandemic is likely to remain relevant this holiday shopping season. Our analysts are expecting weaker results in goods oriented industries like clothing and apparel, toys and electronics, while airlines remain the one bright spot, with consumers continuing to prioritize holiday travel. The biggest spending declines are expected to come in luxury goods, sports equipment, home and kitchen products and electronics. 
Sarah Wolfe: And let's talk about e-commerce. I just feel like the promotions for online sales have just gotten earlier and earlier every year. How big is e-commerce going to be for this holiday shopping season? 
Michelle Weaver: Overall, the share of expected holiday spending is evenly split between in-store and online platforms. Lower income consumers expect to shop slightly more in store, though, while upper income consumers have a higher share allocated to online shopping. For e-commerce more broadly, the industry has decelerated since the summer, setting up for a slower holiday. Sarah, you've been following the disinflationary cycle that's been underway, mainly driven by core goods deflation and disinflation in housing Consumer Price Index. October's CPI came in below expectations. Is this a relief for the consumer wallet and where do you expect inflation to trend from here? 
Sarah Wolfe: This is definitely a relief for consumers. We're seeing that as inflation continues to step down with a tight labor market, real wages are rising and this is really a silver lining for households for next year. In particular, if you look at real wages, they were -3% year-over-year across 2022. I mean, deeply negative, really stripping away consumer buying power. And then if you look at today, because of all the progress we've got in inflation without a hit to the labor market, real wages are now up.  And we're expecting that real wages will continue to rise into 2024 as inflationary pressures abate and the labor market remains resilient. 
Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. 
Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZX1yzAtu9hIhk-9US2ob5PTw2oEJJA-w04FulIJ3njwTue, 21 Nov 2023 22:45:36 +0000gtyThird-quarter consumer spending was strong, but a growing gap between middle- and higher-income consumers may affect the holiday shopping season. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the...----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe and the U.S Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we wanted to give you an update on the U.S. consumer and a preview of our holiday spending expectations this year. It's Tuesday, November 21st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: Sarah, recent data releases and your modeling suggests that U.S. consumer spending will begin to slow more meaningfully in 2024 and 2025. And you've argued that the slowdown in consumption is driven by a cooling labor market which weighs on real disposable income and elevated rates, putting further pressure on debt service costs. Given all this, would you say that the U.S. consumer is still healthy as we approach the holiday season and the end of the year? 
Sarah Wolfe: You're exactly right. Consumer spending in the third quarter was very strong, and we know that there's going to be some more of that underlying momentum pulled into the fourth quarter, which includes holiday shopping season. Just last week, we got the October retail sales report, which did show a notable deceleration in consumer spending from the third quarter into the fourth quarter, but still positive retail sales. There are a few reasons, however, that, you know, we take pause at saying that the holiday shopping season is going to be very strong. The first is that there is this growing discrepancy between the health of a struggling lower middle income household versus the solid higher income household. The second is the expiration of the student loan forbearance. We know that about half of borrowers have started making payments as of October. And the third is the wallet shift away from goods and toward services that will impact the type of holiday spending. I would like to hone in on this discrepancy between the health of the lower middle income household and higher income households. We've highlighted that lower middle income households have been pulling back more in discretionary and they've been trading down as they're disproportionately being hit by tighter lending standards, higher inflation, higher debt service costs. And that's likely going to reflect the type of holiday spending that we see this year. In particular, higher income households have just more buying power, they're more willing to spend on experiences. And so we could just see that holiday shopping that's more skewed towards higher income spenders and that's more experience oriented will be the winners of this holiday shopping season. 
Michelle Weaver: What specific trends have you seen in U.S. consumer spending in the third quarter? And what do you expect for the final quarter of this year? 
Sarah Wolfe: Consumer spending in the third quarter was really strong because the labor market largely was very resilient, and as a result, we saw that there was just more momentum for goods and services spending, so both reaccelerated into the third quarter. However, what we could see is that there still is this clear preference shift on experiences over goods in particular accommodations, travel, etc. And so I think that's going to feed through into the type of holiday shopping that we see this year. 
Michelle Weaver: And I know that during Covid, consumers were able to save a lot more money than usual. How are these excess savings balances looking now and what do you expect going forward? 
Sarah Wolfe: We estimate that about 40% of the excess savings stockpile has been spent down, so there's still a pretty hefty 60% of excess savings sitting among households. However, we do not expect much more drawdown in excess savings across 2024. The reason is that our work...]]>412false1003fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ed-stanley-the-cutting-edge-of-ai--75653078----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss Edge A.I. It's Monday, the 20th of November at 2 p.m. in London. The last year has seen a surge in adoption of artificial intelligence, particularly for foundational model builders and consumer-facing chatbots. But we think the next big wave of A.I will be embedded in consumer devices, this is smartphones, notebooks, wearables, drones and autos, amongst others. Enter Edge A.I. This means running A.I algorithms locally rather than in centralized cloud computing facilities in order to power the killer apps of the A.I age. 
Generative A.I., cloud computing, GPUs and hyperscalers, that is, the large cloud service providers that run computing and storage for enterprises. They all remain central to the secular machine learning trend. However, as A.I continues to permeate through all aspects of consumer life and enterprise productivity, it will push workloads to hardware devices at the edge of networks. 
The US data firm Gartner estimates that by 2025, half of enterprise data will be created at the Edge, across billions of battery powered devices. The key benefits of A.I computation performed at the Edge are lower cost, lower latency personalization and importantly, higher security or privacy relative to centralized cloud computing. 
And the prize in moving these workloads to the Edge is large, we're talking some 30 billion devices by the end of the decade, but the hurdles are also significant. We think 2024 will be a catalyst year for this theme. And the companies that could benefit range from household name hardware vendors to key components suppliers around the world. 
But just as there are benefits to Edge A.I, there are constraints as well. Not all Edge devices are created equal, for example. The clearest limitations across hardware media are battery life and power consumption, processing capabilities and memory, as well as form factor, i.e. how they look. For example, mass market smartphones and notebooks today don't have the battery life or processing capability to run inferencing of the largest large language models. This will have to change over time, which will require investment predominantly in advanced proprietary silicon or custom ASICs as they're known, of which we've seen a number of announcements from big tech companies in recent weeks. The hardware arms race is really heating up in our view. 
It's important to note, though, that generative A.I. and Edge A.I are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Generative A.I. has reinforced the already growing need for edge A.I. Our consumer and investor trend analysis suggests that the theme is already moving into its upswing phase. Moreover, a slate of new product releases as soon as Q1 2024, such as Edge A.I enabled smartphones with embedded custom silicon, should drive further investor interest in this theme over the coming 12 months. And we think smartphones stand the best chance of breaking the bottleneck soonest and they also have the largest total addressable market potential in the short and medium term. This is an uncrowded theme which we think is in pole position for 2024. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and shared Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/h1V45plMANnAYJsbrxKY7nAiVmnHvdkqUgxty2q6cB8Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:00:46 +0000gtyThe next phase in artificial intelligence could be “edge AI,” which lowers costs and improves security by embedding AI capabilities directly in smartphones and other devices. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss Edge A.I. It's Monday, the 20th of November at 2 p.m. in London. The last year has seen a surge in adoption of artificial intelligence, particularly for foundational model builders and consumer-facing chatbots. But we think the next big wave of A.I will be embedded in consumer devices, this is smartphones, notebooks, wearables, drones and autos, amongst others. Enter Edge A.I. This means running A.I algorithms locally rather than in centralized cloud computing facilities in order to power the killer apps of the A.I age. 
Generative A.I., cloud computing, GPUs and hyperscalers, that is, the large cloud service providers that run computing and storage for enterprises. They all remain central to the secular machine learning trend. However, as A.I continues to permeate through all aspects of consumer life and enterprise productivity, it will push workloads to hardware devices at the edge of networks. 
The US data firm Gartner estimates that by 2025, half of enterprise data will be created at the Edge, across billions of battery powered devices. The key benefits of A.I computation performed at the Edge are lower cost, lower latency personalization and importantly, higher security or privacy relative to centralized cloud computing. 
And the prize in moving these workloads to the Edge is large, we're talking some 30 billion devices by the end of the decade, but the hurdles are also significant. We think 2024 will be a catalyst year for this theme. And the companies that could benefit range from household name hardware vendors to key components suppliers around the world. 
But just as there are benefits to Edge A.I, there are constraints as well. Not all Edge devices are created equal, for example. The clearest limitations across hardware media are battery life and power consumption, processing capabilities and memory, as well as form factor, i.e. how they look. For example, mass market smartphones and notebooks today don't have the battery life or processing capability to run inferencing of the largest large language models. This will have to change over time, which will require investment predominantly in advanced proprietary silicon or custom ASICs as they're known, of which we've seen a number of announcements from big tech companies in recent weeks. The hardware arms race is really heating up in our view. 
It's important to note, though, that generative A.I. and Edge A.I are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Generative A.I. has reinforced the already growing need for edge A.I. Our consumer and investor trend analysis suggests that the theme is already moving into its upswing phase. Moreover, a slate of new product releases as soon as Q1 2024, such as Edge A.I enabled smartphones with embedded custom silicon, should drive further investor interest in this theme over the coming 12 months. And we think smartphones stand the best chance of breaking the bottleneck soonest and they also have the largest total addressable market potential in the short and medium term. This is an uncrowded theme which we think is in pole position for 2024. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and shared Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>218false1002fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ellen-zentner-2024-u-s-economic-outlook--75653137----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Ellen Zentner. Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our 2024 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, November 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
You may remember that back in March 2022, we called for a soft landing for the U.S. economy. And we still maintain this view, even though strains in the economy are becoming more noticeable and recession fears remain alive. And that's because the Fed's monetary policy is weighing increasingly on growth and especially next year. High rates for longer are causing a persistent drag, bringing growth sustainably below potential over our forecast horizon. We forecast that U.S. GDP growth slows from an estimated 2.5% this year on a Q4 over Q4 basis to 1.6% in 2024 and 1.4% in 2025. 
We also expect U.S. consumer spending to begin to slow more meaningfully in 2024 and 2025, driven by a cooling labor market which weighs on real disposable income and elevated rates, putting further pressure on debt service costs. 
But there are some positive indicators for the year ahead as well. We think that business investment and equipment will finally turn positive by the second half of next year following two years of decline, while the surge in nonresidential construction should move to a lower but more sustainable pace. Bank lending conditions have tightened sharply for the past year, but in public credit markets, many businesses refinanced while rates were still low. 
Turning to the housing market, we expect home sales to be weak in the first half of next year, but activity should pick up in the second half and further into 2025. And that's primarily because affordability will improve. We also think homebuilding activity will be stronger in the second half of next year. Home prices should see modest declines as growth in inventory offsets the increase in demand. By 2025 with lower rates existing home sales should rise more convincingly. 
We see job growth slowing throughout the forecast horizon, although we expect the unemployment rate to remain low because companies will still be focused on retaining headcount. And the labor force participation rate should continue to recover, with real wage growth increasing in 2024 and 2025. 
Now, inflation, which was at record highs last year, has been decelerating, mainly driven by core goods deflation and disinflation in housing. We expect negative monthly data releases for core goods inflation through the forecast horizon. 
So we continue to think that the Fed is done to here, that back in July of this year, the funds rate peaked at 5.375% for this cycle, and we think they're on hold now until June 2024, when we expect the Fed to take its first cautious step with a 25 basis point cut, followed by a 25 basis point cut one quarter later in September. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Fed will likely begin cutting 25 basis points every meeting, eventually bringing the real rate to .4% by the fourth quarter of 2025, when core inflation, GDP growth and unemployment are near neutral. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AqWsxOeUWLS9ZIDq7caRqiV6Ls4yR5PRNq0WQGrcFVoFri, 17 Nov 2023 23:07:37 +0000gtyOur Chief U.S. Economist previews the key economic themes of 2024, including potential rate cuts, housing affordability, job growth and more.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Ellen Zentner. Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Ellen Zentner. Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our 2024 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, November 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
You may remember that back in March 2022, we called for a soft landing for the U.S. economy. And we still maintain this view, even though strains in the economy are becoming more noticeable and recession fears remain alive. And that's because the Fed's monetary policy is weighing increasingly on growth and especially next year. High rates for longer are causing a persistent drag, bringing growth sustainably below potential over our forecast horizon. We forecast that U.S. GDP growth slows from an estimated 2.5% this year on a Q4 over Q4 basis to 1.6% in 2024 and 1.4% in 2025. 
We also expect U.S. consumer spending to begin to slow more meaningfully in 2024 and 2025, driven by a cooling labor market which weighs on real disposable income and elevated rates, putting further pressure on debt service costs. 
But there are some positive indicators for the year ahead as well. We think that business investment and equipment will finally turn positive by the second half of next year following two years of decline, while the surge in nonresidential construction should move to a lower but more sustainable pace. Bank lending conditions have tightened sharply for the past year, but in public credit markets, many businesses refinanced while rates were still low. 
Turning to the housing market, we expect home sales to be weak in the first half of next year, but activity should pick up in the second half and further into 2025. And that's primarily because affordability will improve. We also think homebuilding activity will be stronger in the second half of next year. Home prices should see modest declines as growth in inventory offsets the increase in demand. By 2025 with lower rates existing home sales should rise more convincingly. 
We see job growth slowing throughout the forecast horizon, although we expect the unemployment rate to remain low because companies will still be focused on retaining headcount. And the labor force participation rate should continue to recover, with real wage growth increasing in 2024 and 2025. 
Now, inflation, which was at record highs last year, has been decelerating, mainly driven by core goods deflation and disinflation in housing. We expect negative monthly data releases for core goods inflation through the forecast horizon. 
So we continue to think that the Fed is done to here, that back in July of this year, the funds rate peaked at 5.375% for this cycle, and we think they're on hold now until June 2024, when we expect the Fed to take its first cautious step with a 25 basis point cut, followed by a 25 basis point cut one quarter later in September. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Fed will likely begin cutting 25 basis points every meeting, eventually bringing the real rate to .4% by the fourth quarter of 2025, when core inflation, GDP growth and unemployment are near neutral. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>205false1001fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/serena-tang-the-return-of-the-60-40-portfolio--75652987----- Transcript -----Welcome to your Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our long run expectations for what markets will return in 2024. It's Thursday, November 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
2023 has seen a relentless rise in government bond yields. This has hit total multi-asset returns this year, while also lifting nominal expected returns over the long run for fixed income and stocks above historical averages. U.S. equities are expected to return about 9.6% per year for the next decade, little change from the level last year. While ten year U.S. Treasuries are projected to be at 5.8%, up quite significantly from 4.7% in 2022. But the steeper climb in nominal long run expected returns for government bonds is also eroded risk premiums, that is the investment returns assets are expected to yield over and above risk free assets. For example, the equity risk premium for U.S. stocks sits at around 3.8%, down from 4.9% just a year ago. 
Given soaring yields over the last three months, it's understandable why some investors may be skeptical of fixed income. Except today's higher yields are a strong reason to buy bonds because they can better cushion fixed income returns. 
In fact, looking across assets, fixed income stands as being particularly cheap to equities relative to history. European and Japanese equities screen cheap to most other assets on an FX-hedged basis, and Euro-denominated assets look cheap to dollar denominated assets. Furthermore, our estimated optimal allocation to agency mortgage backed securities has increased at the expense of investment grade credit over the past year, reflecting how cheap mortgages are relative to other markets. 
Against this backdrop, a traditional 60/40 portfolio which allocates 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds and carries a moderate level of risk, looks viable once again despite its poor performance in 2022, when both stocks and bonds suffered greatly amid record inflation and aggressive interest rate hikes. From where we sit now, the high long run expected returns across most assets mean that a traditional 60/40 equity bond dollar portfolio would see about 8% per year over the next decade. The last time it was this high was in 2013 and surely a 60/40 equity bond euro portfolio could see 7.7% per year over the next 10 years, the most elevated since 2011.
While long-run expected returns have climbed higher, unfortunately for 60/40 strategies correlation has surged. We still think there's some diversification benefits/volatility reduction in a 60/40 portfolio from bonds’ low risk rather than low correlation, but the rise in bond volatility has also challenged this fear. The big question here is whether the high correlation between stocks and bonds will normalize. There's an argument that it won't, and perhaps surprisingly, it's all to do with A.I. Now, for the last three decades or so, the positive relationship between growth and inflation has been an important factor on negative correlation between stocks and bonds. Higher inflation erodes bond returns, and that's offset by higher stock returns from rising growth and vice versa. 
But in the case of A.I technology diffusions, we can see a boost to growth and reduction in inflation in the short run, which in turn challenges assumptions that stock and bond returns will have low to negative correlations in the future. In other words, bonds, as was the case this year, would no longer be the good diversifier they have been over the last three decades. 
Timing and sequencing will matter, and how A.I. may impact growth inflation correlations is only one of many factors that can move multi-asset correlation over time. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zN2UFtiTSkTxQP73AURsQv4fQqBSH1RJ05p6kfuIZgUThu, 16 Nov 2023 22:06:41 +0000gtyAfter poor performance in 2022, a traditional 60/40 equity/bond portfolio could see an annual return around 8% over the next decade. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to your Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset...----- Transcript -----Welcome to your Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our long run expectations for what markets will return in 2024. It's Thursday, November 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
2023 has seen a relentless rise in government bond yields. This has hit total multi-asset returns this year, while also lifting nominal expected returns over the long run for fixed income and stocks above historical averages. U.S. equities are expected to return about 9.6% per year for the next decade, little change from the level last year. While ten year U.S. Treasuries are projected to be at 5.8%, up quite significantly from 4.7% in 2022. But the steeper climb in nominal long run expected returns for government bonds is also eroded risk premiums, that is the investment returns assets are expected to yield over and above risk free assets. For example, the equity risk premium for U.S. stocks sits at around 3.8%, down from 4.9% just a year ago. 
Given soaring yields over the last three months, it's understandable why some investors may be skeptical of fixed income. Except today's higher yields are a strong reason to buy bonds because they can better cushion fixed income returns. 
In fact, looking across assets, fixed income stands as being particularly cheap to equities relative to history. European and Japanese equities screen cheap to most other assets on an FX-hedged basis, and Euro-denominated assets look cheap to dollar denominated assets. Furthermore, our estimated optimal allocation to agency mortgage backed securities has increased at the expense of investment grade credit over the past year, reflecting how cheap mortgages are relative to other markets. 
Against this backdrop, a traditional 60/40 portfolio which allocates 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds and carries a moderate level of risk, looks viable once again despite its poor performance in 2022, when both stocks and bonds suffered greatly amid record inflation and aggressive interest rate hikes. From where we sit now, the high long run expected returns across most assets mean that a traditional 60/40 equity bond dollar portfolio would see about 8% per year over the next decade. The last time it was this high was in 2013 and surely a 60/40 equity bond euro portfolio could see 7.7% per year over the next 10 years, the most elevated since 2011.
While long-run expected returns have climbed higher, unfortunately for 60/40 strategies correlation has surged. We still think there's some diversification benefits/volatility reduction in a 60/40 portfolio from bonds’ low risk rather than low correlation, but the rise in bond volatility has also challenged this fear. The big question here is whether the high correlation between stocks and bonds will normalize. There's an argument that it won't, and perhaps surprisingly, it's all to do with A.I. Now, for the last three decades or so, the positive relationship between growth and inflation has been an important factor on negative correlation between stocks and bonds. Higher inflation erodes bond returns, and that's offset by higher stock returns from rising growth and vice versa. 
But in the case of A.I technology diffusions, we can see a boost to growth and reduction in inflation in the short run, which in turn challenges assumptions that stock and bond returns will have low to negative correlations in the future. In other words, bonds, as was the case this year, would no longer be the good diversifier they have been over the last three decades. 
Timing and sequencing will matter, and how A.I. may impact growth inflation correlations is only one of many factors that can move multi-asset correlation over time. 
Thanks for...]]>260false1000fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-what-should-i-do-with-my-money--75653100For more information visit morganstanley.com/mymoney.  ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gcD3j6VsjVczjpqKBdAlafTG3P-x6A5eaYQz8MvGWrsWed, 15 Nov 2023 22:07:58 +0000gtyIf you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in another of our podcasts: What Should I Do With My...For more information visit morganstanley.com/mymoney.  ]]>185false999fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/macro-economy-the-2024-outlook-part-2--75652901----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets in 2024. It's Tuesday, November 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Yesterday you heard from Seth Carpenter, our Global Chief Economist, and Mike Wilson, our Chief Investment Officer and the Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. I am joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist, James Lord, the Global Head of Currency and Emerging Markets Strategy, Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Credit Research, and Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, 2023 was quite a year for long end government bond yields globally. We saw dramatic curve inversion and long end yields reaching levels we had not seen in well over a decade. We've also seen both dramatic sell offs and dramatic rallies, even just in the last few weeks. Against this background, how do you see the outlook for government bond yields in 2024? 
Matt Hornbach: So we're calling our 2024 outlook for government bond markets the land of confusion. And it's because bond markets were whipped around so much by central banks in 2023 and in 2022. In the end, what central banks gave in terms of accommodative monetary policy in 2020 and 2021, they more than took away in 2022 and this past year. At least when it came to interest rate related monetary policies. 2024, of course, is going to be a pretty confusing year for investors because, as you've heard, our economists do think that rates are going to be coming down, but so too will balance sheets. 
But for the past couple of years, both G10 and EM central banks have raised rates to levels that we haven't seen in decades. Considering the possibility that equilibrium rates have trended lower over the past few decades, central bank policy rates may be actually much more restricted today than at any point since the 1970s. But, you know, we can't say the same for central bank balance sheets, even though they've been shrinking for well over a year now. They're still larger than before the pandemic. 
Now, our economists forecast continued declines in the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. But nevertheless, in aggregate, the balance sheet sizes of these G4 central banks will remain above their pre-pandemic levels at the end of 2024 and 2025.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, across the developed markets. Where do you see the best opportunity for investors in the government bond markets? 
Matt Hornbach: So Vishy we think most of the opportunities in 2024 will be in Europe given the diverging paths between eurozone countries. Germany, Austria and Portugal will benefit from supportive supply numbers, while another group, including Italy, Belgium and Ireland will likely witness a higher supply dynamic. Our call for a re widening of EGB spreads should actually last longer than we originally anticipated. 
Elsewhere in Europe, we're expecting the Bank of England to deliver 100 basis points of cumulative cuts by the end of 2024, and that compares to significantly less that's priced in by the market. Hence, our forecasts for gilts imply a much lower level of yields and a steeper yield curve than what you see implied in current forward rates. So the UK probably presents the best duration and curve opportunity set in 2024. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Matt. James, a strong dollar driven by upside surprises to U.S. growth and higher for longer narrative that has a world during the year characterized the strong dollar view for much of the year. How do you assess 2024 to be? And what differences do you expect between developed markets and emerging market currency markets? 
James Lord: So we expect the recent strengthening of US dollar to continue for a while longer. This stronger for a longer view on the US dollar is driven by some familiar drivers to what we witnessed in 2023, but with a little bit of nuance. So first, growth. US growth, while slowing, is expected to outperform consensus expectations and remain near potential growth rates in the first half of 2024. This is going to contrast quite sharply with recessionary or near recessionary conditions in Europe and pretty uncompelling rates of growth in China. 
The second reason we see continued dollar strength is rate differentials. So when we look at our US and European rate strategy teams forecasts, they have rates moving in favor of the dollar. Final reason is defense, really. The dollar likely is going to keep outperforming other currencies around the world due to its pretty defensive characteristics in a world of continued low growth, and downside risks from very tight central bank monetary policy and geopolitical risks. The dollar not only offers liquidity and safe haven status, but also high yields, which is of course making it pretty appealing. 
We don't expect this early strength in US Dollar to last all year, though, as fiscal support for the US economy falls back and the impact of high rates takes over, US growth slows down and the Fed starts to cut around the middle of the year. And once it starts cutting, our U.S. econ team expects it to cut all the way back to 2.25 to 2.5% by the end of 2025. So a deep easing cycle. As that outlook gets increasingly priced into the US rates, market rate differentials start moving against the dollar to push the currency down. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, we are ending 2023 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, especially at the higher quality end of the trade market. How do you expect this quality based divergence across global trade markets to play out in 2024? 
Andrew Sheets: That's right. We see a generally supportive environment for credit in 2024, aided by supportive fundamentals, supportive technicals and average valuations. Corporate credit, especially investment grade, is part of a constellation of high quality fixed income that we see putting up good returns next year, both outright and risk adjusted. 
When we talk about credit being part of this constellation of quality and looking attractive relative to other assets, it's important to appreciate the cross-asset valuations, especially relative to equities, really have moved. For most of the last 20 years the earnings yield on the S&P 500, that is the total earnings you get from the index relative to what you pay for it, has been much higher than the yield on U.S. triple B rated corporate bonds. But that's now flipped with the yield on corporate bonds now higher to one of the greatest extents we've seen outside of a crisis in 20 years. Theoretically, this higher yield on corporate bonds relative to the equity market should suggest a better relative valuation of the former. 
So what are we seeing now from companies? Well companies are buying back less stock and also issuing less debt than expected, exactly what you'd expect if companies saw the cost of their debt as high relative to where the equities are valued. 
A potential undershoot in corporate bonds supply could be met with higher bond demand. We've seen enormous year to date flows into money market funds that have absolutely dwarfed the flows into credit. But if the Fed really is done raising rates and is going to start to cut rates next year, as Morgan Stanley's economists expect, this could help push some of this money currently sitting in money market funds into bond funds, as investors look to lock in higher yields for longer. 
Against this backdrop, we think the credit valuations, for lack of a better word, are fine. With major markets in both the U.S. and Europe generally trading around their long term median and high yield looking a little bit expensive to investment grade within this. Valuations in Asia are the richest in our view, and that's especially true given the heightened economic uncertainty we see in the region. We think that credit curves offer an important way for investors to maximize the return of these kind of average spreads. And we like the 3 to 5 year part of the U.S. credit curve and the 5 to 10 year part of the investment grade curve in Europe the most. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. Jay, 2023 was indeed a tough year for the agency in the US market, but for the US housing market it held up quite remarkably, despite the higher mortgage rates. As you look ahead to 2024, what is the outlook for US housing and the agency MBS markets and what are the key drivers of your expectations? 
Jay Bacow: Let's start off with the broader housing market before we get into the views for agency mortgages. Given our outlook for rates to rally next year, my co-head of securitized products research Jim Egan, who also runs US housing, thinks that we should expect affordability to improve and for sale inventory to increase. Both of these developments are constructive for housing activity, but the latter provides a potential counterbalance for home prices. 
Now, affordability will still be challenged, but the direction of travel matters. He expects housing activity to be stronger in the second half of '24 and for new home sales to increase more than existing home sales over the course of the full year. Home prices should see modest declines as the growth in inventory offsets the increased demand. But it's important to stress here that we believe homeowners retain strong hands in the cycle. We don't believe they will be forced sellers into materially weaker bids, and as such, we don't expect any sizable correction in prices. But we]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/1bPvHwKIEq6SGS-T2z0AJahbuw4VWw2Dj6Kwco9Um60Wed, 15 Nov 2023 00:34:58 +0000gtyOur roundtable discussion on the future of the global economy and markets continues, as our analysts preview what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, housing and more.  ----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets in 2024. It's Tuesday, November 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Yesterday you heard from Seth Carpenter, our Global Chief Economist, and Mike Wilson, our Chief Investment Officer and the Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. I am joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist, James Lord, the Global Head of Currency and Emerging Markets Strategy, Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Credit Research, and Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, 2023 was quite a year for long end government bond yields globally. We saw dramatic curve inversion and long end yields reaching levels we had not seen in well over a decade. We've also seen both dramatic sell offs and dramatic rallies, even just in the last few weeks. Against this background, how do you see the outlook for government bond yields in 2024? 
Matt Hornbach: So we're calling our 2024 outlook for government bond markets the land of confusion. And it's because bond markets were whipped around so much by central banks in 2023 and in 2022. In the end, what central banks gave in terms of accommodative monetary policy in 2020 and 2021, they more than took away in 2022 and this past year. At least when it came to interest rate related monetary policies. 2024, of course, is going to be a pretty confusing year for investors because, as you've heard, our economists do think that rates are going to be coming down, but so too will balance sheets. 
But for the past couple of years, both G10 and EM central banks have raised rates to levels that we haven't seen in decades. Considering the possibility that equilibrium rates have trended lower over the past few decades, central bank policy rates may be actually much more restricted today than at any point since the 1970s. But, you know, we can't say the same for central bank balance sheets, even though they've been shrinking for well over a year now. They're still larger than before the pandemic. 
Now, our economists forecast continued declines in the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. But nevertheless, in aggregate, the balance sheet sizes of these G4 central banks will remain above their pre-pandemic levels at the end of 2024 and 2025.
Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, across the developed markets. Where do you see the best opportunity for investors in the government bond markets? 
Matt Hornbach: So Vishy we think most of the opportunities in 2024 will be in Europe given the diverging paths between eurozone countries. Germany, Austria and Portugal will benefit from supportive supply numbers, while another group, including Italy, Belgium and Ireland will likely witness a higher supply dynamic. Our call for a re widening of EGB spreads should actually last longer than we originally anticipated. 
Elsewhere in Europe, we're expecting the Bank of England to deliver 100 basis points of cumulative cuts by the end of 2024, and that compares to significantly less that's priced in by the market. Hence, our forecasts for gilts imply a much lower level of yields and a steeper yield curve than what you see implied in current forward rates. So the UK probably presents the best duration and curve opportunity set in 2024. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Matt. James, a strong dollar driven by upside surprises to U.S. growth and higher for longer narrative that has a world during the year characterized the strong dollar view for much of...]]>632false998fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/macro-economy-the-2024-outlook--75653070----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur:  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today on the podcast we'll be hosting a very special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets by 2024. I am joined by my colleagues, Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. It's Monday, November 13th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks to both of you for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, so I am going to go right into it. Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2024, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy? 
Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Vishy. As we look forward over the next couple of years, there are a few key themes that we're seeing in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy. First, looks like global growth has stepped down this year relative to last year and we're expecting another modest step down in the global economy for 2024 and into 2025. Overall, what we're seeing in the developed market economies is restrictive monetary policy in general restraining growth, whereas we have much more mixed results in the emerging market world.
Inflation, though, is a clear theme around the world. Overall, we see the surge in inflation. That has been a theme in global markets for the past couple of years as having peaked and starting to come down. It's coming down primarily through consumer goods, but we do see that trend continuing over the next several years. 
That backdrop of inflation having peaked and coming down along with weaker growth means that we're setting ourselves up for overall a bit of an easing cycle for monetary policy. We are looking for the Fed and the ECB each to start an easing cycle in June of this year. For the Fed, it's because we see growth slowing down and inflation continuing to track down along the path that we see and that the Fed will come around to seeing. 
I would say the stark exception to this among developed market economies is the Bank of Japan. We have seen them already get to the de facto end of yield curve control. We think by the time we get to the January policy meeting, they will completely eliminate yield curve control formally and go from negative interest rate policy to zero interest rate policy. And then over the course of the next year or so, we think we're going to see very gradual, very tentative increases in the policy rate for Japan. So for every story, there's a little bit of a cross current going on. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Can you talk about some of the vulnerabilities for the global economy? What worries you most about your central case, about the global economy? 
Seth Carpenter: We put into the outlook a downside scenario where the current challenges in China, the risks, as we've said, of a debt deflation cycle, they really take over. What this would mean is that the policy response in beijing is insufficient to overcome the underlying dynamics there as debt is coming down, as inflation is weak and those things build on themselves. Kind of a smaller version of the lost decade of Japan. We think from there we could see some of that weakness just exported around the globe. And for us, that's one of the key downside risks to the global economy. I'd say in the opposite direction, the upside risk is maybe some of the strength that we see in the United States is just more persistent than we realize. Maybe it's the case that monetary policy really hasn't done enough. And we just heard Chair Powell talk about the possibility that if inflation doesn't come down or the economy doesn't slow enough, they could do more. And so we built in an alternate scenario to the upside where the US economy is just fundamentally stronger. Let me pass it back to you Vishy. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you Seth. Mike, next I'd like to go to you. 2023 was a challenging year for earnings growth, but we saw significant multiple expansion. How do you expect 2024 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities you see for equity markets in 2024? 
Mike Wilson: 2023 was obviously, you know, kind of a challenging year, I think, for a lot of equity managers because of this incredible dispersion that we saw between, kind of, how economies performed around the world and how that bled into company performance. And it was very different region by region. So, you know, first off, I would say US growth, the economic level was better than expected, better than the consensus expected for sure, and even better than our economists view, which was for a soft landing. China was, on the other hand, much worse than expected. The reopening really never materialized in any meaningful way, and that bled into both EM and European growth. 
I would say India and Japan surprised in the upside from a growth standpoint, and Japan was by far the star market this year. The index was up a lot, but also the average stock performed extremely well, which is very different than the US. India also had pretty good performance equity wise, but in the US we had this incredible divergence between the average stock and the S&P 500 benchmark index, with the average stock underperforming by as much as 12 or 1300 basis points. That's pretty unusual. So how do we explain that and what does that mean for next year? Well, look, we think that the fiscal support is starting to fade. It's in our forecast now. In other words, economic growth is likely to soften up, not a recession yet for 2024, but growth will be deteriorating. And we think that will bleed into further earnings deterioration. 
So for 2024, we continue to favor Japan, where the earnings of breadth has been the best looks to us, and that's in a new secular bull market. In the US, it's really a tale of two worlds. It's companies that have cost leadership or operational efficiency, a thing we've been espousing for the last two years. Those types of companies should continue to outperform into the first half of next year. And then eventually we suspect, will be flipping pretty aggressively to companies that have poor operational efficiency because we're going to want to catch the upside leverage as the economy kind of accelerates again in the back half of 2024 or maybe into 2025. But it's too early for that in our view.
Vishy Tirupattur: How do you expect the market breadth to evolve over 2024? Can you elaborate on your vision for market correction first and then recovery in the later part of 2024? 
Mike Wilson: Yes. In terms of the market breadth, we do ultimately think market breadth will bottom and start to turn up. But, you know, we have to resolve, kind of, the index price first. And this is why we've continued to maintain our $3900 price target for the S&P 500 for, you know, roughly year end of this year. That, of course, would argue you're not going to get a big rally in the year-end. And the reason we feel that way, it's an important observation, is that market breadth has deteriorated again very significantly over the last three months. And breadth typically leads the overall index. So until breadth bottoms out, it's very difficult for us to get bullish at the index level as well. So the way we see it playing out is over the next 3 to 6 months, we think the overall index will catch down to what the market breadth has been telling us and should lead us out of what has been, I think a pretty, you know, persistent bear market for the last two years, particularly for the average stock. 
And so we suspect we're going to be making some significant changes in both our sector recommendations. New themes will emerge. Some of that will be around existing themes. Perhaps AI will start to actually have a meaningful impact on overall productivity, something we see really evolving in 2025, more than 2024. But the market will start to get ahead of that. And so I think it's going to be another year to be very flexible. I'd say the best news is that although 2023 has been somewhat challenging for the average stock, it's been a great year for dispersion, meaning stock picking. And we think that's really the key theme going into 2024, stick with that high dispersion and stock picking mentality. And then, of course, there'll be an opportunity to kind of flip the factors and kind of what's working into the second half of next year. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our special year ahead roundtable, where we'll share our forecasts for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/5caiNurDJ3MeLUBBdzYHu_qOnWKLFoyUjqx2O2rDDDkTue, 14 Nov 2023 00:40:29 +0000gtyAs global growth takes a hit and inflation begins to cool, how does the road ahead look for central banks and investors? Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur hosts a roundtable with Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and Chief U.S. Equity...----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur:  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today on the podcast we'll be hosting a very special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets by 2024. I am joined by my colleagues, Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. It's Monday, November 13th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks to both of you for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, so I am going to go right into it. Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2024, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy? 
Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Vishy. As we look forward over the next couple of years, there are a few key themes that we're seeing in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy. First, looks like global growth has stepped down this year relative to last year and we're expecting another modest step down in the global economy for 2024 and into 2025. Overall, what we're seeing in the developed market economies is restrictive monetary policy in general restraining growth, whereas we have much more mixed results in the emerging market world.
Inflation, though, is a clear theme around the world. Overall, we see the surge in inflation. That has been a theme in global markets for the past couple of years as having peaked and starting to come down. It's coming down primarily through consumer goods, but we do see that trend continuing over the next several years. 
That backdrop of inflation having peaked and coming down along with weaker growth means that we're setting ourselves up for overall a bit of an easing cycle for monetary policy. We are looking for the Fed and the ECB each to start an easing cycle in June of this year. For the Fed, it's because we see growth slowing down and inflation continuing to track down along the path that we see and that the Fed will come around to seeing. 
I would say the stark exception to this among developed market economies is the Bank of Japan. We have seen them already get to the de facto end of yield curve control. We think by the time we get to the January policy meeting, they will completely eliminate yield curve control formally and go from negative interest rate policy to zero interest rate policy. And then over the course of the next year or so, we think we're going to see very gradual, very tentative increases in the policy rate for Japan. So for every story, there's a little bit of a cross current going on. 
Vishy Tirupattur: Can you talk about some of the vulnerabilities for the global economy? What worries you most about your central case, about the global economy? 
Seth Carpenter: We put into the outlook a downside scenario where the current challenges in China, the risks, as we've said, of a debt deflation cycle, they really take over. What this would mean is that the policy response in beijing is insufficient to overcome the underlying dynamics there as debt is coming down, as inflation is weak and those things build on themselves. Kind of a smaller version of the lost decade of Japan. We think from there we could see some of that weakness just exported around the globe. And for us, that's one of the key downside risks to the global economy. I'd say in the opposite direction, the upside risk is maybe some of the strength that we see in the United States is just more persistent than we realize. Maybe it's the case that monetary policy really hasn't done enough. And we just heard Chair Powell talk about the...]]>512false997fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-will-the-bond-market-suffer-from-tax-loss-selling--75653186----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 10th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the questions that's come up on my recent travels is the risk from so-called tax loss selling. Bonds of many stripes have had a tough year, and the concern would be that investors would like to sell now and crystallize any losses to offset other gains. 
Tax loss selling has been a recent driver of single stock performance, as often happens around this time of year, as noted by my colleague Michael Wilson, Morgan Stanley CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. But for corporate bonds, we think these risks look pretty modest. There are a few reasons why. 
First, while corporate bonds have had a tough year, the losses aren't particularly large and indeed have gotten a lot better in recent weeks, as yields have started to rally. US investment grade bonds or the U.S. aggregate bond index is plus or minus a couple of percentage points, and we're just not sure these are big enough losses for investors to take action. In equity markets, you generally need much larger drawdowns to generate year end tax selling. 
Second, the investor bases are different. Equity markets tend to see much more participation in individual stocks, which creates opportunities for tax loss harvesting. Investment credit, especially among individual investors, is more commonly done through funds, where the smaller drawdowns I just mentioned would mean less incentive to take action. These different investor bases also have different motivations. We think many individual investors, whether through funds or individual securities, invest in corporate bonds for a stable long term income. We think they're simply less likely to have the sort of trading mindset of the average investor holding stocks. 
Meanwhile, institutions who hold corporate bonds also face constraints. While some may sell for a capital gains offset, others face a penalty for realizing such a loss and thus are more incentivized to hold these securities they believe remain ultimately creditworthy. And for long dated corporate bonds, which have the largest year to date losses, well, those are certainly enjoying some of the strongest end-buyer demand. 
Finally, we think any tax related selling we do see in the credit market could wash at the overall market level. Similar to equities, investors selling losers at year end don't necessarily drive down the market overall, as these funds are often recycled into other securities. And indeed, October through December, when tax loss selling usually occurs, are seasonally strong months for the equity market or the credit market. And we think a similar thing could happen in corporate bonds, where investors who do sell a corporate bond fund for a tax loss may be likely to recycle this into another part of the bond market. 
Total returns for corporate bonds have been tough year-to-date, but we're skeptical that these would lead to tax loss selling and another like lower. The modest scale of year-to-date losses, the nature of the investor base and the potential for any such sales to be recycled into other parts of the market are all reasons why. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/v6I7pv7z2RhbHvYHbgZJDqvYEo0drPxYYYolOjk0oOIFri, 10 Nov 2023 20:36:05 +0000gtyInvestors whose corporate bond holdings have lost value in 2023 could sell before the end of the year, locking in their losses to offset gains elsewhere. Here are three reasons that they probably won’t. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 10th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the questions that's come up on my recent travels is the risk from so-called tax loss selling. Bonds of many stripes have had a tough year, and the concern would be that investors would like to sell now and crystallize any losses to offset other gains. 
Tax loss selling has been a recent driver of single stock performance, as often happens around this time of year, as noted by my colleague Michael Wilson, Morgan Stanley CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. But for corporate bonds, we think these risks look pretty modest. There are a few reasons why. 
First, while corporate bonds have had a tough year, the losses aren't particularly large and indeed have gotten a lot better in recent weeks, as yields have started to rally. US investment grade bonds or the U.S. aggregate bond index is plus or minus a couple of percentage points, and we're just not sure these are big enough losses for investors to take action. In equity markets, you generally need much larger drawdowns to generate year end tax selling. 
Second, the investor bases are different. Equity markets tend to see much more participation in individual stocks, which creates opportunities for tax loss harvesting. Investment credit, especially among individual investors, is more commonly done through funds, where the smaller drawdowns I just mentioned would mean less incentive to take action. These different investor bases also have different motivations. We think many individual investors, whether through funds or individual securities, invest in corporate bonds for a stable long term income. We think they're simply less likely to have the sort of trading mindset of the average investor holding stocks. 
Meanwhile, institutions who hold corporate bonds also face constraints. While some may sell for a capital gains offset, others face a penalty for realizing such a loss and thus are more incentivized to hold these securities they believe remain ultimately creditworthy. And for long dated corporate bonds, which have the largest year to date losses, well, those are certainly enjoying some of the strongest end-buyer demand. 
Finally, we think any tax related selling we do see in the credit market could wash at the overall market level. Similar to equities, investors selling losers at year end don't necessarily drive down the market overall, as these funds are often recycled into other securities. And indeed, October through December, when tax loss selling usually occurs, are seasonally strong months for the equity market or the credit market. And we think a similar thing could happen in corporate bonds, where investors who do sell a corporate bond fund for a tax loss may be likely to recycle this into another part of the bond market. 
Total returns for corporate bonds have been tough year-to-date, but we're skeptical that these would lead to tax loss selling and another like lower. The modest scale of year-to-date losses, the nature of the investor base and the potential for any such sales to be recycled into other parts of the market are all reasons why. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>195false996fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ed-stanley-weight-loss-drugs-and-the-global-economy--75653043----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the all important obesity theme and how it's impacting a wide range of industries. It's Thursday, November the 9th at 2 p.m. in London. 
GLP-1s, a type of anti-obesity medicine, have been on the market since 2010, but it's taken until 2023 for this theme to really come to life. We believe that GLP-1s will clearly have profound implications over the long term, both on a macro and micro level. Obesity has far reaching implications for the global economy as it leads to lost productivity and significant health care costs. We estimate the macro impact of obesity at 3.6% of US GDP, with potentially $1.24 trillion in lost productivity indirect costs. Anti-Obesity drugs have the potential to address at least some of this economic burden and at a reasonable cost. 
The micro implications on businesses year-to-date have seen about a $600 billion swing in market cap. That includes, to the upside, $340 billion for the GLP-1 makers and over $260 billion lost in market value for the stocks that are potentially disrupted. For context, that compares to a total US drug market of $430 billion annually. 
2023 saw an impressive surge in investor interest in anti-obesity drugs. Yet and perhaps surprising to some based on hashtag and web traffic data we track, consumer interest appears to have waned in recent weeks. We think this notable dip from the peak in activity is driven in part by supply constraints, paused geographic expansion and curtailed promotional activity. 
Importantly though, this fade in initial consumer excitement is occurring at the same time that company transcript mentions of obesity or GLP-1 by non-pharma companies are reaching new highs. This disconnect between sain street moderation and excitement versus Wall Street's rise in excitement, is very typical of short term hype cycle tops in equity markets, particularly given the current environment of higher interest rates. 
But even as the initial buzz around obesity drugs is fading back to more moderate levels in the near term, we do believe there will be wide ranging implications over the long term that are hard to deny. And our global analysts have been all over this on a sector by sector basis. 
First off, we believe that US alcohol beverages per capita will correct due to abnormally high consumption in recent years and longer term structural challenges such as demographic, health and wellness. For beer growing adoption of obesity medication presents an incremental risk factor to consumption, although many of these companies are already working on healthier options. 
Across packaged foods, patients on anti-obesity medications have been cutting back the most on foods high in sugar and fat, such as confections, baked goods, salty snacks, sugary drinks and alcohol. Companies with a weight management or better for you portfolio appear to be better positioned for here. 
Within US food retail, we think dollar stores which target lower end consumers with outsized exposure to high calorie foods, will be the most adversely impacted in the context of increased adoption of these drugs. Separately, insulin pump makers should be only minimally impacted, we think, by GLPs by 2027, which suggests that the share price reaction to the downside for these stocks year-to-date may be materially overdone. 
Obesity has a direct impact on osteoarthritis, with about twice the prevalence of arthritis in obese versus non obese patients. A much higher need for arthroplasty with higher BMIs and obese patients having higher surgical complications. GLP-1 usage could have some complex effects on these ortho stocks. 
We also see longer term risk for most of the US and European fast food industry. The same goes for carbonated sugary drinks and for chocolate lovers out there, the rising GLP-1 adoption could pressure chocolate consumption longer term. But the magnitude of these impacts remains uncertain, as indulgence will still remain a core consumer need even in this new GLP-1 paradigm. 
All in all, we remain bullish on the anti-obesity drug market, particularly given the staggering 750 million people globally living with obesity, and this continues to be a dynamic space for investors to watch closely. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hfId8hP-6uVmfKQtNqORpYAs4YG8irdsfgJ1xSJYQQEThu, 09 Nov 2023 22:38:32 +0000gtyDespite some falloff in consumer interest, anti-obesity drugs are still likely to have profound implications at both the macro and sectoral level. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the all important obesity theme and how it's impacting a wide range of industries. It's Thursday, November the 9th at 2 p.m. in London. 
GLP-1s, a type of anti-obesity medicine, have been on the market since 2010, but it's taken until 2023 for this theme to really come to life. We believe that GLP-1s will clearly have profound implications over the long term, both on a macro and micro level. Obesity has far reaching implications for the global economy as it leads to lost productivity and significant health care costs. We estimate the macro impact of obesity at 3.6% of US GDP, with potentially $1.24 trillion in lost productivity indirect costs. Anti-Obesity drugs have the potential to address at least some of this economic burden and at a reasonable cost. 
The micro implications on businesses year-to-date have seen about a $600 billion swing in market cap. That includes, to the upside, $340 billion for the GLP-1 makers and over $260 billion lost in market value for the stocks that are potentially disrupted. For context, that compares to a total US drug market of $430 billion annually. 
2023 saw an impressive surge in investor interest in anti-obesity drugs. Yet and perhaps surprising to some based on hashtag and web traffic data we track, consumer interest appears to have waned in recent weeks. We think this notable dip from the peak in activity is driven in part by supply constraints, paused geographic expansion and curtailed promotional activity. 
Importantly though, this fade in initial consumer excitement is occurring at the same time that company transcript mentions of obesity or GLP-1 by non-pharma companies are reaching new highs. This disconnect between sain street moderation and excitement versus Wall Street's rise in excitement, is very typical of short term hype cycle tops in equity markets, particularly given the current environment of higher interest rates. 
But even as the initial buzz around obesity drugs is fading back to more moderate levels in the near term, we do believe there will be wide ranging implications over the long term that are hard to deny. And our global analysts have been all over this on a sector by sector basis. 
First off, we believe that US alcohol beverages per capita will correct due to abnormally high consumption in recent years and longer term structural challenges such as demographic, health and wellness. For beer growing adoption of obesity medication presents an incremental risk factor to consumption, although many of these companies are already working on healthier options. 
Across packaged foods, patients on anti-obesity medications have been cutting back the most on foods high in sugar and fat, such as confections, baked goods, salty snacks, sugary drinks and alcohol. Companies with a weight management or better for you portfolio appear to be better positioned for here. 
Within US food retail, we think dollar stores which target lower end consumers with outsized exposure to high calorie foods, will be the most adversely impacted in the context of increased adoption of these drugs. Separately, insulin pump makers should be only minimally impacted, we think, by GLPs by 2027, which suggests that the share price reaction to the downside for these stocks year-to-date may be materially overdone. 
Obesity has a direct impact on osteoarthritis, with about twice the prevalence of arthritis in obese versus non obese patients. A much higher need for arthroplasty with higher BMIs and obese patients having higher surgical complications. GLP-1 usage could have some complex...]]>285false995fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-are-the-worst-bond-returns-behind-us--75653031----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of U.S. fiscal policy on markets. It's Wednesday, November 8th at 10 p.m. in New York. 
As Congress gets back to work on funding the government and avoiding a government shutdown, investors' attention has turned back to public finances. In particular, as bond markets sold off much of the year, a common theory posited by clients to our team was that U.S. fiscal policy was to blame. Expanding deficits meant higher supply and could also mean higher inflation, growth and ultimately a higher peak Fed funds rate. 
But upon closer examination, maybe the U.S. fiscal trajectory isn't as challenging as feared, and the bond market may be finally noticing. Treasuries have rallied in the past week. Which makes sense to us as our assessment is that U.S. fiscal expansion at all levels has either peaked or is near its peak. 
Consider that the federal deficit this year rose largely based on lower revenues driven by factors that are unlikely to repeat. For example, Fed remittances zeroed out, and there's about $85 billion of deferred collection of tax revenue due to natural disasters. Together with other factors, we think this year's nearly 1% growth in deficits as a percentage of GDP will be followed next year by a decline of about 0.2%. Further downside is possible if a spending sequester kicks in, in April. 
Also, consider that major deficit expansion isn't likely to be on Congress's agenda. Between now and the 2024 election, there's little reason to expect deficit expanding bills beyond the current baseline. Government control is divided, and history shows that makeup rarely does fiscal expansion unless it's responding to an economic crisis. After Election Day, Republicans and Democrats do have deficit additive policies they say they want to pursue, but the numbers are relatively modest. Republicans' plan to extend parts of prior tax cuts would add about 0.3% to deficits as a percentage of GDP in the first year, and we estimate the consensus tax and spending plans of Democrats would add about 0.1%, both manageable numbers. Also worth noting is that state and local governments seem near their peak fiscal expansion. Their recent expansion appears tied to spending of prior COVID aid, which is quickly depleting, as well as hiring, which is nearly back to pre-COVID levels. 
So bottom line, if you're concerned about Treasury yields resuming their upward trend, look elsewhere for a catalyst. Consumption would be the most likely culprit but at the moment, our economists are still seeing downside there in the near term. This gives us confidence that the worst of U.S. government bond returns is probably behind us for this cycle. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/afc_zZCkj2LWoRPsIq7O7t_Gd2LhQfTMFLgp0bGQ7WAWed, 08 Nov 2023 21:22:28 +0000gtyThe recent treasury rally signals that perhaps the U.S. fiscal trajectory isn't as challenging as bond investors had feared. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of U.S. fiscal policy on markets. It's Wednesday, November 8th at 10 p.m. in New York. 
As Congress gets back to work on funding the government and avoiding a government shutdown, investors' attention has turned back to public finances. In particular, as bond markets sold off much of the year, a common theory posited by clients to our team was that U.S. fiscal policy was to blame. Expanding deficits meant higher supply and could also mean higher inflation, growth and ultimately a higher peak Fed funds rate. 
But upon closer examination, maybe the U.S. fiscal trajectory isn't as challenging as feared, and the bond market may be finally noticing. Treasuries have rallied in the past week. Which makes sense to us as our assessment is that U.S. fiscal expansion at all levels has either peaked or is near its peak. 
Consider that the federal deficit this year rose largely based on lower revenues driven by factors that are unlikely to repeat. For example, Fed remittances zeroed out, and there's about $85 billion of deferred collection of tax revenue due to natural disasters. Together with other factors, we think this year's nearly 1% growth in deficits as a percentage of GDP will be followed next year by a decline of about 0.2%. Further downside is possible if a spending sequester kicks in, in April. 
Also, consider that major deficit expansion isn't likely to be on Congress's agenda. Between now and the 2024 election, there's little reason to expect deficit expanding bills beyond the current baseline. Government control is divided, and history shows that makeup rarely does fiscal expansion unless it's responding to an economic crisis. After Election Day, Republicans and Democrats do have deficit additive policies they say they want to pursue, but the numbers are relatively modest. Republicans' plan to extend parts of prior tax cuts would add about 0.3% to deficits as a percentage of GDP in the first year, and we estimate the consensus tax and spending plans of Democrats would add about 0.1%, both manageable numbers. Also worth noting is that state and local governments seem near their peak fiscal expansion. Their recent expansion appears tied to spending of prior COVID aid, which is quickly depleting, as well as hiring, which is nearly back to pre-COVID levels. 
So bottom line, if you're concerned about Treasury yields resuming their upward trend, look elsewhere for a catalyst. Consumption would be the most likely culprit but at the moment, our economists are still seeing downside there in the near term. This gives us confidence that the worst of U.S. government bond returns is probably behind us for this cycle. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>177false994fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/matt-cost-how-ai-could-disrupt-gaming--75653049----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost from the Morgan Stanley US Internet Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how A.I could change the video game industry. It's Tuesday, November 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
New A.I tools are starting to transform multiple industries, and it's hardly a surprise that the game industry could see a major impact as well. As manual tasks become more automated and the user experience becomes increasingly personalized, A.I. tools are starting to change the way that games are made and operated. Building video games involves many different disciplines, including software development, art and writing, among others. Many of these processes could become more automated over time, reducing the cost and complexity of making games and likely reducing barriers to entry. And since we expect the industry to spend over $100 billion this year building and operating games, there's a significant profit opportunity for the industry to become more efficient. 
Automated content creation could also offer more tailored experiences and purchase options to consumers in real time, potentially boosting engagement and consumer spending. Consider, for example, a game that not only makes offers when a consumer is most likely to spend money, but also generates in-game items designed to appeal to that specific person's preferences in real time. 
Beyond A.I generated content, we also need to consider the impact of user generated content. Some popular titles already depend on the users to shape the game around them, and this is another core area that could be transformed by A.I.. Faster and easier to use content creation tools could make it easier for games to tap into the creativity of their users. And as we've seen with major social platforms, relying on users to create content can be a big opportunity. 
With all that said, these transformational opportunities create downside risk as well. Today's large game publishers rely on their scale and domain expertise to differentiate their products from competitors. But while new A.I. tools could make game development more efficient, they could also lower barriers to entry for new competitors to jump into the fray and put pressure on the incumbents. 
Another risk is that A.I. tools could fail to drive the hope for efficiencies and cost savings in the first place. Not all technology breakthroughs in the past have helped the industry become more profitable. In some cases, industry leaders have decided to reinvest cost savings back into their products to make sure that they deliver bigger and better games to stay ahead of the competition. With that in mind, the biggest challenge for today's industry leaders could be making sure that they find ways to differentiate their products as A.I. tools make it easier for new firms to compete. 
Where does all of that leave us? Although a number of A.I. tools are already being used in the game industry today, adoption is just beginning to tick up and there's a lot of room for the tools to improve. With that in mind, we think we're just on the cusp of this A.I. driven revolution, and we may have to get through a few more castles to find the princess. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kRpYDnU2IGhSL96MCU-sC_1zE69imXdCDio9GrVH4-4Tue, 07 Nov 2023 20:51:24 +0000gtyAI could help video game companies boost engagement and consumer spending, but could also introduce competition by making it easier for new companies to enter the industry. ----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost from...----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost from the Morgan Stanley US Internet Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how A.I could change the video game industry. It's Tuesday, November 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
New A.I tools are starting to transform multiple industries, and it's hardly a surprise that the game industry could see a major impact as well. As manual tasks become more automated and the user experience becomes increasingly personalized, A.I. tools are starting to change the way that games are made and operated. Building video games involves many different disciplines, including software development, art and writing, among others. Many of these processes could become more automated over time, reducing the cost and complexity of making games and likely reducing barriers to entry. And since we expect the industry to spend over $100 billion this year building and operating games, there's a significant profit opportunity for the industry to become more efficient. 
Automated content creation could also offer more tailored experiences and purchase options to consumers in real time, potentially boosting engagement and consumer spending. Consider, for example, a game that not only makes offers when a consumer is most likely to spend money, but also generates in-game items designed to appeal to that specific person's preferences in real time. 
Beyond A.I generated content, we also need to consider the impact of user generated content. Some popular titles already depend on the users to shape the game around them, and this is another core area that could be transformed by A.I.. Faster and easier to use content creation tools could make it easier for games to tap into the creativity of their users. And as we've seen with major social platforms, relying on users to create content can be a big opportunity. 
With all that said, these transformational opportunities create downside risk as well. Today's large game publishers rely on their scale and domain expertise to differentiate their products from competitors. But while new A.I. tools could make game development more efficient, they could also lower barriers to entry for new competitors to jump into the fray and put pressure on the incumbents. 
Another risk is that A.I. tools could fail to drive the hope for efficiencies and cost savings in the first place. Not all technology breakthroughs in the past have helped the industry become more profitable. In some cases, industry leaders have decided to reinvest cost savings back into their products to make sure that they deliver bigger and better games to stay ahead of the competition. With that in mind, the biggest challenge for today's industry leaders could be making sure that they find ways to differentiate their products as A.I. tools make it easier for new firms to compete. 
Where does all of that leave us? Although a number of A.I. tools are already being used in the game industry today, adoption is just beginning to tick up and there's a lot of room for the tools to improve. With that in mind, we think we're just on the cusp of this A.I. driven revolution, and we may have to get through a few more castles to find the princess. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>180false993fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-will-the-equity-market-rally-last--75653110----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
With many stocks down more than 20% from the July highs, a dynamic punctuated by tax loss selling from institutional managers at the end of October, equity markets were primed for some kind of a bounce. However, last week's rally in equities was the largest that we've seen all year, and it was led by many of the year-to-date laggards. Furthermore, both market cap and equal weight versions of the S&P 500 index were up 5.9%, as breadth showed its first signs of life since June. 
In our view, this move in equities was more about the strong rally in bonds than anything else. After an historic rise this past quarter, ten year Treasury yields reached an attractive level of 5% near the end of last month. Perhaps even more attractive for investors to ignore was that real ten year yields were at 2.5%. One factor driving bond yields lower last week was the Treasury's announcement of its planned longer term securities issuance that was below expectations. We also attribute the move to the weaker than expected economic data releases last week, more specifically, manufacturing and services purchasing manager surveys fell by much more than expected. The labor market data also showed further signs of cooling. Specifically, continuing jobless claims are now up more than 35% from the cycle trough, and the unemployment rate is now up 0.5% from the lows, both of these are important thresholds in past labor cycles. Finally, revisions to prior non-farm payroll data have consistently been negative this year, while the Household Labor survey indicated we lost 348,000 jobs last month. Given the absolute level of yields in a slowing growth and inflation backdrop, bonds may finally be attracting larger asset owners and allocators. 
Meanwhile, earnings revision breadth remains well into negative territory, with the big growth stocks earnings results providing only modest stability to this important leading indicator. This year's earnings recession continues to play out, particularly at the stock level. This is one reason why broader indices and the average stock's performance within the S&P 500 have been so much weaker than the very concentrated market cap weighted S&P 500 index this year. 
From a tactical perspective, the underlying performance breadth remains weak, while several broader and equal weighted indices remain flat on the year, with elevated volatility. A challenging risk reward set up in the context of 5% plus risk free yields that are currently available in money markets and T-bills. Yet the number one question we continue to get is whether there will be a rally into year end. For equity only asset managers, that's an important question and debate, but for asset owners and allocators, the prospect of adding additional equity risk at current levels seems unattractive given these other alternatives. 
The bottom line, we think the strong rally in rates drove stocks higher last week. Bulls have interpreted this move as a signal the Fed is done hiking rates and is likely to cut next year without any material deterioration to the labor market or some other negative event for growth. In contrast, we believe that the rate decline was mainly a function of less than expected, longer dated bond issuance guidance from the Treasury combined with some signs that the economy is slowing from the torrid pace of the third quarter. This is in line with our economists' tepid forecast for the fourth quarter and 2024 GDP growth and supports our view that the earnings recession is not yet over. Such an outcome suggests last week's rally should fizzle out over the coming week or two as it becomes clear the growth picture does not support either Fed cuts or a significant acceleration in EPS growth in the near term. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Zu8cm1_XEQf8DiBZoM4syvA1IxhqRf5QA72PjIVMZzsMon, 06 Nov 2023 20:46:39 +0000gtyLast week’s uptick in stock prices, driven by a pullback in bond yields and the Fed’s decision to hold rates steady, is likely to fizzle over the coming weeks. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
With many stocks down more than 20% from the July highs, a dynamic punctuated by tax loss selling from institutional managers at the end of October, equity markets were primed for some kind of a bounce. However, last week's rally in equities was the largest that we've seen all year, and it was led by many of the year-to-date laggards. Furthermore, both market cap and equal weight versions of the S&P 500 index were up 5.9%, as breadth showed its first signs of life since June. 
In our view, this move in equities was more about the strong rally in bonds than anything else. After an historic rise this past quarter, ten year Treasury yields reached an attractive level of 5% near the end of last month. Perhaps even more attractive for investors to ignore was that real ten year yields were at 2.5%. One factor driving bond yields lower last week was the Treasury's announcement of its planned longer term securities issuance that was below expectations. We also attribute the move to the weaker than expected economic data releases last week, more specifically, manufacturing and services purchasing manager surveys fell by much more than expected. The labor market data also showed further signs of cooling. Specifically, continuing jobless claims are now up more than 35% from the cycle trough, and the unemployment rate is now up 0.5% from the lows, both of these are important thresholds in past labor cycles. Finally, revisions to prior non-farm payroll data have consistently been negative this year, while the Household Labor survey indicated we lost 348,000 jobs last month. Given the absolute level of yields in a slowing growth and inflation backdrop, bonds may finally be attracting larger asset owners and allocators. 
Meanwhile, earnings revision breadth remains well into negative territory, with the big growth stocks earnings results providing only modest stability to this important leading indicator. This year's earnings recession continues to play out, particularly at the stock level. This is one reason why broader indices and the average stock's performance within the S&P 500 have been so much weaker than the very concentrated market cap weighted S&P 500 index this year. 
From a tactical perspective, the underlying performance breadth remains weak, while several broader and equal weighted indices remain flat on the year, with elevated volatility. A challenging risk reward set up in the context of 5% plus risk free yields that are currently available in money markets and T-bills. Yet the number one question we continue to get is whether there will be a rally into year end. For equity only asset managers, that's an important question and debate, but for asset owners and allocators, the prospect of adding additional equity risk at current levels seems unattractive given these other alternatives. 
The bottom line, we think the strong rally in rates drove stocks higher last week. Bulls have interpreted this move as a signal the Fed is done hiking rates and is likely to cut next year without any material deterioration to the labor market or some other negative event for growth. In contrast, we believe that the rate decline was mainly a function of less than expected, longer dated bond issuance guidance from the Treasury combined with some signs that the economy is slowing from the torrid pace of the third quarter. This is in line with our economists' tepid forecast for the fourth...]]>241false992fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-upgrades-and-downgrades-in-corporate-credit--75653234----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. Downgrades in the loan market are moderating after a spike in 2022. That's good news overall, but still suggests an environment that will reward a higher quality bias in high yield investing. 
After rising throughout last year, net downgrade activity for U.S. leveraged loans, which represent corporate loans to below investment grade borrowers, have declined about 50%. The most extreme downgrades where issuers fall to a triple C rating, have moderated the most, while triple C upgrades have become more frequent, as companies have successfully refinanced upcoming debt. 
Fewer net downgrades, and especially less movement into this riskiest triple C cohort, is good news. And we think it's consistent with the idea that despite a near doubling of borrowing costs over the last two years, default rates will only rise to about average levels and not something higher and more alarming. But within this activity, we think there's also a message, the majority of the stress from those higher rates is falling on weaker borrowers. Investors should look to move up in quality. 
Why do we think this? When interest rates rise, the impact on borrowers happens gradually, rather than all at once, since borrowers are still likely to have some debt outstanding that was taken out when rates were lower. That means that today's financial metrics and ratings may still not fully reflect the impact of the unusually fast rise in borrowing costs. 
That still to come impact, could fall most heavily on loan issuers rated B3/B-, the last step above the lowest triple C tier. My colleagues Vishwas Patkar and Joyce Jiang of the U.S. Credit Strategy team estimate that by the end of this year, over 1/3 of these issuers could have an interest coverage ratio, which represents the ratio of your cash flow to your borrowing costs, below 1.3x, even if their earnings are flat. In a scenario where growth is even weaker this year, that share would be even higher. 
And despite these low single B's facing the most risk from higher borrowing costs, in our view, markets aren't charging a particularly large premium to avoid them. The extra spread that an investor gets from moving down to a B- credit from the notches above, is near the lowest of the last ten years. 
And our up and quality bias isn't just about playing defense, as higher rated issuers are generally seeing better ratings transition trends. Double B rated credits are posting more upgrades than downgrades and outperforming lower rated single B's or triple C's. And even higher rated triple B credits are posting an even larger volume of upgrades relative to downgrades over the last 12 months. Ratings actions are stabilizing and suggest extreme outcomes for default rates are likely to be avoided. But given fundamentals and pricing, moving up in quality still makes sense. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BxtcY3L16dNH0eZ3MsyzjH1TyW_MMKF_T0wFP8MB0CIFri, 03 Nov 2023 20:24:35 +0000gtyAs the majority of the stress from higher rates falls on weaker borrowers, investors should consider moving up in quality. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. Downgrades in the loan market are moderating after a spike in 2022. That's good news overall, but still suggests an environment that will reward a higher quality bias in high yield investing. 
After rising throughout last year, net downgrade activity for U.S. leveraged loans, which represent corporate loans to below investment grade borrowers, have declined about 50%. The most extreme downgrades where issuers fall to a triple C rating, have moderated the most, while triple C upgrades have become more frequent, as companies have successfully refinanced upcoming debt. 
Fewer net downgrades, and especially less movement into this riskiest triple C cohort, is good news. And we think it's consistent with the idea that despite a near doubling of borrowing costs over the last two years, default rates will only rise to about average levels and not something higher and more alarming. But within this activity, we think there's also a message, the majority of the stress from those higher rates is falling on weaker borrowers. Investors should look to move up in quality. 
Why do we think this? When interest rates rise, the impact on borrowers happens gradually, rather than all at once, since borrowers are still likely to have some debt outstanding that was taken out when rates were lower. That means that today's financial metrics and ratings may still not fully reflect the impact of the unusually fast rise in borrowing costs. 
That still to come impact, could fall most heavily on loan issuers rated B3/B-, the last step above the lowest triple C tier. My colleagues Vishwas Patkar and Joyce Jiang of the U.S. Credit Strategy team estimate that by the end of this year, over 1/3 of these issuers could have an interest coverage ratio, which represents the ratio of your cash flow to your borrowing costs, below 1.3x, even if their earnings are flat. In a scenario where growth is even weaker this year, that share would be even higher. 
And despite these low single B's facing the most risk from higher borrowing costs, in our view, markets aren't charging a particularly large premium to avoid them. The extra spread that an investor gets from moving down to a B- credit from the notches above, is near the lowest of the last ten years. 
And our up and quality bias isn't just about playing defense, as higher rated issuers are generally seeing better ratings transition trends. Double B rated credits are posting more upgrades than downgrades and outperforming lower rated single B's or triple C's. And even higher rated triple B credits are posting an even larger volume of upgrades relative to downgrades over the last 12 months. Ratings actions are stabilizing and suggest extreme outcomes for default rates are likely to be avoided. But given fundamentals and pricing, moving up in quality still makes sense. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>194false991fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-economy-what-generative-ai-means-for-the-labor-market--75653207----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the Global Chief Economist. 
Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how generative A.I. could reshape the US economy and the labor market. It's Thursday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: If we think back to the early 90's, few could have predicted just how revolutionary the Internet would become. Creating entirely new professions and industries with a wide ranging impact on labor and global economies. And yet with generative A.I. here we are again on the cusp of a revolution. So, Seth, as our global chief economist, you've been assessing the overarching macro implications of the Gen A.I. phenomenon. And while it's still early days, I know you've been thinking about the range of impacts Gen A.I could have on the global economy. I wondered if you could walk us through the broad parameters of your thinking around macro impacts and maybe starting with the productivity and the labor market side of things? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Stephen. And I agree with you, the possibilities here are immense. The hardest part of all of this is trying to gauge just how big the effects might be, when they might happen and how soon anyone is going to be able to pick up on the true changes and things. But let's talk a little bit about those two components, productivity and the labor market. They are very closely connected to each other. So one of the key things about generative A.I is it could make lots of types of processes, lots of types of jobs, things that are very knowledge base intensive. You could do the same amount of work with fewer people or, and I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, you could do lots more work with the same number of people. And I think that distinction is really critical, lots of people and I'm sure you've heard this before, lots of people have a fear that generative A.I is going to come in and destroy lots of jobs and so we'll just have lots of people who are out of work. And I guess I'm at the margin a lot more optimistic than that. I really do think what we're going to end up seeing is more output with the same amount of workers, and indeed, as you alluded to before, more types of jobs than we've seen before. That doesn't exactly answer your question so let's jump into those broad parameters. If productivity goes up, what that means is we should see faster growth in the economy than we're used to seeing and I think that means things like GDP should be growing faster and that should have implications for equities. In addition, because more can get done with the same inputs, we should see some of the inflationary pressures that we're seeing now dissipate even more quickly. And what does that mean? Well, that means that at least in the short run, the central bank, the Fed in the U.S., can allow the economy to run a little bit hotter than you would have thought otherwise, because the inflationary pressures aren't there after all. Those are the two for me, the key things one, faster growth in the economy with the same amount of inputs and some lower inflationary pressures, which makes the central bank's job a little bit easier. 
Stephen Byrd: And Seth, as you think about specific sectors and regions of the global economy that might be most impacted by the adoption of Gen A.I., does anything stand out to you? 
Seth Carpenter: I mean, I really do think if we're focusing just on generative A.I, it really comes down, I think a lot to what can generative A.I do better. It's a lot of these large language models, a lot of that sort of knowledge based side of things. So the services sector of the economy seems more ripe for turnover than, say, the plain old fashion manufacturing sector. Now, I don't want to push that too far because there are clearly going to be lots of ways that people in all sectors will learn how to apply these technology. But I think the first place we see adoption is in some of the knowledge based sectors. So some of the prime candidates people like to point to are things like the legal profession where review of documents can be done much more quickly and efficiently with Gen A.I. In our industry, Stephen in the financial services industry, I have spoken with clients who are working to find ways to consume lots more information on lots of different types of firms so that as they're assessing equity market investments, they have better information, faster information and can invest in a broader set of firms than they had before. I really look to the knowledge based sectors of the economy as the first target. You know, so that Stephen is mostly how I'm thinking about it, but one of the things I love about these conversations with you is that I get to start asking questions and so here it is right back at you. I said that I thought generative A.I is not going to leave large swaths of the population unemployed, but I've heard you say that generative A.I is really going to set the stage for an unprecedented demand in reskilling workers. What kind of private sector support from corporations and what sort of public sector support from governments do you expect to see? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah Seth, I mean, that point about reskilling, I think, is one of the most important elements of the work that we've been doing together. This could be the biggest reskilling initiative that we'll ever see, given how broad generative A.I really is and how many different professions generative A.I could impact. Now, when we think about the job impacts, we do see potential benefits from private public partnerships. They would be really focused on reskilling and upskilling workers and respond to the changes to the very nature of work that's going to be driven by Gen A.I. And an example of some real promising efforts in that regard was the White House industry joint efforts in this regard to think about ways to reskill the workforce. That said, there really are multiple unknowns with respect to the pace and the depth of the employment impacts from A.I. So it's very challenging to really scope out the magnitude and cadence a nd that makes joint planning for reskilling and upskilling highly challenging. 
Seth Carpenter: I hear what you're saying, Stephen, and it is always hard looking into the future to try to suss out what's going on but when we think about the future of work, you talked about the possibility that Gen A.I could change the nature of work. Speculate here a little bit for me. What do you think? What could be those changes in terms of the actual nature of work? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you know, that's what's really fascinating about Gen A.I and also potentially in terms of the nature of work and the need to be flexible. You know, I think job gains and losses will heavily depend on whether skills can be really transferred, whether new skills can be picked up. For those with skills that are easy to transfer to other tasks in occupations, you know, disruptions could be short lived. To this point the tech sector recently experienced heavy layoffs, but employees were quickly absorbed by the rest of the economy because of overall tight labor market, something you've written a lot about Seth. And in fact, the number of tech layoffs was around 170,000 in the first quarter of 2023. That's a 17 fold increase over the previous year. While most of these folks did find a new job within three months of being laid off, so we do see this potential for movements, reskilling, etc., to be significant. But it certainly depends a lot on the skill set and how transferable that skill set really is. 
Seth Carpenter: How do you start to hire people at the beginning of this sort of revolution? And so when you think about those changes in the labor market, do you think there are going to be changes in the way people hire folks? Once Gen A.I becomes more widespread. Do you think workers end up getting hired based on the skill set that they can demonstrate on some sort of credentials? Are we going to see somehow in either diplomas or other sorts of certificates, things that are labeled A.I? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, I think there is going to be a big shift away from credentials and more heavily towards skills, specific skill sets. Especially skills that involve creativity and also skills involving just complex human interactions, human negotiations as well. And it's going to be critical to prioritize skills over credentials going forward as, especially as we think about reskilling and retraining a number of workers, that's going to be such a broad effort. I think the future work will require hiring managers to prioritize these skills, especially these soft skills that I think are going to be more difficult for A.I models to replace. We highlight a number of skills that really will be more challenging to automate versus those that are less challenging. And I think that essentially is a guidepost to think about where reskilling should really be focused. 
Seth Carpenter: Well, Stephen, I have to say I'd be able to talk with you about these sorts of things all day long, but I think we've run out of time. So let me just say, thank you for taking some time to talk to me today. 
Stephen Byrd: It was great speaking with you, Seth.
Seth Carpenter: And thanks to the listeners for listening. If you enjoyed Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0zwuLkl6aFi6zTbaSlc4F3Rf-8Myh2CXnDefH3e957UThu, 02 Nov 2023 20:53:15 +0000gtyGenerative AI could transform the nature of work and boost productivity, but companies and governments will need to invest in reskilling. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global...----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the Global Chief Economist. 
Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how generative A.I. could reshape the US economy and the labor market. It's Thursday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: If we think back to the early 90's, few could have predicted just how revolutionary the Internet would become. Creating entirely new professions and industries with a wide ranging impact on labor and global economies. And yet with generative A.I. here we are again on the cusp of a revolution. So, Seth, as our global chief economist, you've been assessing the overarching macro implications of the Gen A.I. phenomenon. And while it's still early days, I know you've been thinking about the range of impacts Gen A.I could have on the global economy. I wondered if you could walk us through the broad parameters of your thinking around macro impacts and maybe starting with the productivity and the labor market side of things? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Stephen. And I agree with you, the possibilities here are immense. The hardest part of all of this is trying to gauge just how big the effects might be, when they might happen and how soon anyone is going to be able to pick up on the true changes and things. But let's talk a little bit about those two components, productivity and the labor market. They are very closely connected to each other. So one of the key things about generative A.I is it could make lots of types of processes, lots of types of jobs, things that are very knowledge base intensive. You could do the same amount of work with fewer people or, and I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, you could do lots more work with the same number of people. And I think that distinction is really critical, lots of people and I'm sure you've heard this before, lots of people have a fear that generative A.I is going to come in and destroy lots of jobs and so we'll just have lots of people who are out of work. And I guess I'm at the margin a lot more optimistic than that. I really do think what we're going to end up seeing is more output with the same amount of workers, and indeed, as you alluded to before, more types of jobs than we've seen before. That doesn't exactly answer your question so let's jump into those broad parameters. If productivity goes up, what that means is we should see faster growth in the economy than we're used to seeing and I think that means things like GDP should be growing faster and that should have implications for equities. In addition, because more can get done with the same inputs, we should see some of the inflationary pressures that we're seeing now dissipate even more quickly. And what does that mean? Well, that means that at least in the short run, the central bank, the Fed in the U.S., can allow the economy to run a little bit hotter than you would have thought otherwise, because the inflationary pressures aren't there after all. Those are the two for me, the key things one, faster growth in the economy with the same amount of inputs and some lower inflationary pressures, which makes the central bank's job a little bit easier. 
Stephen Byrd: And Seth, as you think about specific sectors and regions of the global economy that might be most impacted by the adoption of Gen A.I., does anything stand out to you? 
Seth Carpenter: I mean, I really do think if we're focusing just on generative A.I, it really comes down, I think a lot to what can generative A.I do better. It's a lot of these large language models, a lot of that sort of knowledge based side of things. So the services sector of the economy...]]>509false990fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-what-the-new-u-s-speaker-means-for-markets--75653237----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact to markets from Congress's agenda. It's Wednesday, November 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week in D.C., following a few weeks of Republicans failing to coalesce around a nominee, the House of Representatives chose a speaker, Republican Mike Johnson. So, with a new speaker in place, does that mean investors need to rethink their expectations about legislation that could impact markets? Not exactly. At least not before the next presidential election. Here's three takeaways from us to keep in mind. 
First, a new speaker doesn't mean new momentum for most of the legislation that investors tell us they care about. For example, fresh regulations for social media or cryptocurrency are no closer as a result of having a new speaker. Those are issues both parties are keen to tackle but are still working out exactly how they'd like to tackle them. 
Second, a government shutdown still remains a possibility. Speaker Johnson has said avoiding a shutdown is a priority for him, stating he would allow a vote on another stopgap spending measure to give Congress more time to agree on longer term funding levels. But such a stopgap measure could also reflect that House Republicans haven't yet solved for their own internal disagreement on key funding measures, such as aid for Ukraine. If that's the case, then a shutdown later this year or early next year remains a possibility. And, while on its own, a brief shutdown wouldn’t meaningfully affect the economy, markets will reflect a higher probability of weaker growth on the horizon, particularly as failure to agree on longer term funding would put in play an automatic government spending cut under current law. 
Third and finally, military aid and funding is likely to be a source of intense debate in Congress but we still expect defense spending to rise, supporting the aerospace and defense sectors in the equity market. Two factors give us comfort here. First, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the bill that was passed to raise the debt ceiling, also laid out multi-year government spending targets that include an increase in defense spending. Being already passed by Congress, we expect this is the template they'll work within. Second, while a sufficient minority of the House Republican caucus is skeptical of further aid to Ukraine, such aid enjoys broader bipartisan support across all of Congress. So we expect any spending bill that makes its way through Congress is likely to have that aid. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2jwyA0gX4Ns7lT6FNGV-uuawzZlrxLkti14EhkUV_JEWed, 01 Nov 2023 19:11:21 +0000gtyInvestors are questioning whether a new U.S. Speaker in the House of Representatives will push for fresh legislation, and whether a potential government shutdown is on the horizon. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact to markets from Congress's agenda. It's Wednesday, November 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week in D.C., following a few weeks of Republicans failing to coalesce around a nominee, the House of Representatives chose a speaker, Republican Mike Johnson. So, with a new speaker in place, does that mean investors need to rethink their expectations about legislation that could impact markets? Not exactly. At least not before the next presidential election. Here's three takeaways from us to keep in mind. 
First, a new speaker doesn't mean new momentum for most of the legislation that investors tell us they care about. For example, fresh regulations for social media or cryptocurrency are no closer as a result of having a new speaker. Those are issues both parties are keen to tackle but are still working out exactly how they'd like to tackle them. 
Second, a government shutdown still remains a possibility. Speaker Johnson has said avoiding a shutdown is a priority for him, stating he would allow a vote on another stopgap spending measure to give Congress more time to agree on longer term funding levels. But such a stopgap measure could also reflect that House Republicans haven't yet solved for their own internal disagreement on key funding measures, such as aid for Ukraine. If that's the case, then a shutdown later this year or early next year remains a possibility. And, while on its own, a brief shutdown wouldn’t meaningfully affect the economy, markets will reflect a higher probability of weaker growth on the horizon, particularly as failure to agree on longer term funding would put in play an automatic government spending cut under current law. 
Third and finally, military aid and funding is likely to be a source of intense debate in Congress but we still expect defense spending to rise, supporting the aerospace and defense sectors in the equity market. Two factors give us comfort here. First, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the bill that was passed to raise the debt ceiling, also laid out multi-year government spending targets that include an increase in defense spending. Being already passed by Congress, we expect this is the template they'll work within. Second, while a sufficient minority of the House Republican caucus is skeptical of further aid to Ukraine, such aid enjoys broader bipartisan support across all of Congress. So we expect any spending bill that makes its way through Congress is likely to have that aid. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>167false989fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-the-impact-of-high-mortgage-rates--75653211----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing U.S. home prices. It's Tuesday, October 31st at 11 a.m. in New York. Happy Halloween. 
Jay Bacow: Jim. Mortgage rates are close to 8%. They haven't been this high since the year 2000. Now, you've pointed out in this podcast before, home prices have been incredibly resilient. So what is this combination of mortgage rates being at the highs over the last 20 years versus resilient home prices mean for housing affordability? 
Jim Egan: Well, not good. Now, one of the statements that you and I have made on prior episodes of this podcast is that affordability remains incredibly challenged. But at least throughout the first half of 2023, it really wasn't getting any worse. If mortgage rates stay at these levels, we can no longer make the second half of that statement. In fact, affordability deterioration would return to the most severe that we've seen in decades, 2022 experience notwithstanding. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. But what does that mean for the housing market? You know, at first blush, it doesn't sound great, but we've done a lot of these podcasts, and the story that you're talking about sounds kind of similar to what we saw last year in 2022. Home sales and housing starts could fall, but home prices would remain protected as homeowners are effectively locked in to their current low mortgage rate and there's not a lot of for sellers. 
Jim Egan: Those dynamics certainly continue to play a role in our thinking. But in our view, with mortgage rates at these levels, that requires us to think about both the short term impacts but also the longer term impacts if we were to stay here. 
Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, you said shorter term first. So what do we think happens in the near future? 
Jim Egan: Basically, what you just described, look, the immediate reaction to the recent climb in mortgage rates has been on the supply side. Existing listings have begun falling again, as of August we can now say that we have the fewest listings on record, controlling for time of year, the housing market is very seasonal and homebuilder confidence has also retreated. Now it increased in every single month of 2023 from January through July. In the past three months, it's down over 30% from that peak, and the NAHB attributes a lot of this u-turn to higher mortgage rates. At least when it comes to home prices, we think that the impact from these renewed decreases in the supply of homes is going to have a greater impact on prices than any decrease in demand. In fact, that did cause us to move our home price forecast a couple of months ago. We were flat at the end of this year and again, we're saying short term, this is October, the end of this year is pretty close. Our bull case was plus five. We're not moving all the way to that plus five, but we're moving towards that plus five from our 0% base case. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So over the next few months, you're a little bit more constructive on home prices, but people own homes for many years. So longer term, what do you expect the outlook to be? 
Jim Egan: Well, the answer there is, you know, more predicated on how long mortgage rates stay at these levels. We do think that a higher for a longer environment requires a different outlook today than it did in late 2021 and early 2022, and there are a number of reasons for that, but I think one of the bigger ones, Jay, is kind of the distribution of outstanding mortgage rates today. What does that look like? 
Jay Bacow: The average outstanding mortgage rate today is roughly three and 5/8%. But if you look at the distribution of homeowners, because we spent basically all of 2020 and 2021 at really low mortgage rates and many homeowners were stuck in their house, they spent a lot of time refinancing. And so there isn't that many mortgages that have a much higher rate than that. And so if we look at, for instance, the universe of mortgages between 7% and 8%, that's less than 2% of the outstanding mortgages. 
Jim Egan: And this is an important point, because not that many borrowers are falling out of the money with this move, we don't think that supply is going to see the sharp, sharp drops that we experienced throughout 2022. There's also some level of transaction volumes that need to take place regardless of economic incentive. If we look at home sales versus the stock of own homes is one example here. We're already at the lows from the great financial crisis. So instead of sharp declines in home sales moving forward, we think it's more accurate to describe a higher for a longer rate environment as more preventing sales from increasing going forward. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So the sales outlook, I guess, feels a little better than the sharp drops that we saw last year. But what about home prices? 
Jim Egan: If home sales were to remain at these levels, then we become even more reliant on the supply of for sale housing, staying at historic lows, or at least the lowest levels we have on record going back over 40 years, to prevent home prices from falling. As a scenario analysis, let's just say that inventory were to grow just 5% next year. For context, inventory was growing for May of 2022 through the middle of this year. If we just get 5% growth and that comes alongside zero increase in sales because of the affordability challenge, our model says that would lead to a drop in home prices by the end of 2024, that rounds to about 5%. But Jay, that's all predicated on where mortgage rates go from here. So are we staying at these levels? Jay Bacow: The biggest driver of where mortgage rates go is where treasury rates are going to be. However, there's certainly a secondary component which has to do with the spread between where Treasury rates are and the spread where the originators can sell their mortgage exposure to investors. And that spread looks way too wide to us over the longer term. Now, you talked about short term versus long term. Short term, we're not really sure what happens to spread, longer term we do think that spreads will compress, which would bring mortgage rates lower. 
Jim Egan: Surely at some point these levels become attractive? 
Jay Bacow: Absolutely. And we think longer term, that point is now we're talking about owning a government guaranteed asset at about 6.75% yield that picks roughly 180 basis points the Treasury curve. That's not a level that things normally trade at. We think next year as the Fed cuts rates, vol comes down,  the curve steepened and mortgages would tighten under that scenario. But near-term over the next couple of months, as you're talking through the end of the year, it's hard to have much conviction and there's risks certainly to further liquidity pressures and spread widening. 
Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, it's always great talking to you. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JcmzqGzIr0SKzFtLwoMgtmdPBIMn1y9ZGHLYfyU_BqcTue, 31 Oct 2023 21:41:45 +0000gtyWith mortgage rates at their highest level in 20 years, housing affordability may deteriorate to levels not seen in decades. ----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research here...----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing U.S. home prices. It's Tuesday, October 31st at 11 a.m. in New York. Happy Halloween. 
Jay Bacow: Jim. Mortgage rates are close to 8%. They haven't been this high since the year 2000. Now, you've pointed out in this podcast before, home prices have been incredibly resilient. So what is this combination of mortgage rates being at the highs over the last 20 years versus resilient home prices mean for housing affordability? 
Jim Egan: Well, not good. Now, one of the statements that you and I have made on prior episodes of this podcast is that affordability remains incredibly challenged. But at least throughout the first half of 2023, it really wasn't getting any worse. If mortgage rates stay at these levels, we can no longer make the second half of that statement. In fact, affordability deterioration would return to the most severe that we've seen in decades, 2022 experience notwithstanding. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. But what does that mean for the housing market? You know, at first blush, it doesn't sound great, but we've done a lot of these podcasts, and the story that you're talking about sounds kind of similar to what we saw last year in 2022. Home sales and housing starts could fall, but home prices would remain protected as homeowners are effectively locked in to their current low mortgage rate and there's not a lot of for sellers. 
Jim Egan: Those dynamics certainly continue to play a role in our thinking. But in our view, with mortgage rates at these levels, that requires us to think about both the short term impacts but also the longer term impacts if we were to stay here. 
Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, you said shorter term first. So what do we think happens in the near future? 
Jim Egan: Basically, what you just described, look, the immediate reaction to the recent climb in mortgage rates has been on the supply side. Existing listings have begun falling again, as of August we can now say that we have the fewest listings on record, controlling for time of year, the housing market is very seasonal and homebuilder confidence has also retreated. Now it increased in every single month of 2023 from January through July. In the past three months, it's down over 30% from that peak, and the NAHB attributes a lot of this u-turn to higher mortgage rates. At least when it comes to home prices, we think that the impact from these renewed decreases in the supply of homes is going to have a greater impact on prices than any decrease in demand. In fact, that did cause us to move our home price forecast a couple of months ago. We were flat at the end of this year and again, we're saying short term, this is October, the end of this year is pretty close. Our bull case was plus five. We're not moving all the way to that plus five, but we're moving towards that plus five from our 0% base case. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So over the next few months, you're a little bit more constructive on home prices, but people own homes for many years. So longer term, what do you expect the outlook to be? 
Jim Egan: Well, the answer there is, you know, more predicated on how long mortgage rates stay at these levels. We do think that a higher for a longer environment requires a different outlook today than it did in late 2021 and early 2022, and there are a number of reasons for that, but I think one of the bigger ones, Jay, is kind of the distribution of outstanding mortgage rates today. What does that look like? 
Jay Bacow: The average outstanding mortgage rate today is roughly three and...]]>414false988fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-2023-stock-market-comes-full-circle--75653069----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
2023 has been a year of big swings for stock investors. Coming into the year, the consensus agreed that domestic growth is going to disappoint as recession risk appeared much higher than normal. The primary culprit was the record setting pace of tightening from the Federal Reserve and other central banks in 2022. In addition to this concern, earnings for the mega-cap leaders had disappointed expectations during the second half of 2022. As a result, sentiment was low and expectations about a recovery were pessimistic. Stocks had reflected some of that pessimism, even though they had rallied about 10% from the October '22 lows.
The other distinguishing feature of the consensus view at the beginning of the year is that the bullish pitch was predicated on a Fed pivot and China's long awaited reopening from its lengthy pandemic lockdowns. This meant that many investors were overweight banks, industrials and commodity oriented stocks like energy and materials and longer duration bonds rather than mega-cap growth stocks. Such positioning could not have been worse for what has transpired this year. Domestic economic growth and interest rates have surprised on the upside, keeping the Fed more hawkish on its rate policy while commodity prices have been weak due to disappointing global economic growth despite China's reopening. 
The regional bank failures in March spurred a different kind of pivot from the Fed, as they decided to reverse a good portion of its balance sheet reduction when it bailed out the uninsured deposits of these failing institutions. That liquidity injection spurred a big rally in companies with the highest quality balance sheets. Newfound excitement then around artificial intelligence provided another reason for mega-cap growth stocks to trade so well since the March lows. This summer, that rally tried to broaden out as investors began to think artificial intelligence may save us from the margin squeeze being felt across the economy, especially smaller cap companies that don't have the scale or access to capital to thrive in such a challenging environment to grow profits. 
But now, even the higher quality mega-cap growth stocks are suffering. Since reporting second quarter earnings, these stocks are lower by 12% on average. Third quarter earnings were supposed to reverse these new down trends, but last week that didn't happen. Instead, most of these company stocks traded lower, even though several of them posted very strong earnings results. In our experience, this is a bearish signal for what the market thinks about the business and earnings trends going into 2024. In other words, the market is suggesting earnings expectations are too high next year, even for the best companies. 
Our take is that given the significant weaknesses already apparent in the average company earnings and the average household finances, we think it will be very difficult for these mega-cap companies to avoid these headwinds too, given these small companies and households are their customers. Finally, with interest rates so much higher than almost anyone predicted six months ago, the market is starting to call into question the big valuations at which these large cap winners trade. 
From our perspective, it appears that 2023 is coming full circle, with markets worrying again about the impact that higher interest rates will have on growth rather than just valuations. The delayed impact and reaction on the economy is normal, but once it starts, it's hard to reverse. While we were early and wrong in calling for this outcome in the spring, we think it's now upon us. For equity investors, what that really means is that this year is unlikely to see the typical fourth quarter rally. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_uu_u0QiVZV0ZgngtieKJuitE_sbr8z5WlOBjJPoXUgMon, 30 Oct 2023 21:13:37 +0000gtyAs we head into the end of the year, investors are again worrying about the impact that higher interest rates will have on growth. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
2023 has been a year of big swings for stock investors. Coming into the year, the consensus agreed that domestic growth is going to disappoint as recession risk appeared much higher than normal. The primary culprit was the record setting pace of tightening from the Federal Reserve and other central banks in 2022. In addition to this concern, earnings for the mega-cap leaders had disappointed expectations during the second half of 2022. As a result, sentiment was low and expectations about a recovery were pessimistic. Stocks had reflected some of that pessimism, even though they had rallied about 10% from the October '22 lows.
The other distinguishing feature of the consensus view at the beginning of the year is that the bullish pitch was predicated on a Fed pivot and China's long awaited reopening from its lengthy pandemic lockdowns. This meant that many investors were overweight banks, industrials and commodity oriented stocks like energy and materials and longer duration bonds rather than mega-cap growth stocks. Such positioning could not have been worse for what has transpired this year. Domestic economic growth and interest rates have surprised on the upside, keeping the Fed more hawkish on its rate policy while commodity prices have been weak due to disappointing global economic growth despite China's reopening. 
The regional bank failures in March spurred a different kind of pivot from the Fed, as they decided to reverse a good portion of its balance sheet reduction when it bailed out the uninsured deposits of these failing institutions. That liquidity injection spurred a big rally in companies with the highest quality balance sheets. Newfound excitement then around artificial intelligence provided another reason for mega-cap growth stocks to trade so well since the March lows. This summer, that rally tried to broaden out as investors began to think artificial intelligence may save us from the margin squeeze being felt across the economy, especially smaller cap companies that don't have the scale or access to capital to thrive in such a challenging environment to grow profits. 
But now, even the higher quality mega-cap growth stocks are suffering. Since reporting second quarter earnings, these stocks are lower by 12% on average. Third quarter earnings were supposed to reverse these new down trends, but last week that didn't happen. Instead, most of these company stocks traded lower, even though several of them posted very strong earnings results. In our experience, this is a bearish signal for what the market thinks about the business and earnings trends going into 2024. In other words, the market is suggesting earnings expectations are too high next year, even for the best companies. 
Our take is that given the significant weaknesses already apparent in the average company earnings and the average household finances, we think it will be very difficult for these mega-cap companies to avoid these headwinds too, given these small companies and households are their customers. Finally, with interest rates so much higher than almost anyone predicted six months ago, the market is starting to call into question the big valuations at which these large cap winners trade. 
From our perspective, it appears that 2023 is coming full circle, with markets worrying again about the impact that higher interest rates will have on growth rather than just valuations. The delayed impact and reaction on the economy is...]]>230false987fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-optimism-in-corporate-credit--75653126----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, October 27, at 2 p.m. in London. 
Credit has a reputation of being the scouts of financial markets, sniffing out and detecting danger well ahead of others. In 2000, 2007 and 2011, to name a few, credit markets started to weaken well before other asset classes in flagging danger. The Federal Reserve used credit spreads as one of their most important measures of financial stress. While we’d like to think that this is because credit investors are smarter than their peers, a more realistic answer lies in the nature of the asset class. Because credit offers a generally limited premium if things go right, relative to larger losses if things go wrong, credit investors are often incentivized to price in a rising probability of danger early. 
And so it's notable that amidst the current market weakness, credit is pretty well behaved, with benchmark spreads on U.S. investment grade credit roughly unchanged since October 3rd. Credit is very much a passenger, not a driver, of the proverbial financial market bus that in recent weeks has been swaying back and forth. 
We think credit continues to be a relative outperformer across assets, and for that to be true, two things need to continue. 
First, credit is very sensitive to the likelihood of a deep recession. Recent data has been good, with the U.S. economy growing a whopping 4.9% in the third quarter. While our US economists expect slower growth in the fourth quarter, we think a generally stronger than expected U.S. economic story has, and should continue to be, helpful to corporate credit. 
Second, credit has managed to avoid some of the bigger headaches surrounding other asset classes. Credit valuations are less expensive and closer to average than U.S. equity markets. Credit is less sensitive to volatile interest rates and enjoys a more stable base of demand than U.S. mortgages. And the outlook for future supply in corporate bonds looks lower than, say, U.S. Treasury bonds, as companies are starting to react to higher rates by borrowing less. 
Credit has a well-deserved history as an early warning signal for markets. But for now, we think it is better to view it as a financial markets passenger. Government bond yields and earnings are in the driver's seat and are much more likely to be important for driving overall direction. For now, we think this can suit credit just fine and continue to expect it to be a relative outperformer. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/SEuTGC_jcuYqja-fDLUuwaQlaeNqbLPlx0537Lpq27IFri, 27 Oct 2023 19:15:45 +0000gtyCorporate credit continues to outperform other class assets, due in part to U.S. economic growth in the third quarter. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, October 27, at 2 p.m. in London. 
Credit has a reputation of being the scouts of financial markets, sniffing out and detecting danger well ahead of others. In 2000, 2007 and 2011, to name a few, credit markets started to weaken well before other asset classes in flagging danger. The Federal Reserve used credit spreads as one of their most important measures of financial stress. While we’d like to think that this is because credit investors are smarter than their peers, a more realistic answer lies in the nature of the asset class. Because credit offers a generally limited premium if things go right, relative to larger losses if things go wrong, credit investors are often incentivized to price in a rising probability of danger early. 
And so it's notable that amidst the current market weakness, credit is pretty well behaved, with benchmark spreads on U.S. investment grade credit roughly unchanged since October 3rd. Credit is very much a passenger, not a driver, of the proverbial financial market bus that in recent weeks has been swaying back and forth. 
We think credit continues to be a relative outperformer across assets, and for that to be true, two things need to continue. 
First, credit is very sensitive to the likelihood of a deep recession. Recent data has been good, with the U.S. economy growing a whopping 4.9% in the third quarter. While our US economists expect slower growth in the fourth quarter, we think a generally stronger than expected U.S. economic story has, and should continue to be, helpful to corporate credit. 
Second, credit has managed to avoid some of the bigger headaches surrounding other asset classes. Credit valuations are less expensive and closer to average than U.S. equity markets. Credit is less sensitive to volatile interest rates and enjoys a more stable base of demand than U.S. mortgages. And the outlook for future supply in corporate bonds looks lower than, say, U.S. Treasury bonds, as companies are starting to react to higher rates by borrowing less. 
Credit has a well-deserved history as an early warning signal for markets. But for now, we think it is better to view it as a financial markets passenger. Government bond yields and earnings are in the driver's seat and are much more likely to be important for driving overall direction. For now, we think this can suit credit just fine and continue to expect it to be a relative outperformer. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>164false986fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-equities-china-s-risk-of-a-debt-deflation-loop--75653139----- Transcript -----Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from the Morgan Stanley Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team. 
Laura Wang: And I'm Laura Wang, Chief China Equity Strategist. 
Daniel Blake: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what lessons Japan's deflation journey can offer for China. It's Thursday, October 26th at 10 a.m. in Singapore and Hong Kong.  
Daniel Blake: So in the period from 1991 to 2001, known as Japan's lost decade, Japan suffered through a prolonged economic stagnation and price deflation. While the corporate sector stopped deleveraging in the early 2000’s. It wasn't until the Abenomics program, introduced under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2013, that Japan emerged from deflation and started the process of a gradual recovery in corporate profitability. China's economic trajectory has been very different from Japan's over the last 30 years, but we now see some parallels emerging. Indeed, the risk of falling into a Japanese style stagnation is becoming more acute over the past year as a deep cyclical downturn in the property sector combines with the structural challenge that our economists call the 3D journey of debt, demographics and deflation. So, Laura, before we dig into the comparison between China and Japan's respective journeys to set the stage, can you give us a quick snapshot of where China's equity market is right now and what you expect for the rest of the year? 
Laura Wang: Sure, Daniel. China market has been through a quite volatile ten months so far this year with a very exciting start given the post COVID reopening. However, the strong macro momentum didn't sustain. Property sales is still falling somewhere between 30 to 50% each month on a year over year basis. And challenges from local government debt issue and early signs of deflationary pressure suggest that turn around for corporate earnings growth could still take longer to happen. We had downgraded China within the global emerging market context at the beginning of August, mainly out of these concerns, and we think more patience is needed at this point. We would like to see more meaningful easing measures to stimulate the demand and help reflate the economy, as well as clear a road map to address some of the structural issues, particularly around the local government debt problem. In contrast to China, Japan's equity market is very strong right now, and Morgan Stanley's outlook continues to be bullish from here. So, Daniel, why is it valuable to compare Japan's deflationary journey since the 1990s and China's recent challenges? What are some of the bigger similarities? 
Daniel Blake: I think we'll come back to the 3D's. So on the first to them, on debt we do have China's aggregate total debt around 290% of GDP. So that compares with Japan, which was about 265% of GDP back in 1990. So this is similar in the sense that we do have this aggregate debt burden sitting and needs to be managed. Secondly, on demographics, we've got a long expected but now very evident downturn in the share of the labor force that is in working age and an outright decline in working age population in China. And this is going to be a factor for many years ahead. China's birth rate or total number of births is looking to come down to around 8 million this year, compared with 28 million in 1990. And then a third would be deflation. And so we are seeing this broaden out in China, particularly the aggregate GDP level. So in Japan's case, that deflation was mainly around asset price bubbles. In China's case, we're seeing this more broadly with excess capacity in a number of industrial sectors, including new economy sectors. And then this one 4th D which is similar in both Japan's case and China now, and that's the globalization or de-risking of supply chains, as you prefer. When we're looking at this in Japan's case, Japan did face a more hostile trade environment in the late 1980s, particularly with protectionism coming through from the US. And we've seen that play out in the multipolar world for China. So a number of similarities which we can group under 4D's here. 
Laura Wang: And what are some of the key differences between Japan/China? 
Daniel Blake: So the first key difference is we think the asset price bubble was more extreme in Japan. Secondly, in China, most of the debt is held by local governments and state owned enterprises rather than the private corporate sector. And thirdly, China is at a lower stage of development than Japan in terms of per capita incomes and the potential for underlying growth. So, Laura, when you're looking ahead, what would you like to see from Chinese policymakers here, both in the near term as well as the longer term? 

Laura Wang: As far as what we can observe, Chinese policymakers has already started to roll out a suite of measures on the fronts of capital markets, monetary and fiscal policy side over the past 12 months. And we do expect more to come. Particularly on the capital market reform side, there are additional efforts that we think policymakers can help enforce. In our view, those actions could include capital market restructuring, funds flow and liquidity support, as well as further efforts encouraging enhancement of shareholder returns. To be more specific, for example, introducing more benchmark indices with a focus on corporate governance and shareholder returns, further tightening and enforcing the listing rules for public companies, m ore incentives for long term institutional participation, improving capital flow management for foreign investors, and implementing incentives to encourage dividend payouts and share buybacks. Those could all work quite well. Regulatory and even legislative support to help implement these measures would be extremely crucial. 
Daniel Blake: And what is your outlook for China's medium to long term return on equity path from here? And what are the key catalysts you're watching for that? 
Laura Wang: Given some of the structure challenges we discussed earlier, we do see a much wider forked path for China's long term growth ROE trajectory. We see MSCI China's long term ROE stabilizing at around 11% in the next 5 to 7 years in our base case. This means there should still be up to around two percentage point of recovery upside from the current levels, thanks to a combination of corporate self-help, the product cycle, policy support from the top and the low base effect. However, further upside above 11% will require a significant reflationary effort from the policymakers, both short term cyclical and long term structural, in combination with a more favorable geopolitical environment. Therefore, we believe prompt and forceful actions from policymakers to stabilize the economy to avoid more permanent negative impact on corporate and consumer behaviors are absolutely needed at this point. Now, let me turn this back to you, Daniel. What is your outlook for Japan's return on equity journey from here, and are there any risks to your bullish view? 

Daniel Blake: So we have seen Japan looking back from 2013 to now move from below book value in terms of aggregate valuations and a return on equity of just 4%, so much lower than even your bear case. So it's moved up from that level to 9% currently and we're seeing valuations moving up accordingly. We think that's further to go and we think Japan can actually reach 12% sustainable return on equity by 2025 and that's helped by return of nominal GDP growth in Japan and further implementation of governance improvements at the corporate level. So in terms of the risks, I think they are primarily external. We do see Japan's domestic economy in a pretty good place. We think BOJ can exit yield curve control and negative rates without a major shock. So externally we are watching China's risks of moving into a debt deflation loop, as we're discussing here, but also the potential impacts if the US or a global recession were to play out. So clearly we're watching very closely the Fed's efforts and global central bank efforts to achieve a soft landing here. 
Daniel Blake: So, Laura, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Laura Wang: Sure. It's been great speaking with you, Daniel. 
Daniel Blake: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MsdHcwN368OXDosMu_EL34fgLRlr6ql1VRkpCI0izTwThu, 26 Oct 2023 21:24:36 +0000gtyWith China at risk of falling into a debt deflation loop, lessons from Japan's deflation journey could provide some insight. ----- Transcript -----Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from the Morgan Stanley Asia and...----- Transcript -----Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from the Morgan Stanley Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team. 
Laura Wang: And I'm Laura Wang, Chief China Equity Strategist. 
Daniel Blake: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what lessons Japan's deflation journey can offer for China. It's Thursday, October 26th at 10 a.m. in Singapore and Hong Kong.  
Daniel Blake: So in the period from 1991 to 2001, known as Japan's lost decade, Japan suffered through a prolonged economic stagnation and price deflation. While the corporate sector stopped deleveraging in the early 2000’s. It wasn't until the Abenomics program, introduced under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2013, that Japan emerged from deflation and started the process of a gradual recovery in corporate profitability. China's economic trajectory has been very different from Japan's over the last 30 years, but we now see some parallels emerging. Indeed, the risk of falling into a Japanese style stagnation is becoming more acute over the past year as a deep cyclical downturn in the property sector combines with the structural challenge that our economists call the 3D journey of debt, demographics and deflation. So, Laura, before we dig into the comparison between China and Japan's respective journeys to set the stage, can you give us a quick snapshot of where China's equity market is right now and what you expect for the rest of the year? 
Laura Wang: Sure, Daniel. China market has been through a quite volatile ten months so far this year with a very exciting start given the post COVID reopening. However, the strong macro momentum didn't sustain. Property sales is still falling somewhere between 30 to 50% each month on a year over year basis. And challenges from local government debt issue and early signs of deflationary pressure suggest that turn around for corporate earnings growth could still take longer to happen. We had downgraded China within the global emerging market context at the beginning of August, mainly out of these concerns, and we think more patience is needed at this point. We would like to see more meaningful easing measures to stimulate the demand and help reflate the economy, as well as clear a road map to address some of the structural issues, particularly around the local government debt problem. In contrast to China, Japan's equity market is very strong right now, and Morgan Stanley's outlook continues to be bullish from here. So, Daniel, why is it valuable to compare Japan's deflationary journey since the 1990s and China's recent challenges? What are some of the bigger similarities? 
Daniel Blake: I think we'll come back to the 3D's. So on the first to them, on debt we do have China's aggregate total debt around 290% of GDP. So that compares with Japan, which was about 265% of GDP back in 1990. So this is similar in the sense that we do have this aggregate debt burden sitting and needs to be managed. Secondly, on demographics, we've got a long expected but now very evident downturn in the share of the labor force that is in working age and an outright decline in working age population in China. And this is going to be a factor for many years ahead. China's birth rate or total number of births is looking to come down to around 8 million this year, compared with 28 million in 1990. And then a third would be deflation. And so we are seeing this broaden out in China, particularly the aggregate GDP level. So in Japan's case, that deflation was mainly around asset price bubbles. In China's case, we're seeing this more broadly with excess capacity in a number of industrial sectors, including new economy sectors. And then this one 4th D which is similar in both Japan's case and China now, and that's the globalization or de-risking of...]]>467false985fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-implications-of-the-treasury-market-selloff--75653192----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about the implications of the continued selloff in the Treasury market. It's Wednesday, October 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The grueling selloff in U.S. treasuries that began in the summer continues, most notably in the longer end of the yield curve. The ten year Treasury yield breached 5% on Monday, a level not seen since 2007 and an increase of about 125 basis points since the trough in July. Almost all of this move higher in the ten year yield has occurred in real yields. 
In our view, the Treasury market has honed its reaction to incoming data on the hawkish reaction function that the FOMC communicated in its September meeting, which was subsequently reiterated by multiple Fed speakers. 
Over the last several weeks, the asymmetry in the market's reaction to incoming data has been noteworthy. Upside surprises growth have brought up sharp increases in long end yields, while downside surprises inflation have met with muted rallies. To us, this means that for market participants, upside surprises to growth fuel doubts whether the pace of deceleration inflation is sustainable. In this context, it is no surprise that upside growth surprises have mattered more to long in yields than downside inflation surprises. 
We've indeed seen a spate of upside surprises. The 336,000 new jobs in the September employment report were nearly double the Bloomberg survey of economists. Month over month changes in retail sales at 0.7% were more than double the consensus expectation of about 0.3%, and triple if you exclude auto sales. We saw similar upside surprises in industrial production, factory orders, building permits as well. 
The rise in Treasury yields has further implications. The spike has contributed significantly to tighter financial conditions. As measured by Morgan Stanley Financial Conditions Index, conditions have tightened by the equivalent of about three 25 basis point hikes in the policy rate since the September FOMC meeting. As Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter highlighted, the implications of tighter financial conditions for growth and inflation depend critically on whether the tightening is caused by exogenous or endogenous factors. A persistent exogenous rise in rates should slow the economy, requiring the Fed to adjust the path of policy rates lower over time to offset the drag from higher rates. If instead, the higher rates on an endogenous reaction, reflecting a persistently stronger economy driven by more fiscal support, higher productivity or both, the Fed may not see the need to adjust its policy path lower. 
We lean towards the formal explanation, than the latter. In our view, it is unlikely that the third quarter strength in growth will persist. In fact, third quarter consumer spending benefited from large one off expenditures. Combine that with the expiration of student loan moratorium, we think will weigh heavily on real personal consumption in the fourth quarter and by extension, on economic growth. Tighter financial conditions driven by higher long end yields will only add to this drag. Therefore, we expect incoming data in the fourth quarter to show decelerating growth, which we expect will lead to a reversal of the recent yield spikes driven by term premiums moving lower. 
The subtle shift in the tone of Fed speak over the past two weeks suggests a similar interpretation, indicating a waning appetite for an additional hike this year in the wake of tighter financial conditions while retaining the optionality for future hikes. They think that the yield curve is doing the job of the Fed. This jibes with our view that there will be no further rate hikes this year. While our conviction on fourth quarter growth slowdown is strong, it will take time to become evident in the incoming data. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qmChbC7eEScsd17Wx8rZ3epWHCLQmC7FfSwkCkO9zoYWed, 25 Oct 2023 21:01:03 +0000gtyThe rise in Treasury yields, among other factors, has caused significantly tighter financial conditions. If these conditions slow growth in the fourth quarter, another rate hike this year seems unlikely. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about the implications of the continued selloff in the Treasury market. It's Wednesday, October 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The grueling selloff in U.S. treasuries that began in the summer continues, most notably in the longer end of the yield curve. The ten year Treasury yield breached 5% on Monday, a level not seen since 2007 and an increase of about 125 basis points since the trough in July. Almost all of this move higher in the ten year yield has occurred in real yields. 
In our view, the Treasury market has honed its reaction to incoming data on the hawkish reaction function that the FOMC communicated in its September meeting, which was subsequently reiterated by multiple Fed speakers. 
Over the last several weeks, the asymmetry in the market's reaction to incoming data has been noteworthy. Upside surprises growth have brought up sharp increases in long end yields, while downside surprises inflation have met with muted rallies. To us, this means that for market participants, upside surprises to growth fuel doubts whether the pace of deceleration inflation is sustainable. In this context, it is no surprise that upside growth surprises have mattered more to long in yields than downside inflation surprises. 
We've indeed seen a spate of upside surprises. The 336,000 new jobs in the September employment report were nearly double the Bloomberg survey of economists. Month over month changes in retail sales at 0.7% were more than double the consensus expectation of about 0.3%, and triple if you exclude auto sales. We saw similar upside surprises in industrial production, factory orders, building permits as well. 
The rise in Treasury yields has further implications. The spike has contributed significantly to tighter financial conditions. As measured by Morgan Stanley Financial Conditions Index, conditions have tightened by the equivalent of about three 25 basis point hikes in the policy rate since the September FOMC meeting. As Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter highlighted, the implications of tighter financial conditions for growth and inflation depend critically on whether the tightening is caused by exogenous or endogenous factors. A persistent exogenous rise in rates should slow the economy, requiring the Fed to adjust the path of policy rates lower over time to offset the drag from higher rates. If instead, the higher rates on an endogenous reaction, reflecting a persistently stronger economy driven by more fiscal support, higher productivity or both, the Fed may not see the need to adjust its policy path lower. 
We lean towards the formal explanation, than the latter. In our view, it is unlikely that the third quarter strength in growth will persist. In fact, third quarter consumer spending benefited from large one off expenditures. Combine that with the expiration of student loan moratorium, we think will weigh heavily on real personal consumption in the fourth quarter and by extension, on economic growth. Tighter financial conditions driven by higher long end yields will only add to this drag. Therefore, we expect incoming data in the fourth quarter to show decelerating growth, which we expect will lead to a reversal of the recent yield spikes driven by term premiums moving lower. 
The subtle shift in the tone of Fed speak over the past two weeks suggests a similar interpretation, indicating a waning appetite for an additional hike this year in the wake of tighter financial conditions while retaining the optionality for future hikes. They think...]]>259false983fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/matthew-hornbach-the-impact-of-policy-on-bond-markets--75653224----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss the ongoing U.S. Treasury bond market route. It's Tuesday, October 24th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The world's biggest bond markets are in the midst of a historic route, and an increasing number of experts are referring to this as the deepest bond bear market of all time. Simply put, it works like this. When the central bank policy rate increases, investors' expectations for yields on bonds go up. This prompts investors to sell the bonds they currently own in order to buy newly issued ones that promise higher yields. 
So in this higher for longer interest rate environment, investors have been selling bonds, resulting in serious declines in bond prices and simultaneous surges in bond yields. In the U.S. Treasury market, which is considered the bedrock of the global financial system, the yield on the 30 year U.S. government bond recently hit 5% for the first time since 2007. German and Japanese bond yields are also reaching significantly elevated levels. 
Why does the turmoil in the bond market matter so much for consumers? For one thing, the yields on local government bonds impacts how banks priced mortgages. In the U.S. Specifically, mortgage rates tend to track the yield on ten year treasuries. Government backed mortgage provider Freddie Mac recently announced that the average interest rate on the 30 year fixed rate mortgage hit 7.3% in the week ending September 28th. That's the highest level since 2000. 
The ripple effects from the bond market route stretch further than mortgages. For instance, higher U.S. yields also means an even stronger U.S. dollar, which puts downward pressure on other currencies. The equity markets also can't escape the impact of higher bond yields. Those higher yields compete for money that might otherwise get invested in the stock market. As yields surged in September, the S&P 500 fell about 4.5%, despite relatively positive economic data. 
Against this backdrop, consensus explanations for the bond market sell off have been focusing on technical drivers, like U.S. Treasury market supply and investor positioning adjustments, as well as fundamental drivers, like fiscal sustainability concerns, Bank of Japan policy changes and stronger than expected growth. 
What surprises us is that the Fed rarely enters the discussion, specifically its reactions to data and its subsequent forward guidance. But we do believe the Fed's involvement is one of the major drivers behind the current bond market rout. Without the Fed's more hawkish reaction to recent growth and inflation data, other technical and fundamental drivers would not have contributed as much to higher Treasury yields, in our view. 
As things stand, markets will need to continue to come to grips with interest rates staying high. The U.S. economy remains resilient, despite still elevated inflation. Our U.S. economist now thinks the Fed's December Federal Open Market Committee meeting is a live meeting. The September U.S. Consumer Price Index and payrolls data met our economists' bar for a potential additional hike later this year. And so these most recent data releases make the next round of monthly data even more important, as policymakers deliberate what to do in December. And these decisions by the Fed will continue to have a significant impact on the bond market. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VrfEq8ikg_O40RlUjYCJRLhHWE3HXQsPnzswswaGFSQTue, 24 Oct 2023 20:56:15 +0000gtyAs the U.S. Federal Reserve keeps rates elevated, investors are selling off bonds in anticipation of new issues with higher yields, triggering a historic rout in the world's biggest bond markets. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss the ongoing U.S. Treasury bond market route. It's Tuesday, October 24th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The world's biggest bond markets are in the midst of a historic route, and an increasing number of experts are referring to this as the deepest bond bear market of all time. Simply put, it works like this. When the central bank policy rate increases, investors' expectations for yields on bonds go up. This prompts investors to sell the bonds they currently own in order to buy newly issued ones that promise higher yields. 
So in this higher for longer interest rate environment, investors have been selling bonds, resulting in serious declines in bond prices and simultaneous surges in bond yields. In the U.S. Treasury market, which is considered the bedrock of the global financial system, the yield on the 30 year U.S. government bond recently hit 5% for the first time since 2007. German and Japanese bond yields are also reaching significantly elevated levels. 
Why does the turmoil in the bond market matter so much for consumers? For one thing, the yields on local government bonds impacts how banks priced mortgages. In the U.S. Specifically, mortgage rates tend to track the yield on ten year treasuries. Government backed mortgage provider Freddie Mac recently announced that the average interest rate on the 30 year fixed rate mortgage hit 7.3% in the week ending September 28th. That's the highest level since 2000. 
The ripple effects from the bond market route stretch further than mortgages. For instance, higher U.S. yields also means an even stronger U.S. dollar, which puts downward pressure on other currencies. The equity markets also can't escape the impact of higher bond yields. Those higher yields compete for money that might otherwise get invested in the stock market. As yields surged in September, the S&P 500 fell about 4.5%, despite relatively positive economic data. 
Against this backdrop, consensus explanations for the bond market sell off have been focusing on technical drivers, like U.S. Treasury market supply and investor positioning adjustments, as well as fundamental drivers, like fiscal sustainability concerns, Bank of Japan policy changes and stronger than expected growth. 
What surprises us is that the Fed rarely enters the discussion, specifically its reactions to data and its subsequent forward guidance. But we do believe the Fed's involvement is one of the major drivers behind the current bond market rout. Without the Fed's more hawkish reaction to recent growth and inflation data, other technical and fundamental drivers would not have contributed as much to higher Treasury yields, in our view. 
As things stand, markets will need to continue to come to grips with interest rates staying high. The U.S. economy remains resilient, despite still elevated inflation. Our U.S. economist now thinks the Fed's December Federal Open Market Committee meeting is a live meeting. The September U.S. Consumer Price Index and payrolls data met our economists' bar for a potential additional hike later this year. And so these most recent data releases make the next round of monthly data even more important, as policymakers deliberate what to do in December. And these decisions by the Fed will continue to have a significant impact on the bond market. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.]]>218false982fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-are-earnings-expectations-too-high--75653103----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
In our recent research, we’ve been arguing that the odds of a fourth quarter rally have fallen considerably. Our observations on narrowing breadth, cautious factor leadership, falling earnings revisions and fading consumer confidence tell a different story than the consensus view for a rally in the year end that's more centered on sentiment and seasonal tendencies. While we acknowledge that sentiment deteriorated in September, it's recovered this month on the expectation of seasonal strength in the year-end. In our view, the fundamental setup is different this year than normal, with earnings expectations likely too high for the fourth quarter and 2024. Meanwhile, both monetary and fiscal policy are unlikely to provide any relief and could tighten further. More specifically, while the Federal Reserve has not raised rates any further, it is likely far from cutting. Furthermore, the tightening the Fed has done over the past 18 months is just now starting to be felt across the economy. 
To that end, the stock market has taken notice with some of the more economic and interest rate sensitive sectors like autos, banks, transportation stocks, semiconductors, real estate and consumer durables significantly underperforming over the past three months. More recently, many defensive sectors and stocks have started to outperform with energy, which supports our late cycle view that the barbell of defensive growth plus late cycle cyclicals we've been recommending. In our view, this performance backdrop reflects a market that is incrementally more concerned about growth than higher interest rates. 
Even though the Fed has tightened monetary policy at the fastest rate in 40 years, it's confronted with sticky labor and inflation data that has prevented it from signaling a definitive end to the tightening cycle or when they will begin to ease policy. At the same time, the fiscal deficit has expanded to levels rarely seen with full employment. This is precisely why the Fed has indicated a higher for longer stance. In our view, the strength in the headline labor data masks the headwinds faced by the average company and household that the Fed can't proactively address. 
In addition to the performance deterioration and interest rate sensitive sectors, the breadth of the market continues to exhibit notable weakness. While some may interpret this as a bullish signal, meaning oversold conditions, we believe it's more a reflection of our longstanding view that we remain in a late cycle backdrop where earnings risk remain high. Further support for that view can be seen in earnings revision breadth, which is breaking lower again into negative territory. As another sign this negative revision breadth is an early warning for fourth quarter and 2024 earnings, stocks are trading very poorly post earnings reports whether they are good or bad. 
Third quarter earnings season is eliciting even weaker performance reactions than the 'sell the news' reaction during the second quarter earnings season. More specifically, the median next day price reaction is -1.6% thus far, versus -0.5% last quarter. We also note that the percentage of positive reactions is notably lower as well, at 38% versus 47% last quarter. With several of the megacap leaders reporting this week, this trend will need to reverse if the broader index is going to hold key tactical levels and rally in the year end as the consensus is now expecting. 
Instead, we think the S&P 500 price action into year end is more likely to mirror the average stock's performance rather than the average stock catching up to the market cap weighted index. Based on our fundamental and technical analysis, we remain comfortable with our 3900 year end price target for the S&P 500, which implies a very generous 17x multiple on our 2024 earnings per share forecast of approximately $230. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TXef0nz_MkyaIl8zp9JMLg1HQgg_KU-15Et2IO665vMMon, 23 Oct 2023 19:56:01 +0000gtyAs investor sentiment recovers this month in anticipation of a strong year end, it’s important to acknowledge the factors that make this year’s fundamentals different. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
In our recent research, we’ve been arguing that the odds of a fourth quarter rally have fallen considerably. Our observations on narrowing breadth, cautious factor leadership, falling earnings revisions and fading consumer confidence tell a different story than the consensus view for a rally in the year end that's more centered on sentiment and seasonal tendencies. While we acknowledge that sentiment deteriorated in September, it's recovered this month on the expectation of seasonal strength in the year-end. In our view, the fundamental setup is different this year than normal, with earnings expectations likely too high for the fourth quarter and 2024. Meanwhile, both monetary and fiscal policy are unlikely to provide any relief and could tighten further. More specifically, while the Federal Reserve has not raised rates any further, it is likely far from cutting. Furthermore, the tightening the Fed has done over the past 18 months is just now starting to be felt across the economy. 
To that end, the stock market has taken notice with some of the more economic and interest rate sensitive sectors like autos, banks, transportation stocks, semiconductors, real estate and consumer durables significantly underperforming over the past three months. More recently, many defensive sectors and stocks have started to outperform with energy, which supports our late cycle view that the barbell of defensive growth plus late cycle cyclicals we've been recommending. In our view, this performance backdrop reflects a market that is incrementally more concerned about growth than higher interest rates. 
Even though the Fed has tightened monetary policy at the fastest rate in 40 years, it's confronted with sticky labor and inflation data that has prevented it from signaling a definitive end to the tightening cycle or when they will begin to ease policy. At the same time, the fiscal deficit has expanded to levels rarely seen with full employment. This is precisely why the Fed has indicated a higher for longer stance. In our view, the strength in the headline labor data masks the headwinds faced by the average company and household that the Fed can't proactively address. 
In addition to the performance deterioration and interest rate sensitive sectors, the breadth of the market continues to exhibit notable weakness. While some may interpret this as a bullish signal, meaning oversold conditions, we believe it's more a reflection of our longstanding view that we remain in a late cycle backdrop where earnings risk remain high. Further support for that view can be seen in earnings revision breadth, which is breaking lower again into negative territory. As another sign this negative revision breadth is an early warning for fourth quarter and 2024 earnings, stocks are trading very poorly post earnings reports whether they are good or bad. 
Third quarter earnings season is eliciting even weaker performance reactions than the 'sell the news' reaction during the second quarter earnings season. More specifically, the median next day price reaction is -1.6% thus far, versus -0.5% last quarter. We also note that the percentage of positive reactions is notably lower as well, at 38% versus 47% last quarter. With several of the megacap leaders reporting this week, this trend will need to reverse if the broader index is going to hold key tactical levels and rally in the year end as the consensus is now...]]>239false981fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ellen-zentner-the-rise-of-the-sheconomy--75653160----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll take a closer look at women's role in the economy and the impact they could have over the next decade. It's Friday, October 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week, Harvard economist Claudia Goldin won the Nobel Prize for her work identifying the causes of wage and labor market inequality. Not only is her work notable for its subject matter, it is also because Claudia is the first woman to win the Nobel in economics by herself. In other words, all of the credit goes to her. Golden's body of work has included the role of contraception in helping women with family and career planning, something we studied as well. The rise of what we have dubbed the "SHEconomy" is a topic we at Morgan Stanley Research first covered in 2019 and continue to follow closely. 
For some context. Today, women are having fewer children and earning more bachelor's degrees than men. The median marriage age for women has increased, as has the age at which we first start bearing children. These shifting lifestyle norms are enabling more women to work full time, which should continue to increase participation in the labor force among single females. In 2019, we estimated that the number of single women in the U.S. would grow 1.2% annually through 2030, and that compares with 0.8% for the overall population. Based on these calculations, by 2030, 45% of prime working age women will be single, the largest share in history. Now, data show that women outspend the average household and are the principal shoppers and more than 70% of households. So women are very powerful economic agents. They contribute an estimated $7 trillion to U.S. GDP per year. They are the breadwinners in nearly 30% of married households and nearly 40% of total U.S. households. In the last decade, single prime working age women from 30 to 34 years old have seen the most pronounced rise in female headship rates, and that's followed by 25 to 29 year olds. 
Now, if we look back as far as 1985, female homeownership as a share of total homeownership has risen from 25% to 50%. And our projection suggests that with rising female labor force participation and further closing of the wage gap, female homeownership should rise as well. 
So the profile of the average American woman is also changing, whereas the average American woman in 2017 was white, married and in her 50's, holding a bachelor's degree and employed in education or health services. We think that by 2030 she is more likely to be younger, single and a racial minority, holding a bachelor's degree and employed in business and professional services. 
Indeed, over the last several years, gender diversity, the male-female wage gap and women's role in the workplace have rightly been a key media and social topic and something that we at Morgan Stanley are very passionate about. And for women, these public discussions have set the stage for equality in areas like education, professional advancement, income growth and consumer buying power. We've come a long way, but it's important to underscore that more work remains to be done. 
Looking ahead, women are in a position to drive the economic conversation from both the inside as a workforce propelling company performance, and the outside as consumers powering discretionary spending and GDP. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VnOXPuRiEjm2g50VM3XaMCtjHsXRryWGnIX6mX0AtTUFri, 20 Oct 2023 19:20:20 +0000gtyDemographic changes are making women in the U.S. more powerful economic agents, driving spending and GDP. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll take a closer look at women's role in the economy and the impact they could have over the next decade. It's Friday, October 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week, Harvard economist Claudia Goldin won the Nobel Prize for her work identifying the causes of wage and labor market inequality. Not only is her work notable for its subject matter, it is also because Claudia is the first woman to win the Nobel in economics by herself. In other words, all of the credit goes to her. Golden's body of work has included the role of contraception in helping women with family and career planning, something we studied as well. The rise of what we have dubbed the "SHEconomy" is a topic we at Morgan Stanley Research first covered in 2019 and continue to follow closely. 
For some context. Today, women are having fewer children and earning more bachelor's degrees than men. The median marriage age for women has increased, as has the age at which we first start bearing children. These shifting lifestyle norms are enabling more women to work full time, which should continue to increase participation in the labor force among single females. In 2019, we estimated that the number of single women in the U.S. would grow 1.2% annually through 2030, and that compares with 0.8% for the overall population. Based on these calculations, by 2030, 45% of prime working age women will be single, the largest share in history. Now, data show that women outspend the average household and are the principal shoppers and more than 70% of households. So women are very powerful economic agents. They contribute an estimated $7 trillion to U.S. GDP per year. They are the breadwinners in nearly 30% of married households and nearly 40% of total U.S. households. In the last decade, single prime working age women from 30 to 34 years old have seen the most pronounced rise in female headship rates, and that's followed by 25 to 29 year olds. 
Now, if we look back as far as 1985, female homeownership as a share of total homeownership has risen from 25% to 50%. And our projection suggests that with rising female labor force participation and further closing of the wage gap, female homeownership should rise as well. 
So the profile of the average American woman is also changing, whereas the average American woman in 2017 was white, married and in her 50's, holding a bachelor's degree and employed in education or health services. We think that by 2030 she is more likely to be younger, single and a racial minority, holding a bachelor's degree and employed in business and professional services. 
Indeed, over the last several years, gender diversity, the male-female wage gap and women's role in the workplace have rightly been a key media and social topic and something that we at Morgan Stanley are very passionate about. And for women, these public discussions have set the stage for equality in areas like education, professional advancement, income growth and consumer buying power. We've come a long way, but it's important to underscore that more work remains to be done. 
Looking ahead, women are in a position to drive the economic conversation from both the inside as a workforce propelling company performance, and the outside as consumers powering discretionary spending and GDP. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>222false980fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-autos-automotive-s-smartphone-moment--75653122----- Transcript -----Lee Simpson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lee Simpson, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Technology Hardware Team. 
Shaqeal Kirunda: And I'm Shaqeal Kirunda, from Morgan Stanley's European Autos Team. 
Lee Simpson: On this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the evolution of autos in the direction of software defined vehicles. It's Thursday, 19th October at 10 a.m. in London. 
Lee Simpson: Cars are in the process of transforming from electromechanical terminals to intelligent mobile devices, and we think the emergence of software defined vehicles or SDVs, is a sign we're approaching the car smartphone moment. The migration to SDVs is part of a broader transformation in autos that could even redefine the economics of the car itself. The implications for this are deep and far reaching. So Shaqeal, what is an SDV and how is it different from most cars on the road today? 
Shaqeal Kirunda: Thanks Lee, so most people are aware of one of the global megatrends in autos to transition to electric vehicles, was less well understood as a transition to the software defined vehicle. An SDV can be defined as any vehicle that manages its operations or adds new functionality, mainly through software. What that actually means to the consumer is a car that features an operating system which is upgradable over the air, not just for apps and infotainment of a whole software upgrades, safety improvements and new functions such as autonomous driving. So for a future SDV, the functions will be defined by the software and not the hardware. This dynamic mirrors how we use apps and software in phones today. Lee, how does this change the whole architecture of the car? 
Lee Simpson: Yeah, I think computing needs to change. We've seen that in other devices before and here for the car, it's transitioning really from this distributed area of lots of independent microcontrollers or simple chips in the car,ix notes towards something a little more orchestrated or a centralized compute is perhaps the best way to think of this. Now, there will not be a set path. Different OEMs and different platforms will be built along different lines, a logical path, a physical rewiring path. Some will move through domain clusters, others will move to zonal compute. But in the end, the journey will be the same. We'll move to this sort of server on wheels type of architecture, at least from the point of view of compute. And along the way will introduce new players to the automotive space, those larger chip makers who are champions in the systems on CHIP or SOC environment today. And perhaps for them they'll be attracted to this perhaps large silicon TAM that we'll see in the car. We think perhaps $15 billion of extra semiconductor building materials by the end of the decade. So with that in mind, in essence, we think the evolution towards SDVs involves a decoupling of the hardware and software in a vehicle. So, Shaqeal, where are we in this complicated process right now? And what are some of the paths to the future? 
Shaqeal Kirunda: Interesting question. We're certainly seeing different rates of progress. The key distinction here is between legacy players and new market entrants. New market entrants have embraced the transition to both EVs and SDVs. Through this they can offer over the air upgrades and safety features as well as new functions, creating new software based revenue streams. Legacy manufacturers have taken note of the major transition they're facing, but as incumbents have taken slightly longer to put this into action. Whereas the new market entrants started from scratch, the incumbents are redesigning manufacturing processes they've been executing on for years. They are making progress however, the first newly designed software defined vehicles are scheduled to be released between 2024 and 2026. But if we take a step back for a moment, pandemic caused a major disruption to the semiconductor supply chains that are so central to the auto industry. How will the migrations to SDVs change the use of and reliance on auto related semiconductors? 
Lee Simpson: Well, I think from a reliance perspective, we've already seen that in cars. There's quite a considerable reliance on those microcontrollers we've mentioned already. But if anything, this will increase. And I think you'll see that a lot of the main consideration of how a car works running through this myriad of new semiconductor chips. I think the key consideration here, however, is this is a safety critical environment and this is not something that compute is normally structured for. If you take, for instance, the cloud or even your mobile phone, the consideration here is far different. Sometimes it's about performance as in the cloud. Sometimes it's about low power or power efficiency as in your smartphone. Here the paramount feature is safety criticality. And so I think silicon here will need to have real time compute. So zero latency in its and its ability to deliver a decision maker to the decision to the driver and will also have to be secure. So I have to ensure that no new threat surface is introduced to the safety critical vehicle. So with that all in mind, what are some of the benefits of SDVs for both the auto industry and the consumer? 
Shaqeal Kirunda: Thanks Lee, the benefits for the auto industry are clear. Legacy OEMs face competitive threats from new entrants focused on SDVs. If legacy players don't transition towards SDVs on time, they will continue to lose global and local market share. Of course, the opportunity for OEMs is that the new software features could come with new software margins. Potential benefits for customers centered more towards new features and residual value. New features could be anything from safety improvements based on driver data to completely new apps from third party developers, downloaded straight to the car. Also with much better software comes much better data collection. This opens the door to predictive maintenance and improved reliability, which reduces repair costs and supports residual values. The question with all these benefits is whether customers will really value them. It will take a change in consumer behavior to shift from buying a car with all functions upfront to buying new functions later down the road. So clearly there are also a number of challenges on the road to adoption. Lee, what are some of the hurdles and downside risks of right now and looking towards the future? 
Lee Simpson: Well, I think the key thing here is software testing. This is something that, again, really leans on that safety, criticality environment of the vehicle. So before you can introduce software into a car, probably needs to be certified as safe for this environment. Now, that's a non-trivial task to overcome. Creating a certification process needs a Cross-Industry  agreement and needs someone to drive this through, and probably someone also to drive some standards that will impact in the hardware space equally as well. This will all have to be done with commercial considerations as well, so you'll have to ensure that this is consistently delivered so that the user experiences is the same car after car. This will ensure that the OEMs can deliver on their specs and the SDVs themself will start to grow as a possible value proposition for them. So finally, Shaqeal, what are some of the key milestones that investors should watch for in the migration to SDVs? 
Shaqeal Kirunda: Absolutely. Over the next few years, we'll start to see legacy players release their own version of newly updated, fully software defined vehicles. We're still at the early stages and it may take some time, but I expect we'll see further partnerships with start up automotive software players as legacy manufacturers recognize they are the best app developers. OEMs may also open their app stores to third party developers and invite them to create new applications for consumers. We've seen this with everything from smartphones to blockchain, and this could also be important for SDVs. Now, once things really take off, OEMs are sharing data and software based revenues. The key focus here will be the split between embedded and standalone revenues, i.e. those software features sold at the point of sale versus those sold during the life of the car. 
Lee Simpson: Thank you, Shaqeal. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me today. 
Shaqeal Kirunda: Great speaking with you Lee. 
Lee Simpson: And thanks for listening, everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AsUpQpFEnLXkGVg81_D0J7VrjQvzODwZdiMTZCzRi2IThu, 19 Oct 2023 20:08:30 +0000gtyThe automotive industry’s steady transition to “software-defined vehicles” could offer new entrants advantages against established incumbents. ----- Transcript -----Lee Simpson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lee Simpson, Head of Morgan...----- Transcript -----Lee Simpson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lee Simpson, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Technology Hardware Team. 
Shaqeal Kirunda: And I'm Shaqeal Kirunda, from Morgan Stanley's European Autos Team. 
Lee Simpson: On this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the evolution of autos in the direction of software defined vehicles. It's Thursday, 19th October at 10 a.m. in London. 
Lee Simpson: Cars are in the process of transforming from electromechanical terminals to intelligent mobile devices, and we think the emergence of software defined vehicles or SDVs, is a sign we're approaching the car smartphone moment. The migration to SDVs is part of a broader transformation in autos that could even redefine the economics of the car itself. The implications for this are deep and far reaching. So Shaqeal, what is an SDV and how is it different from most cars on the road today? 
Shaqeal Kirunda: Thanks Lee, so most people are aware of one of the global megatrends in autos to transition to electric vehicles, was less well understood as a transition to the software defined vehicle. An SDV can be defined as any vehicle that manages its operations or adds new functionality, mainly through software. What that actually means to the consumer is a car that features an operating system which is upgradable over the air, not just for apps and infotainment of a whole software upgrades, safety improvements and new functions such as autonomous driving. So for a future SDV, the functions will be defined by the software and not the hardware. This dynamic mirrors how we use apps and software in phones today. Lee, how does this change the whole architecture of the car? 
Lee Simpson: Yeah, I think computing needs to change. We've seen that in other devices before and here for the car, it's transitioning really from this distributed area of lots of independent microcontrollers or simple chips in the car,ix notes towards something a little more orchestrated or a centralized compute is perhaps the best way to think of this. Now, there will not be a set path. Different OEMs and different platforms will be built along different lines, a logical path, a physical rewiring path. Some will move through domain clusters, others will move to zonal compute. But in the end, the journey will be the same. We'll move to this sort of server on wheels type of architecture, at least from the point of view of compute. And along the way will introduce new players to the automotive space, those larger chip makers who are champions in the systems on CHIP or SOC environment today. And perhaps for them they'll be attracted to this perhaps large silicon TAM that we'll see in the car. We think perhaps $15 billion of extra semiconductor building materials by the end of the decade. So with that in mind, in essence, we think the evolution towards SDVs involves a decoupling of the hardware and software in a vehicle. So, Shaqeal, where are we in this complicated process right now? And what are some of the paths to the future? 
Shaqeal Kirunda: Interesting question. We're certainly seeing different rates of progress. The key distinction here is between legacy players and new market entrants. New market entrants have embraced the transition to both EVs and SDVs. Through this they can offer over the air upgrades and safety features as well as new functions, creating new software based revenue streams. Legacy manufacturers have taken note of the major transition they're facing, but as incumbents have taken slightly longer to put this into action. Whereas the new market entrants started from scratch, the incumbents are redesigning manufacturing processes they've been executing on for years. They are making progress however, the first newly designed software defined...]]>476false979fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-impact-of-geopolitical-tension--75653107----- Transcript -----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of recent geopolitical tensions. It's Wednesday at 8 a.m. in New York. 
As tragedy continues to unfold in the Middle East, we continue, along with our clients, to care greatly about these events. And there's been no shortage of prognostication in the media about if the conflict escalates, how other countries might get involved, and what the effects would be on the global economy and markets. Not surprisingly, this has been the most common topic of discussion for me with clients this week. And as a strategist, who's practice relies on unraveling geopolitical complexities, what I can say with confidence is this: there's no obvious path from here, and so we need to be humble and flexible in our thinking. 
While that might not be the clear guidance you're hoping for, let me suggest that accepting this uncertainty can itself be clarifying. As we've discussed many times in our work on the transition to a multipolar world, geopolitical uncertainty has been on the rise for some time. Governments are implementing policies that support economic and political security and in the process, rewiring global commerce to avoid empowering geopolitical rivals. 
The situation is obviously complicated, but here's a couple conclusions we feel confident in today. 
First, security spending is rising as an investment theme. We believe that U.S. and EU companies will spend up to one and a half trillion dollars to de-risk supply chains. Critical infrastructure stocks could be at the center of this. 
Additionally, oil prices may rise, but investors should resist the assumption that this alone would lead rates higher. An oil supply shock from security disruptions in the region could be possible after several more steps of escalation. But as our economists have noted, higher oil prices, while they clearly mean higher gasoline prices, the effects may be more muted and temporary across goods and services broadly. In prior oil supply shocks, a 10% jump in price on average added 0.35% to headline U.S. CPI for three months, but just 0.03% to core CPI. Further, higher gasoline prices can meaningfully crimp lower income consumers behavior, weakening demand in the economy and mitigating overall inflationary pressures. Then one shouldn't assume higher oil prices translate to a more hawkish central bank posture. 
So the situation overall is obviously evolving and complex. We'll keep tracking it and keep you informed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4-FpEcvC5C3rXsIbFuJQxhx-3L9NyU6z5WDS_jdNuQgWed, 18 Oct 2023 21:21:11 +0000gtyIn the continuing transition to a multipolar world, geopolitical uncertainty is on the rise and new government policies could rewire global commerce. ----- Transcript -----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed...----- Transcript -----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of recent geopolitical tensions. It's Wednesday at 8 a.m. in New York. 
As tragedy continues to unfold in the Middle East, we continue, along with our clients, to care greatly about these events. And there's been no shortage of prognostication in the media about if the conflict escalates, how other countries might get involved, and what the effects would be on the global economy and markets. Not surprisingly, this has been the most common topic of discussion for me with clients this week. And as a strategist, who's practice relies on unraveling geopolitical complexities, what I can say with confidence is this: there's no obvious path from here, and so we need to be humble and flexible in our thinking. 
While that might not be the clear guidance you're hoping for, let me suggest that accepting this uncertainty can itself be clarifying. As we've discussed many times in our work on the transition to a multipolar world, geopolitical uncertainty has been on the rise for some time. Governments are implementing policies that support economic and political security and in the process, rewiring global commerce to avoid empowering geopolitical rivals. 
The situation is obviously complicated, but here's a couple conclusions we feel confident in today. 
First, security spending is rising as an investment theme. We believe that U.S. and EU companies will spend up to one and a half trillion dollars to de-risk supply chains. Critical infrastructure stocks could be at the center of this. 
Additionally, oil prices may rise, but investors should resist the assumption that this alone would lead rates higher. An oil supply shock from security disruptions in the region could be possible after several more steps of escalation. But as our economists have noted, higher oil prices, while they clearly mean higher gasoline prices, the effects may be more muted and temporary across goods and services broadly. In prior oil supply shocks, a 10% jump in price on average added 0.35% to headline U.S. CPI for three months, but just 0.03% to core CPI. Further, higher gasoline prices can meaningfully crimp lower income consumers behavior, weakening demand in the economy and mitigating overall inflationary pressures. Then one shouldn't assume higher oil prices translate to a more hawkish central bank posture. 
So the situation overall is obviously evolving and complex. We'll keep tracking it and keep you informed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>170false978fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-tech-generative-ai-and-asset-management--75652842----- Transcript -----Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Team. 
Bruce Hamilton: And I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Asset Management and Diversified Financials Research. 
Mike Cyprys: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll talk about what the Generative A.I Revolution might mean for asset and wealth managers. It's Tuesday, October 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Bruce Hamilton: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Mike Cyprys: My colleagues and I believe that Generative A.I is a revolution rather than simply an evolution and one that is well underway. We think Gen A.I, which differs from traditional A.I in that it uses data to create new content, will fundamentally transform how we live and work. This is certainly the case for asset and wealth management, where leading firms have already started deploying it and extracting tangible benefits from Gen A.I across an array of use cases. Bruce, what has been the initial focus among firms that have successfully deployed Gen A.I so far? And, something that has been top of mind for most of us, is Gen A.I replacing human resources? 
Bruce Hamilton: So Mike, clearly it's early days, but from our conversations with more than 20 firms managing over $20 trillion in assets, it seems clear that the immediate opportunities are mainly around efficiency gains rather than top-line improvements. However over time, as these evolve, we expect that this can drive opportunity for top-line also. All firms we spoke with see the importance of humans in the loop given risks, so A.I as copilot and freeing up resource for more value added activities rather than replacing humans. 
Mike Cyprys: What are some of the top most priorities for firms already implementing Gen A.I? And in broad terms, how are they thinking about integrating Gen A.I within their business models? 
Bruce Hamilton: So opportunities are seen across the value chain in sales and client service, product development, investment in research and middle and back office. Initial efficiency use cases would include drafting customized pitch or RFP reports and sales, synthesis of research and extraction of data in research, and coding in I.T.. Now Mike, specifically within the asset management space, there are two primary ways Gen A.I is disrupting. One is through efficiencies and two revenue opportunities. Can you speak to the latter? How would Gen A.I change or improve asset management? And do you believe it will truly transform the industry? 
Mike Cyprys: Absolutely. I think it can transform the industry because what's going to change how we live, how we work, and that will have implications across business models and the competitive landscape. I believe we're now at a A.I tipping point, just in terms of its ability to be deployed on a widespread basis across asset managers. The initial focus is overwhelmingly on driving efficiency gains and at the moment there's skepticism if Gen A.I can drive product alpha, but it should help with some of the maintenance tax around collecting and summarizing information and cleaning data. This should help release PM's of time to focus more on higher value idea generation and testing their ideas, which should help performance generation. I don't think it hurts. All in, we think this could result in up to 30% productivity gains across the investment functions. 
Bruce Hamilton: We've talked about how Gen A.I affects asset management. Do you think it can transform how financial advisers do their job and what kind of productivity gains are you expecting to see? 
Mike Cyprys: Financial advisors stand to benefit the most from Gen A.I because it should help liberate advisors time spent on routine or administrative tasks and allow them to focus more of their time on building deeper connections with clients and allowing them to service more clients with the same resources. And so that's how you get the revenue opportunity, by serving more clients and more assets. It's more of a copilot or tool that enhances human capabilities as opposed to replacing the human advisor. So on the wealth side, we do see more of a revenue opportunity for Gen A.I than we do on the asset management side in the near-to-medium-term. Use cases include collecting client information and interactive ways and summarizing those insights as well as proposing the next best actions and drafting engagement plans and talking points. All in, Gen A.I should help drive productivity improvements between 30 to 40% in the wealth sleeve. 
Bruce Hamilton: So Mike, what's your outlook for the next 3 to 5 years when it comes to the impact of Gen A.I on asset management? 
Mike Cyprys: It's really an expense efficiency play in the near to medium term for asset managers. But as you look out over the next 3-to-5 years, we could see a situation where A.I is embedded in a broader range of activities, from product development to portfolio management and trading areas, including trade optimization strategies, as well as brainstorming new product ideas tailored to client needs. Now in terms of assessing firms that are best placed, our qualitative assessment considers four main areas. First, there's firm scale and resources to allocate to both profitability and balance sheet capacity. Secondly, we consider a firm's in-house data and technology resources to drive change. Thirdly, are firms’ access to proprietary datasets where it can leverage A.I capabilities. And finally, there's the strategic priority assigned to A.I. by management. 
Bruce Hamilton: But Mike, what are some of the risks and limitations of A.I technology when it comes to wealth management and specifically to financial advisors rather than to back office functions? 
Mike Cyprys: We see the risks falling into two categories. There's technological risks on one side that includes hallucinations that can result in poor decisions, as well as inability to trace underlying logic and the threat of cyber attack and fraud. Then on the other side, there's usage risks, which include data privacy, improperly trained models, as well as copyright concerns. We're seeing firms respond to these challenges by maintaining a ‘human in the loop’ approach to A.I. adoption. That is a human is involved in the decision making process such that A.I operates with human oversight and intervention. 
Mike Cyprys: Bruce, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. 
Bruce Hamilton: Great speaking with you, Mike. 
Mike Cyprys: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or calling today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/cyCDMwcu2AKV99fE4TjAwY6ztVLdHe0EP1U-g2LgNlATue, 17 Oct 2023 21:50:32 +0000gtyThe asset management and wealth management sectors could see AI boost efficiency in the short term and drive alpha in the medium to long term. ----- Transcript -----Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head...----- Transcript -----Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Team. 
Bruce Hamilton: And I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Asset Management and Diversified Financials Research. 
Mike Cyprys: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll talk about what the Generative A.I Revolution might mean for asset and wealth managers. It's Tuesday, October 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Bruce Hamilton: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Mike Cyprys: My colleagues and I believe that Generative A.I is a revolution rather than simply an evolution and one that is well underway. We think Gen A.I, which differs from traditional A.I in that it uses data to create new content, will fundamentally transform how we live and work. This is certainly the case for asset and wealth management, where leading firms have already started deploying it and extracting tangible benefits from Gen A.I across an array of use cases. Bruce, what has been the initial focus among firms that have successfully deployed Gen A.I so far? And, something that has been top of mind for most of us, is Gen A.I replacing human resources? 
Bruce Hamilton: So Mike, clearly it's early days, but from our conversations with more than 20 firms managing over $20 trillion in assets, it seems clear that the immediate opportunities are mainly around efficiency gains rather than top-line improvements. However over time, as these evolve, we expect that this can drive opportunity for top-line also. All firms we spoke with see the importance of humans in the loop given risks, so A.I as copilot and freeing up resource for more value added activities rather than replacing humans. 
Mike Cyprys: What are some of the top most priorities for firms already implementing Gen A.I? And in broad terms, how are they thinking about integrating Gen A.I within their business models? 
Bruce Hamilton: So opportunities are seen across the value chain in sales and client service, product development, investment in research and middle and back office. Initial efficiency use cases would include drafting customized pitch or RFP reports and sales, synthesis of research and extraction of data in research, and coding in I.T.. Now Mike, specifically within the asset management space, there are two primary ways Gen A.I is disrupting. One is through efficiencies and two revenue opportunities. Can you speak to the latter? How would Gen A.I change or improve asset management? And do you believe it will truly transform the industry? 
Mike Cyprys: Absolutely. I think it can transform the industry because what's going to change how we live, how we work, and that will have implications across business models and the competitive landscape. I believe we're now at a A.I tipping point, just in terms of its ability to be deployed on a widespread basis across asset managers. The initial focus is overwhelmingly on driving efficiency gains and at the moment there's skepticism if Gen A.I can drive product alpha, but it should help with some of the maintenance tax around collecting and summarizing information and cleaning data. This should help release PM's of time to focus more on higher value idea generation and testing their ideas, which should help performance generation. I don't think it hurts. All in, we think this could result in up to 30% productivity gains across the investment functions. 
Bruce Hamilton: We've talked about how Gen A.I affects asset management. Do you think it can transform how financial advisers do their job and what kind of productivity gains are you expecting to see? 
Mike Cyprys: Financial advisors stand to benefit the most from Gen A.I because it should help liberate advisors time spent on routine or administrative tasks and...]]>371false977fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seth-carpenter-are-higher-rates-permanent--75653260----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist, and along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today, I'll be talking about the tightening of financial conditions. It's Monday, October 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The net selloff in U.S. interest rates since May prompts the question of how restrictive financial conditions have become in the United States. Federal Reserve leaders highlighted the tightening in conditions in recent speeches, with emphasis on the recent rise in long term yields. One lens on this issue is the Financial Conditions index, and the Morgan Stanley version suggests that the recent rate move is the equivalent of just under two Fed hikes since the September FOMC meeting. Taken at face value, it sustained these tight conditions will restrain economic activity over time. Put differently, the market is doing additional tightening for the Fed. 
Before the rally in rates this week, the Morgan Stanley Financial Conditions Index reached the highest level since November 2022, and the move was the equivalent of more than 2 25 basis point hikes since the September FOMC meeting. Of course, the mapping to Fed funds equivalence is just one approximation among many. When Fed staff tried to map QE effects into Fed funds equivalence, they would have assessed the 50 basis point move in term premiums we have seen as a 200 basis point move in hiking the Fed funds rate. 
What does the FCI mean for inflation and growth? Well, Morgan Stanley forecasts have been fairly accurate on the inflation trend throughout 2023, although we have underestimated growth. We think that core PCE inflation gets below 3% by the first quarter of next year. For growth, the key question is whether the sell off is exogenous, that is if it's unrelated to the fundamentals of the economy and whether it persists. A persistent exogenous rise in rates should slow the economy, and over time the Fed would need to adjust the path of policy lower in order to offset that drag. The more drag that comes from markets, the less drag the Fed would do with policy. But if instead the sell off is endogenous, that is, the higher rates reflect just a fundamentally stronger economy, either because of more fiscal policy or higher productivity growth or both, the growth need not slow at all and rates can stay high forever. 
Well, what does the FCI mean then, for the Fed? Bond yields have contributed about 2/3's of the rise in the Financial conditions index, and the Fed seems to have taken note. In a panel moderated by our own Ellen Zentner last Monday, Vice Chair Jefferson was a key voice suggesting that the rate move could forestall another hike. The Fed, however, must confront the same two questions. Is the tightening endogenous or exogenous, and will it persist? If rates continued their rally over the next several weeks and offset the tightening, then there's no material effect. But the second question of exogeneity is also critical. If the selloff was exogenous, then the tightening should hurt growth and the Fed will have to adjust policy in response. If instead the higher rates are an endogenous reaction, then there may be more underlying strength in the economy than our models imply and the shift higher in rates could be permanent. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts or share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/aItpYMwixWf1LvT7l0JyJoJmGk5Gxp9dk4d2hy0hVOIMon, 16 Oct 2023 20:59:41 +0000gtyThe recent rise in long term yields and economic tightening raises the question of how restrictive U.S. financial conditions have become. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist, and along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today, I'll be talking about the tightening of financial conditions. It's Monday, October 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The net selloff in U.S. interest rates since May prompts the question of how restrictive financial conditions have become in the United States. Federal Reserve leaders highlighted the tightening in conditions in recent speeches, with emphasis on the recent rise in long term yields. One lens on this issue is the Financial Conditions index, and the Morgan Stanley version suggests that the recent rate move is the equivalent of just under two Fed hikes since the September FOMC meeting. Taken at face value, it sustained these tight conditions will restrain economic activity over time. Put differently, the market is doing additional tightening for the Fed. 
Before the rally in rates this week, the Morgan Stanley Financial Conditions Index reached the highest level since November 2022, and the move was the equivalent of more than 2 25 basis point hikes since the September FOMC meeting. Of course, the mapping to Fed funds equivalence is just one approximation among many. When Fed staff tried to map QE effects into Fed funds equivalence, they would have assessed the 50 basis point move in term premiums we have seen as a 200 basis point move in hiking the Fed funds rate. 
What does the FCI mean for inflation and growth? Well, Morgan Stanley forecasts have been fairly accurate on the inflation trend throughout 2023, although we have underestimated growth. We think that core PCE inflation gets below 3% by the first quarter of next year. For growth, the key question is whether the sell off is exogenous, that is if it's unrelated to the fundamentals of the economy and whether it persists. A persistent exogenous rise in rates should slow the economy, and over time the Fed would need to adjust the path of policy lower in order to offset that drag. The more drag that comes from markets, the less drag the Fed would do with policy. But if instead the sell off is endogenous, that is, the higher rates reflect just a fundamentally stronger economy, either because of more fiscal policy or higher productivity growth or both, the growth need not slow at all and rates can stay high forever. 
Well, what does the FCI mean then, for the Fed? Bond yields have contributed about 2/3's of the rise in the Financial conditions index, and the Fed seems to have taken note. In a panel moderated by our own Ellen Zentner last Monday, Vice Chair Jefferson was a key voice suggesting that the rate move could forestall another hike. The Fed, however, must confront the same two questions. Is the tightening endogenous or exogenous, and will it persist? If rates continued their rally over the next several weeks and offset the tightening, then there's no material effect. But the second question of exogeneity is also critical. If the selloff was exogenous, then the tightening should hurt growth and the Fed will have to adjust policy in response. If instead the higher rates are an endogenous reaction, then there may be more underlying strength in the economy than our models imply and the shift higher in rates could be permanent. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts or share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>203false976fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-treasury-yields-move-higher--75653089----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on the back of moves higher in Treasury yields. It's Friday, October 13th at 3 pm. in New York. 
The midsummer move higher in long-end treasury yields picked up further momentum in September, spiking to levels last seen over 15 years ago. Market narratives explaining these moves have revolved largely around upside surprises to growth and concerns about large federal fiscal deficits. The September employment report was unequivocally strong, perhaps too strong for policymakers to relax their tightening bias. While inflation has been decelerating faster than the Fed forecasts, continued strength in job gains could fuel doubts about the sustainability of the pace of deceleration. 
On the other hand, the rise in long-end yields have led financial conditions tighter. By our economists’ measure, since the September FOMC meeting, financial conditions have tightened to the equivalent of about two 25 basis point hikes, bringing the degree of tightness more in line with the Fed's intent. Thus, our economists see no need for further hikes in the Fed's policy rates this year. In effect, the move higher in Treasury yields is doing the job of additional hikes. 
It's worth highlighting that there has been a subtle shift in the tone of Fed speak in the past two weeks, indicating that the appetite for additional hike this year is waning. Given the moves in Treasury yields, we felt the need to reassess our Treasury yield forecasts and move them higher relative to our previous forecasts. Our interest rate strategists now expect ten-year Treasury yields to end year 2023 at 4.3% and mid-2024 at 3.9%. 
The effects of higher treasury yields are different in the corporate credit market. Unlike the Treasury market, the concentration of yield buyers in investment grade corporate credit bonds is much higher, especially at the back end of the curve. These yield buyers offer an important counterbalance. In fact, for longer duration buyers, there are not that many competing alternatives to IG corporate credit. While spreads look low relative to Treasury yields, growth optimism is likely to keep demand skewed towards credit over government bonds. Insurance companies and pension funds may have room to add corporate credit exposure, although stability in yields is certainly important. 
Higher treasury yields have implications to other markets as well, notably on emerging market bonds. Considering the move in U.S. Treasury yields, we think EM credit bonds cannot absorb any further move higher. In a higher for longer scenario, we expect EM high yield bonds to struggle. Therefore, we no longer think that EM high-yield credit will outperform EM investment grade credit. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AKOgnlym45CqA9BZeJtXV2G4nl_9N3fuyOb9S352KEgFri, 13 Oct 2023 22:13:42 +0000gtyOn the heels of a midsummer spike, long-end treasury yields have picked up further momentum, which has created complex implications for the Fed, the corporate credit market, and emerging market bonds. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on the back of moves higher in Treasury yields. It's Friday, October 13th at 3 pm. in New York. 
The midsummer move higher in long-end treasury yields picked up further momentum in September, spiking to levels last seen over 15 years ago. Market narratives explaining these moves have revolved largely around upside surprises to growth and concerns about large federal fiscal deficits. The September employment report was unequivocally strong, perhaps too strong for policymakers to relax their tightening bias. While inflation has been decelerating faster than the Fed forecasts, continued strength in job gains could fuel doubts about the sustainability of the pace of deceleration. 
On the other hand, the rise in long-end yields have led financial conditions tighter. By our economists’ measure, since the September FOMC meeting, financial conditions have tightened to the equivalent of about two 25 basis point hikes, bringing the degree of tightness more in line with the Fed's intent. Thus, our economists see no need for further hikes in the Fed's policy rates this year. In effect, the move higher in Treasury yields is doing the job of additional hikes. 
It's worth highlighting that there has been a subtle shift in the tone of Fed speak in the past two weeks, indicating that the appetite for additional hike this year is waning. Given the moves in Treasury yields, we felt the need to reassess our Treasury yield forecasts and move them higher relative to our previous forecasts. Our interest rate strategists now expect ten-year Treasury yields to end year 2023 at 4.3% and mid-2024 at 3.9%. 
The effects of higher treasury yields are different in the corporate credit market. Unlike the Treasury market, the concentration of yield buyers in investment grade corporate credit bonds is much higher, especially at the back end of the curve. These yield buyers offer an important counterbalance. In fact, for longer duration buyers, there are not that many competing alternatives to IG corporate credit. While spreads look low relative to Treasury yields, growth optimism is likely to keep demand skewed towards credit over government bonds. Insurance companies and pension funds may have room to add corporate credit exposure, although stability in yields is certainly important. 
Higher treasury yields have implications to other markets as well, notably on emerging market bonds. Considering the move in U.S. Treasury yields, we think EM credit bonds cannot absorb any further move higher. In a higher for longer scenario, we expect EM high yield bonds to struggle. Therefore, we no longer think that EM high-yield credit will outperform EM investment grade credit. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>170false975fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chetan-ahya-what-would-trigger-rate-hikes-in-asia--75653165----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss how higher U.S. rates environment could affect Asia. It's Thursday, October 12th, at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Real rates in the U.S. have risen rapidly since mid-May and remain at elevated levels. Against this backdrop, investors are asking if Asian central banks will have to restart their rate hiking cycles. 
We think Asia should be less affected this time around, mainly because of the difference in inflation dynamics. As we've highlighted before on this show when compared to the U.S., Asia's inflation challenge is not as intense. In fact, for 80% of the economies in the region inflation is already back in the respective central bank's comfort zone. Real policy rates are already high and so against this backdrop, we believe central banks will not have to hike. However, we do think that the central banks will delay cutting rates. 
Previously, we had expected that the first rate cut in the region could come in the fourth quarter of 2023, but now we believe that cuts will be delayed and only start in first quarter of 2024. 
So what can trigger renewed rate hikes across Asia? We think that central banks will respond if high U.S. yields are accompanied by Brent crude oil prices rising in a sustained manner, above $110 per barrels versus $85 today. Under this scenario, the region's macro stability indicators of inflation and current account balances could become stretched and currencies may face further weakness. 
In thinking about which central banks might face more pressures to hike, we consider three key factors, economies with lower yields at the starting point, economies running a current account deficit or just about a mile surplus and the oil trade deficit. This suggests that economies like India, Korea, Philippines and Thailand, may be more exposed and so this means that the central banks in these countries may be prompted to begin raising rates. In contrast, the economies of China and Taiwan are less exposed, and so their central banks would be able to stay put.  
Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy  the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/cyhM0qmyNjPU3l6J25V1xG6uhRq133Yl8sni_mN0EukThu, 12 Oct 2023 20:17:22 +0000gtyAlthough inflation is largely under control in Asian economies, central banks could be pushed to respond if high U.S. yields meet rising oil prices. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss how higher U.S. rates environment could affect Asia. It's Thursday, October 12th, at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Real rates in the U.S. have risen rapidly since mid-May and remain at elevated levels. Against this backdrop, investors are asking if Asian central banks will have to restart their rate hiking cycles. 
We think Asia should be less affected this time around, mainly because of the difference in inflation dynamics. As we've highlighted before on this show when compared to the U.S., Asia's inflation challenge is not as intense. In fact, for 80% of the economies in the region inflation is already back in the respective central bank's comfort zone. Real policy rates are already high and so against this backdrop, we believe central banks will not have to hike. However, we do think that the central banks will delay cutting rates. 
Previously, we had expected that the first rate cut in the region could come in the fourth quarter of 2023, but now we believe that cuts will be delayed and only start in first quarter of 2024. 
So what can trigger renewed rate hikes across Asia? We think that central banks will respond if high U.S. yields are accompanied by Brent crude oil prices rising in a sustained manner, above $110 per barrels versus $85 today. Under this scenario, the region's macro stability indicators of inflation and current account balances could become stretched and currencies may face further weakness. 
In thinking about which central banks might face more pressures to hike, we consider three key factors, economies with lower yields at the starting point, economies running a current account deficit or just about a mile surplus and the oil trade deficit. This suggests that economies like India, Korea, Philippines and Thailand, may be more exposed and so this means that the central banks in these countries may be prompted to begin raising rates. In contrast, the economies of China and Taiwan are less exposed, and so their central banks would be able to stay put.  
Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy  the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>141false974fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-signals-from-the-speaker-of-the-house-vacancy--75653152----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of Congress on financial markets. It's Wednesday, October 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As of this recording, the U.S. House of Representatives still does not have a speaker following Representative McCarthy's ouster a little over a week ago. Republicans are scheduled to meet today to attempt to nominate the speaker, but until one is chosen, it's unclear that Congress can do any other business. But does that actually matter for investors? Here's two signals from these events that we think are important. 
First, it signals that Congress is unlikely to deliver any substantial legislation between now and the 2024 election outside of funding bills. Republicans' difficulty choosing a speaker reflects their lack of consensus on many policy issues, including regulation, social spending and more. That further impedes the government's ability to legislate, which was already hampered by different parties controlling the White House and Congress. So for investors who have credited the rise in bond yields and stock prices to expanded fiscal support from the federal government in recent years, you shouldn't expect there to be more on the horizon. The exception to this could be an economic crisis that prompts a fiscal response. But for investors, that means you'd likely see bonds rally and stocks sell off before fiscal support would again become a stock market positive. 
The second signal, which also cuts against the narrative of government policy support for markets, is that a government shutdown is still a distinct possibility. Congress recently avoided the government shutdown at the beginning of the month by passing a temporary extension of funding into November. But that move only delayed the resolution of key policy disagreements within the House Republican caucus that nearly led to the shutdown in the first place. With the clock ticking toward another shutdown deadline, Republicans are spending precious time selecting a new speaker, and it's not clear they're any closer to resolving their disagreements on key issues such as funding aid to Ukraine. Without that resolution, the risk remains that the House could fail to consider funding bills in time to avoid another shutdown. 
Now, to put it in context, our economists expect that downward growth pressures from a shutdown event should be modest, and so there are more meaningful factors to consider for markets out there, but certainly this condition doesn't help investors' confidence in the U.S. growth trajectory. And generally speaking, a Congress stunted in its ability to legislate has the potential to become a bigger challenge, particularly if geopolitical events create greater global growth risks. So bottom line, this situation is worth keeping tabs on, but isn't yet something we think should principally drive investors decision making. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hXgANJQI6YZWUnyLUTCn1hjBmrDB6mSYwa2aujxhl1kWed, 11 Oct 2023 19:37:49 +0000gtyWith Congress still without a Speaker of the House, investors should keep an eye on the impact that another potential government shutdown would have on the markets. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of Congress on financial markets. It's Wednesday, October 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As of this recording, the U.S. House of Representatives still does not have a speaker following Representative McCarthy's ouster a little over a week ago. Republicans are scheduled to meet today to attempt to nominate the speaker, but until one is chosen, it's unclear that Congress can do any other business. But does that actually matter for investors? Here's two signals from these events that we think are important. 
First, it signals that Congress is unlikely to deliver any substantial legislation between now and the 2024 election outside of funding bills. Republicans' difficulty choosing a speaker reflects their lack of consensus on many policy issues, including regulation, social spending and more. That further impedes the government's ability to legislate, which was already hampered by different parties controlling the White House and Congress. So for investors who have credited the rise in bond yields and stock prices to expanded fiscal support from the federal government in recent years, you shouldn't expect there to be more on the horizon. The exception to this could be an economic crisis that prompts a fiscal response. But for investors, that means you'd likely see bonds rally and stocks sell off before fiscal support would again become a stock market positive. 
The second signal, which also cuts against the narrative of government policy support for markets, is that a government shutdown is still a distinct possibility. Congress recently avoided the government shutdown at the beginning of the month by passing a temporary extension of funding into November. But that move only delayed the resolution of key policy disagreements within the House Republican caucus that nearly led to the shutdown in the first place. With the clock ticking toward another shutdown deadline, Republicans are spending precious time selecting a new speaker, and it's not clear they're any closer to resolving their disagreements on key issues such as funding aid to Ukraine. Without that resolution, the risk remains that the House could fail to consider funding bills in time to avoid another shutdown. 
Now, to put it in context, our economists expect that downward growth pressures from a shutdown event should be modest, and so there are more meaningful factors to consider for markets out there, but certainly this condition doesn't help investors' confidence in the U.S. growth trajectory. And generally speaking, a Congress stunted in its ability to legislate has the potential to become a bigger challenge, particularly if geopolitical events create greater global growth risks. So bottom line, this situation is worth keeping tabs on, but isn't yet something we think should principally drive investors decision making. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>183false973fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/keith-weiss-how-generative-ai-could-affect-jobs--75653302----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Keith Weiss, Head of Morgan Stanley's U.S. Software Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the significant potential impact from generative A.I on enterprises. It's Tuesday, October 10th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
You may remember the generative A.I powered chat app that reached 1 million users in only five days after its launch late last year. While much of the early discussion on the use of generative A.I focused on the consumer opportunity, we see perhaps an even bigger opportunity in enterprise software. 
The advantages from traditional A.I to generative A.I are rapidly broadening the scope of the types of work and business processes that enterprise software can automate, and this could ultimately have an impact on industries across the entire economy. 
Of course, one of the biggest questions everyone seems to have is how will generative A.I impact jobs? We forecast 25% of labor could be impacted by generative A.I capabilities available today, likely rising to 44% of labor in three years. Further, by looking at the wages associated with those jobs, our analysis suggests generative and A.I technologies can impact the $2.1 trillion of labor costs attached to those jobs today, expanding to $4.1 trillion in three years in the U.S. alone. This drives an approximately $150 billion revenue opportunity for software companies in our view. 
An important caveat here, we believe it's too early to make any definitive claims on the number of jobs that will be replaced by generative A.I. So we used the term impact to denote the potential for either an augmentation or further automation of these jobs on a go forward basis. 
So what are the jobs we think are most likely to be impacted? Based on the current capabilities of generative A.I technologies like large language models, we believe the common characteristics are skills amongst the jobs most impacted are the need to retrieve or distribute information. For example, billing clerks, proofreaders, switchboard operators, general office workers and brokerage clerks. On the other side of the equation, jobs that are least impacted today are those that require some aspect of physical labor, including ophthalmologists, extraction workers, choreographers, firefighters and manufactured building and mobile home installers. 
Over the next three years, as this more generalized A.I. technology focuses in on more specific use cases, we believe the impact of generative A.I will shift into more specialized jobs, such as general and operations managers, as well as registered nurses, software developers, accountants and auditors, and customer service reps. Of these, the General and Operations Manager jobs could experience the highest potential cumulative wage impact. In fact, our analysis suggests a $83 billion impact amongst general and operations managers today. 
The magnitude of the enterprise impact marks only one side of the equation, as the timing of the realizable opportunity becomes increasingly important for investors to navigate this evolving technology cycle. To be clear, the rapid adoption of these consumer technologies are not going to be indicative of the pace of adoption we're likely to see amongst the enterprise. There are several notable frictions to enterprise adoption related to items such as finding a good return on investment, enabling good data protection, the skill sets necessary to run and operate these new technologies and legal and regulatory considerations, all which necessitate significantly longer adoption cycles for the enterprise. For this reason, we think generative A.I remains in the early stages of the opportunity. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8rI6nFYXBlt-7ASM9CRj_BVLbSLugRaL2xUtnqOfFS4Tue, 10 Oct 2023 20:18:39 +0000gtyAs companies integrate generative AI into enterprise software, a wide variety of jobs that depend on requesting or distributing data could be automated. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Keith Weiss, Head of Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Keith Weiss, Head of Morgan Stanley's U.S. Software Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the significant potential impact from generative A.I on enterprises. It's Tuesday, October 10th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
You may remember the generative A.I powered chat app that reached 1 million users in only five days after its launch late last year. While much of the early discussion on the use of generative A.I focused on the consumer opportunity, we see perhaps an even bigger opportunity in enterprise software. 
The advantages from traditional A.I to generative A.I are rapidly broadening the scope of the types of work and business processes that enterprise software can automate, and this could ultimately have an impact on industries across the entire economy. 
Of course, one of the biggest questions everyone seems to have is how will generative A.I impact jobs? We forecast 25% of labor could be impacted by generative A.I capabilities available today, likely rising to 44% of labor in three years. Further, by looking at the wages associated with those jobs, our analysis suggests generative and A.I technologies can impact the $2.1 trillion of labor costs attached to those jobs today, expanding to $4.1 trillion in three years in the U.S. alone. This drives an approximately $150 billion revenue opportunity for software companies in our view. 
An important caveat here, we believe it's too early to make any definitive claims on the number of jobs that will be replaced by generative A.I. So we used the term impact to denote the potential for either an augmentation or further automation of these jobs on a go forward basis. 
So what are the jobs we think are most likely to be impacted? Based on the current capabilities of generative A.I technologies like large language models, we believe the common characteristics are skills amongst the jobs most impacted are the need to retrieve or distribute information. For example, billing clerks, proofreaders, switchboard operators, general office workers and brokerage clerks. On the other side of the equation, jobs that are least impacted today are those that require some aspect of physical labor, including ophthalmologists, extraction workers, choreographers, firefighters and manufactured building and mobile home installers. 
Over the next three years, as this more generalized A.I. technology focuses in on more specific use cases, we believe the impact of generative A.I will shift into more specialized jobs, such as general and operations managers, as well as registered nurses, software developers, accountants and auditors, and customer service reps. Of these, the General and Operations Manager jobs could experience the highest potential cumulative wage impact. In fact, our analysis suggests a $83 billion impact amongst general and operations managers today. 
The magnitude of the enterprise impact marks only one side of the equation, as the timing of the realizable opportunity becomes increasingly important for investors to navigate this evolving technology cycle. To be clear, the rapid adoption of these consumer technologies are not going to be indicative of the pace of adoption we're likely to see amongst the enterprise. There are several notable frictions to enterprise adoption related to items such as finding a good return on investment, enabling good data protection, the skill sets necessary to run and operate these new technologies and legal and regulatory considerations, all which necessitate significantly longer adoption cycles for the enterprise. For this reason, we think generative A.I remains in the early stages of the opportunity. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show,...]]>233false972fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michelle-weaver-the-priorities-of-the-u-s-consumer--75653111----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the U.S. consumer. It's Monday, October 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we get into the fall season and close out the third quarter of this year, investors are paying attention to the state of the U.S. consumer. Our recent survey work reveals that inflation continues to be a primary concern for consumers and that the U.S. political environment is the second most significant concern. Furthermore, consumers continue to worry about their payment obligations, and 30% of people we surveyed expressed concern over their potential inability to repay debts. Low income consumers are generally more worried about their inability to pay rent, while upper income consumers are concerned about their investments, U.S. politics and geopolitics. 
Overall, consumer confidence in the U.S. economy and household finances worsened modestly in September. More than half of U.S. consumers are expecting the economy to get worse in the next six months, while less than a quarter of consumers are expecting the economy to get better. This worsening sentiment is also consistent across different income cohorts. 
Additionally, savings rates continue to trend lower versus earlier this year. Consumers report having an average savings reserve of 4.2 months, the average over the past few months has been trending lower compared to earlier in the year. Of course, savings reserves vary significantly by income though, with upper income consumers having on average around 6 to 7 months worth of expenses in savings compared to about 3 months for low income cohorts. Positively fewer consumers reported missing or being late on a loan or bill payment, with 34% missing a payment last month versus 38% in August. Low income consumers are more likely to have missed or been late on payments versus middle and high income consumers. 
Consumer spending intentions across income cohorts for the next month are similar to last month, with 31% of consumers expecting to spend more next month and 19% expecting to spend less. Consumers continue to prioritize essential categories like groceries and household items, but plan to spend less on more discretionary products like electronics, leisure and entertainment, small appliances and food away from home. Interesting to note, cell phone bills continue to be a clear priority for consumers. 
Travel intentions have also remained relatively stable. Over half of consumers are planning to travel over the next six months, mostly to visit friends and family, which is slightly up from last year. Not surprisingly, travel spending is higher for high income consumers than for low and middle income ones. However, we have seen plans for international travel start to decline. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MioZv2pmnD4jzSQbQ9CheXY7l8f47XNsgwXBEWpQBwkMon, 09 Oct 2023 20:30:02 +0000gtyWhile U.S. consumer sentiment is on the decline, there are some categories that have remained stable as purse strings tighten. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the U.S. consumer. It's Monday, October 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we get into the fall season and close out the third quarter of this year, investors are paying attention to the state of the U.S. consumer. Our recent survey work reveals that inflation continues to be a primary concern for consumers and that the U.S. political environment is the second most significant concern. Furthermore, consumers continue to worry about their payment obligations, and 30% of people we surveyed expressed concern over their potential inability to repay debts. Low income consumers are generally more worried about their inability to pay rent, while upper income consumers are concerned about their investments, U.S. politics and geopolitics. 
Overall, consumer confidence in the U.S. economy and household finances worsened modestly in September. More than half of U.S. consumers are expecting the economy to get worse in the next six months, while less than a quarter of consumers are expecting the economy to get better. This worsening sentiment is also consistent across different income cohorts. 
Additionally, savings rates continue to trend lower versus earlier this year. Consumers report having an average savings reserve of 4.2 months, the average over the past few months has been trending lower compared to earlier in the year. Of course, savings reserves vary significantly by income though, with upper income consumers having on average around 6 to 7 months worth of expenses in savings compared to about 3 months for low income cohorts. Positively fewer consumers reported missing or being late on a loan or bill payment, with 34% missing a payment last month versus 38% in August. Low income consumers are more likely to have missed or been late on payments versus middle and high income consumers. 
Consumer spending intentions across income cohorts for the next month are similar to last month, with 31% of consumers expecting to spend more next month and 19% expecting to spend less. Consumers continue to prioritize essential categories like groceries and household items, but plan to spend less on more discretionary products like electronics, leisure and entertainment, small appliances and food away from home. Interesting to note, cell phone bills continue to be a clear priority for consumers. 
Travel intentions have also remained relatively stable. Over half of consumers are planning to travel over the next six months, mostly to visit friends and family, which is slightly up from last year. Not surprisingly, travel spending is higher for high income consumers than for low and middle income ones. However, we have seen plans for international travel start to decline. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>176false971fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-equities-credit-continues-to-outperform--75653178-----Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Head of Corporate Credit Research. 
Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's updated cross-asset and corporate credit views. It's Friday, October 6th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Serena Tang: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: Before we get into our discussion, let me introduce Serena Tang as Morgan Stanley's new Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Serena has been working with me for the last 15 years and together we initiated our cross-asset effort nearly a decade ago. Serena was responsible for building the team's investment framework, specializing in multi asset allocation, portfolio optimization, and long run capital market assumptions. So I can confidently say that Morgan Stanley's cross-asset effort is in very capable hands. As for me, I'm now Morgan Stanley's Head of Corporate Credit Research, but I'll continue to host my colleagues as we look forward to bringing you key debates from across asset classes and regions. So, Serena, welcome and let's jump right into what's going on in markets. Over the last several weeks, as everybody in the U.S. has returned from summer, the debate among Morgan Stanley's economists and strategists is centered on two main issues, the outperformance of the U.S. economy and the underperformance of China's economy, as well as the spike of government bond yields, especially at the longer end of the curve. So where has this left our views across asset classes? 
Serena Tang: Yeah, yields and real yields have indeed moved a lot higher in a very short amount of time, you know, on that narrative that rates will stay higher for longer. And I would say that, you know, while the market has been going against our current call for government bond yields to fall over the next 6 to 9 months or so, we’re steadfast on our preference for high quality fixed income over risk assets like global equities, like high yield corporate bonds. And the reason really comes down to how higher real yields mean the discount rate for equities is also higher, leading to lower stock prices. And we've kind of seen this over the past few weeks or so. I think this is especially true in today's environment where the rise in yields and the rise in real yields isn't really driven by a rise in growth expectations, which you know traditionally have been great for equities thinking about future growth. But rather today's move in yields is really much a function of what the markets think the Fed would do over the coming few months. And all this largely explains the nearly 9% selloff we've seen in global equities since the start of August. But Andrew, you know, such dynamics must also be very similar in the credit world. In your view, how do rising government bond yields affect your outlook for global credit? 
Andrew Sheets: So I think credit finds itself in a pretty interesting place as bond yields have risen. You know, I would safely say that I think credit as a passenger in recent market volatility, it's not the driver. And, you know, if I think very simply about why bond yields have been selling off and there are a lot of different theories of why that's been happening, maybe a simple explanation would be that bond yields offer pretty poor so-called carry, a government bond, a ten year government bond yields less than just holding cash. They offer poor momentum, they're moving in the wrong direction and they have difficult technicals, i.e., there's a lot of supply of government bonds forecast over the coming years. And across a lot of those metrics, I do think credit looks somewhat better. Credit yields are higher, that carry is better. Credit compensates you more for taking on a longer maturity corporate bond, which is the opposite of what you see in the government bond market. And as yields have risen, companies have looked at those higher yields and done, I think, a very understandable thing, they are borrowing less money because it's more expensive to borrow that money. So we've seen less supply of corporate bonds into the market, which means there's less supply that needs to be absorbed and bought by investors. So credit can't ignore what's going on in this environment and we're broadly forecasting this to be worse for weaker companies, as the effect of potentially slower growth and higher rates we think will weigh more heavily on the more levered type of capital structure. But overall, I think within this kind of challenging environment, I think credit has been an outperformer and I think it can remain an outperformer given it has some advantages on these key metrics. 
Serena Tang: So you touched on lower quality companies. One of the very interesting forecasts from your team is that we still think default rates can go higher over the next 12 months. Now, how do I square this with everything that you just said, but also our U.S. economics team’s continued forecast for a soft landing? 
Andrew Sheets: It's a great question. I'd say our default forecast, which is that US default rates rise to a little bit under 5% over the next 12 months, is quite divisive. I’d say there's a group of investors who say, well, it doesn't make a lot of sense that default rates would rise given that our base case does call for a soft landing of the US economy, no recession. And another group that says, well, that seems like too low of a default rate because interest rates have just risen at one of the fastest paces we've seen in 150 years. Of course, that's going to put stress on weaker companies. And I guess we see the markets splitting the difference a little bit between that. I think the fact that you are seeing a clearly outperforming US economy, I think that does really reduce the risk of an above average default rate. It would be very unusual to see an above average default rate with anything like what we're forecasting in our base case economically. And then at the same time, you do have, thanks to the low rates we're coming from, an unusually large share of borrowers who borrowed a lot relative to the amount of income that they generate because they could do that at lower interest rates, and now that's going to be a struggle at higher interest rates. So I think the combination of those two factors gets you something that's in the middle. I think you do have a more robust than expected US economy, but you do have this tail of more heavily indebted issuers that is just, I think, going to struggle with the math of how do you pay for that debt when the interest rate is effectively doubled from where it was just 18 months ago? 
Serena Tang: And you described just now our credit being in the middle, so to speak. And, you know, being in the middle is much better than what we're projecting for equity returns, and hence one of the reasons we like high quality credit and we like high quality bonds. But then my question to you is, what might the market be missing right now? But also importantly, what do you think we might be wrong? 
Andrew Sheets: So I think there are a couple of important things to follow. I think there has been over the last several years an advent of alternative forms of capital, some of this is kind of rolled up into the general classification of private credit. But, you know, there have been a lot of new entrants, new investors who are willing to lend to companies under nontraditional terms. And I think it's a big open question around, does that presence of additional investors actually make defaults a lot less likely because there's a new outlet for companies that need to raise funds from this new investor pool, or does that pool not have that effect? And if anything, maybe it is a source of some additional risk. It's a group of lending that's hard to observe by design, by its nature. I think another important thing to watch will be what do companies do? Part of our thinking on the research side is that companies will view current yields as expensive and they will react like any actor would act. When it's more expensive to borrow, they will borrow less. They will try to improve their balance sheet and maybe in the process they'll buy back less stock or do other types of things. That might be wrong. You know, we might see a different reaction from companies. Companies might view that debt cost as different. Maybe they view it as more reasonable than we think they will. So at the moment, we're thinking that companies will view that debt is expensive and respond accordingly and do more bondholder friendly things, so to speak. But we'll have to see. And we could be wrong about how corporate treasurers and management are thinking about those trade offs. 
Andrew Sheets: Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Serena Tang: As always, great. Speaking of you, Andrew. 
Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/S8I1ptiRdnpz_p_bV92OTtW547Rmzq8gIYMw5XIFEYoFri, 06 Oct 2023 21:59:43 +0000gtyAs bond yields continue to rise, credit has been more of a passenger than the driver of recent market volatility. -----Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Head of Corporate Credit...-----Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Head of Corporate Credit Research. 
Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's updated cross-asset and corporate credit views. It's Friday, October 6th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Serena Tang: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: Before we get into our discussion, let me introduce Serena Tang as Morgan Stanley's new Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Serena has been working with me for the last 15 years and together we initiated our cross-asset effort nearly a decade ago. Serena was responsible for building the team's investment framework, specializing in multi asset allocation, portfolio optimization, and long run capital market assumptions. So I can confidently say that Morgan Stanley's cross-asset effort is in very capable hands. As for me, I'm now Morgan Stanley's Head of Corporate Credit Research, but I'll continue to host my colleagues as we look forward to bringing you key debates from across asset classes and regions. So, Serena, welcome and let's jump right into what's going on in markets. Over the last several weeks, as everybody in the U.S. has returned from summer, the debate among Morgan Stanley's economists and strategists is centered on two main issues, the outperformance of the U.S. economy and the underperformance of China's economy, as well as the spike of government bond yields, especially at the longer end of the curve. So where has this left our views across asset classes? 
Serena Tang: Yeah, yields and real yields have indeed moved a lot higher in a very short amount of time, you know, on that narrative that rates will stay higher for longer. And I would say that, you know, while the market has been going against our current call for government bond yields to fall over the next 6 to 9 months or so, we’re steadfast on our preference for high quality fixed income over risk assets like global equities, like high yield corporate bonds. And the reason really comes down to how higher real yields mean the discount rate for equities is also higher, leading to lower stock prices. And we've kind of seen this over the past few weeks or so. I think this is especially true in today's environment where the rise in yields and the rise in real yields isn't really driven by a rise in growth expectations, which you know traditionally have been great for equities thinking about future growth. But rather today's move in yields is really much a function of what the markets think the Fed would do over the coming few months. And all this largely explains the nearly 9% selloff we've seen in global equities since the start of August. But Andrew, you know, such dynamics must also be very similar in the credit world. In your view, how do rising government bond yields affect your outlook for global credit? 
Andrew Sheets: So I think credit finds itself in a pretty interesting place as bond yields have risen. You know, I would safely say that I think credit as a passenger in recent market volatility, it's not the driver. And, you know, if I think very simply about why bond yields have been selling off and there are a lot of different theories of why that's been happening, maybe a simple explanation would be that bond yields offer pretty poor so-called carry, a government bond, a ten year government bond yields less than just holding cash. They offer poor momentum, they're moving in the wrong direction and they have difficult technicals, i.e., there's a lot of supply of government bonds forecast over the coming years. And across a lot of those metrics, I do think credit looks somewhat better. Credit yields are higher, that carry is better. Credit...]]>514false970fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/todd-castagno-rising-growth-in-convertibles-bonds--75653149----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Todd Castagno, head of Morgan Stanley's Global Valuation Accounting Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the increasing attractiveness of the convertible debt market. It's Thursday, October 5th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Rising interest rates have increased borrowing costs for everybody, and that includes companies looking to raise or refinance debt. And that generates a renewed appetite for an oft overlooked asset class called convertible bonds. But what are convertible bonds? 
To start, convertible bonds are what we call a hybrid instrument, combining the features of a traditional corporate debt and common equity. Similar to corporate bonds, convertibles offer guaranteed income via interest of the initial investment. The reason they are called "convertible" is because they offer investors the option to convert that bond to common stock when a company's share price hits a certain threshold. These hybrid features provide investors with downside protection and upside equity appreciation. 
There are many reasons why companies choose to issue convertible debt. First, they offer a strategic financial flexibility for high growth in early stage companies, a quick time to market execution time. Second, convertible debt provides an alternative path for companies that would find it difficult to access straight debt in the market. Third, they offer a way to raise equity without issuing more stock directly through secondary offerings. And this is a big plus for corporates because investors often perceive a secondary offering as a negative signal. And finally, a lower cash coupon and lower interest expense is very attractive in a high-rate environment. Why is that? 
Convertible bonds have lost market share from traditional corporate debt over the last 15 years. The convertibles market size has remained largely unchanged, while the traditional corporate debt market in the U.S. has roughly doubled. Convertibles are relatively less attractive at lower interest rates and accommodating capital markets for traditional alternatives. 
As it stands, 2023 is on track to double last year's issuance, as likely to be the highest post global financial crisis issuance outside of COVID. Important to note, the nature of issuance this year is different from recent history. In the last decade or so, issuance has been led by smaller market cap and growth companies, who don't have established debt markets or ratings and thus don't have easy access to straight debt capital. However, this year, 65% of issuers have had a credit rating and thus have had easy access to the straight debt market. They're coming to the convertibles market, not as a necessity, but are instead actively choosing to issue converts because of the favorable economics, through interest expense savings, and a last wrinkle, new favorable accounting. Accounting rules recently changed that reduce complexity for both issuers and investors. While accounting typically does not drive economics, on the margin, the recent change improves transparency and reduces cost to issue. Utilities have been especially large convertible issuers this year in the market. 75% of convertible offerings in 2023 year-to-date have been refinancing, which are likely to be one of the areas primed for growth in the capital markets. 
Looking ahead, we believe the convertibles market is poised for growth. We will likely see more convertible issuances, given a higher interest rate environment, tighter capital markets and a wall maturities, that is coming due in the next 2 to 3 years. Convertibles are a particularly suitable instrument in this context as they offer defensive income enhanced alternative to investing in the underlying common stock. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LVhwQhDNPN2qAIWLe_40sSOy28oTfrsSB-699HeelSsThu, 05 Oct 2023 20:49:49 +0000gtyHere’s why convertible bonds, an often overlooked asset class, are becoming more attractive as an alternative to common stock. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Todd Castagno, head of Morgan Stanley's Global Valuation...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Todd Castagno, head of Morgan Stanley's Global Valuation Accounting Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the increasing attractiveness of the convertible debt market. It's Thursday, October 5th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Rising interest rates have increased borrowing costs for everybody, and that includes companies looking to raise or refinance debt. And that generates a renewed appetite for an oft overlooked asset class called convertible bonds. But what are convertible bonds? 
To start, convertible bonds are what we call a hybrid instrument, combining the features of a traditional corporate debt and common equity. Similar to corporate bonds, convertibles offer guaranteed income via interest of the initial investment. The reason they are called "convertible" is because they offer investors the option to convert that bond to common stock when a company's share price hits a certain threshold. These hybrid features provide investors with downside protection and upside equity appreciation. 
There are many reasons why companies choose to issue convertible debt. First, they offer a strategic financial flexibility for high growth in early stage companies, a quick time to market execution time. Second, convertible debt provides an alternative path for companies that would find it difficult to access straight debt in the market. Third, they offer a way to raise equity without issuing more stock directly through secondary offerings. And this is a big plus for corporates because investors often perceive a secondary offering as a negative signal. And finally, a lower cash coupon and lower interest expense is very attractive in a high-rate environment. Why is that? 
Convertible bonds have lost market share from traditional corporate debt over the last 15 years. The convertibles market size has remained largely unchanged, while the traditional corporate debt market in the U.S. has roughly doubled. Convertibles are relatively less attractive at lower interest rates and accommodating capital markets for traditional alternatives. 
As it stands, 2023 is on track to double last year's issuance, as likely to be the highest post global financial crisis issuance outside of COVID. Important to note, the nature of issuance this year is different from recent history. In the last decade or so, issuance has been led by smaller market cap and growth companies, who don't have established debt markets or ratings and thus don't have easy access to straight debt capital. However, this year, 65% of issuers have had a credit rating and thus have had easy access to the straight debt market. They're coming to the convertibles market, not as a necessity, but are instead actively choosing to issue converts because of the favorable economics, through interest expense savings, and a last wrinkle, new favorable accounting. Accounting rules recently changed that reduce complexity for both issuers and investors. While accounting typically does not drive economics, on the margin, the recent change improves transparency and reduces cost to issue. Utilities have been especially large convertible issuers this year in the market. 75% of convertible offerings in 2023 year-to-date have been refinancing, which are likely to be one of the areas primed for growth in the capital markets. 
Looking ahead, we believe the convertibles market is poised for growth. We will likely see more convertible issuances, given a higher interest rate environment, tighter capital markets and a wall maturities, that is coming due in the next 2 to 3 years. Convertibles are a particularly suitable instrument in this context as they offer defensive income enhanced alternative to investing in the underlying common...]]>199false969fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-corporate-credit-divided-by-quality--75653114----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on corporate credit markets. It's Wednesday, October 4th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
With the second quarter earnings now in the rearview mirror, we look at how credit fundamentals have evolved and what that means for credit investors. Quality based divergence in credit fundamental performance continues to bear out, reinforcing our preference for higher quality within the credit universe. 
Investment grade credit fundamentals remain resilient. Overall, issuers have held up reasonably well despite moving past the peak in the strength of balance sheet metrics. While certain metrics have started to deteriorate, most notably interest coverage as a result of higher interest rates, leverage ratios have stayed well-contained despite the uptick in debt levels. 
We are calling for wider spreads in investment grade credit, as the market might be overly discounting the odds of a recession, and we had already priced for a smooth soft landing. While current spread levels do not leave much room for further compression, current yield levels remain attractive at multi year highs. These levels present both a source of attractive income and potential price upside as growth and inflation cool, particularly heading into a Fed pause and potential rate cutting cycle, which our economists expect will start in March 2024. 
While one could argue that with spreads at tight levels, the yield demand could simply shift to treasuries. However, with very low dollar prices on most investment grade bonds and the macro optimism around a soft landing, we think investment grade credit will remain well placed for some time to come. In-place fundamentals remain strong and thus far are not flashing signs of alarm to argue for long-duration buyers of credit to shift into treasuries. On the other end of the grade spectrum, in the below investment grade segment, fundamentals have continued to deteriorate. Earnings growth turned negative, coverage metrics fell, cash to debt ratios declined, and leverage rose. The weakness was widespread across sectors, with materials and consumer discretionary sectors seeing the largest year-over-year increase in leverage. Within our high yield fundamental sample, median interest coverage dropped for a third consecutive quarter, now more than a turn below its peak in 2022. The trend was similar for loans as well, while surging interest costs were the primary driver, weaker earnings were also at play. 
The concentration of "tail" cohorts is rising. In high yield, the vulnerable cohort, that is companies with low coverage and low cash debt ratios, reached 5% in size, which is record high post global financial crisis. In loans, the coverage tail inflected higher for the first time in two years. 
Clearly, quality based divergence continues to play out in credit fundamentals, which aligns with our recommendation to be defensive and stay invested in the higher quality segments of the credit markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NnbtovFuTbwYM_LbjrtO3-b8Wg7ketmYfqY26U6ilXYWed, 04 Oct 2023 18:59:17 +0000gtyFundamentals for investment-grade credit remain resilient and steady, while below-grade credit continues to deteriorate.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on corporate credit markets. It's Wednesday, October 4th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
With the second quarter earnings now in the rearview mirror, we look at how credit fundamentals have evolved and what that means for credit investors. Quality based divergence in credit fundamental performance continues to bear out, reinforcing our preference for higher quality within the credit universe. 
Investment grade credit fundamentals remain resilient. Overall, issuers have held up reasonably well despite moving past the peak in the strength of balance sheet metrics. While certain metrics have started to deteriorate, most notably interest coverage as a result of higher interest rates, leverage ratios have stayed well-contained despite the uptick in debt levels. 
We are calling for wider spreads in investment grade credit, as the market might be overly discounting the odds of a recession, and we had already priced for a smooth soft landing. While current spread levels do not leave much room for further compression, current yield levels remain attractive at multi year highs. These levels present both a source of attractive income and potential price upside as growth and inflation cool, particularly heading into a Fed pause and potential rate cutting cycle, which our economists expect will start in March 2024. 
While one could argue that with spreads at tight levels, the yield demand could simply shift to treasuries. However, with very low dollar prices on most investment grade bonds and the macro optimism around a soft landing, we think investment grade credit will remain well placed for some time to come. In-place fundamentals remain strong and thus far are not flashing signs of alarm to argue for long-duration buyers of credit to shift into treasuries. On the other end of the grade spectrum, in the below investment grade segment, fundamentals have continued to deteriorate. Earnings growth turned negative, coverage metrics fell, cash to debt ratios declined, and leverage rose. The weakness was widespread across sectors, with materials and consumer discretionary sectors seeing the largest year-over-year increase in leverage. Within our high yield fundamental sample, median interest coverage dropped for a third consecutive quarter, now more than a turn below its peak in 2022. The trend was similar for loans as well, while surging interest costs were the primary driver, weaker earnings were also at play. 
The concentration of "tail" cohorts is rising. In high yield, the vulnerable cohort, that is companies with low coverage and low cash debt ratios, reached 5% in size, which is record high post global financial crisis. In loans, the coverage tail inflected higher for the first time in two years. 
Clearly, quality based divergence continues to play out in credit fundamentals, which aligns with our recommendation to be defensive and stay invested in the higher quality segments of the credit markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>195false968fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-consumer-opportunity-in-online-grocery--75653095----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet Analyst. 
Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman, Hard lines, Broad Lines and Food Retail Analyst. 
Brian Nowak: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the significant opportunities in online grocery. It's Tuesday, October 3rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Brian Nowak: Simeon, our work suggests that online grocery is the largest remaining category of offline spend, which makes it the biggest opportunity in e-commerce. When we talk about online grocery, do you think of it as pure dot-com? Do you think of it as omnichannel? How do you define online grocery and how do you think about the growth outlook for the industry the next few years? 
Simeon Gutman: To settle that debate we think of it as omnichannel. The online market includes both delivery and pickup, which we actually think is a 50/50 mix. The market today, we think, is about 11.5% penetrated. That equates to roughly $190 billion of online and pickup sales. It's growing low double digits and we think over time it reaches about the high teens by 2027. 
Brian Nowak: So 11% adoption now heading to teens penetration a few years from now. That's quite a bit below a lot of other categories in the United States. So let me ask a sort of obvious question. What new types of technologies or innovations have you seen in online grocery that you think are going to really drive faster, more durable adoption going forward? 
Simeon Gutman: It's likely in the micro and macro fulfillment. I mean, online grocery is complicated. There's a lot of SKUs to pick. There's labor involved. We're seeing better ways that grocers are able picking and packing the groceries. I think still getting it to the end user remains a challenge and that's what we're going to see probably evolve over the next, call it, decade. 
Brian Nowak: That's helpful. What are some of the other key debates in the online grocery space and what aspects do you think the market is missing or underappreciated right now? 
Simeon Gutman: I think two key debates are the path to profitability, and if online grocery can reach that profitability threshold and two whether an online only player will encroach on the traditional share and disrupt the market. As for the path to profitability, we think eventually we'll see it. We don't have a lot of examples because we don't think we're there with scale today. But over time we think these models will show some level of profitability. It may not be a fully online model. It'll still be a holistic omni channel model. And then the second piece is we do think there is going to be an encroachment from e-tail or e-commerce only players. The market's big. It's one piece of the market that online only hasn't conquered, but it's such a big TAM, we think everyone has their attention on it. What are some of the most significant advertising opportunities when it comes to online grocery Brian?
Brian Nowak: To your point on profitability within online grocery, we think advertising is likely to be a key lever to drive profitability across the space. Historically, we have seen traditional grocers and retailers benefit from trade spend, advertising dollars spent essentially for NCAP placements, shelf space and really in-store marketing. As consumer wallets move online with an online grocery, we expect those dollars to shift toward the online players. And given the high incremental margin of advertising dollars compared to traditional grocery spend. We think that the advertising business is likely to be an important lever in online grocers, both traditional players moving online as well as e-commerce first players growing their business and their ability to build profitable long term ecommerce businesses. Now Simeon online grocery, to your point earlier, is an industry where the unit economics are quite tight and margins are thin. With that as a backdrop, what in your mind are the keys to driving long term durable profitability beyond advertising? 
Simeon Gutman: Two things. First scale and then second capability. In terms of scale, the more densely populated or the more densely penetrated a grocer can be in a market, the more money we think they can make. And we think the same is true with online grocery. You have to have a high market share in a concentrated place, and that's happening slowly. And some companies are stronger in certain markets than others, but that needs to happen more broadly. Second is the capabilities. And as I mentioned earlier, we're starting to see the emergence of newer technologies, macro fulfillment methodologies, meaning automation in a large scale, micro fulfillment, automation at the local level. And these type of technologies remove the human element, the labor element, from picking a relatively large basket of items and can save a significant amount of money. And eventually the last mile needs to be figured out as well, whether the customer picks it up in store or who knows, one day a self-driving car brings it to someone's house. And of course, Brian, Online grocery will likely experience the impact of A.I., how do you see the role of A.I in this space? 
Brian Nowak: We think artificial intelligence has the potential to create a better consumer experience with an online grocery and drive higher efficiency in the backend for the delivery companies as well. On the consumer front the capability for large language models and artificial intelligence to analyze more consumer data and essentially create what we think will be A.I powered personal shoppers with better suggestion, recommendation engines, recipe recommendations, auto replenish, auto reorder, we think is going to remove some of the friction that historically has held back online grocery adoption. On the back end, the use of artificial intelligence and large language models can be important in creating more effective driver routes for all the online grocery delivery companies, as well as ways to better manage inventory and supply in their logistics and fulfillment centers in order to operate more efficiently. So we do think artificial intelligence is going to be important to driving online grocery adoption on the front end and efficiency and profitability on the back end. Simeon, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. 
Simeon Gutman: Great speaking with you, Brian. 
Brian Nowak: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AgmjlBGfqrDUiapg9vH0Mi1jBWYSCxhJ2WDQ6k2S4zMTue, 03 Oct 2023 21:23:00 +0000gtyWith online grocery shopping growing in popularity, artificial intelligence can improve the customer experience while increasing efficiency. ----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S....----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet Analyst. 
Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman, Hard lines, Broad Lines and Food Retail Analyst. 
Brian Nowak: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the significant opportunities in online grocery. It's Tuesday, October 3rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Brian Nowak: Simeon, our work suggests that online grocery is the largest remaining category of offline spend, which makes it the biggest opportunity in e-commerce. When we talk about online grocery, do you think of it as pure dot-com? Do you think of it as omnichannel? How do you define online grocery and how do you think about the growth outlook for the industry the next few years? 
Simeon Gutman: To settle that debate we think of it as omnichannel. The online market includes both delivery and pickup, which we actually think is a 50/50 mix. The market today, we think, is about 11.5% penetrated. That equates to roughly $190 billion of online and pickup sales. It's growing low double digits and we think over time it reaches about the high teens by 2027. 
Brian Nowak: So 11% adoption now heading to teens penetration a few years from now. That's quite a bit below a lot of other categories in the United States. So let me ask a sort of obvious question. What new types of technologies or innovations have you seen in online grocery that you think are going to really drive faster, more durable adoption going forward? 
Simeon Gutman: It's likely in the micro and macro fulfillment. I mean, online grocery is complicated. There's a lot of SKUs to pick. There's labor involved. We're seeing better ways that grocers are able picking and packing the groceries. I think still getting it to the end user remains a challenge and that's what we're going to see probably evolve over the next, call it, decade. 
Brian Nowak: That's helpful. What are some of the other key debates in the online grocery space and what aspects do you think the market is missing or underappreciated right now? 
Simeon Gutman: I think two key debates are the path to profitability, and if online grocery can reach that profitability threshold and two whether an online only player will encroach on the traditional share and disrupt the market. As for the path to profitability, we think eventually we'll see it. We don't have a lot of examples because we don't think we're there with scale today. But over time we think these models will show some level of profitability. It may not be a fully online model. It'll still be a holistic omni channel model. And then the second piece is we do think there is going to be an encroachment from e-tail or e-commerce only players. The market's big. It's one piece of the market that online only hasn't conquered, but it's such a big TAM, we think everyone has their attention on it. What are some of the most significant advertising opportunities when it comes to online grocery Brian?
Brian Nowak: To your point on profitability within online grocery, we think advertising is likely to be a key lever to drive profitability across the space. Historically, we have seen traditional grocers and retailers benefit from trade spend, advertising dollars spent essentially for NCAP placements, shelf space and really in-store marketing. As consumer wallets move online with an online grocery, we expect those dollars to shift toward the online players. And given the high incremental margin of advertising dollars compared to traditional grocery spend. We think that the advertising business is likely to be an important lever in online grocers, both traditional players moving online as well as e-commerce first players growing their business and their ability to build profitable long term...]]>409false967fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-has-the-u-s-government-hit-a-fiscal-wall--75653130----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 2nd at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
This past weekend, Congress agreed to a last minute deal to keep the government open for the next six weeks. On one hand, avoiding a government shutdown is a net positive for the equity markets. However, on the other hand, the government is showing very little fiscal discipline will likely weigh on bond markets, which could then reverberate through stocks. This past August, I wrote a note and recorded a podcast asking if the U.S government may have hit a fiscal wall. One of the biggest surprises this year for investors has been the monumental increase in the fiscal deficit. More specifically, over the past 12 months, the fiscal deficit has increased by $1.3 trillion. This has supported better economic growth and may have kept the U.S. economy from entering a recession that many thought was unavoidable earlier this year. 
But now the piper must be paid. With the U.S. Treasury expected to issue close to $2 trillion in new supply in the second half of the year, the bond market has taken notice. While front end interest rates have been generally stable over the past several months on the expectation the Fed is very close to ending its rate hikes, the longer end of the Treasury market continues to trade very poorly, with ten year yields reaching 4.7%. With inflation expectations relatively stable and economic growth showing signs of slowing, we think this move in ten year yields is directly related to an earlier question. Has the US government pushed a limit of its ability to spend without proper long term fiscal discipline and funding in place? 
I think it's a reasonable question to ask even though we all know the Fed will likely provide the money necessary for the government to meet its obligations, especially in the short term. But now there is some growing doubt on the sustainability of such programs. The bond term premium has been suppressed over the past decade through quantitative easing and insatiable demand from foreigners looking to store their savings in a reliable place. But with the Fed no longer doing QE and even shrinking its balance sheet, banks unable to step up and buy and foreigners starting to diversify away from the US dollar, it's unclear who will be the natural buyer of this significant new supply. 
Lack of funding is a risk that markets have not had to think about when budget deficits get a bit out of control. In fact, the last time this happened was 1994, when ten year Treasury yields increased to 8%. The result was one of the biggest belt tightening exercises enacted in a bipartisan manner. Congress really had no choice at that time but to acquiesce to the demands of the bond markets. Could we be looking at a similar response this time? Like many Americans and investors, I have my doubts any real fiscal discipline will be enacted proactively. This just means the bond market may have to push back even harder to get legislators attention. Of course, that would not be good for already elevated equity valuations. The alternative is that Congress gets ahead of it and cuts spending, raises taxes or both, which would arguably be bad for growth. Bottom line, this conflict between markets and policy is nothing new, but this time it's centered around fiscal rather than monetary policy. More importantly, both potential outcomes, higher rates or smaller budget deficits, are likely bad news for stocks in the short term. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/alv5AWSGcEh2tnrB5zQl7X39-LboO4GM-glF5IaeS1gMon, 02 Oct 2023 22:43:02 +0000gtyAlthough Congress agreed on a short-term deal to avoid a shutdown, the increase in the deficit and lack of fiscal discipline may concern investors in the long run. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 2nd at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
This past weekend, Congress agreed to a last minute deal to keep the government open for the next six weeks. On one hand, avoiding a government shutdown is a net positive for the equity markets. However, on the other hand, the government is showing very little fiscal discipline will likely weigh on bond markets, which could then reverberate through stocks. This past August, I wrote a note and recorded a podcast asking if the U.S government may have hit a fiscal wall. One of the biggest surprises this year for investors has been the monumental increase in the fiscal deficit. More specifically, over the past 12 months, the fiscal deficit has increased by $1.3 trillion. This has supported better economic growth and may have kept the U.S. economy from entering a recession that many thought was unavoidable earlier this year. 
But now the piper must be paid. With the U.S. Treasury expected to issue close to $2 trillion in new supply in the second half of the year, the bond market has taken notice. While front end interest rates have been generally stable over the past several months on the expectation the Fed is very close to ending its rate hikes, the longer end of the Treasury market continues to trade very poorly, with ten year yields reaching 4.7%. With inflation expectations relatively stable and economic growth showing signs of slowing, we think this move in ten year yields is directly related to an earlier question. Has the US government pushed a limit of its ability to spend without proper long term fiscal discipline and funding in place? 
I think it's a reasonable question to ask even though we all know the Fed will likely provide the money necessary for the government to meet its obligations, especially in the short term. But now there is some growing doubt on the sustainability of such programs. The bond term premium has been suppressed over the past decade through quantitative easing and insatiable demand from foreigners looking to store their savings in a reliable place. But with the Fed no longer doing QE and even shrinking its balance sheet, banks unable to step up and buy and foreigners starting to diversify away from the US dollar, it's unclear who will be the natural buyer of this significant new supply. 
Lack of funding is a risk that markets have not had to think about when budget deficits get a bit out of control. In fact, the last time this happened was 1994, when ten year Treasury yields increased to 8%. The result was one of the biggest belt tightening exercises enacted in a bipartisan manner. Congress really had no choice at that time but to acquiesce to the demands of the bond markets. Could we be looking at a similar response this time? Like many Americans and investors, I have my doubts any real fiscal discipline will be enacted proactively. This just means the bond market may have to push back even harder to get legislators attention. Of course, that would not be good for already elevated equity valuations. The alternative is that Congress gets ahead of it and cuts spending, raises taxes or both, which would arguably be bad for growth. Bottom line, this conflict between markets and policy is nothing new, but this time it's centered around fiscal rather than monetary policy. More importantly, both potential outcomes, higher rates or smaller budget deficits, are likely bad news for stocks in the short term. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the...]]>206false966fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-economy-what-ai-means-for-people-doing-multiple-jobs--75653151----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. 
Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. 
Ed Stanley: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the impact of A.I. on the multi earning trend we've been observing over the last year. It's Friday, September 29th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Ellen Zentner: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ed Stanley: You'll remember that the pandemic created the conditions for many people to start pursuing multiple income streams, and post-COVID this need has shifted to an opportunity. And little over a year ago, we first wrote about the rise of multi earners, a large and growing class of workers who, we argued, whose marginal hour was better spent multi-earning than staying in a low paying traditional corporate role, for example. And not surprisingly, Gen Z, a group our economist team have studied in detail, is leading this paradigm shift, and that is clearly underway in our latest survey. Ellen, before we get into some of the current specifics on the fast moving multi-earner and A.I. Trends, can you set the stage for us by giving us a sense of where the US labor market is right now and how things have evolved since the great resignation that we heard so much about during COVID? 
Ellen Zentner: Sure Ed. Participation in the workforce dropped like a rock around COVID and government subsidies helped folks take time away, and particularly those that work in high risk areas of services where face to face contact is a necessary work requirement. Now, at the same time, the percentage of employees that shifted to some amount of work from home arrangements soared from about 15% to over 50%, and it's remained pretty sticky even as COVID has moved further into the rearview mirror. So while prime age labor force participation has fully recovered and continues to climb, the share of workers with some amount of work from home has remained elevated, as well as those that the Bureau of Labor Statistics here in the US has identified as holding multiple part time jobs. So it turns out it skews toward younger workers. In other words, Generation Z, as you noted, which is a growing share of the prime age workforce. And for many workers, COVID was a wake up call, a call to action, if you will, that multi-earning might better balance a sense of freedom and flexibility while still earning a living wage. 
Ed Stanley: To expand our lens even more in order to understand the economic backdrop of multi-earning, can you give us a quick overview of the rise of the so-called worker economy over the last two decades? 
Ellen Zentner: So here's a brief history lesson. Wage growth, when adjusted for inflation, has been falling for decades in the U.S. and is a reflection of factors such as waning presence of unions, the rise of mega companies and the like that reduced worker bargaining power over time. Wage growth should have kept up with gains in productivity, and it just didn't. And as a result, the labor share of corporate profits has been falling. COVID created the labor scarcity needed to reverse that secular decline in labor income by raising bargaining power. In a sense, it galvanized the demand for higher wages that we think is durable. Now Ed, as you mentioned, you first started publishing on the Multi-Earner Trend a year ago, and this trend has been developing by leaps and bounds, it seems, especially when you overlay the fast and furious development of generative A.I. So can you tell us what you're observing and how your thesis is evolving? 
Ed Stanley: Yeah. So there are three ways that we keep track of to triangulate how this thesis is evolving. The first is official data, and you touched on this. The BLS shows a modest 1 in 20 multi-earners as a portion of the US population, for example, and growing pro-cyclically. So that is one data set we look at. The second is Google Trends. So it's a less well-captured metric in official data, but we can see less about how many people are doing it and more about the growth rate, which we can see is about 18% compound and actually growing counter cyclically. When life gets more challenging from a macro unemployment perspective, people seem to turn to these earnings streams, which inherently make sense. And then the third is to look at our Alphawise survey, the second of which we have that just came out, which shows multi-earning growing 8% year on year and as much as over 15% for Gen Z, which we talked about. So in essence, we don't rely on one dataset to estimate the size or growth of the market. The real addition this year is around generative A.I., where we showed, for those people using A.I. to enhance their multi earning, they are earning as much as 21% more than those who are not using generative A.I. tools. 
Ellen Zentner: Okay. So let's get into some of the key debates. You've had some investor feedback to this thesis. So what do you think are some of the key debates on multi earning in the era of generative A.I. that investors should pay attention to? 
Ed Stanley: I think there are two that remain the most unanswered, so to speak. The first one, I think the biggest issue is it can't be proven or disproven in terms of what happens during a recession. And given that the gig-working multi-earning economy is a relatively new phenomenon, the only recession we have data for was, as you say, distorted by stimulus checks, furlough schemes and other things which forced or allowed people to take much more risk than they otherwise would have. So a proper hard landing recession would certainly challenge this multi-earning thesis, and that remains to be seen. On the second point, I think it's actually a more positive one, the goalposts keep changing as it relates to these models. The speed and capability of new generative A.I. models, and particularly multimodal ones where you can deal with text and images, for example, all in one place is moving at pace still. And that is going to make content creation, e-commerce, gaming, web hosting much easier to scale and monetize for the individual. So if anything, we think we're underestimating the impact of A.I. will have on the multi earning economy over the long run. But those are the two debates that have captivated most investors. 
Ellen Zentner: So clearly there are unknowns around these key debates, but you have an estimate of the current market size of the income generated by individuals through multi earning platforms. Can you give us an idea of that? And given the speed at which A.I. is developing, what's your outlook for the next 3 to 5 years? 
Ed Stanley: So our base case currently is about $200 billion and that increases to $400 billion in 2030, of which we expect a 20% uplift from generative A.I.'s productivity gains. So about $83 billion of that $400 billion number. And that figure came from our survey, which I've already mentioned in terms of earning uplift with those using it versus those that aren't. And just to put that figure in context, that is only 4% of the wider gig economy market values, so really quite modest, actually, in view of the uncertainties that we have. And we actually expect these figures to get beaten in time, but it's always better to be more conservative early on.  Ellen Zentner: Okay so, you know, last one from me, we haven't talked about regionally what's happening. So do you think there are any notable regional differences when you look at the intersection of multi-earning and A.I.? 
Ed Stanley: Yes, there are certainly that come out of our Alphawise survey. The highest earnings in dollar terms are in the US, the highest growth is in Europe but from a lower base. And then the one that jumped out at us and several of the investors we've spoken to is the higher than expected level of multi earning in India, which is new to our survey and particularly in the invest-to-earn category. And this is skewed by the fact that it was largely a survey for urban India, but it's also mirrored by a survey we did earlier in the year for Saudi Arabia, which showed much higher multi-earning engagement than we had expected. So that emerging market element has certainly taken us and some of our investors by surprise. But Ellen, turning back to you and to the US, what portion of the total US workforce are multi-earners and how do you see that evolving over time? 
Ellen Zentner: Multiple job holders has always been a feature of the labor market, but it's also always skewed towards younger workers and we have an incredibly young workforce today. So Gens Y and Z are moving through their prime working years in their greatest numbers as we speak, and the official data show that about 5% of the population hold multiple jobs. But, you've mentioned our surveys, our survey suggests that's an undercount and point to something closer to 8 to 10% of the workforce that are multi-earning. Our surveys also capture the skew toward younger workers where the labor force is growing more rapidly. So overall we find that multi-earning is growing by about 8% per year and that jumps to 15% per year if you isolate it to low earners. And the bottom line for me is that the stars align for this secular trend. Our demographic work has shown that the U.S. is an increasingly younger demographic and it really sets the U.S. apart on the global stage. 
Ed Stanley: Well, Ellen, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ellen Zentner: Great speaking with you, Ed. 
Ed Stanley: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2wWoaum1XD_ROw3blbwt1oYCSuF-A1sM7Hv2tvixjqkFri, 29 Sep 2023 16:07:10 +0000gtyThe number of U.S. workers with multiple income streams is increasing steadily, with earnings of $200 billion today poised to double by 2030. Generative AI could help these “multi-earners” hold down their many jobs. ----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley:...----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. 
Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. 
Ed Stanley: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the impact of A.I. on the multi earning trend we've been observing over the last year. It's Friday, September 29th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Ellen Zentner: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ed Stanley: You'll remember that the pandemic created the conditions for many people to start pursuing multiple income streams, and post-COVID this need has shifted to an opportunity. And little over a year ago, we first wrote about the rise of multi earners, a large and growing class of workers who, we argued, whose marginal hour was better spent multi-earning than staying in a low paying traditional corporate role, for example. And not surprisingly, Gen Z, a group our economist team have studied in detail, is leading this paradigm shift, and that is clearly underway in our latest survey. Ellen, before we get into some of the current specifics on the fast moving multi-earner and A.I. Trends, can you set the stage for us by giving us a sense of where the US labor market is right now and how things have evolved since the great resignation that we heard so much about during COVID? 
Ellen Zentner: Sure Ed. Participation in the workforce dropped like a rock around COVID and government subsidies helped folks take time away, and particularly those that work in high risk areas of services where face to face contact is a necessary work requirement. Now, at the same time, the percentage of employees that shifted to some amount of work from home arrangements soared from about 15% to over 50%, and it's remained pretty sticky even as COVID has moved further into the rearview mirror. So while prime age labor force participation has fully recovered and continues to climb, the share of workers with some amount of work from home has remained elevated, as well as those that the Bureau of Labor Statistics here in the US has identified as holding multiple part time jobs. So it turns out it skews toward younger workers. In other words, Generation Z, as you noted, which is a growing share of the prime age workforce. And for many workers, COVID was a wake up call, a call to action, if you will, that multi-earning might better balance a sense of freedom and flexibility while still earning a living wage. 
Ed Stanley: To expand our lens even more in order to understand the economic backdrop of multi-earning, can you give us a quick overview of the rise of the so-called worker economy over the last two decades? 
Ellen Zentner: So here's a brief history lesson. Wage growth, when adjusted for inflation, has been falling for decades in the U.S. and is a reflection of factors such as waning presence of unions, the rise of mega companies and the like that reduced worker bargaining power over time. Wage growth should have kept up with gains in productivity, and it just didn't. And as a result, the labor share of corporate profits has been falling. COVID created the labor scarcity needed to reverse that secular decline in labor income by raising bargaining power. In a sense, it galvanized the demand for higher wages that we think is durable. Now Ed, as you mentioned, you first started publishing on the Multi-Earner Trend a year ago, and this trend has been developing by leaps and bounds, it seems, especially when you overlay the fast and furious development of generative A.I. So can you tell us what you're observing and how your thesis is evolving? 
Ed Stanley: Yeah. So there are three ways that we keep track of to triangulate how...]]>555false965fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-garner-volatility-in-asia-and-emerging-markets--75653123----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing why we turned more cautious on our coverage recently. It's Thursday, September the 28th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
We turned more cautious on our coverage in early August, downgrading Taiwan and China to equal weight and Australia to underweight, whilst raising India, which we view as defensive, to a major overweight. 
For India, multi-polar world trends are supporting a surge in inward foreign direct investment in manufacturing, and portfolio flows into both bonds and equities. The country's reforms and macro stability agenda, particularly in fiscal policy, is underpinning a strong capital expenditure and profits outlook. 
We also maintain Japan equities, currency hedged, as our top pick in global equity markets. Japan has strong nominal GDP growth, positive earnings per share revisions and valuations which remain reasonable in our view, at a little over 14x forward price to earnings. 
However, the continued debate on China's growth slowdown and now a sudden further rise in US real yields are, in our view, likely to pressure markets lower generally, in what is seasonally a difficult period for our asset class. 
Volatility is now and generally has been a feature of Asia and emerging equity markets. Hence the intense interest in market timing and hedging strategies in an asset class which has, with the recent exception of Japan, failed to deliver attractive, sustained compound returns for the US-dollar-based investor. Indeed, we've made the point before that on a risk adjusted basis, Asia and emerging equity markets are what is known as Sharpe ratio inefficient in a multi asset sense, that is returns have not compensated for volatility compared to other benchmarks.
All of our coverage markets have higher volatility than the S&P 500, and in many cases significantly so. In particular, China A shares, the Hang Seng China Enterprise Index and until recently, the India benchmark Sensex. In terms of why this is the case it probably has to do with the following characteristics. Firstly, more volatility in earnings cycles. Secondly, less developed domestic institutional investor bases than in many developed markets. And thirdly, greater reliance on foreign flows, which are inherently less sticky than domestic flows. However, this is changing now for the India market. 
Combining data allows us to develop a simple scoring framework to assess complacency versus fear in relation to drawdown risk. It suggests a somewhat complacent mode in general, but particularly for China A, Australian equities, that's the ASX 200, and the overall MSCI EM benchmark, much less so for Topix, Nikkei and the Hang Seng Index. And this reinforces our view that Japan equities are a key holding to maintain currently. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JdtLxjjtsjEswH4uhRSZ4UMbSTwUvVDZRup277Q_ClAThu, 28 Sep 2023 18:54:40 +0000gtyWith volatility in Asia and emerging markets causing both upswings and downswings, certain markets will be critical as uncertainty continues. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing why we turned more cautious on our coverage recently. It's Thursday, September the 28th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
We turned more cautious on our coverage in early August, downgrading Taiwan and China to equal weight and Australia to underweight, whilst raising India, which we view as defensive, to a major overweight. 
For India, multi-polar world trends are supporting a surge in inward foreign direct investment in manufacturing, and portfolio flows into both bonds and equities. The country's reforms and macro stability agenda, particularly in fiscal policy, is underpinning a strong capital expenditure and profits outlook. 
We also maintain Japan equities, currency hedged, as our top pick in global equity markets. Japan has strong nominal GDP growth, positive earnings per share revisions and valuations which remain reasonable in our view, at a little over 14x forward price to earnings. 
However, the continued debate on China's growth slowdown and now a sudden further rise in US real yields are, in our view, likely to pressure markets lower generally, in what is seasonally a difficult period for our asset class. 
Volatility is now and generally has been a feature of Asia and emerging equity markets. Hence the intense interest in market timing and hedging strategies in an asset class which has, with the recent exception of Japan, failed to deliver attractive, sustained compound returns for the US-dollar-based investor. Indeed, we've made the point before that on a risk adjusted basis, Asia and emerging equity markets are what is known as Sharpe ratio inefficient in a multi asset sense, that is returns have not compensated for volatility compared to other benchmarks.
All of our coverage markets have higher volatility than the S&P 500, and in many cases significantly so. In particular, China A shares, the Hang Seng China Enterprise Index and until recently, the India benchmark Sensex. In terms of why this is the case it probably has to do with the following characteristics. Firstly, more volatility in earnings cycles. Secondly, less developed domestic institutional investor bases than in many developed markets. And thirdly, greater reliance on foreign flows, which are inherently less sticky than domestic flows. However, this is changing now for the India market. 
Combining data allows us to develop a simple scoring framework to assess complacency versus fear in relation to drawdown risk. It suggests a somewhat complacent mode in general, but particularly for China A, Australian equities, that's the ASX 200, and the overall MSCI EM benchmark, much less so for Topix, Nikkei and the Hang Seng Index. And this reinforces our view that Japan equities are a key holding to maintain currently. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>199false964fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-policy-the-economic-impact-of-a-government-shutdown--75653194----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. 
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore from our U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Michael Zezas: Along with our colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, we'll be talking about the market and economic impacts of a potential government shutdown later this week. It's Wednesday, September 27th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, let's get right into it. Congress is up against a tight deadline with government funding set to expire on the first day of the next fiscal year, which is October 1st. What's the state of play? 
Ariana Salvatore: So the first thing I'll say is that the situation is very fluid at the moment with lots of uncertainty between now and Sunday. Last night, the Senate voted to advance a bipartisan clean C.R. or continuing resolution, which could eventually serve as the legislative vehicle to avoid a lapse in appropriations. Clean, in this sense, means that the bill includes little to no funding for Ukraine aid or disaster relief, two items that Republicans had previously taken opposition to. Right now, the ball's in Speaker McCarthy's court. He can choose one of three options, first, to bring the Senate C.R. to the floor and rely on moderates, and perhaps even some Democrats, to cross the aisle and pass the bill. Second, he can ignore it and try to continue with the House-led funding process. Or third, he can take the C.R. out on some Republican policy items like border funding, for example, and send it back to the Senate where it's almost certainly dead on arrival. Options two and three, because of that, increase the likelihood of a shutdown. But option number one really doesn't solve the problem either, as it would just punt the issue until later in the Fall, and in our view, increase the chances of McCarthy facing a motion to vacate the chair or a motion to oust him as speaker. So all of this is to say that a shutdown seems pretty likely at the time we're recording this. The question is, of course, how long it could last. Michael, how are you thinking about the possible duration of a shutdown, assuming we do, in fact, get to Sunday without significant progress being made here? 
Michael Zezas: So there's a few scenarios to consider here. One is a pretty brief shutdown, one that lasts for less than a week and ultimately ends with a continuing resolution. Perhaps Speaker McCarthy agrees to put the Senate pass continuing resolution on the floor for a vote. Another scenario is one that lasts for a few weeks. And here you might have a situation where House Republicans continue to oppose any continuing resolution. And after enduring a shutdown for enough time, federal employees' paychecks begin to lapse, economic pressure begins to build and all of a sudden there's just more acceptance around the idea of a continuing resolution to allow more time for negotiation. And then another scenario would be something that lasts quite a bit longer, several weeks. And here, you clearly have a breakdown in negotiation positions, members of the Republican caucus perhaps refusing to vote for any type of continuing resolution, there being major roadblocks on the issues you spoke about already, Ariana. And the potential way to fix this would have to be through something like a discharge petition where members of the House of Representatives work around Speaker McCarthy using procedural rules. But that's something that takes a long time to play out and could take several weeks to play out. So given all this uncertainty, sometimes it helps to look back at history as a guide. Ariana, what can we learn from similarities or differences between this and prior shutdown episodes? 
Ariana Salvatore: Well, for starters, while shutdowns are not necessarily routine, they're also not without precedent. There have been about 20 in total in U.S. history, but more recent ones have lasted longer. For example, the most recent in 2019 under President Trump, was also the longest clocking in at just over a month. However, that case was also unique to what we're seeing today because it was a partial shutdown, meaning that there were some agencies that had already received full-year funding. We've actually never had a full shutdown last more than about a week like we're seeing right now. This time around, because no agencies have received funding, we think there could be a broader based impact relative to the last shutdown that we saw. Michael, given that your focus is across all of fixed income, how are you thinking about the impact of a shutdown across our strategists market views? 
Michael Zezas: Yeah, well, our economists have flagged that a shutdown could shave about 0.05 percentage points off of fourth quarter growth every single week. That's not a substantial enough number on its own to necessarily impact markets, but it's coming at a time when there's other pieces of data coming in around the economy and other events in the economy that our economists have flagged that are pretty meaningful. The UAW strike, if it lasts for a long time and expands big enough, could have a substantial impact on GDP. There's the beginning of repayment of student loans that could crimp consumer behavior. And so, if you combine all those effects together, then it could make for a fourth quarter where the economic data is looking quite a bit weaker and inflation pressure is looking like it's cooling meaningfully. Those are the types of things that our strategists think should limit increases in bond yields from here. And that in turn means that total returns for bonds, both Treasury bonds and corporate bonds, look pretty attractive to us and it's one of the reasons that we continue to favor bonds over equities. 
Michael Zezas: So obviously, we'll continue to track this closely as the debate evolves. And Arianna, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael. 
Michael Zezas: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/__NlbesWliTMFRvzlgrp_O4rlGgvGINEOuxvqiJCKAcWed, 27 Sep 2023 19:49:36 +0000gtyIf government funding expires next week, the shutdown combined with other economic issues could make for a weak fourth quarter. Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas and U.S. Public Policy Analyst Ariana Salvatore discuss....----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. 
Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore from our U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Michael Zezas: Along with our colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, we'll be talking about the market and economic impacts of a potential government shutdown later this week. It's Wednesday, September 27th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, let's get right into it. Congress is up against a tight deadline with government funding set to expire on the first day of the next fiscal year, which is October 1st. What's the state of play? 
Ariana Salvatore: So the first thing I'll say is that the situation is very fluid at the moment with lots of uncertainty between now and Sunday. Last night, the Senate voted to advance a bipartisan clean C.R. or continuing resolution, which could eventually serve as the legislative vehicle to avoid a lapse in appropriations. Clean, in this sense, means that the bill includes little to no funding for Ukraine aid or disaster relief, two items that Republicans had previously taken opposition to. Right now, the ball's in Speaker McCarthy's court. He can choose one of three options, first, to bring the Senate C.R. to the floor and rely on moderates, and perhaps even some Democrats, to cross the aisle and pass the bill. Second, he can ignore it and try to continue with the House-led funding process. Or third, he can take the C.R. out on some Republican policy items like border funding, for example, and send it back to the Senate where it's almost certainly dead on arrival. Options two and three, because of that, increase the likelihood of a shutdown. But option number one really doesn't solve the problem either, as it would just punt the issue until later in the Fall, and in our view, increase the chances of McCarthy facing a motion to vacate the chair or a motion to oust him as speaker. So all of this is to say that a shutdown seems pretty likely at the time we're recording this. The question is, of course, how long it could last. Michael, how are you thinking about the possible duration of a shutdown, assuming we do, in fact, get to Sunday without significant progress being made here? 
Michael Zezas: So there's a few scenarios to consider here. One is a pretty brief shutdown, one that lasts for less than a week and ultimately ends with a continuing resolution. Perhaps Speaker McCarthy agrees to put the Senate pass continuing resolution on the floor for a vote. Another scenario is one that lasts for a few weeks. And here you might have a situation where House Republicans continue to oppose any continuing resolution. And after enduring a shutdown for enough time, federal employees' paychecks begin to lapse, economic pressure begins to build and all of a sudden there's just more acceptance around the idea of a continuing resolution to allow more time for negotiation. And then another scenario would be something that lasts quite a bit longer, several weeks. And here, you clearly have a breakdown in negotiation positions, members of the Republican caucus perhaps refusing to vote for any type of continuing resolution, there being major roadblocks on the issues you spoke about already, Ariana. And the potential way to fix this would have to be through something like a discharge petition where members of the House of Representatives work around Speaker McCarthy using procedural rules. But that's something that takes a long time to play out and could take several weeks to play out. So given all this uncertainty, sometimes it helps to look back at history...]]>342false963fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-gdp-inflation-and-a-possible-government-shutdown--75653167----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, September 26th at 2 p.m. in London. 
September has seen widespread market weakness, with both stocks and bonds lower. Several of the big questions behind this move, however, could become much clearer by the end of this week. 
One area of market concern remains central banks and the idea that they may continue to raise interest rates to tamp down on inflation. While the Federal Reserve decided not to raise rates at its meeting last week, the first time it's done so since 2022, investors nevertheless left that meeting worried the Fed may have more work to do. 
We hold a different view and think that the Fed will not raise interest rates further. But we'll get an important data point to this view on Friday, with the release of PCE, or Personal Consumption Expenditure inflation. This is the inflation gauge that the Fed cares about most, and on Morgan Stanley's forecast, it will fall to just 2.3%, on a three month annualized basis. That's a large, encouraging step down that would show the Fed that inflation is headed in the right direction. 
Another area of market concern, somewhat paradoxically, is that the U.S. economy has been quite strong, which in theory would encourage further rate hikes from the Fed. Not only has the US economy shown good GDP numbers so far this year, but unemployment remains near a 50 year low. Fed Chair Powell repeatedly referred to the strength of the economic data in last week's press conference, and some leading economic indicators of industrial activity have actually started to look marginally better. 
But two other events this week might change that perception. Thursday will see regular revisions to measurements of U.S. economic growth, and Morgan Stanley's economists think U.S. GDP is more likely to be revised downwards, perhaps significantly. A few days later, the US government faces a shutdown as key appropriations bills have failed to clear the U.S. House of Representatives. That shutdown will act as a drag on the economy, potentially to the tune of about 0.2% of GDP per week. 
Both nominal and real yields have risen as the market remains concerned that the Fed will keep policy restrictive for a longer period of time, given still elevated inflation and robust U.S. economic growth. But it's possible, the GDP revisions, inflation data and a government shutdown all this week could change that perception. 
For credit, it's worth noting that corporate credit has been a relative outperformer during this rough September. As we discussed on this program last week, higher yields are also meaning fewer bonds are being issued for investors to buy as companies balk at the higher yields they're now being charged to borrow. And in a world where government bonds and equities all yield less than cash does, a so-called negative carry asset, credit again has a marginal advantage. It's a tough backdrop, but we think the credit will continue to be a relative outperformer. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BbO4MIJmCH_-f_mjVN-FvnUoWCxDQt1kmC4qZkgABMQTue, 26 Sep 2023 20:10:39 +0000gtyCorporate credit is likely to continue outperforming, even if downward revisions to GDP, sticky inflation data and a potential government shutdown could mean a less restrictive approach from the Fed. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, September 26th at 2 p.m. in London. 
September has seen widespread market weakness, with both stocks and bonds lower. Several of the big questions behind this move, however, could become much clearer by the end of this week. 
One area of market concern remains central banks and the idea that they may continue to raise interest rates to tamp down on inflation. While the Federal Reserve decided not to raise rates at its meeting last week, the first time it's done so since 2022, investors nevertheless left that meeting worried the Fed may have more work to do. 
We hold a different view and think that the Fed will not raise interest rates further. But we'll get an important data point to this view on Friday, with the release of PCE, or Personal Consumption Expenditure inflation. This is the inflation gauge that the Fed cares about most, and on Morgan Stanley's forecast, it will fall to just 2.3%, on a three month annualized basis. That's a large, encouraging step down that would show the Fed that inflation is headed in the right direction. 
Another area of market concern, somewhat paradoxically, is that the U.S. economy has been quite strong, which in theory would encourage further rate hikes from the Fed. Not only has the US economy shown good GDP numbers so far this year, but unemployment remains near a 50 year low. Fed Chair Powell repeatedly referred to the strength of the economic data in last week's press conference, and some leading economic indicators of industrial activity have actually started to look marginally better. 
But two other events this week might change that perception. Thursday will see regular revisions to measurements of U.S. economic growth, and Morgan Stanley's economists think U.S. GDP is more likely to be revised downwards, perhaps significantly. A few days later, the US government faces a shutdown as key appropriations bills have failed to clear the U.S. House of Representatives. That shutdown will act as a drag on the economy, potentially to the tune of about 0.2% of GDP per week. 
Both nominal and real yields have risen as the market remains concerned that the Fed will keep policy restrictive for a longer period of time, given still elevated inflation and robust U.S. economic growth. But it's possible, the GDP revisions, inflation data and a government shutdown all this week could change that perception. 
For credit, it's worth noting that corporate credit has been a relative outperformer during this rough September. As we discussed on this program last week, higher yields are also meaning fewer bonds are being issued for investors to buy as companies balk at the higher yields they're now being charged to borrow. And in a world where government bonds and equities all yield less than cash does, a so-called negative carry asset, credit again has a marginal advantage. It's a tough backdrop, but we think the credit will continue to be a relative outperformer. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>190false962fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-a-shift-in-stock-personalities--75652948----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, September 25th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Since mid-July, stocks have taken on a different personality. As we've previously noted, second quarter earnings season proved to be a "sell the news event" with the day after reporting stock performance as poor as we've witnessed in over a decade. In retrospect, this makes sense given weakening earnings quality and negative year over year growth for many industry groups, coupled with the strong price run up in the mid-July which extended valuations. Those valuations continue to look elevated at 18-times earnings, especially given the recent further rise in interest rates and signs from the Fed that it may be adopting a higher for longer posture. On that score, the real rate equity return correlation has fallen further into negative territory, signaling that interest rates are an increasingly important determinant of equity performance. Furthermore, one could argue that the post-Fed-meeting response from equity markets was outsized for the rate move we experienced. One potential explanation for this dynamic is that the equity market is beginning to question the higher for longer backdrop in the context of a macro environment that looks more late-cycle than mid-cycle. 
As discussed over the past several weeks, equity market internals have been supportive of the notion that we're in a late cycle backdrop with high quality balance sheet factors outperforming. Defensives have also resumed their outperformance, while cyclicals have underperformed. The value factor has been further aided by strong performance from the energy sector, while growth has underperformed recently due to higher interest rates. Given our relative preference for defensives, we looked at valuations across these sectors. In terms of absolute multiples, utilities trade the cheapest at 16 times earnings, while staples trade the richest at 19 times. That said, relative to the market in history, utilities and staples still look the cheapest, both are at the bottom quartile of the historical relative valuation levels, while health care relative valuation is a bit more elevated, but still in the bottom 50% of historical relative valuation levels. Overall valuations remain undemanding for defensive sectors in stocks, which is why we like them. 
To the contrary, the technicals and breadth for consumer discretionary stocks look particularly challenged right now. We believe this price action is reflecting slower consumer spending trends, student loan payments resuming, rising delinquencies in certain household cohorts, higher gas prices and weakening demand and data in the housing sector. Our economists who avoided making the recession call earlier this year when it was a consensus view see a weakening consumer spending backdrop from here. Specifically, they forecast negative real personal consumption expenditure growth in the fourth quarter and a muted recovery thereafter. Meanwhile, travel and leisure has been a bright spot for consumption, but that dynamic may now be changing to some extent. 
As evidence, our most recent AlphaWise survey shows that consumers want to keep traveling and 58% of respondents are planning to travel over the next six months. However, net spending plans for international travel declined from 0% last month to -8% this month, indicating consumers are planning fewer overseas trips. Domestic travel plans without a flight move higher. This indicates that consumers want to keep traveling, but are increasingly looking to taking cheaper trips and are choosing destinations to which they can either drive or take a train, rather than fly which is more expensive. 
All these dynamics fit well with our late cycle playbook. In our view, investors may want to avoid rotating into early cycle winners like consumer cyclicals, housing related and interest rate sensitive sectors and small caps. Instead, a barbell of large cap defensive growth with late cycle cyclical winners like energy and industrials should continue to outperform as it has for the past month. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/778efKbaomr4jLow6fkakhoc5LUki2ehIJx5KPDsnvsMon, 25 Sep 2023 21:22:16 +0000gtyWith the economy late in its current cycle, early-cycle performers such as consumer and housing stocks are underperforming while energy and industrials should continue to outperform. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, September 25th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Since mid-July, stocks have taken on a different personality. As we've previously noted, second quarter earnings season proved to be a "sell the news event" with the day after reporting stock performance as poor as we've witnessed in over a decade. In retrospect, this makes sense given weakening earnings quality and negative year over year growth for many industry groups, coupled with the strong price run up in the mid-July which extended valuations. Those valuations continue to look elevated at 18-times earnings, especially given the recent further rise in interest rates and signs from the Fed that it may be adopting a higher for longer posture. On that score, the real rate equity return correlation has fallen further into negative territory, signaling that interest rates are an increasingly important determinant of equity performance. Furthermore, one could argue that the post-Fed-meeting response from equity markets was outsized for the rate move we experienced. One potential explanation for this dynamic is that the equity market is beginning to question the higher for longer backdrop in the context of a macro environment that looks more late-cycle than mid-cycle. 
As discussed over the past several weeks, equity market internals have been supportive of the notion that we're in a late cycle backdrop with high quality balance sheet factors outperforming. Defensives have also resumed their outperformance, while cyclicals have underperformed. The value factor has been further aided by strong performance from the energy sector, while growth has underperformed recently due to higher interest rates. Given our relative preference for defensives, we looked at valuations across these sectors. In terms of absolute multiples, utilities trade the cheapest at 16 times earnings, while staples trade the richest at 19 times. That said, relative to the market in history, utilities and staples still look the cheapest, both are at the bottom quartile of the historical relative valuation levels, while health care relative valuation is a bit more elevated, but still in the bottom 50% of historical relative valuation levels. Overall valuations remain undemanding for defensive sectors in stocks, which is why we like them. 
To the contrary, the technicals and breadth for consumer discretionary stocks look particularly challenged right now. We believe this price action is reflecting slower consumer spending trends, student loan payments resuming, rising delinquencies in certain household cohorts, higher gas prices and weakening demand and data in the housing sector. Our economists who avoided making the recession call earlier this year when it was a consensus view see a weakening consumer spending backdrop from here. Specifically, they forecast negative real personal consumption expenditure growth in the fourth quarter and a muted recovery thereafter. Meanwhile, travel and leisure has been a bright spot for consumption, but that dynamic may now be changing to some extent. 
As evidence, our most recent AlphaWise survey shows that consumers want to keep traveling and 58% of respondents are planning to travel over the next six months. However, net spending plans for international travel declined from 0% last month to -8% this month, indicating consumers are planning fewer overseas trips. Domestic travel plans without a flight move higher. This indicates that consumers want to keep...]]>245false961fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-the-rise-of-corporate-bond-yields--75653245----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 22nd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Credit has outperformed equities recently, with spreads modestly tighter, even as stocks are modestly lower. We think that credit outperformance continues. Supply, demand and income are all part of the story. 
September is usually a big month for corporate bond issuance as people return from the summer, and all that supply often means somewhat weaker credit performance. But so far, that supply is underwhelmed. While many factors may be at play, we think one is that borrowing is looking less attractive given the large rise of corporate bond yields. 
Not only are investment grade bond yields at some of their highest non crisis levels in the last 20 years, they're unusually high relative to the earnings or dividend yield offered on company stock. Now, if a company views their equities attractive relative to debt, one way they can express this is to borrow more while buying back or retiring those shares in the market. But conversely, if companies start to view borrowing as expensive, relative to their shares, borrowing and buybacks should both slow. And year-to-date that's exactly what we've seen from non-financial investment grade companies. 
Meanwhile, those same higher yields that are making companies more reluctant to borrow are keeping demand for bonds solid. And if both the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are now finished raising interest rates, as my colleagues in Morgan Stanley economics expect, it could mean that investors are even more willing to allocate to these high grade bonds, while simultaneously encouraging companies to display even more patience with borrowing now that rates are no longer rising. 
But there's another even more mechanical advantage that credit enjoys. The significant rate hikes from the Fed, and the European Central Bank have meant very high yields on safe short term cash. That, in turn, has made the cost of holding almost any asset more expensive by comparison. Due to these very high cash yields and the fact that short term interest rates are higher than long term interest rates, owning equities or government bonds in the U.S. and Europe is a so-called negative carry position, costing money to halt. The passage of time if nothing changes, is currently working against many of these asset classes. 
But this isn't the case in credit, where both the level of spreads and the shape of the credit curve mean that the passage of time works in favor of the holder. And it's worth noting that two other assets that have this so-called positive carry property, the U.S. dollar and oil, are also currently being well supported by the market. 
We think the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are now done raising interest rates for the foreseeable future. We think this could modestly discourage borrowing by investment grade companies as they wait for more favorable rates and encourage buying as investors hope to now lock in these higher yields. Moreover, we think that this pause by central banks could help reduce overall bond market volatility, working to the relative advantage of assets that pay investors to hold them like corporate credit does. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts of the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/C36UMFwG0JewLq-ZUt4oZnn0Odb__RTUtZlthteW4S8Fri, 22 Sep 2023 20:44:45 +0000gtySeptember historically has been a big month for corporate bond issuance, but borrowing looks less attractive to companies due to the large rise in yields. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 22nd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Credit has outperformed equities recently, with spreads modestly tighter, even as stocks are modestly lower. We think that credit outperformance continues. Supply, demand and income are all part of the story. 
September is usually a big month for corporate bond issuance as people return from the summer, and all that supply often means somewhat weaker credit performance. But so far, that supply is underwhelmed. While many factors may be at play, we think one is that borrowing is looking less attractive given the large rise of corporate bond yields. 
Not only are investment grade bond yields at some of their highest non crisis levels in the last 20 years, they're unusually high relative to the earnings or dividend yield offered on company stock. Now, if a company views their equities attractive relative to debt, one way they can express this is to borrow more while buying back or retiring those shares in the market. But conversely, if companies start to view borrowing as expensive, relative to their shares, borrowing and buybacks should both slow. And year-to-date that's exactly what we've seen from non-financial investment grade companies. 
Meanwhile, those same higher yields that are making companies more reluctant to borrow are keeping demand for bonds solid. And if both the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are now finished raising interest rates, as my colleagues in Morgan Stanley economics expect, it could mean that investors are even more willing to allocate to these high grade bonds, while simultaneously encouraging companies to display even more patience with borrowing now that rates are no longer rising. 
But there's another even more mechanical advantage that credit enjoys. The significant rate hikes from the Fed, and the European Central Bank have meant very high yields on safe short term cash. That, in turn, has made the cost of holding almost any asset more expensive by comparison. Due to these very high cash yields and the fact that short term interest rates are higher than long term interest rates, owning equities or government bonds in the U.S. and Europe is a so-called negative carry position, costing money to halt. The passage of time if nothing changes, is currently working against many of these asset classes. 
But this isn't the case in credit, where both the level of spreads and the shape of the credit curve mean that the passage of time works in favor of the holder. And it's worth noting that two other assets that have this so-called positive carry property, the U.S. dollar and oil, are also currently being well supported by the market. 
We think the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are now done raising interest rates for the foreseeable future. We think this could modestly discourage borrowing by investment grade companies as they wait for more favorable rates and encourage buying as investors hope to now lock in these higher yields. Moreover, we think that this pause by central banks could help reduce overall bond market volatility, working to the relative advantage of assets that pay investors to hold them like corporate credit does. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts of the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>197false960fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-economy-stronger-growth-in-the-u-s-economy--75653046----- Transcripts -----Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, also on Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing our updated U.S. economic outlook for the final quarter of 2023. It's Thursday, September 21, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Sarah Wolfe: Ellen, since early 2022, you and our team have had a conviction that the U.S. economy would slow without a crash and experienced a soft landing. We maintained that view in our mid-year outlook four months ago, but we've recently revised it with an expectation for even stronger growth in the U.S.. Can you highlight some of the main drivers behind our team's more upbeat outlook? 
Ellen Zentner: Yes, so I think for me, the most exciting thing about the upward revisions we've made to GDP is that there's a real manufacturing renaissance going on in the U.S. and according to our equity analysts, it is durable and organic. So it's not just being driven by fiscal policy around the CHIPS Act and the IRA, but this is de-risking of supply chains, it's happening across semiconductors, our industrials teams have noted it, our construction teams and our LATAM teams around what's going on in terms of on-shoring, nearshoring with Mexico being the biggest beneficiary. So I think that's a really exciting development that is durable and then the consumer has been more resilient than expected. And I know that, Sara, you've been writing about Taylor Swift effect, Beyoncé effect, Barbenheime, you know, and it's just added to a very robust consumer this year than we had initially expected. 
Sarah Wolfe: Ellen, and what about inflation? What role does inflation continue to play at this point? Is the disinflationary process still underway and what are our expectations for the rest of this year and next? 
Ellen Zentner: Yes, So I think the disinflationary process has actually played out faster than expected. Well, let me say it's coming in line with our forecast, but much faster than, say, the Fed had expected. And we do expect that to continue. I think some of the concerns have been that the economy has been so strong this year and so would that interrupt that disinflationary process? And we don't think that's the case. The upward revisions that we've taken to GDP that reflect things like the manufacturing renaissance also come with stronger productivity, and they're not necessarily inflationary. But Sara, since your focus is on the U.S. consumer, let me turn it to you and ask you about oil prices. So oil prices have rallied here, you've spent a good deal of time looking at the impact that rising prices might have on real consumer spending, so how do you go about analyzing that? 
Sarah Wolfe: You're correct. Energy prices do impact consumer spending and in particular, when the price jumps are driven by supply side factor. So supply coming offline, that acts like a tax on households and we see a decline in real spending. We in particular see real spending impacted in the durable goods sector and in autos in particular. We have seen quite a rally recently in oil prices. It's definitely not to the extent of what we saw last year, but what we're going to be watching is how sustained the rally in oil prices are. The higher prices stay for longer, the more it impacts real consumer spending. 
Ellen Zentner: So retail sales have been strong, when are they going to be slowing? I mean we're going into the fourth quarter here, all on the consumer it looks like it's been stronger than expected. And I know this is sort of a maybe too broad of a question, but are consumers still in good health? 
Sarah Wolfe: As you mentioned earlier, consumer spending has been more resilient than expected. In part, it's been due to the fact that we've seen a full rebound in discretionary services spending, but it was not paired with a one for one payback in discretionary goods, which we've seen in the retail sales report, have held up better. And so while the consumer remains fairly healthy, we do expect to still see that pretty notable spending slowdown in the fourth quarter and part of that is being driven by the fundamentals. We have a cooling labor market, a rising savings rate, higher debt service obligations. But then as you also mentioned earlier, we had the roll off of some of these one off lifts like Barbenheimer, Beyoncé and Taylor Swift. 
Ellen Zentner: So why doesn't the consumer just fall off a cliff then? 
Sarah Wolfe: Because part of our big call for the soft landing is that the labor market is going to be relatively resilient. We do have jobs slowing, but we do not have a substantial rise in the unemployment rate because we think this labor hoarding thesis is going to help support the labor market. So at the end of the day, while there's pressure mounting on consumer wallets, if they have a job, they will continue to spend, though at a slower pace. 
Ellen Zentner: All right. So if labor income and healthy job growth is the key to consumer spending, you know, what are we telling investors about the UAW strike? Because that really muddies the picture for how strong the labor market is. 
Sarah Wolfe: The UAW strike is definitely worth watching, there's 146,000 union workers that work for the big three. At this point, the impacts should be fairly contained, we only have 13,000 workers on strike at three different plants. However, if we see a large-scale strike of all the union workers, that lasts for some time, I mean that's definitely going to take a hit to the labor market. It would be a one off hit because when the strikers come back, you see them re-added to payrolls. But it definitely will be a more sustained hit to economic activity and motor vehicle production. It's very hard to make up all the production that is lost when workers are on strike. So we're definitely watching this very closely and it's definitely a risk factor to economic growth in the fourth quarter. Ellen, I'm turning it back to you, with all these various factors in play has anything changed in our Fed path? 
Ellen Zentner: No, it hasn't. In fact, as the data comes in and what we're looking for ahead, it tells me even more so that the Fed is done here. So they're sitting on a federal funds rate of 5.25% to 5.50%, and there are a lot of pitfalls possibly ahead with the incoming data. So you have GDP benchmark revisions, which will be significant by our estimate, that are released on September 28th, so later this month. Two days later, government shutdown possible. You talked about the UAW strike that's gonna, again, muddy the picture for job gains. And so there's a lot on the horizon here. You know, in the environment of inflation falling and question mark around how much policy lags still have to come through, I think it's just a recipe for the Fed to go ahead and hold rates steady and so we think that they're done here. All right. So we'll leave it there. Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Sarah Wolfe: As always, great speaking with you, Ellen. 
Ellen Zentner: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iBspx-1b4pE4LozgFhq0nVTYrUtfAV5ajgE2cAtn9a4Thu, 21 Sep 2023 19:21:19 +0000gtyEven with the possibility of a fourth-quarter slowdown in consumer spending, positive data across the board suggests the U.S. economy is still on track for a soft landing. ----- Transcripts -----Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcripts -----Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, also on Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing our updated U.S. economic outlook for the final quarter of 2023. It's Thursday, September 21, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Sarah Wolfe: Ellen, since early 2022, you and our team have had a conviction that the U.S. economy would slow without a crash and experienced a soft landing. We maintained that view in our mid-year outlook four months ago, but we've recently revised it with an expectation for even stronger growth in the U.S.. Can you highlight some of the main drivers behind our team's more upbeat outlook? 
Ellen Zentner: Yes, so I think for me, the most exciting thing about the upward revisions we've made to GDP is that there's a real manufacturing renaissance going on in the U.S. and according to our equity analysts, it is durable and organic. So it's not just being driven by fiscal policy around the CHIPS Act and the IRA, but this is de-risking of supply chains, it's happening across semiconductors, our industrials teams have noted it, our construction teams and our LATAM teams around what's going on in terms of on-shoring, nearshoring with Mexico being the biggest beneficiary. So I think that's a really exciting development that is durable and then the consumer has been more resilient than expected. And I know that, Sara, you've been writing about Taylor Swift effect, Beyoncé effect, Barbenheime, you know, and it's just added to a very robust consumer this year than we had initially expected. 
Sarah Wolfe: Ellen, and what about inflation? What role does inflation continue to play at this point? Is the disinflationary process still underway and what are our expectations for the rest of this year and next? 
Ellen Zentner: Yes, So I think the disinflationary process has actually played out faster than expected. Well, let me say it's coming in line with our forecast, but much faster than, say, the Fed had expected. And we do expect that to continue. I think some of the concerns have been that the economy has been so strong this year and so would that interrupt that disinflationary process? And we don't think that's the case. The upward revisions that we've taken to GDP that reflect things like the manufacturing renaissance also come with stronger productivity, and they're not necessarily inflationary. But Sara, since your focus is on the U.S. consumer, let me turn it to you and ask you about oil prices. So oil prices have rallied here, you've spent a good deal of time looking at the impact that rising prices might have on real consumer spending, so how do you go about analyzing that? 
Sarah Wolfe: You're correct. Energy prices do impact consumer spending and in particular, when the price jumps are driven by supply side factor. So supply coming offline, that acts like a tax on households and we see a decline in real spending. We in particular see real spending impacted in the durable goods sector and in autos in particular. We have seen quite a rally recently in oil prices. It's definitely not to the extent of what we saw last year, but what we're going to be watching is how sustained the rally in oil prices are. The higher prices stay for longer, the more it impacts real consumer spending. 
Ellen Zentner: So retail sales have been strong, when are they going to be slowing? I mean we're going into the fourth quarter here, all on the consumer it looks like it's been stronger than expected. And I know this is sort of a maybe too broad of a question, but are consumers still in good health? 
Sarah Wolfe: As you mentioned earlier, consumer...]]>419false959fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-china-s-evolving-economy--75653075----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of China's economy on fixed income markets. It's Wednesday, September 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We spend a lot of time on this podcast talking about the market ramifications of the evolving US-China relationship, and understandably so, as they are the world's biggest economies. But today, I want to focus more on the evolving economy inside of China and how it has implications for global fixed income markets. 
A few weeks ago on Thoughts on the Market, my colleague Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter, detailed how our Asia economics team is increasingly calling attention to what they term China's 3D challenge of debt, demographics and deflation. In short, there's a risk that servicing high levels of debt in China's economy could strain its weak demographic profile and dampen demand in the economy, all leading to a debt deflation cycle. While such an adverse outcome currently is in our economists base case, there's been material slowing in China's economic growth. So in either case, China, at least for the moment, is a weaker consumer on the global stage, meaning they may effectively export disinflation to developed market countries. And while our economists flag this weakness may not translate to substantial disinflation pressures, they also note directionally it may help already cooling inflation in places like the United States. 
Understandably, our team in fixed income research across the globe is focused on many potential impacts from the spillover effects of China's 3D challenge. But there's two that stand out to me as most relevant to investors. First, for investors in U.S. Treasury bonds, this disinflation pressure, even if modest, could help push yields lower in line with our preference for owning bonds over equities. That disinflation pressure could add to other more meaningful pressures in the U.S. in the fourth quarter, as student loan repayments start in the absence of major entertainment events that were a one time shot to consumption this past summer. 
Second, if you're an investor in corporate bonds, our Asia corporate credit team sees opportunities to diversify away from China Credit, which has been struggling to deliver solid risk adjusted returns and remains concentrated in the property sector, with our team seeing opportunities in Japan, Australia and New Zealand in particular. Credit markets in these countries not only provide geographical diversification but also diversification into sectors like financials and materials. 
This is a developing story that's sure to impact the global outlook for the foreseeable future, and you can be sure we'll keep you updated on how it will influence markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tin_qGLYGzt6YaBKMZ2XGA5SAjZsMLDJMCMNYDfvgxgWed, 20 Sep 2023 20:27:25 +0000gtyA potential debt-deflation cycle in China could spell opportunity for U.S. Treasuries and Asia corporate bonds outside of China. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of China's economy on fixed income markets. It's Wednesday, September 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We spend a lot of time on this podcast talking about the market ramifications of the evolving US-China relationship, and understandably so, as they are the world's biggest economies. But today, I want to focus more on the evolving economy inside of China and how it has implications for global fixed income markets. 
A few weeks ago on Thoughts on the Market, my colleague Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter, detailed how our Asia economics team is increasingly calling attention to what they term China's 3D challenge of debt, demographics and deflation. In short, there's a risk that servicing high levels of debt in China's economy could strain its weak demographic profile and dampen demand in the economy, all leading to a debt deflation cycle. While such an adverse outcome currently is in our economists base case, there's been material slowing in China's economic growth. So in either case, China, at least for the moment, is a weaker consumer on the global stage, meaning they may effectively export disinflation to developed market countries. And while our economists flag this weakness may not translate to substantial disinflation pressures, they also note directionally it may help already cooling inflation in places like the United States. 
Understandably, our team in fixed income research across the globe is focused on many potential impacts from the spillover effects of China's 3D challenge. But there's two that stand out to me as most relevant to investors. First, for investors in U.S. Treasury bonds, this disinflation pressure, even if modest, could help push yields lower in line with our preference for owning bonds over equities. That disinflation pressure could add to other more meaningful pressures in the U.S. in the fourth quarter, as student loan repayments start in the absence of major entertainment events that were a one time shot to consumption this past summer. 
Second, if you're an investor in corporate bonds, our Asia corporate credit team sees opportunities to diversify away from China Credit, which has been struggling to deliver solid risk adjusted returns and remains concentrated in the property sector, with our team seeing opportunities in Japan, Australia and New Zealand in particular. Credit markets in these countries not only provide geographical diversification but also diversification into sectors like financials and materials. 
This is a developing story that's sure to impact the global outlook for the foreseeable future, and you can be sure we'll keep you updated on how it will influence markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>176false958fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/kickstarting-the-u-s-mining-industry--75653068----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from our U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Carlos De Alba: And I am Carlos De Alba, Head of the Metals and Mining Team in North America. 
Ariana Salvatore: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what we see as an inflection point for the U.S. metals and mining industry. It's Tuesday, September 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ariana Salvatore: Since 1990, the U.S. has seen a significant increase in both the variety of imported minerals and the level of dependance on these imports. As of right now, U.S. reliance on imported critical minerals has reached a 30 year high, and simultaneously, investment in the industry is near its lowest point in decades. But as we're seeing the world transition to a multipolar model where supply chains are more regional than global, it's becoming ever more obvious that the U.S. needs to turn to reshoring in order to satisfy its growing need for these critical minerals. So, Carlos, before we get too deep in the weeds, let's start off with something simple. Can you define critical minerals for our audience? 
Carlos De Alba: Yeah. So the Energy Act of 2020 defined critical minerals as those which are essential to the economy and the national security of the United States. They also have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption and serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for the economic and national security of the country. The Act also specified that critical minerals do not include fuel minerals, water, ice or snow, or common varieties of sand, gravel, stone and clay. The U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, is a government agency in charge of creating the official list of critical minerals that are meet that criteria that I just mentioned. 
Ariana Salvatore: So given the importance of these critical minerals, what are some of the factors that led to this prolonged underinvestment in the metals and mining industry? And who have been the major exporters of critical minerals to the U.S. over the last three decades? 
Carlos De Alba: It is quite a complex issue, but the bottom line is that the US has scaled back its mineral extraction, processing and refining capabilities since the 1950s, because of environmental concerns and economic considerations like higher labor costs and lower economies of scale. As mining activities decline in the U.S., the country has increasingly relied on imports from China, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia, Canada and Australia, among others. 
Ariana Salvatore: So it's obvious that China is clearly in a powerful position to influence the global mineral markets. It's the first one on the list that you just mentioned. What is China to doing right now with respect to its exports of minerals and what is your outlook when you're thinking about the future? 
Carlos De Alba: Well, over the last 4 to 5 decades, China gradually took over the industry by heavily investing in exploration, mineral extraction, and more importantly, refining and processing capabilities. China's dominance over the world minerals processing supply chains has created, as you would expect, geopolitical and economic uncertainties can cause supply disruptions to crucial end markets such as green technologies and national security. A recent example of export curbs took place in July of this year, when China imposed export restrictions on two chipmaking minerals, gallium and uranium, citing national security concerns. The move was widely interpreted as a retaliation against the US and its allies for having imposed restrictions that caught China's access to Chipmaking technologies. Now this move by China was particularly relevant because the country produces over 80% of the world's gallium supply and 60% of germanium, and it is the primary supplier to the US representing more than 50% of these two minerals imports to the United States. But since we're on this topic Ariana, how are the US policymakers trying to help the strengthening of domestic supply chains? 
Ariana Salvatore: Right. So most things that involve building up the domestic sphere in order to kind of build resiliency or counter China's influence are quite popular bipartisan priorities. So we're seeing policymakers on both sides of the aisle indicating support for reshoring the critical mineral supply chain. That's mainly accomplished through legislation that targets things like tax incentives, or subsidies for corporates. On the regulatory front, it really comes down to easing the permitting process, which can be quite backlogged and delay the project pipeline. For some more context on that point, permitting on average takes about 7 to 10 years in the U.S. without taking into account the time spent on litigation, compared to about 2 to 3 years in other countries. So relaxing the permitting process, we think, is one key way that lawmakers can try to accelerate this reshoring of critical minerals in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. 
Carlos De Alba: Now, the mining sector obviously has implications from an environmental point of view, and some of the aspects of the mining industry are at odds with sustainability business goals. So what would a significant increase in mining activity in the US will look like from a sustainability perspective? 
Ariana Salvatore: So this is really just a question of opposing factors. We do think that there are some clear benefits from a sustainability perspective when it comes to onshoring. For example, you have better oversight and reduced risks relating to human and labor rights violations, a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions, assuming the extraction process here in the U.S. is held to higher ESG standards, and shortened transportation or supply chain routes. However, there's also a flipside which contains some obvious ESG concerns. First, you've seen the mining industry in the past be associated with human rights concerns, specifically related to impacts to local communities and of course, the hard to ignore implications of mining on nature and biodiversity. So at the end of the day, as I said, it's really a question of where that net effect is, and we think it's more in the positive column specifically because of that better oversight around the ESG pillars that is facilitated by onshoreing. But putting that to the side for a second, Carlos, when all is said and done, assuming the U.S. is actually able to do this, does it even have enough of its own mineral supplies in order to satisfy all its needs domestically? 
Carlos De Alba: Well, that's an interesting point, because in 24 of 50 minerals deemed critical by the USGS, the US either report less than 1% of the total global reserves or lack sufficient reserve data, which highlights the need for more comprehensive exploration and mining efforts. In the case of some battery making minerals like cobalt, nickel or vanadium, the US holds an average reserve level of only .5% of total global reserves. Now, on the positive side, the US ranks ninth in copper reserves, accounting for about 5% of total global reserves, and the country ranks sixth in rare earths reserves. Ariana, if we consider yet another relevant aspect for the discussion, what about the workforce? How is the US government addressing labor shortages in the mining industry? 
Ariana Salvatore: When it comes to the sector there's definitely a shortage of skilled workers in particular, which is being tackled I'd say through two distinct avenues. First of all, you have corporates which are trying to change the public perception of mining, and they're doing that primarily by elevating their operating standards and focusing on reducing possible environmental impacts. And then to your point, the you just mentioned, you also have the government doing its part by launching workforce initiatives. Those are basically programs that are set up to incentivize higher education institutions to develop critical minerals education programs and research and training efforts. Those are funneled through legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law late last year. A popular saying within the mining industry is, 'if you can't grow it, you mine it'. Given that mining is a critical source of raw materials which touch upon nearly every supply chain, Carlos, can you sketch out some of the broader industrial and economic implications of a potential mining boom? 
Carlos De Alba: You're absolutely right. The development of a new domestic mine supply and the required processing capabilities will influence multiple industries here in the US. Beyond obviously, miners and exploration companies, a potential mining boom in the country will generate significant demand for equipment and machinery manufacturers, as well as engineering and environmental firms. It would also foster a more rapid and secure development of supply chains that rely heavily on minerals like batteries and electric vehicles companies. 
Ariana Salvatore: Carlos, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Carlos De Alba: Thank you, it was great speaking with you Ariana. 
Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/U9A1zTmSyOeOTL8tUbkDES9z8zeKpLSSLmhV6bhdhuATue, 19 Sep 2023 21:28:30 +0000gtyA number of U.S. industries rely heavily on critical minerals that must be imported from other countries. Policymakers and business leaders are calling for investment and reshoring to manage that risk. U.S. Public Policy Research Team member Ariana...----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from our U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Carlos De Alba: And I am Carlos De Alba, Head of the Metals and Mining Team in North America. 
Ariana Salvatore: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what we see as an inflection point for the U.S. metals and mining industry. It's Tuesday, September 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ariana Salvatore: Since 1990, the U.S. has seen a significant increase in both the variety of imported minerals and the level of dependance on these imports. As of right now, U.S. reliance on imported critical minerals has reached a 30 year high, and simultaneously, investment in the industry is near its lowest point in decades. But as we're seeing the world transition to a multipolar model where supply chains are more regional than global, it's becoming ever more obvious that the U.S. needs to turn to reshoring in order to satisfy its growing need for these critical minerals. So, Carlos, before we get too deep in the weeds, let's start off with something simple. Can you define critical minerals for our audience? 
Carlos De Alba: Yeah. So the Energy Act of 2020 defined critical minerals as those which are essential to the economy and the national security of the United States. They also have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption and serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for the economic and national security of the country. The Act also specified that critical minerals do not include fuel minerals, water, ice or snow, or common varieties of sand, gravel, stone and clay. The U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, is a government agency in charge of creating the official list of critical minerals that are meet that criteria that I just mentioned. 
Ariana Salvatore: So given the importance of these critical minerals, what are some of the factors that led to this prolonged underinvestment in the metals and mining industry? And who have been the major exporters of critical minerals to the U.S. over the last three decades? 
Carlos De Alba: It is quite a complex issue, but the bottom line is that the US has scaled back its mineral extraction, processing and refining capabilities since the 1950s, because of environmental concerns and economic considerations like higher labor costs and lower economies of scale. As mining activities decline in the U.S., the country has increasingly relied on imports from China, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia, Canada and Australia, among others. 
Ariana Salvatore: So it's obvious that China is clearly in a powerful position to influence the global mineral markets. It's the first one on the list that you just mentioned. What is China to doing right now with respect to its exports of minerals and what is your outlook when you're thinking about the future? 
Carlos De Alba: Well, over the last 4 to 5 decades, China gradually took over the industry by heavily investing in exploration, mineral extraction, and more importantly, refining and processing capabilities. China's dominance over the world minerals processing supply chains has created, as you would expect, geopolitical and economic uncertainties can cause supply disruptions to crucial end markets such as green technologies and national security. A recent example of export curbs took place in July of this year, when China imposed export restrictions on two chipmaking minerals, gallium and uranium, citing national security concerns. The move was...]]>519false957fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seth-carpenter-the-ecb-the-fed-and-oil-prices--75653184----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the debate around oil price effects on inflation and growth, and what it means for central banks. It's Monday, September 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week, the European Central Bank raised its policy rate again. We had expected them to leave rates unchanged, but President Lagarde reiterated that inflation is too high and that the Governing Council is committed to returning inflation to target. She specifically referenced oil among rising commodity prices that pose an upside risk to inflation. From the summer lows of around $70 per barrel, the price of Brent oil has risen to over $93 a barrel. How much should oil prices figure in to the macro debate? 
In previous research our economics team has tried to quantify the pass through of oil prices to inflation and different economies. Our takeaway is that for developed market economies, the pass through from oil prices to even headline inflation tends to be modest on average. In the quarter, following a 10% increase in oil prices, headline inflation rises about 20 basis points on average. For the euro area in particular, we have estimated that an increase like we have seen of $20 a barrel should result in about a 50 basis point increase in headline inflation. For core inflation the pass through tends to be less, about 35 basis points. Especially given the starting point though, such a rise is not negligible, but the effect should fade over time. Either the price of oil will retreat or over the next year the base effects will fall out. 
But energy prices can also affect spending. Recent research from the Fed estimates the effects of oil prices on consumption and GDP across countries. They estimate that a 10% increase in oil prices depresses consumption spending in the euro area by about 23 basis points. What's the mechanism through which oil price shocks affect consumption? Consumer demand for energy tends to be somewhat inelastic. That is, it's harder to substitute away from buying energy than other categories of spending. 
So back to the ECB, we had not expected them to hike rates, but we did think it was a close call. Core inflation had started to come down, and when it became clear that core services inflation that peaked and was drifting lower against a backdrop of signs pointing to a weaker euro area economy, we revised our call to no hike. So from our perspective, the ECB has increased the risk of hiking perhaps too much based on headline inflation. The ECB statement last week noted that inflation "is still expected to remain high for too long", but because it seems that they are now done hiking, the debate is going to turn to the duration of this so-called "higher for longer" with the policy rate. With the effects of inflation passing over time, but the drag of GDP showing up over the next few quarters, we get more comfortable expecting rate cuts there as early as June next year. 
The Fed is meeting this week and the last US CPI print showed headline inflation boosted by higher gasoline prices. Sound familiar? Well, our colleagues in the U.S. team have stressed that the Fed will likely look through the non core inflation. And, as in Europe, the increases in oil prices should lower purchasing power for consumers in the near term, further limiting economic activity and that is part of the objective of higher policy rates right now. With the Fed's focus on core rather than headline inflation, the last data print gives more reason to think the Fed is done hiking. Taking the last CPI print and combining it with last week's data from the Producer Price Index, you can infer a monthly rate of 0.14% for core PCE inflation in August. When the Federal Open Market Committee revisits its June economic projections, they will essentially be forced to revise down their forecasts for core inflation for this year. 
Thanks for listening and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lpJV_YrYpnEbol5DI9jUCrizZxBkoEJxjO7uKCTVLK4Mon, 18 Sep 2023 21:15:59 +0000gtyWhile the ECB followed headline inflation with raised policy rates yet again last week, the Fed meeting this week may be more focused on core inflation and a hiking pause. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the debate around oil price effects on inflation and growth, and what it means for central banks. It's Monday, September 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week, the European Central Bank raised its policy rate again. We had expected them to leave rates unchanged, but President Lagarde reiterated that inflation is too high and that the Governing Council is committed to returning inflation to target. She specifically referenced oil among rising commodity prices that pose an upside risk to inflation. From the summer lows of around $70 per barrel, the price of Brent oil has risen to over $93 a barrel. How much should oil prices figure in to the macro debate? 
In previous research our economics team has tried to quantify the pass through of oil prices to inflation and different economies. Our takeaway is that for developed market economies, the pass through from oil prices to even headline inflation tends to be modest on average. In the quarter, following a 10% increase in oil prices, headline inflation rises about 20 basis points on average. For the euro area in particular, we have estimated that an increase like we have seen of $20 a barrel should result in about a 50 basis point increase in headline inflation. For core inflation the pass through tends to be less, about 35 basis points. Especially given the starting point though, such a rise is not negligible, but the effect should fade over time. Either the price of oil will retreat or over the next year the base effects will fall out. 
But energy prices can also affect spending. Recent research from the Fed estimates the effects of oil prices on consumption and GDP across countries. They estimate that a 10% increase in oil prices depresses consumption spending in the euro area by about 23 basis points. What's the mechanism through which oil price shocks affect consumption? Consumer demand for energy tends to be somewhat inelastic. That is, it's harder to substitute away from buying energy than other categories of spending. 
So back to the ECB, we had not expected them to hike rates, but we did think it was a close call. Core inflation had started to come down, and when it became clear that core services inflation that peaked and was drifting lower against a backdrop of signs pointing to a weaker euro area economy, we revised our call to no hike. So from our perspective, the ECB has increased the risk of hiking perhaps too much based on headline inflation. The ECB statement last week noted that inflation "is still expected to remain high for too long", but because it seems that they are now done hiking, the debate is going to turn to the duration of this so-called "higher for longer" with the policy rate. With the effects of inflation passing over time, but the drag of GDP showing up over the next few quarters, we get more comfortable expecting rate cuts there as early as June next year. 
The Fed is meeting this week and the last US CPI print showed headline inflation boosted by higher gasoline prices. Sound familiar? Well, our colleagues in the U.S. team have stressed that the Fed will likely look through the non core inflation. And, as in Europe, the increases in oil prices should lower purchasing power for consumers in the near term, further limiting economic activity and that is part of the objective of higher policy rates right now. With the Fed's focus on core rather than headline inflation, the last data print gives more reason to think the Fed is done hiking. Taking the last CPI print and combining it with last week's data from the Producer Price...]]>244false956fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/thematic-research-how-ai-can-transform-travel-booking--75653304----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll be taking deep dive into the ways A.I can revolutionize the travel and booking experience. It's Friday, September the 15th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Ed Stanley: A.I and the company's most advantaged and likely disrupted have been the hot topic of 2023 for equity markets so far. However, the long term impacts and downstream winners and challenged companies remain fairly ambiguous for some sectors, and travel, hotels, OTAs certainly sit in that more hotly debated camp. We also have on the line our US gaming, lodging and leisure analyst Stephen Grambling with Brian Nowak, US head of Internet research. So Brian, if we could start with you to set the scene a little bit. Investors have been wondering about disrupting online travel for years. What does the hotel booking experience of the future look like, do you think? And what does that mean for travel agencies? And then, Stephen, if you want to follow up with your thoughts on the booking evolution and how that looks. So, Brian, first, please. 
Brian Nowak: Yeah, artificial intelligence, I think, is going to really change the overall online travel experience. I think it's going to become a lot more conversational, interactive, personalized and visual, and probably even video based in nature. You know, I think that right now you think about the travel research process where you might be looking for a hotel in Miami the week of the holidays in December that will sleep four people that has access to a beach and a golf course. That experience, the search for that right now is pretty low quality and requires a lot of multiple searches and tabs and apps, and it takes a while. You know, with the way in which these large language models and applications on top of these large language models can search through unstructured data, I think that these online travel agencies and other emerging A.I travel apps are going to really leverage these capabilities and actually just make the entire travel research process much faster, more interactive and more comprehensive. The other thing I would say on the interactive point is I think we are going to move toward having A.I powered online travel agents. Where if I am looking for that one example of a place to stay in Miami the week of the holidays today, but there are no hotels that fit my criteria, two weeks from now and inventory becomes available I may have an A.I travel agent say, Brian, are you still looking to travel in December? Look at the inventory that popped up. So I would just expect the overall travel research and booking process to become much more conversational, efficient and just high quality for all users, which should drive conversion higher and pull a larger share of wallets from offline to online. I don't know, Stephen, how do you think about the potential impacts on the brands from that? 
Stephen Grambling: I think to set the stage there, the most sizable place consumers start their booking process has been historically by researching hotels across price, amenities, location, etc. From the brand's perspective, the key was how do you get a consumer to book with you direct, even if the research was done via another channel? And that is what bore out the stop clicking around campaigns that started in 2016. The brands all launched marketing to tell consumers to stop price comparison all over and leverage loyalty to get the cheapest rate plus certain benefits that they could only get if they booked direct. So what happened? In some ways, the jury is still out due to the pandemic. Where do we go from here? I think, as you described, A.I has the ability to perhaps magnify some of the unique aspects of these brand loyalty programs that were so important to that direct booking campaign, that they can harness both business and consumer travel data that tends to have higher frequency, even if they have lower breadth relative to the OTAs. And as we look right now at the current landscape, when you do these queries that Brian was describing, booking channels are still effectively leveraging whatever the output was from search engine optimization, SEO. And so I think that the opportunity there is if you can train these large language models, either from the consumer dictating it via their preferences, whether it's for loyalty, the amenities they want, the experience they want, or the brands can train them by using the data that they have that's differentiated across both business and leisure. That's where they have an opportunity to actually move a little bit up in the funnel. 
Ed Stanley: Perfect. And you touched on marketing there, you gave some great color on the booking process of the future. Where do you think A.I could have other impacts across the PNL for your names? 
Stephen Grambling: So we outlined five areas A.I can impact hotels. First is obviously personalization of content, whether that's the room food, amenities being offered via video or otherwise. Second is the marketing efficiencies as offers could be more targeted based on feedback. The third is enhanced engagement during and post trip, as you continually interact with these effectively personal assistants throughout the process, not just travel planning but engagement throughout. Fourth is automated customer service, essentially chatbots and virtual assistants. And the fifth is yield and revenue management, where hotels can maximize price and occupancy by better predicting demand patterns using various sources of data. And based on other industries' success in some of these areas, we think that they could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits to the branded hotel systems across various levels of the PNL. 
Ed Stanley: Perfect. And one of the other things you mentioned with loyalty programs, which are pretty important, you also want to use loyalty programs for your airline hotels. Can you tell us how these work from a consumer brand perspective and why they're so important? 
Stephen Grambling: A number of studies suggest both business and leisure customers pick loyalty programs primarily for the perceived points value. But this is then followed by personalized experience and partnerships, that's what the consumer values when they're picking a loyalty program. A.I has the opportunity to really differentiate beyond just points back or a coupon by leveraging, as I said, the unique data that they have across both that business travel and then leisure to drive again, tailored offers experiences. These loyalty programs importantly are essentially pools of funds across all the owners of hotels deployed by the brands. And so when they're investing in A.I, the same kind of thing will happen where they'll be spreading across all of their owners. At the same time, the brands can leverage partners such as credit card companies, in the past they've also done other travel partners, to subsidize these funds and drive even greater scale. And another thing is that they can also get some fees  from these loyalty programs that they charge back to these partners. And currently that can represent over 10% of the EBITDA, these companies, as we think about co-brand credit card fees alone. 
Ed Stanley: Brian, you've done an AlphaWise survey or two maybe, what of the high level survey findings shown you on travel particularly? 
Brian Nowak: We are already seeing travel leisure research migrating over to these new platforms where, you know, something around 20% of people we think are already researching leisure travel and using those tools to research travel. So to me, it's interesting, it is an encouraging early signal for the tech companies that you are seeing this user behavior move from the traditional search products over to the next generation A.I power tools. 
Ed Stanley: Then just to round things off. From a topics order of preference perspective, after all the work you've done, the winners and the more challenge names you think they come out of this piece of work. 
Stephen Grambling: So we think about this across both the scale of the system and then their investment already in technology and we see in the cross-section there, probably the best position would be folks who have effectively already spent on a connected room. So they have the tech ability and they also have the scale. Folks who are smaller scale are just not going to have quite as much data to work with, and they're not going to have the same system size and system funds that they can invest in the technology behind it. 
Ed Stanley: Stephen, Brian, that's been really insightful. Thank you for taking the time to talk. 
Ed Stanley: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6nhzs0wMnDm5nZtbG0fsABBFDEw00zGHxBgP6EwWSBwFri, 15 Sep 2023 21:25:53 +0000gtyWith more companies using artificial intelligence to enhance their travel websites, AI could become the industry norm. ----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along...----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll be taking deep dive into the ways A.I can revolutionize the travel and booking experience. It's Friday, September the 15th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Ed Stanley: A.I and the company's most advantaged and likely disrupted have been the hot topic of 2023 for equity markets so far. However, the long term impacts and downstream winners and challenged companies remain fairly ambiguous for some sectors, and travel, hotels, OTAs certainly sit in that more hotly debated camp. We also have on the line our US gaming, lodging and leisure analyst Stephen Grambling with Brian Nowak, US head of Internet research. So Brian, if we could start with you to set the scene a little bit. Investors have been wondering about disrupting online travel for years. What does the hotel booking experience of the future look like, do you think? And what does that mean for travel agencies? And then, Stephen, if you want to follow up with your thoughts on the booking evolution and how that looks. So, Brian, first, please. 
Brian Nowak: Yeah, artificial intelligence, I think, is going to really change the overall online travel experience. I think it's going to become a lot more conversational, interactive, personalized and visual, and probably even video based in nature. You know, I think that right now you think about the travel research process where you might be looking for a hotel in Miami the week of the holidays in December that will sleep four people that has access to a beach and a golf course. That experience, the search for that right now is pretty low quality and requires a lot of multiple searches and tabs and apps, and it takes a while. You know, with the way in which these large language models and applications on top of these large language models can search through unstructured data, I think that these online travel agencies and other emerging A.I travel apps are going to really leverage these capabilities and actually just make the entire travel research process much faster, more interactive and more comprehensive. The other thing I would say on the interactive point is I think we are going to move toward having A.I powered online travel agents. Where if I am looking for that one example of a place to stay in Miami the week of the holidays today, but there are no hotels that fit my criteria, two weeks from now and inventory becomes available I may have an A.I travel agent say, Brian, are you still looking to travel in December? Look at the inventory that popped up. So I would just expect the overall travel research and booking process to become much more conversational, efficient and just high quality for all users, which should drive conversion higher and pull a larger share of wallets from offline to online. I don't know, Stephen, how do you think about the potential impacts on the brands from that? 
Stephen Grambling: I think to set the stage there, the most sizable place consumers start their booking process has been historically by researching hotels across price, amenities, location, etc. From the brand's perspective, the key was how do you get a consumer to book with you direct, even if the research was done via another channel? And that is what bore out the stop clicking around campaigns that started in 2016. The brands all launched marketing to tell consumers to stop price comparison all over and leverage loyalty to get the cheapest rate plus certain benefits that they could only get if they booked direct. So what happened? In some ways, the jury is still out due to the pandemic. Where do we go from here? I think, as you described, A.I has the ability to perhaps magnify some of the unique aspects of...]]>520false955fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/martijn-rats-why-energy-sector-is-attractive-once-again--75653196----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, Today I'll discuss the recent changes in oil markets and why recently we turned bullish on energy equities once again. It's Thursday, September 14th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Prices of both crude oil and refined product have risen substantially over the last two months. Brent crude oil is trading once again a little over $90 a barrel, up 20% since the middle of the year. Diesel prices have rallied even more, up 50% since the mid year point and recently surpassing the $1,000 per tonne mark again. 
After a fairly lackluster first half, this begs the question what has brought about this sudden change in fortune. 
For starters, oil demand is simply robust. In June, global oil demand reached 103 million barrels a day, a new all time high. But on top of that, the recent crude price rally has been supported by strong production cuts from OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia. In April, Saudi Arabia still exported 7.4 million barrels per day of crude oil. By August, this had fallen to just 5.4 million barrels a day, that is an unusually sharp drop in a very short space time. On a 100 million barrel per day market, that may not look like much, but this is enough to drive the market into deficits, cause inventories to decline and prices to rise. 
What has given refined product prices, like diesel, a further boost has been tightness in the global refining system. Capacity closures during COVID, logistical difficulties in replacing Russian crude in European refineries and an unexpectedly large number of unplanned outages, partly because of a hot summer, have effectively curtailed refining capacity. Like last year, it has been all hands on deck in global refining this summer. 
Whether oil prices and refining margins will still rally a lot further is hard to know, but prices seem well underpinned at current levels. As long as Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC continue their current oil policy, the oil market is simply tight and the current cuts have all the hallmarks of lasting well into next year. 
On top, we think it will take some time before the current constraints in refining are resolved. Margins may decline somewhat from their current very elevated levels, but we would expect them to remain high by historical standards for some time to come. 
Then we would also argue that risks to natural gas prices in Europe are once again skewed higher. Prices have fallen substantially this year, and of course, they could fall somewhat further. However, if some tightness returns, they can rally a lot more, skewing that price outlook higher too. 
Putting this all together creates a favorable outlook for energy equities and that is where our true conviction lies. At the start of the year, we argued that earnings expectations for the energy sector were high and that market sentiment was already bullish and that valuations were stretched. After two years of rating the sector attractive, we downgraded our sector view back in January. 
However, pretty much all these factors have changed once again. Consensus earnings forecasts have fallen, but given our commodity outlook, we would now expect upgrades to consensus estimates to start coming through once again, making energy possibly the only sector for which this argument can be made. With strong free cash flow ahead, we expect robust dividend growth, strong share buybacks and declining net debt. Combining that with market sentiment that is no longer so buoyant for energy and valuations that have corrected quite a lot, we think energy is once again an attractive sector. Especially for those seeking high income and protection against inflation, against an uncertain geopolitical backdrop. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wShs_i-U-C-x22eZdIfPjKK3cXAsY8hfK5UDt2MbGqIThu, 14 Sep 2023 21:21:06 +0000gtyWith the global demand of oil reaching a new high, the spillover in performance is changing the fortune for energy equities and oil markets. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, Today I'll discuss the recent changes in oil markets and why recently we turned bullish on energy equities once again. It's Thursday, September 14th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Prices of both crude oil and refined product have risen substantially over the last two months. Brent crude oil is trading once again a little over $90 a barrel, up 20% since the middle of the year. Diesel prices have rallied even more, up 50% since the mid year point and recently surpassing the $1,000 per tonne mark again. 
After a fairly lackluster first half, this begs the question what has brought about this sudden change in fortune. 
For starters, oil demand is simply robust. In June, global oil demand reached 103 million barrels a day, a new all time high. But on top of that, the recent crude price rally has been supported by strong production cuts from OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia. In April, Saudi Arabia still exported 7.4 million barrels per day of crude oil. By August, this had fallen to just 5.4 million barrels a day, that is an unusually sharp drop in a very short space time. On a 100 million barrel per day market, that may not look like much, but this is enough to drive the market into deficits, cause inventories to decline and prices to rise. 
What has given refined product prices, like diesel, a further boost has been tightness in the global refining system. Capacity closures during COVID, logistical difficulties in replacing Russian crude in European refineries and an unexpectedly large number of unplanned outages, partly because of a hot summer, have effectively curtailed refining capacity. Like last year, it has been all hands on deck in global refining this summer. 
Whether oil prices and refining margins will still rally a lot further is hard to know, but prices seem well underpinned at current levels. As long as Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC continue their current oil policy, the oil market is simply tight and the current cuts have all the hallmarks of lasting well into next year. 
On top, we think it will take some time before the current constraints in refining are resolved. Margins may decline somewhat from their current very elevated levels, but we would expect them to remain high by historical standards for some time to come. 
Then we would also argue that risks to natural gas prices in Europe are once again skewed higher. Prices have fallen substantially this year, and of course, they could fall somewhat further. However, if some tightness returns, they can rally a lot more, skewing that price outlook higher too. 
Putting this all together creates a favorable outlook for energy equities and that is where our true conviction lies. At the start of the year, we argued that earnings expectations for the energy sector were high and that market sentiment was already bullish and that valuations were stretched. After two years of rating the sector attractive, we downgraded our sector view back in January. 
However, pretty much all these factors have changed once again. Consensus earnings forecasts have fallen, but given our commodity outlook, we would now expect upgrades to consensus estimates to start coming through once again, making energy possibly the only sector for which this argument can be made. With strong free cash flow ahead, we expect robust dividend growth, strong share buybacks and declining net debt. Combining that with market sentiment that is no longer so buoyant for energy and valuations that have corrected quite a lot, we think energy is once again an attractive sector. Especially for those seeking high income and protection against...]]>227false954fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-the-impact-of-raising-rates--75653101----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing U.S. home prices. It's Wednesday, September 13th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: Jim, mortgage rates are up over 100 basis points since the beginning of the year, but I hear you were turning more optimistic on home prices. What gives? 
Jim Egan: Well, the first thing that I would say is that home price data is pretty lagged and that an increase in mortgage rates is not going to be felt immediately in the data. For instance, let's assume the last week of August ends up being the peak in mortgage rates for this cycle. When would you expect that rate to start showing up in actual purchase mortgages? 
Jay Bacow: So, if the peak in mortgage rates is the end of August, we will get data on people applying for the mortgage the following week from the Mortgage Bankers Association. But it takes about seven weeks right now to close a mortgage. If the peak was at the end of August, the mortgages are probably closing towards the end of October, almost at Halloween. But if it closes in October, Jim, when will we actually get that data? 
Jim Egan: Right. The home price data is even more lagged than that. The Case-Shiller prints that we forecast and that we've talked about on this podcast, those come out with a two month delay. So those October sales, we're not going to see until December. Again, for instance, the print we just got at the end of August, that was for home prices in June. Jay Bacow: So in other words, we haven't seen the full impact of this increase in rates yet on the housing market and the data that we can see. But when we do, what's the impact going to be on home prices? 
Jim Egan: Well, we think the immediate impact is going to be on a few other aspects of the housing market, and then those aspects are going to potentially impact home prices. The most straightforward level here is affordability, right? That's an equation that includes prices, mortgage rates, as well as incomes, and so we're talking about the mortgage rate component. Now, one thing that you and I have said on this podcast before, Jay, is that affordability in the U.S. housing market, it's still challenged, but at least so far this year it really hasn't been getting any worse. That's not the case anymore. Affordability is still very challenged and now it's started to get worse again. By our calculations, the monthly payment on the median priced home is up 18% over the past year, and that's the first time that deterioration has accelerated since October of 2022. Three month and six month changes in affordability have also resumed deteriorating after those were actually improving earlier this year. 
Jay Bacow: So if homes are getting less affordable, presumably home sales should fall? 
Jim Egan: We think that would be kind of the probable impact there and it is something that we're seeing. To be clear, affordability is not deteriorating anywhere near as rapidly as it did in 2022, and we don't expect the same sharp declines in home sales. But this really does give us further confidence in our L-shaped forecast, and if anything it could provide a little more pressure on existing home sales. But we're also seeing the impact on the supply side of the equation. 
Jay Bacow: But wasn't the supply side already incredibly low? For instance, our truly refinanceable index calculates what percent of the universe has at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance. It's at less than 1% right now. The average outstanding mortgage rate for the agency market is 3.68%. Are we really expecting the supply to fall further? 
Jim Egan: So that wasn't part of our original forecast and we had been seeing existing inventories really start to climb off of recorded lows. For context, our data there goes back about 40 years, but that's taken an abrupt about face in recent months. The 13% year-over-year decrease in inventory that we just saw this past month, that's the sharpest drop since June 2021, with a contraction coming through both new and existing listings. As affordability has resumed its deterioration with this increase in mortgage rates, homebuilder confidence actually fell month over month for the first time this year. Now, tight supply should continue to provide support to home prices, even as affordability has become more challenged. 
Jay Bacow: And so what does that support for home prices end up looking like? 
Jim Egan: The short answer, we expect a return to year-over-year growth with the next print that we're going to get here at the end of September. Case-Shiller year-over-year has actually fallen for each of the past three months. We think that ends now. We have a forecast of plus 0.7% year-over-year with a print that's just about to come out and that would be a new record high. With home prices then surpassing their levels in June of 2022, at least for that index. Our base case forecast for year end has been 0% growth, with our bull case at plus 5%. The evolution of the inputs since particularly the supply point here continues to be tighter than what was already pretty tepid expectations on our part. That has us expecting HPA to finish the year between these two levels, that base case and that bull case level. 
Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, it's always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wgPvEZ7cJ-QZ_eFoHaVTLKzoBMuAy3wcMYCEeAY91EMWed, 13 Sep 2023 19:00:57 +0000gtyEven though mortgage rates are up 100 points since the beginning of 2023, home prices are likely to stay flat or increase due to tight housing supply. ----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of U.S....----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing U.S. home prices. It's Wednesday, September 13th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: Jim, mortgage rates are up over 100 basis points since the beginning of the year, but I hear you were turning more optimistic on home prices. What gives? 
Jim Egan: Well, the first thing that I would say is that home price data is pretty lagged and that an increase in mortgage rates is not going to be felt immediately in the data. For instance, let's assume the last week of August ends up being the peak in mortgage rates for this cycle. When would you expect that rate to start showing up in actual purchase mortgages? 
Jay Bacow: So, if the peak in mortgage rates is the end of August, we will get data on people applying for the mortgage the following week from the Mortgage Bankers Association. But it takes about seven weeks right now to close a mortgage. If the peak was at the end of August, the mortgages are probably closing towards the end of October, almost at Halloween. But if it closes in October, Jim, when will we actually get that data? 
Jim Egan: Right. The home price data is even more lagged than that. The Case-Shiller prints that we forecast and that we've talked about on this podcast, those come out with a two month delay. So those October sales, we're not going to see until December. Again, for instance, the print we just got at the end of August, that was for home prices in June. Jay Bacow: So in other words, we haven't seen the full impact of this increase in rates yet on the housing market and the data that we can see. But when we do, what's the impact going to be on home prices? 
Jim Egan: Well, we think the immediate impact is going to be on a few other aspects of the housing market, and then those aspects are going to potentially impact home prices. The most straightforward level here is affordability, right? That's an equation that includes prices, mortgage rates, as well as incomes, and so we're talking about the mortgage rate component. Now, one thing that you and I have said on this podcast before, Jay, is that affordability in the U.S. housing market, it's still challenged, but at least so far this year it really hasn't been getting any worse. That's not the case anymore. Affordability is still very challenged and now it's started to get worse again. By our calculations, the monthly payment on the median priced home is up 18% over the past year, and that's the first time that deterioration has accelerated since October of 2022. Three month and six month changes in affordability have also resumed deteriorating after those were actually improving earlier this year. 
Jay Bacow: So if homes are getting less affordable, presumably home sales should fall? 
Jim Egan: We think that would be kind of the probable impact there and it is something that we're seeing. To be clear, affordability is not deteriorating anywhere near as rapidly as it did in 2022, and we don't expect the same sharp declines in home sales. But this really does give us further confidence in our L-shaped forecast, and if anything it could provide a little more pressure on existing home sales. But we're also seeing the impact on the supply side of the equation. 
Jay Bacow: But wasn't the supply side already incredibly low? For instance, our truly refinanceable index calculates what percent of the universe has at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance. It's at less than 1% right now. The average outstanding mortgage rate for the agency market is...]]>336false953fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-u-s-and-china-on-divergent-paths--75653080----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on the markets as we head into the fall. It's Tuesday, September 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As many of us head back to school, Morgan Stanley Global economics and strategy teams look back on how the economy and the markets have evolved over the summer and look ahead to what changing narratives mean for the economic outlook and asset markets. Our debate centered on two key issues. One, the outperformance of the U.S. economy and the underperformance of China economy. And two, the recent spike in government bond yields at the longer end of the curve. 
The U.S. economy has been outperforming our expectations and has led markets over the summer to push out the first expected cut into 2024. The concern is that a still hot economy means that the Fed can keep policy restrictive for longer. Acknowledging the strong incoming data, our economists have revised their 2023 growth expectations significantly higher for the U.S. from 0.4% to 1.7%, even as they maintain that the Fed is done hiking and will be on hold until first quarter of 2024. 
On the other hand, in China, the trajectory of economic growth has been different. Over the summer, data have been pointing to a faster than expected deterioration in the macro environment. We have seen successive and incremental property and infrastructure easing measures, but market confidence has not returned and debates around earnings, spillover effects on global growth and the impact on commodities are growing. Noting the macro and policy challenges since the mid-year outlook, our China economists have revised their 2023 growth expectations lower for China from 5.7% to 4.7% for 2023. And our emerging market equity strategists have moved to equal weight on China and revise down their MSCI Emerging Market Index target. 
What about our call to be long duration? Ten year Treasury yields have sold off by about 65 basis points since our mid-year outlook on better than expected U.S. growth data, among other factors. Can this continue? Our strategists make modest changes to their rates forecast, but still see a path for low yields, countering the market narrative of growth reacceleration or a higher treasury supply technical. Thus, we reaffirm our conviction to be long duration, despite the rates  market moving away from us. 
Overall, our conviction on a U.S. soft landing has strengthened. But with monetary policy remaining restrictive, late cycle risks, growth, earnings and defaults remain. We maintain a defensive stance. We prefer bonds over equities and equal-weight stocks, overweight fixed income, underweight commodities, and equal weight cash. Combined with rich valuations, this makes us stay equal-weight equities, with a preference for rest of the world stocks over US stocks. In all, high carry and late cycle environment favor an overweight in fixed income. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uYdNv9QM4ICbiLe9WRszszKzqPQcDYRpXGcPQ8ACsuETue, 12 Sep 2023 22:32:52 +0000gtyEconomic growth data from the summer has bolstered belief in a possible soft landing in the U.S., while China has experienced a faster-than-expected deterioration in the macro environment. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on the markets as we head into the fall. It's Tuesday, September 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As many of us head back to school, Morgan Stanley Global economics and strategy teams look back on how the economy and the markets have evolved over the summer and look ahead to what changing narratives mean for the economic outlook and asset markets. Our debate centered on two key issues. One, the outperformance of the U.S. economy and the underperformance of China economy. And two, the recent spike in government bond yields at the longer end of the curve. 
The U.S. economy has been outperforming our expectations and has led markets over the summer to push out the first expected cut into 2024. The concern is that a still hot economy means that the Fed can keep policy restrictive for longer. Acknowledging the strong incoming data, our economists have revised their 2023 growth expectations significantly higher for the U.S. from 0.4% to 1.7%, even as they maintain that the Fed is done hiking and will be on hold until first quarter of 2024. 
On the other hand, in China, the trajectory of economic growth has been different. Over the summer, data have been pointing to a faster than expected deterioration in the macro environment. We have seen successive and incremental property and infrastructure easing measures, but market confidence has not returned and debates around earnings, spillover effects on global growth and the impact on commodities are growing. Noting the macro and policy challenges since the mid-year outlook, our China economists have revised their 2023 growth expectations lower for China from 5.7% to 4.7% for 2023. And our emerging market equity strategists have moved to equal weight on China and revise down their MSCI Emerging Market Index target. 
What about our call to be long duration? Ten year Treasury yields have sold off by about 65 basis points since our mid-year outlook on better than expected U.S. growth data, among other factors. Can this continue? Our strategists make modest changes to their rates forecast, but still see a path for low yields, countering the market narrative of growth reacceleration or a higher treasury supply technical. Thus, we reaffirm our conviction to be long duration, despite the rates  market moving away from us. 
Overall, our conviction on a U.S. soft landing has strengthened. But with monetary policy remaining restrictive, late cycle risks, growth, earnings and defaults remain. We maintain a defensive stance. We prefer bonds over equities and equal-weight stocks, overweight fixed income, underweight commodities, and equal weight cash. Combined with rich valuations, this makes us stay equal-weight equities, with a preference for rest of the world stocks over US stocks. In all, high carry and late cycle environment favor an overweight in fixed income. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>208false952fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-economy-fall-outlook-for-rates-and-the-economy--75653306----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist. 
Guneet Dhingra: And I'm Guneet Dhingra, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Trade Strategies. 
Seth Carpenter: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing our updated economic and rates outlook for the rest of the year and into 2024. It's Monday, September 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Seth Carpenter: All right, Guneet. We are now about a week into September and we can take stock of what we've learned over the summer. For macroeconomists like me we care about growth, inflation, monetary policy, and I'll say this summer spending indicators came in strong, inflation continued to fall, and we had Jackson Hole, the sort of nerd temple for monetary policy. And I have to say we didn't learn quite as much as I hoped, but we kind of know the Fed has done hiking, or at least very close. But I have to say, in your domain, the Treasury yield is trading roughly 4.25%. On the last day of June, when summer began, it was around 380. Can we just attribute the higher rate to thin liquidity and move on? 
Guneet Dhingra: You're right Seth, it's not just thin liquidity, but the conditions of August definitely played a meaningful part in sending yields higher. Typically, as investors look to go away for August, positive carry trades are the easiest trades to have on, and playing for higher yields has been positive carry. Which is why I think in August this year and even the last year, yields tended to go higher. But beyond August, seasonality, which might be the simplest explanation, investors have 4 major narratives out there that R-star, the so-called neutral rate of interest has increased, the end of yield curve control in Japan, more Treasury supply and more recently at the end of the summer, and increased supply of corporate debt. 
Guneet Dhingra: So before we go there Seth, you mentioned Jackson Hole at the end of the summer. The idea that some investors have that because the economy has held up so well, despite the Fed's rate hikes, that the underlying neutral rate or R-star must be higher and so will have higher interest rates not just now, but into the future. What is your take on this whole R* debate and what have you learned from Jackson Hole? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. So I have to say Jackson Hole was very interesting, but this time there were a lot of very academic minded papers there that were very important to talk about. I can see how they can spur debate, but I'm not sure they provide that much that's actionable in the near term for the Fed or even for markets. And when it comes specifically to R-star, color me a bit skeptical and I say that for a few reasons. One, alternate explanations just abound. We could have got stronger spending because there's more residual impetus from the fiscal policy that's already in the pipeline. And in particular, if we look at where we missed our GDP forecast, a really big part of that was nonresidential structures investment. So that could go a long way to explain it. Second, if R-star really was higher, I think that would mean that the Fed would have to raise the peak rate during this hiking cycle even higher, not just rates off in the future. And so what does that mean? That means that I at least would have expected a parallel shift higher in rates, not just along in selling off. And in fact, you might even see a steeper inversion of the curve as the rate goes higher in the near term, but then has to come down later. So take all of that together, and I guess I'm just really not convinced that there's enough evidence to conclude that R-star is higher. 
Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, makes a lot of sense, Seth. And listening to you about the growth and economic picture, I'm even more convinced that this R-star story doesn't quite hold water. 
Seth Carpenter: All right, so then there is the yield curve control story. And I will say, at the risk of patting myself on the back, our Japan team had been expecting a tweak to yield curve control in Japan, and we got it. But I know that you're skeptical that that's really the story here. Why do you push back? 
Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, I think one of the ways you can actually verify the impact of the yield curve control on the U.S Treasury market, is just break down the price action into different time zones. And what you saw is in the Tokyo time zone, where you would expect a lot of the so-called repatriation flows to play out, we haven't really seen much of a movement in U.S Treasury yields ever since the YCC change announcement. So I would say based on the time zone analysis, it doesn't look like YCC changes are really impacting Treasury yields. 
Seth Carpenter: Okay Guneet, I get it. So it wasn't from trading happening in Tokyo, but these sort of markets are global. There could have been traders in London, traders in New York who were reacting to the change in yield curve control and selling their JGBs. And then the traders in Tokyo wake up and go, oh, nothing to do here. What do you make of that story? Why couldn't that be the explanation that it really was yield curve control? 
Guneet Dhingra: So if you break it down in the London Time Zone, it actually turns out that Treasury yields have actually gone lower since the YCC announcement in the London Time Zone. To my mind, that speaks to the idea that maybe investors in those time zones are more focused on the weakness in the European economy than any changes to YCC. And speaking of the New York time zone, yes, it is true that the bulk of the sell off in Treasury yields has happened in the New York time zone. But keep in mind, if hedge funds are the only major player selling yields on the back of the YCC, and it's not quite backed up by repatriation flows, it's probably not likely going to be sustainable. 
Seth Carpenter: Then let's turn to the last one, increased supply of debt, both Treasury debt and corporate debt. So we know that the U.S deficit is high, Issuance will have to continue for some time. We've heard all of the stories about corporates starting to stir in capital markets and issue more. Shouldn't it be logical that if demand for assets is roughly unchanged but the supply goes up, the price will fall, which should lead to a sell off in rates? What do you make of that story? Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, the story is pretty logical, but I don't think it still answers the question. If supply was really the main driver, I would expect to see more of a substantial tightening in so-called swap spreads, which is the gap between Treasury yields and the equivalent swap rates. We haven't really seen much of a tightening in swap spreads, which really undercuts the idea that Treasury supply is already on investors minds. 
Seth Carpenter: All right. So I think we've gone through a bunch of the narratives, pushd back on a lot of them, maybe debunked them a little bit. I guess the one other question I would have for you is, could it be that markets are waking up to the higher for longer narrative? The Fed's been trying to say that they're going to keep interest rates as high as they need to for as long as they need to in order to bring inflation back to target. Maybe the market's putting more probability on that sort of outcome. 
Guneet Dhingra: Just to pretend I'm smarter than the economists, I will use the word bear steepening of the curve here. So in my view, the recent bear steepening of the 2s/10s curve is a combination of two things. Number one, there has been very little change in the market implied Fed funds path through the end of 2024. And number two, the back end has moved higher with some combination of August seasonality and belief around a higher R-star. So I would say it is less about the quote unquote higher for longer expectation, but more about the idea that the Fed fund eventually settles at a higher level in the medium term. 
Seth Carpenter: Okay. I guess that's fair. Let's take a step back, though, and take stock of what it is that we've learned. You and I and our colleagues have published work recently, basically saying, here's the mid-year outlook we published in May, here are the data that we got over the course of the summer. What did we get right and what did we get wrong? I econ, I'd say we got right the continued and pretty rapid fall in inflation in the U.S. and the slowing in the labor market, and I'm pretty proud of that. But boy, we got wrong just how strong the U.S. economy would be. And in very stark contrast, we missed just how weak the Chinese economy would be. Boy, we really thought that there'd be a stronger, more vigorous policy response that would get better traction and we'd see a bigger cyclical rebound. What are your key takeaways from what you and your colleagues in strategy have learned over the summer? Guneet Dhingra: To start with some numbers, we had ten year yields ending at 3.5% by the end of 2023. Currently there are 4.25%. We think we missed two things. First, the market focuses on upside and growth rather than the cooling of inflation. And number two, we missed the investors and how they're behaving, once bitten twice shy, about adding duration until every data point cools down convincingly. Having said that, your forecast is for more cooling and growth and inflation through the year. And so we have only marginally raised our ten year forecast to 3.65% by the end of this year. 
Seth Carpenter: I have to say, Guneet, every time I talk to you, I learn something new. So thank you for taking the time to talk. 
Guneet Dhingra: Great speaking with you, Seth. 
Seth Carpenter: And thanks to the listeners for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mx8EjHDxyOB8BC0thS9hYZE8B8LBoL31hjfqUCSVihkMon, 11 Sep 2023 22:13:09 +0000gtyHeading into the end of the year, questions remain around Treasury yields and the neutral interest rate. ----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist.  Guneet...----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist. 
Guneet Dhingra: And I'm Guneet Dhingra, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Trade Strategies. 
Seth Carpenter: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing our updated economic and rates outlook for the rest of the year and into 2024. It's Monday, September 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Seth Carpenter: All right, Guneet. We are now about a week into September and we can take stock of what we've learned over the summer. For macroeconomists like me we care about growth, inflation, monetary policy, and I'll say this summer spending indicators came in strong, inflation continued to fall, and we had Jackson Hole, the sort of nerd temple for monetary policy. And I have to say we didn't learn quite as much as I hoped, but we kind of know the Fed has done hiking, or at least very close. But I have to say, in your domain, the Treasury yield is trading roughly 4.25%. On the last day of June, when summer began, it was around 380. Can we just attribute the higher rate to thin liquidity and move on? 
Guneet Dhingra: You're right Seth, it's not just thin liquidity, but the conditions of August definitely played a meaningful part in sending yields higher. Typically, as investors look to go away for August, positive carry trades are the easiest trades to have on, and playing for higher yields has been positive carry. Which is why I think in August this year and even the last year, yields tended to go higher. But beyond August, seasonality, which might be the simplest explanation, investors have 4 major narratives out there that R-star, the so-called neutral rate of interest has increased, the end of yield curve control in Japan, more Treasury supply and more recently at the end of the summer, and increased supply of corporate debt. 
Guneet Dhingra: So before we go there Seth, you mentioned Jackson Hole at the end of the summer. The idea that some investors have that because the economy has held up so well, despite the Fed's rate hikes, that the underlying neutral rate or R-star must be higher and so will have higher interest rates not just now, but into the future. What is your take on this whole R* debate and what have you learned from Jackson Hole? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. So I have to say Jackson Hole was very interesting, but this time there were a lot of very academic minded papers there that were very important to talk about. I can see how they can spur debate, but I'm not sure they provide that much that's actionable in the near term for the Fed or even for markets. And when it comes specifically to R-star, color me a bit skeptical and I say that for a few reasons. One, alternate explanations just abound. We could have got stronger spending because there's more residual impetus from the fiscal policy that's already in the pipeline. And in particular, if we look at where we missed our GDP forecast, a really big part of that was nonresidential structures investment. So that could go a long way to explain it. Second, if R-star really was higher, I think that would mean that the Fed would have to raise the peak rate during this hiking cycle even higher, not just rates off in the future. And so what does that mean? That means that I at least would have expected a parallel shift higher in rates, not just along in selling off. And in fact, you might even see a steeper inversion of the curve as the rate goes higher in the near term, but then has to come down later. So take all of that together, and I guess I'm just really not convinced that there's enough evidence to conclude that R-star is higher. 
Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, makes a lot of sense, Seth. And listening to you about the growth and economic picture, I'm even more convinced that this R-star story doesn't...]]>557false951fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-a-murky-forecast-for-equities-and-high-yield-bonds--75652906----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 8th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The week after Labor Day is both a refreshing return to more normal market conditions, and a rush. As investors head back to school, so to speak, here are a few big issues that we think they should be focused on. 
First and most importantly, we think the next few months will be about cementing the idea that both the Fed and the ECB are done raising interest rates for the foreseeable future. Given better than expected core inflation data in the U.S. and worse than expected growth data in Europe, we think neither central bank will raise rates at their meetings this month. And then further out, we think they stay on hold as lowered levels of bank loan growth, slower job growth and a continued decline in core inflation will reinforce the idea that central banks have raised rates enough. 
For markets, the end of a central bank rate hiking cycle tends to be pretty good for high grade bonds. Indeed, going back over the last 40 years, the dates of the last Fed funds rate increase and the local high point for yields on the U.S. aggregate bond index, line up almost to the month. The logic in this relationship also feels intuitive. If the Fed is done raising rates, one of two things has probably happened. It stopped raising rates at the correct level to bring inflation down without a recession and bonds like that lower inflation and more certainty, or they stopped because they've raised rates too much, slowing growth in inflation much more, a scenario where investors like the safety of bonds. 
But in riskier markets, the picture greeting investors in September is more murky. Like August, September also tends to see below average returns and above average volatility, and that seasonality doesn't turn helpful until mid-October. Company earnings revisions tend to be weak around this time of year, something our equity strategists believe could repeat. Investors got a lot more optimistic over the summer, raising the hurdle for good news. And there are some specific risk events on the near-term horizon, from a potential shutdown of the US government to a strike in the auto industry. For equities and high yield bonds, we therefore think investors should exercise more patience. 
A third issue investors will be watching is supply. September is historically one of the heaviest months of the year for corporate bond issuance, but with corporate bond yields now at some of their highest levels in nearly 20 years, will that reduce the incentive for companies to borrow? And meanwhile, one of the reasons assigned to the recent rise in US government bond yields has been the high levels of government borrowing. The next few weeks will give a much better idea of the true impact of that potential supply. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/caQqYQulxM8QKtR-HJ_7A1NKnKzp78yoPZryWVsLgqUFri, 08 Sep 2023 19:44:58 +0000gtyBoth equities and high-yield bonds could benefit from an end to ratings hikes, but may still face risks from company earnings revisions, a potential U.S. government shutdown and other events on the horizon. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 8th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The week after Labor Day is both a refreshing return to more normal market conditions, and a rush. As investors head back to school, so to speak, here are a few big issues that we think they should be focused on. 
First and most importantly, we think the next few months will be about cementing the idea that both the Fed and the ECB are done raising interest rates for the foreseeable future. Given better than expected core inflation data in the U.S. and worse than expected growth data in Europe, we think neither central bank will raise rates at their meetings this month. And then further out, we think they stay on hold as lowered levels of bank loan growth, slower job growth and a continued decline in core inflation will reinforce the idea that central banks have raised rates enough. 
For markets, the end of a central bank rate hiking cycle tends to be pretty good for high grade bonds. Indeed, going back over the last 40 years, the dates of the last Fed funds rate increase and the local high point for yields on the U.S. aggregate bond index, line up almost to the month. The logic in this relationship also feels intuitive. If the Fed is done raising rates, one of two things has probably happened. It stopped raising rates at the correct level to bring inflation down without a recession and bonds like that lower inflation and more certainty, or they stopped because they've raised rates too much, slowing growth in inflation much more, a scenario where investors like the safety of bonds. 
But in riskier markets, the picture greeting investors in September is more murky. Like August, September also tends to see below average returns and above average volatility, and that seasonality doesn't turn helpful until mid-October. Company earnings revisions tend to be weak around this time of year, something our equity strategists believe could repeat. Investors got a lot more optimistic over the summer, raising the hurdle for good news. And there are some specific risk events on the near-term horizon, from a potential shutdown of the US government to a strike in the auto industry. For equities and high yield bonds, we therefore think investors should exercise more patience. 
A third issue investors will be watching is supply. September is historically one of the heaviest months of the year for corporate bond issuance, but with corporate bond yields now at some of their highest levels in nearly 20 years, will that reduce the incentive for companies to borrow? And meanwhile, one of the reasons assigned to the recent rise in US government bond yields has been the high levels of government borrowing. The next few weeks will give a much better idea of the true impact of that potential supply. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>181false950fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/stephen-byrd-watch-out-for-el-nino--75653096----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives today, I'll discuss the global risks and impact from a potential El Niño event later this year. It's Thursday, September 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Over the last few months, as you've been doing your backyard grilling or taking a well-deserved summertime vacation, you may have heard a passing news reference to a climate pattern called El Niño. And although I'm an equity analyst and not a meteorologist, I'm going to talk about El Niño today because it could have some significant impacts for investors. 
To explain, El Niño refers to a warming of the ocean surface or above average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific. It's the counterpart to La Niña, which refers to the cooling effect of the same ocean surfaces. Essentially, El Niño and La Niña represent opposite extremes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO follows cyclical patterns that repeat at a 2 to 7 year cadence and tend to peak in the November to February window. Current conditions imply about a 70% probability that we could be facing a moderate to strong El Niño event later this year with a range of potentially significant impacts across regions and industries. 
First, although El Niño starts in the Pacific equator area, it has a significant impact on global weather. El Niño tends to peak around year end, impacting global rains and temperatures. El Niño driven seasonal patterns in the U.S., Argentina and the Andes tend to be wet, while those in Southeast Asia, Australia, Brazil, Colombia and Africa tend to be dry. This dynamic creates conditions that move wildfires and hurricanes from the Atlantic into the Pacific area. 
El Niño events also impact the global economy and the environmental, social and governance, or ESG, factors for businesses worldwide. More specifically, a moderate to strong El Niño in combination with the Russia-Ukraine war could impact food inflation, raising questions about the emerging markets central banks easing cycles. It could also impact trade and GDP in agro-related economies such as Argentina, India, Australia, Brazil and Colombia, among others. It may also impact several commodities, including sugar, grains, animal meal, proteins, electricity, lithium, copper, iron ore, aluminum and coal. 
El Niño’s effects can be positive or negative for different sectors and regions. For example, El Niño tends to be a negative in emerging markets. In Latin America, given the size of the agricultural sector and the spillover effect of agriculture into other industries, growth could be affected significantly. The recession we expect in Argentina this year is partially driven by La Niña, which generated an unprecedented drought. We expect El Niño to help grain yields in Argentina and to provide significant positive base effects to GDP in 2024. 
Finally, when it comes to ESG, El Niño can exacerbate climate change impacts and increase concentrations of greenhouse gasses. Since this is a global issue and impacts all sectors to various degrees, we believe investors should pay close attention. Furthermore, the humanitarian impact of El Niño lasts long after the phenomenon itself, be it through impacts on food security and malnutrition, disease outbreaks, disrupted basic services and sanitation or significant impacts on livelihoods around the world. Typically, extreme weather events hit the poorest communities the hardest. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FktnK0g0oxjYYK2hZinWEF5KxwpkhM798OltRKGjyewThu, 07 Sep 2023 20:15:44 +0000gtyA strong El Niño event in the coming months could have negative effects for food inflation, commodities markets and climate change. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives today, I'll discuss the global risks and impact from a potential El Niño event later this year. It's Thursday, September 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Over the last few months, as you've been doing your backyard grilling or taking a well-deserved summertime vacation, you may have heard a passing news reference to a climate pattern called El Niño. And although I'm an equity analyst and not a meteorologist, I'm going to talk about El Niño today because it could have some significant impacts for investors. 
To explain, El Niño refers to a warming of the ocean surface or above average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific. It's the counterpart to La Niña, which refers to the cooling effect of the same ocean surfaces. Essentially, El Niño and La Niña represent opposite extremes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO follows cyclical patterns that repeat at a 2 to 7 year cadence and tend to peak in the November to February window. Current conditions imply about a 70% probability that we could be facing a moderate to strong El Niño event later this year with a range of potentially significant impacts across regions and industries. 
First, although El Niño starts in the Pacific equator area, it has a significant impact on global weather. El Niño tends to peak around year end, impacting global rains and temperatures. El Niño driven seasonal patterns in the U.S., Argentina and the Andes tend to be wet, while those in Southeast Asia, Australia, Brazil, Colombia and Africa tend to be dry. This dynamic creates conditions that move wildfires and hurricanes from the Atlantic into the Pacific area. 
El Niño events also impact the global economy and the environmental, social and governance, or ESG, factors for businesses worldwide. More specifically, a moderate to strong El Niño in combination with the Russia-Ukraine war could impact food inflation, raising questions about the emerging markets central banks easing cycles. It could also impact trade and GDP in agro-related economies such as Argentina, India, Australia, Brazil and Colombia, among others. It may also impact several commodities, including sugar, grains, animal meal, proteins, electricity, lithium, copper, iron ore, aluminum and coal. 
El Niño’s effects can be positive or negative for different sectors and regions. For example, El Niño tends to be a negative in emerging markets. In Latin America, given the size of the agricultural sector and the spillover effect of agriculture into other industries, growth could be affected significantly. The recession we expect in Argentina this year is partially driven by La Niña, which generated an unprecedented drought. We expect El Niño to help grain yields in Argentina and to provide significant positive base effects to GDP in 2024. 
Finally, when it comes to ESG, El Niño can exacerbate climate change impacts and increase concentrations of greenhouse gasses. Since this is a global issue and impacts all sectors to various degrees, we believe investors should pay close attention. Furthermore, the humanitarian impact of El Niño lasts long after the phenomenon itself, be it through impacts on food security and malnutrition, disease outbreaks, disrupted basic services and sanitation or significant impacts on livelihoods around the world. Typically, extreme weather events hit the poorest communities the hardest. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>227false949fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-congressional-return-raises-questions-for-markets--75653157-----Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about Congress coming back in the session and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, September 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Congress returns from summer break this week with a full agenda. Expect to see tons of headlines on various policies that markets care about. Tech regulation, artificial intelligence regulation, defense spending, disaster relief aid and the risk of a government shutdown, are just some of the issues that should be tackled. It can be a bit overwhelming, so here's our cheat sheet for September in D.C. to help cut through the noise and understand why this could be a good set up for U.S bonds. 
On tech regulation and A.I, don't expect any meaningful movement here. New versions of legislative proposals on data privacy and liability for spreading misinformation may come, but there's still no comprehensive bipartisan agreement that could turn proposals into law. So we continue to expect that this only becomes possible after the 2024 election delivers a new government makeup. 
On defense spending, we expect that aid to Ukraine will continue and the Congress will approve overall defense spending levels in excess of the cap set by the agreement put in place alongside the hike of the debt ceiling. There's bipartisan agreement here, with the exception of House Republicans. Resolving issues with those holdouts will likely take brinkmanship over a government shutdown and perhaps even an actual government shutdown, but ultimately we see a deal that should be positive for a defense sector which has benefited recently by elevated spending by Western governments. 
The biggest story to track, though, is that risk of a government shutdown. As we previously discussed on this podcast, a shutdown is a real risk because House Republicans are not in sync with the rest of the House of Representatives and Senate on spending levels for fiscal 2024. Further, there's the sense that both sides may rightly or wrongly perceive political value in a shutdown. So there's both motive and opportunity here. And while a shutdown on its own is not sufficient to ruin our economists' expectation of a soft landing for the U.S. economy, it does add some fresh downside risk to growth in the 4th quarter, which economists already expect would be challenged. Major entertainment events in the U.S. boosted consumption above expectations this summer, and those effects should start to wane at the same time that the student loan moratorium rolls off, meaning many households will again have to direct some level of their income away from consumption toward servicing loans come October 1st. 
Put it all together, and it's a strong rationale for our view that high grade bonds have value here. U.S. government bond yields should be near their peak, with the market moving beyond the notion that the Fed may have to hike substantially more this economic cycle. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pFIaH0ps7dni65XcdT0Pqe3PFnhmqRy6t5U_tEkiHFcWed, 06 Sep 2023 21:02:20 +0000gtyInvestors anticipate new legislation on tech regulation, AI and defense, amid speculation about a potential government shutdown. -----Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic...-----Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about Congress coming back in the session and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, September 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Congress returns from summer break this week with a full agenda. Expect to see tons of headlines on various policies that markets care about. Tech regulation, artificial intelligence regulation, defense spending, disaster relief aid and the risk of a government shutdown, are just some of the issues that should be tackled. It can be a bit overwhelming, so here's our cheat sheet for September in D.C. to help cut through the noise and understand why this could be a good set up for U.S bonds. 
On tech regulation and A.I, don't expect any meaningful movement here. New versions of legislative proposals on data privacy and liability for spreading misinformation may come, but there's still no comprehensive bipartisan agreement that could turn proposals into law. So we continue to expect that this only becomes possible after the 2024 election delivers a new government makeup. 
On defense spending, we expect that aid to Ukraine will continue and the Congress will approve overall defense spending levels in excess of the cap set by the agreement put in place alongside the hike of the debt ceiling. There's bipartisan agreement here, with the exception of House Republicans. Resolving issues with those holdouts will likely take brinkmanship over a government shutdown and perhaps even an actual government shutdown, but ultimately we see a deal that should be positive for a defense sector which has benefited recently by elevated spending by Western governments. 
The biggest story to track, though, is that risk of a government shutdown. As we previously discussed on this podcast, a shutdown is a real risk because House Republicans are not in sync with the rest of the House of Representatives and Senate on spending levels for fiscal 2024. Further, there's the sense that both sides may rightly or wrongly perceive political value in a shutdown. So there's both motive and opportunity here. And while a shutdown on its own is not sufficient to ruin our economists' expectation of a soft landing for the U.S. economy, it does add some fresh downside risk to growth in the 4th quarter, which economists already expect would be challenged. Major entertainment events in the U.S. boosted consumption above expectations this summer, and those effects should start to wane at the same time that the student loan moratorium rolls off, meaning many households will again have to direct some level of their income away from consumption toward servicing loans come October 1st. 
Put it all together, and it's a strong rationale for our view that high grade bonds have value here. U.S. government bond yields should be near their peak, with the market moving beyond the notion that the Fed may have to hike substantially more this economic cycle. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>180false948fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-are-stocks-beginning-to-question-economic-resiliency--75652962----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday,  September 5th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
In a world of price momentum, opinions about the fundamentals are often driven by the direction of price. Some of this is due to the view that markets are all knowing and often the best leading indicator for the fundamentals. After all, stocks are discounting machines and tell us what's likely to happen in the future rather than what is happening today. The old adage "buy the rumor and sell the news", is another way to think about this relationship. Using this philosophy, the move higher in stocks this year has provided the confidence for many to turn fundamentally bullish from what was an overly bearish consensus backdrop in the first quarter. The entire move in the major U.S. equity averages this year has been the result of higher valuations. However, with forward price earnings multiples reaching 20 times on the S&P 500 last month, not only are stocks anticipating higher earnings and growth, but they now require it. The other reason price momentum works has little to do with the fundamental outlook. Instead, price momentum often leads investors to chase or sell that momentum. It's human nature to want to go with the trend both up and down. 
Most were too negative on the economy at the beginning of the year, including us. The failure of a few large regional banks and negative price reaction in the stock market reinforced that view. However, when the recession didn't arrive, there was a fundamental reason to reverse that view. The price action in April and May supported that pivot, further feeding the bullish narrative. However, the move in price was very narrow, led by just a handful of Mega-cap growth stocks. In June, breadth improved, dragging investor confidence toward the optimistic fundamental outcome. But since then, breath has rolled over again and remains weak. We recommend maintaining a late cycle mindset, which means a barbell of growth stocks and defensive, not cyclicals or smaller stocks. 
Going into the second quarter earnings season we suggested it would be a "sell the news event", mainly because stocks had rallied in the mid-July, which was a change from the past several quarters where stocks trended weaker into results. Now that earnings season is over, we know that the price reaction post reporting was some of the weakest we've witnessed in the past decade. We think stocks may be starting to question the sustainability of the economic resiliency we experienced in the first half of the year. Defensives and growth stocks have done better than cyclicals. As an aside, the earnings results have not kept pace with the economy this year outside of a few areas which have been driven mostly by cost cutting rather than top line growth which furthers the idea we are still late cycle, not early or mid. 
This past week, equity prices have rebounded sharply, led once again by growth stocks. With softer economic data weighing on Treasury yields, stock market participants seem willing to bid valuations back up on the view the late cycle environment is being extended once again. With inadequate evidence to affirm or contradict that view, price continues to be the governing factor for many investors' conclusions about where we are in the cycle. Bottom line price momentum is a key driver of sentiment, especially in a late cycle environment when uncertainty about the outcome is high. We continue to recommend a more defensive growth posture in one's portfolio given that the fears of recession or financial distress could return at any moment in the late cycle environment in which we find ourselves, particularly as we enter September. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It help's more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mWEbS7YR-V2RfMvsEQ8aNI4Zg4UBYaTG6CXT2CBucgATue, 05 Sep 2023 21:42:46 +0000gtyWhile valuations may be on the rise, fears around the resiliency of the economy could return and leave unguarded investors on uneven footing. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday,  September 5th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
In a world of price momentum, opinions about the fundamentals are often driven by the direction of price. Some of this is due to the view that markets are all knowing and often the best leading indicator for the fundamentals. After all, stocks are discounting machines and tell us what's likely to happen in the future rather than what is happening today. The old adage "buy the rumor and sell the news", is another way to think about this relationship. Using this philosophy, the move higher in stocks this year has provided the confidence for many to turn fundamentally bullish from what was an overly bearish consensus backdrop in the first quarter. The entire move in the major U.S. equity averages this year has been the result of higher valuations. However, with forward price earnings multiples reaching 20 times on the S&P 500 last month, not only are stocks anticipating higher earnings and growth, but they now require it. The other reason price momentum works has little to do with the fundamental outlook. Instead, price momentum often leads investors to chase or sell that momentum. It's human nature to want to go with the trend both up and down. 
Most were too negative on the economy at the beginning of the year, including us. The failure of a few large regional banks and negative price reaction in the stock market reinforced that view. However, when the recession didn't arrive, there was a fundamental reason to reverse that view. The price action in April and May supported that pivot, further feeding the bullish narrative. However, the move in price was very narrow, led by just a handful of Mega-cap growth stocks. In June, breadth improved, dragging investor confidence toward the optimistic fundamental outcome. But since then, breath has rolled over again and remains weak. We recommend maintaining a late cycle mindset, which means a barbell of growth stocks and defensive, not cyclicals or smaller stocks. 
Going into the second quarter earnings season we suggested it would be a "sell the news event", mainly because stocks had rallied in the mid-July, which was a change from the past several quarters where stocks trended weaker into results. Now that earnings season is over, we know that the price reaction post reporting was some of the weakest we've witnessed in the past decade. We think stocks may be starting to question the sustainability of the economic resiliency we experienced in the first half of the year. Defensives and growth stocks have done better than cyclicals. As an aside, the earnings results have not kept pace with the economy this year outside of a few areas which have been driven mostly by cost cutting rather than top line growth which furthers the idea we are still late cycle, not early or mid. 
This past week, equity prices have rebounded sharply, led once again by growth stocks. With softer economic data weighing on Treasury yields, stock market participants seem willing to bid valuations back up on the view the late cycle environment is being extended once again. With inadequate evidence to affirm or contradict that view, price continues to be the governing factor for many investors' conclusions about where we are in the cycle. Bottom line price momentum is a key driver of sentiment, especially in a late cycle environment when uncertainty about the outcome is high. We continue to recommend a more defensive growth posture in one's portfolio given that the fears of recession or...]]>219false947fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-consumer-how-u-s-consumers-are-shopping-to-go-back-to-school--75653232----- Transcript -----Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. 
Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman, an Equity Analyst covering the U.S. Hard Lines, Broad Lines and Food Retail Industries. 
Sarah Wolfe: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on back to school shopping trends and what they suggest for the U.S. consumer outlook for the rest of the year. It's Friday, September 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Simeon Gutman: Sarah, back to school shopping is in full swing as we go into the Labor Day weekend and end of the summer. As an economist who focuses on the U.S. consumer. I know you track it closely. Why is back to school shopping such an important indicator in general, and what is it suggesting about the overall health of the U.S. consumer? Sarah Wolfe: Back to school is a large shopping event across July and August each year, which is an event that is only as strong as the strength of the U.S. household. If households feel good about job prospects and inflation is not eating away at their buying power, you should see that reflected in back to school sales. If we go back to summer 2022, headline inflation was 8% going into back to school shopping, and there were lingering concerns about COVID disrupting school. In 2023, certain headwinds to the consumer are risks to spend, these include higher debt service costs, tighter lending standards and a student loan moratorium expiring in October, but a still strong labor market and abating inflationary pressures that have supported a recovery in real wages should outweigh the downside risk and lead to a moderate back to school spending year. So what does this all mean for what we're seeing in the data? Our early read on July back to school shopping and in-store sales is that they're going to be weaker than the historical average, however, August matters most. If we see August sales in line with the historical average, then back to school sales for 2023 on a year-over-year basis would be quite a bit stronger than 2022 still, but roughly in line with the historical run rate from 2011 to 2019. This jives with our early readings from our AlphaWise Consumer Poll survey that this year back to school shopping is looking stronger than last year, but it is not a blowout. Simeon Gutman: And how about end of year holiday spending? Is back to school a predictor of holiday spending trends? 
Sarah Wolfe: Back to school shopping is indeed a predictor of holiday shopping trends. However, the early read through to holiday shopping points to a holiday season that's actually weaker than 2022, but in line with the historical run rate as well. Total retail sales on a non seasonally adjusted basis across November and December have been 8% year-over-year from 2011 to 2019 in 2021, the growth was 33% and 2022 was 12%. This was due to stronger than usual demand for goods as a result of COVID and stimulus. So while the consumer remains relatively healthy and is spending more on back to school shopping than last year, it'll be tough to beat 2022 holiday shopping growth. The preliminary forecast for holiday shopping is to see growth in line with the historical run rate, but weaker than next year. We still get a couple more retail sales reports that are going to help us fine tune our holiday shopping forecast. Simeon, turning it over to you, what specific trends are you observing during this back to school shopping season? 
Simeon Gutman: So far, it's mixed. On the surface, it looks like the consumer is healthy. If we look at durable goods spending the last couple of months, we have June and now July, low 2% range. That's decent. But under the surface, it's a bit of a different story. If you look at the Q2 comps across the coverage universe, they were roughly flat. That's not a great indicator of spending. And we see a shift towards consumables and supplies and must haves. Consumers are not prioritizing discretionary items. Big ticket items are under pressure. The companies that are growing and doing well, they look like they're taking market share, there's a shift towards value, so discount stores, dollar stores, off price stores, and it looks like it's a story of product categories, beauty and auto parts. What we've seen specifically for back to school, July was a strong month, but there was potentially some pull forward from earlier in the season. August seems to be good, but may have slowed a little and we'll see about September. But consumers are definitely shopping more on occasion and it's been a little bit choppy. Sarah Wolfe: These are great insights, Simeon, on how consumer behavior is slowly evolving as the macro backdrop becomes a little bit tougher. You've also highlighted electronics as one particular area that appears most at risk. What exactly does that mean and what's driving it? 
Simeon Gutman: So we conducted an AlphaWise survey, that Morgan Stanley did about a month ago, that suggests electronics have the most risk. We had a net neutral spending intention from consumers year-over-year. In contrast to other categories, we asked about clothing and apparel had a 21% net positive spending intention while school supplies was also positive 12%. The largest public company in the electronics space, they posted a -6% same store sales number in their recent quarter on top of a pretty big negative number the prior year. So it underscores the survey. The only caveat, and maybe a silver lining is, there is chatter about units in electronics beginning to bottom, so there could be some silver lining. Sarah Wolfe: Finally, Simeon, if we were to widen the lens a bit, how have back to school shopping trends evolved over the last 5 to 10 years? And what is your longer term outlook for what lies ahead in terms of potential future trends? 
Simeon Gutman: Drum roll, please. Not much. It doesn't seem that we've gotten a big shift in spending. So we looked back over the last ten years at the percentage of spend that consumers have made over the July, August and September timeframe, which captures the back to school season. As a percentage of retail sales, it's surprisingly consistent in the 24 to 25% range. In this kind of COVID post-COVID era, we've seen it tick up a bit, but this makes sense because the consumer has shifted spend from services to goods. So it's run rating around 25%, but as we've seen reversion in other categories, we think this will moderate as well. So our future prediction would be consistent with the prior trend line; it doesn't seem to be trading off sales with other periods, including the holiday. The one trend we have seen is e-commerce penetration is rising, in this timeframe for both non store retailers and for physical retailers who have seen a higher mix of online sales. But as far as the future goes, we don't expect a big change. 
Sarah Wolfe: Simeon, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Simeon Gutman: Great speaking with you, Sarah. 
Sarah Wolfe: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mRCTDjOfybeuiOIMoW53QbMb879KV7-saut7QHTIXVQFri, 01 Sep 2023 20:59:14 +0000gtyAlthough back-to-school spending appears to be trending higher than in 2022, there are signs that U.S. consumers could feel pinched before the holiday season. ----- Transcript -----Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from...----- Transcript -----Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. 
Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman, an Equity Analyst covering the U.S. Hard Lines, Broad Lines and Food Retail Industries. 
Sarah Wolfe: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on back to school shopping trends and what they suggest for the U.S. consumer outlook for the rest of the year. It's Friday, September 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Simeon Gutman: Sarah, back to school shopping is in full swing as we go into the Labor Day weekend and end of the summer. As an economist who focuses on the U.S. consumer. I know you track it closely. Why is back to school shopping such an important indicator in general, and what is it suggesting about the overall health of the U.S. consumer? Sarah Wolfe: Back to school is a large shopping event across July and August each year, which is an event that is only as strong as the strength of the U.S. household. If households feel good about job prospects and inflation is not eating away at their buying power, you should see that reflected in back to school sales. If we go back to summer 2022, headline inflation was 8% going into back to school shopping, and there were lingering concerns about COVID disrupting school. In 2023, certain headwinds to the consumer are risks to spend, these include higher debt service costs, tighter lending standards and a student loan moratorium expiring in October, but a still strong labor market and abating inflationary pressures that have supported a recovery in real wages should outweigh the downside risk and lead to a moderate back to school spending year. So what does this all mean for what we're seeing in the data? Our early read on July back to school shopping and in-store sales is that they're going to be weaker than the historical average, however, August matters most. If we see August sales in line with the historical average, then back to school sales for 2023 on a year-over-year basis would be quite a bit stronger than 2022 still, but roughly in line with the historical run rate from 2011 to 2019. This jives with our early readings from our AlphaWise Consumer Poll survey that this year back to school shopping is looking stronger than last year, but it is not a blowout. Simeon Gutman: And how about end of year holiday spending? Is back to school a predictor of holiday spending trends? 
Sarah Wolfe: Back to school shopping is indeed a predictor of holiday shopping trends. However, the early read through to holiday shopping points to a holiday season that's actually weaker than 2022, but in line with the historical run rate as well. Total retail sales on a non seasonally adjusted basis across November and December have been 8% year-over-year from 2011 to 2019 in 2021, the growth was 33% and 2022 was 12%. This was due to stronger than usual demand for goods as a result of COVID and stimulus. So while the consumer remains relatively healthy and is spending more on back to school shopping than last year, it'll be tough to beat 2022 holiday shopping growth. The preliminary forecast for holiday shopping is to see growth in line with the historical run rate, but weaker than next year. We still get a couple more retail sales reports that are going to help us fine tune our holiday shopping forecast. Simeon, turning it over to you, what specific trends are you observing during this back to school shopping season? 
Simeon Gutman: So far, it's mixed. On the surface, it looks like the consumer is healthy. If we look at durable goods spending the last couple of months, we have June and now July, low 2% range. That's decent. But under the surface, it's a bit of a different story. If you look at the Q2 comps across the coverage universe,...]]>420false946fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/daniel-blake-japan-s-surge-in-gdp-growth--75653225----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the Japanese equity market vis-a-vis China. It's Thursday, August 31st at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
We recently did a three part series on this show focusing on our economic and market outlook for Japan. We discussed a bullish view on Japan equities, which is driven by three powerful drivers of outperformance coming together, namely macro, micro and the transition to a multipolar world. 
Recently, however, there's been investor concern about the potential impact on Japan from a Chinese debt-deflation loop, that is a scenario where prices fall, debt rises and economic growth stagnates, and this is the risk that I will discuss today. 
As a reminder, our economists came into 2023 flagging Japan as a standout developed market for growth momentum. In contrast to a U.S and European slowdown, as Japan continues to benefit from COVID reopening, ongoing stimulatory policy and a competitive currency. Since then, we have seen upside surprises, such as in wages and capital investments amid what we see as confirmation of a move into a structurally higher nominal GDP growth path. 
Indeed, Japan's recent second quarter GDP figures confirmed that trend, with a surge in real and nominal GDP to 6% and 12% annualized respectively. Following this result, our economists have doubled their 2023 GDP forecast to 2.2%, and this stands in contrast to China's GDP growth trend, where our economists have been reducing forecasts and will see nominal GDP growth slow below that of Japan to 4.8% over the last year. 
So the key exception to a generally bullish picture for Japan has been its linkages to China. While this may appear to be a legitimate investor concern for the market as a whole, it's important to note that Japanese revenues are driven much more by the U.S and Europe, which together make up a quarter of total sales. Instead, China makes up just 5% less than many assume, and far lower than that of Singapore, Taiwan, Australia or South Korea. However, there are some pockets of China exposure that we note, including in semis and semi-cap equipment, electronic components and factory automation. 
Another reason for our optimism about Japan's equity market resilience amid the slowdown in China is that China exposed Stocks in Japan have almost fully unwound the outperformance seen during the early COVID zero and post-COVID reopening phases. In contrast, Asia-Pacific ex-Japan companies with high exposures to China, many of them in the technology or resources sector, stand close to their relative highs. 
So while we do see from here less upside to the aggregate MSCI Emerging Markets Index and the Tokyo Stock Price Index, known as TOPIX, after the post October rally, we do see good reason for Japanese equities to continue to outperform. Valuations on a 12 month forward basis are in line or slightly below their ten year historical averages, and we expect 10% earnings growth in 2023 and 2024 as that nominal GDP growth recovery and corporate reform rolls through the market. The key downside risk will, of course, be not just the Chinese debt deflation loop, but adding on top a US recession, which ironically would be similar to what happened in the 1990s, when in Japan, imbalances, excess leverage and insufficient policy stimulus tipped the economy into structural deflation and stagnation. So while that risk is more relevant for China and Japan is in a completely different situation now, we are closely monitoring the risks of this bear case scenario and what that would mean for parts of the Asia and emerging markets universe. 
So thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6yBXeeKB3ACjOvnXj_9UdkrkgPH6xsAuwwi2H0UzVwIThu, 31 Aug 2023 22:36:21 +0000gtyWhile recent news of a potential debt deflation loop in China’s equity market is causing concern for investors, Japan’s equity market resilience may bring optimism. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the Japanese equity market vis-a-vis China. It's Thursday, August 31st at 9 a.m. in Singapore. 
We recently did a three part series on this show focusing on our economic and market outlook for Japan. We discussed a bullish view on Japan equities, which is driven by three powerful drivers of outperformance coming together, namely macro, micro and the transition to a multipolar world. 
Recently, however, there's been investor concern about the potential impact on Japan from a Chinese debt-deflation loop, that is a scenario where prices fall, debt rises and economic growth stagnates, and this is the risk that I will discuss today. 
As a reminder, our economists came into 2023 flagging Japan as a standout developed market for growth momentum. In contrast to a U.S and European slowdown, as Japan continues to benefit from COVID reopening, ongoing stimulatory policy and a competitive currency. Since then, we have seen upside surprises, such as in wages and capital investments amid what we see as confirmation of a move into a structurally higher nominal GDP growth path. 
Indeed, Japan's recent second quarter GDP figures confirmed that trend, with a surge in real and nominal GDP to 6% and 12% annualized respectively. Following this result, our economists have doubled their 2023 GDP forecast to 2.2%, and this stands in contrast to China's GDP growth trend, where our economists have been reducing forecasts and will see nominal GDP growth slow below that of Japan to 4.8% over the last year. 
So the key exception to a generally bullish picture for Japan has been its linkages to China. While this may appear to be a legitimate investor concern for the market as a whole, it's important to note that Japanese revenues are driven much more by the U.S and Europe, which together make up a quarter of total sales. Instead, China makes up just 5% less than many assume, and far lower than that of Singapore, Taiwan, Australia or South Korea. However, there are some pockets of China exposure that we note, including in semis and semi-cap equipment, electronic components and factory automation. 
Another reason for our optimism about Japan's equity market resilience amid the slowdown in China is that China exposed Stocks in Japan have almost fully unwound the outperformance seen during the early COVID zero and post-COVID reopening phases. In contrast, Asia-Pacific ex-Japan companies with high exposures to China, many of them in the technology or resources sector, stand close to their relative highs. 
So while we do see from here less upside to the aggregate MSCI Emerging Markets Index and the Tokyo Stock Price Index, known as TOPIX, after the post October rally, we do see good reason for Japanese equities to continue to outperform. Valuations on a 12 month forward basis are in line or slightly below their ten year historical averages, and we expect 10% earnings growth in 2023 and 2024 as that nominal GDP growth recovery and corporate reform rolls through the market. The key downside risk will, of course, be not just the Chinese debt deflation loop, but adding on top a US recession, which ironically would be similar to what happened in the 1990s, when in Japan, imbalances, excess leverage and insufficient policy stimulus tipped the economy into structural deflation and stagnation. So while that risk is more relevant for China and Japan is in a completely different situation now, we are closely monitoring the risks of this bear case scenario and what that would mean for parts of the Asia and emerging markets universe. 
So...]]>228false945fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/energy-are-europe-s-clean-energy-goals-realistic--75653169----- Transcript -----Rob Pulleyn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rob Pulleyn, Morgan Stanley's Head of Utilities of Clean Energy Research in Europe. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist. 
Rob Pulleyn: On this special episode of this podcast, we'll be discussing the future of Europe's energy transition, including whether its clean energy goals are realistic and the implications for investors and Europe's broader economy. It's the 30th of August, 10 a.m. in London. 
Rob Pulleyn: Europe has long been a global leader when it comes to greening its economy. Strong societal and political support has bolstered the region's transition to clean sources of energy, with a European Green Deal and climate target plan aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050. While substantial progress has been made over the previous decades, the region is now facing several challenges. Jens, can you give us the backdrop to Europe's energy transition and some of what's changed recently? 
Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes Rob, I mean, you have explained it already. There are big change targets, climate change related targets to the energy transition that Europe has subscribed to. These targets were in place already before the 24th of February in 22, when we saw the Russian invasion in Ukraine that changed the European energy set up profoundly. Now, why is this important? It's important because these targets were done in sort of a plan that relied on a certain energy source that is no longer existing. So let me give you an example. Let's take Germany, which was anyway already quite progressed in its journey onto increasing the share of renewables in electricity production. If you take Germany, they have been turning their back on nuclear power generation, which is another source of emission free power generation, and have embraced as a flex load provider, so as a provider of electricity when renewables are unavailable to natural gas. Now this natural gas supply from Russia is no longer available, as we all know, and of course, that implies that the Germans and other member states of the European Union as well have to change the plan by which they transit to a carbon free economy. And, you know, this is very complicated because it's not only switching one energy source for the other or exchanging one for the other. You also have to look about the infrastructure, you have to see what is essentially giving your energy mix the stability, as I said before, when we don't have sun shining and wind blowing, you need to have a source that's about the question about storage technologies, that's not entirely independent of the energy sources that you have available. And so the last year provided a profound challenge to the way Europe had planned its energy transition, so they have to replan it, and the complexity of that is huge. Essentially, it's something you want to ideally plan at the European level in order to harness all the comparative advantages all the countries have, given example, you have a lot of sun hours in Spain, less so in Germany, so ideally you want to put solar for Europe somewhere south and not so much somewhere north. But that of course means something for the grid, you have to deploy around it. So all that complexity is huge, all the coordination needs are huge and so this is the new situation we are in. 
Rob Pulleyn: Yeah, that new situation clearly puts increased pressure on Europe, if electricity prices remain elevated, Europe's large industrial base and you mentioned Germany would continue to shoulder this burden. You know margins, pricing, competitiveness would all suffer and the region's place in the global value chain might be at risk. Now, renewables are increasingly cost competitive, but even when the solar power is still very intermittent and that requires either a  stable baseload or at least flexible generation. And as you mentioned, this previously was facilitated partly by Russian gas. Now, with all that in mind Jens, how much investment is needed to fund the transition and is there economic risk associated with this? 
Jens Eisenschmidt: So the numbers are huge. We have said that number could be around $5 trillion, other sources estimate this to be slightly higher, but more or less the ballpark is the same. We also know that already $1.4 trillion is earmarked from public funds, so EU budget, meaning that $3.6 are left for the private sector to deploy or for member states to come up from national budgets. So the figure itself boiling down to somewhere between $5 to $600 billion a year until at least 2030 and maybe beyond, these figures are not in itself the problem. The problem is how do you, according to which plan, do you deploy this and what is the sort of economic backdrop in which this investment happens? So ideally, from an economist perspective, this is a productivity increasing undertaking, and if it's done in that way, it won't be necessarily inflationary, it would be mildly growth enhancing. But of course there is a risk that all that investment in particularly being driven by the public sector, crowds out other productive investment. And in that case, it would be less productivity enhancing and more inflationary, which we think is the more realistic case here for Europe. We don't think that this is the end of the world in terms of inflation, but we do estimate a sizable impact of around 20 basis points per year that inflation could turn out to be higher. That all being said, if electricity prices can be reliably and durably lowered, that would have the potential to generate more innovation. Rob, you have your finger on the pulse of new technology, what do you see emerging that may advance the progress of Europe's transition? 
Rob Pulleyn: Yeah, thanks Jens. So historically, we've been positively surprised by the pace of levelized cost of energy coming down, particularly in renewables. And we've also been positively surprised by technological developments elsewhere. As we think about the key challenge of this new wind and solar capacity ambitions, the key is intermittency, and therefore industrial scale batteries are going to be key, fuel cells should also be, green gas, which is also needed for industrial abatement, could also be part of that solution. I also think we need to talk about behind the meter, which is really rooftop solar, whether it's solar panels but more crucially one of the parts of the value chain is the inverters. More efficient inverters are one of the most key components for reducing the cost of solar. As we think about electrification of the home in terms of heat pumps, you know, there's another technology which will develop and also passenger vehicles moving to electric, this behind the meter rooftop solar generation will be important combined with batteries and as I said, the inverters are a key part of that. Also will be software, how to manage all of this demand side response, I think is something you're going to hear much more from many of the retail companies we cover and innovating in the space. Now, as we think about the sequence and the steps of decarbonization here, step one, decarbonize the existing power system, step two electrify as much as possible, step three move to green gasses. We will eventually reach an area whereby we cannot decarbonize any further, and that's where carbon capture and storage comes in, for which we're already seeing significant improvement. So, there's many technologies which I think will play a significant role in this. And I suspect despite the current pressures we're seeing at the moment, we will continue to see significant positive surprises over the coming decade and thereafter, notwithstanding that the cost of capital is, of course, higher than it was over the last decade. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: So which sectors are likely to benefit the near-term and in the longer term? 
Rob Pulleyn: So the obvious answer, and somewhat self-serving, is utilities. To that number you mentioned earlier of $5 billion spent, we also think that the utilities could probably contribute around a European utility in Europe around $1.5 to $2 trillion of this. That still leaves a sizable gap versus what you were talking and perhaps there is upside risk to these investment spends. But within utilities, the obvious route is renewables. Having a tough time, I would say in 2023, trapped within higher costs and capital costs, but also, you know, policy impasse. But if we separate the wood for the trees under the vast majority of scenarios out to 2030 and 2050, the increase in green electricity is going to be substantial and utilities are the natural developers of those assets as they migrate away from coal and some degree gas, into clean energy. But it's not the only area. There's also networks. We need to invest in distribution and transmission, in electricity to actually accommodate these renewables and connect the new areas of upstream electricity generation to the areas of demand, which is primarily the cities and industry. Speaking about industry, there's also a need for green gas, and I actually think other sectors are going to contribute here, most notably oil and gas, which has the technical expertise and of course the industrial plant for industrial gasses. As we look into the supply chains, another area that's been in focus this year, both the OEMs in terms of turbines and solar manufacturers, the cabling, the software, the heat pumps, I think there are many aspects within equity stories which are ancillary to utilities but could create different risk rewards and different opportunities to what you may find in my sector. I think we can both agree that while significant progress has been made, Europe still]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/dNc-SS2s9OEpfcpWKT8raV9FVVg-oVhpJ1M4Io7CSFUWed, 30 Aug 2023 22:38:00 +0000gtyAlthough Europe has been the global leader when it comes to greening its economy, recent challenges may be a cause for concern. ----- Transcript -----Rob Pulleyn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rob Pulleyn, Morgan Stanley's Head of Utilities...----- Transcript -----Rob Pulleyn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rob Pulleyn, Morgan Stanley's Head of Utilities of Clean Energy Research in Europe. 
Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist. 
Rob Pulleyn: On this special episode of this podcast, we'll be discussing the future of Europe's energy transition, including whether its clean energy goals are realistic and the implications for investors and Europe's broader economy. It's the 30th of August, 10 a.m. in London. 
Rob Pulleyn: Europe has long been a global leader when it comes to greening its economy. Strong societal and political support has bolstered the region's transition to clean sources of energy, with a European Green Deal and climate target plan aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050. While substantial progress has been made over the previous decades, the region is now facing several challenges. Jens, can you give us the backdrop to Europe's energy transition and some of what's changed recently? 
Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes Rob, I mean, you have explained it already. There are big change targets, climate change related targets to the energy transition that Europe has subscribed to. These targets were in place already before the 24th of February in 22, when we saw the Russian invasion in Ukraine that changed the European energy set up profoundly. Now, why is this important? It's important because these targets were done in sort of a plan that relied on a certain energy source that is no longer existing. So let me give you an example. Let's take Germany, which was anyway already quite progressed in its journey onto increasing the share of renewables in electricity production. If you take Germany, they have been turning their back on nuclear power generation, which is another source of emission free power generation, and have embraced as a flex load provider, so as a provider of electricity when renewables are unavailable to natural gas. Now this natural gas supply from Russia is no longer available, as we all know, and of course, that implies that the Germans and other member states of the European Union as well have to change the plan by which they transit to a carbon free economy. And, you know, this is very complicated because it's not only switching one energy source for the other or exchanging one for the other. You also have to look about the infrastructure, you have to see what is essentially giving your energy mix the stability, as I said before, when we don't have sun shining and wind blowing, you need to have a source that's about the question about storage technologies, that's not entirely independent of the energy sources that you have available. And so the last year provided a profound challenge to the way Europe had planned its energy transition, so they have to replan it, and the complexity of that is huge. Essentially, it's something you want to ideally plan at the European level in order to harness all the comparative advantages all the countries have, given example, you have a lot of sun hours in Spain, less so in Germany, so ideally you want to put solar for Europe somewhere south and not so much somewhere north. But that of course means something for the grid, you have to deploy around it. So all that complexity is huge, all the coordination needs are huge and so this is the new situation we are in. 
Rob Pulleyn: Yeah, that new situation clearly puts increased pressure on Europe, if electricity prices remain elevated, Europe's large industrial base and you mentioned Germany would continue to shoulder this burden. You know margins, pricing, competitiveness would all suffer and the region's place in the global value chain might be at risk. Now, renewables are increasingly cost competitive, but...]]>565false944fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seth-carpenter-the-global-implications-of-china-s-deflation--75653273----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be talking about the global implications of China's economic slowdown. It's Tuesday, August 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
China's economic woes continue to be center stage. Our Asia team has outlined the risks of a debt deflation cycle there and how policy is needed to avert the possibility of a lost decade. As always, big economic news from China will get global attention. That said, when we turned bullish on China's economic growth last year, we flagged that the typical positive spillovers from China were likely to be smaller this cycle than in the past. 
We expected growth to be heavily skewed towards domestic consumption, especially of services, and thus the pull into China from the rest of the world would be smaller than usual. We also published empirical analysis on the importance of the manufacturing sector to these global spillovers, and the very strong Chinese growth and yet modest global effects that we saw in the first quarter of this year vindicated that view. Now the world has changed and Chinese growth has slumped, with no recovery apparent so far. 
The global implications, however, are somewhat asymmetric here. Because we are seeing the weakness now show through to the industrial sector and especially CapEx spending, we cannot assume that the rest of the world will be as insulated as it was in the first quarter. Although we have recently marked down our view for Chinese economic growth, we still think a lost decade can be avoided. Nevertheless, with Chinese inflation turning negative, the prospect of China exporting disinflation is now getting discussed in markets. 
Much of the discussion about China exporting this inflation started when China's CPI went into deflation in the past couple of months. Although the connection is intuitive, it is not obvious that domestic consumer price numbers translate into the pricing that, say, U.S. consumers will eventually see. Indeed, even before China's prices turned negative, U.S. goods inflation had already turned to deflation because supply chains had healed and consumer spending patterns were starting to normalize. 
For China to export meaningful disinflation, they will likely have to come through one of three channels. Reduced Chinese demand for commodities that leads to a retreat in global commodities prices, currency depreciation or exporters cutting their prices. On the first, oil prices are actually at the same levels roughly that they were in the first quarter after Chinese goods surged. And they're well off the lows for this year. And despite the slump in economic activity, transportation metrics for China remain healthy, so to date, that first channel is far from clear. 
The renminbi is much weaker than it was at the beginning of the year. But recent policy announcements from the People's Bank of China imply that they are not eager to see a substantial further depreciation from here, limiting the extent of further disinflation through that channel. So that leaves exporters cutting prices, which could happen, but again, it need not be directly connected to the broader domestic prices within China coming down. 
So all of that said, the direction of the effect on the rest of the world is clear. Even if the magnitude is not huge, there is a disinflationary force from China to the rest of the world. For the Fed and ECB, other developed market central bankers, such an impulse may be almost welcome. Central banks have tightened policy intentionally to slow their economies and pulled down inflation. Despite progress to date, we are nowhere near done with this hiking cycle. If we're wrong about China, however, should we start to worry about a global slump? Probably not. The Fed is currently trying to restrain growth in the US with high interest rates. If the drag comes more from China, well then the Fed will make less of the drag come from monetary policy. 
Thanks for listening and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/viwBQHNjr_e5o5d38lHlbDrdJobY2FJdM3dd7V_gyMETue, 29 Aug 2023 20:25:25 +0000gtyIf China economic woes become a true debt deflation cycle, it could export some of that disinflation to the global economy. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be talking about the global implications of China's economic slowdown. It's Tuesday, August 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
China's economic woes continue to be center stage. Our Asia team has outlined the risks of a debt deflation cycle there and how policy is needed to avert the possibility of a lost decade. As always, big economic news from China will get global attention. That said, when we turned bullish on China's economic growth last year, we flagged that the typical positive spillovers from China were likely to be smaller this cycle than in the past. 
We expected growth to be heavily skewed towards domestic consumption, especially of services, and thus the pull into China from the rest of the world would be smaller than usual. We also published empirical analysis on the importance of the manufacturing sector to these global spillovers, and the very strong Chinese growth and yet modest global effects that we saw in the first quarter of this year vindicated that view. Now the world has changed and Chinese growth has slumped, with no recovery apparent so far. 
The global implications, however, are somewhat asymmetric here. Because we are seeing the weakness now show through to the industrial sector and especially CapEx spending, we cannot assume that the rest of the world will be as insulated as it was in the first quarter. Although we have recently marked down our view for Chinese economic growth, we still think a lost decade can be avoided. Nevertheless, with Chinese inflation turning negative, the prospect of China exporting disinflation is now getting discussed in markets. 
Much of the discussion about China exporting this inflation started when China's CPI went into deflation in the past couple of months. Although the connection is intuitive, it is not obvious that domestic consumer price numbers translate into the pricing that, say, U.S. consumers will eventually see. Indeed, even before China's prices turned negative, U.S. goods inflation had already turned to deflation because supply chains had healed and consumer spending patterns were starting to normalize. 
For China to export meaningful disinflation, they will likely have to come through one of three channels. Reduced Chinese demand for commodities that leads to a retreat in global commodities prices, currency depreciation or exporters cutting their prices. On the first, oil prices are actually at the same levels roughly that they were in the first quarter after Chinese goods surged. And they're well off the lows for this year. And despite the slump in economic activity, transportation metrics for China remain healthy, so to date, that first channel is far from clear. 
The renminbi is much weaker than it was at the beginning of the year. But recent policy announcements from the People's Bank of China imply that they are not eager to see a substantial further depreciation from here, limiting the extent of further disinflation through that channel. So that leaves exporters cutting prices, which could happen, but again, it need not be directly connected to the broader domestic prices within China coming down. 
So all of that said, the direction of the effect on the rest of the world is clear. Even if the magnitude is not huge, there is a disinflationary force from China to the rest of the world. For the Fed and ECB, other developed market central bankers, such an impulse may be almost welcome. Central banks have tightened policy intentionally to slow their economies and pulled down inflation. Despite progress to date, we are nowhere near done with this hiking cycle. If we're wrong about China, however,...]]>234false943fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-banking-regulations-could-reduce-available-credit--75653147----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the links between regulations and the real economy. It's Monday, August 28, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
In the euphoria of buoyant equity markets over the last few months, the many challenges facing regional banks have receded into the background. While it certainly has not been our view, a narrative has clearly emerged that the issues in the sector that erupted in March are largely behind us. The ratings downgrades by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's of multiple U.S. banks in the last few weeks provide a reminder that the headwinds of increasing capital requirements, higher cost of funding and rising loan losses continue to challenge the business models of the regional banking sector. 
The rating agency actions come on the heels of proposed rules to modify capital requirements for banks with total assets of 100 billion or more. Separately, the Fed has proposed a capital rule on implementing capital surcharge for the eight U.S. global systemically important banks. Further proposed regulations on new long term debt requirements for banks with assets of $100-700 billion are due to be announced tomorrow. It is early in the rulemaking process for all of these proposals. They may change after the comment period and the rules will be phased in over several years once they are finalized. Nevertheless, they outline the framework of the regulatory regime ahead of us. 
While we won't go into the detailed discussion of thousands of pages of proposals here, suffice to say that the documents envisage significantly higher capital requirement for much of the U.S. banking sector, and extends several large bank requirements to much smaller banks. One such requirement pertains to the impact on capital of unrealized losses in available for sale securities. Currently, this provision applies only to Category one and Category two banks, that is banks with greater than $700 billion in total assets. But the proposal now expands it to Category three and Category four banks, that is banks with greater than $100 billion in total assets. 
A recent paper from the San Francisco Fed shows how the regulatory framework of the banking system affects the real economy. Specifically, the paper demonstrates that banks, which experienced larger market value losses on their securities during the 2022 monetary tightening cycle extended less credit to firms. Given the experience of the last 18 months across fixed income markets, extending the impact of such mark-to-market losses to smaller banks, as is being proposed now, would exasperate the potential challenges to credit formation. 
Against this background, we look at the near term prospects for bank lending. In the latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion survey, reflecting 2Q23 lending conditions, lending standards tightened across nearly all categories for the fourth consecutive quarter. Banks expect to tighten lending standards further across all categories through the year end, with the most tightening coming in commercial real estate, followed by credit card and commercial and industrial loans to small firms. The survey also asked banks to describe current lending standards relative to the midpoint of the standards since 2005. Most banks indicated the lending standards are tighter than the historical midpoint for all categories of commercial real estate and commercial and industrial loans to small firms. 
The bottom line is that more tightening lies ahead for the broader economy. This survey shows how the evolution of regulatory policy can weigh on credit formation and overall economic growth. Given the disproportionate exposure of the regional banks to commercial real estate debt that needs to be refinanced, commercial real estate is likely to be the arena where pressure has become most evident, another reason why we are skeptical that the turmoil in the regional banking sector is behind us. While the proposed regulatory changes can open doors for non-bank lenders, such as private credit, it is important to note that such lending will likely come at higher cost. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XPWGXs-pMFzOkBq0CymzSn1xkhxMJC6a41OIATkppdEMon, 28 Aug 2023 22:28:14 +0000gtyProposed regulations for smaller banks show that turmoil in the banking sector may still have an impact on the broader economy. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the links between regulations and the real economy. It's Monday, August 28, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
In the euphoria of buoyant equity markets over the last few months, the many challenges facing regional banks have receded into the background. While it certainly has not been our view, a narrative has clearly emerged that the issues in the sector that erupted in March are largely behind us. The ratings downgrades by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's of multiple U.S. banks in the last few weeks provide a reminder that the headwinds of increasing capital requirements, higher cost of funding and rising loan losses continue to challenge the business models of the regional banking sector. 
The rating agency actions come on the heels of proposed rules to modify capital requirements for banks with total assets of 100 billion or more. Separately, the Fed has proposed a capital rule on implementing capital surcharge for the eight U.S. global systemically important banks. Further proposed regulations on new long term debt requirements for banks with assets of $100-700 billion are due to be announced tomorrow. It is early in the rulemaking process for all of these proposals. They may change after the comment period and the rules will be phased in over several years once they are finalized. Nevertheless, they outline the framework of the regulatory regime ahead of us. 
While we won't go into the detailed discussion of thousands of pages of proposals here, suffice to say that the documents envisage significantly higher capital requirement for much of the U.S. banking sector, and extends several large bank requirements to much smaller banks. One such requirement pertains to the impact on capital of unrealized losses in available for sale securities. Currently, this provision applies only to Category one and Category two banks, that is banks with greater than $700 billion in total assets. But the proposal now expands it to Category three and Category four banks, that is banks with greater than $100 billion in total assets. 
A recent paper from the San Francisco Fed shows how the regulatory framework of the banking system affects the real economy. Specifically, the paper demonstrates that banks, which experienced larger market value losses on their securities during the 2022 monetary tightening cycle extended less credit to firms. Given the experience of the last 18 months across fixed income markets, extending the impact of such mark-to-market losses to smaller banks, as is being proposed now, would exasperate the potential challenges to credit formation. 
Against this background, we look at the near term prospects for bank lending. In the latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion survey, reflecting 2Q23 lending conditions, lending standards tightened across nearly all categories for the fourth consecutive quarter. Banks expect to tighten lending standards further across all categories through the year end, with the most tightening coming in commercial real estate, followed by credit card and commercial and industrial loans to small firms. The survey also asked banks to describe current lending standards relative to the midpoint of the standards since 2005. Most banks indicated the lending standards are tighter than the historical midpoint for all categories of commercial real estate and commercial and industrial loans to small firms. 
The bottom line is that more tightening lies ahead for the broader economy. This survey shows how the evolution of regulatory policy can weigh on credit formation and overall economic growth. Given the disproportionate exposure of the...]]>266false942fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-is-the-fed-done-raising-rates--75653115----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 25th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The eyes of the market will be on Wyoming this weekend, where the Federal Reserve is holding its annual summit at Jackson Hole. While many topics will be discussed, investors are particularly focused on two: is the Fed done raising interest rates? And is the so-called neutral rate of interest higher than initially thought? 
The Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates at the fastest pace in 40 years to try to get rates to a level where economic activity starts to slow, easing inflationary pressure. But the level of interest rate that achieves this is genuinely uncertain, even to the experts at the Fed. We believe that they'll feel increasingly comfortable that rates have now hit this level. And in turn, Morgan Stanley's economists do not expect further rate hikes in this cycle. A few things drive our thinking. 
First, those inflationary pressures are easing. Two key measures of underlying inflation, core PCE and core CPI, slowed sharply in the most recent reading. Leading indicators for car prices and rental costs, which have been big drivers of high inflation last year, now point in the opposite direction. Bank loan growth is slowing and the torrid pace of U.S. job growth is also moderating, two other signs that interest rates are already restrictive. 
Historically, the Fed being done raising interest rates has been supportive for markets. But the relationship with high grade bonds is especially notable. Since 1984, there have been five times where the Fed has ended interest rate hiking cycles after multiple increases. Each time the yield on the U.S. aggregate bond index peaked within a month of this last hike. In short, the Fed being done has been good for the U.S. Agg Bond Index. 
And we can see the logic to this. If the Fed has stopped raising interest rates, one of two things may very well be true. First, it stopped at the correct level to support growth while also reducing inflation, and that stability with less inflation is liked by the bond market. Or it has stopped because rates are actually too high and set to slow growth and inflation much more sharply. In the second scenario, investors like the safety of bonds. 
But behind this question of whether the Fed will pause is another, larger issue. What is the so-called neutral rate of interest that neither slows nor boosts the U.S. economy? During the decade of stagnation that followed the global financial crisis, weak growth led people to believe that this balancing interest rate was extremely low. There are signs this thinking persists, when the Fed surveys its members about where they see the Fed funds rate over the long run, which is a proxy for where this neutral interest rate might be, the median is just 2.5%. In 2012, the Fed thought this same rate was over 4%. 
So that will be another focus at Jackson Hole, and beyond. The strength of the U.S. economy in the face of higher rates has been a surprising story. Does that mean that the balancing interest rate is much higher, and will the Fed raise their long run estimates of this rate to reflect this? Or is recent U.S. strength still temporary and not yet fully reflecting the effect of higher interest rates? Expect this debate to continue in the months ahead. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jcuH7k2UU07u08E0D6Kzi1uvjyVd8hcoyXkupWEaifMFri, 25 Aug 2023 19:20:49 +0000gtyAs the Fed meets this weekend for their annual summit at Jackson Hole, investors are most focused on whether rate hikes will continue and the state of the neutral interest rate. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 25th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The eyes of the market will be on Wyoming this weekend, where the Federal Reserve is holding its annual summit at Jackson Hole. While many topics will be discussed, investors are particularly focused on two: is the Fed done raising interest rates? And is the so-called neutral rate of interest higher than initially thought? 
The Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates at the fastest pace in 40 years to try to get rates to a level where economic activity starts to slow, easing inflationary pressure. But the level of interest rate that achieves this is genuinely uncertain, even to the experts at the Fed. We believe that they'll feel increasingly comfortable that rates have now hit this level. And in turn, Morgan Stanley's economists do not expect further rate hikes in this cycle. A few things drive our thinking. 
First, those inflationary pressures are easing. Two key measures of underlying inflation, core PCE and core CPI, slowed sharply in the most recent reading. Leading indicators for car prices and rental costs, which have been big drivers of high inflation last year, now point in the opposite direction. Bank loan growth is slowing and the torrid pace of U.S. job growth is also moderating, two other signs that interest rates are already restrictive. 
Historically, the Fed being done raising interest rates has been supportive for markets. But the relationship with high grade bonds is especially notable. Since 1984, there have been five times where the Fed has ended interest rate hiking cycles after multiple increases. Each time the yield on the U.S. aggregate bond index peaked within a month of this last hike. In short, the Fed being done has been good for the U.S. Agg Bond Index. 
And we can see the logic to this. If the Fed has stopped raising interest rates, one of two things may very well be true. First, it stopped at the correct level to support growth while also reducing inflation, and that stability with less inflation is liked by the bond market. Or it has stopped because rates are actually too high and set to slow growth and inflation much more sharply. In the second scenario, investors like the safety of bonds. 
But behind this question of whether the Fed will pause is another, larger issue. What is the so-called neutral rate of interest that neither slows nor boosts the U.S. economy? During the decade of stagnation that followed the global financial crisis, weak growth led people to believe that this balancing interest rate was extremely low. There are signs this thinking persists, when the Fed surveys its members about where they see the Fed funds rate over the long run, which is a proxy for where this neutral interest rate might be, the median is just 2.5%. In 2012, the Fed thought this same rate was over 4%. 
So that will be another focus at Jackson Hole, and beyond. The strength of the U.S. economy in the face of higher rates has been a surprising story. Does that mean that the balancing interest rate is much higher, and will the Fed raise their long run estimates of this rate to reflect this? Or is recent U.S. strength still temporary and not yet fully reflecting the effect of higher interest rates? Expect this debate to continue in the months ahead. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

]]>209false941fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-access-opportunity-podcast--75653022gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kkO6lCwQg13dl6ojRAuqxyZeWlRzbfdhh0i3bsMOS0UThu, 24 Aug 2023 14:00:00 +0000gtyInspiring change through informed and inclusive innovation. On Access & Opportunity, host Carla Harris, Senior Client Advisor at Morgan Stanley, explores the lived experiences of the people who face systemic inequities and sits down with founders,...162false938fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-what-to-expect-from-presidential-debates--75653283----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of presidential debates on markets. It's Wednesday, August 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Several candidates seeking the Republican Party's nomination for president take the stage in the debate tonight. Coverage of the event in traditional and financial media has escalated in anticipation of the debate. And while it's a good idea for voters looking to understand the candidates better and make an informed choice to tune in to the debate, for those tuning in looking for something that might guide their perception of how the 2024 election might impact financial markets, our guidance is this: lower your expectations. 
This debate, the first among many, is likely to tell us a lot less about who the nominee will be than traditional polls. Those polls show former President Trump with solid support that surpasses his main rivals. And while, of course, there's plenty of time for that to change, debates this early in the process haven't historically been reliable indicators of changes in support that may follow. This may be even more true this time around, since President Trump is not attending this debate. And so it will be more difficult to get a read as to which candidates might be better suited than others to make a more persuasive argument to Republican voters than the former president. 
Additionally, debates this early in the process generally tell us little about potential policy changes that could result from any one of these candidates ultimately being elected in 2024. Stock and corporate bond investors, in theory, might be very interested in what these candidates have to say about a variety of pending corporate tax code changes starting in 2025. But one shouldn't expect candidates to get into that level of detail on the debate stage. General comments about making sure the tax code doesn't work against the economy are far more likely. Further, the ability of any candidate to execute on their policy vision is going to be a function of the makeup of Congress, which again, this debate is unlikely to give us much information about. 
Bottom line, the 2024 election will be consequential to the markets, but tune in to the debate to inform yourself as a voter. As we've said in previous podcasts, it's too early to expect to learn anything that will help you as an investor.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/PNHdv66aTw7JMNHxRPaqasyGnSG-my2pyqLVPOqCUPEWed, 23 Aug 2023 17:27:19 +0000gtyAs debate season begins among Republican presidential candidates, can investors hope to glean market insights for 2025 and beyond? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of presidential debates on markets. It's Wednesday, August 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Several candidates seeking the Republican Party's nomination for president take the stage in the debate tonight. Coverage of the event in traditional and financial media has escalated in anticipation of the debate. And while it's a good idea for voters looking to understand the candidates better and make an informed choice to tune in to the debate, for those tuning in looking for something that might guide their perception of how the 2024 election might impact financial markets, our guidance is this: lower your expectations. 
This debate, the first among many, is likely to tell us a lot less about who the nominee will be than traditional polls. Those polls show former President Trump with solid support that surpasses his main rivals. And while, of course, there's plenty of time for that to change, debates this early in the process haven't historically been reliable indicators of changes in support that may follow. This may be even more true this time around, since President Trump is not attending this debate. And so it will be more difficult to get a read as to which candidates might be better suited than others to make a more persuasive argument to Republican voters than the former president. 
Additionally, debates this early in the process generally tell us little about potential policy changes that could result from any one of these candidates ultimately being elected in 2024. Stock and corporate bond investors, in theory, might be very interested in what these candidates have to say about a variety of pending corporate tax code changes starting in 2025. But one shouldn't expect candidates to get into that level of detail on the debate stage. General comments about making sure the tax code doesn't work against the economy are far more likely. Further, the ability of any candidate to execute on their policy vision is going to be a function of the makeup of Congress, which again, this debate is unlikely to give us much information about. 
Bottom line, the 2024 election will be consequential to the markets, but tune in to the debate to inform yourself as a voter. As we've said in previous podcasts, it's too early to expect to learn anything that will help you as an investor.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>149false940fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-vishy-tirupattur-corporate-credit-risks-remain--75653083----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about potential risk to the economy. It's Tuesday, August 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Another FOMC meeting came and went. To nobody's surprise the Fed hiked the target Fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Beyond the hike, the July FOMC statement had nearly no changes. While data on inflation and jobs are moving in the right direction, the Fed remains far from its 2% inflation goal. That said, Fed Chair Powell stressed that the Fed is closer to its destination, that monetary policies is in restrictive territory and is likely to stay there for some time. Broadly, the outcome of the market was in line with our economists expectation that the federal funds rate has peaked, will remain unchanged for an extended period, and the first 25 basis point cut will be delivered in March 2024. 
Powell sounded more confident in a soft landing, citing the gradual adjustment in the labor market and noting that despite 525 basis point policy tightening, the unemployment rate remains at the same level it was pre-COVID. The fact that the Fed has been able to bring inflation down without a meaningful rise in unemployment, he described as quote unquote "blessing". He noted that the Fed staff are no longer forecasting a recession, given the resilience in the economy. 
This specter of soft landing, meaning a recession is not imminent, is something our economists have been calling for some time. This has now become more broadly accepted across market participants, albeit somewhat reluctantly. The obvious question, therefore, is what are the risks ahead and what are the paths for such risks to materialize? 
One such potential risk emanates from the rising wave of credit maturities from the corporate credit markets. While company balance sheets, by and large, are in a good shape now, given how far interest rates have risen and how quickly they have done so, as that debt begins to mature and needs to be refinanced, it will happen at sharply higher rates. From now through the end of 2024, almost a trillion of corporate debt will mature. Sim ply by holding rates constant, that refinancing will represent a tightening of financial conditions. 
Fortunately, a high proportion of the debt comes from investment grade borrowers and does not appear to be particularly challenging. However, below investment grade debt has a tougher path ahead for refinancing. As we continue through 2024 and get into 2025, more and more high yield bonds and leveraged loans will need to be refinanced. 
All else equal, the default rates in high yield bonds and leveraged loans currently  hovering around 2.5% may double to over 5% in the next 12 months. The forecasts of our economists point to a further slowdown in the economy from here, as the rest of the standard lags of policy are felt. We continue to think that such a slowing could necessitate a re-examination of the lower end of the credit spectrum. The ongoing challenges in the regional banking sector only add to this problem. In our view, in the list of risks to the U.S. economy, the rising wave of maturities in the corporate debt markets is notable. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NPcBp10y0jd4lW0FN-7v0DqxOf5HF6X3HFbVwsWj4psTue, 22 Aug 2023 22:15:22 +0000gtyOriginal Release on August, 1st 2023: While the U.S. economy appears on track to avoid a recession, investors should still consider the implications of an upcoming wave of maturities in corporate credit. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about potential risk to the economy. It's Tuesday, August 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Another FOMC meeting came and went. To nobody's surprise the Fed hiked the target Fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Beyond the hike, the July FOMC statement had nearly no changes. While data on inflation and jobs are moving in the right direction, the Fed remains far from its 2% inflation goal. That said, Fed Chair Powell stressed that the Fed is closer to its destination, that monetary policies is in restrictive territory and is likely to stay there for some time. Broadly, the outcome of the market was in line with our economists expectation that the federal funds rate has peaked, will remain unchanged for an extended period, and the first 25 basis point cut will be delivered in March 2024. 
Powell sounded more confident in a soft landing, citing the gradual adjustment in the labor market and noting that despite 525 basis point policy tightening, the unemployment rate remains at the same level it was pre-COVID. The fact that the Fed has been able to bring inflation down without a meaningful rise in unemployment, he described as quote unquote "blessing". He noted that the Fed staff are no longer forecasting a recession, given the resilience in the economy. 
This specter of soft landing, meaning a recession is not imminent, is something our economists have been calling for some time. This has now become more broadly accepted across market participants, albeit somewhat reluctantly. The obvious question, therefore, is what are the risks ahead and what are the paths for such risks to materialize? 
One such potential risk emanates from the rising wave of credit maturities from the corporate credit markets. While company balance sheets, by and large, are in a good shape now, given how far interest rates have risen and how quickly they have done so, as that debt begins to mature and needs to be refinanced, it will happen at sharply higher rates. From now through the end of 2024, almost a trillion of corporate debt will mature. Sim ply by holding rates constant, that refinancing will represent a tightening of financial conditions. 
Fortunately, a high proportion of the debt comes from investment grade borrowers and does not appear to be particularly challenging. However, below investment grade debt has a tougher path ahead for refinancing. As we continue through 2024 and get into 2025, more and more high yield bonds and leveraged loans will need to be refinanced. 
All else equal, the default rates in high yield bonds and leveraged loans currently  hovering around 2.5% may double to over 5% in the next 12 months. The forecasts of our economists point to a further slowdown in the economy from here, as the rest of the standard lags of policy are felt. We continue to think that such a slowing could necessitate a re-examination of the lower end of the credit spectrum. The ongoing challenges in the regional banking sector only add to this problem. In our view, in the list of risks to the U.S. economy, the rising wave of maturities in the corporate debt markets is notable. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>211false939fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-global-autos-are-china-s-electric-vehicles-reshaping-the-market--75653036----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share Mobility Team. 
Tim Hsaio: And Tim Hsaio Greater China Auto Analyst. 
Adam Jonas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we're going to discuss how China Electric vehicles are reshaping the global auto market. It's Thursday, July 27th at 8 a.m. in New York. 
Tim Hsaio: And 8 p.m in Hong Kong. 
Adam Jonas: For decades, global autos have been dominated by established, developed market brands with little focus on electric vehicles or EVs, particularly for the mass market. As things stand today, affordable EVs are few and far between, and this undersupply presents a major global challenge. At Morgan Stanley Equity Research, we think the auto industry will undergo a major reshuffling in the next decade as affordable EVs from emerging markets capture significant global market share. Tim, you believe China made EVs will be at the center of this upcoming shakeup of the global auto industry, are we at an inflection point and how did we get here? 
Tim Hsaio: Thanks, Adam. Yeah, we are definitely at a very critical inflection point at the moment. Firstly, since last year, as you may notice that China has outsized Germany car export and soon surpassed Japan in the first half of this year as the world's largest auto exporter. So now we believe China made EVs infiltrating the West, challenging their global peers, backed by not just cheaper prices but the improving variety and quality. And separately, we believe that affordability remains the key mitigating factors to global EV adoption, as Rastan brands have been slow to advance their EV strategy for their mass market. A lack of affordable models actually challenged global adoption, but we believe that that creates a great opportunity to EV from China where a lot of affordable EVs will soon fill in the vacuum and effectively meet the need for cheaper EV. So we believe that we are definitely at an inflection point. 
Adam Jonas: So Tim, it's safe to say that the expansionary strategy of China EVs is not just a fad, but real solid trend here? 
Tim Hsaio: Totally agree. We think it's going to be a long lasting trend because you think about what's happened over the past ten years. China has been a major growth engine to curb auto demands, contributing more than 300% of a sales increment. And now we believe China will transport itself into the key supply driver to the world, they initially by exporting cheaper EV and over time shifting course to transplant and foreign production just similar to Japan and Korea autos back to 1970 to 1990. And we believe China EVs are making inroads into more than 40 countries globally. Just a few years ago, the products made by China were poorly designed, but today they surpass rival foreign models on affordability, quality and even detector event user experience. So Adam, essentially, we are trying to forecast the future of EVs in China and the rest of the world, and this topic sits right at the heart of all three big things Morgan Stanley Research is exploring this year, the multipolar world, decarbonization and technology diffusion. So if we take a step back to look at the broader picture of what happens to supply chain, what potential scenarios for an auto industry realignment do you foresee? And which regions other than China stand to benefit or be negatively impacted? 
Adam Jonas: So, Tim, look, I think there's certainly room to diversify and rebalance at the margin away from China, which has such a dominant position in electric vehicles today, and it was their strategy to fulfill that. But you also got to make room for them. Okay. And there's precedent here because, you know, we saw with the Japanese auto manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of people doubted them and they became dominant in foreign markets. Then you had the Korean auto companies in the 1990s and 2000s. So, again, China's lead is going to be long lasting, but room for on-shoring and near-shoring, friend shoring. And we would look to regions like ASEAN, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, also the Middle East, such as Morocco, which has an FTA agreement with the U.S. and Saudi, parts of Scandinavia and Central Europe, and of course our trade partners in North America, Mexico and Canada. So, we’ re witnessing an historic re-industrialization of some parts of the world that where we thought we lost some of our heavy industry. 
Tim Hsaio: So in a context of a multipolar trends, we are discussing Adam, how do you think a global original equipment manufacturers or OEM or the car makers and the policymakers will react to China's growing importance in the auto industry? 
Adam Jonas: So I think the challenge is how do you re-architect supply chains and still have skin in the game and still be relevant in these markets? It's going to take time. We think you're going to see the established auto companies, the so-called legacy car companies, seek partnerships in areas where they would otherwise struggle to bring scale. Look to diversify and de-risk their supply chains by having a dual source both on-shore and near-shore, in addition to their established China exposed supply chains. Some might choose to vertically integrate, and we've seen some striking partners upstream with mining companies and direct investments. Others might find that futile and work with battery firms and other structures without necessarily owning the technology. But we think most importantly, the theme is you're not going to be cutting out the world's second largest GDP, which already has such a dominant position in this important market, so the Western firms are going to work with the Chinese players. And the ones that can do that we think will be successful. And I'd bring our listeners attention to a recent precedent of a large German OEM and a state sponsored Chinese car company that are working together on electric vehicle architecture, which is predominantly the Chinese architecture. We think that's quite telling and you're going to see more of that kind of thing. 
Tim Hsaio: So Adam, is there anything the market is missing right now? 
Adam Jonas: A few things, Tim, but I think the most obvious one to me is just how good these Chinese EVs are. We think the market's really underestimating that, in terms of quality safety features, design. You know, you're seeing Chinese car companies hiring the best engineers from the German automakers coming, making these beautiful, beautiful vehicles, high quality. Another thing that we think is underestimated are the environmental externalities from battery manufacturing, batteries are an important technology for decarbonization. But the supply chain itself has some very inconvenient ESG externalities, labor to emissions and others. And I would say, final thing that we think the market is missing is there's an assumption that just because the electric vehicle and the supporting battery business, because it's a large and fast growing, that it has to be a high return business. And we are skeptical of that. Precedents from the solar polysilicon and LED TVs and others where when you get capital working and you've got state governments all around the world providing incentives that you get the growth, but you don't necessarily get great returns for shareholders, so it's a bit of a warning to investors to be cautious, be opportunistic, but growth doesn't necessarily mean great returns. Tim, let's return to China for a minute and as I ask you one final question, where will growing China's EV exports go and what is your outlook for the next one or two years as well as the next decade? 
Tim Hsaio: Eventually, I think China EVs will definitely want to grow their presence worldwide. But initially, we believe that there are two major markets they want to focus on. First one would be Europe. I think the China's export or the local brands there will want to leverage their BEV portfolio, battery EV, to grow their presence in Europe. And the other key market would be ASEAN country, Southeast Asia. I think the Chinese brands where the China EV can leverage their plug-in hybrid models to grow their presence in ASEAN. The major reason is that we noticed that in Southeast Asia the charging infrastructure is still underdeveloped, so the plug-in hybrid would be the more ideal solution to that market. And for the next 1 to 2 years, we are currently looking for the China the EV export to grow by like 50 to 60% every year. And in that long-terms, as you may notice that currently China made vehicles account for only 3% of cars sold outside China. But in the next decade we are looking for one third of EVs sold in overseas would be China made, so they are going to be the leader of the EV sold globally. 
Adam Jonas: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Tim Hsaio: Great speaking with you Adam.
Adam Jonas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Cun6BtkXOUOEPUqc5Ac_oGzm5leEXo3fyO8n3PWcMRYMon, 21 Aug 2023 21:34:54 +0000gtyOriginal Release on July, 27th 2023: With higher quality and lower costs, China’s electric vehicles could lead a shift in the global auto industry. ----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan...----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share Mobility Team. 
Tim Hsaio: And Tim Hsaio Greater China Auto Analyst. 
Adam Jonas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we're going to discuss how China Electric vehicles are reshaping the global auto market. It's Thursday, July 27th at 8 a.m. in New York. 
Tim Hsaio: And 8 p.m in Hong Kong. 
Adam Jonas: For decades, global autos have been dominated by established, developed market brands with little focus on electric vehicles or EVs, particularly for the mass market. As things stand today, affordable EVs are few and far between, and this undersupply presents a major global challenge. At Morgan Stanley Equity Research, we think the auto industry will undergo a major reshuffling in the next decade as affordable EVs from emerging markets capture significant global market share. Tim, you believe China made EVs will be at the center of this upcoming shakeup of the global auto industry, are we at an inflection point and how did we get here? 
Tim Hsaio: Thanks, Adam. Yeah, we are definitely at a very critical inflection point at the moment. Firstly, since last year, as you may notice that China has outsized Germany car export and soon surpassed Japan in the first half of this year as the world's largest auto exporter. So now we believe China made EVs infiltrating the West, challenging their global peers, backed by not just cheaper prices but the improving variety and quality. And separately, we believe that affordability remains the key mitigating factors to global EV adoption, as Rastan brands have been slow to advance their EV strategy for their mass market. A lack of affordable models actually challenged global adoption, but we believe that that creates a great opportunity to EV from China where a lot of affordable EVs will soon fill in the vacuum and effectively meet the need for cheaper EV. So we believe that we are definitely at an inflection point. 
Adam Jonas: So Tim, it's safe to say that the expansionary strategy of China EVs is not just a fad, but real solid trend here? 
Tim Hsaio: Totally agree. We think it's going to be a long lasting trend because you think about what's happened over the past ten years. China has been a major growth engine to curb auto demands, contributing more than 300% of a sales increment. And now we believe China will transport itself into the key supply driver to the world, they initially by exporting cheaper EV and over time shifting course to transplant and foreign production just similar to Japan and Korea autos back to 1970 to 1990. And we believe China EVs are making inroads into more than 40 countries globally. Just a few years ago, the products made by China were poorly designed, but today they surpass rival foreign models on affordability, quality and even detector event user experience. So Adam, essentially, we are trying to forecast the future of EVs in China and the rest of the world, and this topic sits right at the heart of all three big things Morgan Stanley Research is exploring this year, the multipolar world, decarbonization and technology diffusion. So if we take a step back to look at the broader picture of what happens to supply chain, what potential scenarios for an auto industry realignment do you foresee? And which regions other than China stand to benefit or be negatively impacted? 
Adam Jonas: So, Tim, look, I think there's certainly room to diversify and rebalance at the margin away from China, which has such a dominant position in electric vehicles today, and it was their strategy to fulfill that. But you also got to make room for them. Okay. And there's precedent here because, you know, we saw with the Japanese auto...]]>580false937fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-the-positive-side-of-higher-rates--75653172----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, a Senior Fixed Income Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 18th at 2 p.m. in London. August is a month in financial markets that is often all or nothing. Sometimes it's quiet, a self-reinforcing state where investors desire to recharge and enjoy the nicer weather means fewer deals and lower activity, reinforcing the desire to enjoy the nicer weather. 
But there's a flip side. The fact that so many investors' are away in August can also amplify market moves, especially if worries mount, and we see that in the historical data. August has seen the largest average rise in stock market volatility of any month, if we go back to 2010, where it's seen higher volatility in 10 out of the last 14 years. So far, this August is off to another volatile start. 
The culprits are plenty. Equity markets have been having a great run based almost entirely on expanding valuations, an unusual occurrence, as Lisa Shalett, the CIO of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and I discussed on this program last week. Data in China has been weaker than expected and across the U.S., Europe and Japan, bond yields have been rising significantly. 
The bond move is especially notable given how it's been happening. Yields aren't rising because of inflation, as last week's U.S. consumer price inflation reading was a little better than expected, and longer run expectations of U.S. inflation are actually lower on the month. The market also has increased its expectation of further rate hikes from the Federal Reserve or the ECB, although it has added another expected hike for the Bank of England. 
Rather, the increase in yields this month has been almost entirely due to the so-called real interest rate, that is the yield on bonds over and above expected inflation. In the U.S., ten year real rates are now about 1.9% above expected inflation, which is a similar level to what we saw from 2003 to 2005. 
There's both bad and good news here. The bad news is that if investors can get a higher guaranteed return over inflation from government bonds, other assets are going to look less attractive by comparison. We continue to hold a more cautious view on U.S. equity markets as well as commodities. 
But there's also some good news. Higher real rates have made TIPS or Treasury inflation-protected securities more attractive and my colleagues in interest rate strategy like them. The recent volatility in bond markets has cheapend mortgage backed securities, where my colleague Jay Bacow, Morgan Stanley's co-head of securitized products research, has recently moved back to a positive view. And higher yields are improving the funding ratio for many pension funds, encouraging them to buy safer, longer term investment grade bonds. 
More broadly, higher long term real rates could be a sign that the market is more confident about the long term outlook for the U.S. economy. If we think back to the 1990s, it was a period of higher expected potential growth and higher rates relative to expected inflation. If we think about the sluggish 2010s, it was the opposite with very low rates relative to inflation as the market worried that growth could not achieve escape velocity. It will take years to know if the bond market is really endorsing a stronger long run economic view, but as we hope to emphasize, higher rates aren't necessarily all bad. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_VDb_8IRC-V-xgvbdGEj0aVQM-lHvykv2xy5sn0k1xIFri, 18 Aug 2023 18:40:41 +0000gtyBond yields have seen a surprising increase as a result of real interest rates, which could mean both good and bad news for other asset types. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, a Senior Fixed Income Strategist...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, a Senior Fixed Income Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 18th at 2 p.m. in London. August is a month in financial markets that is often all or nothing. Sometimes it's quiet, a self-reinforcing state where investors desire to recharge and enjoy the nicer weather means fewer deals and lower activity, reinforcing the desire to enjoy the nicer weather. 
But there's a flip side. The fact that so many investors' are away in August can also amplify market moves, especially if worries mount, and we see that in the historical data. August has seen the largest average rise in stock market volatility of any month, if we go back to 2010, where it's seen higher volatility in 10 out of the last 14 years. So far, this August is off to another volatile start. 
The culprits are plenty. Equity markets have been having a great run based almost entirely on expanding valuations, an unusual occurrence, as Lisa Shalett, the CIO of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and I discussed on this program last week. Data in China has been weaker than expected and across the U.S., Europe and Japan, bond yields have been rising significantly. 
The bond move is especially notable given how it's been happening. Yields aren't rising because of inflation, as last week's U.S. consumer price inflation reading was a little better than expected, and longer run expectations of U.S. inflation are actually lower on the month. The market also has increased its expectation of further rate hikes from the Federal Reserve or the ECB, although it has added another expected hike for the Bank of England. 
Rather, the increase in yields this month has been almost entirely due to the so-called real interest rate, that is the yield on bonds over and above expected inflation. In the U.S., ten year real rates are now about 1.9% above expected inflation, which is a similar level to what we saw from 2003 to 2005. 
There's both bad and good news here. The bad news is that if investors can get a higher guaranteed return over inflation from government bonds, other assets are going to look less attractive by comparison. We continue to hold a more cautious view on U.S. equity markets as well as commodities. 
But there's also some good news. Higher real rates have made TIPS or Treasury inflation-protected securities more attractive and my colleagues in interest rate strategy like them. The recent volatility in bond markets has cheapend mortgage backed securities, where my colleague Jay Bacow, Morgan Stanley's co-head of securitized products research, has recently moved back to a positive view. And higher yields are improving the funding ratio for many pension funds, encouraging them to buy safer, longer term investment grade bonds. 
More broadly, higher long term real rates could be a sign that the market is more confident about the long term outlook for the U.S. economy. If we think back to the 1990s, it was a period of higher expected potential growth and higher rates relative to expected inflation. If we think about the sluggish 2010s, it was the opposite with very low rates relative to inflation as the market worried that growth could not achieve escape velocity. It will take years to know if the bond market is really endorsing a stronger long run economic view, but as we hope to emphasize, higher rates aren't necessarily all bad. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>211false936fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chetan-ahya-can-china-avoid-a-lost-decade--75653140----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the journey ahead for China as it faces the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation. It's Thursday, August 17, at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Before we get into China, I want to take you back to the oft-told tale from the 1990s when Japan experienced what we now refer to as the ‘Lost Decade.’ During this period, the combination of economic stagnation and price deflation transformed a bustling economy in the 1980s, into an economy that grew at a little more than 1% annually over a decade. 
Fast forward to today, where China is confronted with the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation, what we are calling the 3Ds. As a result, many investors are now concerned that China will be stuck in a debt deflation loop, just like Japan was in the 1990s. 
But is China better placed to manage these headwinds even though the risks of falling into debt deflation loop remain high? We think at the starting point, the answer is yes, but with a few historical lessons that I'll get into in a moment. 
For context, China compares better with the Japan of the 1990s in the following four aspects. First, asset prices in China have not run up as much. Second, per capita incomes are still lower in China, implying a higher potential growth runway. Third, unlike Japan, China has not experienced a big currency appreciation shock. 
And finally, perhaps the most crucial difference is policy setting. Back in the 90s, the Bank of Japan kept real interest rates higher than real GDP growth between 1991 and 1995. But in contrast to Japan, China's real rates are below real GDP growth currently. 
To explain, historically, when economies are seeking to stabilize or reduce debt, the key element is to ensure that there is adequate gap between real interest rates and real GDP growth. In Japan's case, real interest rates were maintained about real GDP growth for the first four years. A similar situation occurred in the US post the 1929 stock market crash. As real rates were kept high, it laid the ground for the beginnings of the Great Depression. 
From both of these examples, the historical track shows two policy missteps. First, policymakers' concern about reigniting misallocation leads them to gravitate towards a hawkish bias. Second, policymakers tend to turn hawkish too quickly at the first signs of a recovery. During the Great Depression, easing of policies had led to recovery from 1933 onwards, but a premature tightening of policies in 1936 led to the double dip in 1937/38. Contrast this with the US after 2008, when the Fed was quick to bring rates to zero and embark on successive rounds of quantitative easing while fiscal policy was deployed in tandem. 
Sustaining real interest rates 2 percentage points below real GDP growth is key to deleveraging. Why? Because if you think about it, deleveraging will not be possible if the interest rate on your debt is growing faster than the increase in your income. 
In this context, while China's real interest rates are below real GDP growth currently, we still see the risk that policymakers will not take up reflationary policies to sustain the rates minus growth gap, which keeps the risk of China falling into debt deflation loop alive. 
So what is the potential outcome? China's policymakers will need to act forcefully. If they don't, the economy could fall into debt deflation loop, persistent deflation would take hold, debt to GDP would keep rising, and GDP per capita in USD terms would stagnate, just as it happened in Japan in the 1990s. But, as history has shown us, that doesn't have to be the outcome. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wbwEBrc4knIwlCZTBoQFS477g_UEvv_kn9-4DkJmJAgThu, 17 Aug 2023 20:50:52 +0000gtyAlthough China’s economy faces challenges in terms of debt, demographics and deflation, the right policy approach could ward off a debt deflation loop. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the journey ahead for China as it faces the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation. It's Thursday, August 17, at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Before we get into China, I want to take you back to the oft-told tale from the 1990s when Japan experienced what we now refer to as the ‘Lost Decade.’ During this period, the combination of economic stagnation and price deflation transformed a bustling economy in the 1980s, into an economy that grew at a little more than 1% annually over a decade. 
Fast forward to today, where China is confronted with the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation, what we are calling the 3Ds. As a result, many investors are now concerned that China will be stuck in a debt deflation loop, just like Japan was in the 1990s. 
But is China better placed to manage these headwinds even though the risks of falling into debt deflation loop remain high? We think at the starting point, the answer is yes, but with a few historical lessons that I'll get into in a moment. 
For context, China compares better with the Japan of the 1990s in the following four aspects. First, asset prices in China have not run up as much. Second, per capita incomes are still lower in China, implying a higher potential growth runway. Third, unlike Japan, China has not experienced a big currency appreciation shock. 
And finally, perhaps the most crucial difference is policy setting. Back in the 90s, the Bank of Japan kept real interest rates higher than real GDP growth between 1991 and 1995. But in contrast to Japan, China's real rates are below real GDP growth currently. 
To explain, historically, when economies are seeking to stabilize or reduce debt, the key element is to ensure that there is adequate gap between real interest rates and real GDP growth. In Japan's case, real interest rates were maintained about real GDP growth for the first four years. A similar situation occurred in the US post the 1929 stock market crash. As real rates were kept high, it laid the ground for the beginnings of the Great Depression. 
From both of these examples, the historical track shows two policy missteps. First, policymakers' concern about reigniting misallocation leads them to gravitate towards a hawkish bias. Second, policymakers tend to turn hawkish too quickly at the first signs of a recovery. During the Great Depression, easing of policies had led to recovery from 1933 onwards, but a premature tightening of policies in 1936 led to the double dip in 1937/38. Contrast this with the US after 2008, when the Fed was quick to bring rates to zero and embark on successive rounds of quantitative easing while fiscal policy was deployed in tandem. 
Sustaining real interest rates 2 percentage points below real GDP growth is key to deleveraging. Why? Because if you think about it, deleveraging will not be possible if the interest rate on your debt is growing faster than the increase in your income. 
In this context, while China's real interest rates are below real GDP growth currently, we still see the risk that policymakers will not take up reflationary policies to sustain the rates minus growth gap, which keeps the risk of China falling into debt deflation loop alive. 
So what is the potential outcome? China's policymakers will need to act forcefully. If they don't, the economy could fall into debt deflation loop, persistent deflation would take hold, debt to GDP would keep rising, and GDP per capita in USD terms would stagnate, just as it happened in Japan in the 1990s. But, as history has shown us, that doesn't have to be the...]]>241false935fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-risks-of-a-u-s-government-shutdown--75653170----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the risk of the U.S. government shutdown. It's Wednesday, August 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Congress is in recess until September. When they return, they'll have just a few weeks to pass several funding bills in order to avoid a government shutdown. And while it certainly seems like dramatic deadlines and last minute resolutions are all too common in D.C. these days, investors shouldn't get complacent on this one. 
Let's start with why investors should take seriously the risk of a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails to authorize spending to keep most government functions open. When that happens, there are both direct economic impacts, such as government workers and contractors not getting paid on time and indirect impacts, such as the economic activity of those workers and contractors being crimped given that they're going without pay. In the 2019 shutdown, for example, 800,000 government workers were affected by this disruption. Our economists estimate that for every week the government is shut down, we should expect a 0.05% point reduction in GDP, with that impact compounding and increasing over time. While that's not a huge number, in the context of an already softening economic growth and profit outlook for stocks, it doesn't help. 
So if a shutdown presents economic downside, why is that even a possibility? Here's four reasons why. First, Congress faces several challenging negotiations in September, which elevates the complexity of the legislative process ahead of the shutdown deadline. Second, there are disagreements within the Republican Party on what the right level of funding is for the government, meaning one of the two parties has yet to firm up its position to get negotiations going in earnest. Third, there's also disagreement within the Republican Party on aid levels for Ukraine. Finally, there appears to be greater willingness on the part of lawmakers to engage in policy standoffs, as evidenced by the recent debt ceiling negotiation. While history shows that approval ratings for both parties fared poorly following a shutdown, shutdowns happen nonetheless, and quotes from key members of both parties suggest little concern with the political impact of such an event. 
So what's an investor to do from here? For the moment, not much. We're not expecting much news on this or market reaction until September. Until then, we'll, of course, keep you updated on anything relevant. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hQnQQGWqjxMaLQYkjWAaMLVESt2enFHo0HVMkL3wJpsWed, 16 Aug 2023 20:31:14 +0000gtyAlthough Congress has avoided previous shutdowns with last-minute resolutions, investors shouldn’t get complacent in assuming the same outcome again in the fall. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the risk of the U.S. government shutdown. It's Wednesday, August 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Congress is in recess until September. When they return, they'll have just a few weeks to pass several funding bills in order to avoid a government shutdown. And while it certainly seems like dramatic deadlines and last minute resolutions are all too common in D.C. these days, investors shouldn't get complacent on this one. 
Let's start with why investors should take seriously the risk of a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails to authorize spending to keep most government functions open. When that happens, there are both direct economic impacts, such as government workers and contractors not getting paid on time and indirect impacts, such as the economic activity of those workers and contractors being crimped given that they're going without pay. In the 2019 shutdown, for example, 800,000 government workers were affected by this disruption. Our economists estimate that for every week the government is shut down, we should expect a 0.05% point reduction in GDP, with that impact compounding and increasing over time. While that's not a huge number, in the context of an already softening economic growth and profit outlook for stocks, it doesn't help. 
So if a shutdown presents economic downside, why is that even a possibility? Here's four reasons why. First, Congress faces several challenging negotiations in September, which elevates the complexity of the legislative process ahead of the shutdown deadline. Second, there are disagreements within the Republican Party on what the right level of funding is for the government, meaning one of the two parties has yet to firm up its position to get negotiations going in earnest. Third, there's also disagreement within the Republican Party on aid levels for Ukraine. Finally, there appears to be greater willingness on the part of lawmakers to engage in policy standoffs, as evidenced by the recent debt ceiling negotiation. While history shows that approval ratings for both parties fared poorly following a shutdown, shutdowns happen nonetheless, and quotes from key members of both parties suggest little concern with the political impact of such an event. 
So what's an investor to do from here? For the moment, not much. We're not expecting much news on this or market reaction until September. Until then, we'll, of course, keep you updated on anything relevant. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>161false934fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-garner-a-bullish-turn-for-india--75653127----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why India is now our preferred market in Asian equities. It's Tuesday, August 15th at 8am in Singapore. 
Before we dive into the details of some important changes in view that we've recently published, let's take a step back and set the scene for today's changes in a broader thematic context. 
Firstly, a reminder that we think we began a new bull market in Asia and EM last October. And from the trough in late October, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up around 25%. So the changes we're making are about identifying leadership at the market level as we transition towards a midcycle environment. Secondly, we continue to prefer Japan within our coverage, which remains Morgan Stanley's top pick in global equities but is a developed market. 
In terms of the changes that we've made on the downgrades side, for Taiwan, it has led the way off the bottom, rising almost 40% since last October. It's a market dominated by technology and export earnings, where the structural trend in return on equity has been positive in recent years as those firms have succeeded globally. Our upgrade last October was a simple cyclical story of distressed valuations at a time of depressed sentiment about underlying demand trends in semiconductors. The situation is very different today. Valuations are back to mid-cycle levels, and while demand remains weak in key areas such as smartphones and conventional cloud, a path to recovery is becoming more evident. Moreover, as has been the case in many prior cycles, a new end use category AI service is generating significant excitement. 
Our China downgrade, which is linked to our Australia downgrade via the Australian mining stocks, has a different structural set up. The China market, unlike Taiwan, is overwhelmingly dominated by domestic demand stocks and its domestic demand which has failed to recover convincingly in the post-COVID environment. Indeed, the current investor debate is centered on whether China's demographic transition, high domestic debt to GDP ratio and over-investment in property and infrastructure are starting to generate a balance sheet recession. Core inflation is stuck close to zero, with evidence of high unemployment in the young population and weak wages, with households and private firms no longer willing to lever up. Now, recent statements from the Politburo have begun to acknowledge the need to reverse some of the measures that have pressured the property market. But there is no easy way out of the intertwined property and local government financing debt burdens that have built up in the years when the growth model did not transition fast enough. And at the same time, China faces the new challenge of coping with multi-polar world pressures from the US in particular, which is generating new restrictions on inward technology transfers. All that said, we do not rule out moving back to a more positive stance on China, should policy implementation be more aggressive than hitherto. 
For India, the situation is in stark contrast to that in China, as was borne out to me by a recent visit in June to the Morgan Stanley annual Investment Summit in Mumbai. With GDP per capita, only $2,500 versus $13,000 for China and positive demographic trends, India is arguably at the start of a long wave boom at the same time as China may be ending one. Manufacturing and services PMIs have rallied consistently since the end of COVID restrictions, in contrast to the rapid fade seen in China. Also, real estate transaction volumes in construction have broken out to the upside. Moreover, India's ability to leverage multi-polar world dynamics is a significant advantage. Simply put, India's future looks to a significant extent like China's past, and in this context, it's particularly relevant to note long run trends in exchange rates now show the Indian rupee more stable and actually appreciating whilst the renminbi is depreciating. So considering Indian equities and Chinese equities as a pair in dollar terms, we appear to be at the beginning of a new era of Indian outperformance compared to China. From early 2021, India has broken out dramatically to the upside in performance. And whilst reversion to the mean is often a powerful force in finance, we think this represents a structural break in India's favor. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/EfUtxRgxGK-qP3iDQee4pWwqjk36rzs04rf2pzU5CKETue, 15 Aug 2023 20:54:30 +0000gtyWith the rupee appreciating, manufacturing and services in a consistent rally and demographic trends on an upswing, India may be better poised for a long-term boom than other markets in Asia. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why India is now our preferred market in Asian equities. It's Tuesday, August 15th at 8am in Singapore. 
Before we dive into the details of some important changes in view that we've recently published, let's take a step back and set the scene for today's changes in a broader thematic context. 
Firstly, a reminder that we think we began a new bull market in Asia and EM last October. And from the trough in late October, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up around 25%. So the changes we're making are about identifying leadership at the market level as we transition towards a midcycle environment. Secondly, we continue to prefer Japan within our coverage, which remains Morgan Stanley's top pick in global equities but is a developed market. 
In terms of the changes that we've made on the downgrades side, for Taiwan, it has led the way off the bottom, rising almost 40% since last October. It's a market dominated by technology and export earnings, where the structural trend in return on equity has been positive in recent years as those firms have succeeded globally. Our upgrade last October was a simple cyclical story of distressed valuations at a time of depressed sentiment about underlying demand trends in semiconductors. The situation is very different today. Valuations are back to mid-cycle levels, and while demand remains weak in key areas such as smartphones and conventional cloud, a path to recovery is becoming more evident. Moreover, as has been the case in many prior cycles, a new end use category AI service is generating significant excitement. 
Our China downgrade, which is linked to our Australia downgrade via the Australian mining stocks, has a different structural set up. The China market, unlike Taiwan, is overwhelmingly dominated by domestic demand stocks and its domestic demand which has failed to recover convincingly in the post-COVID environment. Indeed, the current investor debate is centered on whether China's demographic transition, high domestic debt to GDP ratio and over-investment in property and infrastructure are starting to generate a balance sheet recession. Core inflation is stuck close to zero, with evidence of high unemployment in the young population and weak wages, with households and private firms no longer willing to lever up. Now, recent statements from the Politburo have begun to acknowledge the need to reverse some of the measures that have pressured the property market. But there is no easy way out of the intertwined property and local government financing debt burdens that have built up in the years when the growth model did not transition fast enough. And at the same time, China faces the new challenge of coping with multi-polar world pressures from the US in particular, which is generating new restrictions on inward technology transfers. All that said, we do not rule out moving back to a more positive stance on China, should policy implementation be more aggressive than hitherto. 
For India, the situation is in stark contrast to that in China, as was borne out to me by a recent visit in June to the Morgan Stanley annual Investment Summit in Mumbai. With GDP per capita, only $2,500 versus $13,000 for China and positive demographic trends, India is arguably at the start of a long wave boom at the same time as China may be ending one. Manufacturing and services PMIs have rallied consistently since the end of COVID restrictions, in contrast to the rapid fade seen in China. Also, real estate transaction volumes in construction have broken...]]>273false933fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-fiscal-policy-continues-to-drive-u-s-economic-and-market-performance--75653136----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, August 14, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
At the trough of the pandemic recession in April 2020, we first introduced our thesis that the health care emergency would usher in a new era of fiscal policy. The result would be higher inflation than monetary policy was able to attain on its own over the prior decade. In the first phase of this new policy regime, we referred to it as helicopter money, as described by Milton Friedman in the early 1970s and then highlighted by Ben Bernanke after the tech bubble as a policy that could always be employed to avoid a deflationary bust. Handing out checks to people is a fairly radical policy, however, the COVID pandemic was the perfect emergency to try it. 
The policy shift worked so well to keep the economy afloat during the lockdowns that the government decided to double down on the strategy by doing an additional $3 trillion of direct fiscal spending in the first quarter of 2021. This excessive fiscal policy is why money supply growth increased to a record level at 25% year-over-year in early 2021, and why we finally got the inflation central banks had been trying so hard to achieve post the great financial crisis. After the financial crisis, the velocity of money collapsed, while the Fed's balance sheet ballooned to levels never seen before. The reason we didn't get inflation in that initial episode of quantitative easing is because the money created remained trapped in bank reserves rather than in a real economy where it could drive excess demand in higher prices, a dynamic that's been obviously very different this time. 
Fortunately, the Fed is responding to this generationally high inflation with the most aggressive tightening of monetary policy in 40 years. But this is the definition of fiscal dominance, monetary policy is beholden to the whims of fiscal policy. First, it had to be overly supportive and fund the record deficits in 2020 and 21, and then it had to react with historically tighter policy once inflation got out of control. Back in 2020, we turned very bullish on equities on this shift of fiscal dominance and also subsequently indicated it would lead to a period of hotter but shorter economic earning cycles, mainly because the Fed would not have the same flexibility to proactively try to extend economic expansions. We also argued that catching these cycles on both the upside and downside would be critical for equity investors to outperform. From 2020 to 2022, we found ourselves on the right side of that dynamic both up and down, this year, not so much. Part of the reason we found ourselves offsides this year is due to the very large fiscal impulse restarting last year and remaining quite strong in 2023. In fact, we have rarely ever seen such large deficits when the unemployment rate is so low and inflation well above target. 
If fiscal policy is showing little constraint in good times, what happens to the deficit when the next recession arrives? The main takeaway for the equity market this year is that fiscal policy has allowed the economy to grow faster than forecasted and has given rise to the consensus view that the risk of recession has faded considerably. Furthermore, with the recent lifting of the debt ceiling until 2025, this aggressive fiscal spending could continue. However, the sustainability of such fiscal policy is the primary reason why Fitch recently downgraded the U.S. Treasury debt. Combined with the substantial increase in the supply of Treasury notes and bonds expected to fund these government expenditures, bond markets have sold off considerably this past month. This should start to call into question the valuations of equities, which were already high even before this recent rise in yields. Furthermore, if fiscal spending must be curtailed due to either higher political or funding costs, the unfinished earnings decline that began last year is more likely to resume as our forecast is still predicting. Equity markets seem to have noticed, with many of the best performing stocks correcting by 10% or more. Even if one is bullish on stocks, such a correction was necessary to reset investor exuberance. The challenge will come this fall if growth fails to materialize as now expected. In that case, a healthy 5 to 10% pullback may turn into the much more significant correction we were expecting to occur in the first half of this year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/z9ld3XLEbPlt6DbIVc3brZac7Bu7IOpokM8sY5aG_EIMon, 14 Aug 2023 20:30:56 +0000gtyWhile the Fed fights generationally high inflation, the U.S. economy continues to grow, supported by high levels of spending. This has affected both the bond and equity markets. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, August 14, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
At the trough of the pandemic recession in April 2020, we first introduced our thesis that the health care emergency would usher in a new era of fiscal policy. The result would be higher inflation than monetary policy was able to attain on its own over the prior decade. In the first phase of this new policy regime, we referred to it as helicopter money, as described by Milton Friedman in the early 1970s and then highlighted by Ben Bernanke after the tech bubble as a policy that could always be employed to avoid a deflationary bust. Handing out checks to people is a fairly radical policy, however, the COVID pandemic was the perfect emergency to try it. 
The policy shift worked so well to keep the economy afloat during the lockdowns that the government decided to double down on the strategy by doing an additional $3 trillion of direct fiscal spending in the first quarter of 2021. This excessive fiscal policy is why money supply growth increased to a record level at 25% year-over-year in early 2021, and why we finally got the inflation central banks had been trying so hard to achieve post the great financial crisis. After the financial crisis, the velocity of money collapsed, while the Fed's balance sheet ballooned to levels never seen before. The reason we didn't get inflation in that initial episode of quantitative easing is because the money created remained trapped in bank reserves rather than in a real economy where it could drive excess demand in higher prices, a dynamic that's been obviously very different this time. 
Fortunately, the Fed is responding to this generationally high inflation with the most aggressive tightening of monetary policy in 40 years. But this is the definition of fiscal dominance, monetary policy is beholden to the whims of fiscal policy. First, it had to be overly supportive and fund the record deficits in 2020 and 21, and then it had to react with historically tighter policy once inflation got out of control. Back in 2020, we turned very bullish on equities on this shift of fiscal dominance and also subsequently indicated it would lead to a period of hotter but shorter economic earning cycles, mainly because the Fed would not have the same flexibility to proactively try to extend economic expansions. We also argued that catching these cycles on both the upside and downside would be critical for equity investors to outperform. From 2020 to 2022, we found ourselves on the right side of that dynamic both up and down, this year, not so much. Part of the reason we found ourselves offsides this year is due to the very large fiscal impulse restarting last year and remaining quite strong in 2023. In fact, we have rarely ever seen such large deficits when the unemployment rate is so low and inflation well above target. 
If fiscal policy is showing little constraint in good times, what happens to the deficit when the next recession arrives? The main takeaway for the equity market this year is that fiscal policy has allowed the economy to grow faster than forecasted and has given rise to the consensus view that the risk of recession has faded considerably. Furthermore, with the recent lifting of the debt ceiling until 2025, this aggressive fiscal spending could continue. However, the sustainability of such fiscal policy is the primary reason why Fitch recently downgraded the U.S. Treasury debt. Combined with the substantial increase in the supply of...]]>266false932fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-equities-valuations-still-matter--75653321----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing what's been happening year to date in markets and what might lie ahead. It's Friday, August 11th at 1 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 8am here in New York City. 
Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, it's great to have you here. I think it's safe to say that as a strategy group, we at Morgan Stanley have been cautious on this year. But I also think this is a pretty remarkable year. As you look back at your experience with investing, can you kind of help put 2023 in context of just how unusual and maybe surprising this year has been? 
Lisa Shalett: You know, I think one of the the key attributes of 2023 is, quite frankly, not only the extraordinarily low odds that history would put on the United States Federal Reserve being able to, quote unquote, thread the needle and deliver what appears to be an economic soft landing where the vast and most rapid increase in rates alongside quantitative tightening has exacted essentially no toll on the unemployment rate in the United States or, quite frankly, average economic vigor. United States GDP in the second quarter of this year looked to accelerate from the first quarter and came in at a real rate of 2.4%, which most folks would probably describe as average to slightly above average in terms of the long run real growth of the US economy over the last decade. So, you know, in many ways this was such a low odds event just from the jump. I think the second thing that has been perplexing is for folks that are deeply steeped in, kind of, traditional analytic frameworks and long run correlative and predictive variables, the degree to which the number of models have failed is, quite frankly,  the most profound in my career. So we've seen some real differences between how the S&P 500 has been valued, the multiple expansion that we have seen and things like real rates, real rates have traditionally pushed overall valuation multiples down. And that has not been the case. And, you know, I think markets always do, quote unquote climb the wall of worry. But I think as we, you know, get some distance from this period, I think we're also going to understand the unique backdrop against which this cycle is playing out and, you know, perhaps gaining a little bit more of an understanding around how did the crisis and the economic shocks of COVID change the labor markets perhaps permanently. How did the degree to which stimulus came into the system create a sequencing, if you will, between the manufacturing side of the economy and the services side of the economy that has created what we might call rolling slowdowns or rolling recessions, that when mathematically summed together obscure some of those trends and absorb them and kind of create a flat, flattish, or soft landing as we've experienced. 
Andrew Sheets: How are you thinking about the valuation picture in the market right now? And then I kind of want to get your thoughts about how you think valuations should determine strategy going forward. 
Lisa Shalett: So this is a fantastic question because, you know, very often I'm sitting in front of clients who are, you know, very anxious about the next quarter, the next year. And while I think you and I can agree that there certainly are these anomalous periods where valuations do appear to be disconnecting from both interest rates and even earnings trends, they don't tend to be persistent states. And so when we look at current valuations just in the United States, if you said you're looking at a market that is trading at 20x earnings the implication is that the earnings yield or your earnings return from that investment is estimated at roughly 5%. In a world where fixed income instruments and credit instruments are delivering that plus at historic volatilities that are potentially half or even a third of what equities are, you can kind of make the argument that on a sharp ratio basis, stocks don't look great. Now, that's not all stocks. Clearly, all stocks are not selling at 20x forward multiples. But the point is we do have to think about valuation because in the long run, it does matter. 
Andrew Sheets: I guess looking ahead, as you think about the more highly valued parts of the market, where do you think that thinking might most likely apply, as in the current valuation, even if it looks expensive, might be more defendable? And where would you be most concerned? 
Lisa Shalett: I think we have to, you know, take a step back and think about where some of the richest valuations are sitting. And they're sitting in, you know, some of the megacap consumer tech companies that have really dominated the cycle over the last, you know, 14, 15 years. So we have to think about a couple of things. The first is we have to think about, you know, the law of large numbers and how hard it is, as companies get bigger and bigger, for them to sustain the growth rates that they have. There will never be companies as dominant as, you know, certain banks. There will never be companies that are as dominant as the industrials. There will never be companies that are as dominant as health care. I mean, there's always this view that winners who achieve this kind of incumbent status are incumbent forever. And yet history radically dispels that notion, right? I think the second thing that we need to understand is very often when you get these type of valuations on megacap companies, they become, you know, the increased subject of government and regulatory scrutiny, not only for their market power and their dominance, but quite frankly for things around their pricing power, etc. The last thing that I would say is that, you know, what's unique about some of the megacap consumer tech companies today that I don't hear anyone talking about, is this idea that increasingly they're bumping up against each other. It's one thing when, you know, you are an e-commerce innovator who is rolling up retail against smaller, fragmented operators. It's quite another when it's, you know, three companies own the cloud, seven companies own streaming. And I don't hear anyone really talking about it head on. It's as if these markets grow inexorably and there's, you know, room for everyone to gain share. And I push back on some of those notions.
Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, I'd like to ask you in closing about what we think investors should do going forward. And to start, within one's equity portfolio, where do you currently see the better risk reward? 
Lisa Shalett: So we're looking at where are the areas where earnings have the potential to surprise on the upside, and where perhaps the multiples are a little bit more forgiving. So where are we finding some of that? Number one, we're finding it in energy right now. I think while there's been a lot of high fiving and enthusiasm around the degree to which headline inflation has been tamed, I think that if you, you know, kind of look underneath the surface, dynamics for supply and demand in the energy complex are beginning to stabilize and may in fact be showing some strength, especially if the global economy is stronger in 2024. A second area is in some of the large cap financials. I think that some of the large cap financials are underestimated for not only their diversity, but their ability to actually have some leverage if in fact global growth is somewhat stronger. We also think that there may be opportunities in things like residential REITs. There's been, you know, concern about that area, but we also know that the supply demand dynamics in US housing are in fact quite different this cycle. And last but certainly not least, I think that there are a series of themes around fiscal spending, around infrastructure, around decarbonization, around some of the the reconfiguration of supply chains that involves some of the less glamorous parts of the market, like utilities, like, you know, some of the industrials companies that have some very interesting potential growth attributes to them that that may not be fully priced as well. 
Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk.   Lisa Shalett: Absolutely, Andrew. Always a pleasure. 
Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pD5AIFYNl3TiGR8p6_C_AwhEcvH5k9R7cOpv-DREK3kFri, 11 Aug 2023 23:34:09 +0000gtyWhile the Fed navigates a soft landing for the U.S. economy and stock valuations remain high, how can investors navigate the risks and rewards of a surprisingly strong equity market? Lisa Shalett is Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Chief Investment...----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing what's been happening year to date in markets and what might lie ahead. It's Friday, August 11th at 1 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 8am here in New York City. 
Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, it's great to have you here. I think it's safe to say that as a strategy group, we at Morgan Stanley have been cautious on this year. But I also think this is a pretty remarkable year. As you look back at your experience with investing, can you kind of help put 2023 in context of just how unusual and maybe surprising this year has been? 
Lisa Shalett: You know, I think one of the the key attributes of 2023 is, quite frankly, not only the extraordinarily low odds that history would put on the United States Federal Reserve being able to, quote unquote, thread the needle and deliver what appears to be an economic soft landing where the vast and most rapid increase in rates alongside quantitative tightening has exacted essentially no toll on the unemployment rate in the United States or, quite frankly, average economic vigor. United States GDP in the second quarter of this year looked to accelerate from the first quarter and came in at a real rate of 2.4%, which most folks would probably describe as average to slightly above average in terms of the long run real growth of the US economy over the last decade. So, you know, in many ways this was such a low odds event just from the jump. I think the second thing that has been perplexing is for folks that are deeply steeped in, kind of, traditional analytic frameworks and long run correlative and predictive variables, the degree to which the number of models have failed is, quite frankly,  the most profound in my career. So we've seen some real differences between how the S&P 500 has been valued, the multiple expansion that we have seen and things like real rates, real rates have traditionally pushed overall valuation multiples down. And that has not been the case. And, you know, I think markets always do, quote unquote climb the wall of worry. But I think as we, you know, get some distance from this period, I think we're also going to understand the unique backdrop against which this cycle is playing out and, you know, perhaps gaining a little bit more of an understanding around how did the crisis and the economic shocks of COVID change the labor markets perhaps permanently. How did the degree to which stimulus came into the system create a sequencing, if you will, between the manufacturing side of the economy and the services side of the economy that has created what we might call rolling slowdowns or rolling recessions, that when mathematically summed together obscure some of those trends and absorb them and kind of create a flat, flattish, or soft landing as we've experienced. 
Andrew Sheets: How are you thinking about the valuation picture in the market right now? And then I kind of want to get your thoughts about how you think valuations should determine strategy going forward. 
Lisa Shalett: So this is a fantastic question because, you know, very often I'm sitting in front of clients who are, you know, very anxious about the next quarter, the next year. And while I think you and I can agree that there certainly are these anomalous periods where valuations do appear to be disconnecting from both interest rates and even earnings trends, they don't tend to...]]>574false931fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/pharmaceuticals-the-investment-opportunity-in-obesity-treatment--75653331----- Transcript -----Mark Purcell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. 
Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Biopharma Team. 
Mark Purcell: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll give you an update on the global obesity challenge. It's Thursday, the 10th of August, and it's 1 p.m. in London. 
Terence Flynn: And 8 a.m. in New York. 
Terence Flynn: Now, a year ago, we came on the show to discuss our views on the global obesity challenge, and the problem has since received significant media attention. We believe that the narrative around obesity has indeed changed, with a more empathetic media tone, exponential social media growth and increased recognition across health care professionals and policymakers. Mark, what exactly happened over the last year? 
Mark Purcell: Well, Terence I mean the uptake of obesity medicines in the US has been much stronger than we anticipated. In fact, obesity drug demand has outstripped supply, as you said, driven by social media activity, but also a rapid expansion in reimbursement. When we look back, about 12 million individuals suffering with obesity were covered by insurance and employee opt-ins for the first generation of these appetite suppressing medicines. For newer, higher efficacy GLP-1 medicines, about 40 million lives are covered, and that is more than the estimated number of individuals living with diabetes in the US, which is projected to be about 37 million. 
Terence Flynn: Great. Thanks, Mark. Now the greater focus on weight management has spilled over into an increasingly weight centric approach to treating diabetes. What changes are you seeing and how are they impacting the industry? 
Mark Purcell: Terence you're absolutely right. Look, for many years, treatment guidelines for diabetes focused on blood sugar control only. Just before the pandemic, there was an increasing focus on controlling cardiovascular risks as w ell, such as preventing heart attacks. In the past 12 months, there's been increased focus on weight management for diabetes, which can help prevent the progression of diabetes and potentially reverse the course of the disease if you catch it early enough. It's estimated about 40% of GLP-1 prescriptions in the US are for patients early in the course of their disease. These dynamics have driven a profound acceleration in the uptake of GLP-1 medicines in diabetes, and we now project GLP-1 sales in diabetes alone to exceed $56 billion in 2030. 
Terence Flynn: Mark, I know this SELECT trial has been a focus and this was the first large randomized trial to test whether long term treatment with a weight loss drug can meaningfully improve patients cardiovascular health. Now, this trial appears just to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to market expansion. Maybe you could walk us through your thoughts on the recent data. 
Mark Purcell: Yeah, thanks Terence. I mean, SELECT is a really important obesity landmark study. It addresses the question does weight management save lives? The trial was designed to show a 17% reduction in the risk of heart attacks and strokes and cardiovascular deaths in non-diabetic individuals suffering from obesity who are treated with GLP-1 medicines. And we just got the data top line the other day, and in fact, these medicines are showing a 20% reduction in heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular death. As you said, I mean, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to new growth opportunities for weight loss medicines, with positive data to be presented at the American Heart Association meeting in November, the SELECT data and also data in heart failure, and then next year we get exciting data in obstructive sleep apnea, in chronic kidney disease and also in peripheral arterial disease. Back to you, Terence. What is your outlook for the size of the obesity market in the US and globally over the next 5 to 10 years? 
Terence Flynn: Thanks, Mark. As you mentioned earlier, the uptake of obesity medicines in the US over the last year has been stronger than we anticipated. There have been some supply chain shortages that have capped an acceleration uptake in the US, and delayed the rollout of these medicines outside of the US. But a number of companies are making significant manufacturing investments today which will help improve supply on a global basis, but also create barriers to entry in the future. We're projecting that sales of the new obesity medicines in the US would have exceeded $7 billion this year, if the supply challenges had not been an issue. But if we extrapolate these strong early dynamics in the US, we project the global obesity market could reach over $70 billion in 2030. Our prior estimate was over $50 billion. 
Mark Purcell: And Terence, are there any regional differences between Europe and the US and possibly other parts of the world? 
Terence Flynn: Now, the majority of the upgrade, Mark, to our forecasts really centered on our US assumption. And this reflects the limited rollout of these drugs in other countries, in part due to supply constraints I mentioned, but also lack of visibility with respect to demand and payer dynamics across different regions. In the future, we do expect this to change, as I mentioned, given improving supply dynamics, improving reimbursement and the rollout of newer oral options that could also help improve global access. 
Mark Purcell: So where are we in terms of GLP-1 obesity medicine prices, when it comes to the consumer and when it comes to insurance reimbursement? 
Terence Flynn: Yeah, thanks, Mark. I mean, the injectable GLP medicines right now for diabetes are priced at about $900 to $1000 per month here in the US, but net prices are more in the $500 per month range. Now, in obesity, these drugs do cost somewhat more, but over time prices could converge lower. Now, insurance coverage, as you mentioned, Mark, is still a work in progress with over 40 million people now covered. But in our view, the SELECT data, in conjunction with legislation, could really help to expand coverage further. Going back to you, Mark, what's next in the pipeline for these GLP-1 medicines? 
Mark Purcell: The key focus is if the industry's pipeline at the moment are combination approaches and new ways to deliver these medicines. We've previously drawn parallels between how the high blood pressure market evolved in the 1980s and how we expect the obesity market to develop in the future, where combining different mechanisms can lead to better and more consistent treatment approaches. In obesity, targeting liver fat and lean body mass, these are things that can improve the quality of weight loss. There are a number of oral treatment approaches in development as well now, which we expect to broaden the appeal of GLP-1 medicines to a new audience, so really, it's an exciting time in the obesity global challenge. 
Mark Purcell: Terence, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Terence Flynn: Great speaking with you, Mark. 
Mark Purcell: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/h4SQD4IKYygjM_pYjJYAfH1gmrIhhl-2sOQyaJX04f8Thu, 10 Aug 2023 21:18:19 +0000gtyA recent landmark study around weight-loss medicine could spark near-term growth opportunities in pharmaceuticals. ----- Transcript -----Mark Purcell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European...----- Transcript -----Mark Purcell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. 
Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Biopharma Team. 
Mark Purcell: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll give you an update on the global obesity challenge. It's Thursday, the 10th of August, and it's 1 p.m. in London. 
Terence Flynn: And 8 a.m. in New York. 
Terence Flynn: Now, a year ago, we came on the show to discuss our views on the global obesity challenge, and the problem has since received significant media attention. We believe that the narrative around obesity has indeed changed, with a more empathetic media tone, exponential social media growth and increased recognition across health care professionals and policymakers. Mark, what exactly happened over the last year? 
Mark Purcell: Well, Terence I mean the uptake of obesity medicines in the US has been much stronger than we anticipated. In fact, obesity drug demand has outstripped supply, as you said, driven by social media activity, but also a rapid expansion in reimbursement. When we look back, about 12 million individuals suffering with obesity were covered by insurance and employee opt-ins for the first generation of these appetite suppressing medicines. For newer, higher efficacy GLP-1 medicines, about 40 million lives are covered, and that is more than the estimated number of individuals living with diabetes in the US, which is projected to be about 37 million. 
Terence Flynn: Great. Thanks, Mark. Now the greater focus on weight management has spilled over into an increasingly weight centric approach to treating diabetes. What changes are you seeing and how are they impacting the industry? 
Mark Purcell: Terence you're absolutely right. Look, for many years, treatment guidelines for diabetes focused on blood sugar control only. Just before the pandemic, there was an increasing focus on controlling cardiovascular risks as w ell, such as preventing heart attacks. In the past 12 months, there's been increased focus on weight management for diabetes, which can help prevent the progression of diabetes and potentially reverse the course of the disease if you catch it early enough. It's estimated about 40% of GLP-1 prescriptions in the US are for patients early in the course of their disease. These dynamics have driven a profound acceleration in the uptake of GLP-1 medicines in diabetes, and we now project GLP-1 sales in diabetes alone to exceed $56 billion in 2030. 
Terence Flynn: Mark, I know this SELECT trial has been a focus and this was the first large randomized trial to test whether long term treatment with a weight loss drug can meaningfully improve patients cardiovascular health. Now, this trial appears just to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to market expansion. Maybe you could walk us through your thoughts on the recent data. 
Mark Purcell: Yeah, thanks Terence. I mean, SELECT is a really important obesity landmark study. It addresses the question does weight management save lives? The trial was designed to show a 17% reduction in the risk of heart attacks and strokes and cardiovascular deaths in non-diabetic individuals suffering from obesity who are treated with GLP-1 medicines. And we just got the data top line the other day, and in fact, these medicines are showing a 20% reduction in heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular death. As you said, I mean, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to new growth opportunities for weight loss medicines, with positive data to be presented at the American Heart Association meeting in November, the SELECT data and also data in heart failure, and then next year we get exciting data in obstructive sleep apnea, in chronic kidney disease and also in...]]>395false930fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-impact-of-new-investment-limitations-in-china--75653118----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about developments in the US-China economic relationship. It's Wednesday, August 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
News this week broke that the U.S. government is close to finalizing rules that would limit U.S. investment into China related to cutting edge tech sectors, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The long awaited move, which we've discussed many times on this podcast, is yet another sign that the rewiring of the global economic system continues, transitioning from one of globalization to that of a multipolar world. 
But when news breaks like this, it's helpful to remember that the headlines can sound worse than the reality. Yes, it's likely that the global economy, and therefore markets, would be better off if the U.S. and China could find a way to deepen their economic ties, but the fraying of those ties need not be a substantial negative either. And these new outbound investment restrictions are a great example of that point. 
The proposed rule will, reportedly, restrict investment in companies who derive more than half their revenue from the sensitive technologies in question. Effectively, that means the U.S. will mostly be concerned with U.S. investors not funding development of new technology through startups. It could potentially leave the door open for more traditional forms of U.S. investment into China, namely through working with larger companies on market access and supply chain solutions. 
So while many companies are still likely to seek diversification away from China for their supply chains, they still have the ability to do this over time, as opposed to an abrupt decoupling that investors would likely see as carrying much greater risk to the global economy and markets. 
So, this gives investors a better chance to identify the opportunities that emerge as companies and governments spend money to adopt to these new constraints. Security as an investment theme is something we see potential in, with the defense sector and many industrial subsectors as beneficiaries. Geographically, we see Mexico, India and broader Asia as best positioned to capture investment and jobs from supply chain realignment, given their labor costs and proximity to key end markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/I7uSaMYwWmi-RMJOAXuSYo78T-G_LyDkdsqg29aqCkoWed, 09 Aug 2023 19:26:41 +0000gtyForthcoming U.S. restrictions on some tech investments in China may present new opportunities as companies adapt to these constraints. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about developments in the US-China economic relationship. It's Wednesday, August 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
News this week broke that the U.S. government is close to finalizing rules that would limit U.S. investment into China related to cutting edge tech sectors, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The long awaited move, which we've discussed many times on this podcast, is yet another sign that the rewiring of the global economic system continues, transitioning from one of globalization to that of a multipolar world. 
But when news breaks like this, it's helpful to remember that the headlines can sound worse than the reality. Yes, it's likely that the global economy, and therefore markets, would be better off if the U.S. and China could find a way to deepen their economic ties, but the fraying of those ties need not be a substantial negative either. And these new outbound investment restrictions are a great example of that point. 
The proposed rule will, reportedly, restrict investment in companies who derive more than half their revenue from the sensitive technologies in question. Effectively, that means the U.S. will mostly be concerned with U.S. investors not funding development of new technology through startups. It could potentially leave the door open for more traditional forms of U.S. investment into China, namely through working with larger companies on market access and supply chain solutions. 
So while many companies are still likely to seek diversification away from China for their supply chains, they still have the ability to do this over time, as opposed to an abrupt decoupling that investors would likely see as carrying much greater risk to the global economy and markets. 
So, this gives investors a better chance to identify the opportunities that emerge as companies and governments spend money to adopt to these new constraints. Security as an investment theme is something we see potential in, with the defense sector and many industrial subsectors as beneficiaries. Geographically, we see Mexico, India and broader Asia as best positioned to capture investment and jobs from supply chain realignment, given their labor costs and proximity to key end markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>150false929fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/social-investing-the-future-of-sustainability--75654750----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Mike Canfield: And I'm Mike Camfield, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research. Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the social factors within the environmental, social and governance framework, or ESG, as a source of compelling opportunities for investors. It's Tuesday, August 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Mike Canfield: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Stephen Byrd: At Morgan Stanley Research. We believe that investing in social impact is critical to addressing some of the most pressing challenges facing our world today, such as inequality, poverty, lack of access to health care and education, and the repercussions of climate change. Traditional methods like philanthropy and government aid are a piece of the puzzle, but alone they can't address with the breadth and scale of these issues. So, Mike, looking back over the last couple of decades, investors have sometimes struggled with the social component of ESG investing. Some of the main challenges have been around data availability, the potential for social washing and the capacity to influence systemic change. How are market views on social investing changing right now, and what's driving this shift? 
Mike Canfield: It has historically been quite easy for investors to dismiss social, it's too subjective, too hard to measure, overly qualitative, and perhaps not even material in moving share prices. Increasingly, we do find investors recognize the vast and intractable social problems we face, whether that's structural shifts in workforces with countries like Korea, Japan and large parts of Europe projecting working age population decline by double digit percentage in the next 15 to 20 years, significant growth in urbanization or growing middle class populations in countries around the world. Investors also increasingly understand the interconnectivity of stakeholders across society, be that supranational organizations or governments or the corporate world, or even citizens themselves. Concurrently, it's becoming clear that corporate purpose and culture are critical considerations for prospective and current employees, as well as end customers themselves who are prepared to vote with both their wallets and their feet. All that said, we do note the overall impact at EM has garnered in 18% kagger over the last five years to nearly $213 billion with the Global Impact Investing Network pointing out that over 60% of impact investors are targeting some of the UN's socially focused SDGs. Notably goal eight around decent growth, goal five, around gender equality, goal ten around reduced inequalities broadly and goal three good health and well-being. In terms of drivers, we're seeing the realization rapidly dawning amongst investors that the profound changes underway in society and the climate will drive the need for innovative, socially focused solutions in a number of sectors, from health care to finance to infrastructure, as well as significant challenges to resilience and adaptation for industries around the world. With huge shifts in demographics coming whether through urbanization or migration, aging populations in some countries or declining fertility rates, the investing landscape is set to change dramatically across sectors, with change manifesting in anything from shifting consumer preferences to education access and outcomes to greater need for assistive technologies, to substantial food production issues, to financial system access and inclusion, or even simply addressing rapidly increasing demand for basic services and clean energy. 
Stephen Byrd: Thanks, Mike. So what are some of the core themes in social investing? 
Mike Canfield: Yeah in our recent social skills notes, we did identify five truly global, fast growing and compelling investment themes you can focus on under the broad umbrella of what we would call social investing. Firstly, access to health care, which includes but obviously not limited to pharmaceuticals, vaccines, orthopedics, medical devices, elderly care, sanitation and hygiene, women's health and sexual health. Secondly, nutrition and fitness, which encompasses things like infant nutrition, healthy or healthier food and beverage options, alternative proteins, food safety and food packaging. Thirdly, social infrastructure, which includes mobility, digital and communication systems, connectivity, health care and education facilities, community and affordable housing and access to clean energy. Fourthly, education and reskilling, which includes everything from pre-K, K-12, higher education, corporate and lifelong learning. Our colleague Brenda recently wrote on the potential $8 trillion opportunity in these markets. And finally, right inclusive finance, which encompasses microfinance, financial infrastructure, mobile digital banking, banking for underserved communities, fintech solutions and provision of financial services to SMEs. So Stephen, do you think any industries or regions stand out as leaders or laggards perhaps when it comes to social investing? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, Mike, when I think about industries leading, I do think education really stands out. And I think we all recognize that education is really one of the pillars of a productive, well-functioning society, but it does face an array of challenges. A quality education can promote democracy, help communities elevate their social and economic status, and drive innovation in the economy, and yet, over the past few years, multiple issues in education, which were really exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic, have hampered equitable progress in society across markets, regions and communities. In our note this past May on education innovators, we really focus on these issues as fields of opportunity for investment in innovation. An example would be improving the quality of the learning experience. The pandemic was an especially disruptive period for K-12 education, leaving a learning deficit that could linger for an entire generation, especially for groups that were already disadvantaged. The pandemic also highlighted the need for more robust lifelong learning opportunities beyond the traditional classroom. We expect to see players that are able to service these needs, best meet market demand. And Mike, in terms of reasons that stand out. A key issue that you highlighted before is data availability. And I would note that really Europe has led the way in terms of best in class disclosure. So Mike, social considerations have historically been viewed as overly qualitative rather than quantitative, but our research has shown a variety of ways in which the S-pillar can closely link to company fundamentals. Could you walk through some of these? 
Mike Canfield: Yeah, absolutely, Stephen, I think the starting point for our research was this notion that you can both do good and do well. The values in value based investing can be combined to deliver alpha and positive social impact at the same time. So one of the ways we think to approach this is to assess the corporate culture and its that that forms the first pillar of our forces social investing framework. At its heart, company culture pertains to the shared values, attitudes, practices and standards that shape a work environment and the strategy for business. In our analysis, we want to establish a holistic view of why a company exists, what it's doing to contribute positively towards society, how it's managed, and where its most material social related opportunities and risks lie. In doing that, we've established a data driven, objective process to evaluate culture using eight core components across five performance linked indicators, which are Glassdoor ratings, shareholder voting against management or proprietary, her school employee turnover and board gender diversity. And three engagement focus indicators. The trend in employee diversity, whether the company has a supplier code of conduct in place, and violations of the UN's Global Compact. These data sets are readily available and repeatable, giving a clear view of companies relationship with both its internal and its external stakeholders. Steven, How do you think investors can think about social investing more systematically, can you elaborate a little more on the 4 C's framework? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah happy to Mike, I think you really touched on culture in a very comprehensive way. I really do think it's important that the performance related KPIs that you laid out really do show very clear performance differential between top and bottom quartiles. I want to move on to the second of the C's. This is Cultivate. And here we really focus on three so-called AIM lenses. The first is additionality. This is really the notion of generating positive social outcomes or impacts that otherwise would not have materialized. So finally, Mike, how does A.I play into social investing? 
Mike Canfield: Everyone's favorite acronym at the moment, clearly something that we can't ignore. We do believe there's a very real potential for us to be at the start of another economic revolution, driven by rapid technological evolution in AI. The so-called third industrial revolution, otherwise known as the digital revolution, brought with it transformational technologies in cell phones and the Internet, increased interconnectivity, greater industrial productivity and vastly greater accessibility of information. AI looks to play a central role in the fourth Industrial Revolution. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, popularized that term back in 2015 when he suggested that AI and advanced robotics co]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ogUmpJviP5vh8xxwbNp8eV2Y9QCxG4y_NF6QR2yK6JkTue, 08 Aug 2023 21:45:48 +0000gtyThe profound demographic changes underway in countries around the world will require innovative, socially focused solutions in sectors including health care, finance and infrastructure. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Mike Canfield: And I'm Mike Camfield, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research. Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the social factors within the environmental, social and governance framework, or ESG, as a source of compelling opportunities for investors. It's Tuesday, August 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Mike Canfield: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Stephen Byrd: At Morgan Stanley Research. We believe that investing in social impact is critical to addressing some of the most pressing challenges facing our world today, such as inequality, poverty, lack of access to health care and education, and the repercussions of climate change. Traditional methods like philanthropy and government aid are a piece of the puzzle, but alone they can't address with the breadth and scale of these issues. So, Mike, looking back over the last couple of decades, investors have sometimes struggled with the social component of ESG investing. Some of the main challenges have been around data availability, the potential for social washing and the capacity to influence systemic change. How are market views on social investing changing right now, and what's driving this shift? 
Mike Canfield: It has historically been quite easy for investors to dismiss social, it's too subjective, too hard to measure, overly qualitative, and perhaps not even material in moving share prices. Increasingly, we do find investors recognize the vast and intractable social problems we face, whether that's structural shifts in workforces with countries like Korea, Japan and large parts of Europe projecting working age population decline by double digit percentage in the next 15 to 20 years, significant growth in urbanization or growing middle class populations in countries around the world. Investors also increasingly understand the interconnectivity of stakeholders across society, be that supranational organizations or governments or the corporate world, or even citizens themselves. Concurrently, it's becoming clear that corporate purpose and culture are critical considerations for prospective and current employees, as well as end customers themselves who are prepared to vote with both their wallets and their feet. All that said, we do note the overall impact at EM has garnered in 18% kagger over the last five years to nearly $213 billion with the Global Impact Investing Network pointing out that over 60% of impact investors are targeting some of the UN's socially focused SDGs. Notably goal eight around decent growth, goal five, around gender equality, goal ten around reduced inequalities broadly and goal three good health and well-being. In terms of drivers, we're seeing the realization rapidly dawning amongst investors that the profound changes underway in society and the climate will drive the need for innovative, socially focused solutions in a number of sectors, from health care to finance to infrastructure, as well as significant challenges to resilience and adaptation for industries around the world. With huge shifts in demographics coming whether through urbanization or migration, aging populations in some countries or declining fertility rates, the investing landscape is set to change dramatically across sectors, with change manifesting in anything from shifting consumer preferences to education access and outcomes to greater need for assistive technologies, to substantial food production issues, to financial system access and inclusion, or even simply addressing rapidly increasing demand for basic services and clean energy. 
Stephen Byrd: Thanks, Mike. So what are some of the core themes in...]]>582false928fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-u-s-housing-market-remains-tight-for-buyers--75654739----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the state of the housing market. It's Monday, August 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: We recently did a deep dive into the global housing market and found that cyclical housing headwinds are significant but approaching a peak globally. And there are a few important things to keep in mind when thinking about this housing cycle. First is that higher interest rates and high home prices have kept affordability low. Second, housing is undersupplied in most economies. And third, there is a big gap between new and existing mortgages. Jim, can you start by talking us through how the structure of U.S. mortgages are different from what's common in other parts of the world? 
Jim Egan: Absolutely. So the structure of various mortgage markets has important implications for the pass through of monetary policy changes. And average mortgage terms vary significantly across the globe, from roughly 70% adjustable rate in Australia on one end to nearly all 30 year fixed rate mortgages here in the United States. Though we would say the duration has generally lengthened post the great financial crisis for most economies. Longer duration mortgages lower the sensitivity of housing markets to the policy rate, both in terms of timing and cyclicality. But for the U.S., that 30 year fixed rate, fully amortizing mortgage that's freely repayable at any point in time with no penalty to the borrower, that's a unique feature for our mortgage market. And it's something that's made possible by the fact that roughly 2/3 of that $13 trillion mortgage market is guaranteed by the U.S. government. And that in turn contributes to the sizable and relatively liquid securitization market, which effectively democratizes the risk across a much broader range of investors than just the lenders themselves. 
Michelle Weaver: And how have high mortgage rates impacted home sales in the U.S.? If someone's looking to buy a home, are they able to even find listings? 
Jim Egan: I think that's an important question, and that's really contributed to our bifurcated housing narrative that we've discussed on this podcast in the past. Mortgage rates go up, affordability deteriorates, but not for current homeowners. They become very locked in at that lower rate and disincentivized to really list their home for sale, and that's why we've seen existing listings fall to 40 year lows. We say 40 year lows because that's just as far back as the data goes, this is the lowest we've seen that. If they're not listing their homes for sale, that means that they're also not buying homes on the follow, and that really brings sales volumes down. That's why in the cycle, existing home sales have fallen twice as fast as they did during the great financial crisis, despite the fact that home prices have remained incredibly protected at near those peaks. Now, let me turn it to you, Michelle. You cover U.S. equities and the housing market has many different links to the equity market. When someone buys a new home, they make a lot of associative purchases, like buying new furniture or making improvements around the house. How have home improvement companies fared? 
Michelle Weaver: Sure, so a lot of people made improvements to their houses during COVID to make staying indoors a little bit more comfortable. And post-COVID demand reversion has been a really important driver for the past few years. If you make home improvements one year, you're not going to need to make them again for, you know, several years. And so we think that the reversion of COVID driven overconsumption is largely complete now. Housing prices and housing turnover, these fundamental metrics governing the housing market are likely to resume being the core drivers for the home improvement space from here. 
Jim Egan: Now, banks also have a relationship with the housing market through mortgage lending. What've these higher mortgage rates meant for banks? 
Michelle Weaver: Interest rates are very high and consequently mortgage rates are also very high. And this has put a damper on demand for new mortgages at banks. There's also a large gap between existing mortgage rates and new mortgage rates, like we were discussing earlier. And in the U.S., homeowners refinanced and masked during COVID when mortgage rates were extremely, extremely low and locked in these rates. Now, less than 1% of American mortgages would be considered in the money to refinance or essentially make sense to refinance. So mortgage originations are expected to continue to stay very low. And this means that banks won't be getting this source of revenue from mortgages. 
Jim Egan: Now, that all makes sense on the homeownership side, the mortgage side, but let's think about the reciprocal here a little bit, the rental space. How have high mortgage rates and the lack of supply that we're describing impacted the rental market? 
Michelle Weaver: Definitely, high home prices and lack of availability have made it really tough for first time homebuyers. So people that are on the margin between buying their first house or staying in a rental have had to remain renters. And this has increased rents and been a big tailwind for rentership rates that are the owners of these rental properties. Jim, what do you think is going to happen with affordability in the United States, it's been very poor, are you expecting that to improve and what's going to go on with home prices? 
Jim Egan: Sure. So affordability remains very challenged, but it's not getting worse. On the margin that's probably going to improve a little bit from here, but remain challenged. Supply remains incredibly tight, but it's not getting tighter. We think that we're in a range bound environment here now, Case-Shiller just turned negative on a year-over-year basis for the first time since 2012. And while we expect that to persist for another couple of months, we expect home prices to basically be unchanged from these levels over the coming year. 
Michelle Weaver: Jim, thank you for taking the time to talk. 
Jim Egan: Great speaking with you, Michelle. 
Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WrJhzfmHA3DnY2OW0qAXHUgdwDvhQMFWaRMYAGMSlG0Mon, 07 Aug 2023 21:14:28 +0000gtyThe residential housing market continues to face limited inventory, low affordability and high mortgage rates, but the worst may have passed. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan...----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the state of the housing market. It's Monday, August 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: We recently did a deep dive into the global housing market and found that cyclical housing headwinds are significant but approaching a peak globally. And there are a few important things to keep in mind when thinking about this housing cycle. First is that higher interest rates and high home prices have kept affordability low. Second, housing is undersupplied in most economies. And third, there is a big gap between new and existing mortgages. Jim, can you start by talking us through how the structure of U.S. mortgages are different from what's common in other parts of the world? 
Jim Egan: Absolutely. So the structure of various mortgage markets has important implications for the pass through of monetary policy changes. And average mortgage terms vary significantly across the globe, from roughly 70% adjustable rate in Australia on one end to nearly all 30 year fixed rate mortgages here in the United States. Though we would say the duration has generally lengthened post the great financial crisis for most economies. Longer duration mortgages lower the sensitivity of housing markets to the policy rate, both in terms of timing and cyclicality. But for the U.S., that 30 year fixed rate, fully amortizing mortgage that's freely repayable at any point in time with no penalty to the borrower, that's a unique feature for our mortgage market. And it's something that's made possible by the fact that roughly 2/3 of that $13 trillion mortgage market is guaranteed by the U.S. government. And that in turn contributes to the sizable and relatively liquid securitization market, which effectively democratizes the risk across a much broader range of investors than just the lenders themselves. 
Michelle Weaver: And how have high mortgage rates impacted home sales in the U.S.? If someone's looking to buy a home, are they able to even find listings? 
Jim Egan: I think that's an important question, and that's really contributed to our bifurcated housing narrative that we've discussed on this podcast in the past. Mortgage rates go up, affordability deteriorates, but not for current homeowners. They become very locked in at that lower rate and disincentivized to really list their home for sale, and that's why we've seen existing listings fall to 40 year lows. We say 40 year lows because that's just as far back as the data goes, this is the lowest we've seen that. If they're not listing their homes for sale, that means that they're also not buying homes on the follow, and that really brings sales volumes down. That's why in the cycle, existing home sales have fallen twice as fast as they did during the great financial crisis, despite the fact that home prices have remained incredibly protected at near those peaks. Now, let me turn it to you, Michelle. You cover U.S. equities and the housing market has many different links to the equity market. When someone buys a new home, they make a lot of associative purchases, like buying new furniture or making improvements around the house. How have home improvement companies fared? 
Michelle Weaver: Sure, so a lot of people made improvements to their houses during COVID to make staying indoors a little bit more comfortable. And post-COVID demand reversion has been a really important driver for the past few years. If you make home improvements one year, you're not going to need to make them again for, you know, several years. And so we think that...]]>356false927fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-why-are-rates-up-and-stocks-down--75654716----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 4th at 2 p.m. in London. 
After a placid July, August has opened with a bout of volatility. In one sense, this isn't unusual. July is historically one of the best months of the year for global equity performance, August and September are two of the worst. 
But the way markets have weakened has been more striking. Long term bond yields rose sharply this week, with the U.S. 30 year bond yield rising 27 basis points over the course of the last five days. Long term rates in the UK and Germany also rose sharply. Equity markets fell. 
Those facts are clear and indisputable. But why interest rates rose so much, and whether they're responsible for equity weakness? That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is a lot less clear. 
Indeed, there's more than one driver of last week's events. Maybe it's the Bank of Japan, which late last week raised the effective cap on Japanese government bond yields, which went on to rise sharply over the course of this week. Maybe it's the Fitch rating agency, which on Tuesday downgraded the credit rating of the United States by one notch to AA+. And maybe it's the US economic data, which has been quite strong, something that usually corresponds to higher rates. 
There's also the way that yields have risen. While long term U.S. interest rates rose sharply, shorter two year yields barely budged over the last week and in the UK and Germany, those two year yields actually fell. The large move higher in U.S. rates has also occurred while the market's actually lowered its assumption about long run inflation, another unusual occurrence. 
In reality, the drivers of these recent events might be all of the above. The initial rise in U.S. yields matched the move higher in Japanese rates, almost one for one. But we do think that move in Japanese rates is now mostly complete. The timing of Fitch's downgrade, which was somewhat unusual, given that there hasn't been any recent legislation to change fiscal policy and the fact that it happened at the start of August, a month that often sees less liquidity, might have given it an outsized impact. And the economic data has been good, suggesting that the U.S. economy for now is handling higher rates, a development that would generally support higher yields and a steeper curve. 
And in terms of the global equity reaction, some perspective is probably helpful. While last week saw higher yields and lower prices, since early April, both nominal yields, real yields and global stock prices have all risen together and by quite a bit. Now, it's possible that this relationship between stocks and bonds shifted some this week based on simply how much equity valuations have appreciated, as my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief Equity Strategist, has noted recently. Higher yields make a focus on valuation more important and also make it more essential that good data, the best version of that higher yield story, continues to come through. In bonds, meanwhile, the recent rise in yields is boosting expected returns going forward. On Morgan Stanley's base case forecast, the U.S. ten year Treasury through the middle of 2024 will return over 10%. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts of the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LbW5RQzNc4MFADEc8ogs3DeKRg_4Ierkxyq035GMD8gFri, 04 Aug 2023 20:33:56 +0000gtyMoves by the Bank of Japan, the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and new economic data may all have contributed to a spike in bond yields and fall in stock prices. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 4th at 2 p.m. in London. 
After a placid July, August has opened with a bout of volatility. In one sense, this isn't unusual. July is historically one of the best months of the year for global equity performance, August and September are two of the worst. 
But the way markets have weakened has been more striking. Long term bond yields rose sharply this week, with the U.S. 30 year bond yield rising 27 basis points over the course of the last five days. Long term rates in the UK and Germany also rose sharply. Equity markets fell. 
Those facts are clear and indisputable. But why interest rates rose so much, and whether they're responsible for equity weakness? That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is a lot less clear. 
Indeed, there's more than one driver of last week's events. Maybe it's the Bank of Japan, which late last week raised the effective cap on Japanese government bond yields, which went on to rise sharply over the course of this week. Maybe it's the Fitch rating agency, which on Tuesday downgraded the credit rating of the United States by one notch to AA+. And maybe it's the US economic data, which has been quite strong, something that usually corresponds to higher rates. 
There's also the way that yields have risen. While long term U.S. interest rates rose sharply, shorter two year yields barely budged over the last week and in the UK and Germany, those two year yields actually fell. The large move higher in U.S. rates has also occurred while the market's actually lowered its assumption about long run inflation, another unusual occurrence. 
In reality, the drivers of these recent events might be all of the above. The initial rise in U.S. yields matched the move higher in Japanese rates, almost one for one. But we do think that move in Japanese rates is now mostly complete. The timing of Fitch's downgrade, which was somewhat unusual, given that there hasn't been any recent legislation to change fiscal policy and the fact that it happened at the start of August, a month that often sees less liquidity, might have given it an outsized impact. And the economic data has been good, suggesting that the U.S. economy for now is handling higher rates, a development that would generally support higher yields and a steeper curve. 
And in terms of the global equity reaction, some perspective is probably helpful. While last week saw higher yields and lower prices, since early April, both nominal yields, real yields and global stock prices have all risen together and by quite a bit. Now, it's possible that this relationship between stocks and bonds shifted some this week based on simply how much equity valuations have appreciated, as my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief Equity Strategist, has noted recently. Higher yields make a focus on valuation more important and also make it more essential that good data, the best version of that higher yield story, continues to come through. In bonds, meanwhile, the recent rise in yields is boosting expected returns going forward. On Morgan Stanley's base case forecast, the U.S. ten year Treasury through the middle of 2024 will return over 10%. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts of the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>209false926fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ron-kamdem-bifurcation-in-global-office-real-estate-markets--75654802----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley's U.S. Real Estate Investment Trust and Commercial Real Estate Research. Today, I'll be talking about our outlook for the future of the global office real estate market. It's Thursday, August 3rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
There is more than 6 billion square feet of office space across the globe with value of more than 4 trillion U.S. dollars. Within this vast market, there are clear differences across the regions, ranging from occupancy to design to financing. In the U.S., office real estate fundamentals this cycle appear worse than they were during the great financial crisis of 2008 in terms of occupancy, subleasing activity and office utilization. In fact, overall, U.S. office utilization seems to be stalling at 20 to 55% compared to other regional markets in the 60 to 80% range. This trend will likely remain in place as key U.S. tenants are looking to reduce office space by about 10% over the next three years. Work from home and hybrid arrangements are the biggest drivers, particularly with business services and technology focused firms on the West Coast. In addition, sharp rate hikes and regional bank weakness have driven up loan-to-value ratios in the U.S. versus global peers. 
Looking at other countries, Australia and Mexico may be having similar problems as far as work from home is concerned, but average loan-to-value ratios are much lower, which lenders typically consider a good sign. Mainland China is unique among our coverage markets for having declining rates. Hong Kong seems to be the most undervalued and closer to bottoming, and we prefer it over Singapore, Japan and Australia. In Latin America, we remain on the sidelines. Despite the increase in net absorption growth, the office real estate market is still showing a slow paced recovery from pandemic levels, especially in Mexico. All in all, global office markets remain 10 to 15% oversupplied. 
While higher vacancy is an issue impacting all countries, an important emerging theme across the various region as a bias towards newer and greener buildings. Our channel checks with tenants and landlords suggests that as employees, especially the younger cohorts, choose to work for organizations with strong climate change values, employers will seek to establish offices and more energy efficient buildings. Also, in an effort to encourage office attendance and in-person collaboration, occupiers are gravitating toward younger buildings with more attractive amenities. 
Overall, as we look across regions and countries, one common thread is what we call "bifurcation", that is a widening gap between the class-A prime assets and the rest of the commodity B&C space, which is happening at an accelerating pace. We believe it would take 5 to 13 years for the global office market to return to pre-COVID occupancy levels. However, the class A prime assets can recover in half the time as the rest of the market and newer, greener buildings in particular are likely to be most favored. Bottom line for the U.S looking at fundamentals is that New York and Boston on the East Coast are showing the most resilient trends. Downtown L.A., downtown San Francisco, downtown Seattle and even Chicago are showing the most headwinds, sunbelt markets are somewhere in between but have been lowing. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9yuK42BKXYcny_KFVf7zmvSaerowPkxjSVFX2UcCnI4Thu, 03 Aug 2023 21:58:38 +0000gtyWhile rate hikes and work from home are depressing office real estate in the U.S., the market is vast globally, and there are clear differences across regions and asset types, ranging from occupancy to design to financing. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley's U.S. Real Estate Investment Trust and Commercial Real Estate Research. Today, I'll be talking about our outlook for the future of the global office real estate market. It's Thursday, August 3rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
There is more than 6 billion square feet of office space across the globe with value of more than 4 trillion U.S. dollars. Within this vast market, there are clear differences across the regions, ranging from occupancy to design to financing. In the U.S., office real estate fundamentals this cycle appear worse than they were during the great financial crisis of 2008 in terms of occupancy, subleasing activity and office utilization. In fact, overall, U.S. office utilization seems to be stalling at 20 to 55% compared to other regional markets in the 60 to 80% range. This trend will likely remain in place as key U.S. tenants are looking to reduce office space by about 10% over the next three years. Work from home and hybrid arrangements are the biggest drivers, particularly with business services and technology focused firms on the West Coast. In addition, sharp rate hikes and regional bank weakness have driven up loan-to-value ratios in the U.S. versus global peers. 
Looking at other countries, Australia and Mexico may be having similar problems as far as work from home is concerned, but average loan-to-value ratios are much lower, which lenders typically consider a good sign. Mainland China is unique among our coverage markets for having declining rates. Hong Kong seems to be the most undervalued and closer to bottoming, and we prefer it over Singapore, Japan and Australia. In Latin America, we remain on the sidelines. Despite the increase in net absorption growth, the office real estate market is still showing a slow paced recovery from pandemic levels, especially in Mexico. All in all, global office markets remain 10 to 15% oversupplied. 
While higher vacancy is an issue impacting all countries, an important emerging theme across the various region as a bias towards newer and greener buildings. Our channel checks with tenants and landlords suggests that as employees, especially the younger cohorts, choose to work for organizations with strong climate change values, employers will seek to establish offices and more energy efficient buildings. Also, in an effort to encourage office attendance and in-person collaboration, occupiers are gravitating toward younger buildings with more attractive amenities. 
Overall, as we look across regions and countries, one common thread is what we call "bifurcation", that is a widening gap between the class-A prime assets and the rest of the commodity B&C space, which is happening at an accelerating pace. We believe it would take 5 to 13 years for the global office market to return to pre-COVID occupancy levels. However, the class A prime assets can recover in half the time as the rest of the market and newer, greener buildings in particular are likely to be most favored. Bottom line for the U.S looking at fundamentals is that New York and Boston on the East Coast are showing the most resilient trends. Downtown L.A., downtown San Francisco, downtown Seattle and even Chicago are showing the most headwinds, sunbelt markets are somewhere in between but have been lowing. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>239false925fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-how-will-the-u-s-credit-downgrade-affect-markets--75654853----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the U.S. downgrade to bond markets. It's Wednesday, August 2nd at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Yesterday, one of the three main rating agencies, Fitch, downgraded the U.S's credit rating to AA+ from AAA. The U.S. now only has one AAA rating left. Fitch attributed the change to the US's growing debt burden and a, quote, "erosion of governance", unquote, specifically referring to debt ceiling standoffs over the past decade as a cause for concern. The tone of this language may understandably elicit concern from investors, but practically speaking, does it actually matter? In our view, in the short term, probably not. 
First off, the downgrade doesn't communicate anything investors didn't already know about the level and trajectory of U.S. debt and deficits. Second, it doesn't tell us anything forward looking about arguably the biggest factor influencing whether or not investors want to own bonds at their current prices, inflation. Third, a ratings downgrade doesn't appear to trigger any structural change in bond demand. 
Unpacking that last point a bit more, let's look at the main holders of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed, banks, overseas holders and households. The Fed is under no obligation to adjust Treasury holdings based on credit ratings. It's a similar situation for banks whose incentive to own treasuries is based on risk weightings determined by U.S. regulators, we view as very unlikely to adjust regulations to align with a ratings opinion they likely don't agree with. 
Overseas holders typically own treasuries because they have U.S. dollars from doing business with U.S. customers, and we don't see their desire to do business with U.S. companies and consumers changing because of a ratings opinion. As for households, it's possible that some mutual funds and separately managed accounts could want to sell treasuries if they're under a mandate to only own assets rated AAA, but we suspect this type of vulnerability is small and easily absorbable by the market. It's also possible there could be some selling of lower rated bonds, given some portfolios have to maintain an average credit rating, which could be lessened on this downgrade if they own treasuries. But those portfolios could just as easily restore an average credit rating by buying more treasuries versus selling lower rated bonds. 
Bottom line, we think investors should look beyond the downgrade and stay focused on the U.S. macro debates that have and continue to matter to markets this year, the trajectory of inflation and whether or not the Fed can control it without a recession resulting. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bEK7NZNCnrTC5kAkG6EST1OZ1zb1Lfc6QRK8qkep8Y8Thu, 03 Aug 2023 02:01:55 +0000gtyThe recent downgrade to Fitch's U.S. credit rating should have less of an impact on demand for bonds than the ongoing trajectory of inflation. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income...----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the U.S. downgrade to bond markets. It's Wednesday, August 2nd at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Yesterday, one of the three main rating agencies, Fitch, downgraded the U.S's credit rating to AA+ from AAA. The U.S. now only has one AAA rating left. Fitch attributed the change to the US's growing debt burden and a, quote, "erosion of governance", unquote, specifically referring to debt ceiling standoffs over the past decade as a cause for concern. The tone of this language may understandably elicit concern from investors, but practically speaking, does it actually matter? In our view, in the short term, probably not. 
First off, the downgrade doesn't communicate anything investors didn't already know about the level and trajectory of U.S. debt and deficits. Second, it doesn't tell us anything forward looking about arguably the biggest factor influencing whether or not investors want to own bonds at their current prices, inflation. Third, a ratings downgrade doesn't appear to trigger any structural change in bond demand. 
Unpacking that last point a bit more, let's look at the main holders of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed, banks, overseas holders and households. The Fed is under no obligation to adjust Treasury holdings based on credit ratings. It's a similar situation for banks whose incentive to own treasuries is based on risk weightings determined by U.S. regulators, we view as very unlikely to adjust regulations to align with a ratings opinion they likely don't agree with. 
Overseas holders typically own treasuries because they have U.S. dollars from doing business with U.S. customers, and we don't see their desire to do business with U.S. companies and consumers changing because of a ratings opinion. As for households, it's possible that some mutual funds and separately managed accounts could want to sell treasuries if they're under a mandate to only own assets rated AAA, but we suspect this type of vulnerability is small and easily absorbable by the market. It's also possible there could be some selling of lower rated bonds, given some portfolios have to maintain an average credit rating, which could be lessened on this downgrade if they own treasuries. But those portfolios could just as easily restore an average credit rating by buying more treasuries versus selling lower rated bonds. 
Bottom line, we think investors should look beyond the downgrade and stay focused on the U.S. macro debates that have and continue to matter to markets this year, the trajectory of inflation and whether or not the Fed can control it without a recession resulting. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>167false924fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-corporate-credit-risks-remain--75654726----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about potential risk to the economy. It's Tuesday, August 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Another FOMC meeting came and went. To nobody's surprise the Fed hiked the target Fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Beyond the hike, the July FOMC statement had nearly no changes. While data on inflation and jobs are moving in the right direction, the Fed remains far from its 2% inflation goal. That said, Fed Chair Powell stressed that the Fed is closer to its destination, that monetary policies is in restrictive territory and is likely to stay there for some time. Broadly, the outcome of the market was in line with our economists expectation that the federal funds rate has peaked, will remain unchanged for an extended period, and the first 25 basis point cut will be delivered in March 2024. 
Powell sounded more confident in a soft landing, citing the gradual adjustment in the labor market and noting that despite 525 basis point policy tightening, the unemployment rate remains at the same level it was pre-COVID. The fact that the Fed has been able to bring inflation down without a meaningful rise in unemployment, he described as quote unquote "blessing". He noted that the Fed staff are no longer forecasting a recession, given the resilience in the economy. 
This specter of soft landing, meaning a recession is not imminent, is something our economists have been calling for some time. This has now become more broadly accepted across market participants, albeit somewhat reluctantly. The obvious question, therefore, is what are the risks ahead and what are the paths for such risks to materialize? 
One such potential risk emanates from the rising wave of credit maturities from the corporate credit markets. While company balance sheets, by and large, are in a good shape now, given how far interest rates have risen and how quickly they have done so, as that debt begins to mature and needs to be refinanced, it will happen at sharply higher rates. From now through the end of 2024, almost a trillion of corporate debt will mature. Sim ply by holding rates constant, that refinancing will represent a tightening of financial conditions. 
Fortunately, a high proportion of the debt comes from investment grade borrowers and does not appear to be particularly challenging. However, below investment grade debt has a tougher path ahead for refinancing. As we continue through 2024 and get into 2025, more and more high yield bonds and leveraged loans will need to be refinanced. 
All else equal, the default rates in high yield bonds and leveraged loans currently  hovering around 2.5% may double to over 5% in the next 12 months. The forecasts of our economists point to a further slowdown in the economy from here, as the rest of the standard lags of policy are felt. We continue to think that such a slowing could necessitate a re-examination of the lower end of the credit spectrum. The ongoing challenges in the regional banking sector only add to this problem. In our view, in the list of risks to the U.S. economy, the rising wave of maturities in the corporate debt markets is notable. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6Eews8hR0Gv9bCe7zscwweHWw2e1g5N-ZxLDyMjWaVgTue, 01 Aug 2023 21:15:20 +0000gtyWhile the U.S. economy appears on track to avoid a recession, investors should still consider the implications of an upcoming wave of maturities in corporate credit. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about potential risk to the economy. It's Tuesday, August 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Another FOMC meeting came and went. To nobody's surprise the Fed hiked the target Fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Beyond the hike, the July FOMC statement had nearly no changes. While data on inflation and jobs are moving in the right direction, the Fed remains far from its 2% inflation goal. That said, Fed Chair Powell stressed that the Fed is closer to its destination, that monetary policies is in restrictive territory and is likely to stay there for some time. Broadly, the outcome of the market was in line with our economists expectation that the federal funds rate has peaked, will remain unchanged for an extended period, and the first 25 basis point cut will be delivered in March 2024. 
Powell sounded more confident in a soft landing, citing the gradual adjustment in the labor market and noting that despite 525 basis point policy tightening, the unemployment rate remains at the same level it was pre-COVID. The fact that the Fed has been able to bring inflation down without a meaningful rise in unemployment, he described as quote unquote "blessing". He noted that the Fed staff are no longer forecasting a recession, given the resilience in the economy. 
This specter of soft landing, meaning a recession is not imminent, is something our economists have been calling for some time. This has now become more broadly accepted across market participants, albeit somewhat reluctantly. The obvious question, therefore, is what are the risks ahead and what are the paths for such risks to materialize? 
One such potential risk emanates from the rising wave of credit maturities from the corporate credit markets. While company balance sheets, by and large, are in a good shape now, given how far interest rates have risen and how quickly they have done so, as that debt begins to mature and needs to be refinanced, it will happen at sharply higher rates. From now through the end of 2024, almost a trillion of corporate debt will mature. Sim ply by holding rates constant, that refinancing will represent a tightening of financial conditions. 
Fortunately, a high proportion of the debt comes from investment grade borrowers and does not appear to be particularly challenging. However, below investment grade debt has a tougher path ahead for refinancing. As we continue through 2024 and get into 2025, more and more high yield bonds and leveraged loans will need to be refinanced. 
All else equal, the default rates in high yield bonds and leveraged loans currently  hovering around 2.5% may double to over 5% in the next 12 months. The forecasts of our economists point to a further slowdown in the economy from here, as the rest of the standard lags of policy are felt. We continue to think that such a slowing could necessitate a re-examination of the lower end of the credit spectrum. The ongoing challenges in the regional banking sector only add to this problem. In our view, in the list of risks to the U.S. economy, the rising wave of maturities in the corporate debt markets is notable. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>205false923fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-a-new-cyclical-upturn--75654819----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 31st, 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
This past week was an extremely busy one for global central banks, with the Fed and European Central Bank raising interest rates again by 25 basis points, while leaving the door open to either more hikes or pausing indefinitely. They remain data dependent. However, the biggest change may have come from the Bank of Japan. More specifically, the Bank of Japan decided to get the ball rolling on ending its long standing policy of yield curve control, a policy under which it maintains a cap on interest rates across the curve. This is an important pivot in our view, as it signals the Bank of Japan's willingness to join the fight against inflation. In short, it's incrementally hawkish for global bond markets. 
For U.S. equity investors, the main focus has been on the Fed getting closer to the end of its tightening campaign. The key question from investors is whether that means the Fed has orchestrated a soft landing or if a recession is unavoidable. While many investors remain skeptical of the soft landing outcome, equity markets have traded so well this year that these same investors have been swayed into thinking a soft landing is now the highest probability outcome. We believe equity markets are in a classic policy driven late cycle rally. Furthermore, the excitement over a Fed pause has been supported by very strong fiscal impulse and a still supportive global liquidity backdrop, even with central banks tightening. The latest example of a similar late cycle period occurred in 2019. Back then, a robust rally in equities was driven almost exclusively by valuations rather than earnings, like this year. Both then and now, Mega- cap growth stocks were the best performers as equity market internals processed a path to easier monetary policy and lower interest rates. The 2019 analogy suggests more index level upside from here, however, we would note that the Fed was already cutting interest rates for a good portion of 2019, leaving ten year Treasury yields 200 basis points lower than they are today. Nevertheless, equity valuations are 5% higher now than in 2019. 
The other scenario is that we are in a new cyclical upturn and growth is about to reaccelerate sharply for both the economy and earnings. While we're open minded to this new view materializing next year, we'd like to see a broader swath of business cycle indicators inflect, higher, breadth improve and short term interest rates come down before adjusting our stance in this regard. In other words, the current progression of these factors does not yet look like prior new cyclical upturns. 
Meanwhile, earnings season has been a fade the news so far, with the average stock down about 1% post results. This is worse than the past eight quarters where stocks are flat to up. While hardly a disaster, we think companies will have to start delivering better sales growth to outperform from here. On that score, even the large cap growth stocks have been mostly cost cutting stories to date. Another interesting observation over the past month is that the worst performing sectors are starting to exhibit the best breadth of performance, namely energy, utilities and health care. Industrials is the only leading sector with improving breath. Given the uncertainty there remains about the economic outcome in central bank policy, investors should look to the laggards with good breadth for relative performance catch up. Our top picks are healthcare, utilities and energy. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TcWppbx4iLkFLHW623ozvUmmVh0aVcR-ZweKK5AqOjAMon, 31 Jul 2023 21:29:33 +0000gtyWith uncertainty around the effects of new central bank policy, investors should be on the lookout for sales growth, cost cutting and sectors that might be turning a corner on performance. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 31st, 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
This past week was an extremely busy one for global central banks, with the Fed and European Central Bank raising interest rates again by 25 basis points, while leaving the door open to either more hikes or pausing indefinitely. They remain data dependent. However, the biggest change may have come from the Bank of Japan. More specifically, the Bank of Japan decided to get the ball rolling on ending its long standing policy of yield curve control, a policy under which it maintains a cap on interest rates across the curve. This is an important pivot in our view, as it signals the Bank of Japan's willingness to join the fight against inflation. In short, it's incrementally hawkish for global bond markets. 
For U.S. equity investors, the main focus has been on the Fed getting closer to the end of its tightening campaign. The key question from investors is whether that means the Fed has orchestrated a soft landing or if a recession is unavoidable. While many investors remain skeptical of the soft landing outcome, equity markets have traded so well this year that these same investors have been swayed into thinking a soft landing is now the highest probability outcome. We believe equity markets are in a classic policy driven late cycle rally. Furthermore, the excitement over a Fed pause has been supported by very strong fiscal impulse and a still supportive global liquidity backdrop, even with central banks tightening. The latest example of a similar late cycle period occurred in 2019. Back then, a robust rally in equities was driven almost exclusively by valuations rather than earnings, like this year. Both then and now, Mega- cap growth stocks were the best performers as equity market internals processed a path to easier monetary policy and lower interest rates. The 2019 analogy suggests more index level upside from here, however, we would note that the Fed was already cutting interest rates for a good portion of 2019, leaving ten year Treasury yields 200 basis points lower than they are today. Nevertheless, equity valuations are 5% higher now than in 2019. 
The other scenario is that we are in a new cyclical upturn and growth is about to reaccelerate sharply for both the economy and earnings. While we're open minded to this new view materializing next year, we'd like to see a broader swath of business cycle indicators inflect, higher, breadth improve and short term interest rates come down before adjusting our stance in this regard. In other words, the current progression of these factors does not yet look like prior new cyclical upturns. 
Meanwhile, earnings season has been a fade the news so far, with the average stock down about 1% post results. This is worse than the past eight quarters where stocks are flat to up. While hardly a disaster, we think companies will have to start delivering better sales growth to outperform from here. On that score, even the large cap growth stocks have been mostly cost cutting stories to date. Another interesting observation over the past month is that the worst performing sectors are starting to exhibit the best breadth of performance, namely energy, utilities and health care. Industrials is the only leading sector with improving breath. Given the uncertainty there remains about the economic outcome in central bank policy, investors should look to the laggards with good breadth for relative performance catch up. Our top picks are...]]>211false922fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-unexpected-behavior-in-markets--75654733----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, July 28th at 2 p.m. in London. Markets have been stronger than we expected. Some of the story is straight forward, some of it is not. Indeed across asset classes, the capital structure increasingly looks upside down. 
Our investment strategy has been based on the assumption that strong developed market growth was set to slow sharply as post-COVID stimulus waned and policy tightened at the fastest pace in 40 years. Sharp slowing, from an elevated base, has often rewarded more defensive investment positioning. 
But our assumption about this growth backdrop has simply been wrong. Growth has been good, with the U.S. printing yet another set of better than expected economic data this week. 20 years from now, an investor looking back on the first half of 2023 might find nothing particularly out of place. The economic data was good and surprisingly so, stocks, especially more cyclical ones, outperform bonds. 
Yet that straightforward story has happened alongside something more unusual. Across markets, we can observe a capital structure, that is how much investors are expected to earn as the owner of an asset, a company, an office building and so on, relative to being the lender to the asset. The lender should get a lower return since they're taking less risk, and over the last decade, very low borrowing rates have meant that that very much is the case. But it's been shifting. To varying degrees, the capital structure now looks almost upside down, with high yields on debt relative to more junior exposure, or the yield on the underlying asset. And we see this in several areas. 
In U.S. corporates, higher equity valuations have meant that the forward earnings yield for the Russell 1000, at about 4.8%, is now below the yield on US investment grade corporate debt at about 5.5%, and the difference between these two is only been more extreme in about 2% of observations over the last 20 years. 
In real estate, yields on debt have risen much faster than capitalization rates, that is the yield on the underlying real estate asset, and that's happened across both commercial and residential segments. 
And across leveraged loans and collateralized loan obligations, or CLO's, the so-called CLO ARB, which is the difference between the yield on the CLO loan collateral and the weighted cost of its liabilities, are unusually low. And we've also seen this in the loan market.For much of the last decade, the economics of borrowing to buy assets has been attractive. As the examples I've mentioned try to show, these economics are changing. Across scenarios where growth stays solid or especially if it slows, we think being the lender to an asset rather than its owner, is now often the better risk/reward. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IHa_ZqictbGdS2o9AIc4elldIQE8sCs2--IGFzjTVVgFri, 28 Jul 2023 19:08:03 +0000gtyChief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets explains why it’s increasingly more favorable to be a lender than an asset owner. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, July 28th at 2 p.m. in London. Markets have been stronger than we expected. Some of the story is straight forward, some of it is not. Indeed across asset classes, the capital structure increasingly looks upside down. 
Our investment strategy has been based on the assumption that strong developed market growth was set to slow sharply as post-COVID stimulus waned and policy tightened at the fastest pace in 40 years. Sharp slowing, from an elevated base, has often rewarded more defensive investment positioning. 
But our assumption about this growth backdrop has simply been wrong. Growth has been good, with the U.S. printing yet another set of better than expected economic data this week. 20 years from now, an investor looking back on the first half of 2023 might find nothing particularly out of place. The economic data was good and surprisingly so, stocks, especially more cyclical ones, outperform bonds. 
Yet that straightforward story has happened alongside something more unusual. Across markets, we can observe a capital structure, that is how much investors are expected to earn as the owner of an asset, a company, an office building and so on, relative to being the lender to the asset. The lender should get a lower return since they're taking less risk, and over the last decade, very low borrowing rates have meant that that very much is the case. But it's been shifting. To varying degrees, the capital structure now looks almost upside down, with high yields on debt relative to more junior exposure, or the yield on the underlying asset. And we see this in several areas. 
In U.S. corporates, higher equity valuations have meant that the forward earnings yield for the Russell 1000, at about 4.8%, is now below the yield on US investment grade corporate debt at about 5.5%, and the difference between these two is only been more extreme in about 2% of observations over the last 20 years. 
In real estate, yields on debt have risen much faster than capitalization rates, that is the yield on the underlying real estate asset, and that's happened across both commercial and residential segments. 
And across leveraged loans and collateralized loan obligations, or CLO's, the so-called CLO ARB, which is the difference between the yield on the CLO loan collateral and the weighted cost of its liabilities, are unusually low. And we've also seen this in the loan market.For much of the last decade, the economics of borrowing to buy assets has been attractive. As the examples I've mentioned try to show, these economics are changing. Across scenarios where growth stays solid or especially if it slows, we think being the lender to an asset rather than its owner, is now often the better risk/reward. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>185false921fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-autos-are-china-s-electric-vehicles-reshaping-the-market--75654488----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share Mobility Team. 
Tim Hsaio: And Tim Hsaio Greater China Auto Analyst. 
Adam Jonas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we're going to discuss how China Electric vehicles are reshaping the global auto market. It's Thursday, July 27th at 8 a.m. in New York. 
Tim Hsaio: And 8 p.m in Hong Kong. 
Adam Jonas: For decades, global autos have been dominated by established, developed market brands with little focus on electric vehicles or EVs, particularly for the mass market. As things stand today, affordable EVs are few and far between, and this undersupply presents a major global challenge. At Morgan Stanley Equity Research, we think the auto industry will undergo a major reshuffling in the next decade as affordable EVs from emerging markets capture significant global market share. Tim, you believe China made EVs will be at the center of this upcoming shakeup of the global auto industry, are we at an inflection point and how did we get here? 
Tim Hsaio: Thanks, Adam. Yeah, we are definitely at a very critical inflection point at the moment. Firstly, since last year, as you may notice that China has outsized Germany car export and soon surpassed Japan in the first half of this year as the world's largest auto exporter. So now we believe China made EVs infiltrating the West, challenging their global peers, backed by not just cheaper prices but the improving variety and quality. And separately, we believe that affordability remains the key mitigating factors to global EV adoption, as Rastan brands have been slow to advance their EV strategy for their mass market. A lack of affordable models actually challenged global adoption, but we believe that that creates a great opportunity to EV from China where a lot of affordable EVs will soon fill in the vacuum and effectively meet the need for cheaper EV. So we believe that we are definitely at an inflection point. 
Adam Jonas: So Tim, it's safe to say that the expansionary strategy of China EVs is not just a fad, but real solid trend here? 
Tim Hsaio: Totally agree. We think it's going to be a long lasting trend because you think about what's happened over the past ten years. China has been a major growth engine to curb auto demands, contributing more than 300% of a sales increment. And now we believe China will transport itself into the key supply driver to the world, they initially by exporting cheaper EV and over time shifting course to transplant and foreign production just similar to Japan and Korea autos back to 1970 to 1990. And we believe China EVs are making inroads into more than 40 countries globally. Just a few years ago, the products made by China were poorly designed, but today they surpass rival foreign models on affordability, quality and even detector event user experience. So Adam, essentially, we are trying to forecast the future of EVs in China and the rest of the world, and this topic sits right at the heart of all three big things Morgan Stanley Research is exploring this year, the multipolar world, decarbonization and technology diffusion. So if we take a step back to look at the broader picture of what happens to supply chain, what potential scenarios for an auto industry realignment do you foresee? And which regions other than China stand to benefit or be negatively impacted? 
Adam Jonas: So, Tim, look, I think there's certainly room to diversify and rebalance at the margin away from China, which has such a dominant position in electric vehicles today, and it was their strategy to fulfill that. But you also got to make room for them. Okay. And there's precedent here because, you know, we saw with the Japanese auto manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of people doubted them and they became dominant in foreign markets. Then you had the Korean auto companies in the 1990s and 2000s. So, again, China's lead is going to be long lasting, but room for on-shoring and near-shoring, friend shoring. And we would look to regions like ASEAN, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, also the Middle East, such as Morocco, which has an FTA agreement with the U.S. and Saudi, parts of Scandinavia and Central Europe, and of course our trade partners in North America, Mexico and Canada. So, we’ re witnessing an historic re-industrialization of some parts of the world that where we thought we lost some of our heavy industry. 
Tim Hsaio: So in a context of a multipolar trends, we are discussing Adam, how do you think a global original equipment manufacturers or OEM or the car makers and the policymakers will react to China's growing importance in the auto industry? 
Adam Jonas: So I think the challenge is how do you re-architect supply chains and still have skin in the game and still be relevant in these markets? It's going to take time. We think you're going to see the established auto companies, the so-called legacy car companies, seek partnerships in areas where they would otherwise struggle to bring scale. Look to diversify and de-risk their supply chains by having a dual source both on-shore and near-shore, in addition to their established China exposed supply chains. Some might choose to vertically integrate, and we've seen some striking partners upstream with mining companies and direct investments. Others might find that futile and work with battery firms and other structures without necessarily owning the technology. But we think most importantly, the theme is you're not going to be cutting out the world's second largest GDP, which already has such a dominant position in this important market, so the Western firms are going to work with the Chinese players. And the ones that can do that we think will be successful. And I'd bring our listeners attention to a recent precedent of a large German OEM and a state sponsored Chinese car company that are working together on electric vehicle architecture, which is predominantly the Chinese architecture. We think that's quite telling and you're going to see more of that kind of thing. 
Tim Hsaio: So Adam, is there anything the market is missing right now? 
Adam Jonas: A few things, Tim, but I think the most obvious one to me is just how good these Chinese EVs are. We think the market's really underestimating that, in terms of quality safety features, design. You know, you're seeing Chinese car companies hiring the best engineers from the German automakers coming, making these beautiful, beautiful vehicles, high quality. Another thing that we think is underestimated are the environmental externalities from battery manufacturing, batteries are an important technology for decarbonization. But the supply chain itself has some very inconvenient ESG externalities, labor to emissions and others. And I would say, final thing that we think the market is missing is there's an assumption that just because the electric vehicle and the supporting battery business, because it's a large and fast growing, that it has to be a high return business. And we are skeptical of that. Precedents from the solar polysilicon and LED TVs and others where when you get capital working and you've got state governments all around the world providing incentives that you get the growth, but you don't necessarily get great returns for shareholders, so it's a bit of a warning to investors to be cautious, be opportunistic, but growth doesn't necessarily mean great returns. Tim, let's return to China for a minute and as I ask you one final question, where will growing China's EV exports go and what is your outlook for the next one or two years as well as the next decade? 
Tim Hsaio: Eventually, I think China EVs will definitely want to grow their presence worldwide. But initially, we believe that there are two major markets they want to focus on. First one would be Europe. I think the China's export or the local brands there will want to leverage their BEV portfolio, battery EV, to grow their presence in Europe. And the other key market would be ASEAN country, Southeast Asia. I think the Chinese brands where the China EV can leverage their plug-in hybrid models to grow their presence in ASEAN. The major reason is that we noticed that in Southeast Asia the charging infrastructure is still underdeveloped, so the plug-in hybrid would be the more ideal solution to that market. And for the next 1 to 2 years, we are currently looking for the China the EV export to grow by like 50 to 60% every year. And in that long-terms, as you may notice that currently China made vehicles account for only 3% of cars sold outside China. But in the next decade we are looking for one third of EVs sold in overseas would be China made, so they are going to be the leader of the EV sold globally. 
Adam Jonas: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Tim Hsaio: Great speaking with you Adam.
Adam Jonas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bQs1ain09cg2XnDSKrAcRTxDdFwvNgu9p8Ym1lc9iooThu, 27 Jul 2023 22:32:33 +0000gtyWith higher quality and lower costs, China’s electric vehicles could lead a shift in the global auto industry. ----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share...----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share Mobility Team. 
Tim Hsaio: And Tim Hsaio Greater China Auto Analyst. 
Adam Jonas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we're going to discuss how China Electric vehicles are reshaping the global auto market. It's Thursday, July 27th at 8 a.m. in New York. 
Tim Hsaio: And 8 p.m in Hong Kong. 
Adam Jonas: For decades, global autos have been dominated by established, developed market brands with little focus on electric vehicles or EVs, particularly for the mass market. As things stand today, affordable EVs are few and far between, and this undersupply presents a major global challenge. At Morgan Stanley Equity Research, we think the auto industry will undergo a major reshuffling in the next decade as affordable EVs from emerging markets capture significant global market share. Tim, you believe China made EVs will be at the center of this upcoming shakeup of the global auto industry, are we at an inflection point and how did we get here? 
Tim Hsaio: Thanks, Adam. Yeah, we are definitely at a very critical inflection point at the moment. Firstly, since last year, as you may notice that China has outsized Germany car export and soon surpassed Japan in the first half of this year as the world's largest auto exporter. So now we believe China made EVs infiltrating the West, challenging their global peers, backed by not just cheaper prices but the improving variety and quality. And separately, we believe that affordability remains the key mitigating factors to global EV adoption, as Rastan brands have been slow to advance their EV strategy for their mass market. A lack of affordable models actually challenged global adoption, but we believe that that creates a great opportunity to EV from China where a lot of affordable EVs will soon fill in the vacuum and effectively meet the need for cheaper EV. So we believe that we are definitely at an inflection point. 
Adam Jonas: So Tim, it's safe to say that the expansionary strategy of China EVs is not just a fad, but real solid trend here? 
Tim Hsaio: Totally agree. We think it's going to be a long lasting trend because you think about what's happened over the past ten years. China has been a major growth engine to curb auto demands, contributing more than 300% of a sales increment. And now we believe China will transport itself into the key supply driver to the world, they initially by exporting cheaper EV and over time shifting course to transplant and foreign production just similar to Japan and Korea autos back to 1970 to 1990. And we believe China EVs are making inroads into more than 40 countries globally. Just a few years ago, the products made by China were poorly designed, but today they surpass rival foreign models on affordability, quality and even detector event user experience. So Adam, essentially, we are trying to forecast the future of EVs in China and the rest of the world, and this topic sits right at the heart of all three big things Morgan Stanley Research is exploring this year, the multipolar world, decarbonization and technology diffusion. So if we take a step back to look at the broader picture of what happens to supply chain, what potential scenarios for an auto industry realignment do you foresee? And which regions other than China stand to benefit or be negatively impacted? 
Adam Jonas: So, Tim, look, I think there's certainly room to diversify and rebalance at the margin away from China, which has such a dominant position in electric vehicles today, and it was their strategy to fulfill that. But you also got to make room for them. Okay. And there's precedent here because, you know, we saw with the Japanese auto manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of...]]>573false920fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-elections-and-their-influence-on-markets--75654494----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed-Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the 2024 U.S. election. It's Wednesday, July 26th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
As the press starts to focus more and more on the 2024 election, so have our clients leading many questions to come our way about who we think will be the next president and what we think they might do that could influence markets. As listeners of this podcast are surely aware, here at Morgan Stanley Research, we obviously care a great deal about elections and their consequences for markets. So then you might be surprised to know that our response so far to 2024 election questions has been, 'Nothing to see here, at least not yet'. 
There's two reasons behind this thinking. First, there's no data out there that can tell us much about what the election outcome will be. Polls are, in our view, better predictive tools and they've recently gotten credit for, but polls taken today about presidential candidates over a year away from the election have no track record of predicting anything. The same is true for polls about who the challenging party's nominee will be. And modern U.S. electoral history is full of examples where party nomination frontrunners have either faded or won the nomination, so there's no pattern to rely on there. In short, if you're interested in knowing who will win the election, there's not much to do but watch and wait. 
Second, the policy consequences of the election that might matter to markets could evolve greatly over the next 12 months in unpredictable ways. For example, in 2019, the 2020 election seemed set to be all about health care policy, and investors were intensely focused on the potential impact to the pharma sector. But when the pandemic hit, the election's importance to the market became more macro, it was all about the potential for more fiscal stimulus, shifting the election from an equity sector story to one that mattered to the overall stock index and bond yields. In 2007, the 2008 election seemed poised to be all about foreign policy, but then the financial crisis hit and markets again cared about how the outcome would affect potential fiscal stimulus and bank regulation. We could go on, but the point is this, history tells us this election will matter greatly to markets, but it's way too early to reliably know how it will matter. 
Now, rest assured, while we're suggesting investors don't have to pay close attention to the US election yet, we are paying attention and putting plenty of time into assessing the various plausible impacts the election could have. In particular around tax policy, tech regulation, defense spending, and refreshing our framework for how fiscal policy in the U.S. reacts to political conditions and party control in Congress. Of course, we'll flag for you when we think it's a productive time to join us in this early preparation, so that when the election and its consequences come more into focus, you'll be front footed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qoxm_TUoSovDUVo9pzu9jQXDiAHXFyn5YNGds8O3oaYWed, 26 Jul 2023 19:14:49 +0000gtyInvestors are questioning what new policy changes the 2024 election might bring, how the changes could affect markets and when they should start paying attention. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed-Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the 2024 U.S. election. It's Wednesday, July 26th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
As the press starts to focus more and more on the 2024 election, so have our clients leading many questions to come our way about who we think will be the next president and what we think they might do that could influence markets. As listeners of this podcast are surely aware, here at Morgan Stanley Research, we obviously care a great deal about elections and their consequences for markets. So then you might be surprised to know that our response so far to 2024 election questions has been, 'Nothing to see here, at least not yet'. 
There's two reasons behind this thinking. First, there's no data out there that can tell us much about what the election outcome will be. Polls are, in our view, better predictive tools and they've recently gotten credit for, but polls taken today about presidential candidates over a year away from the election have no track record of predicting anything. The same is true for polls about who the challenging party's nominee will be. And modern U.S. electoral history is full of examples where party nomination frontrunners have either faded or won the nomination, so there's no pattern to rely on there. In short, if you're interested in knowing who will win the election, there's not much to do but watch and wait. 
Second, the policy consequences of the election that might matter to markets could evolve greatly over the next 12 months in unpredictable ways. For example, in 2019, the 2020 election seemed set to be all about health care policy, and investors were intensely focused on the potential impact to the pharma sector. But when the pandemic hit, the election's importance to the market became more macro, it was all about the potential for more fiscal stimulus, shifting the election from an equity sector story to one that mattered to the overall stock index and bond yields. In 2007, the 2008 election seemed poised to be all about foreign policy, but then the financial crisis hit and markets again cared about how the outcome would affect potential fiscal stimulus and bank regulation. We could go on, but the point is this, history tells us this election will matter greatly to markets, but it's way too early to reliably know how it will matter. 
Now, rest assured, while we're suggesting investors don't have to pay close attention to the US election yet, we are paying attention and putting plenty of time into assessing the various plausible impacts the election could have. In particular around tax policy, tech regulation, defense spending, and refreshing our framework for how fiscal policy in the U.S. reacts to political conditions and party control in Congress. Of course, we'll flag for you when we think it's a productive time to join us in this early preparation, so that when the election and its consequences come more into focus, you'll be front footed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>187false919fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-expanding-valuations-in-equity-markets--75654758----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, July 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
As discussed in last week's podcast, this year's equity market has been all about expanding valuations. The primary drivers of this multiple expansion have been falling inflation and cost cutting rather than accelerating top line growth. Last October, we based our tactically bullish call on the view that inflation was peaking, along with back end interest rates and the US dollar. While the 30% move in equity multiples on the back of this theme has gone much further and persisted longer than we anticipated, we don't feel the urge to turn bullish now. Missing the upside this year was unfortunate, however, compounding with another bad call can lead to permanent loss. 
While falling inflation supports the expectations for a Fed pivot on monetary policy, it also poses a risk to nominal revenue growth and earnings. To remind listeners of a key component to our earnings thesis, we believe inflation is now falling even faster than the consensus expects, especially the inflation experienced by companies. With price being the main factor keeping sales growth above zero for many companies this year, it would be a material headwind if that pricing were to roll over. This is precisely what we think is starting to happen for many businesses, especially in the goods portion of the economy. 
Last year's earnings disappointment in communication services, consumer discretionary and technology were significant, but largely a function of over-investment and elevated cost structures rather than disappointing sales. In fact, our operational efficiency thesis that worked so well last year was adopted by many of these companies in the fourth quarter, and they've been rewarded for it. From here, though, we think sales estimates will likely have to rise for these stocks to continue to power higher, and this will be the key theme to watch when they report. Last week was not a good start in that regard, as several large cap winners disappointed on earnings and these stocks sold off 10%. 
The same thing can be said for the rest of the market, too. If we're right about pricing fading amid falling inflation, then sales will likely disappoint from here. We think it's also worth keeping in mind that the economic data is not always reflective of what companies see in their businesses from a pricing standpoint. Recall in 2020 and 21, the companies were extracting far more than CPI-type pricing as demand surged higher from the fiscal stimulus, just as supply was constrained. This was the inflation driven boom we pointed to at the time, a thesis we are now simply using in reverse. 
Bottom line, investors may need to focus more on top line growth acceleration to identify the winners from here. This will be harder to find if our thesis on inflation is correct and cost cutting and better than feared earnings results would no longer get it done, at least in the growth sectors. On the other side of the ledger, we have value stocks where expectations are quite low. Last week, financial stocks outperformed on earnings results that were far from impressive, but not as bad as feared. That trade is likely behind us, but with China now offering some additional fiscal stimulus in the near term, energy and materials stocks may be poised for a catch up move using that same philosophy. In short, growth stocks require top line acceleration at this point to continue their run, while value stocks can do better if things just don't deteriorate further. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Aq1V6UXVwTxczZEqDKvV2RBTgV5_FZ4tu8STe4XgdcsTue, 25 Jul 2023 20:08:08 +0000gtyRapidly declining inflation poses a challenge to revenue growth and earnings. So what should investors look out for to identify the winners from here? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, July 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
As discussed in last week's podcast, this year's equity market has been all about expanding valuations. The primary drivers of this multiple expansion have been falling inflation and cost cutting rather than accelerating top line growth. Last October, we based our tactically bullish call on the view that inflation was peaking, along with back end interest rates and the US dollar. While the 30% move in equity multiples on the back of this theme has gone much further and persisted longer than we anticipated, we don't feel the urge to turn bullish now. Missing the upside this year was unfortunate, however, compounding with another bad call can lead to permanent loss. 
While falling inflation supports the expectations for a Fed pivot on monetary policy, it also poses a risk to nominal revenue growth and earnings. To remind listeners of a key component to our earnings thesis, we believe inflation is now falling even faster than the consensus expects, especially the inflation experienced by companies. With price being the main factor keeping sales growth above zero for many companies this year, it would be a material headwind if that pricing were to roll over. This is precisely what we think is starting to happen for many businesses, especially in the goods portion of the economy. 
Last year's earnings disappointment in communication services, consumer discretionary and technology were significant, but largely a function of over-investment and elevated cost structures rather than disappointing sales. In fact, our operational efficiency thesis that worked so well last year was adopted by many of these companies in the fourth quarter, and they've been rewarded for it. From here, though, we think sales estimates will likely have to rise for these stocks to continue to power higher, and this will be the key theme to watch when they report. Last week was not a good start in that regard, as several large cap winners disappointed on earnings and these stocks sold off 10%. 
The same thing can be said for the rest of the market, too. If we're right about pricing fading amid falling inflation, then sales will likely disappoint from here. We think it's also worth keeping in mind that the economic data is not always reflective of what companies see in their businesses from a pricing standpoint. Recall in 2020 and 21, the companies were extracting far more than CPI-type pricing as demand surged higher from the fiscal stimulus, just as supply was constrained. This was the inflation driven boom we pointed to at the time, a thesis we are now simply using in reverse. 
Bottom line, investors may need to focus more on top line growth acceleration to identify the winners from here. This will be harder to find if our thesis on inflation is correct and cost cutting and better than feared earnings results would no longer get it done, at least in the growth sectors. On the other side of the ledger, we have value stocks where expectations are quite low. Last week, financial stocks outperformed on earnings results that were far from impressive, but not as bad as feared. That trade is likely behind us, but with China now offering some additional fiscal stimulus in the near term, energy and materials stocks may be poised for a catch up move using that same philosophy. In short, growth stocks require top line acceleration at this point to continue their run, while value stocks can do better if things just don't deteriorate...]]>203false918fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/erik-woodring-india-s-smartphone-market-poised-to-take-off--75654723----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our outlook for the India smartphone market. It's Monday, July 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We're making a bold call for India's smartphone market. We believe it will triple in size over the next decade to $90 billion and account for 15% of global smartphone shipments by 2032, up from just 6% today. That implies that India alone will drive 100% of global smartphone shipment growth over the next decade. 
India has the largest worldwide population, but smartphone penetration is significantly lower versus the rest of the world. For the last two decades, investors have been intrigued by the vast growth potential of the India smartphone market. But so far, investor expectations have not played out, as smartphone penetration in India has failed to surpass 40% versus the global average of 60%. And growth in the India smartphone market has been overwhelmingly driven by low end devices, with razor thin margins for original equipment manufacturers or OEMs. In fact, the smartphone TAM or total addressable market is just 25% the size of China, despite a similarly sized population. 
But we think the next decade will be different - it will be India's decade. Besides forecasting annual GDP growth of 6.5% for the next decade, our India Strategy and Economics colleagues believe that over the next decade, domestic consumption in India will more than double - driven by a number of important factors, including widespread economic reforms. 
These efforts are expected to bring meaningful demographic change, with income per capita expected to double, and the number of high income households expected to quintuple over the next decade. Alongside nearly 100% electrification of the country and a government led effort to prioritize digital transformation, we expect strong demand for technology goods to emerge over the next decade. We see these factors as setting the stage for robust smartphone growth in India. 
A recent AlphaWise smartphone survey of Indian consumers confirmed these trends, with three in four survey respondents acknowledging they are likely to purchase a new smartphone in the next 12 months, in line with other leading emerging markets. In fact, some respondents acknowledged they are more likely to own a smartphone over other household items such as a PC, car or refrigerator. 
Furthermore, Indian consumers are willing to pay up to 20% more for their next smartphone to gain access to premium technologies such as 5G compatibility, longer battery life, better camera quality and more storage capacity. While it's still early days, we believe these survey results illustrate the growing importance of the smartphone in India and the rising potential for the Indian smartphone market. 
When we take a step back, the two most important factors underpinning our $90 billion India smartphone TAM are growing smartphone penetration and positive mix shift, meaning customers are shifting their purchases to higher end devices. We estimate that in a decade, Indian smartphone penetration will reach 60%, the global average today. Furthermore, we estimate that over the next decade, 80% of India's smartphone market growth will come from smartphones priced in excess of $250, which have only accounted for about 10% of smartphone growth in India over the last five years. 
Combined, we believe these factors will drive a 11% annual smartphone market growth in India over the next decade, allowing India to become the third largest smartphone market in the world at $90 billion, trailing just China and the United States. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zOWD9oyiTzF_kneMJx0HbOEvIMG2t7k27b76xpWREAYMon, 24 Jul 2023 20:43:34 +0000gtyIndia’s smartphone market could triple in size over the next decade, putting it behind only the U.S. and China. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Hardware Analyst. Along with my...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our outlook for the India smartphone market. It's Monday, July 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We're making a bold call for India's smartphone market. We believe it will triple in size over the next decade to $90 billion and account for 15% of global smartphone shipments by 2032, up from just 6% today. That implies that India alone will drive 100% of global smartphone shipment growth over the next decade. 
India has the largest worldwide population, but smartphone penetration is significantly lower versus the rest of the world. For the last two decades, investors have been intrigued by the vast growth potential of the India smartphone market. But so far, investor expectations have not played out, as smartphone penetration in India has failed to surpass 40% versus the global average of 60%. And growth in the India smartphone market has been overwhelmingly driven by low end devices, with razor thin margins for original equipment manufacturers or OEMs. In fact, the smartphone TAM or total addressable market is just 25% the size of China, despite a similarly sized population. 
But we think the next decade will be different - it will be India's decade. Besides forecasting annual GDP growth of 6.5% for the next decade, our India Strategy and Economics colleagues believe that over the next decade, domestic consumption in India will more than double - driven by a number of important factors, including widespread economic reforms. 
These efforts are expected to bring meaningful demographic change, with income per capita expected to double, and the number of high income households expected to quintuple over the next decade. Alongside nearly 100% electrification of the country and a government led effort to prioritize digital transformation, we expect strong demand for technology goods to emerge over the next decade. We see these factors as setting the stage for robust smartphone growth in India. 
A recent AlphaWise smartphone survey of Indian consumers confirmed these trends, with three in four survey respondents acknowledging they are likely to purchase a new smartphone in the next 12 months, in line with other leading emerging markets. In fact, some respondents acknowledged they are more likely to own a smartphone over other household items such as a PC, car or refrigerator. 
Furthermore, Indian consumers are willing to pay up to 20% more for their next smartphone to gain access to premium technologies such as 5G compatibility, longer battery life, better camera quality and more storage capacity. While it's still early days, we believe these survey results illustrate the growing importance of the smartphone in India and the rising potential for the Indian smartphone market. 
When we take a step back, the two most important factors underpinning our $90 billion India smartphone TAM are growing smartphone penetration and positive mix shift, meaning customers are shifting their purchases to higher end devices. We estimate that in a decade, Indian smartphone penetration will reach 60%, the global average today. Furthermore, we estimate that over the next decade, 80% of India's smartphone market growth will come from smartphones priced in excess of $250, which have only accounted for about 10% of smartphone growth in India over the last five years. 
Combined, we believe these factors will drive a 11% annual smartphone market growth in India over the next decade, allowing India to become the third largest smartphone market in the world at $90 billion, trailing just China and the United States. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple...]]>235false917fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/japan-a-new-era-for-japanese-equities--75654839----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. 
Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategist. 
Chetan Ahya:  Over the last two days in this special three part series on Japan, we discussed a constructive outlook for Japan's economy and the various structural reforms it's undergoing. Today in this final episode focused on Japan, we'll talk about the key investment implications of these macro trends. It's Friday, July 21st at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong and Singapore. 
Chetan Ahya: Dan, you've been highlighting Japanese equities as our most preferred asset within the region and globally. Your bullish view is based on three powerful drivers of outperformance coming together, namely macro, micro and multipolar world. Starting with the macro, our economists expect an uplift in nominal GDP growth trend, how does this benefit Japanese equities? 
Daniel Blake: So we see this being another era for the Japanese market, having first exited deflation in 2013 with the initial Abenomics program, but now moving into positive nominal GDP growth from 2023 onwards. It's hugely important for companies who have been hemmed in with an inability to lift prices and hence they have been unable or unwilling to lift base wages or dividend levels. So this new pricing flexibility in top line growth supports the equity market in five key ways. First, we're going to see faster revenue growth. Second, we think this will mean wider operating profit margins given fixed cost leverage will now be working in favor of the bottom line. Third, financial sector earnings have been repressed by ongoing Bank of Japan policy, but a gradual process of normalization should help release the earnings power of Japanese financials. Fourth, domestic portfolios are highly risk averse and focused on cash and deposits. We think there will be some ongoing shift towards higher return assets, including equities. And finally, we think valuations for the equity market can continue to trend higher on convergence with global norms. 
Chetan Ahya: And on micro front, we've been discussing about the improvement in corporate governance for almost a decade now. What's changed this year? 
Daniel Blake: Yes, the environment has been changing for the better part of a decade, really since the introduction of the corporate governance and stewardship codes back in 2015 and 16. We are seeing progressive improvement with record levels of investor activism and engagement, and we're seeing signs that management teams are taking up the challenge of improving profitability with record buybacks and record levels of dividend payout ratios. That said, the progress has been patchy at times and coming into this year, 50% of equity market constituents were still trading below book value. So what's changed this year is in this backdrop of improving corporate governance we've had new calls from the Tokyo Stock Exchange for companies trading below book value to explore ways to meet their cost of capital and lift valuations. We think that additional support that will come through as companies look to engage with investors and unlock value will help to boost Japan's sustainable return on equity to 11 to 12%, that compares with Japan's 15 year average of just 4% before the Abenomics program took hold. And it would bring it up more consistent with global averages. 
Chetan Ahya: Dan, one of the big themes Morgan Stanley research is exploring deeply this year is the transition from a globalized or multipolar world. How does this emergence of multipolar world impact Japan and its equity markets in particular? 
Daniel Blake: Thanks, Chetan. And as we're thinking about a multipolar world transition, we think there are two scenarios for global supply chains and interdependencies. One is a de-risking process, which is our base case, where supply chains are strengthened, diversified, and we see ongoing policy support for investment into emerging industries. The second scenario, which we hope to avoid, is one of decoupling. But if we focus on the de-risking scenario, we think Japanese companies will benefit from that trend for two reasons. One, we have a high allocation in the Japanese market of companies skewed towards industrial automation, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, precision instruments, specialty chemicals, all of the inputs for supply chain diversification that are crucially in demand in this de-risking process. And the second reason is investor portfolios are also being diversified, and Japan's deep capital markets have been in a good position to absorb this shift. 
Chetan Ahya: So taking it together, where does this leave your view on Japan equities and what are the risks to your call? 
Daniel Blake: So overall, we see Japanese equities as our most preferred market globally with another 7% upside to our base case for the TOPIX index. As a result of the three drivers we'll discuss today, we're above consensus on earnings forecasts, seeing 10% growth in 2023 and 2024. Investors are still underweight on Japanese equities and we expect ongoing inflows over the coming quarters. The most acute risk to the call is if we end up in a global recession or if in Japan, core inflation overshoots 2% sustainably, forcing a tightening cycle in Japanese yen appreciation. We think the underlying environment will manage to mitigate these risks more than they have in the past, but that remains a cyclical risk for the Japanese equity outlook. 
Chetan Ahya: Dan, thank you for taking the time to talk. 
Daniel Blake: Great speaking with Chetan. 
Chetan Ahya: And thanks for listening to our special three part series on Japan. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4JATKYhyr5pAChQW9qfzeX1OfqucDvBJr_LXfY9Jo_0Fri, 21 Jul 2023 21:32:21 +0000gtyWith positive GDP growth and increasing revenues, Japan equities are becoming a preferred market globally.  ----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.  Daniel Blake:...----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. 
Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategist. 
Chetan Ahya:  Over the last two days in this special three part series on Japan, we discussed a constructive outlook for Japan's economy and the various structural reforms it's undergoing. Today in this final episode focused on Japan, we'll talk about the key investment implications of these macro trends. It's Friday, July 21st at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong and Singapore. 
Chetan Ahya: Dan, you've been highlighting Japanese equities as our most preferred asset within the region and globally. Your bullish view is based on three powerful drivers of outperformance coming together, namely macro, micro and multipolar world. Starting with the macro, our economists expect an uplift in nominal GDP growth trend, how does this benefit Japanese equities? 
Daniel Blake: So we see this being another era for the Japanese market, having first exited deflation in 2013 with the initial Abenomics program, but now moving into positive nominal GDP growth from 2023 onwards. It's hugely important for companies who have been hemmed in with an inability to lift prices and hence they have been unable or unwilling to lift base wages or dividend levels. So this new pricing flexibility in top line growth supports the equity market in five key ways. First, we're going to see faster revenue growth. Second, we think this will mean wider operating profit margins given fixed cost leverage will now be working in favor of the bottom line. Third, financial sector earnings have been repressed by ongoing Bank of Japan policy, but a gradual process of normalization should help release the earnings power of Japanese financials. Fourth, domestic portfolios are highly risk averse and focused on cash and deposits. We think there will be some ongoing shift towards higher return assets, including equities. And finally, we think valuations for the equity market can continue to trend higher on convergence with global norms. 
Chetan Ahya: And on micro front, we've been discussing about the improvement in corporate governance for almost a decade now. What's changed this year? 
Daniel Blake: Yes, the environment has been changing for the better part of a decade, really since the introduction of the corporate governance and stewardship codes back in 2015 and 16. We are seeing progressive improvement with record levels of investor activism and engagement, and we're seeing signs that management teams are taking up the challenge of improving profitability with record buybacks and record levels of dividend payout ratios. That said, the progress has been patchy at times and coming into this year, 50% of equity market constituents were still trading below book value. So what's changed this year is in this backdrop of improving corporate governance we've had new calls from the Tokyo Stock Exchange for companies trading below book value to explore ways to meet their cost of capital and lift valuations. We think that additional support that will come through as companies look to engage with investors and unlock value will help to boost Japan's sustainable return on equity to 11 to 12%, that compares with Japan's 15 year average of just 4% before the Abenomics program took hold. And it would bring it up more consistent with global averages. 
Chetan Ahya: Dan, one of the big themes Morgan Stanley research is exploring deeply this year is the transition from a globalized or multipolar world. How does this emergence of multipolar world impact Japan and its equity markets in particular? 
Daniel Blake: Thanks, Chetan. And as we're thinking about a multipolar world transition, we think there are two scenarios for global supply chains and...]]>334false916fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/japan-finding-opportunity-across-sectors--75654685----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. 
Takeshi Yamaguchi: I'm Takeshi Yamaguchi, Chief Japan Economist. 
Robert Feldman: And I'm Robert Feldman, Japan Senior Advisor. 
Chetan Ahya: Yesterday I discussed broad economic contours of Morgan Stanley's constructive view on Japan. Today, in the second installment of our special three part episode on Japan, we will dig deeper into the implications of the shift in Japan's nominal GDP path, the outlook for BOJ policy, as well as the outlook for structural reforms. It's Thursday, July 20th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Robert Feldman: And 10 a.m. in Tokyo. 
Chetan Ahya: Yamaguchi-San, let's start here. The change in inflation dynamics that I covered on yesterday's episode could mean a momentous shift in Japan's nominal GDP path. Maybe you could start here with you walking us through some of the key implications of this shift. 
Takeshi Yamaguchi: Yes, Japan's nominal GDP has been in a flat range for many years, since 1990's after the collapse of the asset bubble. But now it's finally getting out of the range, and we expect this trend of positive nominal GDP growth to continue over the medium term. I think there are mainly three implications from economists' viewpoints. First, we expect compensation of employees, that's the amount taken by workers, and corporate earnings to grow at the same time. Before it was like a zero sum game with almost no nominal GDP growth, but now we expect a bigger economic pie which should benefit both workers and companies. Japan's wage trend is already improving after strong spring wage negotiations this year. Second, we think that the revival of positive nominal GDP growth will improve Japan's fiscal sustainability. We are already seeing a big increase in tax revenue with strong nominal GDP growth. Meanwhile, we expect the average interest costs or interest burden to increase only gradually due to monetary policy and also because average maturity of Japanese government bonds exceeds nine years. And finally, we think the outlook of higher nominal GDP growth strength should have some positive impact on asset prices, including equity prices. This is not the only reason behind the recent equity market moves, but the likely shift in the nominal GDP growth trend is playing some role here in our view. 
Chetan Ahya: Another question I want to ask is around the Bank of Japan's yield curve control program. You're expecting the BOJ to adjust its policy around yield curve control program at the upcoming policy in end July, which would be the second shift in monetary policy stance last December. Do you see further shifts in monetary policy and would it disrupt the virtuous cycle we are forecasting? 
Takeshi Yamaguchi: At that July monetary policy meeting we don't expect the BOJ to get rid of YCC, the yield curve control framework, but we expect the BOJ to change the conduct of YCC by allowing more fluctuations of ten year JGB yields, potentially to plus/minus 1%, around 0%. And that said, we think the BOJ governor Ueda directly emphasized that the 2% inflation target is still not achieved in a sustainable manner. So we expect the BOJ to maintain the current short term policy rate of -0.1% after the YCC adjustment. In the third quarter next year we expect the BOJ to exit negative interest rate policy after observing another round of solid spring wage negotiations. But even so, Japan's real interest rates would remain extremely low for some time. So we think the virtuous cycle we've been highlighting will likely remain intact.  Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-San. Robbie, let me turn it over to you. Japan has been feeling increasing pressure from demographics and other factors at home and geopolitics abroad. And so in response it's developing a new grand strategy and undergoing a number of structural reforms. You believe these reforms could lead to higher growth, walk us through why you feel so positive. 
Robert Feldman: Thanks, Chetan. Structural reforms are being triggered by both market forces and policy. The market forces are technology change, labor shortage, geopolitical pressures, higher interest rates, pricing power from the end of deflation and supply chain derisking. The policy forces are corporate governance changes, immigration law changes, startup policies, monetary policy and climate and sustainability policy. There are lots of market forces and lots of policy forces behind these changes. 
Chetan Ahya: In what industries do you expect to see the biggest changes? 
Robert Feldman: There are five industries where I think there will be major changes. And other industries, of course, will have them as well, but these five industries could even be subject to disruption. These are energy, agriculture, AI and I.T., health care and education. Let me say a couple words about each. In energy Japan has been a little bit behind some other countries in introducing renewables, but it's catching up. A particularly promising is offshore wind, and especially offshore floating wind. There still has to be some cost reductions, but there's a lot of interest and Japan has huge resources in this area. In agriculture Japan is 60% dependent on foreign countries for total calorie intake. Moreover, about 10% of the agricultural land in the country is lying unused. That's because of land law issues, etc. and vested interests, but there's huge opportunity there. AI and IT, this is where probably progress has been the fastest because of the labor shortage. Japan views AI and IT as a savior because this labor shortage is just so intense. Health care, Japan is an old country and it's getting older, health care costs are going up and so it's imperative that living standards be maintained in the health care area through lower costs and better effectiveness. Japan has a good healthcare system, but it's under a lot of monetary pressure and that's why the technology changes are so important. And finally, education. If technology is going to spread, we need workers who are educated in the new technology. And that's where reskilling and recurrent education, lifelong education will become so, so important. This will be primarily a private sector initiative because government is focused on standard, primary, secondary education. So there's a lot of opportunity in the education business. There are 72 listed companies in education in Japan. 
Chetan Ahya: And how much progress has been made so far on these structural reforms? And what does the timeline look from here? 
Robert Feldman: Progress has been fastest in AI and IT, because the labor shortage is so intense. AI is viewed as a savior here in Japan rather than with the trepidation in some other countries, due to this labor shortage. We've also seen good progress in energy in a number of fields hydrogen, solar, carbon capture, wind and ammonia. Health care has seen much progress within hospitals where IT platforms are quite advanced at administrative functions. Agriculture has been slower, but there are amazing advances in vertical farming. On the timeline these changes are happening now and likely to see significant momentum in the next 2 to 3 years. There is no time to waste and I'm expecting very rapid progress, particularly in AI/IT, energy and health care. 
Chetan Ahya: Yamaguchi-San, Robbie, thank you both for taking the time to talk. 
Takeshi Yamaguchi: Great speaking with you, Chetan. 
Robert Feldman: Thanks for having us. 
Chetan Ahya: And thanks for listening. Tomorrow, I will return for part three of the special segments on Japan. My guest will be Daniel Blake, our Asia equity strategist. We will discuss the market implications of our constructive Japan macro outlook and what investors should pay attention to. If you Enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6VEdVt-rTLR2e-mJbYJpLDrABcLGOwahWA4QFstF1gAThu, 20 Jul 2023 23:11:14 +0000gtyAs Japan anticipates shifts in structural policy and GDP growth, these are the industries within the market that are poised to benefit. Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya, Chief Japan Economist Takeshi Yamaguchi, and Japan Senior Advisor Robert Feldman...----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. 
Takeshi Yamaguchi: I'm Takeshi Yamaguchi, Chief Japan Economist. 
Robert Feldman: And I'm Robert Feldman, Japan Senior Advisor. 
Chetan Ahya: Yesterday I discussed broad economic contours of Morgan Stanley's constructive view on Japan. Today, in the second installment of our special three part episode on Japan, we will dig deeper into the implications of the shift in Japan's nominal GDP path, the outlook for BOJ policy, as well as the outlook for structural reforms. It's Thursday, July 20th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Robert Feldman: And 10 a.m. in Tokyo. 
Chetan Ahya: Yamaguchi-San, let's start here. The change in inflation dynamics that I covered on yesterday's episode could mean a momentous shift in Japan's nominal GDP path. Maybe you could start here with you walking us through some of the key implications of this shift. 
Takeshi Yamaguchi: Yes, Japan's nominal GDP has been in a flat range for many years, since 1990's after the collapse of the asset bubble. But now it's finally getting out of the range, and we expect this trend of positive nominal GDP growth to continue over the medium term. I think there are mainly three implications from economists' viewpoints. First, we expect compensation of employees, that's the amount taken by workers, and corporate earnings to grow at the same time. Before it was like a zero sum game with almost no nominal GDP growth, but now we expect a bigger economic pie which should benefit both workers and companies. Japan's wage trend is already improving after strong spring wage negotiations this year. Second, we think that the revival of positive nominal GDP growth will improve Japan's fiscal sustainability. We are already seeing a big increase in tax revenue with strong nominal GDP growth. Meanwhile, we expect the average interest costs or interest burden to increase only gradually due to monetary policy and also because average maturity of Japanese government bonds exceeds nine years. And finally, we think the outlook of higher nominal GDP growth strength should have some positive impact on asset prices, including equity prices. This is not the only reason behind the recent equity market moves, but the likely shift in the nominal GDP growth trend is playing some role here in our view. 
Chetan Ahya: Another question I want to ask is around the Bank of Japan's yield curve control program. You're expecting the BOJ to adjust its policy around yield curve control program at the upcoming policy in end July, which would be the second shift in monetary policy stance last December. Do you see further shifts in monetary policy and would it disrupt the virtuous cycle we are forecasting? 
Takeshi Yamaguchi: At that July monetary policy meeting we don't expect the BOJ to get rid of YCC, the yield curve control framework, but we expect the BOJ to change the conduct of YCC by allowing more fluctuations of ten year JGB yields, potentially to plus/minus 1%, around 0%. And that said, we think the BOJ governor Ueda directly emphasized that the 2% inflation target is still not achieved in a sustainable manner. So we expect the BOJ to maintain the current short term policy rate of -0.1% after the YCC adjustment. In the third quarter next year we expect the BOJ to exit negative interest rate policy after observing another round of solid spring wage negotiations. But even so, Japan's real interest rates would remain extremely low for some time. So we think the virtuous cycle we've been highlighting will likely remain intact.  Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-San. Robbie, let me turn it...]]>489false915fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chetan-ahya-a-bullish-outlook-on-japan--75654760----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'm kicking off a special three part episode on our outlook for Japan. Today I'll be discussing our view on the Japanese economy. It's Wednesday, July 19th at 9am in Hong Kong. 
As you may have seen, Japan's economy and financial markets have attracted outsized investor interest this year. We at Morgan Stanley Research have had a constructive view on the macro and markets outlook for some time, based on three pillars: A decisive shift away from deflation, structural macro reforms coupled with the improved corporate governance on the macro front and return on equity for the corporate sector. 
Let's start with the macro outlook. From my vantage point, the single most important factor that defines the Japan narrative is inflation. Between 1993 and 2012, the Japan economy was trapped in deflation, with headline inflation hovering around 0%. The pursuit of Abenomics from 2013 onwards brought about a transition from deflation to low-flation and inflation managed to move a tad bit higher to an average of 0.5% from 2013 to 2019. In this cycle, we are seeing yet another shift in which Japan is decisively exiting deflation. Indeed, we see Japan transitioning into moderate inflation territory, where inflation averages 1 to 1.5% over the medium term. 
How is this inflation outcome achieved? Since the early 1990's, Japan has experienced monetary easing and fiscal easing, but the two have never really come together in a coordinated fashion, and in fact at times have neutralized each other. This started to change in 2013, when fiscal easing was combined with quantitative and qualitative monetary easing, which we think was critical to initial exit from deflation. 
In this cycle, we finally saw wage growth rising to a multi-year high, which in our view is the final key ingredient that will sustain inflation in the range of 1 to 1 and a half percent. Moreover, we don't expect a premature withdrawal of accommodative macro policies. Against this backdrop, we believe inflation expectation will be re-anchored to a higher level than before. 
Why is the liftoff of inflation so important? Well, moderate inflation is what makes the economic machine work. If consumers expect deflation or low-flation, they will be incentivized to put off their spending plans. For the corporate sector, the resulting high level of real interest rates will not catalyze new investment. This whole situation changes when moderate inflation takes hold and inflation expectations shift. Animal spirits come back to life, and that is at the heart of why we are bullish on Japan. 
In the next episode, we are going to continue this conversation with our two leading minds on Japan, our Chief Japan Economist Takashi Yamaguchi, and Japan Senior Advisor Robert Feldman. The three of us will dive into the implications of the shift in Japan's nominal GDP path, the outlook for BOJ's policy, as well as the outlook for structural reforms. And to wrap up the series, I'll speak with our Equity Strategist Daniel Blake about our market outlook and what investors should focus on. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/glKtMPssTxjdaznfjMVvtOD90LGXF5kur7SjbtyoWl0Wed, 19 Jul 2023 19:35:48 +0000gtyThe first of our three-part series on the Japanese economy dives into the three key factors that have triggered a recent surge in interest from investors. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'm kicking off a special three part episode on our outlook for Japan. Today I'll be discussing our view on the Japanese economy. It's Wednesday, July 19th at 9am in Hong Kong. 
As you may have seen, Japan's economy and financial markets have attracted outsized investor interest this year. We at Morgan Stanley Research have had a constructive view on the macro and markets outlook for some time, based on three pillars: A decisive shift away from deflation, structural macro reforms coupled with the improved corporate governance on the macro front and return on equity for the corporate sector. 
Let's start with the macro outlook. From my vantage point, the single most important factor that defines the Japan narrative is inflation. Between 1993 and 2012, the Japan economy was trapped in deflation, with headline inflation hovering around 0%. The pursuit of Abenomics from 2013 onwards brought about a transition from deflation to low-flation and inflation managed to move a tad bit higher to an average of 0.5% from 2013 to 2019. In this cycle, we are seeing yet another shift in which Japan is decisively exiting deflation. Indeed, we see Japan transitioning into moderate inflation territory, where inflation averages 1 to 1.5% over the medium term. 
How is this inflation outcome achieved? Since the early 1990's, Japan has experienced monetary easing and fiscal easing, but the two have never really come together in a coordinated fashion, and in fact at times have neutralized each other. This started to change in 2013, when fiscal easing was combined with quantitative and qualitative monetary easing, which we think was critical to initial exit from deflation. 
In this cycle, we finally saw wage growth rising to a multi-year high, which in our view is the final key ingredient that will sustain inflation in the range of 1 to 1 and a half percent. Moreover, we don't expect a premature withdrawal of accommodative macro policies. Against this backdrop, we believe inflation expectation will be re-anchored to a higher level than before. 
Why is the liftoff of inflation so important? Well, moderate inflation is what makes the economic machine work. If consumers expect deflation or low-flation, they will be incentivized to put off their spending plans. For the corporate sector, the resulting high level of real interest rates will not catalyze new investment. This whole situation changes when moderate inflation takes hold and inflation expectations shift. Animal spirits come back to life, and that is at the heart of why we are bullish on Japan. 
In the next episode, we are going to continue this conversation with our two leading minds on Japan, our Chief Japan Economist Takashi Yamaguchi, and Japan Senior Advisor Robert Feldman. The three of us will dive into the implications of the shift in Japan's nominal GDP path, the outlook for BOJ's policy, as well as the outlook for structural reforms. And to wrap up the series, I'll speak with our Equity Strategist Daniel Blake about our market outlook and what investors should focus on. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>209false913fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sarah-wolfe-student-loan-restart-draws-nearer--75654832----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the implications from the upcoming student loan restart. It's Tuesday, July 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The more than three year long moratorium on federal student loans is ending soon, expected to resume on October 1st, impacting nearly 27 million borrowers who have federal student loans in forbearance, totaling a trillion dollars or $41,000 per borrower on average. 
We believe this will translate into a hit to disposable income and a moderate pullback in discretionary spending in the fourth quarter of this year and partially into the first quarter of 2024. Altogether, we estimate it could shave about ten basis points off of total year real PCE growth or seven basis points off GDP growth. But we think that this is likely an upper estimate for a few reasons. First of all, there's a 12 month grace period that will allow households to take the next year to start making payments without falling delinquent—so not everybody is going to start making payments in October—consumers can tap into their savings and there could be debt reprioritization. 
There's going to be varying impact across different demographics. We find that those aged 25 to 34 are most likely to hold student debt, But borrowers age 35 and older hold the largest debt balance in dollar terms and as a share of disposable income. We also find, based on geography, that southern states, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, have the highest average student loan balance as a share of per capita disposable income while states in the Northeast, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have the lowest. It's worth mentioning that this is more of a result of disposable income being lower in southern states than debt balances being higher. 
So how will this impact credit? My colleagues from the Morgan Stanley U.S. consumer finance team expect the combination of student loan payments starting in October with the absence of loan forgiveness to lead to potential delinquencies as consumers divert cash flow, servicing other forms of debt like credit card and autos, towards their student loans. This could accelerate delinquency rates which are now above 2019 levels and increasing at the fastest clip in 15 years. 
One thing we're keeping an eye on are the new Biden administration initiatives that could provide some relief for low and middle income consumers. For example, as I mentioned, a 12-month ramp up grace period for borrowers means they won't be penalized or moved into delinquency if they fail to pay over the next year, though interest does still accrue. Also, a new save income driven repayment option should fully go into effect as of July 2024, lowering payments owed by undergraduate borrowers if they adopt this new income driven repayment plan. Overall, we believe the student loan repayment restart will be a hit to spending and borrowing that will spill over into U.S. hard lines, so these are appliances and sports equipment, broad lines, which are companies that deal in high volume at the cheaper end of a product line, and food retail industries, though at varying degrees. Retailers with customer demographics skewed towards younger and lower income consumers that sell into more discretionary categories appear to be the most at risk. 
Furthermore, our soft lines retail—that is clothing—and brands team think companies with outsized exposure to luxury and men's apparel, denim and swim could see the biggest slump in demand from student loan repayment, whereas those with sports apparel and footwear exposure may be the most insulated. 
That said, the bottom line is that no retailer is free from exposure to all three key student loan holder demographics, which skew younger, less affluent and more urban. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6rnsSvcgUKuxcJAIwPJ_wYobU8891Mheij7pjpvL1loTue, 18 Jul 2023 19:31:45 +0000gtyWith the moratorium on federal student loans ending soon, discretionary spending is likely to go down and delinquency is likely to rise as consumers face the end of a three-year reprieve. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the implications from the upcoming student loan restart. It's Tuesday, July 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The more than three year long moratorium on federal student loans is ending soon, expected to resume on October 1st, impacting nearly 27 million borrowers who have federal student loans in forbearance, totaling a trillion dollars or $41,000 per borrower on average. 
We believe this will translate into a hit to disposable income and a moderate pullback in discretionary spending in the fourth quarter of this year and partially into the first quarter of 2024. Altogether, we estimate it could shave about ten basis points off of total year real PCE growth or seven basis points off GDP growth. But we think that this is likely an upper estimate for a few reasons. First of all, there's a 12 month grace period that will allow households to take the next year to start making payments without falling delinquent—so not everybody is going to start making payments in October—consumers can tap into their savings and there could be debt reprioritization. 
There's going to be varying impact across different demographics. We find that those aged 25 to 34 are most likely to hold student debt, But borrowers age 35 and older hold the largest debt balance in dollar terms and as a share of disposable income. We also find, based on geography, that southern states, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, have the highest average student loan balance as a share of per capita disposable income while states in the Northeast, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have the lowest. It's worth mentioning that this is more of a result of disposable income being lower in southern states than debt balances being higher. 
So how will this impact credit? My colleagues from the Morgan Stanley U.S. consumer finance team expect the combination of student loan payments starting in October with the absence of loan forgiveness to lead to potential delinquencies as consumers divert cash flow, servicing other forms of debt like credit card and autos, towards their student loans. This could accelerate delinquency rates which are now above 2019 levels and increasing at the fastest clip in 15 years. 
One thing we're keeping an eye on are the new Biden administration initiatives that could provide some relief for low and middle income consumers. For example, as I mentioned, a 12-month ramp up grace period for borrowers means they won't be penalized or moved into delinquency if they fail to pay over the next year, though interest does still accrue. Also, a new save income driven repayment option should fully go into effect as of July 2024, lowering payments owed by undergraduate borrowers if they adopt this new income driven repayment plan. Overall, we believe the student loan repayment restart will be a hit to spending and borrowing that will spill over into U.S. hard lines, so these are appliances and sports equipment, broad lines, which are companies that deal in high volume at the cheaper end of a product line, and food retail industries, though at varying degrees. Retailers with customer demographics skewed towards younger and lower income consumers that sell into more discretionary categories appear to be the most at risk. 
Furthermore, our soft lines retail—that is clothing—and brands team think companies with outsized exposure to luxury and men's apparel, denim and swim could see the biggest slump in demand from student loan repayment, whereas those with sports apparel and footwear exposure may be the...]]>239false912fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-disinflation-and-equities--75654796----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 17th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week was all about the downward surprise to the June inflation data. More specifically, both the consumer and producer price indices came in well below expectations and suggests the Fed is on its way to winning its hard fought battle to beat inflation back down to 2%. Both stocks and bonds celebrated the news as a likelihood for a soft landing and the economy increased. Our view is not so sanguine on stocks as the steeper fall in inflation supports our view for a much weaker than expected earnings growth. 
Three years ago, at the trough of the pandemic recession, we were a lonely voice on the idea that inflation would surge higher due to excessive fiscal and monetary support. Furthermore, we suggested it would lead to a surge in earnings growth as companies discovered an ability to raise prices at will while the government subsidized labor costs. As we move to 2021, this over-earning broadens out as consumers spent their excess savings on everything from sporting goods to travel and leisure activities. By last summer, this boom in spending was so strong the Fed was forced to raise interest rates at a pace not seen in 40 years. With a lag in monetary policy close to 12 months, it should be no surprise that we are now seeing the headwinds on growth and inflation today. 
Because markets are forward looking, they understand this dynamic perhaps better than the average investor. In fact, it is the primary reason we decided to get tactically bullish on U.S. stocks last October. At that time, we suggested long term interest rates in the U.S. dollar would top in anticipation of the Fed's aggressive policy having its desired effect on inflation and growth. That began to play out in the fourth quarter as price earnings multiples expanded from 15.3x in October to 18x in early December. We decided to take the money and run at that point, thinking the market had already fully discounted the peak in inflation interest rates in the US dollar. Over the next six months, 18x did provide a ceiling on valuations. However, over the last six weeks, valuations have risen another 10% as the inflation data confirmed what we already knew. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence has given investors something to get excited about, but at unattractive valuations in our view. 
As noted earlier, we think inflation is now likely to surprise in the downside. A move to disinflation is positive for stocks because valuations typically rise under those circumstances. However, that has already happened. Now we expect disinflation to shift to deflation in many parts of the economy, in other words,prices began to fall. Most are not forecasting such a decline because it seems hard to fathom after what they witnessed in the real economy. However, it's just the mirror image of what happened in 2020 and 21 when supply was short of demand. At that time, inflation surprised companies and investors to the upside and led to much better earnings growth than forecasted. Now pricing power is fading due to demand falling short of supply, and this is likely to surprise many companies and investors to the downside. More importantly, it's not expected by the consensus anymore or is it in stock valuations at this point. 
We are already seeing pricing come down in many areas like consumer goods and commodities. Housing and cars are also seeing price degradation, especially in electric vehicles where supplies now overwhelming demand. In the latest consumer price index released last week, we even saw deflation in both airlines and hotel prices, two areas where demand is still robust. The bottom line, while falling inflation last week was great news for the Fed and its war on higher prices, equity investors should be careful what they wish for, as this is a slippery slope for earnings growth and hence stock valuations which are now quite extended. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ELZ1lBqqG4NpceTjaNep7BpB0iB5PcN2lUsnNZ9ySZIMon, 17 Jul 2023 20:36:13 +0000gtyWhile falling inflation is good news for many, equity investors may see volatility in earnings growth as pricing power fades. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment officer and Chief U.S. Equity...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 17th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week was all about the downward surprise to the June inflation data. More specifically, both the consumer and producer price indices came in well below expectations and suggests the Fed is on its way to winning its hard fought battle to beat inflation back down to 2%. Both stocks and bonds celebrated the news as a likelihood for a soft landing and the economy increased. Our view is not so sanguine on stocks as the steeper fall in inflation supports our view for a much weaker than expected earnings growth. 
Three years ago, at the trough of the pandemic recession, we were a lonely voice on the idea that inflation would surge higher due to excessive fiscal and monetary support. Furthermore, we suggested it would lead to a surge in earnings growth as companies discovered an ability to raise prices at will while the government subsidized labor costs. As we move to 2021, this over-earning broadens out as consumers spent their excess savings on everything from sporting goods to travel and leisure activities. By last summer, this boom in spending was so strong the Fed was forced to raise interest rates at a pace not seen in 40 years. With a lag in monetary policy close to 12 months, it should be no surprise that we are now seeing the headwinds on growth and inflation today. 
Because markets are forward looking, they understand this dynamic perhaps better than the average investor. In fact, it is the primary reason we decided to get tactically bullish on U.S. stocks last October. At that time, we suggested long term interest rates in the U.S. dollar would top in anticipation of the Fed's aggressive policy having its desired effect on inflation and growth. That began to play out in the fourth quarter as price earnings multiples expanded from 15.3x in October to 18x in early December. We decided to take the money and run at that point, thinking the market had already fully discounted the peak in inflation interest rates in the US dollar. Over the next six months, 18x did provide a ceiling on valuations. However, over the last six weeks, valuations have risen another 10% as the inflation data confirmed what we already knew. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence has given investors something to get excited about, but at unattractive valuations in our view. 
As noted earlier, we think inflation is now likely to surprise in the downside. A move to disinflation is positive for stocks because valuations typically rise under those circumstances. However, that has already happened. Now we expect disinflation to shift to deflation in many parts of the economy, in other words,prices began to fall. Most are not forecasting such a decline because it seems hard to fathom after what they witnessed in the real economy. However, it's just the mirror image of what happened in 2020 and 21 when supply was short of demand. At that time, inflation surprised companies and investors to the upside and led to much better earnings growth than forecasted. Now pricing power is fading due to demand falling short of supply, and this is likely to surprise many companies and investors to the downside. More importantly, it's not expected by the consensus anymore or is it in stock valuations at this point. 
We are already seeing pricing come down in many areas like consumer goods and commodities. Housing and cars are also seeing price degradation, especially in electric vehicles where supplies now overwhelming demand. In the latest consumer price index...]]>241false911fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-are-bonds-primed-for-a-comeback--75654735----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be talking about the case for government bonds. It's Friday, July 14th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
With the U.S. labor market remaining resilient, the prospects for bond markets would depend critically on the outlook for inflation. Our economists expect core inflation to continue to move lower, slowly but surely, shifting consumption patterns in which spending on services slows while goods consumption continues to contract, will weigh on core inflation.
Recent data have been supportive of this expectation. The June employment report we got last Friday, showed a slowing in the services sector earnings growth. Overall, average hourly earnings moved sideways and still are higher than the historical averages. But the average hourly earnings for the services sector decelerated again in June. Though two months do not establish a firm trend, the deceleration in service's average hourly earnings since April is good news for the inflation outlook. The Consumer Price Index and the producer price index  data that we got this week also reflect this ongoing deceleration in inflation. On a year-over-year basis, headline inflation came down to 3% while core inflation came in at 4.8%, down from 5.3% in May. Core Producer Price Index also came in below consensus and is now running at 2.6% year-over-year, down from 2.8%. 
This moderation in economic activity and inflation goes beyond what many Fed officials would consider their model expectations. Such a deceleration, even if associated with a soft landing, could see them adjusting their current hawkish stances. 
Of course, in the best environment for government bonds, central banks are actively easing monetary policy, an environment our economists see taking shape at the end of the first quarter of next year. As such, expected returns for government bonds this year, while admirable, may be closer to average calendar year return than the returns typically delivered during the recessionary periods. At the same time, we think government bonds could perform even better than average, considering the risks that markets are not pricing in. 
The possibility that central bank hikes to date may weigh on economic activity into year end, and that inflation is likely to fall meaningfully into year end with sticky components becoming less sticky, increases the attractiveness of government bonds in our view. Hence, while they have been battered and bruised, government bonds look primed for a comeback in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CnzvyBaIhO6Mc3XrlBPrlD1oxzScn-d5Loy8swHpvCgFri, 14 Jul 2023 19:05:31 +0000gtyWith inflation slowly moving lower, government bonds are looking increasingly more attractive and may be primed for a comeback later this year. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be talking about the case for government bonds. It's Friday, July 14th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
With the U.S. labor market remaining resilient, the prospects for bond markets would depend critically on the outlook for inflation. Our economists expect core inflation to continue to move lower, slowly but surely, shifting consumption patterns in which spending on services slows while goods consumption continues to contract, will weigh on core inflation.
Recent data have been supportive of this expectation. The June employment report we got last Friday, showed a slowing in the services sector earnings growth. Overall, average hourly earnings moved sideways and still are higher than the historical averages. But the average hourly earnings for the services sector decelerated again in June. Though two months do not establish a firm trend, the deceleration in service's average hourly earnings since April is good news for the inflation outlook. The Consumer Price Index and the producer price index  data that we got this week also reflect this ongoing deceleration in inflation. On a year-over-year basis, headline inflation came down to 3% while core inflation came in at 4.8%, down from 5.3% in May. Core Producer Price Index also came in below consensus and is now running at 2.6% year-over-year, down from 2.8%. 
This moderation in economic activity and inflation goes beyond what many Fed officials would consider their model expectations. Such a deceleration, even if associated with a soft landing, could see them adjusting their current hawkish stances. 
Of course, in the best environment for government bonds, central banks are actively easing monetary policy, an environment our economists see taking shape at the end of the first quarter of next year. As such, expected returns for government bonds this year, while admirable, may be closer to average calendar year return than the returns typically delivered during the recessionary periods. At the same time, we think government bonds could perform even better than average, considering the risks that markets are not pricing in. 
The possibility that central bank hikes to date may weigh on economic activity into year end, and that inflation is likely to fall meaningfully into year end with sticky components becoming less sticky, increases the attractiveness of government bonds in our view. Hence, while they have been battered and bruised, government bonds look primed for a comeback in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>172false910fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ravi-shanker-decarbonizing-aviation--75654773----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's freight transportation and airlines analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the path to decarbonization in aviation. It's Thursday, July 13th at 2 p.m. in New York. 
The global aviation industry emits roughly 1 billion tons of CO2 per year - comparable to the emissions of Japan, the world's third largest economy, and aviation emissions are estimated to double or even triple between 2019 and 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario. 
In order to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and align with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the global aviation industry needs to reduce its CO2 absolute footprint by 13% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. We think the industry has three solutions for doing so. One, change its fleet mix towards more fuel efficient aircraft. Two, scale other modes of propulsion such as electric/hybrid engines and hydrogen. And three, change their jet fuel mix towards more sustainable aviation fuel. 
Based on currently available technologies, we see the third option, sustainable aviation fuel or SAF, as the most realistic pathway for the airlines industry to meet its 2030 decarbonization goals. SAF is a biofuel used to power aircraft that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel, and can be dropped into today's aircraft and infrastructure. SAF is derived from non-fossil sources called feedstock, such as corn grain, oilseeds, algae, oils, fats and greases, forestry residues, and municipal solid waste streams. There are currently various certified SAF production procedures, all of which make fuel that performs at levels operationally equivalent to jet A1 fuel. 
Replacing conventional jet fuel with SAF can mitigate CO2 materially. The challenge, however, is that SAF accounts for less than 1% of the fuel used in global aviation, and for the aviation industry to meet its decarbonization targets SAF supply needs to scale materially. The key constraints around wide adoption of SAF are cost, feedstock availability, impacts to nature and biodiversity, and, finally, the capital required to produce SAF at scale. 
That said, support for SAF has improved materially over the last two years. In 2021, President Biden's climate agenda outlined a goal of producing 3 billion gallons of SAF per year by 2030, roughly 10x the current global SAF production. And in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act extended and bolstered incentives for SAF. Since then, new capacity has been announced and multiple airlines have committed to using more SAF through long term offtake agreements. Meanwhile, more than ten global airlines target to replace at least 10% of their jet fuel demand with SAF by 2030. In addition, several U.S. state jurisdictions are adopting clean fuel standards or are exploring similar programs. The EU, UK and Japan have also put in place various incentives and targets since 2021. While these developments are highly encouraging, more widespread support and long term certainty are needed to scale SAF production to the levels required to meet the 2030 targets. 
Is this achievable? We will continue to monitor developments and bring you updates as we make progress along the path to decarbonizing aviation. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/s6XgT6KrqliuuCz1hEetJ-g-Yz0Zl-jRrzTN7U-bqDoThu, 13 Jul 2023 21:20:23 +0000gtyAs airlines scramble to decrease their carbon footprint by 80% before 2050, can sustainable aviation fuel lead the charge? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's freight transportation and airlines...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's freight transportation and airlines analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the path to decarbonization in aviation. It's Thursday, July 13th at 2 p.m. in New York. 
The global aviation industry emits roughly 1 billion tons of CO2 per year - comparable to the emissions of Japan, the world's third largest economy, and aviation emissions are estimated to double or even triple between 2019 and 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario. 
In order to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and align with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the global aviation industry needs to reduce its CO2 absolute footprint by 13% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. We think the industry has three solutions for doing so. One, change its fleet mix towards more fuel efficient aircraft. Two, scale other modes of propulsion such as electric/hybrid engines and hydrogen. And three, change their jet fuel mix towards more sustainable aviation fuel. 
Based on currently available technologies, we see the third option, sustainable aviation fuel or SAF, as the most realistic pathway for the airlines industry to meet its 2030 decarbonization goals. SAF is a biofuel used to power aircraft that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel, and can be dropped into today's aircraft and infrastructure. SAF is derived from non-fossil sources called feedstock, such as corn grain, oilseeds, algae, oils, fats and greases, forestry residues, and municipal solid waste streams. There are currently various certified SAF production procedures, all of which make fuel that performs at levels operationally equivalent to jet A1 fuel. 
Replacing conventional jet fuel with SAF can mitigate CO2 materially. The challenge, however, is that SAF accounts for less than 1% of the fuel used in global aviation, and for the aviation industry to meet its decarbonization targets SAF supply needs to scale materially. The key constraints around wide adoption of SAF are cost, feedstock availability, impacts to nature and biodiversity, and, finally, the capital required to produce SAF at scale. 
That said, support for SAF has improved materially over the last two years. In 2021, President Biden's climate agenda outlined a goal of producing 3 billion gallons of SAF per year by 2030, roughly 10x the current global SAF production. And in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act extended and bolstered incentives for SAF. Since then, new capacity has been announced and multiple airlines have committed to using more SAF through long term offtake agreements. Meanwhile, more than ten global airlines target to replace at least 10% of their jet fuel demand with SAF by 2030. In addition, several U.S. state jurisdictions are adopting clean fuel standards or are exploring similar programs. The EU, UK and Japan have also put in place various incentives and targets since 2021. While these developments are highly encouraging, more widespread support and long term certainty are needed to scale SAF production to the levels required to meet the 2030 targets. 
Is this achievable? We will continue to monitor developments and bring you updates as we make progress along the path to decarbonizing aviation. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>229false909fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-looking-to-the-treasury-market--75654736----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research  for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the potential market impacts of a government shutdown. It's Wednesday, July 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. Press reports warning of a potential government shutdown this fall have understandably led to some questions from clients this week. They're asking what, if any, market impact should they expect if the U.S. fails to appropriate spending for the next fiscal year starting October 1st. The concern, of course, is that markets may react negatively perceiving economic risk if the government without funding ceases certain operations. But some historical perspective is helpful here and leads us to categorize this as a risk worth monitoring but not panicking about. 
First, while government shutdowns create a very real strain for parts of the economy, like government employees and contractors doing business with the government, our economists have pointed out that in the past, the aggregate impacts to the overall economy have tended to be modest and fleeting. A key reason why is that the norm has been that after shutdowns, the government typically appropriates back pay and resumes prior expected payments to vendors. So spending is simply deferred and made up in the future rather than completely foregone. 
Not surprisingly, then, market impacts have tended to be inconsistent and fleeting. True, there have been episodes when stocks sold off heading into and during shutdowns and then rally back when shutdowns ended, but it's difficult to desegregate the shutdown as a market driver from other prevailing economic conditions and market valuations. Said more simply, if equity and or credit markets were pricing higher economic optimism, a shutdown could be a temporary headwind for markets. But such a dynamic is far from something that we would base strategic investment guidance on. 
Despite all this, if you're still looking for a market that might be more insulated from the risk of a shutdown, then given current conditions, we'd look toward the U.S. Treasury market. While it might seem counterintuitive to own government bonds in a government shutdown, remember it was the debt ceiling issue that carried default risk, not a shutdown. In the shutdown, the U.S. Treasury has money and authority to pay bondholders, just not authority to pay certain other government operations. Further, we already think Treasuries are poised to have a strong second half of 2023 as yields could start to decline on softening economic data and an expectation that the Fed would soon be done hiking rates. And while a government shutdown wouldn't necessarily add to that trend, it certainly adds some degree of risk to the economy, reinforcing the case for owning bonds. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AeLp1D3qU5fOHL8Jdd2X92s7WlzbdX7njEl5rssNK1YWed, 12 Jul 2023 21:53:30 +0000gtyWith a potential government shutdown looming in the fall, investors may want to keep an eye on the U.S. Treasury market to insulate themselves from risk. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research  for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the potential market impacts of a government shutdown. It's Wednesday, July 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. Press reports warning of a potential government shutdown this fall have understandably led to some questions from clients this week. They're asking what, if any, market impact should they expect if the U.S. fails to appropriate spending for the next fiscal year starting October 1st. The concern, of course, is that markets may react negatively perceiving economic risk if the government without funding ceases certain operations. But some historical perspective is helpful here and leads us to categorize this as a risk worth monitoring but not panicking about. 
First, while government shutdowns create a very real strain for parts of the economy, like government employees and contractors doing business with the government, our economists have pointed out that in the past, the aggregate impacts to the overall economy have tended to be modest and fleeting. A key reason why is that the norm has been that after shutdowns, the government typically appropriates back pay and resumes prior expected payments to vendors. So spending is simply deferred and made up in the future rather than completely foregone. 
Not surprisingly, then, market impacts have tended to be inconsistent and fleeting. True, there have been episodes when stocks sold off heading into and during shutdowns and then rally back when shutdowns ended, but it's difficult to desegregate the shutdown as a market driver from other prevailing economic conditions and market valuations. Said more simply, if equity and or credit markets were pricing higher economic optimism, a shutdown could be a temporary headwind for markets. But such a dynamic is far from something that we would base strategic investment guidance on. 
Despite all this, if you're still looking for a market that might be more insulated from the risk of a shutdown, then given current conditions, we'd look toward the U.S. Treasury market. While it might seem counterintuitive to own government bonds in a government shutdown, remember it was the debt ceiling issue that carried default risk, not a shutdown. In the shutdown, the U.S. Treasury has money and authority to pay bondholders, just not authority to pay certain other government operations. Further, we already think Treasuries are poised to have a strong second half of 2023 as yields could start to decline on softening economic data and an expectation that the Fed would soon be done hiking rates. And while a government shutdown wouldn't necessarily add to that trend, it certainly adds some degree of risk to the economy, reinforcing the case for owning bonds. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>169false908fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/shawn-kim-the-double-edged-sword-of-ai-technologies--75654741----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley's Asia Technology Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why A.I matters for investors and our outlook for the next 5 to 10 years in the evolution of A.I. It's Tuesday, July 11th, at 9 a.m. in New York. 
In the span of just six months, open A.I has moved from being a niche IT research and development, to a key driver of what is set to become a $3 trillion IT spend by 2029. Despite this rapid progress, we're still in the early stages of A.I technologies. We believe today's machine learning stage of A.I adoption precedes a much larger future market when we reach the inference phase, which is where A.I would be able to make predictions based on novel data. And that, in turn, would eventually expand to an even bigger potential market in endpoint or edge A.I inference. 
The A.I technology total addressable market or the TAM, which includes semiconductors, hardware and networking, is at $90 billion today and we estimate it will grow to 275 billion by 2027. That's more than half the size of the semiconductor market today. 
This remarketable growth is actually led by semiconductors, where we see the A.I semiconductor market TAM tripling over the next three years from 43 billion to 125 billion, and signifying our growing the overall A.I market. Companies that we consider A.I leaders are generally showing high growth and returns, consensus shows a three year average EPS growth of 24%, which is more than twice the earnings growth of global stocks on average. 
Our investment framework addresses three key criteria. One, which parts of the tech supply chain are the biggest beneficiaries of A.I, in terms of revenue exposure and how that exposure is growing relative to their traditional businesses. Two, the quality of those earnings and whether they are based on volume or pricing. And three, whether stock valuations reflect that upside potential. 
We believe we are far from bubble metrics, although the market will inevitably compare A.I. to the dot.com boom. However, today's leading A.I companies are well-established  with good cash flow characteristics, for the most part, unlike many companies that became casualties of dot.com collapse. 
As we embark on what we view as a new, decade-long paradigm shift, we expect outperformance to come in waves and think we are currently very early in the enabling technology stage. And like so many technologies, A.I is also a double edged sword. There are companies that are in the right place at the right time now, but also have what it takes to fully commercialize the A.I opportunity over the long term. The flip side is companies that are less relevant to A.I products or services but will infuse optimism in their forward guidance via mentions of A.I. While we expect A.I will be a growth driver for most, it will not generate revenue growth for everyone. Other potential risks include the fact that the chip cycle is not just depending on the A.I, but also on the wider global economic cycle. And furthermore, we believe any big visions of A.I's transforming the world as we know it must rest on a solid foundation of physics, ethics and the law, a big topic we will continue to follow closely and bring you updates. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/voWM8ngvbtNgIl6M6nG1pXdWMqawRqhw8jQPwJBsnvQTue, 11 Jul 2023 20:40:05 +0000gtyThe market for artificial intelligence technologies could reach $275 billion by 2027, but not all companies will be able to generate revenue. Here’s what investors should watch. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley's Asia Technology Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why A.I matters for investors and our outlook for the next 5 to 10 years in the evolution of A.I. It's Tuesday, July 11th, at 9 a.m. in New York. 
In the span of just six months, open A.I has moved from being a niche IT research and development, to a key driver of what is set to become a $3 trillion IT spend by 2029. Despite this rapid progress, we're still in the early stages of A.I technologies. We believe today's machine learning stage of A.I adoption precedes a much larger future market when we reach the inference phase, which is where A.I would be able to make predictions based on novel data. And that, in turn, would eventually expand to an even bigger potential market in endpoint or edge A.I inference. 
The A.I technology total addressable market or the TAM, which includes semiconductors, hardware and networking, is at $90 billion today and we estimate it will grow to 275 billion by 2027. That's more than half the size of the semiconductor market today. 
This remarketable growth is actually led by semiconductors, where we see the A.I semiconductor market TAM tripling over the next three years from 43 billion to 125 billion, and signifying our growing the overall A.I market. Companies that we consider A.I leaders are generally showing high growth and returns, consensus shows a three year average EPS growth of 24%, which is more than twice the earnings growth of global stocks on average. 
Our investment framework addresses three key criteria. One, which parts of the tech supply chain are the biggest beneficiaries of A.I, in terms of revenue exposure and how that exposure is growing relative to their traditional businesses. Two, the quality of those earnings and whether they are based on volume or pricing. And three, whether stock valuations reflect that upside potential. 
We believe we are far from bubble metrics, although the market will inevitably compare A.I. to the dot.com boom. However, today's leading A.I companies are well-established  with good cash flow characteristics, for the most part, unlike many companies that became casualties of dot.com collapse. 
As we embark on what we view as a new, decade-long paradigm shift, we expect outperformance to come in waves and think we are currently very early in the enabling technology stage. And like so many technologies, A.I is also a double edged sword. There are companies that are in the right place at the right time now, but also have what it takes to fully commercialize the A.I opportunity over the long term. The flip side is companies that are less relevant to A.I products or services but will infuse optimism in their forward guidance via mentions of A.I. While we expect A.I will be a growth driver for most, it will not generate revenue growth for everyone. Other potential risks include the fact that the chip cycle is not just depending on the A.I, but also on the wider global economic cycle. And furthermore, we believe any big visions of A.I's transforming the world as we know it must rest on a solid foundation of physics, ethics and the law, a big topic we will continue to follow closely and bring you updates. 
Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>187false907fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-all-eyes-on-earnings--75654693----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 10th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.   
With year to date U.S. equity returns driven nearly 100% by higher valuations, the market either doesn't care about earnings or it expects a major reacceleration in growth both later this year and next. One might argue that the higher valuations are anticipating the end of the Fed's rate hiking campaign, even though the bond market doesn't seem to agree with that conclusion, given the recent rise in yields. In short, the price earnings ratio for the S&P 500 is up approximately 15%, and with interest rates up this year, the equity risk premium has collapsed by 100 basis points to its lowest level since the tech bubble era. 
With second quarter earnings season beginning this week, 'better than feared' likely isn't going to cut it anymore. While earnings results so far this year remain right on track for the sharp earnings recession we forecast, we don't expect second quarter earnings to disappoint expectations in aggregate, given second quarter estimates have now been revised lower by 7.5% since the beginning of the year. Instead, we would point out that the consensus bottom-up second quarter EPS forecast for the S&P 500 is -7% year over year, hardly exciting. Furthermore, the consensus pushed out the trough earnings per share growth quarter from the first quarter to the second quarter over the last three months. We expect this trend to continue through the balance of the year, which would also be in line with our forecast. In other words, no big second half recovery as the consensus and valuations now expect. More specifically, third quarter is when our forecast starts to meaningfully diverge from the consensus. This means the key driver for stocks during this earnings season will come via company guidance for the out quarter rather than the second quarter results. We suspect some companies will begin to walk down the estimates, while others will continue to tell a more optimistic story. In short, this earnings season should matter more than the prior two, and should provide significant alpha opportunities for investors in terms of both longs and shorts. 
In our view, the year to date multiple expansion has occurred for a couple of reasons beyond earnings growth optimism. One, excess liquidity provided by global central banks amid a weaker U.S. dollar and the FDIC bail out of depositors. And two, excitement around artificial intelligence’s potential impact on productivity and earnings growth. On the liquidity front we think that support is starting to fade. One way of measuring liquidity is global money supply in U.S. dollars. One of the reasons we turned tactically bullish last October was due to our view that the U.S. dollar was topping. This, along with the China reopening and the Bank of Japan's monetary policy actions, added close to $7 trillion to global money supply over the following six months. We've pointed out previously that the rate of change on global money supply is correlated to the rate of change on global equities, as well as the S&P 500. Over the past few months, global money supply in U.S. dollars has begun to shrink again, just as the Treasury begins to issue over a trillion dollars of supply to restock its coffers post a debt ceiling resolution last month. 
As an early indicator that market liquidity is fading, nominal ten-year yields broke out last week above the psychologically important 4% level, and real rates are making new cycle highs. Interest rate volatility also picked up as uncertainty about the Fed's next moves increased. Neither higher interest rate levels nor volatility are generally conducive to higher equity valuations. 
Bottom line, with earnings season upon us, we aren't expecting any fireworks from the earnings reports directly. However, with expectations for growth now much higher than six months ago, we suspect it will be a 'sell the news' event for many stocks, no matter what the companies post, as the market begins to look ahead to what is likely going to disappoint lofty expectations. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/13zhjUAgmrKYrb_WIMsDDwTg2zAkhETenADSRP3Ro_IMon, 10 Jul 2023 20:29:27 +0000gtyAs earnings season kicks off, market valuations continue to trend high based on major growth expectations. However, investors may want to keep an eye on liquidity. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 10th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.   
With year to date U.S. equity returns driven nearly 100% by higher valuations, the market either doesn't care about earnings or it expects a major reacceleration in growth both later this year and next. One might argue that the higher valuations are anticipating the end of the Fed's rate hiking campaign, even though the bond market doesn't seem to agree with that conclusion, given the recent rise in yields. In short, the price earnings ratio for the S&P 500 is up approximately 15%, and with interest rates up this year, the equity risk premium has collapsed by 100 basis points to its lowest level since the tech bubble era. 
With second quarter earnings season beginning this week, 'better than feared' likely isn't going to cut it anymore. While earnings results so far this year remain right on track for the sharp earnings recession we forecast, we don't expect second quarter earnings to disappoint expectations in aggregate, given second quarter estimates have now been revised lower by 7.5% since the beginning of the year. Instead, we would point out that the consensus bottom-up second quarter EPS forecast for the S&P 500 is -7% year over year, hardly exciting. Furthermore, the consensus pushed out the trough earnings per share growth quarter from the first quarter to the second quarter over the last three months. We expect this trend to continue through the balance of the year, which would also be in line with our forecast. In other words, no big second half recovery as the consensus and valuations now expect. More specifically, third quarter is when our forecast starts to meaningfully diverge from the consensus. This means the key driver for stocks during this earnings season will come via company guidance for the out quarter rather than the second quarter results. We suspect some companies will begin to walk down the estimates, while others will continue to tell a more optimistic story. In short, this earnings season should matter more than the prior two, and should provide significant alpha opportunities for investors in terms of both longs and shorts. 
In our view, the year to date multiple expansion has occurred for a couple of reasons beyond earnings growth optimism. One, excess liquidity provided by global central banks amid a weaker U.S. dollar and the FDIC bail out of depositors. And two, excitement around artificial intelligence’s potential impact on productivity and earnings growth. On the liquidity front we think that support is starting to fade. One way of measuring liquidity is global money supply in U.S. dollars. One of the reasons we turned tactically bullish last October was due to our view that the U.S. dollar was topping. This, along with the China reopening and the Bank of Japan's monetary policy actions, added close to $7 trillion to global money supply over the following six months. We've pointed out previously that the rate of change on global money supply is correlated to the rate of change on global equities, as well as the S&P 500. Over the past few months, global money supply in U.S. dollars has begun to shrink again, just as the Treasury begins to issue over a trillion dollars of supply to restock its coffers post a debt ceiling resolution last month. 
As an early indicator that market liquidity is fading, nominal ten-year yields broke out last week above the psychologically important 4% level, and real rates are making new cycle highs....]]>239false906fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/james-lord-the-dollar-s-resiliency--75654786----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Head of Foreign Exchange and Emerging Market Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be discussing the status of the U.S dollar within global foreign exchange or FX reserves. It's Friday, July 7th, 3 p.m. in London. 
The debate about the dollar's status as the world's dominant currency usually resurfaces during every business cycle, and as our world increasingly transitions from globalized toward a multipolar model, this debate appears more relevant. 
Indeed, some economic actors are already de-risking their currency reserves away from the dollar, promoting the use of local currencies as an alternative in international trade and trying to reduce the dollar's global role through other means. 
Yet, this debate is usually a distraction from determining where the dollar is headed. In contrast to the popular narrative, we believe the dollar can appreciate, even if its use as a reserve currency or invoicing currency in international trade declines. 
Let's first address the dollar's status as the world's dominant central bank reserve currency. The purpose of FX reserves is to bolster the external stability of an economy and enable central banks to act as lenders of last resort to those in demand of foreign currency. It's intuitive to think that reserve choices might therefore be correlated with the value of currencies themselves, yet relying on that intuition would not have served you well in recent history. 
Case in point, while the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency, its share has dropped by around 20% over the last 20 years, most rapidly over the last ten. Nevertheless, over the last decade, the dollar has been one of the world's strongest currencies, with the Fed's real broad dollar index reaching a near 20 year high in October 2022. 
The dollar's declining share of global FX reserves has not been relevant in figuring out where the dollar is heading, in part because FX reserve managers are less influential in currency markets today, but more importantly, because other investors have favored U.S. assets. 
To be clear, this does not mean that watching trends in FX reserves is not important. A sudden, sharp decline in the market share of a reserve currency could well be driven by a sudden loss of confidence in the macroeconomic stability of an economy, diminishing its attraction as an investment destination. If so, the currency of that economy would likely decline. 
This concern has not driven the decline of the dollar's share of global FX reserves in recent years, as evidenced by its continued strength. Moreover, U.S. assets retain unique appeal for global capital, as the recent boom in U.S. tech stocks and rising optimism about the productivity enhancing implications of A.I show.
Meanwhile, the dollar provides one of the highest yields of the world's major currencies, thanks to the Fed's hiking cycle. In a world of weak global growth, this yield will also likely help the dollar to appreciate. 
For clues about the future direction of exchange rates, we would be watching for signs that investment opportunities in different economies are improving. For now, the dollar offers attractive yields and remains a safe harbor during the current period of slow global economic growth. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xbhEjureazKYYNXyMwGZKh432gECUrmZGJ0Yort1bc0Fri, 07 Jul 2023 19:12:47 +0000gtyThough the debate around the global strength of the dollar in currency markets continues, the dollar’s current high yield in a world of weak global growth could help it appreciate ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Head of Foreign Exchange and Emerging Market Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be discussing the status of the U.S dollar within global foreign exchange or FX reserves. It's Friday, July 7th, 3 p.m. in London. 
The debate about the dollar's status as the world's dominant currency usually resurfaces during every business cycle, and as our world increasingly transitions from globalized toward a multipolar model, this debate appears more relevant. 
Indeed, some economic actors are already de-risking their currency reserves away from the dollar, promoting the use of local currencies as an alternative in international trade and trying to reduce the dollar's global role through other means. 
Yet, this debate is usually a distraction from determining where the dollar is headed. In contrast to the popular narrative, we believe the dollar can appreciate, even if its use as a reserve currency or invoicing currency in international trade declines. 
Let's first address the dollar's status as the world's dominant central bank reserve currency. The purpose of FX reserves is to bolster the external stability of an economy and enable central banks to act as lenders of last resort to those in demand of foreign currency. It's intuitive to think that reserve choices might therefore be correlated with the value of currencies themselves, yet relying on that intuition would not have served you well in recent history. 
Case in point, while the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency, its share has dropped by around 20% over the last 20 years, most rapidly over the last ten. Nevertheless, over the last decade, the dollar has been one of the world's strongest currencies, with the Fed's real broad dollar index reaching a near 20 year high in October 2022. 
The dollar's declining share of global FX reserves has not been relevant in figuring out where the dollar is heading, in part because FX reserve managers are less influential in currency markets today, but more importantly, because other investors have favored U.S. assets. 
To be clear, this does not mean that watching trends in FX reserves is not important. A sudden, sharp decline in the market share of a reserve currency could well be driven by a sudden loss of confidence in the macroeconomic stability of an economy, diminishing its attraction as an investment destination. If so, the currency of that economy would likely decline. 
This concern has not driven the decline of the dollar's share of global FX reserves in recent years, as evidenced by its continued strength. Moreover, U.S. assets retain unique appeal for global capital, as the recent boom in U.S. tech stocks and rising optimism about the productivity enhancing implications of A.I show.
Meanwhile, the dollar provides one of the highest yields of the world's major currencies, thanks to the Fed's hiking cycle. In a world of weak global growth, this yield will also likely help the dollar to appreciate. 
For clues about the future direction of exchange rates, we would be watching for signs that investment opportunities in different economies are improving. For now, the dollar offers attractive yields and remains a safe harbor during the current period of slow global economic growth. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>190false905fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/terence-flynn-ai-opportunities-in-healthcare--75654843----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. BioPharma Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll focus on how artificial intelligence and machine learning can reshape the health care sector. It's Thursday, July 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we've discussed on this podcast, Tech Diffusion is one of the big three themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following this year. The other two being the Multipolar World and Decarbonization. As a quick reminder, by tech diffusion, we mean the process by which any transformative technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. 
When it comes to the healthcare sector, it's still early but we believe artificial intelligence and machine learning adoption is poised to accelerate significantly. The biopharma industry specifically is moving to unlock the potential of A.I across multiple areas, including drug discovery, clinical development, manufacturing and physician patient engagement. 
We see two broad areas where A.I enabled investments in drug development could drive significant value in the biopharma space. One is direct cost savings, so think of improved R&D margins, for example. And two is increased probability of success of pipeline programs. Here we estimate that even small improvements in the probability of success could drive significant value. 
Now, let me put some numbers around this. Over the past ten years, the FDA has granted 430 new drug approvals or about 43 per year. We estimate that every two and a half percentage point improvement in early stage development success rates could lead to an additional 30 new drug approvals over the course of ten years, or nearly a 10% boost. Assuming that each incremental approved drug generates over 600 million in peak sales, we estimate that 60 additional therapies approved over a ten year period would translate into an additional 70 billion in drug development and PV for the biopharma industry. 
However, biopharma is not the only health care subsector that's poised to benefit from A.I.. Looking at health care services and technology, A.I represents an opportunity to drive meaningful change in efficiency in how care is delivered. A.I tools have predictive capabilities that could be used for early diagnosis and detection of disease, which could lead to improved clinical outcomes and patient experience and reduce the cost of care over time. Many health systems have already begun to migrate data from on premises to the cloud, an important step for capturing the full benefits of A.I. 
We will continue to monitor further developments in health care, both near-term and long term, and will provide you with our latest analysis and insights. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MlUZ9WaOPMSN5MDT_c0eyGb9SNEE1d1w3OJudnnYldIThu, 06 Jul 2023 18:57:29 +0000gtyArtificial intelligence could help biopharmaceutical companies reduce costs as well as improve their chances of developing successful new drugs. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. BioPharma Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll focus on how artificial intelligence and machine learning can reshape the health care sector. It's Thursday, July 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we've discussed on this podcast, Tech Diffusion is one of the big three themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following this year. The other two being the Multipolar World and Decarbonization. As a quick reminder, by tech diffusion, we mean the process by which any transformative technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. 
When it comes to the healthcare sector, it's still early but we believe artificial intelligence and machine learning adoption is poised to accelerate significantly. The biopharma industry specifically is moving to unlock the potential of A.I across multiple areas, including drug discovery, clinical development, manufacturing and physician patient engagement. 
We see two broad areas where A.I enabled investments in drug development could drive significant value in the biopharma space. One is direct cost savings, so think of improved R&D margins, for example. And two is increased probability of success of pipeline programs. Here we estimate that even small improvements in the probability of success could drive significant value. 
Now, let me put some numbers around this. Over the past ten years, the FDA has granted 430 new drug approvals or about 43 per year. We estimate that every two and a half percentage point improvement in early stage development success rates could lead to an additional 30 new drug approvals over the course of ten years, or nearly a 10% boost. Assuming that each incremental approved drug generates over 600 million in peak sales, we estimate that 60 additional therapies approved over a ten year period would translate into an additional 70 billion in drug development and PV for the biopharma industry. 
However, biopharma is not the only health care subsector that's poised to benefit from A.I.. Looking at health care services and technology, A.I represents an opportunity to drive meaningful change in efficiency in how care is delivered. A.I tools have predictive capabilities that could be used for early diagnosis and detection of disease, which could lead to improved clinical outcomes and patient experience and reduce the cost of care over time. Many health systems have already begun to migrate data from on premises to the cloud, an important step for capturing the full benefits of A.I. 
We will continue to monitor further developments in health care, both near-term and long term, and will provide you with our latest analysis and insights. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>175false904fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-investing-in-new-geographies--75654620----- Transcript -----Welcome to the thoughts on the market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S., China relationship and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, July 5th at noon in New York. 
In recent weeks, the Biden administration has focused on the U.S. relationship with China. Treasury Secretary Yellen is headed to Beijing this week for meetings with senior officials in China, following on Secretary of State Blinken's recent visit. Whenever these diplomatic efforts pick up, investors tend to ask if it's a sign that there could be a softening or even a reversal in policy choices by the U.S. in recent years to create more rules and barriers to trade in certain higher tech industries. The interest is because these moves drove concern among many investors that multinational companies would have a harder time doing business in China in the future. But in our view, these policies are not going to reverse, but rather will likely become tighter. 
Consider that the stated goal of these meetings was to open regular communication channels on economic and security issues. It's obviously important for countries to have regular communication to avoid misunderstandings spiraling into conflict. But this appears to be where the ambition for these meetings ends. There's no more talk of reaching comprehensive free trade agreements, for example. 
Given that context, it makes sense that we're continuing to see news reports that the Biden administration is preparing fresh non-tariff barriers which would impact China. This includes further tightening export controls on semiconductors in an attempt by the U.S. to protect its technical advantage in an industry that's critical to both its economic and national security. It also includes long awaited outbound investment restrictions, which could crimp foreign direct investment into China. 
To be clear though, none of this is the same as a hard decoupling of the U.S. and China economies, nor would it have the related shock effect on global markets. The effects here are likely to be incremental adjustments by companies over time to deal with these policies. This is why, for example, we've seen many multinationals announce their diversifying they’re supply chains by investing in new geographies like Mexico and Turkey. But for the most part, they're not pulling existing resources out of China. 
Given all of that, investors may want to react to this nuanced situation by incrementally shifting international equity allocations to countries whose stock markets have solid valuations and may also benefit from companies' new supply chain investments. Japan in particular stands out to our colleagues in equity strategy, and Mexico and India also appear to be solid options longer term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/flG9MV8-DrNY1pZ9x2rkj9Mwl9dEdYMsWLabLp80vsQWed, 05 Jul 2023 21:25:21 +0000gtyWith the U.S. possibly imposing tighter trade policies towards China, investors may want to look into diversifying their investments. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to the thoughts on the market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and...----- Transcript -----Welcome to the thoughts on the market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S., China relationship and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, July 5th at noon in New York. 
In recent weeks, the Biden administration has focused on the U.S. relationship with China. Treasury Secretary Yellen is headed to Beijing this week for meetings with senior officials in China, following on Secretary of State Blinken's recent visit. Whenever these diplomatic efforts pick up, investors tend to ask if it's a sign that there could be a softening or even a reversal in policy choices by the U.S. in recent years to create more rules and barriers to trade in certain higher tech industries. The interest is because these moves drove concern among many investors that multinational companies would have a harder time doing business in China in the future. But in our view, these policies are not going to reverse, but rather will likely become tighter. 
Consider that the stated goal of these meetings was to open regular communication channels on economic and security issues. It's obviously important for countries to have regular communication to avoid misunderstandings spiraling into conflict. But this appears to be where the ambition for these meetings ends. There's no more talk of reaching comprehensive free trade agreements, for example. 
Given that context, it makes sense that we're continuing to see news reports that the Biden administration is preparing fresh non-tariff barriers which would impact China. This includes further tightening export controls on semiconductors in an attempt by the U.S. to protect its technical advantage in an industry that's critical to both its economic and national security. It also includes long awaited outbound investment restrictions, which could crimp foreign direct investment into China. 
To be clear though, none of this is the same as a hard decoupling of the U.S. and China economies, nor would it have the related shock effect on global markets. The effects here are likely to be incremental adjustments by companies over time to deal with these policies. This is why, for example, we've seen many multinationals announce their diversifying they’re supply chains by investing in new geographies like Mexico and Turkey. But for the most part, they're not pulling existing resources out of China. 
Given all of that, investors may want to react to this nuanced situation by incrementally shifting international equity allocations to countries whose stock markets have solid valuations and may also benefit from companies' new supply chain investments. Japan in particular stands out to our colleagues in equity strategy, and Mexico and India also appear to be solid options longer term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>172false903fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-asia-s-economy-outlook-recovery-picking-up-steam--75654715----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing your variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our mid-year outlook for Asia's economy. It's Thursday, June 15 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Asia's recovery is for real. We believe its growth outperformance has just started. We expect a full fledged recovery to build up over the next two quarters across two dimensions. First, we think more economies in the region will join the recovery path. Second, the recovery will broaden from services consumption to goods consumption and in the next six months to capital investments, or CapEx. We see Asia's growth accelerating to 5.1% by fourth quarter of this year. There are three main reasons why we expect this growth outperformance for Asia. 
First, Asia did not experience the interest rate shock that the U.S. and Europe did. Asian central banks did not have to take rates through restrictive territory because inflation in Asia has not been as intense. Plus, Asia's inflation has already declined and we expect 80% of region’s inflation will get back into central bank's comfort zone in the next 2 to 3 months. 
The second reason is China. While China's consumption recovery is largely on track, we have seen downside in the last two months, in investment spending and the manufacturing sector. We believe policy easing is imminent as policymakers are keen on preventing a deterioration in labor market conditions and on minimizing social stability risks. Easing should help stabilize investment spending and broaden out the recovery in back half of 2023. 
Beyond China, India, Indonesia and Japan will also contribute significantly to region's growth recovery. 
India is benefiting from cyclical and structural factors. Cyclically beating healthy corporate and banking system balance sheets mean India can have an independent business cycle driven by domestic demand, and we are seeing that appetite for expansion translating into stronger CapEx and loan growth. 
As for Japan, it is in a sweet spot, having decisively left the deflation environment behind, but not facing runaway inflation. Accommodative real interest rates are helping catalyze private CapEx growth, which has already risen to a seven year high. And, in another momentous shift, Japan's nominal GDP growth is now rising at a healthy pace after a long period of flatlining. 
Finally, we believe Indonesia will be able to sustain a 5% pace of growth. Indonesia runs the most prudent macro policy mix amongst emerging markets. In particular, the fiscal deficit has been maintained below 3%, since the adoption of the fiscal rule and has only exceeded that in 2020 during the worst of the pandemic. This has resulted in a consistent improvement in macro stability indicators and led to a structural decline in the cost of capital supporting private domestic demand. 
The risks to our next 12 month Asia outlook are hard landing in the U.S., which Morgan Stanley's U.S. economists think it's unlikely and a deeper slowdown in China. But we believe China's recovery will only broaden out in the second half of 2023. And given this, we feel confident about our outlook for Asia's outperformance in 2023 vis-à-vis rest of the world. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_vbqE7yM8it_sp5N4ars8MQ-zOCB1qki7ETfEisCs0IMon, 03 Jul 2023 16:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on June, 15th 2023: With more Asian economies on pace to join the recovery path set by China, confidence in economic outperformance versus the rest of the world is rising.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing your variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our mid-year outlook for Asia's economy. It's Thursday, June 15 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Asia's recovery is for real. We believe its growth outperformance has just started. We expect a full fledged recovery to build up over the next two quarters across two dimensions. First, we think more economies in the region will join the recovery path. Second, the recovery will broaden from services consumption to goods consumption and in the next six months to capital investments, or CapEx. We see Asia's growth accelerating to 5.1% by fourth quarter of this year. There are three main reasons why we expect this growth outperformance for Asia. 
First, Asia did not experience the interest rate shock that the U.S. and Europe did. Asian central banks did not have to take rates through restrictive territory because inflation in Asia has not been as intense. Plus, Asia's inflation has already declined and we expect 80% of region’s inflation will get back into central bank's comfort zone in the next 2 to 3 months. 
The second reason is China. While China's consumption recovery is largely on track, we have seen downside in the last two months, in investment spending and the manufacturing sector. We believe policy easing is imminent as policymakers are keen on preventing a deterioration in labor market conditions and on minimizing social stability risks. Easing should help stabilize investment spending and broaden out the recovery in back half of 2023. 
Beyond China, India, Indonesia and Japan will also contribute significantly to region's growth recovery. 
India is benefiting from cyclical and structural factors. Cyclically beating healthy corporate and banking system balance sheets mean India can have an independent business cycle driven by domestic demand, and we are seeing that appetite for expansion translating into stronger CapEx and loan growth. 
As for Japan, it is in a sweet spot, having decisively left the deflation environment behind, but not facing runaway inflation. Accommodative real interest rates are helping catalyze private CapEx growth, which has already risen to a seven year high. And, in another momentous shift, Japan's nominal GDP growth is now rising at a healthy pace after a long period of flatlining. 
Finally, we believe Indonesia will be able to sustain a 5% pace of growth. Indonesia runs the most prudent macro policy mix amongst emerging markets. In particular, the fiscal deficit has been maintained below 3%, since the adoption of the fiscal rule and has only exceeded that in 2020 during the worst of the pandemic. This has resulted in a consistent improvement in macro stability indicators and led to a structural decline in the cost of capital supporting private domestic demand. 
The risks to our next 12 month Asia outlook are hard landing in the U.S., which Morgan Stanley's U.S. economists think it's unlikely and a deeper slowdown in China. But we believe China's recovery will only broaden out in the second half of 2023. And given this, we feel confident about our outlook for Asia's outperformance in 2023 vis-à-vis rest of the world. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>213false902fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-mid-year-u-s-consumer-outlook-spending-savings-and-travel--75654855----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we're taking a look at the state of the U.S. consumer as we approach the midyear mark. It's Tuesday, June 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: In order to talk about where the consumer is right now, let's take it back two and a half years. It's January 2021, and households are slowly emerging from their COVID hibernations, but we're still months away from the broad distribution of the vaccine. Consumers are allocating 5% more of their wallet share to goods than before COVID, driving record consumption of electronics, home furnishings, sporting goods and recreational vehicles. All the things you needed to make staying at home a little bit better. Our U.S. economists at Morgan Stanley made a high conviction call in early 2021 that vaccine distribution would flip the script and drive a surge in services spending and a payback in goods spending. Sara, to what extent has this reversion played out and where do you think the U.S. consumer is now? 
Sarah Wolfe: The reversion is definitely played out, but there's been some big surprises. Basically, the spending pie has just been greater overall than expected, and that's thanks to unprecedented fiscal stimulus, excess savings and significant supply shortages. So we've not only seen a shift away from goods and toward services, but a much larger spending pie overall. The result has been a 13% surge in goods inflation over nearly three years, an acceleration in services inflation, and a return to pre-COVID spending habits that's much greater in real spending terms than in nominal terms. So if we look in the details, where has the payback been the largest? We've seen the biggest payback in home furnishing, home equipment, jewelry, watches, recreational vehicles, but we've seen the most robust recovery in discretionary services like dining out, going to a hotel, public transportation and recreational services. 
Michelle Weaver: Sara, has the recent turmoil in the banking sector affected the U.S. consumer and do you think there's a credit crunch going on right now? 
Sarah Wolfe: Bank funding costs have risen meaningfully and are expected to rise further, leading to tighter lending standards, slower loan growth and wider loan spreads. But let me be clear, this is not a credit crunch, nor do we expect it to be. We think about the pass through from tighter lending standards to the consumer to ways directly and indirectly. The direct channel is tighter lending standards for loans on consumer products, including credit cards and autos, and indirectly through tighter lending standards for businesses, which has knock-on effects for job growth. We've already seen the direct channel of consumer spending in the past year, as interest rates on new consumer loan products hit 20 to 30-year highs, raising overall debt service costs and forcing consumers to reduce purchases of interest sensitive goods. Dwindling supply of credit as banks tighten lending standards is also dampening consumption. 
Michelle Weaver: Great. And given that credit is getting a little bit tougher to come by, can you tell us what's happening with savings and what's happening with the labor market and labor income? 
Sarah Wolfe: This is very timely. Just a few days ago, we got a very strong jobs report for May. I think that this really supports our call for a soft landing, and even though consumers are increasingly worried about the economic outlook, about financial prospects, it's clear that we still have momentum in the economy and that the Fed can achieve its 2% inflation target without driving the unemployment rate significantly higher. We are seeing under the details that consumer spending is slowing, there's a pullback in discretionary happening, there's a bit of trade down behavior. But with the labor market remaining robust, it's going to keep spending afloat and prevent this hard landing scenario. Michelle, let me turn it to you now, let's drill down into some specifics. What are the latest spending trends around spending plans you're seeing in your consumer survey? 
Michelle Weaver: Sure. So consumers expect to pull back on spending for most categories that we asked them about over the next six months. And the only categories where they expect to spend more are necessities like groceries and household products. We also added two new questions to this round of the survey to figure out which discretionary categories are most at risk of a pullback in spending. We asked consumers to order categories based on spending priority and identify categories where they would pull back on spending if forced to reduce household expenses. We found that travel and live entertainment were most at risk of a pull back, and this isn't just a case of income groups having different attitudes towards spending, we saw similar prioritization across income cohorts. 
Sarah Wolfe: So you mentioned travel, travel's been in a boom state in the post-COVID world. But you're saying now that households are reporting that they would pull back if they needed to. Are we seeing that already? What do we expect for summer travel? What do we expect for the remainder of the year? 
Michelle Weaver: So the data I was just referencing was if you had to reduce your household expenses, how would you do it? And travel was identified there. So that's not a plan that's currently in place. But summer travel may be a bit softer this year versus last year. In our survey, we asked consumers if they're planning to travel more, the same amount or less than last summer, and we found that a greater proportion of consumers are planning to travel less this year. Budgets are also smaller for summer travel this year, with more than a third of consumers expecting to spend less. We're seeing a mixed picture from the company side. Airlines are seeing very strong results still, and Memorial Day weekend proved to be very strong.. But the data around hotels has started to weaken and the revenue per available room that hotels have been able to generate has been pretty choppy and forward bookings that hotels are seeing have actually been flat to down for the summer. Demand for resorts and economy hotels has fallen but demand for urban market hotels still remained very strong. Sarah, how does this deceleration, both services and goods growth play into your team's long standing argument for a soft landing for the economy? 
Sarah Wolfe: It's really the key to inflation coming down and avoiding a hard landing. With less pent up demand left for services spending and a strong labor market recovery, supply demand imbalances in the services sector are slowly resolving themselves. We estimate that there's a point three percentage point pass through from services wages to core core services inflation throughout any given year. Core core services, is services excluding housing inflation. So with compensation for services providing industries already decelerating for the past five quarters, we do expect the largest impact of core services inflation to occur in the back half of this year. So that's going to see a more meaningful step down in inflationary pressures later this year. This combined with a rising savings rate, so a shrinking spending pie, means that there's just going to be less demand for goods and services together this year. Altogether, it will enable the Fed to make progress towards its 2% inflation target without driving the economy into a recession. 
Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thank you for taking the time to talk. 
Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. 
Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Ok8IejgBeVJdJmSkrBROiV6yCs3lOd5zetdE7Y9pnuoFri, 30 Jun 2023 19:02:01 +0000gtyOriginal Release on June, 6th 2023: Consumers in the U.S. are largely returning to pre-COVID spending levels, but new behaviors related to travel, credit availability and inflation have emerged. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to...----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we're taking a look at the state of the U.S. consumer as we approach the midyear mark. It's Tuesday, June 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: In order to talk about where the consumer is right now, let's take it back two and a half years. It's January 2021, and households are slowly emerging from their COVID hibernations, but we're still months away from the broad distribution of the vaccine. Consumers are allocating 5% more of their wallet share to goods than before COVID, driving record consumption of electronics, home furnishings, sporting goods and recreational vehicles. All the things you needed to make staying at home a little bit better. Our U.S. economists at Morgan Stanley made a high conviction call in early 2021 that vaccine distribution would flip the script and drive a surge in services spending and a payback in goods spending. Sara, to what extent has this reversion played out and where do you think the U.S. consumer is now? 
Sarah Wolfe: The reversion is definitely played out, but there's been some big surprises. Basically, the spending pie has just been greater overall than expected, and that's thanks to unprecedented fiscal stimulus, excess savings and significant supply shortages. So we've not only seen a shift away from goods and toward services, but a much larger spending pie overall. The result has been a 13% surge in goods inflation over nearly three years, an acceleration in services inflation, and a return to pre-COVID spending habits that's much greater in real spending terms than in nominal terms. So if we look in the details, where has the payback been the largest? We've seen the biggest payback in home furnishing, home equipment, jewelry, watches, recreational vehicles, but we've seen the most robust recovery in discretionary services like dining out, going to a hotel, public transportation and recreational services. 
Michelle Weaver: Sara, has the recent turmoil in the banking sector affected the U.S. consumer and do you think there's a credit crunch going on right now? 
Sarah Wolfe: Bank funding costs have risen meaningfully and are expected to rise further, leading to tighter lending standards, slower loan growth and wider loan spreads. But let me be clear, this is not a credit crunch, nor do we expect it to be. We think about the pass through from tighter lending standards to the consumer to ways directly and indirectly. The direct channel is tighter lending standards for loans on consumer products, including credit cards and autos, and indirectly through tighter lending standards for businesses, which has knock-on effects for job growth. We've already seen the direct channel of consumer spending in the past year, as interest rates on new consumer loan products hit 20 to 30-year highs, raising overall debt service costs and forcing consumers to reduce purchases of interest sensitive goods. Dwindling supply of credit as banks tighten lending standards is also dampening consumption. 
Michelle Weaver: Great. And given that credit is getting a little bit tougher to come by, can you tell us what's happening with savings and what's happening with the labor market and labor income? 
Sarah Wolfe: This is very timely. Just a few days ago, we got a very strong jobs report for May. I think that this really supports our call for a soft landing, and even though consumers are increasingly worried about the economic outlook, about financial prospects, it's clear that we still have momentum in the...]]>461false901fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-the-market-is-not-a-monolith--75654860----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, June 29th at 11am in New York. 
Jay Bacow: All right, Jim. We put out our mid-year outlook about a month ago, and since we put out that outlook, we've had a breadth of housing data and it feels like you can pick any portion of that housing data, sales, starts, home prices and it's telling a different story. Which one are we supposed to read?  
Jim Egan: I think that's a really important point. The U.S. housing market right now is not a monolith, and there are different fundamental drivers going on with each of these characteristics, each of these statistics that are pushing them in different directions. Let's start with new home sales. I think that was the most positive, we could say the strongest  print from the past month. The consensus expectation, just to put this in context, was a month over month decrease of 1.2%, instead, we got an increase of 12.2%. To put it succinctly, new home sales are basically the only game in town. Existing listings remain incredibly low. We've talked about affordability deterioration on this podcast. We've talked about the lock in effect, the fact that the effective mortgage rate for existing homeowners right now is over three points below the prevailing mortgage rate. That just means there's no inventory. If you want to buy a home right now, there's a much greater likelihood that it's a new home sale than at any point in the past 10 to 15 years. And new home sales were the only housing statistic in our mid-year forecast where we projected a year over year increase in 2023 versus 2022 because of these dynamics. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So that's the new home sales story. Does that mean that we're just, broadly speaking, supposed to expect more housing activity? 
Jim Egan: This is the single most frequent question that we've been getting the past two weeks because of this data that's come in. And what we want to be careful to do here is not conflate this growth in new home sales with a swelling in demand for housing. As we stated in the outlook, we expect the recovery in housing activity to be more L-shaped. This behavior is apparent in more higher frequency data points, purchase applications for instance. 2023 remains far weaker than 2022. Average weekly volumes are down 35% year-to-date versus last year, and they're really not showing much sign of inflecting higher. In fact, if we look at just May and June versus 2019 prior to the pandemic, purchase applications are down almost 40%. Now, comps will get easier in the second half of the year. Year-over-year decreases will come down, but total activity is not inflecting higher. This is also showing through existing home sales, which are not showing the same improvement as new home sales. Existing home sales are down 24% year to date versus 2022. Also pending home sales, which missed a little bit to the downside just this morning. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. So when I think about the process of housing activity at the end, you've got a home sale, existing home sale, a new home sale. At the beginning, you've got either people applying to buy a home or starting to build a home. And the housing start data, that was pretty strong relative expectations as well, right? 
Jim Egan: It was. And the dynamics that we're discussing here, fewer existing home sales and climbing new home sales, that's leading to new home sales making up a larger share of that total number. And subsequently, homebuilder confidence is growing as a result. We think you can view this large number as perhaps a manifestation of that confidence, but we also want to stress that you need to think about that starch number in terms of single unit starts versus multi-unit starts. And yes, single unit starts were stronger than we anticipated, but they were still down year-over-year and through the first five months of this year, they're down 23%. Again, as with most housing activity data, the year over year comps are going to get easier in the back half of this year. That year over year percent will fall. We think they'll only finish the year down about 12%. But that's still a starch number that looks more L-shaped than a strong recovery. On the other hand, five plus unit starts in May were higher than in any single month since 1986. Multi-unit starts are still really driving the bus here. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. So with that homebuilder confidence, what are homeowners supposed to be thinking? They just saw the first negative year-on-year print in home prices since 2012. Are we in a repeat of previous things or are things going to get better? 
Jim Egan: Look, we just actually, in the mid-year outlook process, upgraded our year end home price forecast from -4% in December of 2023 to flat in December of 2023 versus December of 2022. That being said, while making that upgrade, we maintained that home prices were going to turn negative this month for the first time since 2012. We believe it's going to be short lived, largely because of the dynamics that we've already been discussing on this podcast. Current homeowners are not incentivized to list their home for sale. Existing listings continue to be incredibly low. The past few months, they've actually resumed falling year-over-year. When you look at affordability it’s still challenged, but it's not getting worse. When you look at overall inventories, they're still close to multi-decade lows, but we're not setting new historic lows each month. All of that leads to even more support for home prices on a go forward basis. We're still confident in our 0% for the end of the year. We might spend a couple more months here in  negative territory before we kind of rebound back towards that flat by the end of 2023. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So new home sales, surprised to the upside, but we shouldn't conflate that with swelling demand for housing. Home prices just trended negative, but we think that was expected and they're going to end the year flat versus 2022. Jim, always great talking to you. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2BYEQsNlFByM5RJJvWwtAFMI1MoqJXA5bm3k6e6lQP8Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:47:16 +0000gtyA surprising increase in the sale of new homes doesn’t mean that overall demand for housing is on the rise. Find out what to expect for the rest of the year. ----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of...----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, June 29th at 11am in New York. 
Jay Bacow: All right, Jim. We put out our mid-year outlook about a month ago, and since we put out that outlook, we've had a breadth of housing data and it feels like you can pick any portion of that housing data, sales, starts, home prices and it's telling a different story. Which one are we supposed to read?  
Jim Egan: I think that's a really important point. The U.S. housing market right now is not a monolith, and there are different fundamental drivers going on with each of these characteristics, each of these statistics that are pushing them in different directions. Let's start with new home sales. I think that was the most positive, we could say the strongest  print from the past month. The consensus expectation, just to put this in context, was a month over month decrease of 1.2%, instead, we got an increase of 12.2%. To put it succinctly, new home sales are basically the only game in town. Existing listings remain incredibly low. We've talked about affordability deterioration on this podcast. We've talked about the lock in effect, the fact that the effective mortgage rate for existing homeowners right now is over three points below the prevailing mortgage rate. That just means there's no inventory. If you want to buy a home right now, there's a much greater likelihood that it's a new home sale than at any point in the past 10 to 15 years. And new home sales were the only housing statistic in our mid-year forecast where we projected a year over year increase in 2023 versus 2022 because of these dynamics. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So that's the new home sales story. Does that mean that we're just, broadly speaking, supposed to expect more housing activity? 
Jim Egan: This is the single most frequent question that we've been getting the past two weeks because of this data that's come in. And what we want to be careful to do here is not conflate this growth in new home sales with a swelling in demand for housing. As we stated in the outlook, we expect the recovery in housing activity to be more L-shaped. This behavior is apparent in more higher frequency data points, purchase applications for instance. 2023 remains far weaker than 2022. Average weekly volumes are down 35% year-to-date versus last year, and they're really not showing much sign of inflecting higher. In fact, if we look at just May and June versus 2019 prior to the pandemic, purchase applications are down almost 40%. Now, comps will get easier in the second half of the year. Year-over-year decreases will come down, but total activity is not inflecting higher. This is also showing through existing home sales, which are not showing the same improvement as new home sales. Existing home sales are down 24% year to date versus 2022. Also pending home sales, which missed a little bit to the downside just this morning. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. So when I think about the process of housing activity at the end, you've got a home sale, existing home sale, a new home sale. At the beginning, you've got either people applying to buy a home or starting to build a home. And the housing start data, that was pretty strong relative expectations as well, right? 
Jim Egan: It was. And the dynamics that we're discussing here, fewer existing home sales and climbing new home sales, that's leading to new home sales making up a larger share of that total number. And subsequently, homebuilder confidence is growing as a...]]>366false900fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/corporate-credit-outlook-higher-interest-rates-challenge-lower-quality-borrowers--75654711Our economists are calling for one more 25 basis point rate hike in the upcoming Fed meeting in July and pause thereafter until the end of first quarter of next year. They're also calling for continued growth slowdown because of the policy tightening that we have seen over the last 15 months or so. A restrictive pause, which means rates staying higher for longer, and muted growth will weigh more on the performance of the corporate credit markets, especially as refinancing needs pick up. So our call is for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns for corporate grade markets. Within credit we favor higher quality, which means investment grade credit over leveraged credit, both in bonds and in loans. 
Let's dig into some details. Industrial grade credit looks attractive from a duration lens, and we expect 7% plus total returns over the next 12 months. From a spread perspective, our base case target, a 150 basis point, calls for modest widening. Although risks are skewed to the downside in the recession bear case scenario to 200 basis points. We think the banking space looks cheap versus the market, especially money center banks. We favor single A's or triple B's and shortening of portfolio duration. Our preference is to own the front end of the curve within the investment graded space. 
Higher for longer puts more pressure on lower quality borrowers. While the macro outlook is not acutely challenging for credit, it progressively erodes debt affordability. For larger and higher quality borrowers, we expect the net impact to be gradual decline in interest coverage ratios and a voluntary focus on right sizing balance sheets. For smaller and lower quality companies, this adjustment could well be disruptive as 2025 maturity walls come into view. 
So even in leverage credit, we would look to stay up in quality. The layering of leverage and rate sensitivity in loans informs our preference for bonds in general relative to loans. We expect loan only structures to underperform mixed capital structures. We also expect sponsor commitment will be put to test. That said, higher quality names within the loan market are a way to benefit from the shape of the rates curve and generate better near-term carry. 
In all, we forecast wider spreads and higher default rates in the lower quality segments of the credit markets. Relative to the modest widening in the investment grade space within high yield and leveraged loans, we expect more significant widening in the range of 120 basis points of widening. This will result in marginally negative excess returns for these segments and will screen even worse when adjusted for volatility and downside risk. 
We forecast default rates pushing above long-run averages with loan defaults outpacing bond defaults, especially after accounting for distressed exchanges. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0HZ5kJ20F83DM2OafEfCI2gJMAstzyrZR1KPzqZC00MWed, 28 Jun 2023 20:19:37 +0000gtyHow will corporate credit markets fare as the Fed keeps rates higher for longer? Look for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's...Our economists are calling for one more 25 basis point rate hike in the upcoming Fed meeting in July and pause thereafter until the end of first quarter of next year. They're also calling for continued growth slowdown because of the policy tightening that we have seen over the last 15 months or so. A restrictive pause, which means rates staying higher for longer, and muted growth will weigh more on the performance of the corporate credit markets, especially as refinancing needs pick up. So our call is for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns for corporate grade markets. Within credit we favor higher quality, which means investment grade credit over leveraged credit, both in bonds and in loans. 
Let's dig into some details. Industrial grade credit looks attractive from a duration lens, and we expect 7% plus total returns over the next 12 months. From a spread perspective, our base case target, a 150 basis point, calls for modest widening. Although risks are skewed to the downside in the recession bear case scenario to 200 basis points. We think the banking space looks cheap versus the market, especially money center banks. We favor single A's or triple B's and shortening of portfolio duration. Our preference is to own the front end of the curve within the investment graded space. 
Higher for longer puts more pressure on lower quality borrowers. While the macro outlook is not acutely challenging for credit, it progressively erodes debt affordability. For larger and higher quality borrowers, we expect the net impact to be gradual decline in interest coverage ratios and a voluntary focus on right sizing balance sheets. For smaller and lower quality companies, this adjustment could well be disruptive as 2025 maturity walls come into view. 
So even in leverage credit, we would look to stay up in quality. The layering of leverage and rate sensitivity in loans informs our preference for bonds in general relative to loans. We expect loan only structures to underperform mixed capital structures. We also expect sponsor commitment will be put to test. That said, higher quality names within the loan market are a way to benefit from the shape of the rates curve and generate better near-term carry. 
In all, we forecast wider spreads and higher default rates in the lower quality segments of the credit markets. Relative to the modest widening in the investment grade space within high yield and leveraged loans, we expect more significant widening in the range of 120 basis points of widening. This will result in marginally negative excess returns for these segments and will screen even worse when adjusted for volatility and downside risk. 
We forecast default rates pushing above long-run averages with loan defaults outpacing bond defaults, especially after accounting for distressed exchanges. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>198false899fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ed-stanley-key-lessons-as-ai-goes-mainstream--75654700----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing ten key lessons from the last hundred years of tech diffusion. It's Tuesday, the 27th of June at 3 p.m. in London. 
Tech diffusion is one of the three big themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following in 2023. The other two being the multipolar world and decarbonization. And when we say ‘tech diffusion,’ which has become a term of art, we mean the process by which any transformational technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. Think of the light bulb, the first power plant, the internet, and now, A.I.. 
Our recent analysis of the last hundred years of tech diffusion helps to shed light on ten critical questions around how, when and where stocks will be impacted from the development of A.I.. 
One of the most important issues to consider is how fast A.I. diffusion is happening and whether regulation can restrain this. Since its pivotal moment when it was released in November, the leading generative A.I. tools are on pace to do in one year what the internet took  seven years to achieve in spilling over to the mass market, and electricity took around 20 years to do the same thing. 
The next critical question to consider is whether we tend to see upside or downside happen first for industries being impacted. In examining 80 structural positive and negative adoption curves over the last 50 years, we find that downside disruption often occurs sooner and twice as quickly as upside disruption. 
So how does the downside play out for stocks perceived to be by investors more at risk from these types of technology disruption? The market typically de-rates and waits. So valuations fall somewhere between 50 to 60% in the years 1 to 3 post-a-disruptive-event with consensus sales and profit downgrades taking anywhere around 5 to 7 years to materialize. This process is shorter for business to consumer, B2B and longer for business to business contracts, B2B. 
And what about the ways that upside plays out? For perceived winners, upgrades need to arrive within 6 to 12 months post the initial re-rating. However, we find that missing the first year of upside tends to have little impact on long term compound returns for investors. 
Investors also wonder to what degree A.I. might be a bubble. And this is a fair question considering the market excitement and froth in A.I. at the moment, but we're watching Internet search trends to answer this question. And if you look at image generation tools for A.I., we're already about 50% lower than peak search volumes. So it's a trend we're going to have to continue to watch pretty closely. 
Given all this, at what point do we expect killer apps to emerge that are built on top of these technologies? Well, our analysis of the last 50 examples of these killer apps emerging suggests that they tend to take a year and a half to emerge. This is why it's often very challenging to find domain specific winners in the public markets because they are still likely to be in venture backed scale up stage at the moment. 
But when the killer apps do emerge, the next question becomes how much value will accrue to the incumbents versus the disruptors. And on this point, history suggests that diffusion of technologies that are transformational like this have tended to lead to changes in stock market leadership over the last hundred years, with ultimately 2.3% of all companies generating all $75 trillion of net shareholder returns since 1990. 
In this context, are pure play or diversified stocks the best ways to play these themes? Over the long run, we believe that pure play stocks exposed to themes such as A.I., can be expected to be valued at approximately 25% premium to non pure play stocks on average. 
And the final two questions we get from investors take a more macro tilt. First, how much and when can we expect to see productivity gains? We are already seeing these productivity gains. The question is, what range? And we've seen anywhere between 20 to 55% for software developers, we've seen 14% for call center workers, and healthcare is also a large focus of academic research in terms of A.I. productivity and efficiency gains. 
Finally, there is the question of deflation. When and how much can we expect from this kind of technology? This remains the most challenging question to answer. Technology of all kinds has proven consistently deflationary, and we think this is no different. But we do suggest that investors familiarize themselves with the emerging debates on virtual assistance, which could accelerate these deflationary spillover effects. 
We'll continue to track all these developments around the ten key lessons and questions from history, and we'll provide you timely updates accordingly. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qWB6BZwO2H-d-SUbZQi8onyatxxA3v2RN4Qh34O8yzATue, 27 Jun 2023 19:16:22 +0000gtyWith A.I. rapidly reaching the mass market, investors are pondering the risks and upsides to A.I. diffusion. History may provide some answers. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing ten key lessons from the last hundred years of tech diffusion. It's Tuesday, the 27th of June at 3 p.m. in London. 
Tech diffusion is one of the three big themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following in 2023. The other two being the multipolar world and decarbonization. And when we say ‘tech diffusion,’ which has become a term of art, we mean the process by which any transformational technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. Think of the light bulb, the first power plant, the internet, and now, A.I.. 
Our recent analysis of the last hundred years of tech diffusion helps to shed light on ten critical questions around how, when and where stocks will be impacted from the development of A.I.. 
One of the most important issues to consider is how fast A.I. diffusion is happening and whether regulation can restrain this. Since its pivotal moment when it was released in November, the leading generative A.I. tools are on pace to do in one year what the internet took  seven years to achieve in spilling over to the mass market, and electricity took around 20 years to do the same thing. 
The next critical question to consider is whether we tend to see upside or downside happen first for industries being impacted. In examining 80 structural positive and negative adoption curves over the last 50 years, we find that downside disruption often occurs sooner and twice as quickly as upside disruption. 
So how does the downside play out for stocks perceived to be by investors more at risk from these types of technology disruption? The market typically de-rates and waits. So valuations fall somewhere between 50 to 60% in the years 1 to 3 post-a-disruptive-event with consensus sales and profit downgrades taking anywhere around 5 to 7 years to materialize. This process is shorter for business to consumer, B2B and longer for business to business contracts, B2B. 
And what about the ways that upside plays out? For perceived winners, upgrades need to arrive within 6 to 12 months post the initial re-rating. However, we find that missing the first year of upside tends to have little impact on long term compound returns for investors. 
Investors also wonder to what degree A.I. might be a bubble. And this is a fair question considering the market excitement and froth in A.I. at the moment, but we're watching Internet search trends to answer this question. And if you look at image generation tools for A.I., we're already about 50% lower than peak search volumes. So it's a trend we're going to have to continue to watch pretty closely. 
Given all this, at what point do we expect killer apps to emerge that are built on top of these technologies? Well, our analysis of the last 50 examples of these killer apps emerging suggests that they tend to take a year and a half to emerge. This is why it's often very challenging to find domain specific winners in the public markets because they are still likely to be in venture backed scale up stage at the moment. 
But when the killer apps do emerge, the next question becomes how much value will accrue to the incumbents versus the disruptors. And on this point, history suggests that diffusion of technologies that are transformational like this have tended to lead to changes in stock market leadership over the last hundred years, with ultimately 2.3% of all companies generating all $75 trillion of net shareholder returns since 1990. 
In this context, are pure play or diversified stocks the best ways to play these themes? Over the long run, we believe that pure play stocks exposed to...]]>317false898fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/emerging-markets-climate-finance-and-credit--75654753----- Transcript -----Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. 
Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. 
Simon Waever: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the credit impact of climate finance in emerging markets. 
Carolyn Campbell: It's Monday, June 26, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Simon Waever: We believe that the ramp up in climate mitigation and adaptation financing from developed markets can be a key credit positive for emerging market countries, if executed correctly. The amounts of financing required in low and middle income countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change is likely to be over 1 trillion per year by 2030. Carolyn, let's start with that 1 trillion figure and the scale of the challenge. How are low and middle income countries positioned for climate change? 
Carolyn Campbell: So when we think about climate change, there's two sides of the coin. There's climate change mitigation, which is everything that will slow or prevent the temperature from rising more than a degree and a half above pre-industrial levels, which is the goal of the Paris Agreement. And on the other side, we've got adaptation, which is financing projects that will build resiliency to physical risks, for example, or to help transform the economy away from dependency on industries that are likely to be harmed by climate change. So on the mitigation side, we've seen energy consumption in emerging markets steadily rise over the past couple of decades as their economies continue to develop and their populations grow often at faster rates than we see in developed countries. Now, while we've seen absolute levels of renewable energy usage tick up in these countries, on a proportional basis we're not seeing a material change, and that's because of this absolute rise in energy usage overall. So that leaves a lot of scope for the expansion of low carbon technologies such as wind and solar and so on, and that's obviously very expensive. On the adaptation side, a lot of the emerging markets are located in areas that will bear the brunt of climate change, whether that's through worsening storms or increased droughts, rising sea levels and so on, and they don't have the same infrastructure or economic diversity to deal with these climate impacts. So it's an immense amount of capital required for both types of projects, as you said, likely to be greater than a trillion dollars per year by 2030. And so far, developed markets have actually come up short on their promise to deliver $100 billion annually in climate finance. So all this being said, I think it begs the question how will they pay for it without incurring an unsustainable debt load? 
Simon Waever: Yep, that is the question. And I would say the good news so far is that more and more sources are being made available with some being more targeted than others. The first main source is loans. So these generally come from either bilateral agreements, so from other sovereigns, or from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank. An example of a new facility being made available just in the past year is the resilience and sustainability trust from the IMF, which has now already made disbursements to six countries with more on the way. And the advantage of this facility, compared to others from the IMF, is that it comes at a lower cost and a longer maturity. The second main source is the capital markets. The instruments people will be most familiar with here are the labeled bonds, such as green, sustainable or even sustainability linked bonds that see their coupons change depending on various targets being met. But today, there's also an increasing use of the debt for nature swaps such as used in Belize and Ecuador recently and the introduction of climate resilient debt clauses. What this means is that if an adverse event happens like a hurricane, etc., there can be an automatic pause or delay in payments, which in theory should help both the country and creditors because you avoid going into any distress situation on the bonds. But another interesting avenue that's opened up in the last decade or so has been to raise financing by turning carbon into a commodity, whether as a voluntary carbon offset or through direct carbon pricing. Carolyn, how would those be used? 
Carolyn Campbell: Yeah. So on the voluntary carbon side, a credit represents one tonne of carbon reduced, removed or avoided, and a lot of emerging markets are able to sell these credits, not necessarily at the sovereign level directly, but in some cases, yes, to developed markets, either to the sovereigns or to corporates who are willing to buy those emissions to offset against their own. And so those projects can be anything related to forest preservation or other natural capital projects or linked to renewable energy deployment and so on, and that can help raise the financing to get those projects off the ground. On the other side, there's direct carbon pricing, which is compulsory and includes things like Europe's emissions trading scheme or commonly thought of as cap and trade programs. There's also carbon taxes which raise revenue from businesses that emit and tax every tonne of carbon emitted. And direct carbon pricing is really important because the revenues raised from these schemes don't actually have to be applied to green projects so they can further other local development priorities. Lots of interesting avenues, but not every avenue will be suitable for every country, there's a wide range of emerging markets out there. But let's assume for a moment that all the financing will actually be deployed at a sufficient scale over the near and medium term. What does that mean for the credit quality of these recipient nations? 
Simon Waever: Yes. So as we've actually covered before on this podcast, developing countries are facing significant financing challenges. And by that I mean they've been used to getting a lot of cheap financing over the last ten years, that's no longer available. So if the result is that more financing is being made available, that is credit positive, especially if it then also comes at lower financing costs and with longer maturities. I would of course say that the magnitude of the impact is going to differ by country, and overall, I would highlight the lower rates of countries as benefiting the most. And just to give two examples of countries that have benefited recently, one is Kenya. They've been under pressure in the markets because they have a 2 billion maturity next year that people were questioning where they were going to get the funds to repay it. Now, through the help of the IMF and their new Resilience Sustainability Trust facility, they've seen larger disbursements and the markets have traded much better. The other example is Ecuador that was able to complete a debt for nature swap that in the end resulted in lower debt burden, fewer bonds outstanding, and at the same time helping conserve the Marine area in Ecuador. But actually, all this is a lot about just a near-term impact. The longer term impacts will eventually turn out to be even more important, I would think. Carolyn, could you give some examples of this? 
Carolyn Campbell: So on the one side, we've got climate resiliency improvements that can materialize in ways like reduced costs in the face of acute weather events or economic resiliency to slow onset adverse climate events, we mentioned droughts earlier. Another very important avenue is fundamental improvements via the renewable energy transition. So deployment of renewable energy might increase overall levels of electrification in the country, which can boost productivity and so on. If we think about South Africa as an example, South Africa has struggled with lower productivity because of its dependency on aging coal power plants. So there's a real case to be made about the benefits of renewable energy deployment there in terms of economic productivity. So all this sounds great, but there are some real execution risks for this quantity of financing and getting these projects off the ground. Simon can you tell us what that might mean for these countries? 
Simon Waever: Right. That's a key topic, and it may be that there's actually insufficient climate financing, and that would at best mean that you have other suboptimal financing sources used. But at worst, that we see scaled back, delayed or even canceled climate projects. And actually the risk of this happening isn't low, so it's something we do need to watch. And then another risk is that the debt dispersed but used in the wrong places or used inefficiently, because then you end up with the countries with higher leverage that doesn't actually see the benefits. 
Simon Waever: But with that, Thanks, Carolyn. Thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Carolyn Campbell: Great speaking with you, Simon. 
Simon Waever: And thanks to everyone for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gw7EVvEeFBdoBsgsXrzRZvlGpUfITd5dDZ-8JAPK5cwMon, 26 Jun 2023 20:36:46 +0000gtyWhile many countries are gearing up to combat climate change, financing these large projects may pose a challenge.  ----- Transcript -----Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign...----- Transcript -----Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. 
Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. 
Simon Waever: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the credit impact of climate finance in emerging markets. 
Carolyn Campbell: It's Monday, June 26, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Simon Waever: We believe that the ramp up in climate mitigation and adaptation financing from developed markets can be a key credit positive for emerging market countries, if executed correctly. The amounts of financing required in low and middle income countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change is likely to be over 1 trillion per year by 2030. Carolyn, let's start with that 1 trillion figure and the scale of the challenge. How are low and middle income countries positioned for climate change? 
Carolyn Campbell: So when we think about climate change, there's two sides of the coin. There's climate change mitigation, which is everything that will slow or prevent the temperature from rising more than a degree and a half above pre-industrial levels, which is the goal of the Paris Agreement. And on the other side, we've got adaptation, which is financing projects that will build resiliency to physical risks, for example, or to help transform the economy away from dependency on industries that are likely to be harmed by climate change. So on the mitigation side, we've seen energy consumption in emerging markets steadily rise over the past couple of decades as their economies continue to develop and their populations grow often at faster rates than we see in developed countries. Now, while we've seen absolute levels of renewable energy usage tick up in these countries, on a proportional basis we're not seeing a material change, and that's because of this absolute rise in energy usage overall. So that leaves a lot of scope for the expansion of low carbon technologies such as wind and solar and so on, and that's obviously very expensive. On the adaptation side, a lot of the emerging markets are located in areas that will bear the brunt of climate change, whether that's through worsening storms or increased droughts, rising sea levels and so on, and they don't have the same infrastructure or economic diversity to deal with these climate impacts. So it's an immense amount of capital required for both types of projects, as you said, likely to be greater than a trillion dollars per year by 2030. And so far, developed markets have actually come up short on their promise to deliver $100 billion annually in climate finance. So all this being said, I think it begs the question how will they pay for it without incurring an unsustainable debt load? 
Simon Waever: Yep, that is the question. And I would say the good news so far is that more and more sources are being made available with some being more targeted than others. The first main source is loans. So these generally come from either bilateral agreements, so from other sovereigns, or from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank. An example of a new facility being made available just in the past year is the resilience and sustainability trust from the IMF, which has now already made disbursements to six countries with more on the way. And the advantage of this facility, compared to others from the IMF, is that it comes at a lower cost and a longer maturity. The second main source is the capital markets. The instruments people will be most familiar with here are the labeled bonds, such as green, sustainable or even sustainability linked bonds that see their coupons change depending on various targets being met. But today, there's also an increasing use of the debt for nature...]]>503false897fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mid-year-u-s-dollar-outlook-an-important-driver-for-returns--75654902----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 Foreign Exchange Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our outlook for the U.S. dollar and why it may prove an important driver of investor returns this year. It's Friday, June 23rd at 3 p.m. in London. 
Foreign exchange has long been known as a hard asset class to predict, and this year has proven to be even harder than usual. Consensus trades left and right have missed the mark, and both disagreement and uncertainty are the highest we've seen in years. 
So where do we go from here? We think the U.S. dollar is going to keep rallying, rising about 5% or so by the end of the year. Central bankers are likely to keep their feet on the brakes in order to tackle inflation. And in doing so, growth is likely to remain anemic, with risks skewed to the downside. 
Against this backdrop, we think two key themes are going to emerge: demand for carry and demand for defense. Carry is attractive in a slow growth world and is likely to explain a lot more of investor returns if prices don't move very much. And defensiveness is an alluring quality in financial assets when optimism is low, uncertainty is high and risks abound. 
It's pretty rare to find a financial asset that offers both of these qualities. Typically, insurance costs you money. But the good news is that the US dollar does. The dollar tends to be negatively correlated versus the equity market, meaning that when equities go down, the dollar goes up, and that relationship has only strengthened in recent years. 
Meanwhile, U.S. rates are elevated versus the rest of the world thanks to Fed rate hikes. Dollar rates are roughly 2% higher than those in Europe and even 5% higher compared to those in Japan.
Foreign exchange is a relative game, and if investors are buying the dollar, they're probably selling something. We think in this high uncertainty environment currencies  which are most sensitive to growth and risk assets would likely weaken the most. In the G10 space, the Australian dollar and the Swedish krona both look vulnerable here, while in emerging markets that's probably the South African rand and the Chinese renminbi. 
There are plenty of potential risks on the horizon to keep investors worried; banking sector volatility, geopolitical risks, sticky inflation, just to name a few. As the investment outlook remains cloudy and hazy, the U.S. dollar is a handy asset to keep in the portfolio as a positive carry insurance hedge. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6Al-aBH7P6rpoExziiAFee72sOQAlND0uWzIe_aO7XAFri, 23 Jun 2023 17:57:19 +0000gtyThis year, foreign exchange has been even harder than usual to predict. Even so, the outlook for the U.S. Dollar may prove to be a handy asset moving forward. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 Foreign Exchange Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our outlook for the U.S. dollar and why it may prove an important driver of investor returns this year. It's Friday, June 23rd at 3 p.m. in London. 
Foreign exchange has long been known as a hard asset class to predict, and this year has proven to be even harder than usual. Consensus trades left and right have missed the mark, and both disagreement and uncertainty are the highest we've seen in years. 
So where do we go from here? We think the U.S. dollar is going to keep rallying, rising about 5% or so by the end of the year. Central bankers are likely to keep their feet on the brakes in order to tackle inflation. And in doing so, growth is likely to remain anemic, with risks skewed to the downside. 
Against this backdrop, we think two key themes are going to emerge: demand for carry and demand for defense. Carry is attractive in a slow growth world and is likely to explain a lot more of investor returns if prices don't move very much. And defensiveness is an alluring quality in financial assets when optimism is low, uncertainty is high and risks abound. 
It's pretty rare to find a financial asset that offers both of these qualities. Typically, insurance costs you money. But the good news is that the US dollar does. The dollar tends to be negatively correlated versus the equity market, meaning that when equities go down, the dollar goes up, and that relationship has only strengthened in recent years. 
Meanwhile, U.S. rates are elevated versus the rest of the world thanks to Fed rate hikes. Dollar rates are roughly 2% higher than those in Europe and even 5% higher compared to those in Japan.
Foreign exchange is a relative game, and if investors are buying the dollar, they're probably selling something. We think in this high uncertainty environment currencies  which are most sensitive to growth and risk assets would likely weaken the most. In the G10 space, the Australian dollar and the Swedish krona both look vulnerable here, while in emerging markets that's probably the South African rand and the Chinese renminbi. 
There are plenty of potential risks on the horizon to keep investors worried; banking sector volatility, geopolitical risks, sticky inflation, just to name a few. As the investment outlook remains cloudy and hazy, the U.S. dollar is a handy asset to keep in the portfolio as a positive carry insurance hedge. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>154false896fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mid-year-u-s-economic-outlook-will-the-fed-continue-to-hike--75654908----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, June 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Hawks and doves entered the battlefield at the June FOMC meeting, wrangling over the extent to which further rate hikes might be needed and how forcefully to convey that. As expected, the FOMC held rates steady at 5.1% and maintained a tightening bias in the statement. But it's also important to note that the statement included an ever so slight change in language that made further rate hikes seem less certain. So in all, this suggests the Fed could raise rates later this year, although when thinking about the very next meeting we think the bar to hike in July is much higher than market pricing implies. 
And the new summary of economic projections, which is made up of Federal Open Market Committee participants projections for things like GDP growth, the unemployment rate, inflation and the appropriate policy path, FOMC participants revised up the policy path for this year by a full 50 basis points. So that would imply two more 25 basis point rate hikes. They also lifted their growth projections for this year, they revised down the unemployment rate and they revised upward their core PCE inflation forecast. So all in all, that's a summary of economic projections that skewed very hawkish. 
Now, we find the upward revision to core PCE most perplexing as incoming data on inflation had been in line with the Fed's forecasts, and especially as key measures of core services inflation have consecutively softened. Now in relation to our forecasts, we think this sets up core inflation to fall faster than the Fed currently projects, which should offset the takeaways from a higher peak rate in the DOT plot. The core inflation projection for this year and the level of the Fed funds rate could get revised downward by the time the FOMC meets in September. 
In our latest outlook, we continue to see a soft landing for the U.S. economy this year, with inflation and wages slowly easing, as well as job gains. Now consistent with this expectation, we continue to look for the Fed to hold the peak rate at 5.1% for an extended period before making the first .25% cut in March 2024. Like the Fed, we have to be humble here and we do see the effects of banking stresses on the economy as highly uncertain, and we'll hone our expectations for the economy and monetary policy as the incoming data unfold. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HJYVykCP_yL1xaiYZH2AXccKHj6JyeZrLIWVGtZLEfgThu, 22 Jun 2023 15:38:39 +0000gtyAs the U.S. Economy still angles for a soft landing, the recent Federal Open Markets Committee meeting may have left more questions than answers. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, June 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Hawks and doves entered the battlefield at the June FOMC meeting, wrangling over the extent to which further rate hikes might be needed and how forcefully to convey that. As expected, the FOMC held rates steady at 5.1% and maintained a tightening bias in the statement. But it's also important to note that the statement included an ever so slight change in language that made further rate hikes seem less certain. So in all, this suggests the Fed could raise rates later this year, although when thinking about the very next meeting we think the bar to hike in July is much higher than market pricing implies. 
And the new summary of economic projections, which is made up of Federal Open Market Committee participants projections for things like GDP growth, the unemployment rate, inflation and the appropriate policy path, FOMC participants revised up the policy path for this year by a full 50 basis points. So that would imply two more 25 basis point rate hikes. They also lifted their growth projections for this year, they revised down the unemployment rate and they revised upward their core PCE inflation forecast. So all in all, that's a summary of economic projections that skewed very hawkish. 
Now, we find the upward revision to core PCE most perplexing as incoming data on inflation had been in line with the Fed's forecasts, and especially as key measures of core services inflation have consecutively softened. Now in relation to our forecasts, we think this sets up core inflation to fall faster than the Fed currently projects, which should offset the takeaways from a higher peak rate in the DOT plot. The core inflation projection for this year and the level of the Fed funds rate could get revised downward by the time the FOMC meets in September. 
In our latest outlook, we continue to see a soft landing for the U.S. economy this year, with inflation and wages slowly easing, as well as job gains. Now consistent with this expectation, we continue to look for the Fed to hold the peak rate at 5.1% for an extended period before making the first .25% cut in March 2024. Like the Fed, we have to be humble here and we do see the effects of banking stresses on the economy as highly uncertain, and we'll hone our expectations for the economy and monetary policy as the incoming data unfold. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>163false895fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mid-year-global-oil-outlook-neutral-or-constructive--75654714----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outlook for the global oil market for the rest of 2023. It is Wednesday, June 21st at 3 p.m. in London. 
Last year saw severe tightness in most commodity markets. Demand still benefited from the post-COVID recovery, and supply was disrupted by the war in Ukraine. In many markets, prices had to rise to a level where demand destruction occurred. In the oil markets, that led Brent crude oil to rise to $130 a barrel, gasoline to $180 and diesel $190 a barrel. 
Those prices clearly did the trick. In response, the global economy slowed down and oil demand softened towards year end, resulting in a slight oversupply at market earlier this year. 
In recent months, however, the main narrative in the oil market has been a one of re-tightening into the second half. The market was clearly in surplus in the first quarter, but was widely expected to tighten again by the second half due to a combination of China reopening, continued recovery in aviation and downside risk to supply from Russia. Those factors should see the market balance in the second quarter and reenter a meaningful deficit in the third and fourth quarter, driving prices higher. 
In fact, that was also our expectation at the start orrf the year. However, if this was indeed to play out, we should see it by now. Given we are currently in June, the most actively traded Brent contract is the one for August delivery. North Sea oil delivered in August will typically arrive at a refinery around about September, with end products made from that crude oil such as gasoline, diesel and jet typically delivered to end customers by October. Therefore, the oil market is already trading the anticipated supply-demand balance deep into the second half. Yet the expected tightness has not yet emerged. 
This is not due to China's reopening, which has boosted oil demand broadly as expected. Already in March, Chinese refinery runs and its crude oil imports reached all time highs again. The recovery in aviation, and with that jet fuel consumption, is also broadly playing out as expected. 
Instead, most reasons for the weaker than expected oil market balance lie on the supply side. For starters, Russian exports have been remarkably resilient. The EU sanctions on the imports of Russian oil were widely expected to result in lower oil production from the country, but this has not materialized. On top, oil production from other non-OPEC countries have surprised to the upside. Notwithstanding low investment levels over the last few years, oil production has grown in a wide variety of countries, including the United States, but also Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Guyana, Colombia, Mexico, Oman and even China. 
As a result, oil production from non-OPEC countries has started to grow faster than global oil demand once again. When that is the case, the balance in the oil market can only be maintained if OPEC cuts production. And that is indeed what the producers group has been doing. OPEC already announced a production cut back in October of last year, and then again in April of this year, and again earlier this month. However, in doing so, OPEC loses market share to non-OPEC producers and it builds up spare capacity, both factors that typically end up weighing on oil markets. 
We still foresee a small deficit in the oil market in the third and the fourth quarter, but this is mostly a function of seasonality in demand and OPEC cuts. Those factors are not inherently bullish. 
If second half tightening does not play out, then market participants may need to consider what lies just beyond that. Our balances for early 2024 do not look so tight. Next year, demand will no longer be supported by another year of China reopening and aviation growth. There will still be supply growth in several non-OPEC countries, and seasonality, which is currently a tailwind, will turn into a headwind. 
There is still likely a period ahead when global GDP growth re-accelerates and the impact of little investment in new production capacity should start to bite. However, the cyclical and the structural outlook do not always align. Over the next six months, we see oil prices broadly stable at about $75 to $80 a barrel for Brent. What market participants find right in front of them is neutral rather than constructive. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with  a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CJWeZbFkw75P5C9HbUcVBOxYRB239tdd23J7sl7BrO4Wed, 21 Jun 2023 20:25:13 +0000gtyWhile high oil prices at the end of last year drove down demand and freed up supply, this year many expect the market to tighten again. So why hasn’t it tightened yet? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outlook for the global oil market for the rest of 2023. It is Wednesday, June 21st at 3 p.m. in London. 
Last year saw severe tightness in most commodity markets. Demand still benefited from the post-COVID recovery, and supply was disrupted by the war in Ukraine. In many markets, prices had to rise to a level where demand destruction occurred. In the oil markets, that led Brent crude oil to rise to $130 a barrel, gasoline to $180 and diesel $190 a barrel. 
Those prices clearly did the trick. In response, the global economy slowed down and oil demand softened towards year end, resulting in a slight oversupply at market earlier this year. 
In recent months, however, the main narrative in the oil market has been a one of re-tightening into the second half. The market was clearly in surplus in the first quarter, but was widely expected to tighten again by the second half due to a combination of China reopening, continued recovery in aviation and downside risk to supply from Russia. Those factors should see the market balance in the second quarter and reenter a meaningful deficit in the third and fourth quarter, driving prices higher. 
In fact, that was also our expectation at the start orrf the year. However, if this was indeed to play out, we should see it by now. Given we are currently in June, the most actively traded Brent contract is the one for August delivery. North Sea oil delivered in August will typically arrive at a refinery around about September, with end products made from that crude oil such as gasoline, diesel and jet typically delivered to end customers by October. Therefore, the oil market is already trading the anticipated supply-demand balance deep into the second half. Yet the expected tightness has not yet emerged. 
This is not due to China's reopening, which has boosted oil demand broadly as expected. Already in March, Chinese refinery runs and its crude oil imports reached all time highs again. The recovery in aviation, and with that jet fuel consumption, is also broadly playing out as expected. 
Instead, most reasons for the weaker than expected oil market balance lie on the supply side. For starters, Russian exports have been remarkably resilient. The EU sanctions on the imports of Russian oil were widely expected to result in lower oil production from the country, but this has not materialized. On top, oil production from other non-OPEC countries have surprised to the upside. Notwithstanding low investment levels over the last few years, oil production has grown in a wide variety of countries, including the United States, but also Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Guyana, Colombia, Mexico, Oman and even China. 
As a result, oil production from non-OPEC countries has started to grow faster than global oil demand once again. When that is the case, the balance in the oil market can only be maintained if OPEC cuts production. And that is indeed what the producers group has been doing. OPEC already announced a production cut back in October of last year, and then again in April of this year, and again earlier this month. However, in doing so, OPEC loses market share to non-OPEC producers and it builds up spare capacity, both factors that typically end up weighing on oil markets. 
We still foresee a small deficit in the oil market in the third and the fourth quarter, but this is mostly a function of seasonality in demand and OPEC cuts. Those factors are not inherently bullish. 
If second half tightening does not play out, then market participants may need to consider what lies just...]]>269false894fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mid-year-macro-markets-outlook-slow-growth-and-sticky-inflation--75654903----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll talk about our mid-year outlook for macro markets. It's Tuesday, June 20th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we look ahead at macro markets for the next 12 months, central banks are front and center again. Our economists see them finding peak rates mid-year, while growth slows and inflation remains sticky. They also see the U.S. moving towards a soft landing, while the Euro area economy continues to face more restrictive policy. The U.K. continues to muddle through, while Japan delivers a year of nominal growth. 
Two global risk scenarios that our economists consider, a hard landing in the U.S. and then faster disinflation also in the U.S., should keep macro markets on the defensive. We think sovereign bond yields will end the year lower than in the first half, while the U.S. dollar will end the year stronger. We think macro markets already reflect the base case outlook for a soft landing and gradual adjustments in monetary policy. The view from our economists, which is mostly in the market price, aligns neatly with this consensus. 
So what will move markets into year end? Price action should, of course, evolve as surprises to this consensus view unfold. As usual, uncertainties around the outlook for monetary policy are murky, raising risks that the outcome will surprise currently held consensus views. 
One uncertainty involves the stance of monetary policy and the impact of the previous tightening that's been put in place. Have central banks tightened enough already to bring inflation back to target, in a suitable time frame? How long and variable are the lags of monetary policy today? 
We think rates market volatility, currently at its local lows, under appreciates the multitude of risks that lie ahead. For example, the lack of negative headlines around regional banks in the US have made investors complacent about bank stresses being behind us. However, key data points on bank balance sheets show that things have worsened on the margin since March. 
As for government bonds, we expect them to end the year with a rally for which investors have been waiting for, and we wouldn't be surprised if the positive returns accrued in line with historical seasonality. For example, strength in July and August, followed by a lull and then further strength in November and December. 
If you look at the US dollar, there's been a debate around the extent of the dollar's dominance in the global economy. As things stand, foreign investors continue to have a voracious appetite for US dollar denominated assets thanks to their strong returns and the U.S. economy's deep and liquid capital markets. So we forecast continued U.S. dollar strength into year end as tepid growth and asymmetric downside economic risk amplify investor demand for carry and defensive assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uFBA3OXRXq5RCWLnrYSjZyRnF_NENJmOs0W4D2gJxsEWed, 21 Jun 2023 15:15:51 +0000gtyWhile the U.S is moving towards a soft landing and Japan is seeing nominal growth, the European economy continues to face restrictive policy. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll talk about our mid-year outlook for macro markets. It's Tuesday, June 20th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
As we look ahead at macro markets for the next 12 months, central banks are front and center again. Our economists see them finding peak rates mid-year, while growth slows and inflation remains sticky. They also see the U.S. moving towards a soft landing, while the Euro area economy continues to face more restrictive policy. The U.K. continues to muddle through, while Japan delivers a year of nominal growth. 
Two global risk scenarios that our economists consider, a hard landing in the U.S. and then faster disinflation also in the U.S., should keep macro markets on the defensive. We think sovereign bond yields will end the year lower than in the first half, while the U.S. dollar will end the year stronger. We think macro markets already reflect the base case outlook for a soft landing and gradual adjustments in monetary policy. The view from our economists, which is mostly in the market price, aligns neatly with this consensus. 
So what will move markets into year end? Price action should, of course, evolve as surprises to this consensus view unfold. As usual, uncertainties around the outlook for monetary policy are murky, raising risks that the outcome will surprise currently held consensus views. 
One uncertainty involves the stance of monetary policy and the impact of the previous tightening that's been put in place. Have central banks tightened enough already to bring inflation back to target, in a suitable time frame? How long and variable are the lags of monetary policy today? 
We think rates market volatility, currently at its local lows, under appreciates the multitude of risks that lie ahead. For example, the lack of negative headlines around regional banks in the US have made investors complacent about bank stresses being behind us. However, key data points on bank balance sheets show that things have worsened on the margin since March. 
As for government bonds, we expect them to end the year with a rally for which investors have been waiting for, and we wouldn't be surprised if the positive returns accrued in line with historical seasonality. For example, strength in July and August, followed by a lull and then further strength in November and December. 
If you look at the US dollar, there's been a debate around the extent of the dollar's dominance in the global economy. As things stand, foreign investors continue to have a voracious appetite for US dollar denominated assets thanks to their strong returns and the U.S. economy's deep and liquid capital markets. So we forecast continued U.S. dollar strength into year end as tepid growth and asymmetric downside economic risk amplify investor demand for carry and defensive assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>196false893fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fixed-income-a-sweet-spot-for-munis--75654722----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. 
Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy. 
Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the core of many investors' fixed income portfolios, municipal bonds. It's Friday, June 16th at 9am in New York. Michael Zezas: As our equity strategists continue to highlight the risk of earnings surprises for U.S. stocks, the outlook for the bond market looks considerably better. A soft landing, so call it, slow growth and slowing inflation, would mean favorable total return prospects across fixed income. In fact, even as the Fed's been raising short term rates, longer term bond yields have been falling as investors anticipate both inflation and growth to decline. So, Mark, for the benefit of listeners, tell us why this is a sweet spot for munis. 
Mark Schmidt: Thanks, Michael. Municipal bonds, high credit quality and tax exempt income are an opportunity for investors in high tax brackets right now. Credit quality for municipals can seem confusing, but we like to think of it in a pretty simple way. What's the outlook for tax collections? Income tax collections were mixed in April, but sales and property taxes continue to grow. Also, most state and local governments still have plenty of cash on reserve in case the economy performs worse than our economists expect. That cash comes from all the aid that the federal government provided, several hundred billion dollars, in fact, to municipal issuers in response to COVID. That's created a balance sheet buffer that can still support issuers today, even as growth slows. Now, even though credit quality remains pretty good, the good news is we don't think you need to take a lot of risks to enjoy the benefits of tax free income in your portfolio. 
Michael Zezas: And Mark, investors ask a lot about what the right maturity of bond is for their portfolio. What do you think investors should favor right now? Shorter or longer maturity bonds? 
Mark Schmidt: Longer maturity bonds generally offer higher returns, but of course, with higher risk as well. Right now, we actually see superior risk adjusted returns in a 1 to 5 year or 1 to 10 year latter. We'd look for investment grade credits in those shorter maturities for investors seeking higher income with higher risk. We'd recommend a barbell approach, one that blends short 1 to 5 year maturities with select maturities between 15 and 20 years. On the long end of the curve, we prefer very high quality AA bonds. With credit spreads and risk free rates at multi-year highs, we just don't think you need to reach for yield in this environment, especially as the economy slows. But Michael, one question that always comes up with regards to municipal bonds is the risk of the tax exemption changing, given how important tax free income is for municipal investors. Congress does change the tax code from time to time, do you expect major legislation out of Washington anytime soon? 
Michael Zezas: In short, no. Major tax reforms tend to happen once in a generation, and they tend to need one party to control both the White House and both chambers of Congress. And even then, a big tax code change needs to be their priority. So, the earliest this could possibly happen again would be after the 2024 election, so call it 2025. And then again, even then, it's not clear that even if one party were to take control of Congress and the White House, that this would be a priority for them. So in short, it's not something I'd be particularly concerned about. But Mark, turning it back to you. Munis helped to build all kinds of infrastructures in states and cities, colleges, hospitals, airports and toll roads. They all issue municipal bonds. What sectors do you like right now? 
Mark Schmidt: We think the outlook for most transportation issuers remains pretty good. Summer vacations are right around the corner, and we all definitely want to pack our bags and hit the road. All those travelers going through airports and on toll roads is good news for credit quality. Now, as for one sector where credit quality is more mixed, health care providers are still recovering from all the disruptions related to COVID. You all know the story, of course, as more patients required more specialized care, the demand for nurses and frontline health care workers skyrocketed, leading to higher costs across the board. Those costs are now stabilizing, but we continue to think it will take some time for credit quality to fully recover. When it comes to some of these choices about sectors and credit quality, though, remember that volatility is relative. Compared to other asset classes, fundamentals for investment grade municipal bonds don't change very quickly or very often. They're the classic late cycle haven, as you've mentioned, Michael, in years before. 
Michael Zezas: Well, Mark, this has been really insightful. Thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Mark Schmidt: Great speaking with you today, Michael. 
Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/aCgwwN5n4yTeB5R4JyhLTN7VvtJ_1nQdB4iDJbgieHUFri, 16 Jun 2023 19:40:13 +0000gtyWith investors anticipating earnings surprises for US stocks, the outlook for municipal bonds is looking brighter. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic...----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. 
Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy. 
Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the core of many investors' fixed income portfolios, municipal bonds. It's Friday, June 16th at 9am in New York. Michael Zezas: As our equity strategists continue to highlight the risk of earnings surprises for U.S. stocks, the outlook for the bond market looks considerably better. A soft landing, so call it, slow growth and slowing inflation, would mean favorable total return prospects across fixed income. In fact, even as the Fed's been raising short term rates, longer term bond yields have been falling as investors anticipate both inflation and growth to decline. So, Mark, for the benefit of listeners, tell us why this is a sweet spot for munis. 
Mark Schmidt: Thanks, Michael. Municipal bonds, high credit quality and tax exempt income are an opportunity for investors in high tax brackets right now. Credit quality for municipals can seem confusing, but we like to think of it in a pretty simple way. What's the outlook for tax collections? Income tax collections were mixed in April, but sales and property taxes continue to grow. Also, most state and local governments still have plenty of cash on reserve in case the economy performs worse than our economists expect. That cash comes from all the aid that the federal government provided, several hundred billion dollars, in fact, to municipal issuers in response to COVID. That's created a balance sheet buffer that can still support issuers today, even as growth slows. Now, even though credit quality remains pretty good, the good news is we don't think you need to take a lot of risks to enjoy the benefits of tax free income in your portfolio. 
Michael Zezas: And Mark, investors ask a lot about what the right maturity of bond is for their portfolio. What do you think investors should favor right now? Shorter or longer maturity bonds? 
Mark Schmidt: Longer maturity bonds generally offer higher returns, but of course, with higher risk as well. Right now, we actually see superior risk adjusted returns in a 1 to 5 year or 1 to 10 year latter. We'd look for investment grade credits in those shorter maturities for investors seeking higher income with higher risk. We'd recommend a barbell approach, one that blends short 1 to 5 year maturities with select maturities between 15 and 20 years. On the long end of the curve, we prefer very high quality AA bonds. With credit spreads and risk free rates at multi-year highs, we just don't think you need to reach for yield in this environment, especially as the economy slows. But Michael, one question that always comes up with regards to municipal bonds is the risk of the tax exemption changing, given how important tax free income is for municipal investors. Congress does change the tax code from time to time, do you expect major legislation out of Washington anytime soon? 
Michael Zezas: In short, no. Major tax reforms tend to happen once in a generation, and they tend to need one party to control both the White House and both chambers of Congress. And even then, a big tax code change needs to be their priority. So, the earliest this could possibly happen again would be after the 2024 election, so call it 2025. And then again, even then, it's not clear that even if one party were to take control of Congress and the White House, that this would be a priority for them. So in short, it's not something I'd be particularly concerned about. But Mark, turning it back to you. Munis helped to build all kinds of infrastructures in states and cities, colleges, hospitals, airports and toll roads. They all issue municipal bonds. What...]]>297false892fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/asia-s-economy-outlook-recovery-picking-up-steam--75654888----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing your variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our mid-year outlook for Asia's economy. It's Thursday, June 15 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Asia's recovery is for real. We believe its growth outperformance has just started. We expect a full fledged recovery to build up over the next two quarters across two dimensions. First, we think more economies in the region will join the recovery path. Second, the recovery will broaden from services consumption to goods consumption and in the next six months to capital investments, or CapEx. We see Asia's growth accelerating to 5.1% by fourth quarter of this year. There are three main reasons why we expect this growth outperformance for Asia. 
First, Asia did not experience the interest rate shock that the U.S. and Europe did. Asian central banks did not have to take rates through restrictive territory because inflation in Asia has not been as intense. Plus, Asia's inflation has already declined and we expect 80% of region’s inflation will get back into central bank's comfort zone in the next 2 to 3 months. 
The second reason is China. While China's consumption recovery is largely on track, we have seen downside in the last two months, in investment spending and the manufacturing sector. We believe policy easing is imminent as policymakers are keen on preventing a deterioration in labor market conditions and on minimizing social stability risks. Easing should help stabilize investment spending and broaden out the recovery in back half of 2023. 
Beyond China, India, Indonesia and Japan will also contribute significantly to region's growth recovery. 
India is benefiting from cyclical and structural factors. Cyclically beating healthy corporate and banking system balance sheets mean India can have an independent business cycle driven by domestic demand, and we are seeing that appetite for expansion translating into stronger CapEx and loan growth. 
As for Japan, it is in a sweet spot, having decisively left the deflation environment behind, but not facing runaway inflation. Accommodative real interest rates are helping catalyze private CapEx growth, which has already risen to a seven year high. And, in another momentous shift, Japan's nominal GDP growth is now rising at a healthy pace after a long period of flatlining. 
Finally, we believe Indonesia will be able to sustain a 5% pace of growth. Indonesia runs the most prudent macro policy mix amongst emerging markets. In particular, the fiscal deficit has been maintained below 3%, since the adoption of the fiscal rule and has only exceeded that in 2020 during the worst of the pandemic. This has resulted in a consistent improvement in macro stability indicators and led to a structural decline in the cost of capital supporting private domestic demand. 
The risks to our next 12 month Asia outlook are hard landing in the U.S., which Morgan Stanley's U.S. economists think it's unlikely and a deeper slowdown in China. But we believe China's recovery will only broaden out in the second half of 2023. And given this, we feel confident about our outlook for Asia's outperformance in 2023 vis-à-vis rest of the world. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/33h9K3rmJlZs9rwq7HD5zTpgi9XunTENVJrgqhOnZyYThu, 15 Jun 2023 18:25:55 +0000gtyWith more Asian economies on pace to join the recovery path set by China, confidence in economic outperformance versus the rest of the world is rising.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing your variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our mid-year outlook for Asia's economy. It's Thursday, June 15 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Asia's recovery is for real. We believe its growth outperformance has just started. We expect a full fledged recovery to build up over the next two quarters across two dimensions. First, we think more economies in the region will join the recovery path. Second, the recovery will broaden from services consumption to goods consumption and in the next six months to capital investments, or CapEx. We see Asia's growth accelerating to 5.1% by fourth quarter of this year. There are three main reasons why we expect this growth outperformance for Asia. 
First, Asia did not experience the interest rate shock that the U.S. and Europe did. Asian central banks did not have to take rates through restrictive territory because inflation in Asia has not been as intense. Plus, Asia's inflation has already declined and we expect 80% of region’s inflation will get back into central bank's comfort zone in the next 2 to 3 months. 
The second reason is China. While China's consumption recovery is largely on track, we have seen downside in the last two months, in investment spending and the manufacturing sector. We believe policy easing is imminent as policymakers are keen on preventing a deterioration in labor market conditions and on minimizing social stability risks. Easing should help stabilize investment spending and broaden out the recovery in back half of 2023. 
Beyond China, India, Indonesia and Japan will also contribute significantly to region's growth recovery. 
India is benefiting from cyclical and structural factors. Cyclically beating healthy corporate and banking system balance sheets mean India can have an independent business cycle driven by domestic demand, and we are seeing that appetite for expansion translating into stronger CapEx and loan growth. 
As for Japan, it is in a sweet spot, having decisively left the deflation environment behind, but not facing runaway inflation. Accommodative real interest rates are helping catalyze private CapEx growth, which has already risen to a seven year high. And, in another momentous shift, Japan's nominal GDP growth is now rising at a healthy pace after a long period of flatlining. 
Finally, we believe Indonesia will be able to sustain a 5% pace of growth. Indonesia runs the most prudent macro policy mix amongst emerging markets. In particular, the fiscal deficit has been maintained below 3%, since the adoption of the fiscal rule and has only exceeded that in 2020 during the worst of the pandemic. This has resulted in a consistent improvement in macro stability indicators and led to a structural decline in the cost of capital supporting private domestic demand. 
The risks to our next 12 month Asia outlook are hard landing in the U.S., which Morgan Stanley's U.S. economists think it's unlikely and a deeper slowdown in China. But we believe China's recovery will only broaden out in the second half of 2023. And given this, we feel confident about our outlook for Asia's outperformance in 2023 vis-à-vis rest of the world. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>210false891fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-will-markets-stay-resilient--75654909----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Wednesday, June 14th at 2 p.m. in London. It's hard to ignore a sense of relief and increased optimism that's starting to percolate among investors. After a hard 2022, there was widespread trepidation entering this year that slower growth, quantitative tightening and further rate hikes would continue to pressure markets. Yet year-to-date, performance has been pretty good. Is that evidence that these problems aren't really problems anymore? 
Markets have been strong. But in terms of that strength showing that markets have passed the test of slower growth or policy tightening, I think it's more accurate to say that it's too soon to tell. 
Let's start with the idea that markets have already weathered a period of weaker growth. While leading economic indicators of the economy are soft, so far, actual activity has held up pretty well. The U.S. economy grew 1.3% in the first quarter and has added 1.6 million new jobs year-to-date. It's the coming quarters, specifically the next 3 to 6 months, where our economists see the weakest stretch of economic activity. 
Next, how about market resilience suggesting that rate hikes don't matter, or at least don't matter very much? Here we think the question is to what extent rate increases hit with a lag. The optimistic case is that markets are forward looking, and thus have already discounted the full impact of very large recent rate increases by both the Fed and the European Central Bank. 
But there's also a school of thought that higher rates don't fully hit the economy for 12 months, or more. 12 months ago, the federal funds rate was still just 1%. Maybe the full effects of policy tightening haven't yet hit. 
Another part of the theme of tighter policy is the reduction of central bank balance sheets or quantitative tightening. Again, it's tempting to view recent market strength as evidence that this dynamic doesn't matter as much as expected, and that may be true. But I think the jury's still out. Year-to-date, the aggregate bond holdings of the world's central banks have actually risen, not fallen, thanks to continued easing from the Bank of Japan and support for the US banking sector from the Federal Reserve. That should now change going forward, with these balance sheets shrinking, giving us a better measure of the true impact. 
Third is the effect of tighter lending conditions. The optimistic case is that following quite a bit of banking sector volatility in March, recent market resiliency shows that this is just another test that the current market has passed. But lending, like monetary policy, could act with a lag. Morgan Stanley's banking analysts see tighter lending from the U.S. banking sector playing out over an extended period of time, rather than quickly, and all at once. 
Markets have been resilient year-to-date, a welcome respite from a poor 2022. We don't think, however, that this resilience is yet proof that markets have successfully answered the question of what the impact of lower growth, tighter policy or tighter bank credit will be. Rather, these questions are still sitting there, waiting to be answered over the next several months. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/c1vZxxxwOFkjOUBcQmIej-c9PaojhFALMAAqeHJ7xlcWed, 14 Jun 2023 19:25:27 +0000gtyWhile investors are feeling optimistic with the strong performance in markets despite some predicted challenges, it may be too soon to tell if these possible hurdles have been completely avoided. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Wednesday, June 14th at 2 p.m. in London. It's hard to ignore a sense of relief and increased optimism that's starting to percolate among investors. After a hard 2022, there was widespread trepidation entering this year that slower growth, quantitative tightening and further rate hikes would continue to pressure markets. Yet year-to-date, performance has been pretty good. Is that evidence that these problems aren't really problems anymore? 
Markets have been strong. But in terms of that strength showing that markets have passed the test of slower growth or policy tightening, I think it's more accurate to say that it's too soon to tell. 
Let's start with the idea that markets have already weathered a period of weaker growth. While leading economic indicators of the economy are soft, so far, actual activity has held up pretty well. The U.S. economy grew 1.3% in the first quarter and has added 1.6 million new jobs year-to-date. It's the coming quarters, specifically the next 3 to 6 months, where our economists see the weakest stretch of economic activity. 
Next, how about market resilience suggesting that rate hikes don't matter, or at least don't matter very much? Here we think the question is to what extent rate increases hit with a lag. The optimistic case is that markets are forward looking, and thus have already discounted the full impact of very large recent rate increases by both the Fed and the European Central Bank. 
But there's also a school of thought that higher rates don't fully hit the economy for 12 months, or more. 12 months ago, the federal funds rate was still just 1%. Maybe the full effects of policy tightening haven't yet hit. 
Another part of the theme of tighter policy is the reduction of central bank balance sheets or quantitative tightening. Again, it's tempting to view recent market strength as evidence that this dynamic doesn't matter as much as expected, and that may be true. But I think the jury's still out. Year-to-date, the aggregate bond holdings of the world's central banks have actually risen, not fallen, thanks to continued easing from the Bank of Japan and support for the US banking sector from the Federal Reserve. That should now change going forward, with these balance sheets shrinking, giving us a better measure of the true impact. 
Third is the effect of tighter lending conditions. The optimistic case is that following quite a bit of banking sector volatility in March, recent market resiliency shows that this is just another test that the current market has passed. But lending, like monetary policy, could act with a lag. Morgan Stanley's banking analysts see tighter lending from the U.S. banking sector playing out over an extended period of time, rather than quickly, and all at once. 
Markets have been resilient year-to-date, a welcome respite from a poor 2022. We don't think, however, that this resilience is yet proof that markets have successfully answered the question of what the impact of lower growth, tighter policy or tighter bank credit will be. Rather, these questions are still sitting there, waiting to be answered over the next several months. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>206false890fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/european-equities-outlook-short-term-pain-long-term-gain--75654764----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the outlook for European equities in the second half of this year. It's Tuesday, June 13th at 2 p.m. in London. After a record burst of outperformance between October and March, European equities have started to underperform their international peers over the last couple of months, and we think this is likely to continue over the summer for two reasons. 
Firstly, the European economy seems to be losing some momentum, with many of the region's leading economic indicators turning back down over the last month or so. Now, while the magnitude of their reversal is small so far in absolute terms, the European Economic Surprise Index, which tracks how the data comes in relative to expectations, has fallen much more sharply and is now close to a ten year low. We think this is an important development, as this index is often a good lead indicator for future earnings and hence is now pointing to downside risks ahead for corporate profitability in Europe. 
The second factor starting to drag on Europe's relative performance, is the strong rally in growth stocks that we are seeing globally. While Europe has its own fair share of such companies, its tech weight overall remains considerably below that of most other regions. For example, tech is at about 7% of the European equity market versus 13% for Asia and over 30% for the U.S.. Quite simply, the size of this differential makes it difficult for Europe to keep pace with other regions when growth stocks are outperforming more broadly, such as now. 
While these two factors are likely to weigh on Europe's relative performance in the near term, we also see downside risks to broader global equity indices over the summer, given the potential for slowing growth and deteriorating liquidity dynamics in both the US and Europe. Taken together, we think these headwinds could see European equities fall by up to 10% over the next few months. Given this backdrop, we have further increased our preference for defensives over cyclicals, by upgrading pharmaceuticals to overweight, to sit alongside telecoms and utilities in our most preferred list. In contrast, we remain underweight cyclical sectors such as autos, capital goods, chemicals and energy. From a style perspective, we think it is too soon to take profits in the growth sectors and hence remain positive on the likes of luxury goods, medtech, semis and software. 
The biggest change to our view recently has become more downbeat on the outlook for European financials, which we think fits a, "right place but wrong time narrative". Specifically, while the sector looks attractive from a bottom up perspective in terms of low valuations, strong balance sheets and healthy earnings trends, we think the top down macro environment has become more challenging as we near the end of the current rate hiking cycle and with the prospect of slower economic growth and lower bond yields ahead. Notwithstanding our near-term caution, however, we are more positive on European stocks over the longer term, given the backdrop of what we think will ultimately be relatively resilient earnings and low equity valuations. For example, Europe's price to earnings ratio is now down to just 12.5 times versus the U.S. at close to 18 times. Looking out further on a 12 month view, our models suggest 8% price upside from here, which would rise closer to 12% if we include dividends and buybacks. So, when we put all of the above together, we think the outlook for European stocks is perhaps best described as one of short term pain, but for longer term gain. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pRYfVTPXy1Kpw-bBGXrAxDpm3BaAbWViftDmFf6fLIETue, 13 Jun 2023 19:51:42 +0000gtyWith the European economy losing momentum amidst a rally in growth stocks globally, the time of European equity outperformance may be in the past for now. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the outlook for European equities in the second half of this year. It's Tuesday, June 13th at 2 p.m. in London. After a record burst of outperformance between October and March, European equities have started to underperform their international peers over the last couple of months, and we think this is likely to continue over the summer for two reasons. 
Firstly, the European economy seems to be losing some momentum, with many of the region's leading economic indicators turning back down over the last month or so. Now, while the magnitude of their reversal is small so far in absolute terms, the European Economic Surprise Index, which tracks how the data comes in relative to expectations, has fallen much more sharply and is now close to a ten year low. We think this is an important development, as this index is often a good lead indicator for future earnings and hence is now pointing to downside risks ahead for corporate profitability in Europe. 
The second factor starting to drag on Europe's relative performance, is the strong rally in growth stocks that we are seeing globally. While Europe has its own fair share of such companies, its tech weight overall remains considerably below that of most other regions. For example, tech is at about 7% of the European equity market versus 13% for Asia and over 30% for the U.S.. Quite simply, the size of this differential makes it difficult for Europe to keep pace with other regions when growth stocks are outperforming more broadly, such as now. 
While these two factors are likely to weigh on Europe's relative performance in the near term, we also see downside risks to broader global equity indices over the summer, given the potential for slowing growth and deteriorating liquidity dynamics in both the US and Europe. Taken together, we think these headwinds could see European equities fall by up to 10% over the next few months. Given this backdrop, we have further increased our preference for defensives over cyclicals, by upgrading pharmaceuticals to overweight, to sit alongside telecoms and utilities in our most preferred list. In contrast, we remain underweight cyclical sectors such as autos, capital goods, chemicals and energy. From a style perspective, we think it is too soon to take profits in the growth sectors and hence remain positive on the likes of luxury goods, medtech, semis and software. 
The biggest change to our view recently has become more downbeat on the outlook for European financials, which we think fits a, "right place but wrong time narrative". Specifically, while the sector looks attractive from a bottom up perspective in terms of low valuations, strong balance sheets and healthy earnings trends, we think the top down macro environment has become more challenging as we near the end of the current rate hiking cycle and with the prospect of slower economic growth and lower bond yields ahead. Notwithstanding our near-term caution, however, we are more positive on European stocks over the longer term, given the backdrop of what we think will ultimately be relatively resilient earnings and low equity valuations. For example, Europe's price to earnings ratio is now down to just 12.5 times versus the U.S. at close to 18 times. Looking out further on a 12 month view, our models suggest 8% price upside from here, which would rise closer to 12% if we include dividends and buybacks. So, when we put all of the above together, we think the outlook for European stocks is perhaps best described as one of short term pain, but for longer term gain. 
Thanks for listening. If you...]]>221false889fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-a-historically-concentrated-market--75654867----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 12th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
At the beginning of the year, we noted that our view is much more in line with the consensus and we discussed that it might take some time for that to change. Suffice it to say, it has taken longer than we expected. At the end of January, sentiment and positioning had improved enough to put stocks in a vulnerable state, and sure enough, we had a 10% correction in the S&P 500 over the following six weeks, with the average stock down about 13%. Since then, the average stock has lagged the overall index by about 10%. We think this is mostly due to increased liquidity from the depositor bailouts, at the same time artificial intelligence began to gain momentum with investors. The combination of perceived safety and of newfound open ended growth story was too much for investors to resist. Hence, we have one of the most concentrated markets in history. 
For most of the past two months, sentiment has remained somewhat pessimistic, which is part of the reason why the average stock hasn't done very well. But sentiment has turned outright bullish in the past week. Furthermore, it's not just sentiment, as both retail and institutional flows have returned to the equity markets with technology and artificial intelligence the dominant themes. 
This past week there were several other warning signs that this bear market rally may have finally exhausted itself after eight months. First, several sell side strategists and market commentators have publicly stated the bear market is now over at this point. 
Second, we don't find much value in the 20% threshold for declaring new bull markets. Instead, our conclusion is driven more by the fundamentals, valuations and expectations relative to our outlook. In short, our earnings view is much more pessimistic than the current consensus expectation, which is now assuming a second half reacceleration story. We can also find several instances of bear market rallies that exceeded the 20% threshold, only to eventually give way to new lows. One example is particularly relevant, given our 1940s and fifties boom bust framework that we discussed in last week's podcast. After the boom in 1946, following the end of the war, the S&P 500 corrected by 28%, followed by a 24% choppy bear market rally that lasted almost eighteen months before succumbing to new lows a year later. Thus far, it appears similar to the current bear market, which corrected 27 and a half percent last year and is now rallied 24% from its intraday lows, but is still 10% below the highs. 
Third, when we called for a bear market rally last October, it was predicated on two key assumptions. First, market concern around the Fed and terminal rate had likely peaked, and second, the US dollar was also peaking. Both of these developments occurred as long term interest rates and the U.S. dollar topped last October. Falling rates and the US dollar have combined to drive both valuations and earnings expectations higher. On the latter point, the U.S. dollar index is now flat on a year-over-year basis, which compares to up 21% at its peak last fall. The question is how much did a weaker dollar help the top line for multinational companies and the S&P 500 overall? Furthermore, will this dollar weakness continue or will it flatten out and or even reverse into a headwind? It's hard to know for sure, but our house view is for a stronger dollar, and it's important to acknowledge the S&P 500 has become very negatively correlated to the dollar over the last decade. 
Finally, we think the Fed's potential pause on rate hikes this week could serve as the perfect bookend to this bear market rally that began with a peak in the Fed's terminal rate last fall. In many ways, it's often easier to travel than arrive at the destination. 
The bottom line, sentiment and positioning are now 180 degrees from where they were on January 1st. This means stocks are no longer set up for the disappointment we think is coming in the form of much weaker than expected earnings this year. This reset can happen either slowly as companies miss expectations one by one, or quickly from another exogenous shock that is just too much for the market to absorb. In that latter case, the equity risk premium is likely to spike, price earnings multiples are likely to fall sharply and we may make a new bear market price low before estimates fall in earnest. We suspect the weaker liquidity backdrop from greater Treasury issuance discussed last week could serve as that exogenous shock. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LXF09aVP3bOVoKk4sZ6_bPm9pgieEQIEWid_XHwBdp4Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:20:47 +0000gtyWith AI gaining momentum among investors and the Fed potentially pausing on rate hikes, signs are now pointing towards the end of the bear market rally. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 12th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
At the beginning of the year, we noted that our view is much more in line with the consensus and we discussed that it might take some time for that to change. Suffice it to say, it has taken longer than we expected. At the end of January, sentiment and positioning had improved enough to put stocks in a vulnerable state, and sure enough, we had a 10% correction in the S&P 500 over the following six weeks, with the average stock down about 13%. Since then, the average stock has lagged the overall index by about 10%. We think this is mostly due to increased liquidity from the depositor bailouts, at the same time artificial intelligence began to gain momentum with investors. The combination of perceived safety and of newfound open ended growth story was too much for investors to resist. Hence, we have one of the most concentrated markets in history. 
For most of the past two months, sentiment has remained somewhat pessimistic, which is part of the reason why the average stock hasn't done very well. But sentiment has turned outright bullish in the past week. Furthermore, it's not just sentiment, as both retail and institutional flows have returned to the equity markets with technology and artificial intelligence the dominant themes. 
This past week there were several other warning signs that this bear market rally may have finally exhausted itself after eight months. First, several sell side strategists and market commentators have publicly stated the bear market is now over at this point. 
Second, we don't find much value in the 20% threshold for declaring new bull markets. Instead, our conclusion is driven more by the fundamentals, valuations and expectations relative to our outlook. In short, our earnings view is much more pessimistic than the current consensus expectation, which is now assuming a second half reacceleration story. We can also find several instances of bear market rallies that exceeded the 20% threshold, only to eventually give way to new lows. One example is particularly relevant, given our 1940s and fifties boom bust framework that we discussed in last week's podcast. After the boom in 1946, following the end of the war, the S&P 500 corrected by 28%, followed by a 24% choppy bear market rally that lasted almost eighteen months before succumbing to new lows a year later. Thus far, it appears similar to the current bear market, which corrected 27 and a half percent last year and is now rallied 24% from its intraday lows, but is still 10% below the highs. 
Third, when we called for a bear market rally last October, it was predicated on two key assumptions. First, market concern around the Fed and terminal rate had likely peaked, and second, the US dollar was also peaking. Both of these developments occurred as long term interest rates and the U.S. dollar topped last October. Falling rates and the US dollar have combined to drive both valuations and earnings expectations higher. On the latter point, the U.S. dollar index is now flat on a year-over-year basis, which compares to up 21% at its peak last fall. The question is how much did a weaker dollar help the top line for multinational companies and the S&P 500 overall? Furthermore, will this dollar weakness continue or will it flatten out and or even reverse into a headwind? It's hard to know for sure, but our house view is for a stronger dollar, and it's important to acknowledge the S&P 500 has become very...]]>275false888fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mid-year-strategy-outlook-risk-reward-in-currency-and-commodities--75654863----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And on part two of the special two-part episodes of the podcast, we're going to focus on Morgan Stanley's year ahead strategy Outlook. It's Friday, June 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: All right, Andrew, in the first part of this two part special, you were grilling me on the economic outlook. You were taking me to task on all of our views, pointing out the different ways in which our clients, investors around the world were pushing back at different parts of our story. And now, it's payback time. Let me ask you, basically, what are we thinking as a research house in terms of where the best trades are likely to be for markets? We're looking for a soft landing in the U.S., but that doesn't mean a good outcome. So very weak economic activity and policy rates that are still restrictive. So what is that type of backdrop going to mean for one of the most closely watched assets in the world, the U.S. dollar? 
Andrew Sheets: Sure. So we do think that this backdrop, despite the fact that on the surface it looks decent, you have the U.S. and Europe avoiding recession. You have stronger growth in Asia, but you have a lot of uncertainties that are front loaded, and you still have slowing growth, you still have tight monetary policy. And we think this is going to still lead to a somewhat more difficult backdrop for markets over the next three months. And so I think in that context, the U.S. dollar looks quite attractive. The US dollar pays investors to hold it, it's a so-called positive carry currency against most major currencies and it's a diversifying currency, so as an asset it helps protect your portfolio. And I also think kind of within this context, if any economy is going to be able to handle higher interest rates, well, it might be the U.S. where a large share of consumer debt is fixed in a long term mortgage, which is very different from what we see in Australia or the UK or Sweden. So, we think that the dollar will do better, we think the dollar will do better in large part because of this attractiveness in a portfolio context that it offers investors a positive yield, while at the same time offering portfolio protection. 
Seth Carpenter: All right. So, if you're feeling reasonably upbeat about the dollar, presumably that spills over to dollar denominated assets. At the end of last year, the strategy team published a piece that was called ‘The Year of Yield.’ Are you still feeling that good about bonds in the United States in particular? Is it really fixed income securities that are your strongest call? 
Andrew Sheets: So, we still feel good about bonds, but I would say that the start of the year has been a pretty mixed picture. I think kind of relative to what we were expecting at the start of the year, the Fed and the ECB have raised rates more. Growth has been somewhat stronger, inflation has been somewhat higher. I would say none of those things are good for the bond market and yields instead of falling have kind of trended sideways. So they've done okay, but they've not done as well as we on the strategy side initially thought. But, you know, looking ahead, we think that the case for high quality fixed income is still quite good. We still think we see slowing in the second half of the year, which we think will be supportive for bonds. We think, certainly based in large part on the forecasts from you and the economics team, that the Fed and the ECB are largely done with their rate hikes, which we think will be supportive for bonds, and we think that inflation will moderate over the course of the year, which could also be supportive. So, we still think that when we look across global assets, while we see positive returns from most bond and equity markets, we think it's high grade bonds that generally offer the best risk adjusted return on our forecasts. 
Seth Carpenter: Okay, So risk adjusted return on bonds seem attractive to you. The natural follow up question to that is what about equities? Equities have actually performed reasonably well this year. On our first part of this podcast, I said that we are looking for a soft landing. What's the call on equities in the United States? Is this going to be a great second half of the year for equities? 
Andrew Sheets: So we think the equity picture is quite bifurcated. In some ways, I think it ties quite nicely to the bifurcated global economic picture that you and the economics team are talking about. Where growth in Asia is accelerating, this year, it's accelerating in the second half of the year, while growth in the U.S. and Europe is slowing. And it's that bifurcation that we think is mirrored in the equity market where we see quite good returns for Japanese, in emerging market equities, we see double digit total returns over the next 12 months. But we see a U.S. equity market that's broadly flat in 12 months time to where it is today. Now, what's driving that is we do think that the slowing growth we have this year and tighter monetary policy that will hit profitability. We think it's already been hitting profitability, we think it will continue to. And more tactically, we think that a lot of the big questions for the market are somewhat unresolved, but will be tested very soon. It's the next two quarters, which is the weakest stretch of U.S. GDP growth. It's the next two or three quarters that we think is the bulk of the risks to U.S. earnings. It's this year, it's not next year. And we think the next two quarters is where monetary policy relative to inflation tightens more in our forecast horizon rather than tightening more in the future. So, when we think about the resilience of stocks, especially U.S. stocks year-to-date, it's been very impressive, it's been stronger than we expected. But also, I think year- to-date, growth has been pretty solid. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet has declined to less than initially expected. You haven't necessarily, I think, gone through some of the tests that investors, ourselves, thought might present more headwinds to the equity market, and those tests are going to present themselves, we think, rather soon. 
Seth Carpenter: Okay. So you highlighted a dichotomy there, especially for the second half of the year. That lines up, I would say, with some of our economic outlook, other parts of the world maybe doing a little bit better. I started off very narrowly with just the dollar. Are there other currencies in other parts of the world where based on, either what's going on with their central banks or what we think is going to be going on with their economic performance. Other currencies that you think would be really good for investors to take a look at. 
Andrew Sheets: So if I think about where we're forecasting currency strength, we do have the dollar appreciating against most currencies. So I'd say that's a dominant story. We do have the Japanese Yen doing modestly better, and that's largely a function of valuations that look to us very low versus history adjusted for inflation. And we do think that you could have a somewhat uncommon occurrence where Japanese equities and the currency both do well. We think that's the case because the currency is so inexpensive relative to other currencies and because Japanese corporates are already expecting their currency to strengthen some that, that wouldn't necessarily be an additional hit to profitability. The Brazilian Real is another currency that we're predicting to be stronger relative to regional peers. We think both the Indian Rupee and the Indonesian Rupiah can also do well as those economies are relatively strong in a regional context, and in a global context, looking out over the next 12 months. 
Seth Carpenter: All right. That's super helpful. I guess the last question will come back to you with, again, trying to take this global perspective on things, is commodities. Commodities are traded around the world. They are often a reflection of economic performance in different regions. We've got two big economies that we think will be growing fairly slowly, but we've got China and the rest of Asia that we think will be doing well. What is the outlook for commodities, and maybe especially oil, as we look forward the next six months, the next year? 
Andrew Sheets: Yeah so, we're underweight commodities. And here I want to talk about the market from a so-called factor perspective. When we think about markets, I think it can be helpful to think about them in terms of fundamentals, carry and momentum, as different things that can drive the market and especially for commodities where those things all matter. So, you know, what do we mean by fundamentals? Well, we think as growth slows, that's a negative for commodity demand relative to supply, and so a forecast where slowing growth is still ahead of us and it's really front loaded in our forecast is somewhat of a headwind to commodities. If I think about carry, that's another way of saying what does it pay you to hold the commodity or what does it cost to hold the commodity? And given how high short term U.S. interest rates are, it's quite expensive to hold copper or gold rather than hold a Treasury bill which pays you interest. The commodity does not. So, we think that works against commodities some. And then there's also momentum you tend to see in commodities more so than other asset classes that they tend to trend. They tend to stay in the same direction that they're traveling, rather than reverse, and commodity prices have been he]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wJ6UJwhj13sateYz_OuWn98P9pe1todNvgpnm7o8_5MFri, 09 Jun 2023 20:29:26 +0000gtyWhile the forecast for global bonds remains strong for the latter half of 2023, other asset classes could see bifurcated results across regions. ----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan...----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And on part two of the special two-part episodes of the podcast, we're going to focus on Morgan Stanley's year ahead strategy Outlook. It's Friday, June 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: All right, Andrew, in the first part of this two part special, you were grilling me on the economic outlook. You were taking me to task on all of our views, pointing out the different ways in which our clients, investors around the world were pushing back at different parts of our story. And now, it's payback time. Let me ask you, basically, what are we thinking as a research house in terms of where the best trades are likely to be for markets? We're looking for a soft landing in the U.S., but that doesn't mean a good outcome. So very weak economic activity and policy rates that are still restrictive. So what is that type of backdrop going to mean for one of the most closely watched assets in the world, the U.S. dollar? 
Andrew Sheets: Sure. So we do think that this backdrop, despite the fact that on the surface it looks decent, you have the U.S. and Europe avoiding recession. You have stronger growth in Asia, but you have a lot of uncertainties that are front loaded, and you still have slowing growth, you still have tight monetary policy. And we think this is going to still lead to a somewhat more difficult backdrop for markets over the next three months. And so I think in that context, the U.S. dollar looks quite attractive. The US dollar pays investors to hold it, it's a so-called positive carry currency against most major currencies and it's a diversifying currency, so as an asset it helps protect your portfolio. And I also think kind of within this context, if any economy is going to be able to handle higher interest rates, well, it might be the U.S. where a large share of consumer debt is fixed in a long term mortgage, which is very different from what we see in Australia or the UK or Sweden. So, we think that the dollar will do better, we think the dollar will do better in large part because of this attractiveness in a portfolio context that it offers investors a positive yield, while at the same time offering portfolio protection. 
Seth Carpenter: All right. So, if you're feeling reasonably upbeat about the dollar, presumably that spills over to dollar denominated assets. At the end of last year, the strategy team published a piece that was called ‘The Year of Yield.’ Are you still feeling that good about bonds in the United States in particular? Is it really fixed income securities that are your strongest call? 
Andrew Sheets: So, we still feel good about bonds, but I would say that the start of the year has been a pretty mixed picture. I think kind of relative to what we were expecting at the start of the year, the Fed and the ECB have raised rates more. Growth has been somewhat stronger, inflation has been somewhat higher. I would say none of those things are good for the bond market and yields instead of falling have kind of trended sideways. So they've done okay, but they've not done as well as we on the strategy side initially thought. But, you know, looking ahead, we think that the case for high quality fixed income is still quite good. We still think we see slowing in the second half of the year, which we think will be supportive for bonds. We think, certainly based in large part on the forecasts from you and the economics team, that the Fed and the ECB are largely done with their rate hikes, which we think will be supportive for bonds, and we think that...]]>575false887fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mid-year-economic-outlook-a-dichotomy-worth-watching--75654880----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special two part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's global mid-year outlook. Today we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Thursday, June 8th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's great to sit down with you. We've been talking over the last several weeks as Morgan Stanley's gone through this outlook process. And this is a big joint collaborative forecasting process across Morgan Stanley research, where the economists and the strategists get together and think about what the next 12 to 18 months might look like. And, you know, we're sitting down at this really fascinating time for markets. The U.S. labor market is at some of its strongest levels since the late 1960s. Core inflation is at levels that we really haven't seen since the 1980s. The Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have been raising rates at a pace that hasn't really been seen in 30 or 40 years. So, as you step back from all of these quite unusual occurrences, Seth, how do you frame where the global economy is at the moment and where is it headed? 
Seth Carpenter: I'd say there's one major dichotomy that I'll first start with in the global economy. On the one hand, Asia as a region really poised to have the strongest economic growth. And in very sharp contrast, when I think about the rest of the world, the United States and the Euro area, we see those as being actually quite weak. Second, China, you can't get out of a discussion of the global economy without talking about China. And there, the first quarter saw massive growth in China as all of the restrictions from COVID were removed, and as the government shifted the rest of its policies towards being supportive of growth. Now, there's been a little bit of a stumble in the second quarter, but we think that's temporary. And so you'll see a cyclical boost to Asia, coming out of China. Layer on top of this our structurally bullish views on economies like India and Indonesia, where there's a medium term, really positive note, you have all of these coming together, and it sets the stage for Asia really to be an engine of economic growth. The sharp contrast, the United States, the euro area. The inflation that you referenced has led central banks to raise interest rates for one reason and one reason alone. They want to slow those economies down, so the inflationary impulses start to fade away. 
Andrew Sheets: So Seth that's great context, and I'd like to drill down a little bit more detail on two economies in particular, the United States and China. For the United States, this idea of a soft landing, I think investors will point to the fact that given how strong the labor market is, given how high inflation is, given how inverted the yield curve is, given how much banks are tightening lending conditions, all those factors make it less likely historically that a recession is avoided. So, why do you think a soft landing is the most likely option here? Why do you think that that's our central scenario? 
Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I completely agree with you, Andrew. The discussion, the debate, the push back, the soft landing part of our thesis is definitely central to all of that discussion. Maybe I'll just start a little bit with the definition because I think the phrase soft landing can mean different things to different people. What I don't mean is that we just have great economic growth and inflation comes down on its own. Quite to the contrary, we are looking for economic growth in the United States to slow so much that it basically comes to a standstill. This year and next year are both likely to be years where economic growth is substantially below the long run productive capacity of the economy. Why? Because the Fed is raising interest rates, making the cost of borrowing, making the cost of extending credit higher, so that there is less spending in the economy so that those inflationary impulses go away. So that's what we're thinking is going to happen, is that we'll have really, really weak growth. But your question also gets into is if you're going to have that much slowing in the economy, why not a recession? And here, it's always fraught to say this time is different. But I think you highlighted what is really different about this cycle. It's the first time the Fed is pulling inflation down, instead of trying to limit its rise, in 40 years. But in addition to that, we're coming out of COVID. And I don't think anyone would argue that COVID is a normal part of an economic business cycle in the United States. 
Andrew Sheets: So we've just covered some of the reasons why we are more optimistic than those who expect a recession in the U.S. over the next 12 months. There are investors who say we're too pessimistic, and yet the economy in the first half of this year, the U.S. economy has been surprisingly solid and chugged along. So, what do you think is behind that? And why is it wrong to say that the last six months kind of disprove the idea that you need material slowing ahead? 
Seth Carpenter: Let's examine the facts. Housing activity actually did fall pretty substantially. If we compare where non-farm payrolls are and if you do any sort of averaging. Over months. Where we are now is actually much less hiring than what we saw six months ago, nine months ago, a year ago, the payrolls report for the month of May notwithstanding. We are seeing some slowing down there. And remember, I just said one of the reasons why we think we're going to get a soft landing is that the economy is still shorthanded. Some of the strength that we're seeing in hiring is making up for the fact that businesses were so cautious to hire in the past. I think the last thing to keep in mind is if we are wrong, if this slowing isn't in train, then the Federal Reserve is just going to have to raise interest rates even more because inflation, although it's coming down, there is a residual amount of inflation that really does need to be, in the Fed's mind, at least squeezed out of the economy by having subpar growth. 
Andrew Sheets: I'd like to turn now to the world's second largest economy, China, where there's also a great level of skepticism towards the economy generally, but also our view that the economy will recover in the second half of the year. If you look at commodity prices, Chinese equity prices, China's currency, there's been a lot of weakness across the board. So, what do you think has been going on? Why do you think the data has softened more recently and why is that not the right thing to extrapolate going forward for China growth? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. All the asset prices that you point to, all of the market trades that people were looking to for a strong China recovery. Boy, they were a little bit disappointing. But the reason I think they were disappointing in general is because it was a different kind of expansion, so much domestic spending, so much on services. People were very much accustomed to looking at a Chinese surge coming from investment spending, infrastructure spending, housing spending, and most of the spending was elsewhere. So I think that's the first part of the puzzle. The second part of the puzzle, though, is Q2 legitimately has had a notable slowdown. Does that mean the whole China reopening story is derailed? I don't think so, and I don't think so for a few reasons. One, we are still seeing the spending on consumer services. So that's important. Second, we think what the government is planning on doing is topping up growth to make sure that the unemployment rate, especially among young people, continues to come down. And so it'll set us up for a strong second half of the year.
Andrew Sheets: I'd like to ask you next about inflation. You know, I think something that's so fascinating about this year is if you were sitting there in early January, there was a real temptation, I think, by the market to think, 2023 was supposed to be the year where inflation is coming down. Yet inflation has been kind of surprisingly high this year. So if you think about our inflation forecasts, which do have inflation moderating throughout this year and into next year, what do you think is the more dominant part of that story that investors should be mindful of? Is it that inflation's falling? Is it that core inflation is still uncomfortably high? Is it a bit of both? 
Seth Carpenter: How about if I say absolutely all of the above? The inflation forecasting since COVID has been one of the most challenging parts of this job, I have to admit. So what is going on? Headline measures of inflation. So including food and energy prices that people like to strip out because it can be volatile, those are unquestionably off their peak and have come down a lot, not surprisingly, because oil prices, natural gas prices had spiked so much and those have backed off. But even looking at the core measures, as you say, we are seeing that core inflation has peaked in the U.S. and the euro area, sort of the major developed market economies where, you know, markets are focused and we are seeing things come down. And in particular, if you look in the United States, inflation on consumer goods, if you average over the past six months or so, has been about zero or negative. So went from very high inflation down to zero and for a few of those months, outright negative inflation. So I think it's imposs]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZZ6nB6NKDHduRgMo4IxbKsfz05dfhea9E2zTslzFPtUThu, 08 Jun 2023 23:13:06 +0000gtyAs we look toward the second half of 2023, the U.S. and Europe are likely to see very slow growth but avoid a recession, while Asia may be poised to become an engine of economic growth. ----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the...----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special two part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's global mid-year outlook. Today we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Thursday, June 8th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's great to sit down with you. We've been talking over the last several weeks as Morgan Stanley's gone through this outlook process. And this is a big joint collaborative forecasting process across Morgan Stanley research, where the economists and the strategists get together and think about what the next 12 to 18 months might look like. And, you know, we're sitting down at this really fascinating time for markets. The U.S. labor market is at some of its strongest levels since the late 1960s. Core inflation is at levels that we really haven't seen since the 1980s. The Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have been raising rates at a pace that hasn't really been seen in 30 or 40 years. So, as you step back from all of these quite unusual occurrences, Seth, how do you frame where the global economy is at the moment and where is it headed? 
Seth Carpenter: I'd say there's one major dichotomy that I'll first start with in the global economy. On the one hand, Asia as a region really poised to have the strongest economic growth. And in very sharp contrast, when I think about the rest of the world, the United States and the Euro area, we see those as being actually quite weak. Second, China, you can't get out of a discussion of the global economy without talking about China. And there, the first quarter saw massive growth in China as all of the restrictions from COVID were removed, and as the government shifted the rest of its policies towards being supportive of growth. Now, there's been a little bit of a stumble in the second quarter, but we think that's temporary. And so you'll see a cyclical boost to Asia, coming out of China. Layer on top of this our structurally bullish views on economies like India and Indonesia, where there's a medium term, really positive note, you have all of these coming together, and it sets the stage for Asia really to be an engine of economic growth. The sharp contrast, the United States, the euro area. The inflation that you referenced has led central banks to raise interest rates for one reason and one reason alone. They want to slow those economies down, so the inflationary impulses start to fade away. 
Andrew Sheets: So Seth that's great context, and I'd like to drill down a little bit more detail on two economies in particular, the United States and China. For the United States, this idea of a soft landing, I think investors will point to the fact that given how strong the labor market is, given how high inflation is, given how inverted the yield curve is, given how much banks are tightening lending conditions, all those factors make it less likely historically that a recession is avoided. So, why do you think a soft landing is the most likely option here? Why do you think that that's our central scenario? 
Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I completely agree with you, Andrew. The discussion, the debate, the push back, the soft landing part of our thesis is definitely central to all of that discussion. Maybe I'll just start a little bit with the definition because I think the phrase soft landing can mean different things to different people. What I don't mean is that we just have great economic growth and inflation comes down on...]]>654false886fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-after-the-debt-ceiling-what-s-next--75654801----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what we're watching in Washington, D.C.. It's Wednesday, June 7th at 3 p.m. in New York. 
Now that the debt ceiling has been raised and the risk of a U.S. default is behind us for quite some time, it begs the question, what could come next out of Washington, D.C. that markets need to care about? While there's nothing definitively impactful on the horizon from our perspective, here's three things we're watching. 
First, we continue to expect that, any day, the White House could announce new restrictions on outbound investments towards China. If this were to occur, its scope would matter greatly. Limited restrictions might not matter, but wide ranging restrictions could seriously interrupt foreign direct investment into China at a time when investors are asking questions about the sustainability of China's economic recovery in light of some recent weak data. 
Second, we have to keep an eye on the emerging discussion around AI regulation. To be clear, there don't yet appear to be any well-formed views by either party on how regulation should develop. So Congress is likely far from action. But the shape of any eventual action will likely determine which use cases for AI will be permitted. So paying attention to these emerging debates will be important. 
Finally, candidates for president in the 2024 U.S. election have started to emerge. This has stoked questions about potential looming changes in policies that matter to markets. This includes tax policy, where key corporate and personal tax changes are set to expire starting in 2025, making the outcome of the election potentially impactful to corporate margins and therefore equity and credit markets. This certainly bears watching and we'll be investing substantial time in researching this topic in the coming months. But we caution that it's far too early to draw any conclusions about the likelihood of election outcomes and resulting policy paths. So in our view, it's still just a bit too early to impact markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague. Or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mZSmWvdVVizc2xk7JYEgdL04J3ZDqwoHJLORwceO52UWed, 07 Jun 2023 21:41:05 +0000gtyOn the heels of Congress’s raising the debt ceiling, markets are wondering: What’s next from D.C.? Here are three things we’re watching. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what we're watching in Washington, D.C.. It's Wednesday, June 7th at 3 p.m. in New York. 
Now that the debt ceiling has been raised and the risk of a U.S. default is behind us for quite some time, it begs the question, what could come next out of Washington, D.C. that markets need to care about? While there's nothing definitively impactful on the horizon from our perspective, here's three things we're watching. 
First, we continue to expect that, any day, the White House could announce new restrictions on outbound investments towards China. If this were to occur, its scope would matter greatly. Limited restrictions might not matter, but wide ranging restrictions could seriously interrupt foreign direct investment into China at a time when investors are asking questions about the sustainability of China's economic recovery in light of some recent weak data. 
Second, we have to keep an eye on the emerging discussion around AI regulation. To be clear, there don't yet appear to be any well-formed views by either party on how regulation should develop. So Congress is likely far from action. But the shape of any eventual action will likely determine which use cases for AI will be permitted. So paying attention to these emerging debates will be important. 
Finally, candidates for president in the 2024 U.S. election have started to emerge. This has stoked questions about potential looming changes in policies that matter to markets. This includes tax policy, where key corporate and personal tax changes are set to expire starting in 2025, making the outcome of the election potentially impactful to corporate margins and therefore equity and credit markets. This certainly bears watching and we'll be investing substantial time in researching this topic in the coming months. But we caution that it's far too early to draw any conclusions about the likelihood of election outcomes and resulting policy paths. So in our view, it's still just a bit too early to impact markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague. Or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>136false885fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mid-year-u-s-consumer-outlook-spending-savings-and-travel--75654844----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we're taking a look at the state of the U.S. consumer as we approach the midyear mark. It's Tuesday, June 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: In order to talk about where the consumer is right now, let's take it back two and a half years. It's January 2021, and households are slowly emerging from their COVID hibernations, but we're still months away from the broad distribution of the vaccine. Consumers are allocating 5% more of their wallet share to goods than before COVID, driving record consumption of electronics, home furnishings, sporting goods and recreational vehicles. All the things you needed to make staying at home a little bit better. Our U.S. economists at Morgan Stanley made a high conviction call in early 2021 that vaccine distribution would flip the script and drive a surge in services spending and a payback in goods spending. Sara, to what extent has this reversion played out and where do you think the U.S. consumer is now? 
Sarah Wolfe: The reversion is definitely played out, but there's been some big surprises. Basically, the spending pie has just been greater overall than expected, and that's thanks to unprecedented fiscal stimulus, excess savings and significant supply shortages. So we've not only seen a shift away from goods and toward services, but a much larger spending pie overall. The result has been a 13% surge in goods inflation over nearly three years, an acceleration in services inflation, and a return to pre-COVID spending habits that's much greater in real spending terms than in nominal terms. So if we look in the details, where has the payback been the largest? We've seen the biggest payback in home furnishing, home equipment, jewelry, watches, recreational vehicles, but we've seen the most robust recovery in discretionary services like dining out, going to a hotel, public transportation and recreational services. 
Michelle Weaver: Sara, has the recent turmoil in the banking sector affected the U.S. consumer and do you think there's a credit crunch going on right now? 
Sarah Wolfe: Bank funding costs have risen meaningfully and are expected to rise further, leading to tighter lending standards, slower loan growth and wider loan spreads. But let me be clear, this is not a credit crunch, nor do we expect it to be. We think about the pass through from tighter lending standards to the consumer to ways directly and indirectly. The direct channel is tighter lending standards for loans on consumer products, including credit cards and autos, and indirectly through tighter lending standards for businesses, which has knock-on effects for job growth. We've already seen the direct channel of consumer spending in the past year, as interest rates on new consumer loan products hit 20 to 30-year highs, raising overall debt service costs and forcing consumers to reduce purchases of interest sensitive goods. Dwindling supply of credit as banks tighten lending standards is also dampening consumption. 
Michelle Weaver: Great. And given that credit is getting a little bit tougher to come by, can you tell us what's happening with savings and what's happening with the labor market and labor income? 
Sarah Wolfe: This is very timely. Just a few days ago, we got a very strong jobs report for May. I think that this really supports our call for a soft landing, and even though consumers are increasingly worried about the economic outlook, about financial prospects, it's clear that we still have momentum in the economy and that the Fed can achieve its 2% inflation target without driving the unemployment rate significantly higher. We are seeing under the details that consumer spending is slowing, there's a pullback in discretionary happening, there's a bit of trade down behavior. But with the labor market remaining robust, it's going to keep spending afloat and prevent this hard landing scenario. Michelle, let me turn it to you now, let's drill down into some specifics. What are the latest spending trends around spending plans you're seeing in your consumer survey? 
Michelle Weaver: Sure. So consumers expect to pull back on spending for most categories that we asked them about over the next six months. And the only categories where they expect to spend more are necessities like groceries and household products. We also added two new questions to this round of the survey to figure out which discretionary categories are most at risk of a pullback in spending. We asked consumers to order categories based on spending priority and identify categories where they would pull back on spending if forced to reduce household expenses. We found that travel and live entertainment were most at risk of a pull back, and this isn't just a case of income groups having different attitudes towards spending, we saw similar prioritization across income cohorts. 
Sarah Wolfe: So you mentioned travel, travel's been in a boom state in the post-COVID world. But you're saying now that households are reporting that they would pull back if they needed to. Are we seeing that already? What do we expect for summer travel? What do we expect for the remainder of the year? 
Michelle Weaver: So the data I was just referencing was if you had to reduce your household expenses, how would you do it? And travel was identified there. So that's not a plan that's currently in place. But summer travel may be a bit softer this year versus last year. In our survey, we asked consumers if they're planning to travel more, the same amount or less than last summer, and we found that a greater proportion of consumers are planning to travel less this year. Budgets are also smaller for summer travel this year, with more than a third of consumers expecting to spend less. We're seeing a mixed picture from the company side. Airlines are seeing very strong results still, and Memorial Day weekend proved to be very strong.. But the data around hotels has started to weaken and the revenue per available room that hotels have been able to generate has been pretty choppy and forward bookings that hotels are seeing have actually been flat to down for the summer. Demand for resorts and economy hotels has fallen but demand for urban market hotels still remained very strong. Sarah, how does this deceleration, both services and goods growth play into your team's long standing argument for a soft landing for the economy? 
Sarah Wolfe: It's really the key to inflation coming down and avoiding a hard landing. With less pent up demand left for services spending and a strong labor market recovery, supply demand imbalances in the services sector are slowly resolving themselves. We estimate that there's a point three percentage point pass through from services wages to core core services inflation throughout any given year. Core core services, is services excluding housing inflation. So with compensation for services providing industries already decelerating for the past five quarters, we do expect the largest impact of core services inflation to occur in the back half of this year. So that's going to see a more meaningful step down in inflationary pressures later this year. This combined with a rising savings rate, so a shrinking spending pie, means that there's just going to be less demand for goods and services together this year. Altogether, it will enable the Fed to make progress towards its 2% inflation target without driving the economy into a recession. 
Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thank you for taking the time to talk. 
Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. 
Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/olNMUhpEBjK_5JwVkOJ-CAucHMtAzZwiMVJsnvBpzXwTue, 06 Jun 2023 22:20:08 +0000gtyConsumers in the U.S. are largely returning to pre-COVID spending levels, but new behaviors related to travel, credit availability and inflation have emerged. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle...----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we're taking a look at the state of the U.S. consumer as we approach the midyear mark. It's Tuesday, June 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: In order to talk about where the consumer is right now, let's take it back two and a half years. It's January 2021, and households are slowly emerging from their COVID hibernations, but we're still months away from the broad distribution of the vaccine. Consumers are allocating 5% more of their wallet share to goods than before COVID, driving record consumption of electronics, home furnishings, sporting goods and recreational vehicles. All the things you needed to make staying at home a little bit better. Our U.S. economists at Morgan Stanley made a high conviction call in early 2021 that vaccine distribution would flip the script and drive a surge in services spending and a payback in goods spending. Sara, to what extent has this reversion played out and where do you think the U.S. consumer is now? 
Sarah Wolfe: The reversion is definitely played out, but there's been some big surprises. Basically, the spending pie has just been greater overall than expected, and that's thanks to unprecedented fiscal stimulus, excess savings and significant supply shortages. So we've not only seen a shift away from goods and toward services, but a much larger spending pie overall. The result has been a 13% surge in goods inflation over nearly three years, an acceleration in services inflation, and a return to pre-COVID spending habits that's much greater in real spending terms than in nominal terms. So if we look in the details, where has the payback been the largest? We've seen the biggest payback in home furnishing, home equipment, jewelry, watches, recreational vehicles, but we've seen the most robust recovery in discretionary services like dining out, going to a hotel, public transportation and recreational services. 
Michelle Weaver: Sara, has the recent turmoil in the banking sector affected the U.S. consumer and do you think there's a credit crunch going on right now? 
Sarah Wolfe: Bank funding costs have risen meaningfully and are expected to rise further, leading to tighter lending standards, slower loan growth and wider loan spreads. But let me be clear, this is not a credit crunch, nor do we expect it to be. We think about the pass through from tighter lending standards to the consumer to ways directly and indirectly. The direct channel is tighter lending standards for loans on consumer products, including credit cards and autos, and indirectly through tighter lending standards for businesses, which has knock-on effects for job growth. We've already seen the direct channel of consumer spending in the past year, as interest rates on new consumer loan products hit 20 to 30-year highs, raising overall debt service costs and forcing consumers to reduce purchases of interest sensitive goods. Dwindling supply of credit as banks tighten lending standards is also dampening consumption. 
Michelle Weaver: Great. And given that credit is getting a little bit tougher to come by, can you tell us what's happening with savings and what's happening with the labor market and labor income? 
Sarah Wolfe: This is very timely. Just a few days ago, we got a very strong jobs report for May. I think that this really supports our call for a soft landing, and even though consumers are increasingly worried about the economic outlook, about financial prospects, it's clear that we still have momentum in the economy and that the Fed can achieve...]]>457false884fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-earnings-cycle-still-running-short-and-hot--75654830----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 5th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
For the past several years, our overarching view on markets has been driven by our hotter but shorter cycle regime framework. More specifically, we wrote a report over two years ago that argued this cycle will run hotter, but shorter than what we've experienced over the past 50 years. We based this thesis in part on our comparison to the post-World War II time period, which looks quite similar to today in many respects. First and foremost, the excess savings buildup during World War II and the COVID lockdowns were released into the economy at a time when supply was constrained. The punch line is that both the fundamentals and asset prices returned to prior cycle highs at a historically fast pace. There's booming inflation in earnings in 2021, then led to the Fed tightening policy at the fastest pace in 40 years, a policy reaction that proved to be surprising to many investors. Now, we suspect many will be surprised again by the depth of their earnings decline in 2023, as well as the subsequent rebound in 2024 and ‘25. 
In a major deviation from the past 30 years, we think stocks are now positively correlated to the rate of change and inflation. We also believe this new inflationary cycle is better for stocks and bonds, at least over the secular time horizon of 7 to 10 years. However it will be volatile, with significant cyclical ups and downs that should be traded if one wants to fully capture the excess returns in this new regime. In short, the boom bust period that began in 2020 is currently in the bust part of the earnings cycle, a dynamic that has yet to be priced during the bear market that began 18 months ago. 
There are two key assumptions we think are now being made by many investors that may be erroneous. First, the worst of the interest rate hikes are now behind us. And second, technology stocks already experienced the worst of the earnings recession last year and can now look forward to accelerating growth in the second half of 2023. In fact, that reacceleration in earnings growth is now built into consensus expectations. Suffice it to say, we respectfully disagree with that conclusion. More importantly, this is a big change from the beginning of the year when our earnings outlook was not out of consensus. We think this has to do with companies sounding more optimistic about the second half, combined with the newfound excitement around artificial intelligence, or A.I., and what that means for both growth and productivity. While there will undoubtedly be individual stocks that deliver accelerating growth from spending on A.I. this year, we do not think it will be enough to change the trajectory of the overall cyclical earnings trend in a meaningful way. Instead, it may pressure margins further, as companies decide to invest in A.I. despite decelerating growth in the near term. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IvORTEdezrpA3OdUoFrPZ1ypcs4WwBYca6CQDCNY-ToMon, 05 Jun 2023 21:57:24 +0000gtyThe recovery in 2024 and 2025 looks promising, but the worst of the earnings cycle is likely not over, even for technology stocks. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 5th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
For the past several years, our overarching view on markets has been driven by our hotter but shorter cycle regime framework. More specifically, we wrote a report over two years ago that argued this cycle will run hotter, but shorter than what we've experienced over the past 50 years. We based this thesis in part on our comparison to the post-World War II time period, which looks quite similar to today in many respects. First and foremost, the excess savings buildup during World War II and the COVID lockdowns were released into the economy at a time when supply was constrained. The punch line is that both the fundamentals and asset prices returned to prior cycle highs at a historically fast pace. There's booming inflation in earnings in 2021, then led to the Fed tightening policy at the fastest pace in 40 years, a policy reaction that proved to be surprising to many investors. Now, we suspect many will be surprised again by the depth of their earnings decline in 2023, as well as the subsequent rebound in 2024 and ‘25. 
In a major deviation from the past 30 years, we think stocks are now positively correlated to the rate of change and inflation. We also believe this new inflationary cycle is better for stocks and bonds, at least over the secular time horizon of 7 to 10 years. However it will be volatile, with significant cyclical ups and downs that should be traded if one wants to fully capture the excess returns in this new regime. In short, the boom bust period that began in 2020 is currently in the bust part of the earnings cycle, a dynamic that has yet to be priced during the bear market that began 18 months ago. 
There are two key assumptions we think are now being made by many investors that may be erroneous. First, the worst of the interest rate hikes are now behind us. And second, technology stocks already experienced the worst of the earnings recession last year and can now look forward to accelerating growth in the second half of 2023. In fact, that reacceleration in earnings growth is now built into consensus expectations. Suffice it to say, we respectfully disagree with that conclusion. More importantly, this is a big change from the beginning of the year when our earnings outlook was not out of consensus. We think this has to do with companies sounding more optimistic about the second half, combined with the newfound excitement around artificial intelligence, or A.I., and what that means for both growth and productivity. While there will undoubtedly be individual stocks that deliver accelerating growth from spending on A.I. this year, we do not think it will be enough to change the trajectory of the overall cyclical earnings trend in a meaningful way. Instead, it may pressure margins further, as companies decide to invest in A.I. despite decelerating growth in the near term. ]]>214false883fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-erik-woodring-are-pcs-on-the-rebound--75654762----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why we're getting bullish on the personal computer space. It's Thursday, May 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
PC purchases soared during COVID, but PCs have since gone through a once in a three decades type of down cycle following the pandemic boom. Starting in the second half of 2021, record pandemic driven demand reversed, and this impacted both consumer and commercial PC shipments. Consequently, the PC total addressable market has contracted sharply, marking two consecutive double digit year-over-year declines for the first time since at least 1995. 
But after a challenging 18 months or so, we believe it's time to be more bullish on PCs. The light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting brighter as it looks like the PC market bottomed in the first quarter of 2023. 
Before I get into our outlook, it's important to note that PCs have historically been a low growth or no growth category. In fact, if you go back to 2014, there was only one year before the pandemic when PCs actually grew year-over-year, and that was 2019, at just 3%. Despite PCs' low growth track record and the recent demand reversal, our analysis suggests the PC addressable market can be structurally higher post-COVID. So at face value, we're making a bit of a contrarian bullish call. 
This more structural call is based on two key points. First, we estimate that the PC installed base, or the number of pieces that are active today, is about 15% larger than pre-COVID, even excluding low end consumer devices that were added during the early days of the pandemic that are less likely to be upgraded going forward. 
Second, if you assume that users replace their PCs every four years, which is the five year pre-COVID average, that about 65% of the current PC installed base or roughly 760 million units is going to be due for a refresh in 2024 and 2025. This should coincide with the Windows 10 End of Life Catalyst expected in October 25 and the 1 to 3 year anniversary of generative A.I. entering the mainstream, both which have the potential to unlock replacement demand for more powerful machines. Combining these factors, we estimate that PC shipments can grow at a 4% compound annual growth rate over the next three years. Again, in the three years prior to COVID, that growth rate was about 1%. So we think that PCs can grow faster than pre-COVID and that the annual run rate of PC shipments will be larger than pre-COVID. 
Importantly though, what drives our bullish outlook is not the consumer, as consumers have a fairly irregular upgrade pattern, especially post-pandemic. We think the replacements and upgrades in 2024 and 2025, will come from the commercial market with 70% of our 2024 PC shipment growth coming from commercial entities. Commercial entities are much more regular when it comes to upgrades and they need greater memory capacity and compute power to handle their ever expanding workloads, especially as we think about the potential for A.I. workloads at the edge. 
To sum up, we're making a somewhat contrarian call on the PC market rebound today, arguing that one key was the bottom and that PC companies should outperform in the next 12 months following this bottom. But then beyond 2023, we are making a largely commercial PC call, not necessarily a consumer PC call, and believe that PCs have brighter days ahead, relative to the three years prior to the pandemic. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uxP5foFPf-bRbnw6a5ZzOUyr0uUAys4aU-ygd26NtMUFri, 02 Jun 2023 17:24:02 +0000gtyOriginal Release on May 11th, 2023: While personal computer sales were on the decline before the pandemic, signs are pointing to an upcoming boost. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why we're getting bullish on the personal computer space. It's Thursday, May 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
PC purchases soared during COVID, but PCs have since gone through a once in a three decades type of down cycle following the pandemic boom. Starting in the second half of 2021, record pandemic driven demand reversed, and this impacted both consumer and commercial PC shipments. Consequently, the PC total addressable market has contracted sharply, marking two consecutive double digit year-over-year declines for the first time since at least 1995. 
But after a challenging 18 months or so, we believe it's time to be more bullish on PCs. The light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting brighter as it looks like the PC market bottomed in the first quarter of 2023. 
Before I get into our outlook, it's important to note that PCs have historically been a low growth or no growth category. In fact, if you go back to 2014, there was only one year before the pandemic when PCs actually grew year-over-year, and that was 2019, at just 3%. Despite PCs' low growth track record and the recent demand reversal, our analysis suggests the PC addressable market can be structurally higher post-COVID. So at face value, we're making a bit of a contrarian bullish call. 
This more structural call is based on two key points. First, we estimate that the PC installed base, or the number of pieces that are active today, is about 15% larger than pre-COVID, even excluding low end consumer devices that were added during the early days of the pandemic that are less likely to be upgraded going forward. 
Second, if you assume that users replace their PCs every four years, which is the five year pre-COVID average, that about 65% of the current PC installed base or roughly 760 million units is going to be due for a refresh in 2024 and 2025. This should coincide with the Windows 10 End of Life Catalyst expected in October 25 and the 1 to 3 year anniversary of generative A.I. entering the mainstream, both which have the potential to unlock replacement demand for more powerful machines. Combining these factors, we estimate that PC shipments can grow at a 4% compound annual growth rate over the next three years. Again, in the three years prior to COVID, that growth rate was about 1%. So we think that PCs can grow faster than pre-COVID and that the annual run rate of PC shipments will be larger than pre-COVID. 
Importantly though, what drives our bullish outlook is not the consumer, as consumers have a fairly irregular upgrade pattern, especially post-pandemic. We think the replacements and upgrades in 2024 and 2025, will come from the commercial market with 70% of our 2024 PC shipment growth coming from commercial entities. Commercial entities are much more regular when it comes to upgrades and they need greater memory capacity and compute power to handle their ever expanding workloads, especially as we think about the potential for A.I. workloads at the edge. 
To sum up, we're making a somewhat contrarian call on the PC market rebound today, arguing that one key was the bottom and that PC companies should outperform in the next 12 months following this bottom. But then beyond 2023, we are making a largely commercial PC call, not necessarily a consumer PC call, and believe that PCs have brighter days ahead, relative to the three years prior to the pandemic. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>236false882fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/adam-jonas-the-inconvenient-truths-about-ev-batteries--75654768----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Auto and Shared Mobility Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll be talking about the global EV battery supply chain. It is Thursday, June 1st at 9 a.m. in New York. 
The rapid adoption of electric vehicles has brought to investor attention some rather inconvenient truths. We all know EVs require batteries, but today's battery supply chain involves some high environmental externalities, emissions, water usage, labor practices. And 70 to 90% of the upstream battery supply chain runs through the People's Republic of China. Re-architecting and on-shoring the EV battery supply chain is easier said than done. 
In our recent Global Insights report, we introduced a framework centered on two core variables. One, the rate of EV adoption, faster versus slower, and two EV supply chain sourcing, China dependent versus more diversified. At the crux of our analysis is the tradeoff between near-term EV penetration and on-shoring policies. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being thrown at an industry where the technology is still in its early stages of finding scalable industrial standards. Even as mineral extraction, refining and battery assembly all occurred on-shore, you still have to consider that battery manufacturing involves high carbon emissions and EVs require more energy intensive metals vis-à-vis internal combustion vehicles. 
We explore three scenarios across our framework. First, the China case, which entails rapid EV penetration, increasing the West's dependance on China. Second, the derisking case, which entails a more diversified supply chain with rapid even adoption requiring significant policy action. And third, the slow EV case, where the focus on on-shoring translates to more gradual EV adoption and continued prevalence of internal combustion vehicles versus market expectations. 
With this report, I brought together my research colleagues across autos, batteries, mining and clean tech, to assess implications for sectors and stocks that are better positioned or more challenged based on our scenario framework. We assess policy gaps and break down CapEx spend totaling up to 7 to $10 trillion. In our view, it may require well over a decade to achieve industrialization and standardization, gated by a host of geopolitical, environmental and economic considerations. If we're going to make batteries in the West, we're going to have to make them differently. The materials must be sourced, processed and refined far more sustainably. 
So we ask what is the new fracking equivalent for lithium? The lithium ion battery is the most consequential technology for decarbonizing transportation. Yet lithium is associated with supply shortages, intensive water consumption and permitting bottlenecks. Technologies that mitigate carbon emissions do exist, like direct lithium extraction, battery recycling, solid state batteries and others. But the journey of U.S. and European battery on-shoring will involve scaling these technologies. This is where innovation levered by the private sector and accelerated by the taxpayer can play a deterministic role. 
So who wins in a rewired battery supply chain? Ultimately, we think it'll be those firms that employ cost efficient and environmentally sustainable technologies in strategically beneficial geographies. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/3HKyqcFVV444zhAGsZ4MKDSqRXTy-93VuMz4lCQu05wThu, 01 Jun 2023 21:12:35 +0000gtyWith the rapid adoption of electric vehicles, onshoring the critical battery supply chain poses significant challenges and will drive sizable investments. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Auto and Shared Mobility Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll be talking about the global EV battery supply chain. It is Thursday, June 1st at 9 a.m. in New York. 
The rapid adoption of electric vehicles has brought to investor attention some rather inconvenient truths. We all know EVs require batteries, but today's battery supply chain involves some high environmental externalities, emissions, water usage, labor practices. And 70 to 90% of the upstream battery supply chain runs through the People's Republic of China. Re-architecting and on-shoring the EV battery supply chain is easier said than done. 
In our recent Global Insights report, we introduced a framework centered on two core variables. One, the rate of EV adoption, faster versus slower, and two EV supply chain sourcing, China dependent versus more diversified. At the crux of our analysis is the tradeoff between near-term EV penetration and on-shoring policies. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being thrown at an industry where the technology is still in its early stages of finding scalable industrial standards. Even as mineral extraction, refining and battery assembly all occurred on-shore, you still have to consider that battery manufacturing involves high carbon emissions and EVs require more energy intensive metals vis-à-vis internal combustion vehicles. 
We explore three scenarios across our framework. First, the China case, which entails rapid EV penetration, increasing the West's dependance on China. Second, the derisking case, which entails a more diversified supply chain with rapid even adoption requiring significant policy action. And third, the slow EV case, where the focus on on-shoring translates to more gradual EV adoption and continued prevalence of internal combustion vehicles versus market expectations. 
With this report, I brought together my research colleagues across autos, batteries, mining and clean tech, to assess implications for sectors and stocks that are better positioned or more challenged based on our scenario framework. We assess policy gaps and break down CapEx spend totaling up to 7 to $10 trillion. In our view, it may require well over a decade to achieve industrialization and standardization, gated by a host of geopolitical, environmental and economic considerations. If we're going to make batteries in the West, we're going to have to make them differently. The materials must be sourced, processed and refined far more sustainably. 
So we ask what is the new fracking equivalent for lithium? The lithium ion battery is the most consequential technology for decarbonizing transportation. Yet lithium is associated with supply shortages, intensive water consumption and permitting bottlenecks. Technologies that mitigate carbon emissions do exist, like direct lithium extraction, battery recycling, solid state batteries and others. But the journey of U.S. and European battery on-shoring will involve scaling these technologies. This is where innovation levered by the private sector and accelerated by the taxpayer can play a deterministic role. 
So who wins in a rewired battery supply chain? Ultimately, we think it'll be those firms that employ cost efficient and environmentally sustainable technologies in strategically beneficial geographies. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>218false880fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-a-step-forward-in-the-debt-ceiling-debate--75654833----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S. debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 31st at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Today should bring a key step forward in resolving the debt ceiling dispute in Washington, D.C.. After the White House and Republican leadership reached an agreement over the weekend to pair a debt ceiling increase with a fiscal plan that caps spending growth for a time, the legislative plan advances to a vote in the House today. That vote is expected to succeed, with the only question being by how big a majority. After that, the deal moves to the Senate, which will likely have to work the weekend to enact the legislation before the June 5th X-date. 
So it seems then that we're closer to taking a key negative catalyst off the table for markets and the economy. As you might recall from our prior podcasts, without a debt ceiling resolution before the X-date, the White House may have had to choose from some less than ideal options to avoid default. For example, they could have prioritized payments to bondholders over other governmental obligations, but that could have interrupted up to 18% of personal income in the U.S., creating substantial economic risk. 
Further, the fiscal deal that enabled this raise of the debt ceiling doesn't appear to contain substantial enough spending cuts in the short term to hamper the economy. The Congressional Budget Office says it will cut deficits by about $70 billion in the first year, a very small number in the context of a roughly 26 and a half trillion dollar U.S. economy. 
But there's one lingering risk worth monitoring. When the debt ceiling is raised, Treasury will start issuing Treasury bills to rebuild the balance in its general account so it can pay its obligations. That action could reduce deposits in the banking system, to the extent that they are bought by investors that aren't money market funds. We can't say that this would definitively be a negative catalyst for, say, midcap banks which have been dealing with deposit outflows, but it's a risk market participants will have to continue to monitor. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rphgI_erOJ6cHgDQcUMyIQTFfaqvVKfbt7ACErIpNS8Wed, 31 May 2023 19:20:11 +0000gtyWhile an agreement on suspending the debt ceiling seems likely to make it through Congress, investors may want to monitor bank deposits for lingering risks. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of...----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S. debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 31st at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Today should bring a key step forward in resolving the debt ceiling dispute in Washington, D.C.. After the White House and Republican leadership reached an agreement over the weekend to pair a debt ceiling increase with a fiscal plan that caps spending growth for a time, the legislative plan advances to a vote in the House today. That vote is expected to succeed, with the only question being by how big a majority. After that, the deal moves to the Senate, which will likely have to work the weekend to enact the legislation before the June 5th X-date. 
So it seems then that we're closer to taking a key negative catalyst off the table for markets and the economy. As you might recall from our prior podcasts, without a debt ceiling resolution before the X-date, the White House may have had to choose from some less than ideal options to avoid default. For example, they could have prioritized payments to bondholders over other governmental obligations, but that could have interrupted up to 18% of personal income in the U.S., creating substantial economic risk. 
Further, the fiscal deal that enabled this raise of the debt ceiling doesn't appear to contain substantial enough spending cuts in the short term to hamper the economy. The Congressional Budget Office says it will cut deficits by about $70 billion in the first year, a very small number in the context of a roughly 26 and a half trillion dollar U.S. economy. 
But there's one lingering risk worth monitoring. When the debt ceiling is raised, Treasury will start issuing Treasury bills to rebuild the balance in its general account so it can pay its obligations. That action could reduce deposits in the banking system, to the extent that they are bought by investors that aren't money market funds. We can't say that this would definitively be a negative catalyst for, say, midcap banks which have been dealing with deposit outflows, but it's a risk market participants will have to continue to monitor. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>140false879fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seth-carpenter-government-bonds-and-the-debt-ceiling--75654917----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the U.S. debt ceiling amid recent volatility in the banking sector. It's Tuesday, May 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The looming deadline for the U.S. debt ceiling has been a significant concern for markets. In similar standoffs in both 2011 and 2013, the Congress raised the debt limit only at the last minute. The closer we got to the so-called "X-date", the more the Treasury ran down the amount of Treasury bills outstanding to stay under the limit. Bills maturing around the X-date were seen as less desirable and their prices fell a bit, but the scarcity of other bills made their price go up, and therefore, their yield fall. The bills market got dislocated, as we say, but the story did not end with the increase in the debt limit. To restock its account at the Fed, the Treasury issued a lot of Treasury bills, pulling in cash from the market. One lesson we can take from history is that there is short term volatility, but everything gets resolved in the end. But before we do that, it's worth considering what aspects of the world are different now than back in 2011 or 2013. Since February, the concerns about the banking sector's balance sheet have heightened financial stability questions. Although our baseline view is that the recent developments are more idiosyncratic than systemic, the uncertainty is substantial. That potential fragility is one key difference between now and then. 
Another key difference between now and previous episodes is the existence of the Fed's reverse repo facility, the RRP, which now stands at about two and a quarter trillion dollars. As short term interest rates have risen, depositors have taken cash out of banks and shifted it to money funds, and money fund managers have been putting the proceeds into the Fed's RRP facility. This transaction takes reserves away from the banking sector. As we get closer to the X-date and Treasury bills have fallen in yield, money funds have had additional incentive to shift their holdings into the RRP. At a time of volatility in the banking sector, this drain on reserves could amplify the risks. 
But Congress raising the debt limit would not be the end of the story. The Treasury will want to restock its account of the Fed from near zero back to its recent target of about $500 billion. And to do so, the Treasury will be issuing at least $500 billion in Treasury bills to replenish its account and maybe as much as $1.2 trillion in the second half of 2023. Some of the bills will go to money funds, and thus the Treasury's account can rise as the RRP facility falls. But whatever amount of the Treasury bills are purchased by investors other than these  money funds, well that will result in yet another drain on bank reserves. The flows are large and will be coming at a time of continued uncertainty for banks balance sheets. Even after the Congress raises the debt limit, it will not quite be the time to breathe a heavy sigh of relief. 
Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-lZudRzPHaL15rtGG7G26QrOE3LFfQjsUZsE4EQjz5oTue, 30 May 2023 20:00:50 +0000gtyAs congress debates a debt ceiling deal, investors are proactively purchasing Treasury bills and thus causing a drain on the reserves which could amplify risks. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the U.S. debt ceiling amid recent volatility in the banking sector. It's Tuesday, May 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The looming deadline for the U.S. debt ceiling has been a significant concern for markets. In similar standoffs in both 2011 and 2013, the Congress raised the debt limit only at the last minute. The closer we got to the so-called "X-date", the more the Treasury ran down the amount of Treasury bills outstanding to stay under the limit. Bills maturing around the X-date were seen as less desirable and their prices fell a bit, but the scarcity of other bills made their price go up, and therefore, their yield fall. The bills market got dislocated, as we say, but the story did not end with the increase in the debt limit. To restock its account at the Fed, the Treasury issued a lot of Treasury bills, pulling in cash from the market. One lesson we can take from history is that there is short term volatility, but everything gets resolved in the end. But before we do that, it's worth considering what aspects of the world are different now than back in 2011 or 2013. Since February, the concerns about the banking sector's balance sheet have heightened financial stability questions. Although our baseline view is that the recent developments are more idiosyncratic than systemic, the uncertainty is substantial. That potential fragility is one key difference between now and then. 
Another key difference between now and previous episodes is the existence of the Fed's reverse repo facility, the RRP, which now stands at about two and a quarter trillion dollars. As short term interest rates have risen, depositors have taken cash out of banks and shifted it to money funds, and money fund managers have been putting the proceeds into the Fed's RRP facility. This transaction takes reserves away from the banking sector. As we get closer to the X-date and Treasury bills have fallen in yield, money funds have had additional incentive to shift their holdings into the RRP. At a time of volatility in the banking sector, this drain on reserves could amplify the risks. 
But Congress raising the debt limit would not be the end of the story. The Treasury will want to restock its account of the Fed from near zero back to its recent target of about $500 billion. And to do so, the Treasury will be issuing at least $500 billion in Treasury bills to replenish its account and maybe as much as $1.2 trillion in the second half of 2023. Some of the bills will go to money funds, and thus the Treasury's account can rise as the RRP facility falls. But whatever amount of the Treasury bills are purchased by investors other than these  money funds, well that will result in yet another drain on bank reserves. The flows are large and will be coming at a time of continued uncertainty for banks balance sheets. Even after the Congress raises the debt limit, it will not quite be the time to breathe a heavy sigh of relief. 
Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>192false878fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-unresolved-questions-create-market-uncertainty--75654942----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 26th at 2 p.m. in London. 
A hot topic of conversation at the moment is that three big questions that have loitered over the market since January still look unresolved. 
The first of these is whether inflation is actually coming down. Surprisingly, high inflation was a dominant story last year and a major driver of the market's weakness. A number of low inflation readings in January gave a lot of hope that inflation would now start to fall rapidly, as supply chains normalized and the effect of central bank policy tightening took effect. 
Yet the data since then has been stubbornly mixed. Headline inflation is coming down, but core inflation, which excludes food and energy, has moderated a lot less. In the U.S., the annualized rate of core consumer price inflation over the last three, six and 12 months is all about 5%. Today's reading of Core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation measure, came in above expectations. And in both the UK and the Eurozone, core inflation has also been coming in higher than expected. 
We still think inflation moderates as policy tightening hits and growth slows, but the improvement here has been slow. One reason our economists think that would take quite a bit of economic weakness to push the Fed, the European Central Bank or the Bank of England, to cut rates this year. 
That ties nicely into the second issue. Over the last two months, there's been a lot more excitement that the Federal Reserve may now be done raising interest rates, thanks to all of the tightening they've already done and the potential effect of recent U.S. bank stress. But with still high core inflation and the lowest U.S. unemployment rate since 1968, this issue is looking much less resolved. Indeed, in just the last two weeks, markets have moved to price in an additional rate hike from the Fed over the summer. 
Third and more immediate is the U.S. debt ceiling. Risks around the debt ceiling have been on investors' radar since January, but as U.S. stocks have risen this month and volatility has been low, we've sensed more optimism, that a resolution here is close and that markets can move on to other things. 
But like inflation or Fed rate increases, the U.S. debt ceiling still looks like another key debate with a lot of questions. U.S. Treasury bills or the cost of insuring U.S. debt, have shown more stress, not less, over the last week. As of this morning, a one month U.S. Treasury bill is yielding over 6%. Optimism that inflation is now falling, the Fed has done hiking and the debt ceiling will get resolved, have helped push both stocks and bond yields to the high end of the recent range. But with these issues still raising a lot of questions, we think that may be as far as they go for the time being, presenting an opportunity to rotate out of stocks and into the aggregate bond index. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Ah5oMS87PITgx4FmSXthlEkYNZ6mDMu7p5e5kItwxycFri, 26 May 2023 19:17:11 +0000gtyOptimistic investors have pushed stocks and bond yields to the high end of the recent range. But inflation, banks and the debt ceiling status are still raising questions that have gone unanswered. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 26th at 2 p.m. in London. 
A hot topic of conversation at the moment is that three big questions that have loitered over the market since January still look unresolved. 
The first of these is whether inflation is actually coming down. Surprisingly, high inflation was a dominant story last year and a major driver of the market's weakness. A number of low inflation readings in January gave a lot of hope that inflation would now start to fall rapidly, as supply chains normalized and the effect of central bank policy tightening took effect. 
Yet the data since then has been stubbornly mixed. Headline inflation is coming down, but core inflation, which excludes food and energy, has moderated a lot less. In the U.S., the annualized rate of core consumer price inflation over the last three, six and 12 months is all about 5%. Today's reading of Core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation measure, came in above expectations. And in both the UK and the Eurozone, core inflation has also been coming in higher than expected. 
We still think inflation moderates as policy tightening hits and growth slows, but the improvement here has been slow. One reason our economists think that would take quite a bit of economic weakness to push the Fed, the European Central Bank or the Bank of England, to cut rates this year. 
That ties nicely into the second issue. Over the last two months, there's been a lot more excitement that the Federal Reserve may now be done raising interest rates, thanks to all of the tightening they've already done and the potential effect of recent U.S. bank stress. But with still high core inflation and the lowest U.S. unemployment rate since 1968, this issue is looking much less resolved. Indeed, in just the last two weeks, markets have moved to price in an additional rate hike from the Fed over the summer. 
Third and more immediate is the U.S. debt ceiling. Risks around the debt ceiling have been on investors' radar since January, but as U.S. stocks have risen this month and volatility has been low, we've sensed more optimism, that a resolution here is close and that markets can move on to other things. 
But like inflation or Fed rate increases, the U.S. debt ceiling still looks like another key debate with a lot of questions. U.S. Treasury bills or the cost of insuring U.S. debt, have shown more stress, not less, over the last week. As of this morning, a one month U.S. Treasury bill is yielding over 6%. Optimism that inflation is now falling, the Fed has done hiking and the debt ceiling will get resolved, have helped push both stocks and bond yields to the high end of the recent range. But with these issues still raising a lot of questions, we think that may be as far as they go for the time being, presenting an opportunity to rotate out of stocks and into the aggregate bond index. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>193false877fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-garner-japan-s-equities-continue-to-rally--75654878----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be sharing why Japan Equities could be a key part of the bullish story in Asia this year. It's Thursday, May the 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Japan equities have rallied substantially during the current earnings season and we think further gains are increasingly likely. The theme of return on equity improvement, driven by productive CapEx and better balance sheet management, is clearly finding traction with a wide group of international investors. We first introduced this theme in our 2018 Blue Paper on Japan, where we described a journey from laggard to leader, which we felt was starting to take place due to a confluence of structural reforms such as the Corporate Governance Code and Institutional Investor Stewardship Code, as well as changes in company board composition and outside activist investor pressure. 
Japan has a formidable roster of world class firms, which we have identified as productivity and innovation leaders in areas such as semiconductor equipment, optical, healthcare, medtech, robotics and traditional heavy industrial automotive, agricultural and commodities trading, specialty chemicals. As well as more recent additions in Internet and E-commerce, many of which sell products far beyond Japan's borders. 
For the market overall, listed equities ROE has more than doubled in the last ten years, and it's now set to approach our medium term target of 11 to 12% by 2025. Company buybacks are analyzing at a record pace and total shareholder return, that is the sum of dividends and buybacks, is running at 3.6% of market capitalization. 
Yet Japan equities are still trading on only around 13 times forward price to earnings. And Japanese firms have a low cost of capital, given the country's status as a high income sovereign, with membership of the G7, as highlighted by Premier Kishida hosting its recent summit in his home town of Hiroshima. 
An additional near-term catalyst for Japan equities is that the yen is tracking significantly weaker year to date at around 135 to the U.S. dollar than company modeling, which was for around 125. Given the export earnings skew of the market, this is a positive.
All in all, Japan equities are set, we think, to more than hold their own versus global peers and be a key part of a bullish story in Asian equities this year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/X5lwmYPxkt54tFNrNA0yxiW_E4oVyT7E11h1Mimtr3MThu, 25 May 2023 20:32:29 +0000gtyWhile Japan's equities have continued to rally, a roster of sector leading companies and a weak Yen could signal this bullish story is only just beginning. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be sharing why Japan Equities could be a key part of the bullish story in Asia this year. It's Thursday, May the 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Japan equities have rallied substantially during the current earnings season and we think further gains are increasingly likely. The theme of return on equity improvement, driven by productive CapEx and better balance sheet management, is clearly finding traction with a wide group of international investors. We first introduced this theme in our 2018 Blue Paper on Japan, where we described a journey from laggard to leader, which we felt was starting to take place due to a confluence of structural reforms such as the Corporate Governance Code and Institutional Investor Stewardship Code, as well as changes in company board composition and outside activist investor pressure. 
Japan has a formidable roster of world class firms, which we have identified as productivity and innovation leaders in areas such as semiconductor equipment, optical, healthcare, medtech, robotics and traditional heavy industrial automotive, agricultural and commodities trading, specialty chemicals. As well as more recent additions in Internet and E-commerce, many of which sell products far beyond Japan's borders. 
For the market overall, listed equities ROE has more than doubled in the last ten years, and it's now set to approach our medium term target of 11 to 12% by 2025. Company buybacks are analyzing at a record pace and total shareholder return, that is the sum of dividends and buybacks, is running at 3.6% of market capitalization. 
Yet Japan equities are still trading on only around 13 times forward price to earnings. And Japanese firms have a low cost of capital, given the country's status as a high income sovereign, with membership of the G7, as highlighted by Premier Kishida hosting its recent summit in his home town of Hiroshima. 
An additional near-term catalyst for Japan equities is that the yen is tracking significantly weaker year to date at around 135 to the U.S. dollar than company modeling, which was for around 125. Given the export earnings skew of the market, this is a positive.
All in all, Japan equities are set, we think, to more than hold their own versus global peers and be a key part of a bullish story in Asian equities this year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.]]>168false876fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-g7-meeting-and-its-impact-on-markets--75654745----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the recent G7 meetings and its implications for markets. It's Wednesday, May 24th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Over the weekend, President Biden traveled to Japan for a meeting of the Group of Seven Nations, or G7. G7 meetings typically involve countries discussing and seeking consensus on a wide range of economic and geopolitical issues. And the consensus they achieved on several principles underscores one of our big three secular investment themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. 
Consider some of the following language from the G7 communique. First, there's discussion of efforts to make our supply chains more resilient, sustainable and reliable. Second, they discuss, quote, "Preventing the cutting edge technologies we develop from being used to further military capabilities that threaten international peace and security." Finally, there's also discussion of the, quote, "importance of cooperation on export controls, on critical and emerging technologies to address the misuse of such technologies by malicious actors and inappropriate transfers of such technologies."
So that all may sound like the U.S. is drawing up hard barriers to commerce, particularly with places like China. But importantly, the communique also states an important nuance that's been core to our multipolar world thesis. They say, quote, "We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.". 
So to understand the practical implications of that nuance, we've been conducting a ton of research across different industries. My colleagues Ben Uglow and Shawn Kim have highlighted that the global manufacturing and tech sectors are very exposed to disruption from this theme. But their work also shows that capital equipment and automation companies will benefit from the global spend to set up more robust supply chains.
So bottom line, the multipolar world theme continues to progress, but the disruption it creates should also create opportunities.  
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FemOy7R7ioLr4pY_JcBbgv4oGWGQjK-UegLjS9h86QEWed, 24 May 2023 18:23:25 +0000gtyDiscussions at the recent Group of Seven Nations meeting point to the continued development of a multipolar world, as supply chains become less global and more local. Investors should watch for opportunities in this disruption. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the recent G7 meetings and its implications for markets. It's Wednesday, May 24th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Over the weekend, President Biden traveled to Japan for a meeting of the Group of Seven Nations, or G7. G7 meetings typically involve countries discussing and seeking consensus on a wide range of economic and geopolitical issues. And the consensus they achieved on several principles underscores one of our big three secular investment themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. 
Consider some of the following language from the G7 communique. First, there's discussion of efforts to make our supply chains more resilient, sustainable and reliable. Second, they discuss, quote, "Preventing the cutting edge technologies we develop from being used to further military capabilities that threaten international peace and security." Finally, there's also discussion of the, quote, "importance of cooperation on export controls, on critical and emerging technologies to address the misuse of such technologies by malicious actors and inappropriate transfers of such technologies."
So that all may sound like the U.S. is drawing up hard barriers to commerce, particularly with places like China. But importantly, the communique also states an important nuance that's been core to our multipolar world thesis. They say, quote, "We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.". 
So to understand the practical implications of that nuance, we've been conducting a ton of research across different industries. My colleagues Ben Uglow and Shawn Kim have highlighted that the global manufacturing and tech sectors are very exposed to disruption from this theme. But their work also shows that capital equipment and automation companies will benefit from the global spend to set up more robust supply chains.
So bottom line, the multipolar world theme continues to progress, but the disruption it creates should also create opportunities.  
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>143false875fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-is-there-still-strength-in-the-housing-market--75654905----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, May 23rd at 2 p.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: It's been a while since we talked about the state of the U.S. housing market. And it seems like if I look at least some portions of the data, things are getting better. In particular, the NAHB confidence just showed for the fifth consecutive month that homebuilders are feeling better about building a house, and we're now finally at the point where they say it is a good time to build a house. When you take a step back and just look at the state of the housing market, do you agree? 
Jim Egan: I think it's a great question. Housing statistics are going in a whole number of different directions right now. So, yeah, let me take a step back. We've talked a lot about affordability on this podcast and it's still challenging. We've talked a lot about supply and it remains very tight, and all of this has really fueled that bifurcation narrative that we've talked about, protected home prices, weaker activity. But if we think about how the lock in effect and that's the fact that all of these current homeowners who have mortgages well below the prevailing mortgage rate just are not going to be incentivized to list their home for sale, then kind of a logical next step from a housing statistics perspective is that new home sales are probably going to increase as a percentage of total home sales. And that's exactly what we're seeing, new home sales in the first quarter of this year, they were roughly 20% of the total single unit sales volumes. That's the largest share of transactions in any quarter since 2006. And this dynamic was actually quoted by the National Association of Homebuilders when describing the increase in homebuilder confidence that you quoted Jay.    
Jay Bacow: Okay, but when I think about that percentage, aren't building volumes in aggregate coming down? 
Jim Egan: They are, though, as a caveat, I would say that if we look at that seasonally adjusted annualized rate, it did increase sequentially a little bit, month-over-month in April. What I would point to here is that from the peak in single unit housing starts, and we think the peak in the cycle was April of 2022, those starts are down 22%. Now, that's finally started to make a dent in the backlog of homes under construction. Now, as a reminder, again, this is something we've talked about here, there are a number of factors from supply chain issues to labor shortages, that we're really serving to elongate, build timelines in the months and years after the onset of COVID. And all of those things caused a real backlog in the number of homes under construction, so homes were getting started, but they weren't really getting finished. We see the number of single unit homes under construction is now down 130,000 units from that peak. Now, don't get me wrong, that number is still elevated versus where we'd expected to be, given the sheer number of housing starts that we've seen over the past year. But this is a first step towards turning more positive on housing starts. And again, homebuilder confidence Jay, as you said, it's climbed higher every single month this year. 
Jay Bacow: Okay, but you said this is a first step in turning more positive on housing starts. We get the start, we get the unit under construction, we get a completion and then eventually we get a home sale, so what does this mean for sales volumes? 
Jim Egan: We would think that it's probably likely for new home sales to continue making up a larger than normal share of monthly volumes, but we don't think that sales are about to really inflect materially higher here. Purchase applications so far in May, they're still down 26% year-over-year versus the same month in 2022. Now, that's the best year-over-year number since August of last year, but it's not exactly something that screams sales are about to inflect higher. Similarly, pending home sales just printed their weakest March in the history of the index, and it's the sixth consecutive month that they've printed their weakest month in index history. So it was their weakest February, their weakest January, and so on and so forth, so we think all of this is kind of emblematic of a housing market, specifically housing sales that are finding a bottom, but not necessarily about to move much higher. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. Now, Jim, in the past, when you've talked about your outlook for home prices, you mentioned your four pillars. There is supply, demand, affordability and credit availability. We've talked about the first three of these, we haven't really talked about credit availability yet. 
Jim Egan: Right. And that's another one of the reasons why we don't necessarily see a real move higher in sales volumes because of the whole new regime for bank assets that we've talked about a lot. Jay, you've talked about how much it's going to impact things like the mortgage market, so what do we mean when we talk about a new regime for bank assets? 
Jay Bacow: Fundamentally, when you think about the business model of a bank, if you're going to simplify it, it's they get deposits in and then they either make loans or buy securities with those deposits and they try to match up their assets to liabilities. Now, in a world where there's a lot more deposit outflows and happening more frequently, banks are going to have to have shorter assets to match that. And as they have shorter assets, that means they're going to have tighter lending conditions, and that tighter lending conditions is presumably going to play into the credit availability that you're looking for in your space. 
Jim Egan: And when we combine that with affordability that's no longer deteriorating, but still challenged, supply that's no longer setting record lows each month, but still very tight. All of that is a world in which we don't think you're going to see significant increases in transaction volumes. I will say one thing on the home price front month-over-month increases are back. We've seen some seasonality from a home price perspective, but we still think that that year over year number is going to soften going forward. It remains positive in the cycle, but we think it will turn negative  in the next few months for the first time since the first quarter of 2012. We don't think those year-over-year drops will be too substantial. Our base case forecast for the end of the year is down 4%, we think it will be a little bit stronger than that down 4% number, but we think it will be negative. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. But I like things to be a little bit stronger. And with that, Jim, always great talking to you. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/SFiYGK5CqhmWcHWXCengs_HLlYKfXpAKW4wmG3zWmpoTue, 23 May 2023 20:37:27 +0000gtyAs the confidence level of homebuilders building new homes is increasing, will home sales go along with it? Jim Egan and Jay Bacow, Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research discuss. ----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, May 23rd at 2 p.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: It's been a while since we talked about the state of the U.S. housing market. And it seems like if I look at least some portions of the data, things are getting better. In particular, the NAHB confidence just showed for the fifth consecutive month that homebuilders are feeling better about building a house, and we're now finally at the point where they say it is a good time to build a house. When you take a step back and just look at the state of the housing market, do you agree? 
Jim Egan: I think it's a great question. Housing statistics are going in a whole number of different directions right now. So, yeah, let me take a step back. We've talked a lot about affordability on this podcast and it's still challenging. We've talked a lot about supply and it remains very tight, and all of this has really fueled that bifurcation narrative that we've talked about, protected home prices, weaker activity. But if we think about how the lock in effect and that's the fact that all of these current homeowners who have mortgages well below the prevailing mortgage rate just are not going to be incentivized to list their home for sale, then kind of a logical next step from a housing statistics perspective is that new home sales are probably going to increase as a percentage of total home sales. And that's exactly what we're seeing, new home sales in the first quarter of this year, they were roughly 20% of the total single unit sales volumes. That's the largest share of transactions in any quarter since 2006. And this dynamic was actually quoted by the National Association of Homebuilders when describing the increase in homebuilder confidence that you quoted Jay.    
Jay Bacow: Okay, but when I think about that percentage, aren't building volumes in aggregate coming down? 
Jim Egan: They are, though, as a caveat, I would say that if we look at that seasonally adjusted annualized rate, it did increase sequentially a little bit, month-over-month in April. What I would point to here is that from the peak in single unit housing starts, and we think the peak in the cycle was April of 2022, those starts are down 22%. Now, that's finally started to make a dent in the backlog of homes under construction. Now, as a reminder, again, this is something we've talked about here, there are a number of factors from supply chain issues to labor shortages, that we're really serving to elongate, build timelines in the months and years after the onset of COVID. And all of those things caused a real backlog in the number of homes under construction, so homes were getting started, but they weren't really getting finished. We see the number of single unit homes under construction is now down 130,000 units from that peak. Now, don't get me wrong, that number is still elevated versus where we'd expected to be, given the sheer number of housing starts that we've seen over the past year. But this is a first step towards turning more positive on housing starts. And again, homebuilder confidence Jay, as you said, it's climbed higher every single month this year. 
Jay Bacow: Okay, but you said this is a first step in turning more positive on housing starts. We get the start, we get the unit under construction, we get a completion and then eventually we get a home sale, so what does this mean for sales volumes? 
Jim Egan: We would think that...]]>398false874fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-beware-a-false-market-breakout--75654901----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 22nd at 11a.m in New York. So let's get after it. 
For the past six months, the S&P 500 has been trading in a narrow range with strong rotations under the surface. When we turned tactically bullish on the index last October at 3500, we did so because the price had reached an attractive level and we believed rates and the dollar were topping. When we exited that trade at 4100 in early December, the price was no longer attractive, given our view that 2023 earnings estimates were materially too high. Fast forward to today and the index is showing some signs that it wants to break higher, even though our concerns remain. The primary difference from the early December highs is that we now have dramatically different leadership. 
Back then the leaders were energy, materials, financials and industrials, while technology was the big laggard. Small caps were also doing much better and market breadth was strong. The bullish narrative centered around China's reopening, which would put a floor in for global growth. Today, breadth is very weak. Technology, communication services and consumer discretionary are the only sectors up on the year, and even those sectors are exhibiting narrow breadth. Yet investors are more bullish than in early December, or at least far less bearish. The bullish narrative today focuses on technology, specifically on artificial intelligence. While we believe artificial intelligence is for real and will likely lead to some great efficiency to help fight inflation, it's unlikely to prevent the deep earnings recession we forecast for this year. 
Last week's price action showed frenzied buying by investors who cannot afford to miss the next bull market. We believe this will prove to be a head fake, like last summer for many reasons. 
First, valuations are not attractive, and it's not just the top ten or 20 stocks that are expensive. The median price earnings multiple is  18 times, which is near the top decile the past 20 years. 
Second, a very healthy reacceleration is baked in the second half consensus earnings estimates. This flies directly in the face of our forecasts, which continue to point materially lower. We remain highly confident in our model, given how accurate it's been over time and recently. We first started talking about the oncoming earnings recession a year ago and received very strong pushback, just like today. However, our model proved to be quite prescient based on the results and is now projecting 20% lower estimates than consensus, for 2023.  Third, the markets are pricing in 2 to 3 Fed cuts before year end without any material implications for growth. We think such an outcome is very unlikely. Instead, we think the Fed will only cut rates if we definitively enter into a recession or if credit markets deteriorate significantly. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Wt97_SeIljlJdS4o8MQlpYl1Li86PPVc1UKukIG2YPQMon, 22 May 2023 22:20:13 +0000gtyThough the current market narrative has turned bullish, it may not withstand a downturn in earnings. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 22nd at 11a.m in New York. So let's get after it. 
For the past six months, the S&P 500 has been trading in a narrow range with strong rotations under the surface. When we turned tactically bullish on the index last October at 3500, we did so because the price had reached an attractive level and we believed rates and the dollar were topping. When we exited that trade at 4100 in early December, the price was no longer attractive, given our view that 2023 earnings estimates were materially too high. Fast forward to today and the index is showing some signs that it wants to break higher, even though our concerns remain. The primary difference from the early December highs is that we now have dramatically different leadership. 
Back then the leaders were energy, materials, financials and industrials, while technology was the big laggard. Small caps were also doing much better and market breadth was strong. The bullish narrative centered around China's reopening, which would put a floor in for global growth. Today, breadth is very weak. Technology, communication services and consumer discretionary are the only sectors up on the year, and even those sectors are exhibiting narrow breadth. Yet investors are more bullish than in early December, or at least far less bearish. The bullish narrative today focuses on technology, specifically on artificial intelligence. While we believe artificial intelligence is for real and will likely lead to some great efficiency to help fight inflation, it's unlikely to prevent the deep earnings recession we forecast for this year. 
Last week's price action showed frenzied buying by investors who cannot afford to miss the next bull market. We believe this will prove to be a head fake, like last summer for many reasons. 
First, valuations are not attractive, and it's not just the top ten or 20 stocks that are expensive. The median price earnings multiple is  18 times, which is near the top decile the past 20 years. 
Second, a very healthy reacceleration is baked in the second half consensus earnings estimates. This flies directly in the face of our forecasts, which continue to point materially lower. We remain highly confident in our model, given how accurate it's been over time and recently. We first started talking about the oncoming earnings recession a year ago and received very strong pushback, just like today. However, our model proved to be quite prescient based on the results and is now projecting 20% lower estimates than consensus, for 2023.  Third, the markets are pricing in 2 to 3 Fed cuts before year end without any material implications for growth. We think such an outcome is very unlikely. Instead, we think the Fed will only cut rates if we definitively enter into a recession or if credit markets deteriorate significantly. ]]>256false873fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ellen-zentner-is-a-soft-landing-for-the-u-s-still-possible--75654821----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our view around the soft landing for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, May 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last year, we presented our outlook that 2023 would see a soft landing for the U.S. economy. This out of consensus view continues to be our base case expectation. And we looked at several key data points as evidence to support it, including the U.S. housing cycle, income and spending dynamics, the labor market and inflation. 
To start, economists have long said, "As goes housing, so goes the business cycle." And housing is a very important factor in our outlook for a soft landing. While the decline in housing activity has been record breaking from a national perspective, Morgan Stanley's housing strategists believe the cycle is bottoming. In our forecast, the big drag on economic growth from the housing correction should turn neutral by the third quarter of 2023, providing some cushion against the growth slowdown elsewhere. 
Second, the incoming data on U.S. income and consumer spending also support our expectation that the economy is slowing but not falling off a cliff. On the one hand, discretionary consumer spending is softening. On the other hand, income is the predominant driver of consumer spending, and even as wage growth continues to slow, our forecasted path for inflation suggests that real wages will finally turn positive in the middle of this year. 
Third, we look to labor market dynamics, and the April U.S. employment report provides ample evidence that the labor market is slowing but is also not headed for a cliff. The steady decline in job postings with still low unemployment rates since the middle of last year supports our soft landing view. 
And finally, we closely monitor inflation. The most recent April data suggests that core inflation continues to slowly recede, tracking in line with our forecasts, as well as the Fed's March projections. We think the incoming data continue to support a Fed pause at the June meeting, and after June we can see a wide range of potential outcomes for the policy rate. We expect a gradual slowing in core inflation that keeps the Fed on hold until March 2024, when it begins to normalize policy with quarter percent rate cuts every three months.   
To be sure, the possibility of a recession remains a concern this year amid banking pressures with unknown spillovers to the economy from tighter credit. Should credit growth slow more than expected, it would bring larger spillovers to investment, consumption and labor. Against this backdrop, we expect the U.S. economy to experience a sharp slowdown in the middle two quarters of the year, so even small hiccups could push us into a recession. We'll continue to keep you abreast of any new developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/w6FfNkgXWqgHCYDwYnRLawyKYp5L01JcqZp3dmgK8-4Fri, 19 May 2023 18:54:42 +0000gtyWhile the U.S. economy looks to be on track for a soft landing in 2023, even the smallest of setbacks could spell trouble for the end of the year. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our view around the soft landing for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, May 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last year, we presented our outlook that 2023 would see a soft landing for the U.S. economy. This out of consensus view continues to be our base case expectation. And we looked at several key data points as evidence to support it, including the U.S. housing cycle, income and spending dynamics, the labor market and inflation. 
To start, economists have long said, "As goes housing, so goes the business cycle." And housing is a very important factor in our outlook for a soft landing. While the decline in housing activity has been record breaking from a national perspective, Morgan Stanley's housing strategists believe the cycle is bottoming. In our forecast, the big drag on economic growth from the housing correction should turn neutral by the third quarter of 2023, providing some cushion against the growth slowdown elsewhere. 
Second, the incoming data on U.S. income and consumer spending also support our expectation that the economy is slowing but not falling off a cliff. On the one hand, discretionary consumer spending is softening. On the other hand, income is the predominant driver of consumer spending, and even as wage growth continues to slow, our forecasted path for inflation suggests that real wages will finally turn positive in the middle of this year. 
Third, we look to labor market dynamics, and the April U.S. employment report provides ample evidence that the labor market is slowing but is also not headed for a cliff. The steady decline in job postings with still low unemployment rates since the middle of last year supports our soft landing view. 
And finally, we closely monitor inflation. The most recent April data suggests that core inflation continues to slowly recede, tracking in line with our forecasts, as well as the Fed's March projections. We think the incoming data continue to support a Fed pause at the June meeting, and after June we can see a wide range of potential outcomes for the policy rate. We expect a gradual slowing in core inflation that keeps the Fed on hold until March 2024, when it begins to normalize policy with quarter percent rate cuts every three months.   
To be sure, the possibility of a recession remains a concern this year amid banking pressures with unknown spillovers to the economy from tighter credit. Should credit growth slow more than expected, it would bring larger spillovers to investment, consumption and labor. Against this backdrop, we expect the U.S. economy to experience a sharp slowdown in the middle two quarters of the year, so even small hiccups could push us into a recession. We'll continue to keep you abreast of any new developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>178false872fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-is-market-volatility-on-the-decline--75654910----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, May 18th at 2 p.m. in London. 
A notable aspect of the current market is its serenity. Over the last 30 days, U.S. stocks have seen the least day-to-day volatility since December of 2021. It's a similar story for stocks in Europe or the movement of major currencies. Across key markets, things have been calm and investors have become more relaxed, with expectations of future volatility also in decline. 
But why is this happening? After all, major uncertainties around the path of inflation and central bank policy still exist. And the United States, the world's largest economy and most important borrower, still hasn't reached an agreement to keep borrowing by raising the debt ceiling, raising the risk, according to the U.S. Treasury secretary, of running out of money in less than a month. Well, we think a few things are going on. With the debt ceiling, we think this is a great example that real world investors genuinely struggle with pricing a binary, uncertain outcome. It's very challenging to put precise odds on what is ultimately a political decision and hard to quantify its impact. And further complicating matters, the conventional wisdom generally appears to be that any debt ceiling deal would only get done at the last possible moment. 
In short, investors are struggling, making big changes to their portfolio in the face of what is little better than a political guess and are finding it easier to wait, and hoping that more clarity emerges. I’d note we saw something very similar before the near-miss on the debt ceiling in 2011. Despite being extremely aware of the deadline back then, stocks moved sideways until the last possible moment in August of 2011, afraid of leaning too heavily in one direction before the event. 
Other factors are also in limbo. We're nearing the end of what was a reasonably solid first quarter earnings season and don't see larger disappointments arriving, potentially, until later in the year. And on our forecasts, the Federal Reserve just made its last rate hike of the cycle and is now on hold for the remainder of 2023. 
And volatility does have the tendency to be self-reinforcing. Low volatility often begets low volatility, and in turn drags down expectations of what future movements will look like. But importantly, this doesn't represent some form of clairvoyance, expectations about future levels of market volatility often deviate from what actually happens, in both directions. 
For now, markets remain calm. But don't assume that means investors have some special insight around the debt ceiling, inflation or monetary policy. Incoming developments across all of these areas can change the picture rather quickly. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WojVTaO9JShTGwDjMKXXrFMrKWTEgCltP8JPaApRSsgThu, 18 May 2023 18:47:09 +0000gtyAlthough markets remain calm for now, incoming developments across the debt ceiling, inflation and monetary policy could quite quickly turn the tide. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, May 18th at 2 p.m. in London. 
A notable aspect of the current market is its serenity. Over the last 30 days, U.S. stocks have seen the least day-to-day volatility since December of 2021. It's a similar story for stocks in Europe or the movement of major currencies. Across key markets, things have been calm and investors have become more relaxed, with expectations of future volatility also in decline. 
But why is this happening? After all, major uncertainties around the path of inflation and central bank policy still exist. And the United States, the world's largest economy and most important borrower, still hasn't reached an agreement to keep borrowing by raising the debt ceiling, raising the risk, according to the U.S. Treasury secretary, of running out of money in less than a month. Well, we think a few things are going on. With the debt ceiling, we think this is a great example that real world investors genuinely struggle with pricing a binary, uncertain outcome. It's very challenging to put precise odds on what is ultimately a political decision and hard to quantify its impact. And further complicating matters, the conventional wisdom generally appears to be that any debt ceiling deal would only get done at the last possible moment. 
In short, investors are struggling, making big changes to their portfolio in the face of what is little better than a political guess and are finding it easier to wait, and hoping that more clarity emerges. I’d note we saw something very similar before the near-miss on the debt ceiling in 2011. Despite being extremely aware of the deadline back then, stocks moved sideways until the last possible moment in August of 2011, afraid of leaning too heavily in one direction before the event. 
Other factors are also in limbo. We're nearing the end of what was a reasonably solid first quarter earnings season and don't see larger disappointments arriving, potentially, until later in the year. And on our forecasts, the Federal Reserve just made its last rate hike of the cycle and is now on hold for the remainder of 2023. 
And volatility does have the tendency to be self-reinforcing. Low volatility often begets low volatility, and in turn drags down expectations of what future movements will look like. But importantly, this doesn't represent some form of clairvoyance, expectations about future levels of market volatility often deviate from what actually happens, in both directions. 
For now, markets remain calm. But don't assume that means investors have some special insight around the debt ceiling, inflation or monetary policy. Incoming developments across all of these areas can change the picture rather quickly. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>188false871fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-the-outlook-for-lending--75654891----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the takeaways from the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey. It's Wednesday, May 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We've talked a lot about the effects of the turmoil in the regional banks on credit formation, on this podcast. We thought the ongoing liquidity pressures in the regional banking sector may lead to tighter lending standards, which will eventually translate into lower credit formation. The Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, conducted quarterly by the Federal Reserve, provides a window on bank lending practices, including the standards and terms for banks to make loans, as well as the demand for bank loans to businesses and households. The survey results published last week, reflect conditions during the first quarter of 2023 and provide a first glimpse on the effect of the regional banking turmoil on banks outlook for lending over the remainder of 2023. 
The survey showed that banks expect to tighten standards across all loan categories. Banks cited an expected deterioration in the credit quality of their loan portfolios, customer collateral values, a reduction in risk tolerance, concerns about bank funding costs, banks liquidity position and deposit outflows, as reasons for expecting to tighten lending standards over the rest of 2023. 
While standards for commercial and industrial, the so-called C&I loans, tightened only marginally, the demand for C&I loans fell to levels not seen since the great financial crisis. Even though lending standards only tightened marginally, the tightening came from some loan officers tightening standards considerably. 
Further, banks reported changes to their modalities of their lending quite substantially. For example, the spread on loans or their cost of funding broke above the pandemic period and entered levels last seen during the great financial crisis. Loan officers also changed credit lines to small businesses drastically, especially regarding the size and cost. They reduced the maximum size and maturity of credit lines, as well as increased collateral requirements and the cost of credit lines. For small businesses in the U.S., such credit tightening comes at a very difficult time. Small business optimism and the outlook for business conditions already deteriorated significantly over the past year, and small businesses acknowledge that the environment isn't conducive for expansion or CapEx. 
Why does this matter? As small businesses have continued to lower expectations of sales, there were also moderated plans to raise prices in the near term. We see this dynamic raising the risks of downside surprises to upcoming inflation data. Also worth noting that fewer small businesses describe inflation as their number one concern, in fact, more describe interest rates as the number one concern. One of the special questions in this quarter's survey pertained to commercial real estate, so-called CRE. Banks tightened lending standards across all categories of CRE loans. Action cited included, widening loan spreads, reducing loan to value, raising debt service covers ratios and reducing maximum loan sizes. These survey results are consistent with what we had been predicting. Volatility in the regional banking sector has resulted in lower credit formation, due to both lingering liquidity stress and regulatory changes to come. The former is already playing out and the latter is likely to weigh on economic growth over the long term. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Ea8Y2PgNjMKV_kP_iJlzcrZ4dI7SgKgZlCzM7XLm2dkWed, 17 May 2023 20:18:29 +0000gtyAccording to the Federal Reserve’s latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, small businesses may be the most vulnerable to banks tightening their lending standards. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the takeaways from the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey. It's Wednesday, May 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
We've talked a lot about the effects of the turmoil in the regional banks on credit formation, on this podcast. We thought the ongoing liquidity pressures in the regional banking sector may lead to tighter lending standards, which will eventually translate into lower credit formation. The Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, conducted quarterly by the Federal Reserve, provides a window on bank lending practices, including the standards and terms for banks to make loans, as well as the demand for bank loans to businesses and households. The survey results published last week, reflect conditions during the first quarter of 2023 and provide a first glimpse on the effect of the regional banking turmoil on banks outlook for lending over the remainder of 2023. 
The survey showed that banks expect to tighten standards across all loan categories. Banks cited an expected deterioration in the credit quality of their loan portfolios, customer collateral values, a reduction in risk tolerance, concerns about bank funding costs, banks liquidity position and deposit outflows, as reasons for expecting to tighten lending standards over the rest of 2023. 
While standards for commercial and industrial, the so-called C&I loans, tightened only marginally, the demand for C&I loans fell to levels not seen since the great financial crisis. Even though lending standards only tightened marginally, the tightening came from some loan officers tightening standards considerably. 
Further, banks reported changes to their modalities of their lending quite substantially. For example, the spread on loans or their cost of funding broke above the pandemic period and entered levels last seen during the great financial crisis. Loan officers also changed credit lines to small businesses drastically, especially regarding the size and cost. They reduced the maximum size and maturity of credit lines, as well as increased collateral requirements and the cost of credit lines. For small businesses in the U.S., such credit tightening comes at a very difficult time. Small business optimism and the outlook for business conditions already deteriorated significantly over the past year, and small businesses acknowledge that the environment isn't conducive for expansion or CapEx. 
Why does this matter? As small businesses have continued to lower expectations of sales, there were also moderated plans to raise prices in the near term. We see this dynamic raising the risks of downside surprises to upcoming inflation data. Also worth noting that fewer small businesses describe inflation as their number one concern, in fact, more describe interest rates as the number one concern. One of the special questions in this quarter's survey pertained to commercial real estate, so-called CRE. Banks tightened lending standards across all categories of CRE loans. Action cited included, widening loan spreads, reducing loan to value, raising debt service covers ratios and reducing maximum loan sizes. These survey results are consistent with what we had been predicting. Volatility in the regional banking sector has resulted in lower credit formation, due to both lingering liquidity stress and regulatory changes to come. The former is already playing out and the latter is likely to weigh on economic growth over the long term. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or...]]>221false870fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-investors-face-uncertainty-in-stock-performance--75654915----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, May 16th, at 1 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Having spent the last few weeks on the road engaging with clients from around the world, I figured it would be useful to share some thoughts from our meetings and to touch on the most often asked questions, concerns and pushback to our views. 
First, conviction levels are low, given broadly elevated valuations and a challenging macro backdrop. While many individual longs and shorts have worked well in the context of a buoyant S&P 500, the most favorite trades have largely played out and clients are having trouble finding the next opportunity. Small cap and low quality stocks have underperformed and we continue to see crowding into mega-cap tech and consumer staples stocks as safe havens in a deteriorating growth environment.
Second, there isn't much interest in the S&P 500 as either a long or a short anymore. Most clients we speak with have given up on the idea of a big breakdown of the index level. Conversely, there are few who think the S&P 500 can trade much above 4200, which has proven to be a key resistance since the October lows. What has changed is that the floor has been raised, with the large majority of investors thinking 3800 is now unlikely to be broken to the downside. In short, the consensus believes the bear market ended in October, at least for the high quality S&P 500 and NASDAQ. 
Third, there is little appetite to dive back into the areas of the market that have significantly underperformed like regional banks, small caps and energy. Other deep cyclicals are also out of favor due to either extended valuation and high earnings expectations In the case of industrials, and recession risk in the case of materials. Instead, most clients we spoke with remained comfortably long, large cap tech stocks, especially given the group's recent outperformance. While consumer staples and other defensives have outperformed strongly since March, there's less confidence this outperformance can continue. 
Our take remains the same. The market is speaking loudly under the surface, with its classic late cycle leadership and extreme narrowness, it is bracing for further macro and earnings disappointments. However, it is not yet pricing these outcomes at the index level. Such is the typical pattern exhibited by equity markets until clearer evidence of an economic recession arrives, or the risks of one are fully extinguished. With our economist forecasting close to 0% growth this year for real GDP and just modest growth next year, valuations at full levels and several other risks in front of us, we suspect 4200 will hold to the upside as most clients suggest. However, we continue to hold a more bearish tactical view than most clients in terms of the downside risk given our earnings forecast. The majority of our fundamental debate with clients has been over earnings. More specifically, there is broad pushback to our view that margins have not yet bottomed. In addition, many clients do not think revenue growth can fall towards zero or go negative given the still elevated inflation across the economy. Our take is that while many companies have taken decisive cost action, including layoffs, they have not yet cut cost nearly enough for a zero-to-negative revenue growth backdrop. But the odds of such an outcome increasing, in our view, we find it notable that many investors are more sanguine today on the earnings backdrop than they were five months ago. 
Meanwhile, many clients are worried about the debt ceiling. Most believe it will get resolved, but not without some near-term volatility. However, the discussion has evolved, with many clients framing this event as a lose-lose for markets. Assuming the debt ceiling is not resolved before the Treasury runs out of money, market volatility is likely to pick up meaningfully. Conversely, if the debt ceiling is lifted before the Treasury runs out of money, it will likely come with some concessions on the spending front, which could be a headwind for growth. Secondarily, such an outcome will lead to significant, pent up issuance from the Treasury to pay its bills and rebuild its reserves. This issuance from Treasury, could approach $1 trillion in the six months immediately after the ceiling is lifted, and potentially present a materially tightening to liquidity that could tip the S&P 500 back to the downside. 
To summarize, clients are less bearish on earnings than we are, although most are still fundamentally cautious on growth in the economic backdrop. Given the resilience in the large cap indices and leadership from perennially favored companies this year, many investors are now convicted that the equity market can look through a mild economic or earnings recession at this point. We think this is a very challenging tactical setup should growth or liquidity deteriorate as we expect over the next few weeks and months. We maintain our well below consensus earnings estimates for this year and believe narrow breadth and defensive leadership support our view that this bear market is yet to be completed, especially at the index level. Defensively oriented companies with a focus on operational efficiency should continue to outperform, especially if they exhibit true pricing power. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate the review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2jxaBm4xR9XLmjAEMQyzSF02CJDqK3OZVHSpzyF904YTue, 16 May 2023 21:49:27 +0000gtyAs investors attempt to find opportunities in an uncertain stock market, earnings disappointments and an ongoing debt ceiling debate loom overhead. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, May 16th, at 1 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Having spent the last few weeks on the road engaging with clients from around the world, I figured it would be useful to share some thoughts from our meetings and to touch on the most often asked questions, concerns and pushback to our views. 
First, conviction levels are low, given broadly elevated valuations and a challenging macro backdrop. While many individual longs and shorts have worked well in the context of a buoyant S&P 500, the most favorite trades have largely played out and clients are having trouble finding the next opportunity. Small cap and low quality stocks have underperformed and we continue to see crowding into mega-cap tech and consumer staples stocks as safe havens in a deteriorating growth environment.
Second, there isn't much interest in the S&P 500 as either a long or a short anymore. Most clients we speak with have given up on the idea of a big breakdown of the index level. Conversely, there are few who think the S&P 500 can trade much above 4200, which has proven to be a key resistance since the October lows. What has changed is that the floor has been raised, with the large majority of investors thinking 3800 is now unlikely to be broken to the downside. In short, the consensus believes the bear market ended in October, at least for the high quality S&P 500 and NASDAQ. 
Third, there is little appetite to dive back into the areas of the market that have significantly underperformed like regional banks, small caps and energy. Other deep cyclicals are also out of favor due to either extended valuation and high earnings expectations In the case of industrials, and recession risk in the case of materials. Instead, most clients we spoke with remained comfortably long, large cap tech stocks, especially given the group's recent outperformance. While consumer staples and other defensives have outperformed strongly since March, there's less confidence this outperformance can continue. 
Our take remains the same. The market is speaking loudly under the surface, with its classic late cycle leadership and extreme narrowness, it is bracing for further macro and earnings disappointments. However, it is not yet pricing these outcomes at the index level. Such is the typical pattern exhibited by equity markets until clearer evidence of an economic recession arrives, or the risks of one are fully extinguished. With our economist forecasting close to 0% growth this year for real GDP and just modest growth next year, valuations at full levels and several other risks in front of us, we suspect 4200 will hold to the upside as most clients suggest. However, we continue to hold a more bearish tactical view than most clients in terms of the downside risk given our earnings forecast. The majority of our fundamental debate with clients has been over earnings. More specifically, there is broad pushback to our view that margins have not yet bottomed. In addition, many clients do not think revenue growth can fall towards zero or go negative given the still elevated inflation across the economy. Our take is that while many companies have taken decisive cost action, including layoffs, they have not yet cut cost nearly enough for a zero-to-negative revenue growth backdrop. But the odds of such an outcome increasing, in our view, we find it notable that many investors are more sanguine today on the earnings backdrop than they were five months ago. 
Meanwhile, many clients are worried...]]>293false869fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-mark-purcell-the-evolution-of-cancer-medicines--75654765----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. 
Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. 
Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. 
But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. 
Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. 
A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XWnBRwUF817C4x_xP2m1zl3xBkYKp_w-Py2l9jDc95cMon, 15 May 2023 22:36:08 +0000gtyOriginal Release on April 20th, 2023: "Smart chemotherapy" could change the way that cancer is treated, potentially opening up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. 
Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. 
Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. 
But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. 
Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. 
A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>222false868fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sustainability-tech-transformation-in-the-education-market--75654931----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Josh Baer: And I'm Josh Baer from the U.S. Software Team. 
Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast will discuss the global education market. It's Friday, May 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: Education is one of the most fragmented sectors globally, and right now it's in the midst of significant tech disruption and transformation. Add to this, a number of dynamically shifting regulatory and policy regimes and you have a complex set up. I wanted to sit down with my colleague Josh to delve into the intersection of the EdTech and the sustainability side of this multi-layered story. 
Stephen Byrd: So, Josh, let's start by giving a snapshot of global education technology, particularly in this post-COVID and rather uncertain macro context we're dealing with. What are some of the biggest challenges and key debates that you're following? 
Josh Baer: Thanks, Stephen. One way that I think about the different EdTech players in the market is through the markets that they serve. So in the context of education, that means early learning, K-12, higher ed, corporate skilling and lifelong learning. The key debates here come down to what it usually comes down to for equities, growth and margins. So on the growth side, there's several conversations that we're constantly having with investors. Some business models are exposed to academic enrollments as a driver. To what extent would a weaker macro with higher unemployment lead to stronger enrollments given their historical countercyclical trends? And enrollments have been pressured as current or potential students were attracted to the job market. And on the margin side, some of the companies that we follow in the EdTech space, they're the ones that were experiencing very rapid growth during COVID and investment mode to really capture that opportunity. And so investors debate the unit economics of some of these business models and really the trajectory of margins and free cash flow looking ahead. One other more topical debate, the impact of generative A.I. on education, and maybe we'll hit on that topic later. 
Josh Baer: Stephen, why do these debates matter from the point of view of ESG, environmental, social and governance perspective? Why should investors view global education through a sustainability lens? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Josh I'd say among sustainability focused investors, typically the number one topic that comes up within the education sector is inequality. So higher education is a key pillar of economic development, but social and economic problems can arise from limited access. Unequal access to education can perpetuate all forms of socioeconomic inequality. It can limit social mobility, and it can also exacerbate health and income disparities among demographic groups. It can also restrict the potential talent pool and diversity of backgrounds and ideas in different academic fields, leading to all kinds of negative economic implications for both growth and innovation. While progress has been made in increasing enrollment among underrepresented students, significant disparities remain in admission and graduation rates. For investors and public equities, I think one of the more useful tools in our note is a proprietary framework that measures sustainability impact. Now that tool is really primarily rooted in the United Nations Sustainable Development goal number four, which lays out targets in education. This framework is rooted in the premise that I mentioned earlier. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated multiple challenges in education. So when we think about business models that we really like, we're focused on models that can improve the quality of student learning, enhance institutions' operations and increase access and affordability. And we think our stocks that we selected really do meet those objectives quite well. 
Stephen Byrd: Josh, what is the current size of the EdTech and education services markets and why invest now? 
Josh Baer: First, on the size of the market, we see global education spend of 6 trillion today going to 8 trillion in 2030. So that's a CAGR below the growth of GDP, but we do see faster growth in EdTech. So there's really compelling opportunities for consolidation in the fragmented education market broadly and for EdTech growing at a double digit CAGR, so much faster than the overall education market. Why invest in EdTech? Well, as just mentioned, EdTech addresses these very large markets. It's increasing its share of education spend because it's aligned to several secular trends. So I'm thinking about digital transformation of the entire education industry. The shift from in-person instructor led training to really more efficient or economic online or digital learning. And positives from this shift, as you mentioned, include better scalability, affordability, global access to really high quality education. These EdTech companies are aligned to corporate skilling, which are aligned to companies, strategic goals, digital transformation initiatives. And then from a stock perspective, there's really low investor sentiment broadly and of course, the exposure to ESG trends around inclusion, skilling, education, access. 
Josh Baer: And Stephen, what is the regulatory landscape around global education and EdTech, both in the U.S. and in other regions? 
Stephen Byrd: So education policy is not really featured heavily in recent sessions of Congress in the U.S., as it tends to develop at more local levels of government than really at the federal level. The federal government in the United States provides less than 10% of funding for K through 12 education, leaving most of regulation and funding to state and local governments. Now, that said, there have been a few large education policy focused bills enacted into law since the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education in the second half of the 20th century. The most recent was in 2015, when President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which granted more autonomy to states to set standards for education that vary based on local needs. In Brazil, there's some really interesting developments that we're very focused on. The Ministry of Education began loosening the rules for distance learning in 2017 to compensate for the lack of public funding and affordability. This was a new modality that didn't depend on campuses and was much cheaper for students. So companies saw this as the next growth opportunity and started investing in digital expansion, especially after COVID-19 lockdowns forced the closure of campuses. Distance learning grew rapidly and surpassed the number of on campus enrollments in 2021. Despite the increase in addressable market, this potential cannibalizes is part of the demand for in-person learning and reduces average prices in the sector. Lastly, in Europe, the European Union has set seven key education targets that it is hoping to achieve by 2025. And by 2030 on education and training. Let me just walk through a couple of the big targets here. By 2025, the goal is to have at least 60% of recent graduates from vocational education and training, that should benefit from exposure to work based learning during their vocational education and training. By 2030, the goal is for less than 15% of 15 year olds to be low achievers in reading, mathematics and science, as well as less than 15% of eighth graders should be low achievers in computer and information literacy. 
Stephen Byrd: Josh, how are emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality disrupting the education space, both in the classroom and in cyberspace? How do you assess their impact and what catalysts should investors watch closely? 
Josh Baer: Great question. Investors are hyper focused on all the generative A.I. hype, all the risks and opportunities for EdTech. And it's important to remember that all EdTech companies serve different markets and they have different business models and they provide varying services and value to all those different markets. And so there's a wide spectrum from risk to opportunity, and in actuality, I think many businesses will actually have both headwinds and tailwinds from A.I.  At the core, the question is not, will generative A.I. change education and learning, but how will it change? And from the way it may change, from the way education content is created and consumed, to the experience of learning and teaching and testing and studying. And on one end of the spectrum, investors should also look for signs of disruption, disruption to the publisher model or tutoring services or solutions, look for signs of students that may meet their learning needs or studying needs with generative A.I. instead of existing solutions. But from an innovation perspective, I think investors should look for new entrants and incumbents to leverage generative A.I. to really enhance the future of education, from personalized and efficient content creation to more adaptive assessments and testing, to more customized learning experiences. And these existing platforms, they're the ones that own vast datasets, really rich taxonomies of learning and skills. And I think those are the ones that are well-positioned to use A.I. technology to vastly improve their capabilities and the education market. Investors can also look for a more direct revenue opportunities, as the EdTech platforms are the platforms that will be teaching and reskilling and upskilling the whole world on how to use these innovative technologies, today and in the future. 
Stephen Byrd: Josh, thanks for taking t]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/M2IstK60BIfFbX5qR1RT7U8uGPhS8vkicl6uq-V4dbkFri, 12 May 2023 22:02:55 +0000gtyWith technology evolving rapidly in education, investors are taking a closer look at how it will financially impact the global education market. Stephen Byrd and Josh Baer discuss. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Josh Baer: And I'm Josh Baer from the U.S. Software Team. 
Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast will discuss the global education market. It's Friday, May 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: Education is one of the most fragmented sectors globally, and right now it's in the midst of significant tech disruption and transformation. Add to this, a number of dynamically shifting regulatory and policy regimes and you have a complex set up. I wanted to sit down with my colleague Josh to delve into the intersection of the EdTech and the sustainability side of this multi-layered story. 
Stephen Byrd: So, Josh, let's start by giving a snapshot of global education technology, particularly in this post-COVID and rather uncertain macro context we're dealing with. What are some of the biggest challenges and key debates that you're following? 
Josh Baer: Thanks, Stephen. One way that I think about the different EdTech players in the market is through the markets that they serve. So in the context of education, that means early learning, K-12, higher ed, corporate skilling and lifelong learning. The key debates here come down to what it usually comes down to for equities, growth and margins. So on the growth side, there's several conversations that we're constantly having with investors. Some business models are exposed to academic enrollments as a driver. To what extent would a weaker macro with higher unemployment lead to stronger enrollments given their historical countercyclical trends? And enrollments have been pressured as current or potential students were attracted to the job market. And on the margin side, some of the companies that we follow in the EdTech space, they're the ones that were experiencing very rapid growth during COVID and investment mode to really capture that opportunity. And so investors debate the unit economics of some of these business models and really the trajectory of margins and free cash flow looking ahead. One other more topical debate, the impact of generative A.I. on education, and maybe we'll hit on that topic later. 
Josh Baer: Stephen, why do these debates matter from the point of view of ESG, environmental, social and governance perspective? Why should investors view global education through a sustainability lens? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Josh I'd say among sustainability focused investors, typically the number one topic that comes up within the education sector is inequality. So higher education is a key pillar of economic development, but social and economic problems can arise from limited access. Unequal access to education can perpetuate all forms of socioeconomic inequality. It can limit social mobility, and it can also exacerbate health and income disparities among demographic groups. It can also restrict the potential talent pool and diversity of backgrounds and ideas in different academic fields, leading to all kinds of negative economic implications for both growth and innovation. While progress has been made in increasing enrollment among underrepresented students, significant disparities remain in admission and graduation rates. For investors and public equities, I think one of the more useful tools in our note is a proprietary framework that measures sustainability impact. Now that tool is really primarily rooted in the United Nations Sustainable Development goal number four, which lays out targets in education. This framework is rooted in the premise that I mentioned earlier. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated multiple challenges in education. So when we think about business models that we really like, we're...]]>578false867fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/erik-woodring-are-pcs-on-the-rebound--75654871----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why we're getting bullish on the personal computer space. It's Thursday, May 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
PC purchases soared during COVID, but PCs have since gone through a once in a three decades type of down cycle following the pandemic boom. Starting in the second half of 2021, record pandemic driven demand reversed, and this impacted both consumer and commercial PC shipments. Consequently, the PC total addressable market has contracted sharply, marking two consecutive double digit year-over-year declines for the first time since at least 1995. 
But after a challenging 18 months or so, we believe it's time to be more bullish on PCs. The light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting brighter as it looks like the PC market bottomed in the first quarter of 2023. 
Before I get into our outlook, it's important to note that PCs have historically been a low growth or no growth category. In fact, if you go back to 2014, there was only one year before the pandemic when PCs actually grew year-over-year, and that was 2019, at just 3%. Despite PCs' low growth track record and the recent demand reversal, our analysis suggests the PC addressable market can be structurally higher post-COVID. So at face value, we're making a bit of a contrarian bullish call. 
This more structural call is based on two key points. First, we estimate that the PC installed base, or the number of pieces that are active today, is about 15% larger than pre-COVID, even excluding low end consumer devices that were added during the early days of the pandemic that are less likely to be upgraded going forward. 
Second, if you assume that users replace their PCs every four years, which is the five year pre-COVID average, that about 65% of the current PC installed base or roughly 760 million units is going to be due for a refresh in 2024 and 2025. This should coincide with the Windows 10 End of Life Catalyst expected in October 25 and the 1 to 3 year anniversary of generative A.I. entering the mainstream, both which have the potential to unlock replacement demand for more powerful machines. Combining these factors, we estimate that PC shipments can grow at a 4% compound annual growth rate over the next three years. Again, in the three years prior to COVID, that growth rate was about 1%. So we think that PCs can grow faster than pre-COVID and that the annual run rate of PC shipments will be larger than pre-COVID. 
Importantly though, what drives our bullish outlook is not the consumer, as consumers have a fairly irregular upgrade pattern, especially post-pandemic. We think the replacements and upgrades in 2024 and 2025, will come from the commercial market with 70% of our 2024 PC shipment growth coming from commercial entities. Commercial entities are much more regular when it comes to upgrades and they need greater memory capacity and compute power to handle their ever expanding workloads, especially as we think about the potential for A.I. workloads at the edge. 
To sum up, we're making a somewhat contrarian call on the PC market rebound today, arguing that one key was the bottom and that PC companies should outperform in the next 12 months following this bottom. But then beyond 2023, we are making a largely commercial PC call, not necessarily a consumer PC call, and believe that PCs have brighter days ahead, relative to the three years prior to the pandemic. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Y7O5pjsIAje4gUfzsxsnCcwao58XpkzpEEK_EaeLS0YThu, 11 May 2023 20:10:56 +0000gtyWhile personal computer sales were on the decline before the pandemic, signs are pointing to an upcoming boost.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why we're getting bullish on the personal computer space. It's Thursday, May 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
PC purchases soared during COVID, but PCs have since gone through a once in a three decades type of down cycle following the pandemic boom. Starting in the second half of 2021, record pandemic driven demand reversed, and this impacted both consumer and commercial PC shipments. Consequently, the PC total addressable market has contracted sharply, marking two consecutive double digit year-over-year declines for the first time since at least 1995. 
But after a challenging 18 months or so, we believe it's time to be more bullish on PCs. The light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting brighter as it looks like the PC market bottomed in the first quarter of 2023. 
Before I get into our outlook, it's important to note that PCs have historically been a low growth or no growth category. In fact, if you go back to 2014, there was only one year before the pandemic when PCs actually grew year-over-year, and that was 2019, at just 3%. Despite PCs' low growth track record and the recent demand reversal, our analysis suggests the PC addressable market can be structurally higher post-COVID. So at face value, we're making a bit of a contrarian bullish call. 
This more structural call is based on two key points. First, we estimate that the PC installed base, or the number of pieces that are active today, is about 15% larger than pre-COVID, even excluding low end consumer devices that were added during the early days of the pandemic that are less likely to be upgraded going forward. 
Second, if you assume that users replace their PCs every four years, which is the five year pre-COVID average, that about 65% of the current PC installed base or roughly 760 million units is going to be due for a refresh in 2024 and 2025. This should coincide with the Windows 10 End of Life Catalyst expected in October 25 and the 1 to 3 year anniversary of generative A.I. entering the mainstream, both which have the potential to unlock replacement demand for more powerful machines. Combining these factors, we estimate that PC shipments can grow at a 4% compound annual growth rate over the next three years. Again, in the three years prior to COVID, that growth rate was about 1%. So we think that PCs can grow faster than pre-COVID and that the annual run rate of PC shipments will be larger than pre-COVID. 
Importantly though, what drives our bullish outlook is not the consumer, as consumers have a fairly irregular upgrade pattern, especially post-pandemic. We think the replacements and upgrades in 2024 and 2025, will come from the commercial market with 70% of our 2024 PC shipment growth coming from commercial entities. Commercial entities are much more regular when it comes to upgrades and they need greater memory capacity and compute power to handle their ever expanding workloads, especially as we think about the potential for A.I. workloads at the edge. 
To sum up, we're making a somewhat contrarian call on the PC market rebound today, arguing that one key was the bottom and that PC companies should outperform in the next 12 months following this bottom. But then beyond 2023, we are making a largely commercial PC call, not necessarily a consumer PC call, and believe that PCs have brighter days ahead, relative to the three years prior to the pandemic. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>229false866fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-debt-ceiling-uncertainty-and-financial-markets--75654857----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 10th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Congressional leaders met at the White House on Tuesday to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a government bond default. Reports following the meeting suggest little progress was made. That news shouldn't necessarily be surprising or discouraging. Initial rounds of legislative negotiations are often just a venue for each side to state their position. It often takes the urgency of a nearby deadline to catalyze compromise. 
While this isn't the first debt ceiling challenge for markets, it may be the most critical one, at least since 2011. As we said before, investors need to take seriously the idea that we do something that hasn't been done before, cross the X-date, the date after which Treasury doesn't have enough cash on hand to meet all obligations as they come due. So it's useful to quickly revisit what that would mean. In short, it puts a bunch of options on the table, but most are not good options, suggesting some markets may have to price in greater downside, at least for a time. 
A benign and plausible outcome would be that if the X-date is crossed, the resulting concern among policymakers, voters and business leaders around missed debt, Social Security, infrastructure and other payments, creates enough pressure on Congress to quickly force a compromise. Other outcomes are less friendly. The White House could choose to avoid default by ignoring the debt ceiling, citing authority under the 14th Amendment, but that could just shift uncertainty from the legislative process to the judicial one, as courts could ultimately decide if the U.S. defaults. The White House could also choose to prioritize payments to bondholders over other government obligations, but this could interrupt payments into the economy that support a substantial amount of consumption and GDP. And, of course, default would be a possibility, but given its far more considerable economic and political downside relative to the other options, this outcome would not be our base case expectation. 
So how could markets react? Here's what to watch for. The Treasury bills curve could invert further, with shorter maturity yields rising more relative to longer maturity yields. In equity markets, volatility should pick up considerably, and any resolution that crimps economic growth further would underscore the cautious stance of our equity strategy team. So developments over the next couple of weeks will be critical to track. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/F558-8f8CnxtH5haWH0rqjsQWYIq6uml1fJ_M0KeQZcWed, 10 May 2023 20:57:23 +0000gtyWith the debt ceiling debate seemingly making little headway, it may be critical for investors to track market developments in the near future. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 10th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Congressional leaders met at the White House on Tuesday to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a government bond default. Reports following the meeting suggest little progress was made. That news shouldn't necessarily be surprising or discouraging. Initial rounds of legislative negotiations are often just a venue for each side to state their position. It often takes the urgency of a nearby deadline to catalyze compromise. 
While this isn't the first debt ceiling challenge for markets, it may be the most critical one, at least since 2011. As we said before, investors need to take seriously the idea that we do something that hasn't been done before, cross the X-date, the date after which Treasury doesn't have enough cash on hand to meet all obligations as they come due. So it's useful to quickly revisit what that would mean. In short, it puts a bunch of options on the table, but most are not good options, suggesting some markets may have to price in greater downside, at least for a time. 
A benign and plausible outcome would be that if the X-date is crossed, the resulting concern among policymakers, voters and business leaders around missed debt, Social Security, infrastructure and other payments, creates enough pressure on Congress to quickly force a compromise. Other outcomes are less friendly. The White House could choose to avoid default by ignoring the debt ceiling, citing authority under the 14th Amendment, but that could just shift uncertainty from the legislative process to the judicial one, as courts could ultimately decide if the U.S. defaults. The White House could also choose to prioritize payments to bondholders over other government obligations, but this could interrupt payments into the economy that support a substantial amount of consumption and GDP. And, of course, default would be a possibility, but given its far more considerable economic and political downside relative to the other options, this outcome would not be our base case expectation. 
So how could markets react? Here's what to watch for. The Treasury bills curve could invert further, with shorter maturity yields rising more relative to longer maturity yields. In equity markets, volatility should pick up considerably, and any resolution that crimps economic growth further would underscore the cautious stance of our equity strategy team. So developments over the next couple of weeks will be critical to track. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>160false865fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/martijn-rats-a-change-in-the-global-oil-market--75654807----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how the 2023 global oil market story is changing. It's Tuesday, May the 9th at 4 p.m. in London. 
Over the last several months, the dominant narrative in the oil market was one of expected tightening in the second half. Although supply outstripped demand in the first quarter, the assumption was that the market would start to tighten from the second quarter onwards and be in deficit once again by the second half, which would lead to a rise in price. At the start of the year, this was also our thesis for how 2023 would play out. However, as of early May, it seems this narrative needs to change. 
The expectation of second half tightness was largely based on two key assumptions. One, that China's reopening would boost demand, and two, the Russian oil production would  start to decline. By now, however, it seems that these assumptions have run their course and are in fact behind us. 
On China, both the country's crude imports and its refinery runs were already back at all time highs in March, leaving little room for further improvement. On Russia, oil production has fallen from recent peaks, but probably only about 400,000 barrels a day. From here, we would argue that it's becoming increasingly unlikely it will fall much further. The EU's crude and product embargoes have been in place for some time now. Russian oil that flows now will probably continue to flow. 
That raises the question whether the second half tightening thesis can still be sustained. After OPEC announced production cuts at the start of April, we argued that OPEC was mostly responding to a weakening in the supply demand outlook. Perhaps counterintuitive, but we lowered oil price forecasts already significantly at the time those cuts were announced. Still, with those cuts, we thought that the second half balances would be about 600,000 barrels per day undersupplied, and that that would be enough to keep Brent in the mid-to-upper $80 per barrel range. 
New data from this past month, however, has further chiseled away at this deficit, which we now project at just 300,000 barrels a day. This is in effect getting very close to a balanced market, and that limits upside to oil prices, at least in the near term. 
Even this modest undersupply now mostly depends on seasonality in demand and OPEC production cuts. However, when the second half arrives, oil prices will start to reflect expected balances for early 2024. In the first half of '24, seasonality may turn the other way and OPEC production cuts are scheduled to come to an end. Our initial estimate of 2024 balances showed the market in a small surplus, especially in the first half. Looking beyond the next 12 months, oil prices still have long term supportive factors. Demand is likely to continue to grow over the rest of the decade, while investment levels have been low for some time now. However, the structural and the cyclical don't always align, and this is one of those moments. The second half tightness thesis does not appear to be playing out, and we don't see much tightness in the period just beyond that either. We expect Brent oil prices to stay in their recent $75 to $85 per barrel range, probably skewed towards the bottom end of that range later this year when the market enters a period of seasonal softness again and OPEC's voluntary cuts come to an end. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4I6sTC29lnT44-IJPvMrCfsjUpxii0jrXYMkdczEt8wTue, 09 May 2023 20:51:08 +0000gtyAs oil data in 2023 shows that second-half tightening is less likely, it may be time to alter the narrative around the expected market for the remainder of the year.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This recording references country/ies...----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how the 2023 global oil market story is changing. It's Tuesday, May the 9th at 4 p.m. in London. 
Over the last several months, the dominant narrative in the oil market was one of expected tightening in the second half. Although supply outstripped demand in the first quarter, the assumption was that the market would start to tighten from the second quarter onwards and be in deficit once again by the second half, which would lead to a rise in price. At the start of the year, this was also our thesis for how 2023 would play out. However, as of early May, it seems this narrative needs to change. 
The expectation of second half tightness was largely based on two key assumptions. One, that China's reopening would boost demand, and two, the Russian oil production would  start to decline. By now, however, it seems that these assumptions have run their course and are in fact behind us. 
On China, both the country's crude imports and its refinery runs were already back at all time highs in March, leaving little room for further improvement. On Russia, oil production has fallen from recent peaks, but probably only about 400,000 barrels a day. From here, we would argue that it's becoming increasingly unlikely it will fall much further. The EU's crude and product embargoes have been in place for some time now. Russian oil that flows now will probably continue to flow. 
That raises the question whether the second half tightening thesis can still be sustained. After OPEC announced production cuts at the start of April, we argued that OPEC was mostly responding to a weakening in the supply demand outlook. Perhaps counterintuitive, but we lowered oil price forecasts already significantly at the time those cuts were announced. Still, with those cuts, we thought that the second half balances would be about 600,000 barrels per day undersupplied, and that that would be enough to keep Brent in the mid-to-upper $80 per barrel range. 
New data from this past month, however, has further chiseled away at this deficit, which we now project at just 300,000 barrels a day. This is in effect getting very close to a balanced market, and that limits upside to oil prices, at least in the near term. 
Even this modest undersupply now mostly depends on seasonality in demand and OPEC production cuts. However, when the second half arrives, oil prices will start to reflect expected balances for early 2024. In the first half of '24, seasonality may turn the other way and OPEC production cuts are scheduled to come to an end. Our initial estimate of 2024 balances showed the market in a small surplus, especially in the first half. Looking beyond the next 12 months, oil...]]>214false864fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-earnings-the-fed-and-consumer-spending--75654767----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 8th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
In this week's podcast, I will discuss three major topics on investors' minds. First quarter Earnings results, the Fed's decision to raise rates last week, and how the consumer is holding up in the face of a debt ceiling debate with no easy solutions. 
First, on earnings, the first quarter earnings per share beat consensus expectations by 6 to 7%. Furthermore, second quarter guidance is held up better than we expected coming into the quarter. That said, it's important to provide some context. First quarter estimates came down 16% over the past year, double the 20 year average decline over equivalent periods and a more manageable hurdle for companies to clear. Furthermore, the macro data improved in January and February as seasonal adjustments and easy comparisons, with the early 2022 break out of Omicron flattered the growth rate. Nevertheless, this improvement also helped earnings results on a year-over-year basis and provided a boost to company confidence about where we are in the cycle. Unfortunately, many of the leading macro data we track have fallen and are now pointing to a similar reacceleration in earnings per share growth that the consensus expects. Ironically, this comes as many companies position 2023 growth recoveries as being contingent on a solid macro backdrop. If one is to believe our leading indicators that point pointed downward trends in earnings per share surprise and margins over the coming months, stocks will likely follow that negative path lower. 
With regards to the Fed, Chair Powell pushed back on the likelihood of interest rate cuts that are now priced in the bond markets. While bonds and stocks faded after these comments, they closed the week on a strong note. We believe the equity market continues to expect the best of both worlds, interest rate cuts and durable growth. We view the likelihood of reacceleration in growth in conjunction with interest rate cuts is very low. Instead, we believe another chapter of our fire and ice narrative is possible. In other words, a tighter Fed even as growth slows towards recession. This would be a difficult environment for stocks. 
So what are consumers telling us? Today, we published our latest AlphaWise Consumer Survey. Consumers continue to expect a pullback in spending for most categories over the next six months. Consumers still plan to spend more on essentials like groceries and household supplies. However, they are looking to pull back on discretionary goods spending categories with the most negative net spending intentions are consumer electronics, leisure activities, home appliances and food away from home. Grocery is the only category where low and middle income consumers said they’re planning to spend incrementally more over the next six months. They are not planning to spend more on any services categories. For high income consumers, travel is the only services category where spending intentions are positive and grocery is the only goods category where spending intentions are positive. Interestingly, the high income group indicated negative spending intentions for food away from home and leisure services. 
Bottom line, the consumer looks to finally be pulling back from an incredible two year run of spending. That was always unsustainable in our view. Some of this may be due to inflation and dwindling savings, but also the very public debate around the debt ceiling, which does not appear to have any easy solution. This is just another wildcard risk for stocks as we head into the summer. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hmIn4C6nSQxFIQf9MrfQtbyfBXXY_IrExmC8a7DVrRwMon, 08 May 2023 22:07:18 +0000gtyWith all the volatility surrounding the banking sector, the Fed raising rates and the continued debt ceiling debate, are consumers finally pulling back on spending?  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 8th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
In this week's podcast, I will discuss three major topics on investors' minds. First quarter Earnings results, the Fed's decision to raise rates last week, and how the consumer is holding up in the face of a debt ceiling debate with no easy solutions. 
First, on earnings, the first quarter earnings per share beat consensus expectations by 6 to 7%. Furthermore, second quarter guidance is held up better than we expected coming into the quarter. That said, it's important to provide some context. First quarter estimates came down 16% over the past year, double the 20 year average decline over equivalent periods and a more manageable hurdle for companies to clear. Furthermore, the macro data improved in January and February as seasonal adjustments and easy comparisons, with the early 2022 break out of Omicron flattered the growth rate. Nevertheless, this improvement also helped earnings results on a year-over-year basis and provided a boost to company confidence about where we are in the cycle. Unfortunately, many of the leading macro data we track have fallen and are now pointing to a similar reacceleration in earnings per share growth that the consensus expects. Ironically, this comes as many companies position 2023 growth recoveries as being contingent on a solid macro backdrop. If one is to believe our leading indicators that point pointed downward trends in earnings per share surprise and margins over the coming months, stocks will likely follow that negative path lower. 
With regards to the Fed, Chair Powell pushed back on the likelihood of interest rate cuts that are now priced in the bond markets. While bonds and stocks faded after these comments, they closed the week on a strong note. We believe the equity market continues to expect the best of both worlds, interest rate cuts and durable growth. We view the likelihood of reacceleration in growth in conjunction with interest rate cuts is very low. Instead, we believe another chapter of our fire and ice narrative is possible. In other words, a tighter Fed even as growth slows towards recession. This would be a difficult environment for stocks. 
So what are consumers telling us? Today, we published our latest AlphaWise Consumer Survey. Consumers continue to expect a pullback in spending for most categories over the next six months. Consumers still plan to spend more on essentials like groceries and household supplies. However, they are looking to pull back on discretionary goods spending categories with the most negative net spending intentions are consumer electronics, leisure activities, home appliances and food away from home. Grocery is the only category where low and middle income consumers said they’re planning to spend incrementally more over the next six months. They are not planning to spend more on any services categories. For high income consumers, travel is the only services category where spending intentions are positive and grocery is the only goods category where spending intentions are positive. Interestingly, the high income group indicated negative spending intentions for food away from home and leisure services. 
Bottom line, the consumer looks to finally be pulling back from an incredible two year run of spending. That was always unsustainable in our view. Some of this may be due to inflation and dwindling savings, but also the very public debate around the debt ceiling, which does not appear to have any easy...]]>217false863fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-the-prospect-of-a-pause-in-rate-hikes--75654811----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The Federal Reserve raised interest rates 25 basis points this week and have now raised their benchmark policy rate 5% over the last 14 months. That's the fastest increase in over 40 years, and for now we think it's enough. Morgan Stanley's economist forecasts the Fed won't make additional rate hikes or cuts for the rest of this year. In market parlance, the Fed will now pause. 
The question, of course, is whether the so-called pause is good for markets. In 1985, 1995, 1997, 2006 and 2018, buying stocks once the Fed was done raising rates resulted in good returns over the following 6 to 12 months. And this result does make some intuitive sense. If the Fed is no longer increasing rates and actively tightening policy, isn't that one less challenge for the stock market? 
Our concern, however, is that current conditions look different to these past instances, where the last rate hike was a good time to be more optimistic. Today, current levels of industrial production and leading economic indicators are weaker, inflation is higher, bank credit is tighter, and the yield curve is more inverted than any of these prior instances since 1985, where a pause boosted markets. 
In short, current data suggest higher inflation and a sharper slowdown than past instances where the last Fed hike was a good time to buy. And for these reasons, we worry about lumping current conditions in with those prior examples. 
So far, I've focused on performance following a pause in Fed rate hikes from the perspective of equity markets. Yet the picture for bonds is somewhat different. Whereas future performance for stocks is quite dependent on the growth outlook, U.S. Treasury bonds have historically done well after the last Fed rate hike under a variety of growth scenarios, whether good or poor. 
For now, we continue to favor high grade bonds over equities, even if we think the Fed may now be done with its rate hikes. We think that's consistent with the current data looking weaker than prior instances. In turn, stronger growth and lower inflation than we forecast would make conditions start to look a little bit more similar to instances where the last rate hike was a buy signal and would make us more optimistic. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6ieeWmxVaX6470YZ5AdXXveApvZ7akPbPkitZFQqYoUFri, 05 May 2023 18:54:02 +0000gtyThe Federal Reserve pausing on hiking interest rates has historically been good for markets. But given current conditions, history may not repeat itself. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The Federal Reserve raised interest rates 25 basis points this week and have now raised their benchmark policy rate 5% over the last 14 months. That's the fastest increase in over 40 years, and for now we think it's enough. Morgan Stanley's economist forecasts the Fed won't make additional rate hikes or cuts for the rest of this year. In market parlance, the Fed will now pause. 
The question, of course, is whether the so-called pause is good for markets. In 1985, 1995, 1997, 2006 and 2018, buying stocks once the Fed was done raising rates resulted in good returns over the following 6 to 12 months. And this result does make some intuitive sense. If the Fed is no longer increasing rates and actively tightening policy, isn't that one less challenge for the stock market? 
Our concern, however, is that current conditions look different to these past instances, where the last rate hike was a good time to be more optimistic. Today, current levels of industrial production and leading economic indicators are weaker, inflation is higher, bank credit is tighter, and the yield curve is more inverted than any of these prior instances since 1985, where a pause boosted markets. 
In short, current data suggest higher inflation and a sharper slowdown than past instances where the last Fed hike was a good time to buy. And for these reasons, we worry about lumping current conditions in with those prior examples. 
So far, I've focused on performance following a pause in Fed rate hikes from the perspective of equity markets. Yet the picture for bonds is somewhat different. Whereas future performance for stocks is quite dependent on the growth outlook, U.S. Treasury bonds have historically done well after the last Fed rate hike under a variety of growth scenarios, whether good or poor. 
For now, we continue to favor high grade bonds over equities, even if we think the Fed may now be done with its rate hikes. We think that's consistent with the current data looking weaker than prior instances. In turn, stronger growth and lower inflation than we forecast would make conditions start to look a little bit more similar to instances where the last rate hike was a buy signal and would make us more optimistic. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>167false862fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/graham-secker-will-european-equity-resilience-continue--75654877----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our latest thoughts on European equities. It's Thursday, May the 4th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Over the last couple of months, we have seen global technology stocks significantly outperform global financial stocks, aided by lower bond yields and concerns around the health of the U.S. regional banking sector. Historically, when we have seen tech outperform financials in the past, it has usually been accompanied by material underperformance from European equities. However, this time the region has proved much more resilient. Part of this reflects the benefits of lower valuation and lower investor positioning. However, we also see two broader macro supports for Europe just here. 
First, we see less downside risk to the European economy than that of the U.S., where many of the traditional economic leading indicators are down at recessionary levels. In contrast, similar metrics for Europe, such as consumer confidence and purchasing managers indices, have actually been rising recently. In addition, a healthier and more resilient banking sector over here in Europe suggests there is potentially less risk of a credit crunch developing here than we see in the U.S.. 
Second, we think Europe is also seen as an alternative way to get exposure to an economic recovery in China, given that the region has stronger economic ties and greater stock market exposure than most of its developed market peers. While this is not necessarily manifesting itself in overall aggregate inflows into European equity funds at this time, we can clearly see the theme benefiting certain sectors, such as luxury goods, which has arguably become one of the most popular ways to express a positive view on China globally. Notwithstanding these relative advantages, we do expect some near-term weakness in European stocks over the next quarter, with negative risks from the U.S. potentially outweighing positive risks from China and Asia. While first quarter results season has started strongly, we believe earnings disappointment will gradually build as we move through 2023 and our own forecasts remain close to 10% below consensus. Catalysts for this disappointment include slower economic growth, from the second quarter onwards, continued falls in profit margins and building FX headwinds given a strengthening euro. 
Our negative view on the outlook for corporate profitability often prompts the question as to which companies are over-earning and hence potentially most at risk from any mean reversion. To help answer this question, we ranked European sectors across five different profitability metrics where we compared their current levels to their ten year history. This analysis suggests that the European sectors who are currently over-earning, and hence most at risk of future disappointment include transport, semiconductors, construction materials, energy and autos. 
In contrast, sectors where profitability does not look particularly elevated at this time include retailing, diversified financials, media, chemicals, real estate and software.   More broadly, we believe this analysis supports our cautious view on cyclical stocks within Europe just here, particularly for the likes of energy and autos, where profits are already falling year on year and where we see more downgrades ahead. Instead, we maintain a preference for stocks with higher quality and growth characteristics. We think these should be relative outperformers against the backdrop of economic weakness, falling bond yields and better relative earnings trends. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xd60ilwVIh_WJtcXYfJEh7atwrGhCFiLqcn1gkekN_wThu, 04 May 2023 20:44:28 +0000gtyThe banking sector appears stronger in Europe than it does in the U.S., but some other European sectors may be at risk of lower profitability. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our latest thoughts on European equities. It's Thursday, May the 4th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Over the last couple of months, we have seen global technology stocks significantly outperform global financial stocks, aided by lower bond yields and concerns around the health of the U.S. regional banking sector. Historically, when we have seen tech outperform financials in the past, it has usually been accompanied by material underperformance from European equities. However, this time the region has proved much more resilient. Part of this reflects the benefits of lower valuation and lower investor positioning. However, we also see two broader macro supports for Europe just here. 
First, we see less downside risk to the European economy than that of the U.S., where many of the traditional economic leading indicators are down at recessionary levels. In contrast, similar metrics for Europe, such as consumer confidence and purchasing managers indices, have actually been rising recently. In addition, a healthier and more resilient banking sector over here in Europe suggests there is potentially less risk of a credit crunch developing here than we see in the U.S.. 
Second, we think Europe is also seen as an alternative way to get exposure to an economic recovery in China, given that the region has stronger economic ties and greater stock market exposure than most of its developed market peers. While this is not necessarily manifesting itself in overall aggregate inflows into European equity funds at this time, we can clearly see the theme benefiting certain sectors, such as luxury goods, which has arguably become one of the most popular ways to express a positive view on China globally. Notwithstanding these relative advantages, we do expect some near-term weakness in European stocks over the next quarter, with negative risks from the U.S. potentially outweighing positive risks from China and Asia. While first quarter results season has started strongly, we believe earnings disappointment will gradually build as we move through 2023 and our own forecasts remain close to 10% below consensus. Catalysts for this disappointment include slower economic growth, from the second quarter onwards, continued falls in profit margins and building FX headwinds given a strengthening euro. 
Our negative view on the outlook for corporate profitability often prompts the question as to which companies are over-earning and hence potentially most at risk from any mean reversion. To help answer this question, we ranked European sectors across five different profitability metrics where we compared their current levels to their ten year history. This analysis suggests that the European sectors who are currently over-earning, and hence most at risk of future disappointment include transport, semiconductors, construction materials, energy and autos. 
In contrast, sectors where profitability does not look particularly elevated at this time include retailing, diversified financials, media, chemicals, real estate and software.   More broadly, we believe this analysis supports our cautious view on cyclical stocks within Europe just here, particularly for the likes of energy and autos, where profits are already falling year on year and where we see more downgrades ahead. Instead, we maintain a preference for stocks with higher quality and growth characteristics. We think these should be relative outperformers against the backdrop of economic weakness, falling bond yields and better relative earnings trends. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review...]]>221false861fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-congress-contends-with-the-debt-ceiling--75654836----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 3rd at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Earlier this week, the Treasury Department informed Congress that at the start of June, it could run out of money to pay government obligations as they come due. This X-date appears much earlier than most forecasters expected, catching markets by surprise. Some investors even expressed to us disbelief, pushing the idea that the real X-date would be later, and Treasury is just trying to stir negotiations in Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Here's our take. 
The X-date is likely a moving target due the complex interplay of the timing of incoming tax receipts, government outlays and maturing debt securities. So, while it's possible the date ends up being sometime later this summer, the government might not be able to forecast that with a high degree of certainty. In that case, negotiations have to start now to avoid a situation where the X-date sneaks up on Congress, leaving little time to deliberate and risking default. 
And that seems to have prompted negotiations, with a May 9th meeting at the White House set to kick things off. But we emphasize that an early resolution remains uncertain. Both parties remain far apart on how they'd like to deal with the debt ceiling and in some ways haven't formed consensus within their own parties on the issue either. So the negotiating dynamic is likely to be tricky. That in turn means a range of policy solutions are plausible here, including a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling, unilateral measures by the administration to avoid default, a budget austerity package in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, or perhaps a clean debt ceiling raise. 
Of course, that level of uncertainty is generally not something markets like. Not surprisingly, we're seeing further inversion of the yield curve for Treasury bills, with notes maturing in June rising to around 5.3%. However, it does dovetail with our general preference for bonds over equities in developed markets this year. If the negotiation lingers too long, investors could become more concerned about the impact of the economic growth outlook, either because payment prioritization puts government transfer payments at risk or budget austerity reduces the trajectory of net government spending. In that case, equity markets could come under pressure, but longer maturity bonds could benefit. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/TwNmhFo1agzUhmCU6EEmpbysfYPl99nHof-q0qytz6UWed, 03 May 2023 20:50:08 +0000gtyCongress is finally set to begin debt ceiling negotiations. What are some possible outcomes and how might the negotiations affect economic growth? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 3rd at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Earlier this week, the Treasury Department informed Congress that at the start of June, it could run out of money to pay government obligations as they come due. This X-date appears much earlier than most forecasters expected, catching markets by surprise. Some investors even expressed to us disbelief, pushing the idea that the real X-date would be later, and Treasury is just trying to stir negotiations in Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Here's our take. 
The X-date is likely a moving target due the complex interplay of the timing of incoming tax receipts, government outlays and maturing debt securities. So, while it's possible the date ends up being sometime later this summer, the government might not be able to forecast that with a high degree of certainty. In that case, negotiations have to start now to avoid a situation where the X-date sneaks up on Congress, leaving little time to deliberate and risking default. 
And that seems to have prompted negotiations, with a May 9th meeting at the White House set to kick things off. But we emphasize that an early resolution remains uncertain. Both parties remain far apart on how they'd like to deal with the debt ceiling and in some ways haven't formed consensus within their own parties on the issue either. So the negotiating dynamic is likely to be tricky. That in turn means a range of policy solutions are plausible here, including a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling, unilateral measures by the administration to avoid default, a budget austerity package in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, or perhaps a clean debt ceiling raise. 
Of course, that level of uncertainty is generally not something markets like. Not surprisingly, we're seeing further inversion of the yield curve for Treasury bills, with notes maturing in June rising to around 5.3%. However, it does dovetail with our general preference for bonds over equities in developed markets this year. If the negotiation lingers too long, investors could become more concerned about the impact of the economic growth outlook, either because payment prioritization puts government transfer payments at risk or budget austerity reduces the trajectory of net government spending. In that case, equity markets could come under pressure, but longer maturity bonds could benefit. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>154false860fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-economy-global-challenges-drive-productivity-investment--75654694----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation Analyst. 
Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Ravi Shanker: And on this special episode of the podcast, we discuss what we see as The Great Productivity Race, that's poised to accelerate. It's Tuesday, May 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ravi Shanker: The transition away from globalization to a decentralized multipolar world means companies' ability to source labor globally is contracting. This narrowing of geographical options for companies is making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. But there is a potential positive, a rebound in productivity which has been anemic for more than a decade. Ravi Shanker: So Diego, what's the connection that you see between the slowing or even reversal of globalization and productivity trends? 
Diego Anzoategui: If you think about it, the decision to upgrade technologies and increase productivity is like any other type of capital investment. Firms decide to improve their production technologies, either to deal with scarce  factors of production or to meet increasing demand. COVID 19 was a negative shock to the labor supply in the U.S., and there is still a long road ahead to reach pre-pandemic levels. On top of that, we think that slowing globalization trends will likely limit labor supply further, causing real wages to increase, and keeping firms under pressure to improve productivity to protect margins. But we think firms will boost productivity investment in the medium term once business sentiment picks up again. And we are past the slowdown in economic activity that we expect in 2023 and into 2024. Expectations are key because the decision to innovate is forward looking, adopting new technologies takes time and the benefits of innovation come with a lag. 
Diego Anzoategui: Ravi, as a result of COVID and the geopolitical uncertainties from the war in Ukraine, companies have been dealing with a number of significant challenges recently, from supply chain disruptions to worker shortages and energy security. How are companies addressing these hurdles and what kinds of investments do they need to make in order to boost productivity? 
Ravi Shanker: Look, it's a good question and certainly a focus area for virtually every company anywhere in the world. The last five years have been very challenging and a lot of those challenges have revolved around labor availability and labor cost in particular. So I think companies are approaching this with two broad buckets or two broad focus areas. One is, I think they are trying to reinvest in their labor force. I think for too long companies' labor force was viewed as sort of a source of free money, if you will, an area to cut costs and gain efficiency. But I think companies have realized that, hey, we need to reinvest in our workforce, we need to raise their wages, improve their benefits, give them better working conditions, and make them a true resource that will obviously contribute to the success of the company over time. And the second bucket they're looking at is just broader long term investments in things like automation and productivity technologies, because many of these labor trends are structural, that are demographic issues, that are geopolitical issues, that are not going to reverse anytime soon. So you do need to look for an alternative, particularly in areas where, you know, jobs that people don't want to take on or where the value added from a labor is not as good as automating it. That's where companies are highly focused on the next generation of tools, whether that's automation or A.I. and machine learning. 
Diego Anzoategui: It seems that A.I. technology holds great promise when it comes to raising productivity growth. In fact, our analysts here at Morgan Stanley believe that A.I. focused productivity revolution could be more global than the PC revolution. What is your thinking around this? 
Ravi Shanker: Look, I think it's still too early to tell what impact A.I. will have on labor productivity as a whole and the impact of labor at corporations around the world. Take, for example, my sector of freight transportation. We don't make anything, but we move everybody else's stuff. And so by nature of freight transportation, is a very process driven industry and process driven industries by nature kind of iterate to find more efficiency and better ways of doing things, and that's where a lot of these new productivity tools can be very helpful. At the same time, it is also a very labor intensive industry that has some significant demographic challenges, whether it's a truck driver shortage, the inability to find rail workers, warehouse workers on the airline side of the house, the inability to find pilots and so the training and the desire of people to do this job over time may be changing. And that's where something like, you know, automation or A.I. tools can be very, very helpful going forward. However, I think this is still very early innings and we will see how this evolves in the coming years. Ravi Shanker: So finally, Diego, what is your outlook for the US labor market and wages over the next 5 to 10 years and how persistent do you think this productivity race is going to be? 
Diego Anzoategui: We think that a persistently lower labor supply should gradually boost wages. So far nominal wages have increased less than inflation, but we believe the modest increase in nominal wages is simply evidence of typically sluggish response of wages to price shocks. We expect real wages to pick up ahead and regain lost ground, and without this catch up in wages we leave firms to raise prices rather than upgrade their technologies. Evidence of strong price passthrough in the U.S. is limited and structural changes have made wage price spirals less relevant. 
Ravi Shanker: Diego, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. 
Diego Anzoategui: Great speaking with you Ravi.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/S-Xc60ctnYd56eEpRLiC6L_wDWD4wMXNXnp38C3omoUTue, 02 May 2023 21:50:06 +0000gtyWith the trend toward a multipolar world accelerating, companies are finding that investing in productivity may help protect margins. Ravi Shanker and Diego Anzoategui discuss. ----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation Analyst. 
Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Ravi Shanker: And on this special episode of the podcast, we discuss what we see as The Great Productivity Race, that's poised to accelerate. It's Tuesday, May 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ravi Shanker: The transition away from globalization to a decentralized multipolar world means companies' ability to source labor globally is contracting. This narrowing of geographical options for companies is making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. But there is a potential positive, a rebound in productivity which has been anemic for more than a decade. Ravi Shanker: So Diego, what's the connection that you see between the slowing or even reversal of globalization and productivity trends? 
Diego Anzoategui: If you think about it, the decision to upgrade technologies and increase productivity is like any other type of capital investment. Firms decide to improve their production technologies, either to deal with scarce  factors of production or to meet increasing demand. COVID 19 was a negative shock to the labor supply in the U.S., and there is still a long road ahead to reach pre-pandemic levels. On top of that, we think that slowing globalization trends will likely limit labor supply further, causing real wages to increase, and keeping firms under pressure to improve productivity to protect margins. But we think firms will boost productivity investment in the medium term once business sentiment picks up again. And we are past the slowdown in economic activity that we expect in 2023 and into 2024. Expectations are key because the decision to innovate is forward looking, adopting new technologies takes time and the benefits of innovation come with a lag. 
Diego Anzoategui: Ravi, as a result of COVID and the geopolitical uncertainties from the war in Ukraine, companies have been dealing with a number of significant challenges recently, from supply chain disruptions to worker shortages and energy security. How are companies addressing these hurdles and what kinds of investments do they need to make in order to boost productivity? 
Ravi Shanker: Look, it's a good question and certainly a focus area for virtually every company anywhere in the world. The last five years have been very challenging and a lot of those challenges have revolved around labor availability and labor cost in particular. So I think companies are approaching this with two broad buckets or two broad focus areas. One is, I think they are trying to reinvest in their labor force. I think for too long companies' labor force was viewed as sort of a source of free money, if you will, an area to cut costs and gain efficiency. But I think companies have realized that, hey, we need to reinvest in our workforce, we need to raise their wages, improve their benefits, give them better working conditions, and make them a true resource that will obviously contribute to the success of the company over time. And the second bucket they're looking at is just broader long term investments in things like automation and productivity technologies, because many of these labor trends are structural, that are demographic issues, that are geopolitical issues, that are not going to reverse anytime soon. So you do need to look for an alternative, particularly in areas where, you know, jobs that people don't want to take on or where the value added from a labor is not as good as automating it. That's where companies are highly focused on the next generation of tools, whether that's automation or A.I. and machine learning. 370false859fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-liquidity-regional-banks-and-potential-regulation--75654876----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of  perspectives, I'll be talking about the ongoing tensions in the regional banking sector. It's Monday, May 1st at 2 p.m. in New York. 
At the outset, I would note that the news we woke up to this morning about JP Morgan's acquisition of First Republic is an important development. As Betsy Graseck, our large cap banks equity analyst noted, as part of this transaction JP Morgan will assume all $92 billion remaining deposits at First Republic, including the $30 billion of large bank deposits which will be repaid in full post consolidation. We believe that this is credit positive for the large cap bank group, as investors have been concerned that large banks would have to take losses against their $30 billion in deposits in the event First Republic was put into FDIC receivership. 
That said, we will be watching closely a key metric of demand for liquidity in the system, the borrowings from the Fed by the banks. The last two weeks saw consecutive increases in the borrowings from the Fed facilities by the banks, the discount window and the Bank Term Funding Program. That the banking system needed to continue to borrow at such high and increasing levels suggested that liquidity pressures remained and may have actually been increasing over the past two weeks. In light of the developments over the weekend, it will be useful to see how these borrowings from the Fed change when this week's data are released on Thursday. 
Last Friday, the Federal Reserve Board announced the results from the review of the supervision and regulation of the Silicon Valley Bank, led by Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr. The regulatory changes proposed are broadly in line with our expectations. The most important highlights from a macro perspective include the emphasis on banks management of interest rate risk and liquidity risk. Further, the report calls for a review of stress testing requirements. The Fed is now proposing to extend the rules that already apply to large banks now to smaller banks, banks with $100 billion to $700 billion in assets. These changes will be proposed, debated, reviewed and these changes will not be effective for a few years because of the standard notice and common periods in the rulemaking process. 
What are the market implications? We think that the recent events in the regional banking sector will cause banks to shorten assumptions on deposit durations, while potential regulatory changes would likely impact the amount of duration banks can take on their asset side. This is a steepener for rates, negative for longer duration securities such as agency mortgage backed securities and a dampener for the bank demand for senior tranches of securitized credit. While the implementation of these rules will take time, markets would be proactive. In the near-term, the challenges in the regional banks sector will likely result in lower credit formation and raise the risk of a sharper economic contraction.  
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Q4ps6e7p3Yv7MjxT1rfecI5jhOjpNwn0wT_oq0SOxO4Mon, 01 May 2023 21:55:00 +0000gtyAs the banking sector is in the news again, investors wonder about an increase in borrowing from the Fed and possible restrictions on the horizon. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of  perspectives, I'll be talking about the ongoing tensions in the regional banking sector. It's Monday, May 1st at 2 p.m. in New York. 
At the outset, I would note that the news we woke up to this morning about JP Morgan's acquisition of First Republic is an important development. As Betsy Graseck, our large cap banks equity analyst noted, as part of this transaction JP Morgan will assume all $92 billion remaining deposits at First Republic, including the $30 billion of large bank deposits which will be repaid in full post consolidation. We believe that this is credit positive for the large cap bank group, as investors have been concerned that large banks would have to take losses against their $30 billion in deposits in the event First Republic was put into FDIC receivership. 
That said, we will be watching closely a key metric of demand for liquidity in the system, the borrowings from the Fed by the banks. The last two weeks saw consecutive increases in the borrowings from the Fed facilities by the banks, the discount window and the Bank Term Funding Program. That the banking system needed to continue to borrow at such high and increasing levels suggested that liquidity pressures remained and may have actually been increasing over the past two weeks. In light of the developments over the weekend, it will be useful to see how these borrowings from the Fed change when this week's data are released on Thursday. 
Last Friday, the Federal Reserve Board announced the results from the review of the supervision and regulation of the Silicon Valley Bank, led by Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr. The regulatory changes proposed are broadly in line with our expectations. The most important highlights from a macro perspective include the emphasis on banks management of interest rate risk and liquidity risk. Further, the report calls for a review of stress testing requirements. The Fed is now proposing to extend the rules that already apply to large banks now to smaller banks, banks with $100 billion to $700 billion in assets. These changes will be proposed, debated, reviewed and these changes will not be effective for a few years because of the standard notice and common periods in the rulemaking process. 
What are the market implications? We think that the recent events in the regional banking sector will cause banks to shorten assumptions on deposit durations, while potential regulatory changes would likely impact the amount of duration banks can take on their asset side. This is a steepener for rates, negative for longer duration securities such as agency mortgage backed securities and a dampener for the bank demand for senior tranches of securitized credit. While the implementation of these rules will take time, markets would be proactive. In the near-term, the challenges in the regional banks sector will likely result in lower credit formation and raise the risk of a sharper economic contraction.  
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>190false858fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ed-stanley-the-risky-path-to-a-multipolar-world--75654923----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the complex issue of security in the multipolar world. 
For some time, the world has been trending away from a globalized, unipolar structure characterized by stability and mutual cooperation. And in its place, we've been moving towards a multipolar structure, more complex, more decentralized. And this theme is one that Morgan Stanley's Global Research Department has been exploring deeply over the last three years. 
And the time is right to revisit that theme now because it's accelerating. And we see two plausible outcomes from here, a de-risking or a decoupling, lie ahead for companies. Our base case is still for a gradual phased de-risking between regions and companies are already in the process of facing up to that new reality, by diversifying their highly concentrated supply chains. But the possibility of a full and disorderly decoupling scenario now warrants more serious consideration. It's no longer the tail risk it was when we first addressed the theme three years ago. 
What has acted as a more recent accelerant to this trend is the extent of top down policy measures we've witnessed over recent years. The number of such policies designed to restrict trade have increased fivefold in the last five years, as measured by the UN. And these restrictions have covered everything from rare earth battery minerals, to grain exports and solar panel imports, to specialist machinery for microchip production. 
Add to this the ever greater incentives to reshore supply chains and critical components back to the U.S. and Europe, in the form of the CHIPS Act, the U.S. IRA and Europe's response to it, and it becomes clearer why this multipolar world and de-risking theme continue to gather pace. After all, Europe's market share of critical inputs and technologies stand at about 6% versus China's at over 50%. And that scale of imbalance will take time and substantial resources to even partially reverse. 
And while this is a complex theme with many moving parts, there is one relatively simple conclusion. Whether the world continues to gradually de-risk or more abruptly decouple, greater spending on security and critical infrastructure will be essential. 
Consequently, the industrial and tech sectors will likely need to allocate the most capital to achieve this de-risking process. But we also see promise for more than 80 companies exposed to the critical infrastructure buildout, which should see higher demand and should be able to generate strong return on capital in the process. These are the types of companies that should be well-placed, as this theme evolves. Our new security framework suggests that space infrastructure, artificial intelligence and batteries may be areas of greatest focus for the markets going forward. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zZGbWRihgF_jeg6K20PydWtMP9LY-CSDGGaYjXVluioFri, 28 Apr 2023 20:30:57 +0000gtyWith the world moving towards a more complex and decentralized multipolar structure, how will technology and infrastructure markets fare going forward? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the complex issue of security in the multipolar world. 
For some time, the world has been trending away from a globalized, unipolar structure characterized by stability and mutual cooperation. And in its place, we've been moving towards a multipolar structure, more complex, more decentralized. And this theme is one that Morgan Stanley's Global Research Department has been exploring deeply over the last three years. 
And the time is right to revisit that theme now because it's accelerating. And we see two plausible outcomes from here, a de-risking or a decoupling, lie ahead for companies. Our base case is still for a gradual phased de-risking between regions and companies are already in the process of facing up to that new reality, by diversifying their highly concentrated supply chains. But the possibility of a full and disorderly decoupling scenario now warrants more serious consideration. It's no longer the tail risk it was when we first addressed the theme three years ago. 
What has acted as a more recent accelerant to this trend is the extent of top down policy measures we've witnessed over recent years. The number of such policies designed to restrict trade have increased fivefold in the last five years, as measured by the UN. And these restrictions have covered everything from rare earth battery minerals, to grain exports and solar panel imports, to specialist machinery for microchip production. 
Add to this the ever greater incentives to reshore supply chains and critical components back to the U.S. and Europe, in the form of the CHIPS Act, the U.S. IRA and Europe's response to it, and it becomes clearer why this multipolar world and de-risking theme continue to gather pace. After all, Europe's market share of critical inputs and technologies stand at about 6% versus China's at over 50%. And that scale of imbalance will take time and substantial resources to even partially reverse. 
And while this is a complex theme with many moving parts, there is one relatively simple conclusion. Whether the world continues to gradually de-risk or more abruptly decouple, greater spending on security and critical infrastructure will be essential. 
Consequently, the industrial and tech sectors will likely need to allocate the most capital to achieve this de-risking process. But we also see promise for more than 80 companies exposed to the critical infrastructure buildout, which should see higher demand and should be able to generate strong return on capital in the process. These are the types of companies that should be well-placed, as this theme evolves. Our new security framework suggests that space infrastructure, artificial intelligence and batteries may be areas of greatest focus for the markets going forward. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>193false857fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/matthew-hornbach-the-return-of-government-bonds--75654837----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Thursday, April 27th at 2 p.m. in New York. 
Over the past 2 years, government bonds have been less than desirable investments. This year, the inflation phenomena came out of hibernation and appears unwilling to go away anytime soon. 
In 2022, one of the worst years on record, U.S. Treasuries delivered a total return of -12.5%. Securities that offer fixed interest payments like government bonds tend to lose value when inflation rises, because the future purchasing power of those cash flows declines. But that doesn't always happen, of course, and certainly not to this degree. 
For most of the past 20 years, government bonds dealt reasonably well with positive inflation rates, even if those rates were rising. But last year was different, for two reasons primarily. First, inflation rose at a rate we haven't seen since the late 1970s. And second, central banks responded aggressively by tightening monetary policies. 
How have these factors changed so far this year? Well, inflation has started to moderate both in terms of consumer prices and wages. And in response, central banks have become less aggressive in their recent policy maneuvering. Investors have also benefited from the clarity on the speed with which central banks have moved and how fast they may move in the future. This would seem like good news for government bond returns, and so far it has been. However, at the same time, investor nerves remain frayed, even if less so than last year. But why? 
First, investors remain worried about inflation, but for different reasons than last year. Throughout 2022 concern focused on the speed with which inflation was rising and just how high it would go. This year, however, concerns remain around how far inflation will fall, a process known as disinflation. 
The consensus view amongst investors is that inflation will remain above the Fed's 2% goal unless the Fed engineers a deep recession. And to do so, the Fed will either have to tighten monetary policy even further or keep monetary policy tight for an extended period of time. Neither scenario seems particularly supportive of government bond returns. 
Second, investors are worried about the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. The concern isn't so much that the government will default on its debt obligations, although that is a possibility. Rather, it's more about whether the government will have to delay paying other obligations, such as federal employee salaries or Social Security. A cessation of those payments, even if temporary, could slow economic activity in the United States. And even if the debt ceiling is raised in time, material risks to regional banking institutions still remain. 
Putting it all together, the higher yields available in the government bond markets and the increasing risk to economic activity, including those from the lagged effects of monetary policy tightening, leave us hopeful on the future returns of the asset class. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hzBF5gZM_G1OkxrLbXMTNW4O4rMkzFit7EQRX_JH424Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:33:11 +0000gtyWhile government bonds have been less than desirable investments for the past two years, the tide may be turning on bond returns. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Thursday, April 27th at 2 p.m. in New York. 
Over the past 2 years, government bonds have been less than desirable investments. This year, the inflation phenomena came out of hibernation and appears unwilling to go away anytime soon. 
In 2022, one of the worst years on record, U.S. Treasuries delivered a total return of -12.5%. Securities that offer fixed interest payments like government bonds tend to lose value when inflation rises, because the future purchasing power of those cash flows declines. But that doesn't always happen, of course, and certainly not to this degree. 
For most of the past 20 years, government bonds dealt reasonably well with positive inflation rates, even if those rates were rising. But last year was different, for two reasons primarily. First, inflation rose at a rate we haven't seen since the late 1970s. And second, central banks responded aggressively by tightening monetary policies. 
How have these factors changed so far this year? Well, inflation has started to moderate both in terms of consumer prices and wages. And in response, central banks have become less aggressive in their recent policy maneuvering. Investors have also benefited from the clarity on the speed with which central banks have moved and how fast they may move in the future. This would seem like good news for government bond returns, and so far it has been. However, at the same time, investor nerves remain frayed, even if less so than last year. But why? 
First, investors remain worried about inflation, but for different reasons than last year. Throughout 2022 concern focused on the speed with which inflation was rising and just how high it would go. This year, however, concerns remain around how far inflation will fall, a process known as disinflation. 
The consensus view amongst investors is that inflation will remain above the Fed's 2% goal unless the Fed engineers a deep recession. And to do so, the Fed will either have to tighten monetary policy even further or keep monetary policy tight for an extended period of time. Neither scenario seems particularly supportive of government bond returns. 
Second, investors are worried about the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. The concern isn't so much that the government will default on its debt obligations, although that is a possibility. Rather, it's more about whether the government will have to delay paying other obligations, such as federal employee salaries or Social Security. A cessation of those payments, even if temporary, could slow economic activity in the United States. And even if the debt ceiling is raised in time, material risks to regional banking institutions still remain. 
Putting it all together, the higher yields available in the government bond markets and the increasing risk to economic activity, including those from the lagged effects of monetary policy tightening, leave us hopeful on the future returns of the asset class. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. ]]>203false856fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-great-productivity-race--75654834----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the great productivity race and the multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 26th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Client questions this week have focused on the U.S. debt ceiling, as Republicans in the House of Representatives work to pass their version of a debt ceiling raise. But we think this bill is just one step in a longer process, so we'll return to this topic when there's something more concrete to say about the ultimate resolution and its market implications. 
Stepping away from that topic gives us the opportunity to focus on a longer term trend impacting the markets, something our research team is calling the Great Productivity Race. It's the idea that U.S. multinational companies in particular will have to spend to develop and integrate new technologies, including artificial intelligence , into their production in order to keep up output. Why is that? In part, it has to do with one of our big three themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. 
In a multipolar world, where the U.S. is looking to safeguard advantages and technologies and key areas of production, the labor pool for U.S. multinationals is contracting. Efforts to re-friend, and near-shore critical industries have strong political support. But this narrows the geographical options for companies making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. And that exacerbates a U.S. economic challenge already present for several reasons. That means companies are likely to invest in improving their own productivity through technology. And as our economists point out, there's historical precedent for this. 
For one academic study, the great Mississippi Flood of 1927 led many people to emigrate from some adjacent counties. Those areas modernized agricultural production much faster than others. Another academic study shows that conversely, metro areas that had a significant inflow of low skilled workers in the eighties and nineties were slow to adopt automated production processes. So investors need to know that some corporate sectors will be able to handle this well and others will be challenged. Those best positioned are ones less reliant on labor and with ample resources to invest in productivity. Those more challenged rely heavily on labor and have less resources on their balance sheets.  
Our colleagues in equity research are digging into which sectors fit into which category, and in a future podcast we’ll share with you what they're learning. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/yIqSQMc7xM15QiVTHuKufq7fJru3rhqFvvfCuoqe9EsWed, 26 Apr 2023 19:30:26 +0000gtyAs multinational companies look towards a future of higher innovation costs and a shrinking labor pool, some corporate sectors may fare better than others in the multipolar world. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the great productivity race and the multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 26th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Client questions this week have focused on the U.S. debt ceiling, as Republicans in the House of Representatives work to pass their version of a debt ceiling raise. But we think this bill is just one step in a longer process, so we'll return to this topic when there's something more concrete to say about the ultimate resolution and its market implications. 
Stepping away from that topic gives us the opportunity to focus on a longer term trend impacting the markets, something our research team is calling the Great Productivity Race. It's the idea that U.S. multinational companies in particular will have to spend to develop and integrate new technologies, including artificial intelligence , into their production in order to keep up output. Why is that? In part, it has to do with one of our big three themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. 
In a multipolar world, where the U.S. is looking to safeguard advantages and technologies and key areas of production, the labor pool for U.S. multinationals is contracting. Efforts to re-friend, and near-shore critical industries have strong political support. But this narrows the geographical options for companies making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. And that exacerbates a U.S. economic challenge already present for several reasons. That means companies are likely to invest in improving their own productivity through technology. And as our economists point out, there's historical precedent for this. 
For one academic study, the great Mississippi Flood of 1927 led many people to emigrate from some adjacent counties. Those areas modernized agricultural production much faster than others. Another academic study shows that conversely, metro areas that had a significant inflow of low skilled workers in the eighties and nineties were slow to adopt automated production processes. So investors need to know that some corporate sectors will be able to handle this well and others will be challenged. Those best positioned are ones less reliant on labor and with ample resources to invest in productivity. Those more challenged rely heavily on labor and have less resources on their balance sheets.  
Our colleagues in equity research are digging into which sectors fit into which category, and in a future podcast we’ll share with you what they're learning. ]]>163false855fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-the-u-s-dollar-and-cross-asset-portfolios--75654772----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, April 25th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The U.S. dollar has fallen about 11% from its highs last September. We think a majority of investors expect that weakness to continue, driven by factors ranging from expensive valuations to potential slowing of the U.S. economy, to the view that a more fragmented geopolitical backdrop will lead to less trade and transactions in U.S. dollars. 
In contrast, our foreign exchange strategists think it's more likely that the dollar strengthens. I want to discuss the idea of dollar strength from a larger lens and what it could mean for a cross-asset portfolio. 
For a multi-asset investor, the greatest appeal of the U.S. dollar comes from its diversification. At present, it is one of the few positive carry diversifiers, which is another way of saying that it's one of the few assets out there that pays you while also acting as a portfolio hedge, thanks to the dollar generally moving in the opposite direction of riskier assets like stocks or high yield bonds. 
Importantly, that diversification from the U.S. dollar makes a lot of intuitive sense to us. We think the dollar could do well if U.S. growth is very hot, as investors are drawn to even higher U.S. rates under that scenario, or if growth is very weak as investors seek out safety and liquidity. These extremes in growth, we think, represent two of the key risks, for riskier assets. In contrast, the dollar probably does weaken if growth is down the middle and a so-called soft landing for the economy. In this case, modest Fed easing without the fear of recession would likely cause investors to seek out cheaper, more volatile currencies. But this soft landing scenario is probably the best outcome for the riskier other parts of one's portfolio, allowing the dollar to provide diversification as it zigs while other assets zag. 
But what about the dollar's higher valuation or the threat of geopolitical shifts? Well, on valuation, our work suggests that it tends to be a pretty weak predictor of foreign exchange returns over the next 6 to 12 months, for better or for worse. And on geopolitical shifts, the dollar remains the dominant currency of global trade. And importantly, over the last year, a year that’s contained quite a bit of geopolitical uncertainty, it's continued to show diversification benefits. 
In summary, many investors expect U.S. dollar weakness to continue. Thanks to its high yield and powerful potential for diversification, we think it's more likely to appreciate. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/b5Xpj2pq4iCt10ngoJ3BSgqm6_VXUkb1i4J76HSPblYTue, 25 Apr 2023 19:27:53 +0000gtyWith many investors predicting the U.S. dollar to continue to weaken, its potential for diversification and high yields may indicate otherwise. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, April 25th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The U.S. dollar has fallen about 11% from its highs last September. We think a majority of investors expect that weakness to continue, driven by factors ranging from expensive valuations to potential slowing of the U.S. economy, to the view that a more fragmented geopolitical backdrop will lead to less trade and transactions in U.S. dollars. 
In contrast, our foreign exchange strategists think it's more likely that the dollar strengthens. I want to discuss the idea of dollar strength from a larger lens and what it could mean for a cross-asset portfolio. 
For a multi-asset investor, the greatest appeal of the U.S. dollar comes from its diversification. At present, it is one of the few positive carry diversifiers, which is another way of saying that it's one of the few assets out there that pays you while also acting as a portfolio hedge, thanks to the dollar generally moving in the opposite direction of riskier assets like stocks or high yield bonds. 
Importantly, that diversification from the U.S. dollar makes a lot of intuitive sense to us. We think the dollar could do well if U.S. growth is very hot, as investors are drawn to even higher U.S. rates under that scenario, or if growth is very weak as investors seek out safety and liquidity. These extremes in growth, we think, represent two of the key risks, for riskier assets. In contrast, the dollar probably does weaken if growth is down the middle and a so-called soft landing for the economy. In this case, modest Fed easing without the fear of recession would likely cause investors to seek out cheaper, more volatile currencies. But this soft landing scenario is probably the best outcome for the riskier other parts of one's portfolio, allowing the dollar to provide diversification as it zigs while other assets zag. 
But what about the dollar's higher valuation or the threat of geopolitical shifts? Well, on valuation, our work suggests that it tends to be a pretty weak predictor of foreign exchange returns over the next 6 to 12 months, for better or for worse. And on geopolitical shifts, the dollar remains the dominant currency of global trade. And importantly, over the last year, a year that’s contained quite a bit of geopolitical uncertainty, it's continued to show diversification benefits. 
In summary, many investors expect U.S. dollar weakness to continue. Thanks to its high yield and powerful potential for diversification, we think it's more likely to appreciate. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>180false854fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sustainability-decarbonization-in-the-steel-industry--75654778----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Alain Gabriel: And I’m Alain Gabriel, Head of Europe Metals and Mining Research. 
Carlos De Alba: I am Carlos De Alba, Head of the Americas Basic Materials Team. 
Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the implications of decarbonization in the steel industry. It's Monday, April 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Alain Gabriel: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Stephen Byrd: Achieving net zero is a top priority as the world moves into a new phase of climate urgency, and global decarbonization is one of the three big themes for 2023 for Morgan Stanley research. Within this broader theme, we believe that decarbonizing steelmaking has the potential to trigger the biggest transformation of the steel industry in decades. 
Stephen Byrd: Alain to set the stage and just give our listeners a sense of the impact of steelmaking, just how much does steel contribute to global CO2 emissions? 
Alain Gabriel: Thank you, Stephen. In fact, the steel industry emits around 3.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. And this enormous carbon footprint puts the industry at the heart of the climate debate, and public policy is rapidly evolving towards stricter emissions reductions targets, but also shorter implementation timelines. So for instance, in Europe, which is leading this transformation by simultaneously introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is otherwise known as CBAM and gradually reducing free CO2 allowances until their full removal by 2034.  
Stephen Byrd: So, Alain, given the size of Steel's contributions to emissions, it should come as no surprise that decarbonizing steel would likely really reconfigure the entire supply chain, including hydrogen, renewable energy, high quality iron ore and equipment providers. So, Alain, given this impending paradigm shift, what is the potential impact on upstream resources? 
Alain Gabriel: Yes, the steel value chain is collectively exploring various ways to reduce carbon emissions, whether it was miners, steelmakers or even capital equipment providers. However, we think the most promising path from today's perspective appears to be via the hydrogen direct reduced iron electric arc furnaces process, which is also known as H2DRIEAF in short. Admittedly, if we were to have this conversation again in three years, this conclusion might be different. But back to the H2DRIEAF process, it promises to curb emissions by 99% by replacing carbon from coal with hydrogen to release the oxygen molecules from iron ore and convert it to pure iron. The catch is that this process is resource intensive and would face significant supply constraints and bottlenecks, which in a way is positive for upstream pricing.So if we were to hypothetically convert the entire industry in Europe today, we will need more than 55% of Europe's entire production of green hydrogen last year. And we'll also need more than double the global production of DRI grade pellets, which is a niche high grade iron ore product. 
Stephen Byrd: Alain, you believe that steel economics in Europe is really at an inflection point right now, and given that Europe will likely see the biggest disruption when it comes to the green steel transformation, I wondered if you could give us a snapshot of the current situation in Europe and of your outlook there.  
Alain Gabriel: Should steel mills choose to adopt the H2DRIEAF proccess, they would need to build out an entire infrastructure associated with it, and we detail each component of that chain in our note. But in aggregate, we estimate that the average capital intensity would be approximately $1,200 per ton, and this excludes the build up of renewable electricity. So on OpEx, green hydrogen and renewable electricity will constitute more than 50% of production costs and this will lead to wide disparities between regions. So the economics of this transformation will only work, in our view, under effective policy support to level the playing field. And this would include a combination of grants, subsidies and carbon border taxes. Fortunately, the EU policy is moving in that direction but is lagging the United States. 
Stephen Byrd: So, Carlos, as we heard from Alain, Europe is leading this green steel transformation. But at the same time, the U.S. has the greenest steel footprint and is benefiting from some relative advantages vis a vis Europe and the rest of the world. Could you walk us through these advantages and the competitive gap between the U.S. and other regions? 
Carlos De Alba: Yeah, I mean, definitely the U.S. is already very well positioned. And what drives this position of strength is the fact that about 70% of the steel production in the U.S. is made out of electrical furnace, and that emits roughly around half a ton of CO2 per ton of steel, which is significantly better than the average of 1.7 tons per ton of steel and the blast furnace route average of around 2 tons per ton of steel. So that is really the genesis of the better position that the U.S. has in terms of emissions. Another way of looking at it is the U.S. produces around 6% of the global crude steel and it only makes around 2% of the overall steel emissions in the world. 
Stephen Byrd: That's a good way of laying it out, Carlos. It's interesting, in the U.S., the cost of electricity being relatively low certainly does help with the cost of making steel as well. I wanted to shift over to China and India, which are responsible for two thirds of global steel emissions. How are they positioned for this green steel transition? 
Carlos De Alba: Yeah, I mean, these two countries are significant contributors to the emissions in the world. And when you take the average emission per ton of steel produced in India, it's around 2.4 tons and in China it's around 1.8 tons. And the reason being is that they have a disproportional majority of their steel made under the blast furnace route that, as I alluded to previously, emits more CO2 per ton of steel than other routes like the electrical furnaces. So it's going to take some time definitely for them to reposition their massive steel industry steel capacity and reduce their emissions. We need to keep in mind that these two countries in particular have to weigh not only the emissions that their steel sector provides, but also the economic implications of such an important sector. They contribute to jobs, they contribute to economic activity, they provide the raw material for their infrastructure and the development of their cities and their urbanization trends. So for them, it is not necessarily just straightforward a matter of reducing their emissions, but they need to weigh it and make sure that they have a balance between economic growth, urbanization, infrastructure buildup and obviously the environment. 
Carlos De Alba: So Stephen, given the scale of the global steel industry, what are some of the broader sustainability implications of the shift towards green steel production? How do you view this transition through the lens of your environmental, social and governance or ESG framework? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah Carlos as Alain started the scope of emissions from the steel industry certainly is worthy of attention. We think a lot about the supply chain required to provide the clean energy and electrolyzers necessary to achieve this transformation that you both have laid out. Now, green hydrogen supply in particular is limited and will take some time to ramp up. So while technically feasible, there are numerous hurdles to overcome to make widespread green hydrogen use a reality. We do expect the ramp up to be gradual. A lot of capital is being deployed, but this will take time. Now, on clean energy, I think it's a bit more straightforward. The cost of clean energy has been dropping for years, just as a frame of reference in the United States from 2010 to 2020, the cost of clean energy dropped annually by about 15% per year, which is quite remarkable. Now, the levelized cost of electricity from renewables is lower in the US and China relative to Europe. So we think a lot about the growth in clean energy. We do think that the capital will be there. The cost of clean energy we believe will continue to drop. So that is a hopeful development that over time should result in a lower and lower cost for green steel. 
Stephen Byrd: Alain, Carlos, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Alain Gabriel: Great speaking with you both.
Carlos De Alba: Thank you very much. I enjoy your discussions as well. 
Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ch8Iw7i-JbT5mOp8Rs_vKkydm0_Snvvj7Qxw8ShzOiEMon, 24 Apr 2023 22:22:30 +0000gtyThe drive to reduce carbon emissions could trigger the biggest transformation of the steel industry in decades. Global Head of Sustainability Research, Stephen Byrd, Head of European Metals and Mining Research, Alain Gabriel, and Head of the Americas...----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Alain Gabriel: And I’m Alain Gabriel, Head of Europe Metals and Mining Research. 
Carlos De Alba: I am Carlos De Alba, Head of the Americas Basic Materials Team. 
Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the implications of decarbonization in the steel industry. It's Monday, April 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Alain Gabriel: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Stephen Byrd: Achieving net zero is a top priority as the world moves into a new phase of climate urgency, and global decarbonization is one of the three big themes for 2023 for Morgan Stanley research. Within this broader theme, we believe that decarbonizing steelmaking has the potential to trigger the biggest transformation of the steel industry in decades. 
Stephen Byrd: Alain to set the stage and just give our listeners a sense of the impact of steelmaking, just how much does steel contribute to global CO2 emissions? 
Alain Gabriel: Thank you, Stephen. In fact, the steel industry emits around 3.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. And this enormous carbon footprint puts the industry at the heart of the climate debate, and public policy is rapidly evolving towards stricter emissions reductions targets, but also shorter implementation timelines. So for instance, in Europe, which is leading this transformation by simultaneously introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is otherwise known as CBAM and gradually reducing free CO2 allowances until their full removal by 2034.  
Stephen Byrd: So, Alain, given the size of Steel's contributions to emissions, it should come as no surprise that decarbonizing steel would likely really reconfigure the entire supply chain, including hydrogen, renewable energy, high quality iron ore and equipment providers. So, Alain, given this impending paradigm shift, what is the potential impact on upstream resources? 
Alain Gabriel: Yes, the steel value chain is collectively exploring various ways to reduce carbon emissions, whether it was miners, steelmakers or even capital equipment providers. However, we think the most promising path from today's perspective appears to be via the hydrogen direct reduced iron electric arc furnaces process, which is also known as H2DRIEAF in short. Admittedly, if we were to have this conversation again in three years, this conclusion might be different. But back to the H2DRIEAF process, it promises to curb emissions by 99% by replacing carbon from coal with hydrogen to release the oxygen molecules from iron ore and convert it to pure iron. The catch is that this process is resource intensive and would face significant supply constraints and bottlenecks, which in a way is positive for upstream pricing.So if we were to hypothetically convert the entire industry in Europe today, we will need more than 55% of Europe's entire production of green hydrogen last year. And we'll also need more than double the global production of DRI grade pellets, which is a niche high grade iron ore product. 
Stephen Byrd: Alain, you believe that steel economics in Europe is really at an inflection point right now, and given that Europe will likely see the biggest disruption when it comes to the green steel transformation, I wondered if you could give us a snapshot of the current situation in Europe and of your outlook there.  
Alain Gabriel: Should steel mills choose to adopt the H2DRIEAF proccess, they would need to build out an entire infrastructure associated with it, and we detail each component of that...]]>510false853fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-what-is-behind-equity-market-strength--75654814----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, April 21st at 2 p.m. in London. 
Meeting with investors over the last several weeks, there's one question above all others that seems to be on people's mind. In the face of slowing growth, tightening policy, banking sector stresses and uninspiring valuations, why are markets, especially equity markets, so resilient? 
Like many things in the market, there is no one reason, and it's also impossible to know for sure. But we have some suspicions about what is and isn't behind the strength and what that means going forward. 
One trio of factors rolled out to explain this resiliency, is the idea that growth and earnings are holding up well, the Fed is once again injecting liquidity into the system, given recent banking sector challenges and investors are already so negative that the risks are well known. Yet each of these explanations seems to come up a little short. 
Global growth in the first quarter was better than expected, but markets should care more about the forward looking outlook, which looks set for deceleration, while estimates for corporate earnings have generally been falling throughout the year. While the Fed did provide extra liquidity given recent banking sector challenges, this looks very different from traditional quantitative easing, especially as the banks continue to tighten their lending activity. And while sentiment feels cautious, perhaps as evidenced by the popularity of this question, measures that try to quantify that fear have generally normalized quite a bit and look a lot closer to average than extreme. 
So what do we believe is going on? First, the stock market is often seen as a broad proxy for the economy or risk appetite, but in 2023 it's been unusually swayed by a small number of very large stocks in the U.S. and Europe. That still counts, of course, but it makes drawing broad conclusions about what the stock market is doing or saying a lot more difficult. Second, recent banking issues created an odd dynamic where markets could celebrate the possibility of easier central bank policy almost immediately, while the real economic impact of tighter lending standards arrives at some uncertain point in the future. That provides an immediate boost for markets, but the fundamental challenges of that tighter bank lending are still to come. 
Third, and just as important, the market tends to take a view that the end of central bank interest rate increases will be a positive. That is what the data says if you look across all hiking cycles since, say, 1980. But if you only look at times when the yield curve is inverted and the Fed has stopped hiking, like it is today, the picture looks a lot less rosy. 
Market resilience has likely had several drivers. But with measures of sentiment starting to look more balanced, growth still set to slow and markets already expecting easier central bank policy than our economists expect, we think the outlook remains challenging as we look beyond April. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on The Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/IAT-q6fsgkCnpJHtFIaGQi9T1UkhK2QmVxDEKHDEl3QFri, 21 Apr 2023 19:46:58 +0000gtyWith equity markets showing strength in the face of slowing growth, investors are left wondering how, or if, they can remain resilient. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Assets Strategist for...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, April 21st at 2 p.m. in London. 
Meeting with investors over the last several weeks, there's one question above all others that seems to be on people's mind. In the face of slowing growth, tightening policy, banking sector stresses and uninspiring valuations, why are markets, especially equity markets, so resilient? 
Like many things in the market, there is no one reason, and it's also impossible to know for sure. But we have some suspicions about what is and isn't behind the strength and what that means going forward. 
One trio of factors rolled out to explain this resiliency, is the idea that growth and earnings are holding up well, the Fed is once again injecting liquidity into the system, given recent banking sector challenges and investors are already so negative that the risks are well known. Yet each of these explanations seems to come up a little short. 
Global growth in the first quarter was better than expected, but markets should care more about the forward looking outlook, which looks set for deceleration, while estimates for corporate earnings have generally been falling throughout the year. While the Fed did provide extra liquidity given recent banking sector challenges, this looks very different from traditional quantitative easing, especially as the banks continue to tighten their lending activity. And while sentiment feels cautious, perhaps as evidenced by the popularity of this question, measures that try to quantify that fear have generally normalized quite a bit and look a lot closer to average than extreme. 
So what do we believe is going on? First, the stock market is often seen as a broad proxy for the economy or risk appetite, but in 2023 it's been unusually swayed by a small number of very large stocks in the U.S. and Europe. That still counts, of course, but it makes drawing broad conclusions about what the stock market is doing or saying a lot more difficult. Second, recent banking issues created an odd dynamic where markets could celebrate the possibility of easier central bank policy almost immediately, while the real economic impact of tighter lending standards arrives at some uncertain point in the future. That provides an immediate boost for markets, but the fundamental challenges of that tighter bank lending are still to come. 
Third, and just as important, the market tends to take a view that the end of central bank interest rate increases will be a positive. That is what the data says if you look across all hiking cycles since, say, 1980. But if you only look at times when the yield curve is inverted and the Fed has stopped hiking, like it is today, the picture looks a lot less rosy. 
Market resilience has likely had several drivers. But with measures of sentiment starting to look more balanced, growth still set to slow and markets already expecting easier central bank policy than our economists expect, we think the outlook remains challenging as we look beyond April. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on The Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>196false852fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mark-purcell-the-evolution-of-cancer-medicines--75654603----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. 
Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. 
Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. 
But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. 
Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. 
A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DoIf68u0_EFxdYoM1jODLBMyP0Mj3QIzP69WzhphUmMThu, 20 Apr 2023 20:34:18 +0000gty"Smart chemotherapy" could change the way that cancer is treated, potentially opening up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. 
Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. 
Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. 
But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. 
Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. 
A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>214false851fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-costs-of-a-multipolar-world--75654712----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S.-China relationship and the shift to a multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 19th, at 9 p.m. in New York. 
As listeners here already know, one of the big secular themes we've been tracking in recent years is the shift to a multipolar world, one where instead of having one major power base, the United States, you now have multiple power bases to organize global commerce around, including China and Europe. And recent interactions between China and Europe underscore this trend. For example, President Macron of France recently noted following a trip to China that Europe need not precisely follow the U.S. in how it approaches its relationship with China. While those comments have received pushback in other European capitals, it's fair to say that Europe, with its relatively more interconnected and trade-based economy, may have a more nuanced approach to China than its traditional ally in the U.S.. In any case, multiple power bases mean multiple challenges for companies doing business on a global scale. 
This trend is most noticeable to U.S. investors in large cap stocks, where multinationals continue to announce shifts in the geographic mix of their supply chains. While incremental, some of these changes seemed unfathomable just a few years ago. Take a recent Bloomberg News report about a major tech company that continues to shift, again incrementally, new production of some products out of China and into places like India. While the news report doesn't draw an explicit link between those moves and U.S. policy choices, we think such a story speaks to the influence of the non-tariff barriers that the U.S. has raised in recent years as it seeks to protect new and emerging tech industries in its jurisdiction that it deems important for national and economic security. This includes existing export restrictions and the potential for outbound investment restrictions, which could hamper companies seeking to build production facilities in countries like China, where sensitive technologies would either be produced or be part of the production process. 
To keep it simple, the multipolar world comes with new costs for many types of companies, and it's becoming clearer and clearer who will bear those costs and who will benefit from that spend. We've previously highlighted potential geographical beneficiaries like Mexico and India and will continue to check in with new work on specific sector impacts to keep you informed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8dt6dwNJa6OUThqlncqZ8NVf3mahNMRTDd-0WjPmsFAWed, 19 Apr 2023 19:11:46 +0000gtyRecent interactions between China and Europe signal a continuing reorganization of global commerce around multiple power bases, bringing new and familiar challenges for companies. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S.-China relationship and the shift to a multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 19th, at 9 p.m. in New York. 
As listeners here already know, one of the big secular themes we've been tracking in recent years is the shift to a multipolar world, one where instead of having one major power base, the United States, you now have multiple power bases to organize global commerce around, including China and Europe. And recent interactions between China and Europe underscore this trend. For example, President Macron of France recently noted following a trip to China that Europe need not precisely follow the U.S. in how it approaches its relationship with China. While those comments have received pushback in other European capitals, it's fair to say that Europe, with its relatively more interconnected and trade-based economy, may have a more nuanced approach to China than its traditional ally in the U.S.. In any case, multiple power bases mean multiple challenges for companies doing business on a global scale. 
This trend is most noticeable to U.S. investors in large cap stocks, where multinationals continue to announce shifts in the geographic mix of their supply chains. While incremental, some of these changes seemed unfathomable just a few years ago. Take a recent Bloomberg News report about a major tech company that continues to shift, again incrementally, new production of some products out of China and into places like India. While the news report doesn't draw an explicit link between those moves and U.S. policy choices, we think such a story speaks to the influence of the non-tariff barriers that the U.S. has raised in recent years as it seeks to protect new and emerging tech industries in its jurisdiction that it deems important for national and economic security. This includes existing export restrictions and the potential for outbound investment restrictions, which could hamper companies seeking to build production facilities in countries like China, where sensitive technologies would either be produced or be part of the production process. 
To keep it simple, the multipolar world comes with new costs for many types of companies, and it's becoming clearer and clearer who will bear those costs and who will benefit from that spend. We've previously highlighted potential geographical beneficiaries like Mexico and India and will continue to check in with new work on specific sector impacts to keep you informed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>159false850fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-tumult-in-the-banking-sector--75654799----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of potential regulatory changes on bank assets. It's Tuesday, April 18th at 11a.m in New York. 
In the wake of the tumult in the banking sector since early March, and the significant intervention by the authorities, it is likely that a regulatory response will follow, particularly focused on the regulation of regional banks. President Biden has already called on the federal banking agencies in consultation with the Treasury Department, to consider a set of reforms that will reduce the risk of future banking crises. A review led by Michael Barr, the Vice Chair for Supervision at the Federal Reserve Board, is set to be released by May 1st and will likely offer some indication as to where future bank regulation might be headed. In this context, it is worthwhile to examine potential changes to regional bank regulation, reflect on how banks would respond to such changes and consider their impact on markets. 
Across all banks, there are approximately 4.7 trillion of non-interest bearing deposits with the duration of about seven years. Banks will likely need to either review and re-justify or shorten such deposits. Our bank equity analysts expect two key regulatory changes TLAC, total loss absorbing capacity and LCR, liquidity coverage ratio, to be extended to smaller banks, about $100 billion in assets, though this process will likely not get fully implemented until 2027. 
From the perspective of rates markets, these changes make the case for steepening of the curve. Our rate strategists see bank demand for treasuries increasing relative to other assets with greater LCR requirements. Both shortening deposit duration and implementing LCR suggest that banks would favor shorter dated Treasuries over longer dated Treasuries. More longer term issuance due to TLAC, drives higher long term yields and fixed income, with support curve steepeners for Treasuries over the medium term. 
For agency mortgage backed securities, these changes will result in less demand from banks and consequently wider mortgage spreads. For munis, these changes would likely imply a lower footprint from banks with available for sale securities favored or held to maturity securities. For securitized credit markets, we see downside in demand ahead. Longer term outlook for securitized credit depends on the specifics of regulatory reform, but is likely to remain tepid for some time to come. 
The expansion of TLAC to smaller banks could intensify supply headwinds in the medium term. Our credit strategists believe that supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity and shift away from deposits to wholesale funding, is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for longer. 
An important lesson from recent events in the banking sector, is that the risks to the asset banks hold, extend beyond credit risk into other risks, most notably interest rate risk. While interest rate and convexity risks are reflected in Comprehensive Capital Analysis Review, CCAR and Horizontal Liquidity Review, HLR test, arguably not having an interest rate component to risk weights enable banks, and regional banks in particular, to seek term premia to support their earnings. It is not our base case that this will change. However, it is possible that regulators would at least consider enacting some type of a charge for owning longer-duration securities. At a minimum, we expect the regulators could require all banks to flow marked-to-market hits from available-for-sale securities through their regulatory capital ratios, something that the big banks have been doing already. Ultimately, new regulations for regional banks will take time for formulation and implementation. We'll be watching developments in this space closely. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/_7qU6dOfdsYEPCHTmS1Kc28t4Ia2gzZafpMLuFk86fgTue, 18 Apr 2023 18:27:18 +0000gtyAs the U.S. banking sector faces oncoming regulatory changes, how will the smaller banks react to these new requirements and what will the impact be on markets? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of potential regulatory changes on bank assets. It's Tuesday, April 18th at 11a.m in New York. 
In the wake of the tumult in the banking sector since early March, and the significant intervention by the authorities, it is likely that a regulatory response will follow, particularly focused on the regulation of regional banks. President Biden has already called on the federal banking agencies in consultation with the Treasury Department, to consider a set of reforms that will reduce the risk of future banking crises. A review led by Michael Barr, the Vice Chair for Supervision at the Federal Reserve Board, is set to be released by May 1st and will likely offer some indication as to where future bank regulation might be headed. In this context, it is worthwhile to examine potential changes to regional bank regulation, reflect on how banks would respond to such changes and consider their impact on markets. 
Across all banks, there are approximately 4.7 trillion of non-interest bearing deposits with the duration of about seven years. Banks will likely need to either review and re-justify or shorten such deposits. Our bank equity analysts expect two key regulatory changes TLAC, total loss absorbing capacity and LCR, liquidity coverage ratio, to be extended to smaller banks, about $100 billion in assets, though this process will likely not get fully implemented until 2027. 
From the perspective of rates markets, these changes make the case for steepening of the curve. Our rate strategists see bank demand for treasuries increasing relative to other assets with greater LCR requirements. Both shortening deposit duration and implementing LCR suggest that banks would favor shorter dated Treasuries over longer dated Treasuries. More longer term issuance due to TLAC, drives higher long term yields and fixed income, with support curve steepeners for Treasuries over the medium term. 
For agency mortgage backed securities, these changes will result in less demand from banks and consequently wider mortgage spreads. For munis, these changes would likely imply a lower footprint from banks with available for sale securities favored or held to maturity securities. For securitized credit markets, we see downside in demand ahead. Longer term outlook for securitized credit depends on the specifics of regulatory reform, but is likely to remain tepid for some time to come. 
The expansion of TLAC to smaller banks could intensify supply headwinds in the medium term. Our credit strategists believe that supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity and shift away from deposits to wholesale funding, is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for longer. 
An important lesson from recent events in the banking sector, is that the risks to the asset banks hold, extend beyond credit risk into other risks, most notably interest rate risk. While interest rate and convexity risks are reflected in Comprehensive Capital Analysis Review, CCAR and Horizontal Liquidity Review, HLR test, arguably not having an interest rate component to risk weights enable banks, and regional banks in particular, to seek term premia to support their earnings. It is not our base case that this will change. However, it is possible that regulators would at least consider enacting some type of a charge for owning longer-duration securities. At a minimum, we expect the regulators could require all banks to flow marked-to-market hits from available-for-sale securities through their regulatory capital ratios, something that...]]>245false849fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-credit-crunch-in-the-u-s-equity-markets--75654747----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 17th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
A month ago, when the banking stress first surfaced, my primary takeaway for U.S. equity markets was that it would lead to a credit crunch. Given our already well below consensus outlook for corporate earnings, it simply gave us more confidence in that view. Fast forward to today and the data suggests a credit crunch has started. More specifically, they show the biggest two week decline in lending by banks on record as they simultaneously sell mortgages and treasuries at a record pace to offset deposit flight. In fact, since the Fed began raising rates a year ago, almost $1 trillion in deposits have left the banking system. Throw in the already tight lending standards and it's no surprise credit growth is shrinking. If that isn't enough, last week, the latest small business survey showed that credit availability had its biggest drop in 20 years, while interest costs are at a 15-year high. 
There's a passage in Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, in which a character is asked how he went bankrupt. "Two ways", he answers. "Gradually, then suddenly". This is a good description of recent bank failures. The losses from long duration Treasury holdings and concentrated deposit risk built up gradually over the past year and then suddenly accelerated, leading to the surprising failures of two large and seemingly safe banks. In hindsight, these failures seem predictable given the speed and magnitude of the Federal Reserve's rate hikes, some regrettable regulatory treatment of bank assets and concentrated deposits from corporates. Nevertheless, most did not see the failures coming, which begs the question of what other surprises may be coming from the Fed's abrupt monetary policy adjustment? 
In contrast to what we expected, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq have traded well since these bank stresses appeared. However, small caps, banks and other highly leveraged stocks have traded poorly as the market leadership turned more defensive and in line with our sector and style recommendations. Our contention is that the major averages are hanging around current levels due mostly to their defensive and high quality characteristics. However, that should not necessarily be viewed as a signal that all is well. On the contrary, the gradual deterioration in the growth outlook continues, which means even these large cap indices are at risk of a sudden fall like those that we have witnessed in the regional banking and small cap indices. 
The analogy with Hemingway's poetic description of bankruptcy can extend to the earnings growth deterioration observed over the past year. Until now, the decline in earnings estimates for the S&P 500 has been steady and gradual. Since peaking in June of last year, the forward 12 month bottoms up consensus earnings per share forecast for the S&P 500 has fallen at a rate of approximately 9% per annum, which is not severe enough for equity investors to demand the higher equity risk premium we think they should. Further comforting investors is the consensus earnings forecast that implies first quarter will be the trough rate of change for S&P 500 earnings per share. This is a key buy signal that we would normally embrace, if we believed it. 
Instead, if we are right on our well below consensus earnings forecast, the rate of decline in these estimates should increase materially over the next few months as revenue growth begins to disappoint. To date, most of the disappointment in earnings has been a result of lower profitability, particularly in the technology, consumer goods and communication services sectors. 
To those investors cheering the softer than expected inflation data last week, we would say, be careful what you wish for. Falling inflation last week, especially for goods, is a sign of waning demand, and inflation is the one thing holding up revenue growth for many businesses. The gradually eroding margins to date have been mostly a function of bloated cost structures. If and when revenues begin to disappoint, that margin degradation can be much more sudden, and that's when the market can suddenly get in front of the earnings decline we are forecasting, too. 
Bottom line, continue to favor companies with stable earnings that are defendable in the deteriorating growth environment we project. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zE-TCB5FTojgkNM3-XtT4ShzWiEQRI9AQ_bh-Dhyi7UMon, 17 Apr 2023 20:42:44 +0000gtyWhile some investors may be cheering due to softer than expected inflation data, revenues may begin to disappoint in the face of a credit crunch brought on by recent banking stress. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 17th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
A month ago, when the banking stress first surfaced, my primary takeaway for U.S. equity markets was that it would lead to a credit crunch. Given our already well below consensus outlook for corporate earnings, it simply gave us more confidence in that view. Fast forward to today and the data suggests a credit crunch has started. More specifically, they show the biggest two week decline in lending by banks on record as they simultaneously sell mortgages and treasuries at a record pace to offset deposit flight. In fact, since the Fed began raising rates a year ago, almost $1 trillion in deposits have left the banking system. Throw in the already tight lending standards and it's no surprise credit growth is shrinking. If that isn't enough, last week, the latest small business survey showed that credit availability had its biggest drop in 20 years, while interest costs are at a 15-year high. 
There's a passage in Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, in which a character is asked how he went bankrupt. "Two ways", he answers. "Gradually, then suddenly". This is a good description of recent bank failures. The losses from long duration Treasury holdings and concentrated deposit risk built up gradually over the past year and then suddenly accelerated, leading to the surprising failures of two large and seemingly safe banks. In hindsight, these failures seem predictable given the speed and magnitude of the Federal Reserve's rate hikes, some regrettable regulatory treatment of bank assets and concentrated deposits from corporates. Nevertheless, most did not see the failures coming, which begs the question of what other surprises may be coming from the Fed's abrupt monetary policy adjustment? 
In contrast to what we expected, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq have traded well since these bank stresses appeared. However, small caps, banks and other highly leveraged stocks have traded poorly as the market leadership turned more defensive and in line with our sector and style recommendations. Our contention is that the major averages are hanging around current levels due mostly to their defensive and high quality characteristics. However, that should not necessarily be viewed as a signal that all is well. On the contrary, the gradual deterioration in the growth outlook continues, which means even these large cap indices are at risk of a sudden fall like those that we have witnessed in the regional banking and small cap indices. 
The analogy with Hemingway's poetic description of bankruptcy can extend to the earnings growth deterioration observed over the past year. Until now, the decline in earnings estimates for the S&P 500 has been steady and gradual. Since peaking in June of last year, the forward 12 month bottoms up consensus earnings per share forecast for the S&P 500 has fallen at a rate of approximately 9% per annum, which is not severe enough for equity investors to demand the higher equity risk premium we think they should. Further comforting investors is the consensus earnings forecast that implies first quarter will be the trough rate of change for S&P 500 earnings per share. This is a key buy signal that we would normally embrace, if we believed it. 
Instead, if we are right on our well below consensus earnings forecast, the rate of decline in these estimates should increase materially over the next few months as revenue growth begins to disappoint. To...]]>247false848fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sustainability-the-risks-and-benefits-of-a-i--75654730----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Brenda Duverce: And I'm Brenda Duverce from the Global Sustainability Team. Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some key A.I. related opportunities and risks through the lens of sustainability. It's Friday, April 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: Recent developments in A.I. make it clear it's a very powerful tool that can help achieve a great number of sustainability objectives. So, Brenda, can you maybe start by walking us through some of the potential benefits and opportunities from A.I. that can drive improved financial performance for companies? 
Brenda Duverce: Sure, we think A.I. can have tremendous benefits to our society and we are excited about the potential A.I. can have in reducing the harm to our environment and enhancing people's lives. To share a couple of examples from our research, we are excited on what A.I. can do in improving biodiversity protection and conservation. Specifically on how A.I. can improve the accuracy and efficiency of monitoring, helping us better understand biodiversity loss and support decision making and policy design. Overall, we think A.I. can help us more efficiently identify areas for urgent conservation and provide us with the tools to make more informed decisions. Another example is what we see A.I. can do in improving education outcomes, particularly in under-resourced areas. We think A.I. can help enhance teaching and learning outcomes, improve assessment practices, increase accessibility and make institutions more operationally efficient. Which then goes into financial implications A.I. can have in improving margins and reducing costs for organizations. Essentially, we view A.I. as a deflationary technology for many organizations. So Stephen, the Morgan Stanley's Sustainability Team has also done some recent work around the future of food. What role will A.I. play in agriculture in particular? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, we're especially excited about what A.I could do in the agriculture sector. So we think about A.I. enabled tools that will help farmers improve efficiencies while also improving the quantity and quality of crop production. For example, there's technology that annotates camera images to differentiate between weeds and crops at the pixel level and then uses that information to administer pesticides only to weed infested areas. The result is the farmer saves money on pesticides, while also improving agricultural production and enhancing biodiversity by reducing damage to the ecosystem. 
Brenda Duverce: But there are also risks and negative implications that ESG investors need to consider in exploring A.I. driven opportunities. How should investors think about these? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, we've been getting a lot of questions from ESG investors around some of the risks related to A.I., and there certainly are quite a few to consider. One big category of risk would be bias, and in the note, we lay out a series of different types of bias risks that we see with A.I. One example would be data selection bias, another would be algorithmic bias, and then lastly, human bias. Just as an example on human bias, this bias would occur when the people developing and training the algorithm introduce their own biases into the data or the algorithm itself. So this is a broad category that's gathered a lot of concern, and that's quite understandable. Another area would be data privacy and security. An example in the utility sector from a research entity focused on the power sector, they highlight that the data collected for A.I. technologies while being meant to train models for a good purpose, could be used in ways that violate the privacy of the data owners. For instance, energy usage data can be collected and used to help residential customers be more energy efficient and lower their bills, but at the same time, the same data could also be used to derive personal information such as the occupation and religion of the residents. 
Stephen Byrd: So Brenda, keeping in mind the potential benefits and risks for me that we just touched on, where do you think A.I's impact is likely to be the greatest and the most immediate? 
Brenda Duverce: Beyond the improvements A.I. can have on our society, in our ESG space in particular, we are excited to see how A.I. can improve the data landscape, specifically thinking about corporate disclosures. We think A.I. can help companies better predict their scope through emissions, which tend to be the largest component of a company's total greenhouse gas emissions, but the most difficult to quantify. We think machine learning in particular can be useful in estimating these emissions by using statistical learning techniques to develop more accurate models.  Stephen Byrd: But it's ironic that when we talk about A.I., within the context of ESG, one of the drawbacks to consider around A.I. is its potential carbon footprint and emissions. So is this a big concern? 
Brenda Duverce: Yes, we do think this is a big concern, particularly as we think about our path towards net zero. Since 2010, emissions at data centers and transmission networks that underpin our digital environment have only grown modestly, despite rapid demand for digital services. This is largely thanks to energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy purchases and a broader decarbonization of our grids. However, we are concerned that these efficiencies in place won't be enough to withstand the high compute intensity required as more A.I. models come online. This is a risk we hope to continue to explore and monitor, especially as it relates to our climate goals. 
Stephen Byrd: In terms of the latest developments around risk from A.I, there's been a call to pause giant A.I. experiments. Can you give us some context around this? 
Brenda Duverce: Sure. In a recent open letter led by the Future of Life Institute, several A.I. researchers called for a pause for at least six months on the training of A.I. systems more powerful than GPT-4. The letter highlighted the risk these systems can have on society and humanity. In our view, we think that a pause is highly unlikely. However, we do think that this continues to bring to light why it is important to also consider the risk of A.I. and why A.I. researchers must follow responsible ethical principles. 
Brenda Duverce: So, Stephen, in the United States, there's currently no comprehensive federal regulation specifically dedicated to A.I.. What is your outlook for legislative action and policies around A.I., both here in the U.S. and abroad? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Brenda, I'd say broadly it does look like the pace of A.I. development is more rapid than the pace of regulatory and legislative developments, and I'll walk through some developments around the world. There have been several calls across stakeholder groups for effective regulation, the US Chamber of Commerce being one of them. And last year we did see some state level regulation focused on A.I. use cases and the risks associated with A.I. and unequal practices. But broadly, in our opinion, we think that the likelihood of legislation being enacted in the near term is low, and that in the U.S. in particular, we expect to see more involvement from regulatory bodies and other industry leaders advocating for a national standard. The European approach to A.I. is focused on trust and excellence, aiming to increase research and industrial capacity while ensuring safety and fundamental rights. The A.I. ACT is a proposed European law assigning A.I. to three risk categories. Unacceptable risk, high risk and applications that don’t fall in either of those categories which would be unregulated. This proposed law has faced significant delays and its future is still unclear. Proponents of the legislation expect it to lead the way for other global governing bodies to follow while others are disappointed by its vagueness, the potential for it to stifle innovation and concerns that it does not do enough to explicitly protect against A.I. systems used for weapons, finance and health care. 
Stephen Byrd: Finally, Brenda, what are some A.I. related catalysts that investors should pay attention to?  Brenda Duverce: In terms of catalysts, we'll continue to see innovation updates from our core A.I. enablers, which shouldn't be a surprise to our listeners. But we plan to continue to monitor the ever evolving regulatory landscape on this topic and the discourse from influential organizations helping to push for A.I. safety around the world. 
Stephen Byrd: Brenda, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Brenda Duverce: Great speaking with you, Stephen. 
Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FE1asA1KC_uKdJGRyU4y0TifzpyLCYo8v6YAlEt0LVcFri, 14 Apr 2023 20:56:52 +0000gtyArtificial Intelligence is clearly a powerful tool that could help a number of sustainability objectives, but are there risks attached to these potential benefits? Global Head of Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Global Sustainability Analyst...----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Brenda Duverce: And I'm Brenda Duverce from the Global Sustainability Team. Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some key A.I. related opportunities and risks through the lens of sustainability. It's Friday, April 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: Recent developments in A.I. make it clear it's a very powerful tool that can help achieve a great number of sustainability objectives. So, Brenda, can you maybe start by walking us through some of the potential benefits and opportunities from A.I. that can drive improved financial performance for companies? 
Brenda Duverce: Sure, we think A.I. can have tremendous benefits to our society and we are excited about the potential A.I. can have in reducing the harm to our environment and enhancing people's lives. To share a couple of examples from our research, we are excited on what A.I. can do in improving biodiversity protection and conservation. Specifically on how A.I. can improve the accuracy and efficiency of monitoring, helping us better understand biodiversity loss and support decision making and policy design. Overall, we think A.I. can help us more efficiently identify areas for urgent conservation and provide us with the tools to make more informed decisions. Another example is what we see A.I. can do in improving education outcomes, particularly in under-resourced areas. We think A.I. can help enhance teaching and learning outcomes, improve assessment practices, increase accessibility and make institutions more operationally efficient. Which then goes into financial implications A.I. can have in improving margins and reducing costs for organizations. Essentially, we view A.I. as a deflationary technology for many organizations. So Stephen, the Morgan Stanley's Sustainability Team has also done some recent work around the future of food. What role will A.I. play in agriculture in particular? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, we're especially excited about what A.I could do in the agriculture sector. So we think about A.I. enabled tools that will help farmers improve efficiencies while also improving the quantity and quality of crop production. For example, there's technology that annotates camera images to differentiate between weeds and crops at the pixel level and then uses that information to administer pesticides only to weed infested areas. The result is the farmer saves money on pesticides, while also improving agricultural production and enhancing biodiversity by reducing damage to the ecosystem. 
Brenda Duverce: But there are also risks and negative implications that ESG investors need to consider in exploring A.I. driven opportunities. How should investors think about these? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, we've been getting a lot of questions from ESG investors around some of the risks related to A.I., and there certainly are quite a few to consider. One big category of risk would be bias, and in the note, we lay out a series of different types of bias risks that we see with A.I. One example would be data selection bias, another would be algorithmic bias, and then lastly, human bias. Just as an example on human bias, this bias would occur when the people developing and training the algorithm introduce their own biases into the data or the algorithm itself. So this is a broad category that's gathered a lot of concern, and that's quite understandable. Another area would be data privacy and security. An example in the utility sector from a research entity focused on the power sector, they...]]>503false847fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-garner-asia-equities-rally-once-more--75654937----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent correction and ongoing bull market in Asia and emerging market equities. It's Thursday, April 13th, at 10 a.m. in London. 
Asia and emerging market equities underwent a six week correction in February and March, in what we think is an ongoing bull market. However, they've recently stabilized and begun to rally once more as we head into the new quarter. 
Importantly, the catalyst for the correction came from outside the asset class in the form of banking sector risks in both the U.S. and Europe. EM assets suffered some limited challenges, for example, at one point major EM currencies gave up most of that year to date gains against the U.S. dollar. However, as investors appraised the situation, they recognized that little had actually changed in the investment thesis for the EM asset class this year. 
At the core of this thesis is the ongoing recovery in China. After an initial surge in mobility indicators and services spending, there is now a broadening out of the recovery to include manufacturing production and even recent strength in property sales. Like the rest of Asia and EM these days, Chinese growth is self-funded in the main from domestic banking systems which are generally well capitalized and liquid. Indeed, just as question marks are now appearing over bank credit growth prospects in the U.S. in segments like commercial real estate lending, the opposite is taking place in China as the authorities encourage more bank lending. 
Elsewhere, we're also seeing an encouraging set of developments in the semiconductors and technology hardware cycles, which matter for the Korea and Taiwan markets. Although end use demand in most segments remained very weak in the first quarter, we believe our thesis that we are passing through the worst phase of the cycle was confirmed by positive stock price reactions to news of production cuts by industry leaders. We think stock prices in these sectors troughed last October, as usual about six months ahead of the weakest point of industry fundamentals and the industry now has a lower production base to begin to recover from the second half of the year onwards.   Elsewhere in EM, we recently adopted a more positive stance on the Indian market after being cautious for six months. Valuations adjusted meaningfully lower in that timeframe and we think Indian equities are now poised to join in the rally from here on an improving economic cycle outlook, as well as heightened structural interest in the market by overseas investors. India continues to benefit from ongoing positive household formation, industrialization and urbanization themes which are well represented in domestic equity benchmarks. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Nq7Ww4auL1Hkvg4cPAcRPXEpTTpgP7aF2v4w999pVU0Thu, 13 Apr 2023 17:46:19 +0000gtyAfter a correction that took place in recent months, Asia and emerging markets are once again rallying. But how have these regions sustained their ongoing bull markets? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent correction and ongoing bull market in Asia and emerging market equities. It's Thursday, April 13th, at 10 a.m. in London. 
Asia and emerging market equities underwent a six week correction in February and March, in what we think is an ongoing bull market. However, they've recently stabilized and begun to rally once more as we head into the new quarter. 
Importantly, the catalyst for the correction came from outside the asset class in the form of banking sector risks in both the U.S. and Europe. EM assets suffered some limited challenges, for example, at one point major EM currencies gave up most of that year to date gains against the U.S. dollar. However, as investors appraised the situation, they recognized that little had actually changed in the investment thesis for the EM asset class this year. 
At the core of this thesis is the ongoing recovery in China. After an initial surge in mobility indicators and services spending, there is now a broadening out of the recovery to include manufacturing production and even recent strength in property sales. Like the rest of Asia and EM these days, Chinese growth is self-funded in the main from domestic banking systems which are generally well capitalized and liquid. Indeed, just as question marks are now appearing over bank credit growth prospects in the U.S. in segments like commercial real estate lending, the opposite is taking place in China as the authorities encourage more bank lending. 
Elsewhere, we're also seeing an encouraging set of developments in the semiconductors and technology hardware cycles, which matter for the Korea and Taiwan markets. Although end use demand in most segments remained very weak in the first quarter, we believe our thesis that we are passing through the worst phase of the cycle was confirmed by positive stock price reactions to news of production cuts by industry leaders. We think stock prices in these sectors troughed last October, as usual about six months ahead of the weakest point of industry fundamentals and the industry now has a lower production base to begin to recover from the second half of the year onwards.   Elsewhere in EM, we recently adopted a more positive stance on the Indian market after being cautious for six months. Valuations adjusted meaningfully lower in that timeframe and we think Indian equities are now poised to join in the rally from here on an improving economic cycle outlook, as well as heightened structural interest in the market by overseas investors. India continues to benefit from ongoing positive household formation, industrialization and urbanization themes which are well represented in domestic equity benchmarks. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.]]>184false846fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chetan-ahya-global-impacts-on-asia-s-growth--75654862----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing why Asia remains better placed despite recent global financial developments. It's Wednesday, April 12, at 9 a.m in Hong Kong. 
With the recent issues in the Developed Markets banking sector, investors are asking if Asia could face similar funding challenges and if Asia will still be able to outperform on growth. 
On the funding challenge, a key point to keep in mind is that interest rates have not risen as much in Asia compared to the U.S.. Asia's inflation was more cost-push driven, i.e commodity prices driven, and has already started to decelerate, and so central banks did not have to hike rates as much as the Fed. For instance, on July 21, policy rates rose by 4.75% in the U.S., but in Asia, it has risen only by one percentage point on an average. In a similar vein, prior to recent developments, 10 year bond yields rose by 2.8 percentage points in the U.S., but have only risen by just 0.9% in Asia. Another important distinguishing factor has to do with the setup of the banking sector. In Asia, liquidity coverage ratios are well above 100%, loans tend to be more floating rather than fixed, and deposit franchises are more diversified. 
Turning to the second question on whether Asia can still outperform. We think that recent developments will pose downside risks to both developed markets and Asia's growth but on net, Asia will still be able to outperform. 
In the case of a meaningful slowdown or a mild technical recession in the U.S., there will be three mitigating factors for Asia's growth outlook. 
First, the impact from weaker trade would be partially offset by easier financial conditions from lower market pricing of Fed's path, as well as lower commodity prices, leading to an improvement in Asia's terms of trade. The more stable macroeconomic backdrop in Asia means central banks in the region do have more room to ease monetary policy. In our base case, we expect rate cuts starting from the first quarter of 2024, but if downside risks emerge, these rate cuts could come into play sooner than we anticipate. 
Second, we expect China's GDP to recover to 5.7% in 2023. Reopening is lifting economic activity in China and also helping to generate positive spillovers for the rest of the region. 
Third, the three of the other large economies in Asia, Japan, India and Indonesia all have economy specific factors driving domestic demand. Japan's accommodative macro policies should keep private sector demand supported. For India, balance sheets for the financial and non-financial private sector have been cleaned up over the years. The private sector is thus pricing with a healthy risk appetite for expansion. In Indonesia, macro stability risks have been well managed, hence, rates have not had to rise as much in other emerging markets, and domestic demand has therefore remained robust. However, we do think that the risks are skewed to the downside. 
In a hard landing scenario, which we would characterize as U.S. full year GDP contracting by 1% or more, Asia may not be able to escape the downdraft and could recouple on the downside, at least during the worst point of the shock. But once we see a stabilization of global financial conditions with policy response, we believe Asia will be able to recover faster than the U.S. and Europe and resume its growth outperformance. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mCgTD9vXK2yacEotZguQBW_BSYIPmlwmHZTLaMRpxD8Wed, 12 Apr 2023 21:33:00 +0000gtyGiven the recent developments in developed markets banking sectors, can Asia’s economic growth continue to outperform? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing why Asia remains better placed despite recent global financial developments. It's Wednesday, April 12, at 9 a.m in Hong Kong. 
With the recent issues in the Developed Markets banking sector, investors are asking if Asia could face similar funding challenges and if Asia will still be able to outperform on growth. 
On the funding challenge, a key point to keep in mind is that interest rates have not risen as much in Asia compared to the U.S.. Asia's inflation was more cost-push driven, i.e commodity prices driven, and has already started to decelerate, and so central banks did not have to hike rates as much as the Fed. For instance, on July 21, policy rates rose by 4.75% in the U.S., but in Asia, it has risen only by one percentage point on an average. In a similar vein, prior to recent developments, 10 year bond yields rose by 2.8 percentage points in the U.S., but have only risen by just 0.9% in Asia. Another important distinguishing factor has to do with the setup of the banking sector. In Asia, liquidity coverage ratios are well above 100%, loans tend to be more floating rather than fixed, and deposit franchises are more diversified. 
Turning to the second question on whether Asia can still outperform. We think that recent developments will pose downside risks to both developed markets and Asia's growth but on net, Asia will still be able to outperform. 
In the case of a meaningful slowdown or a mild technical recession in the U.S., there will be three mitigating factors for Asia's growth outlook. 
First, the impact from weaker trade would be partially offset by easier financial conditions from lower market pricing of Fed's path, as well as lower commodity prices, leading to an improvement in Asia's terms of trade. The more stable macroeconomic backdrop in Asia means central banks in the region do have more room to ease monetary policy. In our base case, we expect rate cuts starting from the first quarter of 2024, but if downside risks emerge, these rate cuts could come into play sooner than we anticipate. 
Second, we expect China's GDP to recover to 5.7% in 2023. Reopening is lifting economic activity in China and also helping to generate positive spillovers for the rest of the region. 
Third, the three of the other large economies in Asia, Japan, India and Indonesia all have economy specific factors driving domestic demand. Japan's accommodative macro policies should keep private sector demand supported. For India, balance sheets for the financial and non-financial private sector have been cleaned up over the years. The private sector is thus pricing with a healthy risk appetite for expansion. In Indonesia, macro stability risks have been well managed, hence, rates have not had to rise as much in other emerging markets, and domestic demand has therefore remained robust. However, we do think that the risks are skewed to the downside. 
In a hard landing scenario, which we would characterize as U.S. full year GDP contracting by 1% or more, Asia may not be able to escape the downdraft and could recouple on the downside, at least during the worst point of the shock. But once we see a stabilization of global financial conditions with policy response, we believe Asia will be able to recover faster than the U.S. and Europe and resume its growth outperformance. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>228false845fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-the-future-of-mortgage-markets--75654900----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, April 11th, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jim Egan: Now, Jay, there has been lots of news recently about bank funding challenges, and the FDIC put both Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in receivership. They just announced last week that $114 billion of their securities will be sold, over time, with those securities being primarily agency MBS. Now, that sounds like a pretty big number, can you tell us what the impact of this is? 
Jay Bacow: Sure. So, I think it's important first to realize that the agency mortgage market is the second most liquid fixed income market in the world after treasuries, and so the market is pretty easily able to quickly reprice to digest this news. And as a reminder, agency mortgages don't have credit risk, given the agency guarantee. Now, that $114 billion is a big number and about $100 billion of them are mortgages, and putting that $100 billion in context, we're only expecting about $150 billion of net issuance this year. So this is two thirds of the net supply of the market is going to come just from these portfolio liquidations. That's a lot, and that's before we even get into the composition of what they own. 
Jim Egan: Isn't a mortgage a mortgage? What do you mean by the composition of what they own? 
Jay Bacow: Well, yes, a mortgage is a mortgage, but what banks can do is that they can structure the mortgages to better fit the profile of what they want. And based on publicly disclosed data of when they bought, we assume that most of those mortgages right now have very low fixed coupons—in the context of 2%, well below the current prevailing rate for investors. Furthermore, about a third of the mortgages that the FDIC holds in receivership are these structured mortgages, they're still guaranteed, there's no credit risk, but these would be out of index investments for most money managers. 
Jim Egan: Well, can't banks buy them, though? Like, aren't these pretty typical bank bonds, two banks owned them in the first place? And if the bonds worked for a bank that time, why don't they work for a different bank now? 
Jay Bacow: So, part of what made them work for those banks is that they bought them around “par,” and given the low coupons that they have now, they're no longer at par. And for accounting reasons that we probably don’t need to get into right now, banks typically don't like to buy bonds that are far away from par. Furthermore, the recent events have made banks likely to need to revisit a lot of the assumptions that they're making on the asset and liability side. In particular, they probably going to want to revisit the duration of their deposits, which is going to bias them towards owning shorter securities. The regulators are probably also going to want to revisit a lot of assumptions as well. And we think what's likely to happen is that they're going to make a lot of the smaller banks have the mark-to-market losses on their available for sale securities flow through to regulatory capital, which in conjunction with some of the other changes probably means banks are going to further bias their security purchases shorter in duration and lowering capital charges. 
Jim Egan: Okay. So, if the banks aren't going to be active and the Fed is already winding down their portfolio, who's really left to buy? 
Jay Bacow: Basically, money managers and overseas. And while spreads have widened out some, we think they're biased a little wider from here. Effectively, this is going to be the first year since 2009 that neither domestic banks or the Fed were net buying mortgages. And when you take away the two largest buyers of mortgages, that is a problem for the asset class. And so we think we're in a new regime for mortgages and a new regime for bank demand. 
Jim Egan: Jay, thank you for that clear explanation, and it's always great talking to you. 
Jay Bacow: Great talking to you, too, Jim. 
Jim Egan: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LeZolDjLLAI3egIFadXtWpxjA-c1LOad3CtbSW2YLhITue, 11 Apr 2023 23:22:56 +0000gtyBanks and the Fed are winding down activity in the mortgage market amid recent funding challenges, signaling a potential new regime for the asset class. Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, April 11th, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jim Egan: Now, Jay, there has been lots of news recently about bank funding challenges, and the FDIC put both Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in receivership. They just announced last week that $114 billion of their securities will be sold, over time, with those securities being primarily agency MBS. Now, that sounds like a pretty big number, can you tell us what the impact of this is? 
Jay Bacow: Sure. So, I think it's important first to realize that the agency mortgage market is the second most liquid fixed income market in the world after treasuries, and so the market is pretty easily able to quickly reprice to digest this news. And as a reminder, agency mortgages don't have credit risk, given the agency guarantee. Now, that $114 billion is a big number and about $100 billion of them are mortgages, and putting that $100 billion in context, we're only expecting about $150 billion of net issuance this year. So this is two thirds of the net supply of the market is going to come just from these portfolio liquidations. That's a lot, and that's before we even get into the composition of what they own. 
Jim Egan: Isn't a mortgage a mortgage? What do you mean by the composition of what they own? 
Jay Bacow: Well, yes, a mortgage is a mortgage, but what banks can do is that they can structure the mortgages to better fit the profile of what they want. And based on publicly disclosed data of when they bought, we assume that most of those mortgages right now have very low fixed coupons—in the context of 2%, well below the current prevailing rate for investors. Furthermore, about a third of the mortgages that the FDIC holds in receivership are these structured mortgages, they're still guaranteed, there's no credit risk, but these would be out of index investments for most money managers. 
Jim Egan: Well, can't banks buy them, though? Like, aren't these pretty typical bank bonds, two banks owned them in the first place? And if the bonds worked for a bank that time, why don't they work for a different bank now? 
Jay Bacow: So, part of what made them work for those banks is that they bought them around “par,” and given the low coupons that they have now, they're no longer at par. And for accounting reasons that we probably don’t need to get into right now, banks typically don't like to buy bonds that are far away from par. Furthermore, the recent events have made banks likely to need to revisit a lot of the assumptions that they're making on the asset and liability side. In particular, they probably going to want to revisit the duration of their deposits, which is going to bias them towards owning shorter securities. The regulators are probably also going to want to revisit a lot of assumptions as well. And we think what's likely to happen is that they're going to make a lot of the smaller banks have the mark-to-market losses on their available for sale securities flow through to regulatory capital, which in conjunction with some of the other changes probably means banks are going to further bias their security purchases shorter in duration and lowering capital charges. 
Jim Egan: Okay. So, if the banks aren't going to be active and the Fed is already winding down their portfolio, who's really left to buy? 
Jay Bacow: Basically, money managers and overseas. And while spreads...]]>254false844fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/diego-anzoategui-goods-services-and-the-shape-of-china-s-reopening--75654809----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the global impact of China's reopening. It's Monday, April 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. 
At the end of 2022, China scrapped all COVID zero policies and laid out a growth focused policy agenda for 2023. By mid-January, around 80% of the population had had COVID, but infections are now much lower, mobility is improving, and China's economy seems to be taking off. We estimate China's growth will reach 5.7% in 2023, primarily driven by a rebound in private consumption. 
This is the first time in four years that COVID, regulatory and economic policy are all pushing in the same direction. Since the Chinese Party Congress in October 2022, the administration has swung to a pro-business stance, and we expect fiscal and monetary support to continue. Furthermore, China's big tech regulation has entered an institutionalized and stable stage, and we don't expect new, aggressive measures any longer. 
Although China's growth is expected to be strong in 2023, it is off a low base and it will take time for private sentiment to come back. So we expect fiscal easing to continue at least through the first half of 2023. As for monetary policy, the People's Bank of China may continue to provide targeted support towards economic recovery while private demand gets on a surer footing. As growth becomes more self-sustaining in the second half of 2023, cyclical policy could start to normalize, but not turn to outright tightening. 
Against this macro backdrop, we believe that services such as tourism, transportation and food services will drive the recovery. During the pandemic, mobility restrictions and social distancing policies caused a much more serious drag on services compared to good producers- and China is no exception to this pattern. 
But the services versus goods distinction is also key for assessing the global implications of China's reopening. Investors often ask to what extent China's reopening will translate into higher economic growth elsewhere. Historically, the China economic acceleration typically acts as a demand shock to the global economy. China's higher aggregate demand means higher exports to China from the rest of the world and greater economic activity globally. And more global growth coming from a demand push usually contributes to higher commodity prices, a weaker dollar and potential higher risk appetite leading to lower interest rates in emerging markets. This, of course, is good news, especially for EM. But the devil is in the details, and China's recovery being primarily driven by services is a key factor. One perhaps underappreciated by the market. 
It's important to keep in mind that services are less tradable and therefore less relevant to international trade. If China's acceleration were to be goods driven, Asia and LatAm commodity exporters would be clear beneficiaries, particularly economies like Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. But the situation is different when services lead the way, and the relative advantage of manufacture-intensive Asian economies is less obvious in this case. Ultimately, our work suggests a more services driven rebound in China would be less relevant for the global economy. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FDZD2eUEV1L8_ow_ClFrB0pnrh_Mh3aca1p4ZNQ4sk0Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:20:58 +0000gtyChina’s growth is expected to be strong this year. However, it is being driven by services more than goods, meaning the news for other economies may not be as good as it initially appears.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the global impact of China's reopening. It's Monday, April 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. 
At the end of 2022, China scrapped all COVID zero policies and laid out a growth focused policy agenda for 2023. By mid-January, around 80% of the population had had COVID, but infections are now much lower, mobility is improving, and China's economy seems to be taking off. We estimate China's growth will reach 5.7% in 2023, primarily driven by a rebound in private consumption. 
This is the first time in four years that COVID, regulatory and economic policy are all pushing in the same direction. Since the Chinese Party Congress in October 2022, the administration has swung to a pro-business stance, and we expect fiscal and monetary support to continue. Furthermore, China's big tech regulation has entered an institutionalized and stable stage, and we don't expect new, aggressive measures any longer. 
Although China's growth is expected to be strong in 2023, it is off a low base and it will take time for private sentiment to come back. So we expect fiscal easing to continue at least through the first half of 2023. As for monetary policy, the People's Bank of China may continue to provide targeted support towards economic recovery while private demand gets on a surer footing. As growth becomes more self-sustaining in the second half of 2023, cyclical policy could start to normalize, but not turn to outright tightening. 
Against this macro backdrop, we believe that services such as tourism, transportation and food services will drive the recovery. During the pandemic, mobility restrictions and social distancing policies caused a much more serious drag on services compared to good producers- and China is no exception to this pattern. 
But the services versus goods distinction is also key for assessing the global implications of China's reopening. Investors often ask to what extent China's reopening will translate into higher economic growth elsewhere. Historically, the China economic acceleration typically acts as a demand shock to the global economy. China's higher aggregate demand means higher exports to China from the rest of the world and greater economic activity globally. And more global growth coming from a demand push usually contributes to higher commodity prices, a weaker dollar and potential higher risk appetite leading to lower interest rates in emerging markets. This, of course, is good news, especially for EM. But the devil is in the details, and China's recovery being primarily driven by services is a key factor. One perhaps underappreciated by the market. 
It's important to keep in mind that services are less tradable and therefore less relevant to international trade. If China's acceleration were to be goods driven, Asia and LatAm commodity exporters would be clear beneficiaries, particularly economies like Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. But the situation is different when services lead the way, and the relative advantage of manufacture-intensive Asian economies is less obvious in this case. Ultimately, our work suggests a more services driven rebound in China would be less relevant for the global economy. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>226false843fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ellen-zentner-the-lagging-effects-of-loan-growth--75654737----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how recent developments in the banking sector could impact the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, April 6, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Events over the past several weeks have led to disruptions in the financial system that we believe will leave a mark on the real economy. Our banking analysts here at Morgan Stanley Research see permanently higher funding costs for banks going forward, and that will likely lead to tighter credit conditions beyond what was already embedded in our previous baseline for the economy. 
At its March meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee explicitly added a reference to tightening credit conditions and the effects on growth and inflation. But in the press conference, Chair Powell also highlighted wide uncertainty around the magnitude of tightening. The lack of visibility into the extent and persistence of current bank funding pressures, as well as the banking systems response, are contributing to this uncertainty. 
Our banking analysts believe that higher operating costs should drive tougher standards for new loans and higher loan spreads. These drivers set the stage for an even sharper deceleration in credit growth over the course of this year. Put simply, when it's more difficult or expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow money, it creates challenges for economic growth. 
While our baseline forecast for the U.S. economy already included a meaningful slowdown in loan growth over the coming months, further tightening in lending standards and greater pullback in bank lending will weigh further on GDP. That said, our modeling shows the effects are likely to take some time to build, with a meaningful slowing starting in the third quarter of this year and the largest impact occurring across the fourth quarter of 2023, and the first quarter of 2024. We think the impact of tighter credit on consumption and business investment is roughly equal, though we expect that the effects on business investment will likely peak in the fourth quarter of this year, one quarter ahead of consumption. 
On the back of this analysis, we've lowered our forecast for U.S. GDP growth this year and now look for 0.3% growth on a Q4 over Q4 basis. That's 1/10 lower than where we had it prior to the emergence of these new bank funding pressures. For next year we took our GDP forecast down by 2/10 to just 1%. Again, because it takes time for the cumulative impacts to build, we see the largest impacts as we're moving into 2024. 
So to sum up, the risk to the U.S. economic growth outlook and the labor market are large and two sided. A quicker resolution of financial system troubles could help keep the economy on solid footing, in line with recent monthly payroll data, which has been resilient. On the other hand, more volatile financial conditions from here could see a larger and more rapid deterioration in growth and the labor market. For now, banking conditions seem to have stabilized, which has given investors a bit of relief. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6NYFhgxCCdfEOWM3uoXXg8swgfv2VuUj4bBnNX7hJcoThu, 06 Apr 2023 20:28:39 +0000gtyWhile banking conditions seem to have stabilized for now, tighter credit conditions could still hit U.S. economic growth. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how recent developments in the banking sector could impact the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, April 6, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Events over the past several weeks have led to disruptions in the financial system that we believe will leave a mark on the real economy. Our banking analysts here at Morgan Stanley Research see permanently higher funding costs for banks going forward, and that will likely lead to tighter credit conditions beyond what was already embedded in our previous baseline for the economy. 
At its March meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee explicitly added a reference to tightening credit conditions and the effects on growth and inflation. But in the press conference, Chair Powell also highlighted wide uncertainty around the magnitude of tightening. The lack of visibility into the extent and persistence of current bank funding pressures, as well as the banking systems response, are contributing to this uncertainty. 
Our banking analysts believe that higher operating costs should drive tougher standards for new loans and higher loan spreads. These drivers set the stage for an even sharper deceleration in credit growth over the course of this year. Put simply, when it's more difficult or expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow money, it creates challenges for economic growth. 
While our baseline forecast for the U.S. economy already included a meaningful slowdown in loan growth over the coming months, further tightening in lending standards and greater pullback in bank lending will weigh further on GDP. That said, our modeling shows the effects are likely to take some time to build, with a meaningful slowing starting in the third quarter of this year and the largest impact occurring across the fourth quarter of 2023, and the first quarter of 2024. We think the impact of tighter credit on consumption and business investment is roughly equal, though we expect that the effects on business investment will likely peak in the fourth quarter of this year, one quarter ahead of consumption. 
On the back of this analysis, we've lowered our forecast for U.S. GDP growth this year and now look for 0.3% growth on a Q4 over Q4 basis. That's 1/10 lower than where we had it prior to the emergence of these new bank funding pressures. For next year we took our GDP forecast down by 2/10 to just 1%. Again, because it takes time for the cumulative impacts to build, we see the largest impacts as we're moving into 2024. 
So to sum up, the risk to the U.S. economic growth outlook and the labor market are large and two sided. A quicker resolution of financial system troubles could help keep the economy on solid footing, in line with recent monthly payroll data, which has been resilient. On the other hand, more volatile financial conditions from here could see a larger and more rapid deterioration in growth and the labor market. For now, banking conditions seem to have stabilized, which has given investors a bit of relief. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>193false842fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-what-the-x-date-means-for-investors--75654865----- Transcript -----
Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and financial markets. It's Wednesday, April 5th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Markets have focused in recent weeks on key long term debates, such as sizing up the long term effects of Fed policy and bank liquidity challenges. But investors should be aware that there may be at least a temporary interruption for focus on the debt ceiling in the coming weeks. That's because tax receipts will soon start rolling in, which should give the government and markets a clearer assessment of the timing of the x-date, that's the date after which the Treasury no longer has cash on hand to pay all its bills as they come due. Said differently, it's the date that investors would focus on as a potential deadline for raising the debt ceiling in order to avoid a government bond default, or a messy workaround to such a default that could rattle markets. 
Some clients have suggested to us that there should be less concern about Congress raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner ahead of that x-date, the reason being that recent banking challenges and resulting economic fears may have reduced Congress's willingness to take risks with the economy. We disagree, and still expect Congress will at least take this negotiation down to the wire, perhaps even going past the x-date, which, to be clear, wouldn't necessarily cause a default, but it would up the risk meaningfully. So what's the basis for our argument? 
First, remember, Republicans have a very slim majority in the House, meaning only a handful of objectors to any legislation could potentially create gridlock. There was already public reticence by Republicans about raising the debt ceiling unless paired with spending cuts, something Democrats have not been interested in. That position appears unchanged, despite recent bank issues, with some Republicans linking government spending to banking sector challenges, drawing a line from spending to the increase in interest rates that drove mark-to-market losses in bank portfolios. And second, some lawmakers have publicly speculated that the Fed and Treasury's reassurances that the U.S will not default suggest that they would step in in any emergency. This dynamic of a perceived safety net could incentivize Congress to debate the debt ceiling for an uncomfortably long amount of time for markets. 
Where would such stress first show up? We’d watch the T-bills market, where recent history suggests that the shortest maturity Treasuries would come under above normal selling pressures as investors try to steer clear of maturities closest to the x-date. We'll of course be tracking this, and the broader debt ceiling dynamic carefully and keep you updated. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/NQbpnyoqnjJkUZqJq5g9yDRYXA__4daQPS1KeQwqgccWed, 05 Apr 2023 20:04:12 +0000gtyWith the deadline to raise the debt ceiling looming closer, will recent banking challenges reduce Congress's willingness to take risks with the economy? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and financial markets. It's Wednesday, April 5th at 9 a.m. in New York. 
Markets have focused in recent weeks on key long term debates, such as sizing up the long term effects of Fed policy and bank liquidity challenges. But investors should be aware that there may be at least a temporary interruption for focus on the debt ceiling in the coming weeks. That's because tax receipts will soon start rolling in, which should give the government and markets a clearer assessment of the timing of the x-date, that's the date after which the Treasury no longer has cash on hand to pay all its bills as they come due. Said differently, it's the date that investors would focus on as a potential deadline for raising the debt ceiling in order to avoid a government bond default, or a messy workaround to such a default that could rattle markets. 
Some clients have suggested to us that there should be less concern about Congress raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner ahead of that x-date, the reason being that recent banking challenges and resulting economic fears may have reduced Congress's willingness to take risks with the economy. We disagree, and still expect Congress will at least take this negotiation down to the wire, perhaps even going past the x-date, which, to be clear, wouldn't necessarily cause a default, but it would up the risk meaningfully. So what's the basis for our argument? 
First, remember, Republicans have a very slim majority in the House, meaning only a handful of objectors to any legislation could potentially create gridlock. There was already public reticence by Republicans about raising the debt ceiling unless paired with spending cuts, something Democrats have not been interested in. That position appears unchanged, despite recent bank issues, with some Republicans linking government spending to banking sector challenges, drawing a line from spending to the increase in interest rates that drove mark-to-market losses in bank portfolios. And second, some lawmakers have publicly speculated that the Fed and Treasury's reassurances that the U.S will not default suggest that they would step in in any emergency. This dynamic of a perceived safety net could incentivize Congress to debate the debt ceiling for an uncomfortably long amount of time for markets. 
Where would such stress first show up? We’d watch the T-bills market, where recent history suggests that the shortest maturity Treasuries would come under above normal selling pressures as investors try to steer clear of maturities closest to the x-date. We'll of course be tracking this, and the broader debt ceiling dynamic carefully and keep you updated. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>164false841fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seth-carpenter-china-s-impact-on-global-growth--75654804----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the outlook for global economic growth. It's Tuesday, April 4th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
How is the outlook evolving after one quarter of 2023? The key trends in our year ahead outlook remain, but they're changing. The spread between Asian growth and the rest of the world is actually a bit wider now. And within developed market economies, downgrades to the U.S. forecast largely on the back of banking sector developments and upgrades to the euro area, largely on the back of stronger incoming data, now have Europe growing faster than the U.S. in 2023. In China, the data continue to reinforce our bullish call for about 5.7% GDP growth this year, and if anything, there are risks to the upside, despite the official growth target from Beijing coming in at about 5%. 
Had it not been for the banking sector dominating the market narrative, I suspect that China reopening would still be the most important story. But China's recovery has always had a critical caveat to it. We've always said that the rebound would be much more domestically focused than in the past and more weighted towards services than industry in the past. We don't think you can apply historical betas, that is the spillover from Chinese growth to the rest of the world, the way you could in the past. 
I want to highlight a recent piece that quantifies how China's global spillovers are different this time. Two main points deserve attention. First, the industrial economy never contracted as much as the services economy in China did, and that means that the rebound will be much bigger in services than it could be in the industrial economy. And second, we do try to estimate those betas, as they're called for the spillover from China to the global economy, excluding China. And what we conclude is that the effect is smaller the more important the services economy in China is for growth. Put differently, the three percentage point acceleration from last year to this year will not carry the same punch for the rest of the world that a three percentage point acceleration would have done years ago. 
The modest upgrade we've made to the euro area growth is not as a result supported by the China reopening, but instead is coming from stronger incoming data that we think reflect lower energy prices and more sustained fiscal impetus. The modestly stronger outlook, though, doesn't change the fact that the distribution of likely outcomes over the next year, it's skewed to the downside. Seven months from now Europe will be starting the beginning of another winter and with it the risk of exhausting gas inventories, and with core inflation in the euro area not yet at its peak, stronger real growth is simply a reason for more hiking from the ECB. 
In contrast, we have nudged down our already soft forecast for the U.S. for 2023. Funding costs for banks are higher, the willingness to lend is almost surely lower than before, but that restriction in loan supply is coming at a time where we are already expecting material slowing in the U.S. economy and therefore falling demand for credit. So the net effect is negative, but banks willingness to lend matters a lot less if there are fewer borrowers around. 
So where does this all leave us? The EM versus DM theme we have been highlighting continues and if anything it's a bit stronger. The China reopening story remains solid and the U.S. is softening. Within DM the stronger growth within Europe compared to the U.S. is notable both for its own sake, but also because it will mean that the ECB hiking will look closer to the Fed's hiking than we had thought just three months ago. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-p-gLL-Gh4lWcN9YFlIGPBeKSh5FKKPszvB6xqyVquYTue, 04 Apr 2023 20:30:40 +0000gtyAs the economic growth spread between Asia and the rest of the world widens, China’s reopening is unlikely to spur growth that spills over globally. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the outlook for global economic growth. It's Tuesday, April 4th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
How is the outlook evolving after one quarter of 2023? The key trends in our year ahead outlook remain, but they're changing. The spread between Asian growth and the rest of the world is actually a bit wider now. And within developed market economies, downgrades to the U.S. forecast largely on the back of banking sector developments and upgrades to the euro area, largely on the back of stronger incoming data, now have Europe growing faster than the U.S. in 2023. In China, the data continue to reinforce our bullish call for about 5.7% GDP growth this year, and if anything, there are risks to the upside, despite the official growth target from Beijing coming in at about 5%. 
Had it not been for the banking sector dominating the market narrative, I suspect that China reopening would still be the most important story. But China's recovery has always had a critical caveat to it. We've always said that the rebound would be much more domestically focused than in the past and more weighted towards services than industry in the past. We don't think you can apply historical betas, that is the spillover from Chinese growth to the rest of the world, the way you could in the past. 
I want to highlight a recent piece that quantifies how China's global spillovers are different this time. Two main points deserve attention. First, the industrial economy never contracted as much as the services economy in China did, and that means that the rebound will be much bigger in services than it could be in the industrial economy. And second, we do try to estimate those betas, as they're called for the spillover from China to the global economy, excluding China. And what we conclude is that the effect is smaller the more important the services economy in China is for growth. Put differently, the three percentage point acceleration from last year to this year will not carry the same punch for the rest of the world that a three percentage point acceleration would have done years ago. 
The modest upgrade we've made to the euro area growth is not as a result supported by the China reopening, but instead is coming from stronger incoming data that we think reflect lower energy prices and more sustained fiscal impetus. The modestly stronger outlook, though, doesn't change the fact that the distribution of likely outcomes over the next year, it's skewed to the downside. Seven months from now Europe will be starting the beginning of another winter and with it the risk of exhausting gas inventories, and with core inflation in the euro area not yet at its peak, stronger real growth is simply a reason for more hiking from the ECB. 
In contrast, we have nudged down our already soft forecast for the U.S. for 2023. Funding costs for banks are higher, the willingness to lend is almost surely lower than before, but that restriction in loan supply is coming at a time where we are already expecting material slowing in the U.S. economy and therefore falling demand for credit. So the net effect is negative, but banks willingness to lend matters a lot less if there are fewer borrowers around. 
So where does this all leave us? The EM versus DM theme we have been highlighting continues and if anything it's a bit stronger. The China reopening story remains solid and the U.S. is softening. Within DM the stronger growth within Europe compared to the U.S. is notable both for its own sake, but also because it will mean that the ECB hiking will look closer to the Fed's hiking than we had thought...]]>222false840fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-not-all-bank-reserves-are-created-equal--75654854----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 3rd at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Over the past month, market participants have been focused on how the government will deal with the stress in the banking system and whether the economy can withstand this latest shock. After a rough couple of weeks, especially for regional banks, the major indices appear to be shrugging off these risks. Many are interpreting the sharp increase in bank reserves as another form of quantitative easing and are exhibiting the Pavlovian response that such programs are always good for equity prices. As we discussed in prior podcasts, we do not think that's the right interpretation of this latest increase in the Fed's balance sheet. 
In our view, all bank reserves are not created equal. True money supply as a function of reserves and the velocity of money which is difficult to measure in real time. As a comparison, inflation did not appear after the first wave of quantitative easing used during the great financial crisis because the velocity of money simultaneously collapsed. This was despite the fact that the percentage increase in the Fed's balance sheet dwarfed what we experienced during COVID. The primary difference was that the increase in reserves during the great financial crisis was simply filling holes left on bank balance sheets from the housing crisis. Therefore, the increase in reserves did not lead to a material increase in true money supply in the real economy. In contrast, during COVID, the increase in reserves are pushed directly into the economy via stimulus checks, PPP loans and other programs to keep the economy from shutting down. However, these fiscal programs were overdone and the result was money supply moved sharply higher because the velocity of money remained stable and even increased slightly. 
During this latest increase in Fed balance sheet reserves, the total liabilities in the US banking system have continued to fall. This suggests to us that the velocity of money is falling quite rapidly, more than offsetting the increase in bank reserves. In fact, these bank liabilities are falling at a rate of 7% year-over-year, the biggest decline in more than 60 years. Even during the Great Financial Crisis, money supply growth never went into negative territory. The kind of contraction we are witnessing today suggests this is not anything like the QE programs experienced during COVID or the 2009 to 2013 period. Secondarily, it also means that both economic and earnings growth are likely to remain under pressure until money supply growth reverses. 
This leads me to the second part of this podcast. Year to date, major U.S. stock indices have performed well, led by technology heavy NASDAQ. This is partially due to the snap back from such poor performance last year, led by the NASDAQ. But it's also the view that unlevered, high quality growth stocks are immune from the potential oncoming credit crunch. It's important to note that the rally to date in U.S. stocks has been very narrow, with just eight stocks accounting for 80% of the entire returns in the NASDAQ 100. Meanwhile, only ten stocks have accounted for 95% of the entire returns in the S&P 500, with all ten of those stocks being technology-related businesses. Such an erroneous performance is known as bad breadth, and it typically doesn't bode well for future prices. 
The counterargument is that technology already went through its own recession last year and it's taken its medicine now with respect to cost reductions and layoffs. Therefore, these stocks can continue to recover and carry the overall market, given their size. We would caution on such conclusions, given the increased risk of a credit crunch that suggests the risk of a broader economic recession is far from extinguished. Recessions are bad for technology companies, which are generally pro cyclical businesses. Instead, we continue to prefer more defensive sectors like consumer staples and health care.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/LS_LDINAkaAgr2SsuunFYLc49zYod64aUVnW2KYhlJMMon, 03 Apr 2023 23:11:34 +0000gtyRecent increases in the Fed’s balance sheet may not have the same impact on money supply, growth and equities as in previous cycles. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S....----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 3rd at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Over the past month, market participants have been focused on how the government will deal with the stress in the banking system and whether the economy can withstand this latest shock. After a rough couple of weeks, especially for regional banks, the major indices appear to be shrugging off these risks. Many are interpreting the sharp increase in bank reserves as another form of quantitative easing and are exhibiting the Pavlovian response that such programs are always good for equity prices. As we discussed in prior podcasts, we do not think that's the right interpretation of this latest increase in the Fed's balance sheet. 
In our view, all bank reserves are not created equal. True money supply as a function of reserves and the velocity of money which is difficult to measure in real time. As a comparison, inflation did not appear after the first wave of quantitative easing used during the great financial crisis because the velocity of money simultaneously collapsed. This was despite the fact that the percentage increase in the Fed's balance sheet dwarfed what we experienced during COVID. The primary difference was that the increase in reserves during the great financial crisis was simply filling holes left on bank balance sheets from the housing crisis. Therefore, the increase in reserves did not lead to a material increase in true money supply in the real economy. In contrast, during COVID, the increase in reserves are pushed directly into the economy via stimulus checks, PPP loans and other programs to keep the economy from shutting down. However, these fiscal programs were overdone and the result was money supply moved sharply higher because the velocity of money remained stable and even increased slightly. 
During this latest increase in Fed balance sheet reserves, the total liabilities in the US banking system have continued to fall. This suggests to us that the velocity of money is falling quite rapidly, more than offsetting the increase in bank reserves. In fact, these bank liabilities are falling at a rate of 7% year-over-year, the biggest decline in more than 60 years. Even during the Great Financial Crisis, money supply growth never went into negative territory. The kind of contraction we are witnessing today suggests this is not anything like the QE programs experienced during COVID or the 2009 to 2013 period. Secondarily, it also means that both economic and earnings growth are likely to remain under pressure until money supply growth reverses. 
This leads me to the second part of this podcast. Year to date, major U.S. stock indices have performed well, led by technology heavy NASDAQ. This is partially due to the snap back from such poor performance last year, led by the NASDAQ. But it's also the view that unlevered, high quality growth stocks are immune from the potential oncoming credit crunch. It's important to note that the rally to date in U.S. stocks has been very narrow, with just eight stocks accounting for 80% of the entire returns in the NASDAQ 100. Meanwhile, only ten stocks have accounted for 95% of the entire returns in the S&P 500, with all ten of those stocks being technology-related businesses. Such an erroneous performance is known as bad breadth, and it typically doesn't bode well for future prices. 
The counterargument is that technology already went through its own recession last year and it's taken its medicine now with respect to cost reductions and layoffs....]]>224false839fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-be-careful-what-you-wish-for--75654922----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the Global Investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, March 31st at 2 p.m. in London. 
Here at Morgan Stanley Research, we are cautious on global equities relative to high grade bonds. So what would change our mind? We think the bull case for markets is better than expected growth, even if that means higher interest rates. On the other hand, investors should be careful about wishing for weaker growth, even if that would mean easier policy. 
Central to our thinking is the observation that a sharp slowing of a previously strong economy has repeatedly been poor for stocks relative to high grade bonds. And we think signs of such an environment of a hot economy that's slowing abound. Inverted yield curves, falling earnings expectations, high inflation, tight labor markets, weak commodity prices and tightening bank lending standards are all consistent with a strong economy that's slowing and are all present to an unusual degree. Historically, the-more of these factors one has seen, the worst the forward looking environment for stocks versus bonds. 
In short, much of our caution is driven by concerns around the growth outlook and its deceleration. So if growth is better than we expect, we think that's a positive surprise. 
But wouldn't better growth mean higher interest rates, which were bad for markets last year? Shouldn't investors be wishing for weaker growth that would bring back lower rates and policy easing? 
First, we would view 2022 as something of an outlier, the first time in 150 years that both U.S. stocks and long-term bonds fell by more than 10%. Today, the starting point for valuations in both equities and fixed income is better, leaving more room to absorb the impact of higher rates. 
Second, the way that stocks and bonds are moving relative to each other is shifting and different from last year. Throughout 2022, stocks generally fell if yields rose, implying higher rates were a concern. But over the last 60 days, stocks have generally fallen with lower yields. That pattern is more consistent with growth being the dominant concern of equity markets. 
But wouldn't weaker growth help if it meant central banks start to cut interest rates? Here, we think the historical evidence is less supportive than appreciated. In 1989, 2001, 2007, and 2022, the Federal Reserve eased policy as growth weakened. All saw stocks underperform bonds, consistent with our current recommendations. 
In addition, the amount of easing already expected by markets matters. U.S. markets are already expecting the Fed to cut rates by about 1.7% over the next two years. Such large easing doesn't match times when relatively smaller levels of rate cuts did boost markets like in ‘95, ‘97, ‘99 or 2019. 
In short, we think the bull case through markets lies through growth that's better than our economists expect. Hoping for weaker growth and lower interest rates that might go along with it has a more volatile track record. Be careful what you wish for. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/mo4RiOdRq75LRJblUmL2B_SuOxCWphoaX0H1aFexoAsFri, 31 Mar 2023 21:26:49 +0000gtyGiven recent signs of slowing in a previously strong economy, investors may want to look to history before wishing for weaker growth. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the Global Investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, March 31st at 2 p.m. in London. 
Here at Morgan Stanley Research, we are cautious on global equities relative to high grade bonds. So what would change our mind? We think the bull case for markets is better than expected growth, even if that means higher interest rates. On the other hand, investors should be careful about wishing for weaker growth, even if that would mean easier policy. 
Central to our thinking is the observation that a sharp slowing of a previously strong economy has repeatedly been poor for stocks relative to high grade bonds. And we think signs of such an environment of a hot economy that's slowing abound. Inverted yield curves, falling earnings expectations, high inflation, tight labor markets, weak commodity prices and tightening bank lending standards are all consistent with a strong economy that's slowing and are all present to an unusual degree. Historically, the-more of these factors one has seen, the worst the forward looking environment for stocks versus bonds. 
In short, much of our caution is driven by concerns around the growth outlook and its deceleration. So if growth is better than we expect, we think that's a positive surprise. 
But wouldn't better growth mean higher interest rates, which were bad for markets last year? Shouldn't investors be wishing for weaker growth that would bring back lower rates and policy easing? 
First, we would view 2022 as something of an outlier, the first time in 150 years that both U.S. stocks and long-term bonds fell by more than 10%. Today, the starting point for valuations in both equities and fixed income is better, leaving more room to absorb the impact of higher rates. 
Second, the way that stocks and bonds are moving relative to each other is shifting and different from last year. Throughout 2022, stocks generally fell if yields rose, implying higher rates were a concern. But over the last 60 days, stocks have generally fallen with lower yields. That pattern is more consistent with growth being the dominant concern of equity markets. 
But wouldn't weaker growth help if it meant central banks start to cut interest rates? Here, we think the historical evidence is less supportive than appreciated. In 1989, 2001, 2007, and 2022, the Federal Reserve eased policy as growth weakened. All saw stocks underperform bonds, consistent with our current recommendations. 
In addition, the amount of easing already expected by markets matters. U.S. markets are already expecting the Fed to cut rates by about 1.7% over the next two years. Such large easing doesn't match times when relatively smaller levels of rate cuts did boost markets like in ‘95, ‘97, ‘99 or 2019. 
In short, we think the bull case through markets lies through growth that's better than our economists expect. Hoping for weaker growth and lower interest rates that might go along with it has a more volatile track record. Be careful what you wish for. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>201false838fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-a-challenging-road-for-commercial-real-estate--75654952----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about some of the challenges facing the commercial real estate markets. It's Thursday, March 30th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Commercial real estate market, or CRE in short, is a hot topic, especially in the context of recent developments in the banking sector. As we have discussed on this podcast, even though banks were already tightening lending standards, given recent events their ability and willingness to make loans is diminished. 
Besides making loans, banks enable credit formation as buyers of senior tranches of securitizations. A regulatory response to recent events will likely decrease the ability of regional banks to be buyers of such tranches, if risk rates and liquidity capital ratio requirements are revised to reflect duration in addition to credit risk. 
It's against this backdrop that we think about the exposure of regional banks to CRE. Understanding the nature of CRE financing and getting some numbers is useful to put this issue in context. 
First, commercial real estate mortgage financing is different from, say, residential real estate mortgage financing in that they are generally non-amortizing mortgages with terms usually 5 or 10 years. That means at term there is a balloon payment due which needs to be refinanced into another 5 or 10 year term loan. 
Second, there is a heightened degree of imminence to the refinancing issue for CRE. $450 billion of CRE debt matures this year and needs to be refinanced. It doesn't really get easier in the next few years, with CRE debt maturing and needing to be refinanced of about $550 billion per year until 2027. In all, between 2023 and 2027, $2.5 trillion of CRE debt is set to mature, about 40% of which was originated by the banking sector. 
Third, retail banks' exposure to CRE lending is substantial and their share of lending volumes has been growing in recent years. 70% of the core CRE debt in the banking sector was originated by regional banks. These loans are distributed across major CRE sub-sectors and majority of these loans are under $10 million loans. That the share of the digital banks in CRE debt has ramped up meaningfully in the last few years is actually very notable. That means the growth in their CRE lending has come during a period of peaking valuations. 
Even in sub-sectors such as multifamily, where lending has predominantly come from other sources, such as the GSEs, banks play a critical role in that they are the buyers of senior tranches of agency commercial mortgage backed securities. As I said earlier, if banks' ability to buy such securities decreases because of new regulations, this indirectly impacts the prospects for refinancing maturing debt in the sector as well. 
So what is the bottom line? Imminent refinancing needs of commercial real estate are a risk and the current banking sector turmoil adds to this challenge. We believe CRE needs to reprice and alternatives to refinance debt are very much needed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pWy44TavR2mr2HykH22AzShh4kz2WxczquT_LkFrC64Thu, 30 Mar 2023 20:57:38 +0000gtyAs regional banks contend with sector volatility, commercial real estate could face challenges in securing new loans and refinancing debt when it matures. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about some of the challenges facing the commercial real estate markets. It's Thursday, March 30th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Commercial real estate market, or CRE in short, is a hot topic, especially in the context of recent developments in the banking sector. As we have discussed on this podcast, even though banks were already tightening lending standards, given recent events their ability and willingness to make loans is diminished. 
Besides making loans, banks enable credit formation as buyers of senior tranches of securitizations. A regulatory response to recent events will likely decrease the ability of regional banks to be buyers of such tranches, if risk rates and liquidity capital ratio requirements are revised to reflect duration in addition to credit risk. 
It's against this backdrop that we think about the exposure of regional banks to CRE. Understanding the nature of CRE financing and getting some numbers is useful to put this issue in context. 
First, commercial real estate mortgage financing is different from, say, residential real estate mortgage financing in that they are generally non-amortizing mortgages with terms usually 5 or 10 years. That means at term there is a balloon payment due which needs to be refinanced into another 5 or 10 year term loan. 
Second, there is a heightened degree of imminence to the refinancing issue for CRE. $450 billion of CRE debt matures this year and needs to be refinanced. It doesn't really get easier in the next few years, with CRE debt maturing and needing to be refinanced of about $550 billion per year until 2027. In all, between 2023 and 2027, $2.5 trillion of CRE debt is set to mature, about 40% of which was originated by the banking sector. 
Third, retail banks' exposure to CRE lending is substantial and their share of lending volumes has been growing in recent years. 70% of the core CRE debt in the banking sector was originated by regional banks. These loans are distributed across major CRE sub-sectors and majority of these loans are under $10 million loans. That the share of the digital banks in CRE debt has ramped up meaningfully in the last few years is actually very notable. That means the growth in their CRE lending has come during a period of peaking valuations. 
Even in sub-sectors such as multifamily, where lending has predominantly come from other sources, such as the GSEs, banks play a critical role in that they are the buyers of senior tranches of agency commercial mortgage backed securities. As I said earlier, if banks' ability to buy such securities decreases because of new regulations, this indirectly impacts the prospects for refinancing maturing debt in the sector as well. 
So what is the bottom line? Imminent refinancing needs of commercial real estate are a risk and the current banking sector turmoil adds to this challenge. We believe CRE needs to reprice and alternatives to refinance debt are very much needed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>199false837fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/lauren-schenk-analyzing-the-online-dating-market--75654787----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lauren Schenk, Equity Analyst covering Small and Mid-Cap Internet stocks. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the next leg of growth for the online dating industry. It's Wednesday, March 29th at noon in New York. 
Investors are understandably focused on turmoil in banking, but today we'll be taking a break from banks to cover a hot topic in any macro environment, online dating. 
Almost every investor call I get includes the question, "Is online dating just becoming saturated, mature or over-monetized?" Several data points have driven this market view. First, revenue growth at the top dating apps slowed in 2022 and provided more modest fiscal year 2023 guides and expected. Second, survey data suggests U.S. online dating adoption slowed over COVID. Third, app data implies U.S. monthly active users have been flat for five plus years, suggesting that monetization has driven all the growth and may slow from here. 
This data prompted us to dig deeper into the multiple growth drivers of online dating revenue growth to see if investor concerns are well founded. And we found that online dating is not just about users and user growth. Today, roughly 32% of the U.S. addressable single population uses online dating and 26% of that 32% pay for online dating either through a subscription or a la carte purchase. 
In fact, our analysis suggests there's still plenty of growth runway. There are effectively four key drivers of online dating growth between users and monetization, potential users, or total addressable market, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer. Most dating apps employ a "Freemium" model, meaning the service and platform are free to use, but the experience and success rate can be improved via a monthly subscription of bundled features or one-off a la carte purchases. 
To be sure, user growth has provided a solid boost to revenue growth over the last many years as mobile swipe apps expanded usage among young users. However, we see slowing U.S. single population growth and a slowing of user penetration from here. We estimate that user growth will likely contribute only 3% of industry revenue growth from 2022 to 2030, while the bulk of online dating revenue growth will increasingly come from monetization. 
With that said, compared to user growth, monetization growth is far more dependent on execution, which could make the industry growth inherently more volatile going forward, supporting our thesis that the leading apps' steep recent slowdown is not a function of oversaturation so much as mis-execution. 
Given all this, we believe the U.S. online dating industry will see durable, above consensus revenue growth medium to long term. We think the 2022 slowdown was due to mis-execution and monetization, with almost no payer growth and macro challenges, rather than saturation, as three of the four primary industry growth drivers, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer, are still on a growth path. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wEGqcq8gZnQomvDELmxyF5wpTsm8KHKQoYGLLNx3gPQWed, 29 Mar 2023 21:16:00 +0000gtyMany investors are questioning if the online dating market has become saturated and, in turn, if there is still a growth runway for the industry. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lauren Schenk, Equity Analyst covering...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lauren Schenk, Equity Analyst covering Small and Mid-Cap Internet stocks. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the next leg of growth for the online dating industry. It's Wednesday, March 29th at noon in New York. 
Investors are understandably focused on turmoil in banking, but today we'll be taking a break from banks to cover a hot topic in any macro environment, online dating. 
Almost every investor call I get includes the question, "Is online dating just becoming saturated, mature or over-monetized?" Several data points have driven this market view. First, revenue growth at the top dating apps slowed in 2022 and provided more modest fiscal year 2023 guides and expected. Second, survey data suggests U.S. online dating adoption slowed over COVID. Third, app data implies U.S. monthly active users have been flat for five plus years, suggesting that monetization has driven all the growth and may slow from here. 
This data prompted us to dig deeper into the multiple growth drivers of online dating revenue growth to see if investor concerns are well founded. And we found that online dating is not just about users and user growth. Today, roughly 32% of the U.S. addressable single population uses online dating and 26% of that 32% pay for online dating either through a subscription or a la carte purchase. 
In fact, our analysis suggests there's still plenty of growth runway. There are effectively four key drivers of online dating growth between users and monetization, potential users, or total addressable market, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer. Most dating apps employ a "Freemium" model, meaning the service and platform are free to use, but the experience and success rate can be improved via a monthly subscription of bundled features or one-off a la carte purchases. 
To be sure, user growth has provided a solid boost to revenue growth over the last many years as mobile swipe apps expanded usage among young users. However, we see slowing U.S. single population growth and a slowing of user penetration from here. We estimate that user growth will likely contribute only 3% of industry revenue growth from 2022 to 2030, while the bulk of online dating revenue growth will increasingly come from monetization. 
With that said, compared to user growth, monetization growth is far more dependent on execution, which could make the industry growth inherently more volatile going forward, supporting our thesis that the leading apps' steep recent slowdown is not a function of oversaturation so much as mis-execution. 
Given all this, we believe the U.S. online dating industry will see durable, above consensus revenue growth medium to long term. We think the 2022 slowdown was due to mis-execution and monetization, with almost no payer growth and macro challenges, rather than saturation, as three of the four primary industry growth drivers, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer, are still on a growth path. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>183false836fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/introducing-what-should-i-do-with-my-money--75654783morganstanley.com/mymoney.  ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wM_rDEc2gd1qa31fnoGhY2YBVlWg-y3clMm3CtvEfX8Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:30:00 +0000gtyIf you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in our new podcast: What Should I Do With My Money? ----------------Managing our money can be ... a lot. It's one of the most important aspects of our lives, and yet, many of us just...morganstanley.com/mymoney.  ]]>171false835fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/graham-secker-a-moment-of-calm-for-european-equities--75654958----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications on European equities from the increased uncertainty surrounding the global banking sector. It's Tuesday, March 28th at 3 p.m. in London. 
After the turbulence of mid-March, a degree of calm has descended over markets recently, which has lifted European equities back to within 3% of their prior high and pushed equity volatility down to more normal levels. In effect, we think investors are now in 'wait and see' mode as they try to assess the forthcoming consequences and investment implications of recent events within the global banking sector. 
Our recent discussions with investors suggests a potential lack of willingness to get too bearish at this time, with some still hopeful the markets can navigate a path of modestly weaker growth, with lower inflation and less hawkish central banks. For us, we view this outcome as a possibility rather than a probability and reflective of the fact that investors have been positively surprised by the general resilience of economies and equity markets to date. 
However, this viewpoint ignores the fact that something has changed in the overall macro environment. First, yield curves are starting to steepen from very inverted levels, a backdrop that has traditionally been negative for risk markets as it reflects lower interest rate expectations due to rising recession risk. And second, we now have clear evidence, we think, that tighter monetary policy is beginning to bite. 
Over the coming weeks, we may see anecdotal stories emerge of problems around credit availability, followed thereafter by weaker economic data and ultimately lower earnings estimates. We also suspect that more financial problems or accidents will emerge over the coming months as a result of the combination of higher interest rates and lower credit availability. These issues may not necessarily manifest themselves in the mainstream European banking sector this time, however asset markets will still be vulnerable if risks emerge from other areas such as U.S. banks, commercial real estate or other financial entities. 
As a result of this increased uncertainty, we have taken a more cautious view on European equities in the near-term and forecast the region's prior outperformance of U.S. stocks to pause for a while. Within the European market, we see a trickier outlook for banks, given crowded positioning and less upside risk to earnings estimates than previously thought. However, the area of greatest caution for us is cyclicals, with the group most exposed to rising recession risk and weaker equity markets, and we are particularly cautious on those sectors most sensitive to credit dynamics such as autos. 
On the more positive side, we continue to like longer duration sectors such as luxury goods and technology, and believe they will continue to act as safe havens while market uncertainty remains high. In addition, we think the telecom sector offers an attractive mix of low valuation, healthy earnings resilience and the potential for more corporate activity and increased policy support from regulators going forward.  
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HkNnEEF5GgprGQrCDV0M4Qbq-XooFkFEXQjqf2KG2gQTue, 28 Mar 2023 19:42:46 +0000gtyAmid uncertainty in the global banking sector, are European equities a safe haven for investors to weather the storm? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications on European equities from the increased uncertainty surrounding the global banking sector. It's Tuesday, March 28th at 3 p.m. in London. 
After the turbulence of mid-March, a degree of calm has descended over markets recently, which has lifted European equities back to within 3% of their prior high and pushed equity volatility down to more normal levels. In effect, we think investors are now in 'wait and see' mode as they try to assess the forthcoming consequences and investment implications of recent events within the global banking sector. 
Our recent discussions with investors suggests a potential lack of willingness to get too bearish at this time, with some still hopeful the markets can navigate a path of modestly weaker growth, with lower inflation and less hawkish central banks. For us, we view this outcome as a possibility rather than a probability and reflective of the fact that investors have been positively surprised by the general resilience of economies and equity markets to date. 
However, this viewpoint ignores the fact that something has changed in the overall macro environment. First, yield curves are starting to steepen from very inverted levels, a backdrop that has traditionally been negative for risk markets as it reflects lower interest rate expectations due to rising recession risk. And second, we now have clear evidence, we think, that tighter monetary policy is beginning to bite. 
Over the coming weeks, we may see anecdotal stories emerge of problems around credit availability, followed thereafter by weaker economic data and ultimately lower earnings estimates. We also suspect that more financial problems or accidents will emerge over the coming months as a result of the combination of higher interest rates and lower credit availability. These issues may not necessarily manifest themselves in the mainstream European banking sector this time, however asset markets will still be vulnerable if risks emerge from other areas such as U.S. banks, commercial real estate or other financial entities. 
As a result of this increased uncertainty, we have taken a more cautious view on European equities in the near-term and forecast the region's prior outperformance of U.S. stocks to pause for a while. Within the European market, we see a trickier outlook for banks, given crowded positioning and less upside risk to earnings estimates than previously thought. However, the area of greatest caution for us is cyclicals, with the group most exposed to rising recession risk and weaker equity markets, and we are particularly cautious on those sectors most sensitive to credit dynamics such as autos. 
On the more positive side, we continue to like longer duration sectors such as luxury goods and technology, and believe they will continue to act as safe havens while market uncertainty remains high. In addition, we think the telecom sector offers an attractive mix of low valuation, healthy earnings resilience and the potential for more corporate activity and increased policy support from regulators going forward.  
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>189false834fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-is-banking-stress-the-last-straw-for-the-bear-market--75654759----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 27th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Back in October, when we turned tactically bullish, we wrote that markets often need the engraved invitation from a higher power to tell them what's really going on. For bond markets, that higher power is the Fed, and for stocks it's company earnings guidance. 
Our assumption at the time was that we were unlikely to get the negative messaging on earnings from companies necessary for the final bear market low. Instead, our view is that it would likely take another quarter for business conditions to deteriorate enough for companies to finally change their minds on the recovery that is still baked into consensus forecasts. 
Fast forward to today and we are seeing yet another quarter where estimates are being lowered to the same degree we have witnessed over the past two. In other words, it doesn't appear that the earnings picture is bottoming as many investors were starting to think last month. In fact, these downward revisions are progressing right in line with our earnings model, that suggests bottoms up estimates remain 15 to 20% too high. 
More specifically, consensus estimates still assume a strong recovery in profitability. This flies directly in the face of our negative operating leverage thesis that is playing out. Our contention that inflation increases operating leverage and operating leverage cuts both ways, is a concept that is still under appreciated. We think that helps to explain why we are so far below the consensus now on earnings. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily require an economic recession to play out, although that risk is more elevated too. 
This leads us to the main point of this week's podcast. With the events of the past few weeks, we think it's becoming more obvious that earnings estimates are unrealistic. As we have said, most bear markets end with some kind of an event that is just too significant to ignore any longer. We think recent banking stress and the effects they are likely to have on credit availability is a risk that the market must consider and price more appropriately. 
Three weeks ago, the bond market did a striking reversal that caught many market participants flat footed. In short, the bond market appeared to have decided that the recent bank failures were the beginning of the end for this cycle. More specifically, the yield curve bull steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days. Importantly, it was the first time we can remember the bond market trading this far away from the Fed's dot-plot. It was dismissing the higher powers guidance. We think this is important because now in our view it's likely to be the stock market's turn to think for itself, too. 
To date, the bear market has been driven almost entirely by higher interest rates and the impact that it has had on valuations. More specifically, when the bear market started, the price earnings multiple was 21.5x versus today's 17.5x. Importantly, this multiple troughed at 15.5x in mid-October, the lows of this bear market to date. Well, that's a relatively attractive multiple and one of the reasons we turned tactically bullish at the time, we think it never reflected the growth concerns that should now dominate the market and investor sentiment. Our evidence for that claim is based on the fact that the equity risk premium is actually lower by 110 basis points than it was at the start of this bear market. In other words, the portion of the price earnings multiple related to growth expectations is far from flashing concern. Based on our analysis, the equity risk premium is approximately 150 to 200 basis points too low, which translates into stock prices that are 15 to 20% lower at the index level. The good news is that the average stock is getting cheaper as small cap stocks have underperformed, along with banks and other areas most affected by recent events. Areas that appear most vulnerable to the further correction we expect include technology, consumer goods and services and industrials. Remain patient until the market has appropriately discounted the earnings risk that we think has moved center stage. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rE9ED5lH9xgL7AbO6rk2JIuiBL0ui0oBYq6ZUwGRGnEMon, 27 Mar 2023 20:44:26 +0000gtyAfter the events of the past few weeks, earnings estimates look increasingly unrealistic and the bear market may finally be ready to appropriately factor-in elevated earning risks. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 27th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Back in October, when we turned tactically bullish, we wrote that markets often need the engraved invitation from a higher power to tell them what's really going on. For bond markets, that higher power is the Fed, and for stocks it's company earnings guidance. 
Our assumption at the time was that we were unlikely to get the negative messaging on earnings from companies necessary for the final bear market low. Instead, our view is that it would likely take another quarter for business conditions to deteriorate enough for companies to finally change their minds on the recovery that is still baked into consensus forecasts. 
Fast forward to today and we are seeing yet another quarter where estimates are being lowered to the same degree we have witnessed over the past two. In other words, it doesn't appear that the earnings picture is bottoming as many investors were starting to think last month. In fact, these downward revisions are progressing right in line with our earnings model, that suggests bottoms up estimates remain 15 to 20% too high. 
More specifically, consensus estimates still assume a strong recovery in profitability. This flies directly in the face of our negative operating leverage thesis that is playing out. Our contention that inflation increases operating leverage and operating leverage cuts both ways, is a concept that is still under appreciated. We think that helps to explain why we are so far below the consensus now on earnings. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily require an economic recession to play out, although that risk is more elevated too. 
This leads us to the main point of this week's podcast. With the events of the past few weeks, we think it's becoming more obvious that earnings estimates are unrealistic. As we have said, most bear markets end with some kind of an event that is just too significant to ignore any longer. We think recent banking stress and the effects they are likely to have on credit availability is a risk that the market must consider and price more appropriately. 
Three weeks ago, the bond market did a striking reversal that caught many market participants flat footed. In short, the bond market appeared to have decided that the recent bank failures were the beginning of the end for this cycle. More specifically, the yield curve bull steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days. Importantly, it was the first time we can remember the bond market trading this far away from the Fed's dot-plot. It was dismissing the higher powers guidance. We think this is important because now in our view it's likely to be the stock market's turn to think for itself, too. 
To date, the bear market has been driven almost entirely by higher interest rates and the impact that it has had on valuations. More specifically, when the bear market started, the price earnings multiple was 21.5x versus today's 17.5x. Importantly, this multiple troughed at 15.5x in mid-October, the lows of this bear market to date. Well, that's a relatively attractive multiple and one of the reasons we turned tactically bullish at the time, we think it never reflected the growth concerns that should now dominate the market and investor sentiment. Our evidence for that claim is based on the fact that the equity risk premium is actually lower by 110 basis points than it was at the start of this bear market. In other words, the portion of the...]]>239false833fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-economy-central-bank-policy-in-a-time-of-volatility--75654828----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be talking about Global Central Bank policy and what's next amidst significant market volatility. It's Friday, March 24th at 4 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's noon here in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Seth I know that both of us have been running around over the last week speaking with clients, but it's really great to catch up with you because we're coming to the end of the first quarter and yet I feel like a year's worth of things have happened in global central banks and the economic narrative. Maybe just take a step back and help us understand how you're thinking about the global economy right now. 
Seth Carpenter: You're absolutely right, Andrew. There is so much going on this year, so it's worth taking a step back. Coming into this year, we were looking for the economy to slow down. And I think it's just critical to remember why, central banks everywhere that are fighting inflation are raising interest rates intentionally to tighten financial conditions in order to slow their economies down and thereby bring down inflationary pressures. The trick, of course, is not slowing things down so much that they actively cause a recession. So the Fed having hiked interest rates already, we came into the year expecting a few more hikes, but then the data got stronger and Chair Powell opened the door to maybe going back to 50 basis point hikes. And now we've got this development in the banking sector. But it's not as if so far the central banks have seen evidence that things have gone so far that they're going to cause a recession. So all of this sounds a little bit simple maybe, but the key thing here is how can they calibrate whether or not they've done enough in terms of tightening financial conditions or if they've gone too far. 
Andrew Sheets: That's a really important point, because if you look at what the market is now pricing from the Federal Reserve, it's expecting significant rate cuts through the end of the year. And it's pricing in a scenario where the Fed has effectively gone far enough or maybe they've even gone too far and has to reverse their policy pretty quickly. How do you think about the path forward from here and how likely is it that central banks will ease as much as markets are currently pricing? 
Seth Carpenter: I mean, I do think there is a path for central banks to ease, but that is not and let me just start off with that is not our baseline scenario for this year. You led off with inflation and I think that's an appropriate place to start because what we heard clearly from central bankers in all of the developed markets was they are still hyper focused on inflation being too high and the need to bring it down. So one way of thinking about what's going on is that there's just a continuation of the normal tightening of monetary policy, so bank funding costs have gone up. If you read the the publications that our colleague Betsy Graseck, who runs Bank Equity Research in North America, she's pointed out that there's been a clear increase in bank funding costs that compresses net interest margins and that should, as a result, have an effect on what's going on with credit extension. In that version of the world, the Fed is in this fine tuning version of the world where they have to feel their way to the right degree of tightness and maybe they overdo it a little bit and then eventually pull back. I think the other version of the world that's very hard to get your mind around it is absolutely not our best case scenario right now, is that there's just a wholesale pulling back in terms of the availability and willingness of banks to make credit, either because of what's going on with their own funding or because of risk in the economy. And if there's an immediate cessation of lending, well, then I think you're talking about small and medium sized businesses that rely on bank loans not being able to say cover payrolls, or not being able to cover working capital. I think that version of the world is very, very different and that would lead to a much sharper slowdown in the economy and I think, again, would elicit some reaction from the Fed. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, I'm really glad you brought the banking sector and its uncertain impact on the economy, because it goes to this broader question of lags and how that impacts some of the big debates that investors are having in the market. You have central banks that are looking at inflation and labor market data, that's arguably some of the more lagging economic data we have, by which I mean it historically tends to show weakness later than other economic indicators. So how do you think about those lags in inflation, in monetary policy and in bank credit when you're thinking about both Morgan Stanley's forecasts, but also how central banks navigate the picture here? 
Seth Carpenter: Very key part of what's going on is to try to understand that lag structure. I would say the best estimates are changes in monetary policy that tighten financial conditions, probably affect the real economy with a lag of two, three, maybe four quarters. And then from the real side of the economy to inflation, there's probably another lag of two or three or maybe four quarters. So we're talking about at least a year from policy to inflation and maybe as much as two years. One thing to keep in mind though, about those lags is we can look at the Fed and what they tell us about their own projections for how the economy would evolve under what they consider appropriate policy. And the answer is the median member of the Federal Open Market Committee sees core inflation at about 2.1%, so almost, but not quite back to target at the end of 2025. So if you think about when they started hiking rates until the end of 2025, they're thinking it's an appropriate time horizon for it to take well over three years. I think that's the kind of time horizon we should be thinking about in general, when everything goes, shall we say, roughly according to plan. Now, the banking system developments throw a big monkey wrench into everything. And to be clear, confounding all of this, even before we had any of the volatility in the banking sector, we were already seeing slowing, that always happens when interest rates rise. Deposits were coming down in the United States, even before any of the recent developments, the rate of growth of loans was coming down. We had on a three month basis, C&I loan growth slowed to about zero. So we were already seeing the slowing happening in the banking sector. I think the real question is, are we going to see just incrementally more or is there something more discontinuous? Our baseline view relies on this being sort of an incremental additional tightness in conditions, but we have to keep monitoring to make sure we know what happens. 
Andrew Sheets: Seth maybe my last question would be, given everything that's been going on, what do you think is something that is most misunderstood by the market or least understood by the market? 
Seth Carpenter: I definitely hear in conversations with clients and others this idea that there might be a dichotomy. Are central banks going to give up their concern about inflation and instead turn their focus to financial stability? And I always try to push back on that and say that that's a bit of a bit of a false dichotomy. Why do I say that? Because, remember, fundamentally, central banks are trying to tighten financial conditions in order to slow the economy, in order to bring inflation down. And so if what we're seeing now is just further tightening of financial conditions, that will help them slow the economy down, there's no trade off to be made. And in fact, Chair Powell, at the last press conference said what's going on in banking system is something like the equivalent of one or two interest rate hikes. So in that sense, there's clearly no dichotomy to be had. So I would say that's for me, the biggest misunderstanding in the way the debate is going on is whether central banks have to focus either on financial stability or on inflation. But if I can, let me turn the tables and ask a question of you. We came into this year with our outlook called the year of Yield, but now the world is very different. You've talked about how much volatility there is. So when you're talking to clients, how are they supposed to navigate these very turbulent waters with lots of cross-currents going in different directions? 
Andrew Sheets: One thing that I hope listeners understand is that when we set our views from the strategy side at Morgan Stanley, we work very closely with you and the Global Economics Team. And I think one of the core themes this year is that even though we've seen a lot of volatility in the narrative and in the data, the core message is that 2023 is a year where growth is decelerating meaningfully in the U.S and Europe and the 2023 is a year where growth is decelerating meaningfully in the U.S and Europe, and that's the case if you have a recession, which is not our base case, or if you avoid a recession, which is. And I think we've seen developments in the banking sector since we've and I think the developments that we've seen in the banking sector only reinforce this view, only reinforce the idea that growth is going to slow, given how hot it was coming in, given the effect of higher rates and now given the additional impact of a more co]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/jf0IO7nwYMjHmhL0PqKUQT8Hgiav_5EwTt9Y0UsAJv0Sat, 25 Mar 2023 00:21:32 +0000gtyAs markets contend with the recent volatility in the banking sector, global central banks face the challenge of continuing to combat inflation against this updated backdrop. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be talking about Global Central Bank policy and what's next amidst significant market volatility. It's Friday, March 24th at 4 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's noon here in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Seth I know that both of us have been running around over the last week speaking with clients, but it's really great to catch up with you because we're coming to the end of the first quarter and yet I feel like a year's worth of things have happened in global central banks and the economic narrative. Maybe just take a step back and help us understand how you're thinking about the global economy right now. 
Seth Carpenter: You're absolutely right, Andrew. There is so much going on this year, so it's worth taking a step back. Coming into this year, we were looking for the economy to slow down. And I think it's just critical to remember why, central banks everywhere that are fighting inflation are raising interest rates intentionally to tighten financial conditions in order to slow their economies down and thereby bring down inflationary pressures. The trick, of course, is not slowing things down so much that they actively cause a recession. So the Fed having hiked interest rates already, we came into the year expecting a few more hikes, but then the data got stronger and Chair Powell opened the door to maybe going back to 50 basis point hikes. And now we've got this development in the banking sector. But it's not as if so far the central banks have seen evidence that things have gone so far that they're going to cause a recession. So all of this sounds a little bit simple maybe, but the key thing here is how can they calibrate whether or not they've done enough in terms of tightening financial conditions or if they've gone too far. 
Andrew Sheets: That's a really important point, because if you look at what the market is now pricing from the Federal Reserve, it's expecting significant rate cuts through the end of the year. And it's pricing in a scenario where the Fed has effectively gone far enough or maybe they've even gone too far and has to reverse their policy pretty quickly. How do you think about the path forward from here and how likely is it that central banks will ease as much as markets are currently pricing? 
Seth Carpenter: I mean, I do think there is a path for central banks to ease, but that is not and let me just start off with that is not our baseline scenario for this year. You led off with inflation and I think that's an appropriate place to start because what we heard clearly from central bankers in all of the developed markets was they are still hyper focused on inflation being too high and the need to bring it down. So one way of thinking about what's going on is that there's just a continuation of the normal tightening of monetary policy, so bank funding costs have gone up. If you read the the publications that our colleague Betsy Graseck, who runs Bank Equity Research in North America, she's pointed out that there's been a clear increase in bank funding costs that compresses net interest margins and that should, as a result, have an effect on what's going on with credit extension. In that version of the world, the Fed is in this fine tuning version of the world where they have to feel their way to the right degree of tightness and maybe they overdo it a little bit and then eventually pull back. I think the other version of the world that's...]]>544false832fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-u-s-pharmaceuticals-the-future-of-genetic-medicine--75654820----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. 
Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? 
Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. 
And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. 
So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? 
Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. 
Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. 
But I think before we go there, Matthew, obviously there are still some hurdles that needs to be addressed before we see a broader rollout here. So maybe you could touch on that for us. 
Matthew Harrison: You're right, there are some issues that we're still working through as we think about applying these technologies. The first one is really delivery. You obviously can't just inject some genes into the body and they'll know what to do. So you have to package them somehow. And there are a variety of techniques that are in development, whether using particles of fat to shield them or using inert viruses to send them into the body. But right now, we can't deliver to every tissue in every organ, and so that limits where you can send these medicines and how they can be effective. So there's still a lot of work to be done on delivery. 
And the second is when you go in and you edit a gene, even if you're very precise about where you want to edit, you might cause some what we call off target effects on the edges of where you've edited. And so there's concern about could those off target effects lead to safety issues. And then the third thing which we've touched on previously is durability. There's potentially a difference between gene therapy and gene editing, where gene editing may lead to a very long lasting cure, where different kinds of gene therapies may have longer term potential, but some may need to be redosed. 
Terence, as we turn back to thinking about the progress of the pipeline here, you know, what are the key catalysts you're watching over 23 and 24? 
Terence Flynn: You know, as everyone probably knows, biopharma is a highly regulated industry. We have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration here in the U.S., and we have the EMA in Europe. Those are the bodies that, you know, evaluate risk benefit of every therapy that's entering clinical trials and ultimately will reach the market. So this year we're expecting much of the focus for the gene editing companies to be broadly on regulatory progress. So again, this includes completion of regulatory filings here in the U.S. and Europe for the sickle cell disease drug that I mentioned before. And then something that's known as an IND filing. So essentially what companies are required to do is file that before they conduct clinical trials in humans in the U.S. There are companies that are pursuing this for hereditary angioedema and TTR amyloidosis. Those, if successful, would allow clinical trials to be conducted here in the U.S. and include U.S. patients. 
The other big thing we're watching is additional clinical data related to durability of efficacy. So, I think we've seen already with some of the gene therapies for hemophilia that we have durable efficacy out to five years, which is very exciting and promising. But the question is, will that last even longer? And how to think about gene therapy relative to gene editing on the durability side. And then lastly, I'd say safety. Obviously that's important for any therapy, but given some of the hurdles still that you mentioned, Matthew, that's obviously an important focus here as we look out over the longer term and something that the companies and the regulators are going to be following pretty closely. 
So again, as we think about the development of the field, one of the other key questions is access to patients. And so pricing reimbursement plays a key role here for any new therapy. There are some differences here, obviously, because we're talking about cures versus traditional chronic therapies. So maybe Matthew you could elaborate on that topic. 
Matthew Harrison: So as you think about these genetic medicines, the ones that we've seen approved have pretty broad price ranges, anywhere from a million to a few million dollars per patient, but you're talking about a potential cure here. And as I think about many of the chronic therapies, especially the more sophisticated ones that patients take, they can cost anywhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So you can see over a decade or more of use how they can actually eclipse what seems like a very high upfront price of these genetic medicines. 
Now, one of the issues obviously, is that the way the payers are set up is different in different parts of the world. So in Europe, for example, there are single payer systems for the patient never switches between health insurance carriers. And so therefore you can capture that value very easily. In the U.S., obviously it's a much more complicated system, many people move between payers as they switch jobs, as you change from, you know, commercial payers when you're younger to a government payer as you move into Medicare. And so there needs to be a mechanism worked out on how to spread that value out. And so I think that's one of the things that will need to evolve. 
But, you know, it's a very exciting time here in genetic medicine. There's significant opportunity and I think we're on the cusp of really seeing a robust expansion of this field and leading to many potential therapies in the years to come. 
Terence Flynn: That's great, Matthew. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk today. 
Matthew Harrison: Great speaking with you, Terrence. 
Terence Flynn: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/nCj_0jb_FvU-0no21yAAPfdftG6hk5ai2EQPy7ox61IThu, 23 Mar 2023 19:06:27 +0000gtyOriginal Release on February 6th, 2023: As new gene therapies are researched, developed and begin clinical trials, what hurdles must genetic medicine overcome before these therapies are commonly available? Head of U.S. Pharmaceuticals Terence Flynn...----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. 
Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? 
Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. 
And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. 
So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? 
Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. 
Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. 
But I think before we go there, Matthew,...]]>481false831fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-thematics-emerging-markets-face-rising-debt-levels--75654852----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Simon Waever: I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. 
Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how emerging markets are facing the pressures from rising debt levels and tougher external financing conditions. It's Wednesday, March 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: The bank backdrop that's been unfolding over the last couple of weeks has led investors in the U.S. and globally to focus on the risks of debt right now. Emerging markets, which have seen sovereign debt levels rise in part due to the COVID pandemic, is one place where debt concerns are intensifying. But our economists and strategists here at Morgan Stanley Research believe this concern is overdone and that there might be opportunities in EM. Diego, can you maybe start by giving us a sense of where debt levels are in emerging markets, post-COVID, especially amidst rising interest rates globally? 
Diego Anzoategui: The overall EM debt to GDP ratio increased 11% from 2019, reaching levels above the 60% mark in 2022. Just a level, leveled by some economists, that's a warning sign because of its potential effects on the growth outlook. But without entering the debate on where this threshold is relevant or not, there is no doubt that the increase is meaningful and widespread because nearly every team has higher debt levels now. And broadly speaking, there are two factors explaining the rise in EM debt. The first one is a COVID, which was a hit on fiscal expenditure and revenues, overall. Many economies implemented expansionary fiscal policies and lockdowns caused depressed economic activity and lower fiscal revenues. The second one is the war in Ukraine, that caused a rise in oil and food commodity prices, hitting fiscals in economies with government subsidies to energy or food. 
Michael Zezas: And, Simon, while most emerging markets continue to have fiscal deficits wider than their pre-COVID trends, you argue that there's still a viable path to normalization against the backdrop of global economic conditions. What are some risks to this outlook and what catalysts and signposts are you watching closely? 
Simon Waever: Sure. I'm looking at three key points. First, the degree of fiscal adjustment. I think markets will reward those countries with a clear plan to return to pre-pandemic fiscal balances. That's, of course, easier said than done, but at least for energy exporters, it is easier. Second market focus will also be on the broader policy response. Again, I think markets will reward reforms that help boost growth, and inbound investment. It's also important as central banks respond to the inflation concerns, which for the most part they have done. And then I think having a strong sustainability plan also increasingly plays a role in achieving both more and cheaper financing. Third and lastly, we can't avoid talking about the global financial conditions. While, of course that's not something individual countries can control, it does impact the availability and cost of financing. In 2022, that was very difficult, but we do expect 2023 to be more supportive for EM sovereigns. 
Michael Zezas: And with all that said, you believe there may be some opportunities in emerging markets. Can you walk us through your thinking there? 
Simon Waever: Right. So building on all the work Diego and his team did, we think solvency is actually okay for the majority of the asset class, even if it has worsened compared to pre-COVID. Liquidity is instead the weak spot. So, for instance, some countries have lost access to the market and that's been a key driver of why sovereign defaults have picked up already. But looking ahead, three points are worth keeping in mind. One, 73% of the asset class is investment grade or double B rated, and they do have adequate liquidity. Two, for the lower rated countries valuations have already adjusted. For instance, if I look at the probability of default price for single B's, it's around double historical levels already. And then three, positioning to EM is very light. It actually has been for the last three years. So these are all reasons why we're more upbeat on EM longer term, even if near-term, it'll be driven more by a broader risk appetite. 
Michael Zezas: And Simon, what happens to emerging markets if, say, developed market interest rates move far beyond current expectations and what we in Morgan Stanley research are currently forecasting? 
Simon Waever: In short, it would be very difficult for EM and I would say especially high yield to handle another significant move higher in either U.S. yields or the U.S. dollar. As I mentioned earlier, market access for single B's needs to return at some point in 2023 as countries already drew down on alternative funding sources. And even within the IG universe, it would make debt servicing costs much higher. 
Michael Zezas: And Diego, when you look beyond 2023, what are you focused on from an economics perspective? 
Diego Anzoategui: Beyond 2023, we're going to focus on fiscal balances mainly. The expenditure side of the equation has broadly normalized after COVID. So it's currently at pre-COVID levels. But the revenue side of the economy is lagging, so its revenues are below pre-COVID trends. So we're going to be focused on the economic cycle to check where revenue picks up again to pre-COVID levels. 
Michael Zezas: And, last question Simon, which countries within emerging markets are you watching particularly closely? 
Simon Waever: So overall, the investment grade and double B rated countries are largely priced for a more benign outlook already, which we agree with. But I would highlight Brazil as an exception, as one place that's not pricing the fiscal risks ahead. For the lower rated credits, I would highlight Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya as key countries to watch. They are large index constituents, still have relatively high prices and they all have upcoming maturities. Pakistan and Tunisia are at even higher risk of being the next countries to see a missed payment, but the difference here is that they're also priced much more conservatively. 
Michael Zezas: Well, Simon, Diego, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Simon Waever: Great speaking with you, Mike. 
Diego Anzoategui: Great talking to you, Mike. 
Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xOa-RP4yvac13tOa6s0p-nlDd-9QO3DaDilsofxLFtMWed, 22 Mar 2023 21:16:19 +0000gtyAs investors focus on the risks of debt, can Emerging Markets combat pressure from wide fiscal deficits? Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas, Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy Simon Waever and Global Economics...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 
Simon Waever: I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. 
Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how emerging markets are facing the pressures from rising debt levels and tougher external financing conditions. It's Wednesday, March 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: The bank backdrop that's been unfolding over the last couple of weeks has led investors in the U.S. and globally to focus on the risks of debt right now. Emerging markets, which have seen sovereign debt levels rise in part due to the COVID pandemic, is one place where debt concerns are intensifying. But our economists and strategists here at Morgan Stanley Research believe this concern is overdone and that there might be opportunities in EM. Diego, can you maybe start by giving us a sense of where debt levels are in emerging markets, post-COVID, especially amidst rising interest rates globally? 
Diego Anzoategui: The overall EM debt to GDP ratio increased 11% from 2019, reaching levels above the 60% mark in 2022. Just a level, leveled by some economists, that's a warning sign because of its potential effects on the growth outlook. But without entering the debate on where this threshold is relevant or not, there is no doubt that the increase is meaningful and widespread because nearly every team has higher debt levels now. And broadly speaking, there are two factors explaining the rise in EM debt. The first one is a COVID, which was a hit on fiscal expenditure and revenues, overall. Many economies implemented expansionary fiscal policies and lockdowns caused depressed economic activity and lower fiscal revenues. The second one is the war in Ukraine, that caused a rise in oil and food commodity prices, hitting fiscals in economies with government subsidies to energy or food. 
Michael Zezas: And, Simon, while most emerging markets continue to have fiscal deficits wider than their pre-COVID trends, you argue that there's still a viable path to normalization against the backdrop of global economic conditions. What are some risks to this outlook and what catalysts and signposts are you watching closely? 
Simon Waever: Sure. I'm looking at three key points. First, the degree of fiscal adjustment. I think markets will reward those countries with a clear plan to return to pre-pandemic fiscal balances. That's, of course, easier said than done, but at least for energy exporters, it is easier. Second market focus will also be on the broader policy response. Again, I think markets will reward reforms that help boost growth, and inbound investment. It's also important as central banks respond to the inflation concerns, which for the most part they have done. And then I think having a strong sustainability plan also increasingly plays a role in achieving both more and cheaper financing. Third and lastly, we can't avoid talking about the global financial conditions. While, of course that's not something individual countries can control, it does impact the availability and cost of financing. In 2022, that was very difficult, but we do expect 2023 to be more supportive for EM sovereigns. 
Michael Zezas: And with all that said, you believe there may be some opportunities in emerging markets. Can you walk us through your thinking there? 
Simon Waever: Right. So building on all the work Diego and his team did, we think solvency...]]>397false830fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-the-coming-challenges-for-bank-credit--75654845Against the backdrop of volatility in the banking sector, tightening in consumer and commercial credit may have far-reaching impacts for economic growth.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist here at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the current volatility in the banking sector on credit. It's Tuesday, March 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. 
On the back of the developments over the last two weeks, our banking analysts see a meaningful increase in funding costs ahead, which should lead to tighter lending standards, lower loan growth and wider loan spreads. Our economists were already expecting a meaningful slowdown in growth and job gains over the coming months, and the prospect of incremental tightening of credit conditions raises the risk that a soft landing turns into a harder one. 
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses are those that employ fewer than 500 workers, and between 1995 and 2021, they accounted for nearly 63% of the net new job creation. Today, nearly 47% of all private sector employees work at small businesses. In the banking sector, small banks account for 38% of total loans in the U.S. and 30% of commercial and industrial loans. Businesses rely on C&I loans for short term funding of activities such as hiring, paying workers, purchasing supplies, equipment and building inventories. 
We now expect this C&I lending to slow down the most based on our prior experience. We also expect that lending to commercial real estate sector to decline given the stresses that are building over there. On the other hand, we are looking for lending to consumer to grow, but more slowly than what we thought before. 
Beyond their normal lending activity, banks enable credit formation in the economy by being buyers of senior tranches of securitized credit, providing senior leverage to securitization vehicles, which is a major source of credit formation. Well, we don't exactly know how bank regulations will change in response to the developments of last two weeks, there is the potential for bank sponsorship of securitized credit to diminish and thus indirectly affect credit formation. 
From a corporate bond investor perspective, the view has been that the banking sector fundamentals have been in a good place, and last year's underperformance versus non financials was largely a technical story. The developments of the last two weeks have undermined this thesis. Looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, we believe that the supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity shifting away from deposits to wholesale funding is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for much longer. While the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) may alleviate the urgency to issue these bonds, it by no means provides a permanent solution. So looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, new assurance from banks, regional banks in particular, is likely to persist. 
Given that the sector was a consensus overweight and is also likely to see more supply when markets normalize, we see continued volatility and increased tiering within bank credit. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ADY8S6zY72siIHYbG5NyNpK9P2aSKRv8_QWnLDJucSUTue, 21 Mar 2023 20:33:23 +0000gty Against the backdrop of volatility in the banking sector, tightening in consumer and commercial credit may have far-reaching impacts for economic growth. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed...Against the backdrop of volatility in the banking sector, tightening in consumer and commercial credit may have far-reaching impacts for economic growth.
----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist here at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the current volatility in the banking sector on credit. It's Tuesday, March 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. 
On the back of the developments over the last two weeks, our banking analysts see a meaningful increase in funding costs ahead, which should lead to tighter lending standards, lower loan growth and wider loan spreads. Our economists were already expecting a meaningful slowdown in growth and job gains over the coming months, and the prospect of incremental tightening of credit conditions raises the risk that a soft landing turns into a harder one. 
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses are those that employ fewer than 500 workers, and between 1995 and 2021, they accounted for nearly 63% of the net new job creation. Today, nearly 47% of all private sector employees work at small businesses. In the banking sector, small banks account for 38% of total loans in the U.S. and 30% of commercial and industrial loans. Businesses rely on C&I loans for short term funding of activities such as hiring, paying workers, purchasing supplies, equipment and building inventories. 
We now expect this C&I lending to slow down the most based on our prior experience. We also expect that lending to commercial real estate sector to decline given the stresses that are building over there. On the other hand, we are looking for lending to consumer to grow, but more slowly than what we thought before. 
Beyond their normal lending activity, banks enable credit formation in the economy by being buyers of senior tranches of securitized credit, providing senior leverage to securitization vehicles, which is a major source of credit formation. Well, we don't exactly know how bank regulations will change in response to the developments of last two weeks, there is the potential for bank sponsorship of securitized credit to diminish and thus indirectly affect credit formation. 
From a corporate bond investor perspective, the view has been that the banking sector fundamentals have been in a good place, and last year's underperformance versus non financials was largely a technical story. The developments of the last two weeks have undermined this thesis. Looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, we believe that the supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity shifting away from deposits to wholesale funding is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for much longer. While the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) may alleviate the urgency to issue these bonds, it by no means provides a permanent solution. So looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, new assurance from banks, regional banks in particular, is likely to persist. 
Given that the sector was a consensus overweight and is also likely to see more supply when markets normalize, we see continued volatility and increased tiering within bank credit. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>191false829fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-the-risk-of-a-credit-crunch--75654919----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 20th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Over the past few weeks, the markets have fixated on the rapid failure of two major banks that, up until very recently, have been viewed as safe depository institutions. The reason for their demise is crystal clear in hindsight, and not that surprising when you see the interest rate risk these banks were taking with their deposits, and the fact that the Fed has raised rates by five percentage points in the past year. The uninsured deposit backstop put in place by the Fed and FDIC will help to alleviate further major bank runs, but it won't stop the already tight lending standards across the banking industry from getting even tighter. It also won't prevent the cost of deposits from rising, thereby pressuring net interest margins. In short, the risk of a credit crunch has increased materially. 
Bond markets have exhibited volatility around these developments as market participants realize the ramifications of tighter credit. The yield curve has steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days, something seen only a few times in history and usually the bond market's way of saying recession risk is now more elevated. An inversion of the curve typically signals a recession within 12 months, but the real risk starts when it re-steepens from the trough. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank decided to raise rates by 50 basis points last week, despite Europe's own banking issues and sluggish economy. The German bund curve seemed to disagree with that decision and steepened by 50 basis points, signaling greater recession risk like in the U.S. 
If growth is likely to slow further from the incremental tightening in the U.S. banking system and the bond market seems to be supporting that conclusion, why on earth did U.S. stocks rally last week? We think it had to do with the growing view that the Fed and FDIC bail out of depositors is a form of quantitative easing and provides a catalyst for stocks to go higher. While the $300 billion increase in Fed balance sheet reserves last week does re liquefy the banking system, it does little in terms of creating new money that can flow into the economy or markets, at least beyond a brief period of, say, a day or a few weeks. Secondarily, the fact that the Fed is lending, not buying, also matters. If a bank borrows from the Fed, it's expanding its own balance sheet, making leverage ratios more binding. When the Fed buys a security outright, the seller of that security has more balance sheet space for renewed expansion. That is not the case in this situation, in our view. 
As of Wednesday last week, the Fed was lending depository institutions $300 billion more than it was the prior week. Half was primary credit through the discount window, which is often viewed as temporary borrowing and unlikely to translate into new credit creation for the economy. The other half was a loan to the bridge the FDIC created for the failed banks. It's unlikely that any of these reserves will transmit to the economy as bank deposits normally do. Instead, we believe the overall velocity of money in the banking system is likely to fall sharply and more than offset any increase in reserves, especially given the temporary emergency nature of these funds. 
Over the past month, the correlation between stocks and bonds has reversed and is now negative. In other words, stocks go down when rates fall now and vice versa. This is in sharp contrast to most of the past year when stocks are more worried about inflation, the Fed's reaction to it and rates going higher. Instead, the path of stocks is now about growth and our belief that earnings forecasts are 15 to 20% too high has increased. From an equity market perspective, the events of the past week mean that credit availability is decreasing for a wide swath of the economy, which may be the catalyst that finally convinces market participants that valuations are way too high. We've been waiting patiently for this acknowledgment because with it comes the real buying opportunity, which remains several months away. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Ji512K6bCaSlJDBpBY_QF86avbguxiivabII3Tuk0_AMon, 20 Mar 2023 19:55:01 +0000gtyAs markets look to recent bank failures, how are valuations for both stocks and bonds likely to change with this risk to growth? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 20th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Over the past few weeks, the markets have fixated on the rapid failure of two major banks that, up until very recently, have been viewed as safe depository institutions. The reason for their demise is crystal clear in hindsight, and not that surprising when you see the interest rate risk these banks were taking with their deposits, and the fact that the Fed has raised rates by five percentage points in the past year. The uninsured deposit backstop put in place by the Fed and FDIC will help to alleviate further major bank runs, but it won't stop the already tight lending standards across the banking industry from getting even tighter. It also won't prevent the cost of deposits from rising, thereby pressuring net interest margins. In short, the risk of a credit crunch has increased materially. 
Bond markets have exhibited volatility around these developments as market participants realize the ramifications of tighter credit. The yield curve has steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days, something seen only a few times in history and usually the bond market's way of saying recession risk is now more elevated. An inversion of the curve typically signals a recession within 12 months, but the real risk starts when it re-steepens from the trough. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank decided to raise rates by 50 basis points last week, despite Europe's own banking issues and sluggish economy. The German bund curve seemed to disagree with that decision and steepened by 50 basis points, signaling greater recession risk like in the U.S. 
If growth is likely to slow further from the incremental tightening in the U.S. banking system and the bond market seems to be supporting that conclusion, why on earth did U.S. stocks rally last week? We think it had to do with the growing view that the Fed and FDIC bail out of depositors is a form of quantitative easing and provides a catalyst for stocks to go higher. While the $300 billion increase in Fed balance sheet reserves last week does re liquefy the banking system, it does little in terms of creating new money that can flow into the economy or markets, at least beyond a brief period of, say, a day or a few weeks. Secondarily, the fact that the Fed is lending, not buying, also matters. If a bank borrows from the Fed, it's expanding its own balance sheet, making leverage ratios more binding. When the Fed buys a security outright, the seller of that security has more balance sheet space for renewed expansion. That is not the case in this situation, in our view. 
As of Wednesday last week, the Fed was lending depository institutions $300 billion more than it was the prior week. Half was primary credit through the discount window, which is often viewed as temporary borrowing and unlikely to translate into new credit creation for the economy. The other half was a loan to the bridge the FDIC created for the failed banks. It's unlikely that any of these reserves will transmit to the economy as bank deposits normally do. Instead, we believe the overall velocity of money in the banking system is likely to fall sharply and more than offset any increase in reserves, especially given the temporary emergency nature of these funds. 
Over the past month, the correlation between stocks and bonds has reversed and is now negative. In other words, stocks go down when rates fall now and vice versa. This is in sharp contrast to most of the past year when stocks are more worried about...]]>236false828fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sustainability-energy-efficient-buildings-in-europe--75654798----- Transcript -----
Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Analyst covering European Building and Construction for Morgan Stanley research. 
Sebastian Isola: And I'm Sebastian Isola from the European Property Team. 
Cedar Ekblom: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss Europe's commitment to building energy efficiency. 
Cedar Ekblom: Sebastian when I talk to investors and talk about energy emissions, most people immediately think of cars and transportation. But according to the International Energy Agency, in 2021 the operation of buildings accounted for 30% of global final energy consumption and 27% of total energy sector emissions. That's a huge number. A lot of people don't realize that. So it's clear that decarbonizing building stock is essential to achieving a net zero by 2050 scenario. Sebastian, we recently wrote about this and with this big goal in mind, can you give us an overview of where Europe is right now and what the biggest opportunities are that you see? 
Sebastian Isola: I think to start, Europe's building stock is old and inefficient. More than 40% was built before 1970 when the first energy efficiency standards were introduced, and we're currently renovating just 1% of building stock a year. The European Commission thinks that this needs to at least double to meet its 2030 target for a 55% cut in emissions. If we successfully lift innovation spend, there is a big opportunity for makers of solar, heating and ventilation equipment, building automation, energy efficient lighting, and any product linked to the building envelope from insulation to roofing and windows. 
Cedar Ekblom: So it sounds like there's great opportunity here, but investors often push back with the argument that energy renovation is a 'hope' rather than a reality. What are your views on the economics of investment? 
Sebastian Isola: I think firstly, I'd say that our alphawise survey gives us a proprietary insight into what's really happening on the ground. It confirms renovation spend is on the rise, there was a 10% increase in the number of people that renovated their homes to save energy in 2022 versus 2021. Secondly, for commercial property landlords, the economics of investment is clear. Green buildings are attracting higher rents, and in some markets, office buildings with sustainability ratings are being awarded materially higher valuations, sometimes more than a 20% premium. And Cedar, what are the key renovation categories and what is the driving motivation behind them? 
Cedar Ekblom: Well, if you talk to anyone in the industry, they'll tell you that fabric first is where we need to start. So what does that actually mean? We have to look at improving the insulation of the walls, the roofs, and looking at new windows and doors. And the reason why we need to prioritize this is ultimately space heating accounts for about two thirds of total energy consumption. The good thing is that our survey told us that in the nonresidential market, these types of investments are the ones being prioritized. Installation is expected to be one of the key renovation categories for 2023. Building managers told us that they plan to boost spend on installation by 8%. After upgrading the building envelope, you need to think about tackling HVAC equipment and rolling out building automation. And finally solar continues to rank as the most attractive for residential energy renovation upgrades. In terms of the motivations, 59% of consumers and building managers say that lowering energy costs was the biggest driver for investment. I think that ultimately makes sense when we think about the landscape of the energy market in Europe over the last 12 months with the big increases in gas and electricity prices. 
Sebastian Isola: And with that in mind Cedar, what's your near-term and longer term outlook for renovation spend? 
Cedar Ekblom: Well, look, the runway for investment is huge. The European Commission estimates that an additional €275 billion of investment in building energy efficiency is required annually to 2030. And that's only an interim goal. If we really want to reach a 2050 net zero ambition, the optionality for investment means that we could be looking at more than €5.9 trillion of spend. If we deliver that total construction spend in real terms would run at 3% annually. That's a big increase from the less than 1% average growth over the last 10 years. Now, Sebastian, we've obviously spoken about the potential for fantastic investment, but there's obviously some big barriers around actually driving this uplift. How is the region trying to tackle these types of hurdles? 
Sebastian Isola: I think the biggest barriers are funding and skills and there's a 'carrot and stick' approach to funding. Government subsidies are coming through, although maybe slightly slower than we'd like. The good news is that private investment really is ramping up, and that's partly driven by better economics, but also new penalties which make letting inefficient buildings less profitable. In the UK, if we use that as an example, you need to achieve an EPC rating of B or higher by 2030 to be able to let your building. To put that in context, 75% of commercial properties in the UK currently don't meet that EPC standard. So there's going to be a huge scale of renovation required for commercial property in the UK to be brought up to that standard by 2030. And that really is going to drive investment in commercial property and in energy renovation. The second challenge is skills. It's not an easy problem to fix, especially when the construction industry is already challenged by a lack of skilled labor. The EU is taking an important step to address these hurdles by introducing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. This sets a region wide energy efficiency standard and harmonizes how buildings are ranked. It was passed into law in February of this year and we think it sets the framework for a multi-decade investment runway. 
Cedar Ekblom: Sebastian, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Sebastian Isola: Great speaking to you Cedar. 
Cedar Ekblom: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app, it helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/xJQ3G4g63r0mcGoTw74aKJWrSvQl5qFeyvQ-Dp7qVVsFri, 17 Mar 2023 20:35:15 +0000gtyAs Europe commits to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, one hurdle will be the energy emissions caused by buildings’ operations. What investment opportunities might come from energy renovation? European Building and Construction Equity Analyst Ceder...----- Transcript -----
Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Analyst covering European Building and Construction for Morgan Stanley research. 
Sebastian Isola: And I'm Sebastian Isola from the European Property Team. 
Cedar Ekblom: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss Europe's commitment to building energy efficiency. 
Cedar Ekblom: Sebastian when I talk to investors and talk about energy emissions, most people immediately think of cars and transportation. But according to the International Energy Agency, in 2021 the operation of buildings accounted for 30% of global final energy consumption and 27% of total energy sector emissions. That's a huge number. A lot of people don't realize that. So it's clear that decarbonizing building stock is essential to achieving a net zero by 2050 scenario. Sebastian, we recently wrote about this and with this big goal in mind, can you give us an overview of where Europe is right now and what the biggest opportunities are that you see? 
Sebastian Isola: I think to start, Europe's building stock is old and inefficient. More than 40% was built before 1970 when the first energy efficiency standards were introduced, and we're currently renovating just 1% of building stock a year. The European Commission thinks that this needs to at least double to meet its 2030 target for a 55% cut in emissions. If we successfully lift innovation spend, there is a big opportunity for makers of solar, heating and ventilation equipment, building automation, energy efficient lighting, and any product linked to the building envelope from insulation to roofing and windows. 
Cedar Ekblom: So it sounds like there's great opportunity here, but investors often push back with the argument that energy renovation is a 'hope' rather than a reality. What are your views on the economics of investment? 
Sebastian Isola: I think firstly, I'd say that our alphawise survey gives us a proprietary insight into what's really happening on the ground. It confirms renovation spend is on the rise, there was a 10% increase in the number of people that renovated their homes to save energy in 2022 versus 2021. Secondly, for commercial property landlords, the economics of investment is clear. Green buildings are attracting higher rents, and in some markets, office buildings with sustainability ratings are being awarded materially higher valuations, sometimes more than a 20% premium. And Cedar, what are the key renovation categories and what is the driving motivation behind them? 
Cedar Ekblom: Well, if you talk to anyone in the industry, they'll tell you that fabric first is where we need to start. So what does that actually mean? We have to look at improving the insulation of the walls, the roofs, and looking at new windows and doors. And the reason why we need to prioritize this is ultimately space heating accounts for about two thirds of total energy consumption. The good thing is that our survey told us that in the nonresidential market, these types of investments are the ones being prioritized. Installation is expected to be one of the key renovation categories for 2023. Building managers told us that they plan to boost spend on installation by 8%. After upgrading the building envelope, you need to think about tackling HVAC equipment and rolling out building automation. And finally solar continues to rank as the most attractive for residential energy renovation upgrades. In terms of the motivations, 59% of consumers and building managers say that lowering energy costs was the biggest driver for investment. I think that...]]>342false827fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-a-new-dynamic-for-u-s-banking--75654884----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, March 16th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
It's a volatile moment in markets, with investors grappling with complicated questions around the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. That event has naturally led to concerns about broader challenges to the banking system and potential impacts to the path for monetary policy. Here's what we think fixed income investors need to know in the near-term. 
Our banking analysts and economists have concluded that the U.S. banking system is more constrained. The causes of the Silicon Valley Bank situation will likely cause banks and their regulators to think differently about capital, causing lending growth to decline more than expected this year. That, in turn, should put pressure on the labor market and therefore the general U.S. economic outlook. 
We expect this dynamic will influence the U.S. bond market in the following ways in the near-term. For treasuries, we believe yields will be biased lower, because while the data still shows inflation pressures have persisted, that may take a backseat to financial stability concerns in the minds of investors. For corporate credit, there may be some near-term underperformance, given the market features a heavy weighting towards bonds issued by U.S. banks. In MUNI's, our team doesn't expect them to outperform in the near-term as the kind of interest rate volatility caused by recent events historically has been a headwind to the asset class. But a bright spot might be agency mortgage bonds, where our colleagues see room for compression in yields relative to treasuries. Those levels, which are near COVID crisis levels, perhaps overcompensate for fears that banks may have to sell their portfolios of similar bonds. 
So that's what's going on in the near-term, but my colleagues and I will be back here frequently to give you some longer term perspective. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZEYSu3WsII0YMlQilO7Oq-B6fafApG_v-_--DyhmnLMThu, 16 Mar 2023 19:03:55 +0000gtyInvestors’ renewed concerns around the banking system should have a variety of impacts on fixed-income investment. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, March 16th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
It's a volatile moment in markets, with investors grappling with complicated questions around the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. That event has naturally led to concerns about broader challenges to the banking system and potential impacts to the path for monetary policy. Here's what we think fixed income investors need to know in the near-term. 
Our banking analysts and economists have concluded that the U.S. banking system is more constrained. The causes of the Silicon Valley Bank situation will likely cause banks and their regulators to think differently about capital, causing lending growth to decline more than expected this year. That, in turn, should put pressure on the labor market and therefore the general U.S. economic outlook. 
We expect this dynamic will influence the U.S. bond market in the following ways in the near-term. For treasuries, we believe yields will be biased lower, because while the data still shows inflation pressures have persisted, that may take a backseat to financial stability concerns in the minds of investors. For corporate credit, there may be some near-term underperformance, given the market features a heavy weighting towards bonds issued by U.S. banks. In MUNI's, our team doesn't expect them to outperform in the near-term as the kind of interest rate volatility caused by recent events historically has been a headwind to the asset class. But a bright spot might be agency mortgage bonds, where our colleagues see room for compression in yields relative to treasuries. Those levels, which are near COVID crisis levels, perhaps overcompensate for fears that banks may have to sell their portfolios of similar bonds. 
So that's what's going on in the near-term, but my colleagues and I will be back here frequently to give you some longer term perspective. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>129false826fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cryptocurrency-the-issue-of-regulation--75654734Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.

----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Sheena Shah: And I'm Sheena Shah, Head of the Cryptocurrency Research Team. 
Ariana Salvatore: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of cryptocurrency regulation. It's Wednesday, March 15 at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Sheena Shah: And 2 p.m. in London. 
Ariana Salvatore: The recent news about the U.S. banking system has brought even more focus on the cryptocurrency markets. Our listeners may have heard about a series of insolvencies and collapses of major crypto players last year, with the most notable being the FTX exchange. These events have raised concerns among policymakers and are signaling a need to regulate cryptocurrencies as a means of protecting investors. Sheena, before we dig into any potential regulatory path for crypto from here, I think it's important to try to get a grip on a question that might seem basic, but in fact is one that policymakers have actually been grappling with for quite some time. And that is, what is a cryptocurrency from a regulatory perspective. Is it a security or is it a commodity? How should it be classified from a regulatory perspective? 
Sheena Shah: So cryptos could be classified as many things: securities, commodities, currencies, or even something else. But the U.S. regulators are making their view very clear. The SEC is saying every crypto apart from Bitcoin is a security. The definition will determine what products can be offered, which companies can offer them, which regulator will be in charge and maybe even how transactions are taxed. There is agreement that Bitcoin should be classified as a commodity, partly due to its decentralized nature, and no regulator is classifying Bitcoin as a currency as this would admit that it's a direct competitor with the U.S. dollar. 
Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So taking a step back for a second, cryptocurrencies up until this point have been largely unregulated and volatility is obviously nothing new in the space. What has been happening in crypto markets lately that's just now suggesting a need for regulation? 
Sheena Shah: Well, last year crypto prices were in a bear market and the collapse of the FTX exchange just increased the politician interest in this area. Trading data tell us that the average U.S. retail investor purchased crypto when Bitcoin was trading above $40,000, around double the current price. So regulators want to make sure that retail investors understand the risks and to limit the volatility spillover from crypto to the traditional financial system. Now that we know why there's a need for regulation, what do you think the core principles would be behind a potential regulatory framework? 
Ariana Salvatore: So when we think about the way that Congress approaches the crypto space, there are really two key principles. The first is restrictiveness, or how much lawmakers want to rein in the space. And this we kind of see as a spectrum, so ranging from status quo or continuation of regulation by enforcement, to a scenario that we're calling comprehensive crypto crackdown. And that would be probably the most severe outcome from our perspective. The second principle is pretty binary. So whether or not Congress is able to delegate authority or control over the crypto space to one agency or another. One thing I'll just mention back on that Restrictiveness idea, it's not necessarily a question of just how much Congress wants to reign in the space, it's arguably even more so a function of what's possible in the legislative sense. Remember, the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives, so there are some structural constraints here that might make any regulatory efforts a little bit lighter touch than what you could expect in a unified government scenario or single party control. 
Sheena Shah: So there are lots of opinions on crypto regulation. What do you think is a viable eventual scenario for some regulatory framework? 
Ariana Salvatore: When we think about what's possible, like you said, there's a range of outcomes, but our base case is what we're calling scoping in Stablecoins. So in this scenario, Congress does in fact deliver a clear delegation of authority to either the FDIC or the CFTC, effectively answering that question of mapping out control. And it also puts into place some baseline consumer focused protections. So, for example, requiring Stablecoin issuers to be FDIC insured and imposing federal risk management standards, primarily things like reserve requirements. Now, why do we think they're going to target Stablecoins first? Besides the fact that that's pretty much all lawmakers can agree on for right now, we think there are two pressing reasons. First, most stablecoins are U.S. dollar based, and the services that some crypto companies have been offering are quite similar to what banks offer, which provides pretty direct competition with the U.S. banking system. And secondly, a large portion of crypto trading is also done via stablecoins, which means that regulating this area first could have a significant impact on the broader market without having to necessarily stretch those regulations further. So Sheena, turning it back to you, how do we think other governments around the world are looking at crypto regulation? Are they focused as the U.S. is, or are we kind of leading the way in this area? 
Sheena Shah: Most countries are looking at crypto regulation right now, and many are applying the similar rules, such as requiring exchanges to register with the regulators. I would say that the European Union is further ahead than the U.S. in terms of a crypto specific framework, with their MiCA regulation due to be put into law soon. In the U.S., they've gone down a route of enforcing current financial rules on crypto products. At first glance, the actions are thought to be pushing crypto innovations to other parts of the world. We think it's a bit too early to tell whether that will occur in the long run. 
Ariana Salvatore: Now, one specific area I'd like to touch on also, because it's become a global debate, is Central Banks Digital Currencies or CBDCs. Given the role of the U.S. dollar in the global economy, do you think the U.S. needs a CBDC? And if it does, what form do you think it could take? 
Sheena Shah: The U.S. only started investigating a CBDC because everyone else was doing it too. Most notably China and the Eurozone. The U.S. doesn't actually necessarily need a CBDC for domestic payments as instantaneous bank settlements are going to be possible through FedNow being introduced later this year. We don't know what form a CBDC could take as that's still being researched, but some forms could have dramatic implications for the banking sector should banks not be required to create the currency. This year we're paying more attention to the developments of the digital euro as that may be available within 2 to 3 years. Now, Ariana, if we bear in mind everything we've discussed so far, realistically how much do you expect to be accomplished in terms of crypto regulation by the next election? 
Ariana Salvatore: So in the note, we rank our scenarios in terms of likelihood. And as I mentioned before, scoping and stablec]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/j2YILYNJdN-uxFIbAS6Ff-hutmA9TOquumsCmFqb1FIWed, 15 Mar 2023 22:09:01 +0000gtyAs cryptocurrency has seen some of its major players topple, policy makers have set their sights on regulation. So what are some of the possible scenarios for crypto policy? U.S. Public Policy Researcher Ariana Salvatore and Head of Cryptocurrency...Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.

----- Transcript -----
Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. 
Sheena Shah: And I'm Sheena Shah, Head of the Cryptocurrency Research Team. 
Ariana Salvatore: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of cryptocurrency regulation. It's Wednesday, March 15 at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Sheena Shah: And 2 p.m. in London. 
Ariana Salvatore: The recent news about the U.S. banking system has brought even more focus on the cryptocurrency markets. Our listeners may have heard about a series of insolvencies and collapses of major crypto players last year, with the most notable being the FTX exchange. These events have raised concerns among policymakers and are signaling a need to regulate cryptocurrencies as a means of protecting investors. Sheena, before we dig into any potential regulatory path for crypto from here, I think it's important to try to get a grip on a question that might seem basic, but in fact is one that policymakers have actually been grappling with for quite some time. And that is, what is a cryptocurrency from a regulatory perspective. Is it a security or is it a commodity? How should it be classified from a regulatory perspective? 
Sheena Shah: So cryptos could be classified as many things: securities, commodities, currencies, or even...]]>530false825fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/martijn-rats-differing-prospects-for-oil-gas--75654835----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the global oil and gas markets. It's Tuesday, March 14th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Energy markets are currently confronted with an unusual situation: usually oil and gas prices move in similar directions, but at the moment they have quite different prospects. 
Let's start with the global gas market, that is the gas market outside the United States, which has its own dynamic. Over the last 12 months, the center of activity in global gas has been Europe. This time last year, Europe still received close to 400 million cubic meters a day of natural gas from Russia. Over last summer, this fell by around 90% to just a trickle, causing a severe spike in European gas prices. At the time, we argued that gas prices needed to rise to drive demand destruction and attract LNG, that is liquefied natural gas that can be transported on tankers, to Europe. Prices indeed rose. By August, European gas prices reached over €300 per megawatt hour, that is more than 20x their normal level. 
Since then, the European gas market has seen the most dramatic turn around. For starters, demand destruction has been far greater than expected. Warm weather has helped, but that has certainly not been the main driver. At the same time, LNG imports into Europe have risen to levels that seemed unlikely this time last year. Remarkably, European gas prices have been declining for some time already, but energy imports just keep coming. The European gas market now faces the surprising situation that if demand stays as weak as it currently is, and LNG imports continue at the level of the last few months, inventories could fill over the summer to such an extent that Europe could run out of physical storage capacity sometime around August. In the space of a few months, the European gas market has gone from worrying about what commodity analysts call 'tank bottoms', to now concern over 'tank tops'. 
To prevent overstocking this summer, European gas prices probably need to fall further to send a signal to LNG suppliers that they need to send at least some of their energy cargoes elsewhere. However, that then creates a better supply situation elsewhere in the LNG market, putting downward pressure on prices there too. 
In contrast, the oil market presents a very different picture. Oil prices also gave up a large part of their gains late last year as the market worried about recession. However, even at the point when 70% of bank economists consensually forecast a recession, Brent crude oil did not fall much below $80 a barrel. At the moment, the oil market is modestly oversupplied, which is not uncommon for this time of the year. However, from here, the oil market has several tailwinds. First is another year of recovery in aviation, which is likely to drive growth and jet fuel consumption. Second is China's reopening. While there may be some concern in other markets over the impact of China's reopening, in the oil market the indications so far have simply been positive. And finally, there is supply risk for Russia. Although oil exports from Russia have continued, a lot of this oil is piling up at sea. That cannot continue at the current pace for very long and we would still estimate that Russian oil exports will eventually come under some pressure as the year progresses. 
Put these factors together and the oil market will likely come into balance in 2Q and reenter a deficit once again in the third and fourth quarter. Inventories are already low and likely to decline further in the second half. Spare capacity in OPEC is still very limited and investment levels have been modest in recent years. As the oil market tightens, prices are likely to find their way higher again. In inflation adjusted terms the average oil price over the last 15 years is $93 a barrel. This is not a market where oil prices should be below the historic average. In fact, we'd argue the opposite. 
As mentioned, oil and gas prices usually move in similar directions, but so far this year they have already diverged quite substantially. Given the current outlook, we think these trends have further to run- global gas faces headwinds, but oil is likely to find its way higher again later this year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/87LAKwA6QJRErTKy2ffX-nbLL3r8NnfXuHnPVC13O6YTue, 14 Mar 2023 19:30:38 +0000gtyWhile oil and gas prices generally move in similar directions, their current situation has deviated from market norms. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist. Along...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the global oil and gas markets. It's Tuesday, March 14th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Energy markets are currently confronted with an unusual situation: usually oil and gas prices move in similar directions, but at the moment they have quite different prospects. 
Let's start with the global gas market, that is the gas market outside the United States, which has its own dynamic. Over the last 12 months, the center of activity in global gas has been Europe. This time last year, Europe still received close to 400 million cubic meters a day of natural gas from Russia. Over last summer, this fell by around 90% to just a trickle, causing a severe spike in European gas prices. At the time, we argued that gas prices needed to rise to drive demand destruction and attract LNG, that is liquefied natural gas that can be transported on tankers, to Europe. Prices indeed rose. By August, European gas prices reached over €300 per megawatt hour, that is more than 20x their normal level. 
Since then, the European gas market has seen the most dramatic turn around. For starters, demand destruction has been far greater than expected. Warm weather has helped, but that has certainly not been the main driver. At the same time, LNG imports into Europe have risen to levels that seemed unlikely this time last year. Remarkably, European gas prices have been declining for some time already, but energy imports just keep coming. The European gas market now faces the surprising situation that if demand stays as weak as it currently is, and LNG imports continue at the level of the last few months, inventories could fill over the summer to such an extent that Europe could run out of physical storage capacity sometime around August. In the space of a few months, the European gas market has gone from worrying about what commodity analysts call 'tank bottoms', to now concern over 'tank tops'. 
To prevent overstocking this summer, European gas prices probably need to fall further to send a signal to LNG suppliers that they need to send at least some of their energy cargoes elsewhere. However, that then creates a better supply situation elsewhere in the LNG market, putting downward pressure on prices there too. 
In contrast, the oil market presents a very different picture. Oil prices also gave up a large part of their gains late last year as the market worried about recession. However, even at the point when 70% of bank economists consensually forecast a recession, Brent crude oil did not fall much below $80 a barrel. At the moment, the oil market is modestly oversupplied, which is not uncommon for this time of the year. However, from here, the oil market has several tailwinds. First is another year of recovery in aviation, which is likely to drive growth and jet fuel consumption. Second is China's reopening. While there may be some concern in other markets over the impact of China's reopening, in the oil market the indications so far have simply been positive. And finally, there is supply risk for Russia. Although oil exports from Russia have continued, a lot of this oil is piling up at sea. That cannot continue at the current pace for very long and we would still estimate that Russian oil exports will eventually come under some pressure as the year progresses. 
Put these factors together and the oil market will likely come into balance in 2Q and reenter a deficit once again in the third and fourth quarter. Inventories are already low and likely to decline further in the second half. Spare capacity in OPEC is still very limited and investment levels have been modest in recent years. As the...]]>265false824fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-what-bank-wind-downs-mean-for-equities--75654912----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 13th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
The speed and size of the Silicon Valley bank wind down over the last week was startling to many investors, even those who have been negative on the stock for months on the basis of exactly what transpired- a classic mismatch between assets and liabilities and risk taking beyond what a typical depositor does. To be clear about our view, we do not think there's a systemic issue plaguing the entire banking system, like in 2007 to 2009, particularly with the FDIC decision to backstop uninsured deposits. However, last week's events are likely to have a negative impact on economic growth at a time when growth is already waning in many parts of the economy. 
Rather than do a forensic autopsy of what happened at Silicon Valley and other banks, I will instead focus my comments and what it may mean for equity prices more broadly. First, I would remind listeners that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Second, the pace of Fed tightening over the past year is unprecedented when one considers the Fed has also been engaged in aggressive quantitative tightening. Third, the focus on market based measures of financial conditions, like stock and bond prices, may have lulled both investors and the Fed itself into thinking policy tightening had not yet gone far enough. Meanwhile, more traditional measures like the yield curve have been flashing warnings for the past 6 months, closing last week near its lowest point of the cycle. 
From a bank's perspective, such an inversion usually means it's more difficult to make new profitable loans, and new credit is how money supply expands. However, over the past year, bank funding costs have not kept pace with the higher Fed funds rate, allowing banks to create credit at profitable net interest margins. In short, most banks have been paying well below market rates, like T-bills, because depositors have been slow to realize they can get much better rates elsewhere. But that's changed recently, with depositors deciding to pull their money from traditional banks and placing it in higher yielding securities like money markets, T-bills and the like. Ultimately, banks will likely decide to raise the interest rate they pay depositors, but that means lower profits and lower loan supply. Even before this recent exodus of deposits, loan officers have been tightening their lending standards. In our view, such tightening is likely to become even more prevalent, and that poses another headwind for money supply and consequently economic and earnings growth. In other words, it's now harder to hold the view that growth will continue to hold up in the face of the fastest Fed tightening cycle in modern times. Secondarily, the margin deterioration across most industries we've been discussing for months was already getting worse. Any top line shortfall relative to expectations from tighter money supply will only exacerbate this negative operating leverage dynamic. 
The bottom line is that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Many of the key variables used by the Fed and investors to judge whether Fed policy changes are having their desired effect are backward looking- things like employment and inflation metrics. Forward looking survey data, like consumer and corporate confidence, are often better at telling us what to expect rather than what's currently happening. On that score the picture is pessimistic about where growth is likely headed, especially for earnings. Rather than a random or idiosyncratic shock, we view last week's events as just one more supporting factor for our negative earnings growth outlook. In short, Fed policy is starting to bite and it's unlikely to reverse, even if the Fed were to pause its rate hikes or quantitative tightening. Instead, we think the die is likely cast for further earnings disappointments relative to consensus and company expectations, which means lower equity prices before this bear market is over. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/U4CjPjfXkKsK91iwS0iJ6hmFr9BrmdS5rgMY5suwoXoMon, 13 Mar 2023 22:08:22 +0000gtyBanking news and other market pressures are leading some depositors to move funds from traditional banks to higher-yielding securities. How will this affect economic growth and equity prices? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 13th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
The speed and size of the Silicon Valley bank wind down over the last week was startling to many investors, even those who have been negative on the stock for months on the basis of exactly what transpired- a classic mismatch between assets and liabilities and risk taking beyond what a typical depositor does. To be clear about our view, we do not think there's a systemic issue plaguing the entire banking system, like in 2007 to 2009, particularly with the FDIC decision to backstop uninsured deposits. However, last week's events are likely to have a negative impact on economic growth at a time when growth is already waning in many parts of the economy. 
Rather than do a forensic autopsy of what happened at Silicon Valley and other banks, I will instead focus my comments and what it may mean for equity prices more broadly. First, I would remind listeners that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Second, the pace of Fed tightening over the past year is unprecedented when one considers the Fed has also been engaged in aggressive quantitative tightening. Third, the focus on market based measures of financial conditions, like stock and bond prices, may have lulled both investors and the Fed itself into thinking policy tightening had not yet gone far enough. Meanwhile, more traditional measures like the yield curve have been flashing warnings for the past 6 months, closing last week near its lowest point of the cycle. 
From a bank's perspective, such an inversion usually means it's more difficult to make new profitable loans, and new credit is how money supply expands. However, over the past year, bank funding costs have not kept pace with the higher Fed funds rate, allowing banks to create credit at profitable net interest margins. In short, most banks have been paying well below market rates, like T-bills, because depositors have been slow to realize they can get much better rates elsewhere. But that's changed recently, with depositors deciding to pull their money from traditional banks and placing it in higher yielding securities like money markets, T-bills and the like. Ultimately, banks will likely decide to raise the interest rate they pay depositors, but that means lower profits and lower loan supply. Even before this recent exodus of deposits, loan officers have been tightening their lending standards. In our view, such tightening is likely to become even more prevalent, and that poses another headwind for money supply and consequently economic and earnings growth. In other words, it's now harder to hold the view that growth will continue to hold up in the face of the fastest Fed tightening cycle in modern times. Secondarily, the margin deterioration across most industries we've been discussing for months was already getting worse. Any top line shortfall relative to expectations from tighter money supply will only exacerbate this negative operating leverage dynamic. 
The bottom line is that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Many of the key variables used by the Fed and investors to judge whether Fed policy changes are having their desired effect are backward looking- things like employment and inflation metrics. Forward looking survey data, like consumer and corporate confidence, are often better at telling us what to expect rather than what's currently happening. On that score the picture is pessimistic about where growth is...]]>233false823fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-tech-the-future-of-artificial-intelligence--75654803----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Equity Analyst and Head of U.S. Internet Research for Morgan Stanley. 
Keith Weiss: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of the U.S. Software Research Team. 
Brian Nowak: Today, we're at Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media, and Telecom conference in downtown San Francisco. We've been here most of the week talking with industry leaders and emerging companies across the spectrum, and the topic on everyone's mind is clearly A.I. So today, we're going to share some of what we're hearing and our views on the rise of artificial intelligence tools. It's Thursday, March 9th at 2 p.m. here on the West Coast. 
Brian Nowak: All week, Keith and I have been meeting with companies and speaking with new companies that are developing technologies in artificial intelligence. We've written research about how we think that artificial intelligence is reaching somewhat of an iPhone inflection moment with new people using new tools, and businesses starting to realize artificial intelligence is here to stay and can drive real change. Keith, talk to us about how we reached this moment of inflection and how do you think about some of the big picture changes across technology? 
Keith Weiss: Well, thank you for having me, Brian. So we've been talking about artificial intelligence for some time now. Software companies have been infusing their solutions with machine learning driven type algorithms that optimize outcomes for quite some time. But I do think the iPhone analogy is apt, for two reasons. One, what we're talking about today with generative AI is more foundational technologies. You can almost think about that as the operating system on the mobile phone like the iOS operating system. And what we've heard all week long is companies are really seeing opportunity to create new apps on top of that operating system, new use cases for this generative AI. The other reason why this is such an apt analogy is, like the iPhone, this is really capturing the imagination of not just technology executives, not just investors like you and I, but everyday people. This is something that our kids are coming home from high school and saying, "Hey, dad, look at what I'm able to do or with chatGPT, isn't this incredible?" So you have that marketing moment of everybody realizes that this new capability, this new powerful technology is really available to everybody. 
Keith Weiss: So, Brian, what do you think are going to be the impacts of this technology on the consumer internet companies that you cover? 
Brian Nowak: We expect significant change. There is approximately $6 trillion of U.S. consumer expenditure that we think is going to be addressed by change. We see changes across search. We see more personalized search, more complete search. We see increasing uses of chatbots that can drive more accurate, personalized and complete answers in a faster manner across all types of categories. Think about improved e-commerce search helping you find products you would like to buy faster. Think about travel itinerary AI chatbots that create entire travel itineraries for your family. We see the capability for social media to change, better rank ordering and algorithms that determine what paid and organic content to show people at each moment. We see new creator tools, generative AI is going to enable people to make not only static images but more video based images across the entire economy. So people will be able to express themselves in more ways across social media, which will drive more engagement and ultimately more monetization for those social media platforms. We see e-commerce companies being able to better match inventory to people. Long tail inventory that previously perhaps could not find the right person or the right potential buyer will now better be able to be matched to buyers and to wallets. We see the shared economy across rideshare and food delivery also benefiting from this. Again, you're going to have more information to better match drivers to potential riders, restaurants to potential eaters. And down the line we go where we ultimately see artificial intelligence leading to an acceleration in digitization of consumers time, digitization of consumers wallets and all of that was going to bring more dollars online to the consumer internet companies. 
Brian Nowak: Now that's the consumer side, how do you think about artificial intelligence impacting enterprise in the B2B side? 
Keith Weiss: Yeah, I think there's a lot of commonalities into what you went through. On one level you talked about search, and what these generative AI technologies are able to do is put the questions that we're asking in context, and that enables a much better search functionality. And it's not just searching the Internet. Think about the searches that you do of your email inbox, and they're not very effective today and it's going to become a lot more effective. But that search can now extend across all the information within your organization that can be pretty powerful. When you talk about the generative capabilities in terms of writing content, we write content all day long, whether it's in emails, whether it's in text messages, and that can be automated and made more efficient and more effective. But also, the Excel formulas that we write in our Excel sheets, the reports that you and I write every day could be really augmented by this generative AI capability. And then there's a whole nother kind of class of capabilities that come in doing jobs better. So if we think about how this changes the landscape for software developers, one of the initial use cases we've seen of generative AI is making software developers much more productive by the models handling a lot of the rote software development, doing the easy stuff. So that software developer could focus his time on the hard problems to be solved in overall software development. So if you think about it holistically, what we've seen in technology trends really over the last two decades, we've seen the cost of computing coming way down, stuff like Public Cloud and the Hyperscalers have taken that compute cost down and that curve continues to come down. The cost of data is coming down, it's more accessible, there's more out of it because we've digitized so much of the economy. And then thirdly, now you're going to see the cost of software development come down as the software developers become more productive and the AI is doing more of that development. So those are all of your input cost in terms of what you do to automate business processes. And at the same time, the capabilities of the software is expanding. Fundamentally, that's what this AI is doing, is expanding the classes and types of work that can be automated with software. So if your input costs are coming way down and your capabilities are coming up, I think the amount of software that's being developed and where it's applied is really going to inflate a lot. It's going to accelerate and you're going to see an explosion of software development. I'm as bullish about the software industry right now as I've been over the past 20 years. 
Keith Weiss: So one of the things that investors ask me a lot about is the cost side of the equation. These new capabilities are a lot more compute intensive, and is this going to impact the gross margins and the operating margins of the companies that need to deploy this. So, how do you think about that part of the equation, Brian? 
Brian Nowak: There's likely to be some near-term impact, but we think the impacts are near-term in nature. It is true that the compute intensity and the capital intensity of a lot of these new models is higher than some of the current models that we're using across tech. The compute intensity of the large language models is higher than it is for search, it is higher than it is for a lot of the existing e-commerce or social media platforms that are used. So as we do think that the companies are going to need to invest more in capital expenditure, more in GPUs, which are some of the chips that enable a lot of these new large language models and capabilities to come. But these are more near-term cost headwinds because over the long term, as the companies work with the models, tune the models and train the models, we would expect these leading tech companies to put their efficiency teams in place and actually find ways to optimize the models to get the costs down over time. And when you layer that in with the new revenue opportunities, whether we're talking about incremental search revenue dollars, incremental e-commerce transactions, incremental B2B, SAS like revenue streams from some companies that will be paying more for these services that you spoke about, we think the ROI is going to be positive. So while there is going to likely be some near-term cost pressure across the space, we think it's near-term and to your point, this is a very exciting time within tech because these new capabilities are going to just expand the runway for top line growth for a lot of the companies across the space. 
Brian Nowak: And this is all very exciting on the consumer side and the business side, but Keith talk to us about sort of some of the uncertainties and sort of some of the factors that need to be ironed out as we continue to push more AI tools across the economy. 
Keith Weiss: Yeah, there's definitely uncertainties and definitely a risk out there when it comes to these technologies. So if we think about some of the broader risks that we see, these models are trained on the internet. So you have to]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pm8klRyvCRW79bqnFndE4600s_xNMIubc8uOskJPFcsFri, 10 Mar 2023 22:55:09 +0000gtyAs the advancement of generative AI takes off, how might this inflection point in technology impact markets, companies, and investors alike? Equity Analyst and Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak and Head of the U.S. Software Research Team...----- Transcript -----
Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Equity Analyst and Head of U.S. Internet Research for Morgan Stanley. 
Keith Weiss: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of the U.S. Software Research Team. 
Brian Nowak: Today, we're at Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media, and Telecom conference in downtown San Francisco. We've been here most of the week talking with industry leaders and emerging companies across the spectrum, and the topic on everyone's mind is clearly A.I. So today, we're going to share some of what we're hearing and our views on the rise of artificial intelligence tools. It's Thursday, March 9th at 2 p.m. here on the West Coast. 
Brian Nowak: All week, Keith and I have been meeting with companies and speaking with new companies that are developing technologies in artificial intelligence. We've written research about how we think that artificial intelligence is reaching somewhat of an iPhone inflection moment with new people using new tools, and businesses starting to realize artificial intelligence is here to stay and can drive real change. Keith, talk to us about how we reached this moment of inflection and how do you think about some of the big picture changes across technology? 
Keith Weiss: Well, thank you for having me, Brian. So we've been talking about artificial intelligence for some time now. Software companies have been infusing their solutions with machine learning driven type algorithms that optimize outcomes for quite some time. But I do think the iPhone analogy is apt, for two reasons. One, what we're talking about today with generative AI is more foundational technologies. You can almost think about that as the operating system on the mobile phone like the iOS operating system. And what we've heard all week long is companies are really seeing opportunity to create new apps on top of that operating system, new use cases for this generative AI. The other reason why this is such an apt analogy is, like the iPhone, this is really capturing the imagination of not just technology executives, not just investors like you and I, but everyday people. This is something that our kids are coming home from high school and saying, "Hey, dad, look at what I'm able to do or with chatGPT, isn't this incredible?" So you have that marketing moment of everybody realizes that this new capability, this new powerful technology is really available to everybody. 
Keith Weiss: So, Brian, what do you think are going to be the impacts of this technology on the consumer internet companies that you cover? 
Brian Nowak: We expect significant change. There is approximately $6 trillion of U.S. consumer expenditure that we think is going to be addressed by change. We see changes across search. We see more personalized search, more complete search. We see increasing uses of chatbots that can drive more accurate, personalized and complete answers in a faster manner across all types of categories. Think about improved e-commerce search helping you find products you would like to buy faster. Think about travel itinerary AI chatbots that create entire travel itineraries for your family. We see the capability for social media to change, better rank ordering and algorithms that determine what paid and organic content to show people at each moment. We see new creator tools, generative AI is going to enable people to make not only static images but more video based images across the entire economy. So people will be able to express themselves in more ways across social media, which will drive more engagement and ultimately more monetization for those social media platforms. We see e-commerce companies...]]>696false822fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-a-test-for-u-s-growth--75654816----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, March 9th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest surprises this year has been the resilience of the U.S. economy. This story faces a key test over the next week, with a large bearing on how investors may think about where we are in the cycle. 
Investors entered this year downbeat on U.S. growth, with widespread expectations of a recession. A payback in high levels of consumption over the pandemic, and the lagged impact of higher interest rates, were both big drivers of this view. And indeed many traditionally leading indicators of economic activity did, and still do, point to elevated economic risk. 
Yet the story so far has been different. The U.S. economy is still seeing robust consumption and jobs growth and more economically sensitive stocks have been major outperformers. Last month the U.S. economy added half a million jobs and saw very robust retail sales, data points that were taken by the market as a sign that the economy may not be slowing at all. 
That might be the case, but what's interesting is that this story is about to get a key update. Over the next week, we'll get the next release of data on the U.S. labor market and retail sales. And that data comes with a big uncertainty. 
The uncertainty is how much of the strength in January's data was flattered by so-called seasonal adjustments. For obvious reasons, a lot of things are sold in December and a lot of people are hired to sell them. In January, activity and jobs usually drop off, and so seasonal adjustments are important to help look through all this noise. 
To be more specific, retail sales usually drop 20% between December and January. This time around, they only dropped 16%, and since they dropped less than normal this was reported as a healthy gain. The U.S. usually loses 3 million jobs in January as seasonal workers are let go. This time the U.S. lost two and a half million jobs. 
December holidays are real and we should adjust for them. But if consumption patterns have changed since 2020, historical seasonal adjustments could be misleading. This month's data may give us a much cleaner picture of where that activity really is. 
If activity is once again strong, it could help further fuel the idea that U.S. growth this year will be better than feared. But if it's weak, investors may start to think that January's strength was something of a statistical quirk, especially in the face of other forward indicators that look much softer. Because of this, we think weak data over the next couple of days could be especially good for bonds. But either way, this data has a major bearing on the market narrative. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/gAahxMOby8IX9n3Uf6sYC1zopGoeAJMZoXJwnl7ravQThu, 09 Mar 2023 20:21:19 +0000gtyWhile the U.S. has surprised investors with its economic resilience, new labor market and retail sales data could challenge this continued strength. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, March 9th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest surprises this year has been the resilience of the U.S. economy. This story faces a key test over the next week, with a large bearing on how investors may think about where we are in the cycle. 
Investors entered this year downbeat on U.S. growth, with widespread expectations of a recession. A payback in high levels of consumption over the pandemic, and the lagged impact of higher interest rates, were both big drivers of this view. And indeed many traditionally leading indicators of economic activity did, and still do, point to elevated economic risk. 
Yet the story so far has been different. The U.S. economy is still seeing robust consumption and jobs growth and more economically sensitive stocks have been major outperformers. Last month the U.S. economy added half a million jobs and saw very robust retail sales, data points that were taken by the market as a sign that the economy may not be slowing at all. 
That might be the case, but what's interesting is that this story is about to get a key update. Over the next week, we'll get the next release of data on the U.S. labor market and retail sales. And that data comes with a big uncertainty. 
The uncertainty is how much of the strength in January's data was flattered by so-called seasonal adjustments. For obvious reasons, a lot of things are sold in December and a lot of people are hired to sell them. In January, activity and jobs usually drop off, and so seasonal adjustments are important to help look through all this noise. 
To be more specific, retail sales usually drop 20% between December and January. This time around, they only dropped 16%, and since they dropped less than normal this was reported as a healthy gain. The U.S. usually loses 3 million jobs in January as seasonal workers are let go. This time the U.S. lost two and a half million jobs. 
December holidays are real and we should adjust for them. But if consumption patterns have changed since 2020, historical seasonal adjustments could be misleading. This month's data may give us a much cleaner picture of where that activity really is. 
If activity is once again strong, it could help further fuel the idea that U.S. growth this year will be better than feared. But if it's weak, investors may start to think that January's strength was something of a statistical quirk, especially in the face of other forward indicators that look much softer. Because of this, we think weak data over the next couple of days could be especially good for bonds. But either way, this data has a major bearing on the market narrative. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>182false821fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chetan-ahya-is-asia-s-growth-bouncing-back--75654892----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing how Asia's growth is bouncing back. It's Wednesday, March 8th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
The last time I came on this podcast, I spoke about why we expect Asia's growth to outperform in 2023. To briefly recap, we expect Asia's growth to be five percentage points higher than the developed markets by the end of the year. One of the key debates we have with investors is precisely about how the growth outlook is tracking relative to our bullish forecasts. 
Investors are generally skeptical on two counts. First, for China, investors believe that consumption growth will not be sustained after the initial reopening boost. Second, for region excluding China, investors saw that there was a soft patch in the consumption data for some of the economies, and so they are questioning if this will persist over time and across geographies. 
For China, we have already seen a sharp rebound in services spending in areas like dining out, domestic travel and hotels. We expect consumption growth to continue to recover towards the pre-COVID strength in a broad-based manner. Crucially, this consumption growth is being supported by the sustainable drivers of job growth and income growth rather than a drawdown in excess savings. Private sector confidence is being revived by the alignment of policies towards a pro-growth stance. This shift in stance also means that policymakers will likely be taking quick and concerted policy action to address any remaining or fresh impediments to growth. In other words, this policy stance is likely to persist at least until we get clear signs of a sustainable recovery. Moreover, the property sector, which some investors fear might be a drag on household sentiment, appears to be recovering faster than our expectations. 
For region excluding China, we focus on the next largest economies in purchasing power parity terms, which is India and Japan. 
For India, growth indicators did slow post the festive season in October, but have reaccelerated in early 2023. Cyclically strong trailing demand has only lifted capacity utilization, and structurally government policies are still very much geared towards reviving private investment. We see private CapEx cycle unfolding, which will sustain gains in employment and allow consumption growth to stay strong in the coming quarters. 
For Japan, we see three reasons why growth should improve in 2023. Monetary policy will remain accommodative, private CapEx is now on the mend and Japan will benefit from the full reopening of China this spring, in form of increased tourism and goods exports. 
Overall, we think we are still on track for our base case narrative of growth acceleration and outperformance. In fact, we see marginal upside risk to our above consensus growth forecasts, which will be driven predominantly by China and its spillover impact to the rest of the region. For China, the upside to growth forecasts stems from the possibility that pro-growth pragmatism may set in motion a much stronger recovery than currently expected. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/lkgCpZFWLP22Dn1ucKldDKrZltOJuK0m5Q3Rs6aDLgoWed, 08 Mar 2023 20:02:26 +0000gtyWhile there is some skepticism that Asia’s growth will outperform this year, there are a few promising indicators that investors may want to keep in mind. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing how Asia's growth is bouncing back. It's Wednesday, March 8th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
The last time I came on this podcast, I spoke about why we expect Asia's growth to outperform in 2023. To briefly recap, we expect Asia's growth to be five percentage points higher than the developed markets by the end of the year. One of the key debates we have with investors is precisely about how the growth outlook is tracking relative to our bullish forecasts. 
Investors are generally skeptical on two counts. First, for China, investors believe that consumption growth will not be sustained after the initial reopening boost. Second, for region excluding China, investors saw that there was a soft patch in the consumption data for some of the economies, and so they are questioning if this will persist over time and across geographies. 
For China, we have already seen a sharp rebound in services spending in areas like dining out, domestic travel and hotels. We expect consumption growth to continue to recover towards the pre-COVID strength in a broad-based manner. Crucially, this consumption growth is being supported by the sustainable drivers of job growth and income growth rather than a drawdown in excess savings. Private sector confidence is being revived by the alignment of policies towards a pro-growth stance. This shift in stance also means that policymakers will likely be taking quick and concerted policy action to address any remaining or fresh impediments to growth. In other words, this policy stance is likely to persist at least until we get clear signs of a sustainable recovery. Moreover, the property sector, which some investors fear might be a drag on household sentiment, appears to be recovering faster than our expectations. 
For region excluding China, we focus on the next largest economies in purchasing power parity terms, which is India and Japan. 
For India, growth indicators did slow post the festive season in October, but have reaccelerated in early 2023. Cyclically strong trailing demand has only lifted capacity utilization, and structurally government policies are still very much geared towards reviving private investment. We see private CapEx cycle unfolding, which will sustain gains in employment and allow consumption growth to stay strong in the coming quarters. 
For Japan, we see three reasons why growth should improve in 2023. Monetary policy will remain accommodative, private CapEx is now on the mend and Japan will benefit from the full reopening of China this spring, in form of increased tourism and goods exports. 
Overall, we think we are still on track for our base case narrative of growth acceleration and outperformance. In fact, we see marginal upside risk to our above consensus growth forecasts, which will be driven predominantly by China and its spillover impact to the rest of the region. For China, the upside to growth forecasts stems from the possibility that pro-growth pragmatism may set in motion a much stronger recovery than currently expected. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>210false820fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-encore-andrew-sheets-the-impact-of-high-short-term-yields--75654728----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. 
The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. 
First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? 
Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. 
Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. 
The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kS-y86weLCkkerAoercy9kHOT5vKDYCm7QboneHFuZ0Tue, 07 Mar 2023 22:37:54 +0000gtyOriginal Release on February 24th, 2023: As short-term bond yields continue to rise, what impact does this comparatively high yield have on the broader market? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. 
The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. 
First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? 
Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. 
Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. 
The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. ]]>191false819fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-a-strong-rebound-for-markets--75654898----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 6th at 2 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Given our focus on the technicals in the short term, I'm going to provide an update on that view today, which contrasts with our intermediate term view that the bear market is not over. In short, equity markets traded right to technical support levels on Thursday last week and held. More importantly, they reacted strongly from those levels, which suggests this will not be a one day wonder, meaning the bear market rally may not be over yet. 
While my comments will focus on the S&P 500, these observations apply to most of the other major indices as well: the Nasdaq, Russell 2000 and the Dow Industrials, which remains the weakest of the bunch. First, as already mentioned, the key support levels were tested twice over the past few weeks, but on Thursday equity prices reacted strongly around the second test. As a strategist, I respect the price action and need to incorporate it into our fundamental view, which remains bearish. 
In addition to the strong rebound, the S&P 500 was able to recapture its uptrend from the rally that began in October. However, we did not observe any positive divergence on the second retest, and that leaves the door open that this rally may still be on borrowed time. We would point out that one of the reasons we called the rally in October had to do with the fact that we did get a very strong positive divergence on that secondary low in mid-October. For listeners who don't use technical analysis, a positive divergence is when markets make new price lows on less momentum. We measure momentum through price oscillators like relative strength or moving average convergence divergence. 
The other thing we're watching closely from a tactical standpoint is the longer term uptrend that began after the financial crisis in 2009. We continue to think it is critical that the S&P 500 get back above it to confirm the cyclical bear market is over. This trend line has provided critical resistance and support over the past 14 years during the secular bull market. More recently, it has been more of a resistance line and that level comes in today at around 4150 on the S&P 500. While we think the S&P 500 could make another attempt at this key resistance, it will require two things to surmount it- lower 10 year U.S. Treasury yields and a weaker dollar. In fact, we think Friday's sharp fall in 10 year yields was an important driver of the bounce in stocks. The dollar, too, showed some signs of exhaustion and it would be helpful if it can decline more meaningfully. As we suggested last week, in the absence of a weaker dollar and lower yields, this bear market rally will likely fail once again. The bottom line, there is plenty of bullish and bearish fodder in the technicals in our view, and one will need to take a view on the fundamentals to decide this bear market for stocks is over. Our view remains the same, the bear market is not over, but we acknowledge that Friday's price action may push out the next leg lower for a few more weeks. 
As we've been discussing on prior podcasts, the main reason we believe the bear market is not over is because the earnings recession has much further to go. Rather than repeating our case once again, we would like to highlight an important note published last week by Todd Castagno, our Global Valuation, Accounting and Tax team, appropriately entitled Exhausted Earnings. In this note, the team discusses their analysis of accruals and to what extent net income is diverging from cash flows. In short, the gap between reported earnings and cash flow is the widest in 25 years. This analysis supports our negative operating leverage thesis and means earnings estimates have a long way to fall over the next several quarters. Unfortunately, most stock valuations do not reflect this risk and why we think the risk reward for U.S. equities remains poor despite the positive price action last week. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DJF4BVdLc8IjZRGffxGs00bntMZ9W5a-maocESqVroEMon, 06 Mar 2023 22:40:39 +0000gtyWhile equity markets continue to rally, the key to the end of the bear market may be in the fundamentals. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 6th at 2 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Given our focus on the technicals in the short term, I'm going to provide an update on that view today, which contrasts with our intermediate term view that the bear market is not over. In short, equity markets traded right to technical support levels on Thursday last week and held. More importantly, they reacted strongly from those levels, which suggests this will not be a one day wonder, meaning the bear market rally may not be over yet. 
While my comments will focus on the S&P 500, these observations apply to most of the other major indices as well: the Nasdaq, Russell 2000 and the Dow Industrials, which remains the weakest of the bunch. First, as already mentioned, the key support levels were tested twice over the past few weeks, but on Thursday equity prices reacted strongly around the second test. As a strategist, I respect the price action and need to incorporate it into our fundamental view, which remains bearish. 
In addition to the strong rebound, the S&P 500 was able to recapture its uptrend from the rally that began in October. However, we did not observe any positive divergence on the second retest, and that leaves the door open that this rally may still be on borrowed time. We would point out that one of the reasons we called the rally in October had to do with the fact that we did get a very strong positive divergence on that secondary low in mid-October. For listeners who don't use technical analysis, a positive divergence is when markets make new price lows on less momentum. We measure momentum through price oscillators like relative strength or moving average convergence divergence. 
The other thing we're watching closely from a tactical standpoint is the longer term uptrend that began after the financial crisis in 2009. We continue to think it is critical that the S&P 500 get back above it to confirm the cyclical bear market is over. This trend line has provided critical resistance and support over the past 14 years during the secular bull market. More recently, it has been more of a resistance line and that level comes in today at around 4150 on the S&P 500. While we think the S&P 500 could make another attempt at this key resistance, it will require two things to surmount it- lower 10 year U.S. Treasury yields and a weaker dollar. In fact, we think Friday's sharp fall in 10 year yields was an important driver of the bounce in stocks. The dollar, too, showed some signs of exhaustion and it would be helpful if it can decline more meaningfully. As we suggested last week, in the absence of a weaker dollar and lower yields, this bear market rally will likely fail once again. The bottom line, there is plenty of bullish and bearish fodder in the technicals in our view, and one will need to take a view on the fundamentals to decide this bear market for stocks is over. Our view remains the same, the bear market is not over, but we acknowledge that Friday's price action may push out the next leg lower for a few more weeks. 
As we've been discussing on prior podcasts, the main reason we believe the bear market is not over is because the earnings recession has much further to go. Rather than repeating our case once again, we would like to highlight an important note published last week by Todd Castagno, our Global Valuation, Accounting and Tax team, appropriately entitled Exhausted Earnings. In this note, the team discusses their analysis of accruals and to what extent net income is diverging from cash...]]>227false818fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-economy-the-next-american-productivity-renaissance-pt-2--75654688----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special episode, we'll be continuing our discussion of the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Friday, March 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Lisa, let's take this to markets, how do you think this impacts equity market leadership, given that we've been in a market that's really been defined by the age of secular stagnation. What do you think happens now and who will be those new leaders? 
Lisa Shalett: This is one of the most important, I think, outcomes of our thesis. And that is that pendulums swing and market leadership shifts all the time, but when it's at that moment of inflection there's huge amounts of pushback, typically. Our sense is that the wealth creation ahead of us may not be in the current leadership in consumer tech, but rather in enterprise tech and the technology providers who are the leaders in new automation technologies that are going to allow us potentially to automate parts of our economy that have heretofore resisted. So it's a lot of the services side of the economy. Think of financial services, consumer services, government services, education services, how manual some of those industries are. And yet when we think about these triads or four or five level combinations of things like artificial intelligence, and machine learning, and optical scanning, and natural language processing and voice recognition. These are things that could really transform service-oriented businesses in terms of their margins and the economics of them. And so we envision a leadership that is potentially bimodal, that includes the tech enterprise enablers. Some of the software or software-as-a-service, some of the technology consultants who will help implement these automation programs and some of the beneficiaries, the tech takers, right. Think about some of those banks, those insurance companies, those healthcare companies, educational-oriented institutions that are just so heavy in manual service support infrastructures that could be rationalized. 
Andrew Sheets: So I'd like to dive into two of those threads and in just a little bit more detail. Just in terms of, kind of, the decade we've just been in. And, you know, I think it was pretty unique that it was a decade with some of the lowest cost of capital we've ever seen in economic history, and yet, you know, it's kind of left us with an economy where it's very easy to order food and very hard to take a train to the airport. We've had a lot of investment in consumer-led technology and a lot less in infrastructure. Do you think that equation has finally changed in a bigger way? And what do you think that means for maybe winners and losers of the changes that might be happening? 
Lisa Shalett: Our perspective is that I don't know that it's a permanent change. I think pendulums swing and there are waves when technology is more consumer-oriented. The issue with consumer technology, as we know and certainly with the smartphone, has been there's 2 billion people implementing that technology in 2 billion different ways. So it's very hard to scale those productivity benefits, if there are any, across an economy. When you go through periods of enterprise or economy-wide or infrastructure deepening-based technology spends, that's when economies can transform. And so I think it's a phase in the market. But I think one that is really important, you know, when we think about the advancement of overall return on assets in the economy. 
Andrew Sheets: And so, Lisa, digging into that technology piece, is there an example that stands out to you of a type of technology consumption that you think could be more fleeting as a result of the post-COVID period? And to your point about the more tangible, long lasting shifts in technology investment, the types of things that will be a lot more permanent and could really surprise people in their permanence over the longer run? 
Lisa Shalett: I'm not a technology visionary, but I do think that so many of the consumer technologies that we see over time end up being cannibalizing and substitutive as opposed to truly revolutionary. So, think about the consumption of media. We're still consuming media, it's just on what mode. Are we consuming it through a radio broadcast, a television broadcast, now streaming services on demand and etc, but it's content nonetheless. I think that there are other technologies when we think about what's going on with things like A.I., when we think about some of the things that are going on in genomics and in health care in particular, that really are transformative and take us to places we truly have never been before. And I think that that's one of the things that's super exciting right now is that we've never seen this before in many industries, right? Whether we're talking about things like transport and things in terms of human robotics and artificial intelligence and machine learning. These are places that we really haven't been before. And so to me, this is an extraordinarily exciting time vis a vis the innovation path. 
Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you've been talking about some of these big secular drivers of this productivity shift and capital investment shifting to deglobalization, decarbonization. And so I guess the next question is there might be demand for these things, but is there the supply to address these issues? Can we actually build these plants and re-orient these supply chains? How do you think about the supply side of this? And do you think supply is going to be able to rise to the challenge of the potential demand for this capital expenditure? 
Lisa Shalett: So I think that that's the piece of this thesis that was most exciting to us because very often one of the things that constrains investment is that you don't have the supply side enablement. One of the things that we can't take for granted is how good, particularly in the United States, private sector balance sheets are today. And so whether we're talking about the degree to which the United States banking system has healed and recapitalized, or we're talking about corporations who are still reasonably cash-rich and have locked in almost historically low costs of capital, or we talk about the household sector, which has moved away and locked in to fixed rate mortgages. That's a huge enablement that says we have the capacity to fund new technology. Then one of the other things that we've been talking about that enable the supply side are demographics. We've gone through this period where there was a bit of an air pocket in terms of overall working age population growth because Gen X was just not all that big relative to the boom. And we're talking about a working age population that is rapidly going to be dominated by a humongous millennial and Gen Z wave. And these are digital natives, right? These are folks who were born with technology in their hands. And so having a workforce that is flexible and tech savvy, that helps implement. So I think those are some of the supply side factors that are different than perhaps what we saw 10-15 years ago, you know, in 2007 when Apple launched the iPhone. 
Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew. 
Andrew Sheets: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2wPws6yPikRO6FF6b0OPy1PAV4FE1RfJgfkdVLw4dM0Fri, 03 Mar 2023 21:03:40 +0000gtyThe way companies and individuals spend their money has changed in the wake of the COVID pandemic. How might market leadership shift as a result and will new market winners come into focus? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special episode, we'll be continuing our discussion of the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Friday, March 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Lisa, let's take this to markets, how do you think this impacts equity market leadership, given that we've been in a market that's really been defined by the age of secular stagnation. What do you think happens now and who will be those new leaders? 
Lisa Shalett: This is one of the most important, I think, outcomes of our thesis. And that is that pendulums swing and market leadership shifts all the time, but when it's at that moment of inflection there's huge amounts of pushback, typically. Our sense is that the wealth creation ahead of us may not be in the current leadership in consumer tech, but rather in enterprise tech and the technology providers who are the leaders in new automation technologies that are going to allow us potentially to automate parts of our economy that have heretofore resisted. So it's a lot of the services side of the economy. Think of financial services, consumer services, government services, education services, how manual some of those industries are. And yet when we think about these triads or four or five level combinations of things like artificial intelligence, and machine learning, and optical scanning, and natural language processing and voice recognition. These are things that could really transform service-oriented businesses in terms of their margins and the economics of them. And so we envision a leadership that is potentially bimodal, that includes the tech enterprise enablers. Some of the software or software-as-a-service, some of the technology consultants who will help implement these automation programs and some of the beneficiaries, the tech takers, right. Think about some of those banks, those insurance companies, those healthcare companies, educational-oriented institutions that are just so heavy in manual service support infrastructures that could be rationalized. 
Andrew Sheets: So I'd like to dive into two of those threads and in just a little bit more detail. Just in terms of, kind of, the decade we've just been in. And, you know, I think it was pretty unique that it was a decade with some of the lowest cost of capital we've ever seen in economic history, and yet, you know, it's kind of left us with an economy where it's very easy to order food and very hard to take a train to the airport. We've had a lot of investment in consumer-led technology and a lot less in infrastructure. Do you think that equation has finally changed in a bigger way? And what do you think that means for maybe winners and losers of the changes that might be happening? 
Lisa Shalett: Our perspective is that I don't know that it's a permanent change. I think pendulums swing and there are waves when technology is more consumer-oriented. The issue with consumer technology, as we know and certainly with the smartphone, has been there's 2 billion people implementing that technology in 2 billion different ways. So it's very hard to scale those productivity benefits, if there are any, across an economy. When you go through periods of enterprise or economy-wide or infrastructure deepening-based technology spends, that's when economies can transform. And so I think it's a...]]>492false817fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-economy-the-next-american-productivity-renaissance-pt-1--75654881----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special two-part episode, we'll be discussing what we see as the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Thursday, March 2nd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So while everybody has been paying close attention, and rightly so, to 40 year highs of inflation that we've been having recently, there's another legacy from this pandemic that we want to dig into more deeply. We believe that the COVID crisis catalyzed an incredibly powerful regime shift, a once-in-a-generation shock to the labor markets which transformed the nature of work and is accelerating structural changes to capital investment. Lisa, you believe we're on the cusp of what you call the "Next American Productivity Renaissance", and this renaissance is underpinned by an upcoming capital spending supercycle. So, I guess the place to start is what does that mean and what's driving it? 
Lisa Shalett: I mean, I think that some of these trends were already beginning to take form before COVID struck, but COVID was really an accelerant. And so if we think about first the detachment from the labor force and the way COVID really transformed the way we think about work, and those jobs that maybe were not flexible to convert to a remote setting, or a work from home setting, and carried with them in-person high risk attributes. I think that was really one of the first dimensions of it, but then it was really about companies having to fundamentally rethink and re-engineer business models towards digitization, right? The removal of human contact. And then you overlay those two major pillars with things like decarbonization and the issues that emerged around how we make this transition to a cleaner energy mix around the world. Obviously COVID accelerated some of the issues around supply chain and deglobalization and how do we secure supply chains. And last but not least, I think it has really become clear we're talking about a world where incentives to invest either to substitute for labor, to strengthen our infrastructure, to commit to some of these climate change initiatives, to re-engineer supply chains or to deal with this new multipolar world. The incentives and the argument for capital spending has really changed. 
Andrew Sheets: So Lisa actually it's that last point on labor market tightness that I'd like to dive into a little bit more. Because I mean, it's fair to say that this would actually be a pretty normal cyclical phenomenon that as labor markets get tighter, as workers are harder to find, that companies decide that now it's worth investing more to make their existing workers more productive. Do you think that's a fair characterization of some past capital spending cycles that we've seen? And how do you think this one could fit into that pattern? 
Lisa Shalett [00:04:19] Yes, I think very often, you know, we've gone through these periods where the capital for labor substitution has been at the forefront. Now, one of the things that very often we have to wait for are what I call the supply side enablers of that. There have been eras where there's more automation-oriented technology that is available, and then there's eras where perhaps there's been less. And I think that one of the things that we're positing is that after the golden age of private equity that we're entering one of those periods of technology J-curve explosion, right, where the availability of automation-orienting technologies is there. So it enables part of the dialog around capital for labor arithmetic. 
Andrew Sheets: I also want to ask you about decarbonization as a theme, which you cited as one of these drivers of the productivity renaissance and capital deepening because I think you do encounter a view out there in the world that decarbonization and environmental regulation is negative for productivity. What do you think the market might be missing about decarbonization as a theme? And how does it drive higher productivity in the future rather than lower productivity? 
Lisa Shalett: I think fundamentally that there is no doubt that as we make this transition, there are going to be bumps and bruises along the road. And part of the issue is that as we move away from what is perhaps the lowest cost, but most dirty technologies that there may be pressures on inflation. But the flip side of that is that it creates huge incentives to drive productivity improvement in some of those cleaner technologies so that we can accelerate adoption through more compelling economics. So our sense is hydro and wind and some of these technologies are going to see material productivity improvements. 
Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, I think that's a great point, because also what we've certainly seen in Europe is a dramatic fall of consumption of natural gas and a dramatic increase in efficiency. As energy prices spiked in Europe in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you did see an increased focus on energy-efficient investment, on the cost of energy. And I think it surprised a lot of people about how much more production they were able to squeeze out of the same kilowatt hour of electricity. So it's, I think, a really interesting and important point that might go against some of the conventional wisdom around decarbonization. But I think we have some real hard evidence in the last couple of quarters of how that could play out. And Lisa, the final piece that I think your thesis probably gets a little bit of debate on is deglobalization. Because, again this has been a macro and micro topic, you know, macro in the sense that you're seeing companies look to shorten supply chains after some of the major supply chain issues around COVID. They're looking to shorten supply chains, given heightened geopolitical risk. And, you know, this has often been cited as something that's going to reduce profitability of companies, is they're going to have to double up on inventory and make their supply chain somewhat less efficient. So again, how does that fit into a productivity story or how do you see the winners and losers of that potentially playing out? 
Lisa Shalett: I don't know that the deglobalization itself drives productivity per se, but what it does do is it creates a lot of incentives for us to rethink the infrastructure that underlies supply chains. So, for example, as companies maybe think about shortening supply chains, maybe it's that American companies don't want to simply be motivated by the lowest net cost of production. But perhaps to your point, the proximity and security of production. So suddenly, does that mean we will be investing in infrastructure across the NAFTA region, for example, as opposed to over oceans and through air freight? And as those infrastructures are strengthened, be those through highway infrastructure, rail infrastructure or new port infrastructure, there's productivity benefits to the aggregate economy as companies rethink those linkages and flows. 
Andrew Sheets: That's interesting. So when we're talking about deglobalization, maybe you run the risk of focusing very narrowly on some higher near-term costs, but thinking bigger picture, thinking out over the next decade, maybe you are ending up with a more robust, more resilient economy and supply chain that over the long run over cycles does deliver better, more productive output. 
Lisa Shalett: Absolutely. 
Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew. 
Andrew Sheets: Thanks for listening, and be sure to tune in for part two of this special episode. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/x3ZMLSMMVp_SWA0TYHpkSQ5uaWyGt82WXBAl20iChuoThu, 02 Mar 2023 21:16:44 +0000gtyThe COVID pandemic changed the way the U.S. engages with work, but how will these shifts impact structural changes to capital investment? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special two-part episode, we'll be discussing what we see as the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Thursday, March 2nd at 2 p.m. in London. 
Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So while everybody has been paying close attention, and rightly so, to 40 year highs of inflation that we've been having recently, there's another legacy from this pandemic that we want to dig into more deeply. We believe that the COVID crisis catalyzed an incredibly powerful regime shift, a once-in-a-generation shock to the labor markets which transformed the nature of work and is accelerating structural changes to capital investment. Lisa, you believe we're on the cusp of what you call the "Next American Productivity Renaissance", and this renaissance is underpinned by an upcoming capital spending supercycle. So, I guess the place to start is what does that mean and what's driving it? 
Lisa Shalett: I mean, I think that some of these trends were already beginning to take form before COVID struck, but COVID was really an accelerant. And so if we think about first the detachment from the labor force and the way COVID really transformed the way we think about work, and those jobs that maybe were not flexible to convert to a remote setting, or a work from home setting, and carried with them in-person high risk attributes. I think that was really one of the first dimensions of it, but then it was really about companies having to fundamentally rethink and re-engineer business models towards digitization, right? The removal of human contact. And then you overlay those two major pillars with things like decarbonization and the issues that emerged around how we make this transition to a cleaner energy mix around the world. Obviously COVID accelerated some of the issues around supply chain and deglobalization and how do we secure supply chains. And last but not least, I think it has really become clear we're talking about a world where incentives to invest either to substitute for labor, to strengthen our infrastructure, to commit to some of these climate change initiatives, to re-engineer supply chains or to deal with this new multipolar world. The incentives and the argument for capital spending has really changed. 
Andrew Sheets: So Lisa actually it's that last point on labor market tightness that I'd like to dive into a little bit more. Because I mean, it's fair to say that this would actually be a pretty normal cyclical phenomenon that as labor markets get tighter, as workers are harder to find, that companies decide that now it's worth investing more to make their existing workers more productive. Do you think that's a fair characterization of some past capital spending cycles that we've seen? And how do you think this one could fit into that pattern? 
Lisa Shalett [00:04:19] Yes, I think very often, you know, we've gone through these periods where the capital for labor substitution has been at the forefront. Now, one of the things that very often we have to wait for are what I call the supply side enablers of that. There have been eras where there's more automation-oriented technology that is available, and then there's eras where perhaps there's been less. And I think that one of the things that we're positing is that after the golden age of private equity that we're entering one of those periods of technology J-curve explosion, right, where the...]]>498false816fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-global-impact-of-the-inflation-reduction-act--75654930----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, March 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
When Congress passed and the president signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act last year, they may have started a race among global governments to spend new money in an attempt to cut carbon output dramatically. Consider the European Union, where our economists and strategists are flagging that they expect, later this month, there will be an announcement of a major allocation of government funds to mirror the nearly $370 billion allocated by the U.S. toward its own energy transition. 
In the U.S., we've already flagged that much of the investment opportunity lies in the domestic clean tech space. As Stephen Byrd, our Global Head of Sustainability Research, has flagged the IRA's monetary allocation and rules creating preferences for materials sourced domestically or in friendly national confines, means that the U.S. clean tech space is seeing a substantial growth in demand for its products and services. 
In the EU, the story is more nuanced as we await details on what a final version of the European Commission's Green Deal Industrial Plan is, a process that could take us into the summer or beyond. Streamlining regulations to encourage private funding and expand the network for trade partners on green tech equipment is expected to be in focus. So the near term macro impacts are murky, but at a sector level, such a policy should present opportunities in utilities, capital goods, materials and construction. In short, this policy would mean the EU is finding ways to accelerate demand for these green enabler companies. 
So, in line with the transition to decarbonization as one of our big three investment themes for 2023, investors would do well to follow the money and see where there may be opportunities. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UnbpadtX8_BDKylbv1Nk2O0gUXwBTm-vOI4jItxK8bIWed, 01 Mar 2023 20:08:06 +0000gtyAfter the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S., other countries may be looking to invest more in their own energy transitions. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, March 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
When Congress passed and the president signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act last year, they may have started a race among global governments to spend new money in an attempt to cut carbon output dramatically. Consider the European Union, where our economists and strategists are flagging that they expect, later this month, there will be an announcement of a major allocation of government funds to mirror the nearly $370 billion allocated by the U.S. toward its own energy transition. 
In the U.S., we've already flagged that much of the investment opportunity lies in the domestic clean tech space. As Stephen Byrd, our Global Head of Sustainability Research, has flagged the IRA's monetary allocation and rules creating preferences for materials sourced domestically or in friendly national confines, means that the U.S. clean tech space is seeing a substantial growth in demand for its products and services. 
In the EU, the story is more nuanced as we await details on what a final version of the European Commission's Green Deal Industrial Plan is, a process that could take us into the summer or beyond. Streamlining regulations to encourage private funding and expand the network for trade partners on green tech equipment is expected to be in focus. So the near term macro impacts are murky, but at a sector level, such a policy should present opportunities in utilities, capital goods, materials and construction. In short, this policy would mean the EU is finding ways to accelerate demand for these green enabler companies. 
So, in line with the transition to decarbonization as one of our big three investment themes for 2023, investors would do well to follow the money and see where there may be opportunities. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>135false815fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sarah-wolfe-the-fed-versus-economic-resilience--75654924----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the economic response to the Fed's monetary tightening. It's Tuesday, February 28th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
The Fed has been tightening monetary policy at the fastest rate in recent history. And yet the U.S. economy has been so remarkably resilient thus far that investors have begun to interpret this resilience as a sign that the economy has been less affected by monetary policy than initially expected. And so recession fears seem to have turned into fears of re acceleration. 
Of course, interest sensitive parts of the economy have largely reacted as expected to the Fed hiking interest rates. Housing activity responded immediately to higher interest rates, declining significantly more than in prior cycles and what our models would imply. Consumer spending on durable goods has dampened as well, which is also expected. 
And yet other factors have bolstered the economy, even in the face of higher rates. The labor market has shown more resilience since the start of the hiking cycle as companies caught up on significant staffing shortfalls. Households have spent out excess savings supporting spending, and consumers saw their spending power boosted by declining energy prices just as monetary tightening began. 
As these pillars of resilience fade over the coming months, an economic slowdown should become more apparent. Staffing levels are closing in on levels more consistent with the level of economic output, pointing to a weaker backdrop for job growth for the remainder of 2023 and 2024. Excess savings now look roughly normal for large parts of the population, and energy prices are unlikely to be a major boost for household spending in coming months. Residential investment and consumption growth should bottom in mid 2023, while business investment deteriorates throughout our forecast horizon. We expect growth will remain below potential until the end of 2024 as rates move back towards neutral. 
But even with more deceleration ahead, greater resilience so far is shifting out the policy path. We continue to expect the Fed to deliver a 25 basis point hike about its March and May meetings, bringing peak policy rates to 5 to 5.25%. However, with a less significant and delayed slowdown in the labor market, with a more moderate increase in the unemployment rate, the Fed's pace of monetary easing is likely to be slower, and the first rate cut is likely to occur later. We think the Fed will hold rates at these levels for a longer period rather than hike to a higher peak, as this carries less of a risk of over tightening. 
We now see the Fed delivering the first rate cut in March 2024 versus our previous estimate of December 2023, and cutting rates at a slower pace of 25 basis points each quarter next year. This brings the federal funds rate to 4.25% by the end of 2024. With rates well above neutral throughout the forecast horizon, growth remains below potential as well. As for the U.S. consumer, while excess savings boosted spending in 2022 despite rising interest rates, we expect consumers to return to saving more this year, which means a step down in spending. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fUg_0qGYHx5Xw-KQ6KpTcRPCprKJAV_J-1K9Q-UC4iQTue, 28 Feb 2023 21:49:58 +0000gtyAs the U.S. economy remains resilient in the face of continued rate hikes, investors may wonder if the Fed will re-accelerate their policy tightening or if cuts are on their way. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the economic response to the Fed's monetary tightening. It's Tuesday, February 28th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
The Fed has been tightening monetary policy at the fastest rate in recent history. And yet the U.S. economy has been so remarkably resilient thus far that investors have begun to interpret this resilience as a sign that the economy has been less affected by monetary policy than initially expected. And so recession fears seem to have turned into fears of re acceleration. 
Of course, interest sensitive parts of the economy have largely reacted as expected to the Fed hiking interest rates. Housing activity responded immediately to higher interest rates, declining significantly more than in prior cycles and what our models would imply. Consumer spending on durable goods has dampened as well, which is also expected. 
And yet other factors have bolstered the economy, even in the face of higher rates. The labor market has shown more resilience since the start of the hiking cycle as companies caught up on significant staffing shortfalls. Households have spent out excess savings supporting spending, and consumers saw their spending power boosted by declining energy prices just as monetary tightening began. 
As these pillars of resilience fade over the coming months, an economic slowdown should become more apparent. Staffing levels are closing in on levels more consistent with the level of economic output, pointing to a weaker backdrop for job growth for the remainder of 2023 and 2024. Excess savings now look roughly normal for large parts of the population, and energy prices are unlikely to be a major boost for household spending in coming months. Residential investment and consumption growth should bottom in mid 2023, while business investment deteriorates throughout our forecast horizon. We expect growth will remain below potential until the end of 2024 as rates move back towards neutral. 
But even with more deceleration ahead, greater resilience so far is shifting out the policy path. We continue to expect the Fed to deliver a 25 basis point hike about its March and May meetings, bringing peak policy rates to 5 to 5.25%. However, with a less significant and delayed slowdown in the labor market, with a more moderate increase in the unemployment rate, the Fed's pace of monetary easing is likely to be slower, and the first rate cut is likely to occur later. We think the Fed will hold rates at these levels for a longer period rather than hike to a higher peak, as this carries less of a risk of over tightening. 
We now see the Fed delivering the first rate cut in March 2024 versus our previous estimate of December 2023, and cutting rates at a slower pace of 25 basis points each quarter next year. This brings the federal funds rate to 4.25% by the end of 2024. With rates well above neutral throughout the forecast horizon, growth remains below potential as well. As for the U.S. consumer, while excess savings boosted spending in 2022 despite rising interest rates, we expect consumers to return to saving more this year, which means a step down in spending. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>203false814fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-is-the-worst-of-this-earnings-cycle-still-ahead--75654889----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, February 27th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Our equity strategy framework incorporates several key components. Overall earnings tend to determine price action the most. For example, if a company beats the current forecast on earnings and shows accelerating growth, the stock tends to go up, assuming it isn't egregiously priced. This dynamic is what drives most bull markets, earnings estimates are steadily rising with no end in sight to that trend. During bear markets, however, that is not the case. Instead, earnings forecasts are typically falling. Needless to say, falling earnings forecasts are a rarity for such a high quality diversified index like the S&P 500, and that's why bear markets are much more infrequent than bull markets. However, once they start, it's very hard to argue the bear markets over until those earnings forecasts stop falling. 
Stocks have bottomed both before, after and coincidentally with those troughs in earnings estimates. If this bear market turns out to have ended in October of last year, it will be the farthest in advance that stocks have discounted the trough in forward 12 month earnings. More importantly, this assumes earnings estimates have indeed troughed, which is unlikely in our view. In fact, our top down earnings models suggest that estimates aren't likely to trough until September, which would put the trough in stocks still in front of us. Finally, we would note that the Fed's reaction function is very different today given the inflationary backdrop. In fact, during every material earnings recession over the past 30 years, the Fed was already easing policy before we reached the trough in EPS forecasts. They are still tightening today. 
During such periods, there is usually a vigorous debate as to when the earnings estimates will trough. This uncertainty creates the very choppy price action we witness during bear markets, which can include very sharp rallies like the one we've experienced over the past year. Furthermore, earnings forecasts have started to flatten out, but we would caution that this is what typically happens during bear markets. The stock's fall in the last month of the calendar quarter as they discount upcoming results and then rally when the forward estimates actually come down. Over the past year, this pattern has been observed with stocks selling off the month leading up to the earnings season and then rallying on the relief that the worst may be behind us. We think that dynamic is at work again this quarter, with the stocks selling off in December in anticipation of bad news and then rallying on the relief it's the last cut. Given that we are about to enter the last calendar month of the first quarter later this week, we think the risk of stocks falling further is high. 
Bottom line, we don't believe the earnings forecasts are done and we think they're going to fall again in the next few months. This is a key debate in the market, and our take is that while the economic data appears to have stabilized and even turned up again in certain areas, our negative operating leverage cycle is alive and well and could overwhelm any economic scenario over the next six months. We remain defensive going into March with the worst of this earnings cycle still ahead of us. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8h4TnCQNPmrPX7WAywgtmwtICt9jtgvbBST5Nj65MnEMon, 27 Feb 2023 20:55:05 +0000gtyAs we enter the final month of the first quarter, recalling the history of bear market trends could help predict whether earnings will fall again. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, February 27th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Our equity strategy framework incorporates several key components. Overall earnings tend to determine price action the most. For example, if a company beats the current forecast on earnings and shows accelerating growth, the stock tends to go up, assuming it isn't egregiously priced. This dynamic is what drives most bull markets, earnings estimates are steadily rising with no end in sight to that trend. During bear markets, however, that is not the case. Instead, earnings forecasts are typically falling. Needless to say, falling earnings forecasts are a rarity for such a high quality diversified index like the S&P 500, and that's why bear markets are much more infrequent than bull markets. However, once they start, it's very hard to argue the bear markets over until those earnings forecasts stop falling. 
Stocks have bottomed both before, after and coincidentally with those troughs in earnings estimates. If this bear market turns out to have ended in October of last year, it will be the farthest in advance that stocks have discounted the trough in forward 12 month earnings. More importantly, this assumes earnings estimates have indeed troughed, which is unlikely in our view. In fact, our top down earnings models suggest that estimates aren't likely to trough until September, which would put the trough in stocks still in front of us. Finally, we would note that the Fed's reaction function is very different today given the inflationary backdrop. In fact, during every material earnings recession over the past 30 years, the Fed was already easing policy before we reached the trough in EPS forecasts. They are still tightening today. 
During such periods, there is usually a vigorous debate as to when the earnings estimates will trough. This uncertainty creates the very choppy price action we witness during bear markets, which can include very sharp rallies like the one we've experienced over the past year. Furthermore, earnings forecasts have started to flatten out, but we would caution that this is what typically happens during bear markets. The stock's fall in the last month of the calendar quarter as they discount upcoming results and then rally when the forward estimates actually come down. Over the past year, this pattern has been observed with stocks selling off the month leading up to the earnings season and then rallying on the relief that the worst may be behind us. We think that dynamic is at work again this quarter, with the stocks selling off in December in anticipation of bad news and then rallying on the relief it's the last cut. Given that we are about to enter the last calendar month of the first quarter later this week, we think the risk of stocks falling further is high. 
Bottom line, we don't believe the earnings forecasts are done and we think they're going to fall again in the next few months. This is a key debate in the market, and our take is that while the economic data appears to have stabilized and even turned up again in certain areas, our negative operating leverage cycle is alive and well and could overwhelm any economic scenario over the next six months. We remain defensive going into March with the worst of this earnings cycle still ahead of us. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>189false813fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-the-impact-of-high-short-term-yields--75654795----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. 
The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. 
First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? 
Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. 
Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. 
The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/isTbkFJHH3e4N4-JH4gpeobop6LPJAQOrf4Lc5RPFwgFri, 24 Feb 2023 20:36:51 +0000gtyAs short-term bond yields continue to rise, what impact does this comparatively high yield have on the broader market? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. 
One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. 
The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. 
First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? 
Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. 
Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. 
The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>184false812fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sustainability-carbon-offsets-and-the-issue-of-greenwashing--75654971----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. 
Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the voluntary carbon offset market and the role carbon offsets play in achieving companies' decarbonization goals. It's Thursday, February 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: As extreme weather becomes the new normal, and sustainability rises in importance on investors' agendas, many companies are working towards mitigating their environmental impact. But even so, there's persistent public concern that some companies claiming to be carbon neutral may in fact be "greenwashing" by purchasing so-called carbon offsets. So, Carolyn, let's start with the basics. What exactly are carbon offsets and why should investors care? 
Carolyn Campbell: So a carbon offset represents one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent removed, reduced or avoided in the atmosphere. Companies are buying offsets to neutralize their own emissions. They essentially subtract the amount of carbon offsets purchased from their total emissions, from their operations and supply chain. These offsets are useful because it allows a company to take action against their emissions now, while implementing longer term decarbonization strategies. However, there's concern that these companies are just buying their way out of the problem and are using these offsets that do not actually do anything with respect to actually limiting global warming. So, Stephen, some of these offsets focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, while others aim to directly remove these emissions from the atmosphere. Between these so-called avoidance and removal offsets, how do you see the market evolving for each over the next 5 to 10 years, let's say? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Carolyn, I think the balance is set to shift in favor of removal over the coming decade. So we developed an assessment of the potential mix shift from carbon avoidance to carbon removal projects, which shows the long term importance of removal projects as well as the near-term to medium term need for avoidance projects. We're bullish that over the long term removal projects, and think of these projects as projects that demonstrably and permanently take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, as generating enough carbon offset credits to reach company's net zero targets, again in the long term. However, over the near to medium term, call it the next 5 to 10 years, we expect the volume of removal projects to fall short. As a result, we think carbon avoidance projects, and these would be projects that avoid new atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide. These will play an important role as offset purchasers shift their mix of carbon offsets towards removal over the course of this decade. Carolyn, one of the big debates in the market around voluntary carbon offsets involves nature based projects versus technology based projects. Could you give us some examples of each and just talk through, is one type significantly better than the other? And which one do you think will likely gain the most traction? 
Carolyn Campbell: Sure. So on the one side, we've got these nature based projects which include things like reforestation, afforestation and avoided deforestation projects. In essence planting trees and protecting forests that are already there. There's also other projects related to grasslands and coastal conservation. On the other side, we've got these tech based projects which are actually quite wide ranging. This includes things like deploying new renewable technology or capping oil wells to prevent methane leakage, substituting wood burning stove for clean cookstoves, everything up to direct air capture and carbon capture, so on and so forth. So in our view, these tech based offsets will eventually dominate the market, but they face some scaling and cost hurdles over in the near term. Tech based offsets have some key advantages. They're highly measurable and they have a high probability of permanence, both disadvantages on the nature based side. Nature based sides, like I said, have measurement hurdles, but we think they represent an important interim solution until either geographic limits are reached because there's no more area left to reforest, or legislative conservation takes over. Removal technologies, like direct air capture and carbon capture, yield highly quantifiable results. And that drives a value in a market where the lack of confidence is a major obstacle to growth. So we think that's where the market's heading, but we're not really there yet. Now, one thing we haven't discussed is why even buy carbon offsets at all? Should companies be spending their limited sustainability budgets on carbon offsets, or is that money better served on research and development that might get us closer to absolute zero in the long term? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, we are seeing signs that companies are increasingly looking to spend more of their sustainability budgets on research and development of long term decarbonization solutions, in lieu of buying carbon offsets. Now we support that trend, given the need for new technologies to really bend the curve on carbon emissions. And we do believe that offsets should not substitute for viable permanent decarbonization projects. Now, that said, offsets are a complimentary approach that enables action to be taken today against emissions that corporates currently cannot eliminate. We also believe the magnitude of consumer interest in carbon neutral products is underappreciated. Survey work from our alpha wise colleagues, really focused on consumer preferences and carbon neutral goods and services, shows that consumers are willing to pay about a 2% premium for carbon neutrality. Now, that may not sound like much, but it's actually a very significant number when you translate that into a price on carbon. Let's take sneakers as an example. Our math would indicate that consumers would be willing to price carbon offsets at a value above $150 a ton of carbon dioxide. That prices about 15 times the weighted average price of offsets in 2022. So consumer preferences may well play an important role in the evolution of the carbon offset market throughout the course of this decade and beyond. And we do think that this dynamic could provide the support needed to move the market towards higher quality offsets, and also drive companies to develop their own innovative decarbonization solutions. Carolyn, how big do you think the carbon offsets market could get over the next 5 to 10 years and even longer term? 
Carolyn Campbell: Okay, so right now the market's around 1 to 2 billion in size, but we think there is a sizable growth opportunity between now and 2030, which is when many of the interim targets are set. And also longer term out to 2050, by which point we're trying to be net zero. So we estimate that the market could grow to around 100 billion by the end of this decade, and that will swell to around 250 billion by mid-century. And we've done this analysis based on our median expectation for progress on a few different decarbonization technologies like decarbonizing cement, decarbonizing manufacturing, and increasing the zero carbon energy penetration in the grid. When we look at that technological progress versus where we need to be in terms of our ambition to keep warming to one and a half or two degrees Celsius, that's how we arrive at the shortfall to make up that size of the market. 
Stephen Byrd: Finally, Carolyn, one of the criticisms of carbon offsets is that they aren't regulated. So could you give us a quick glimpse into the policies and regulations around carbon offsets that potentially lie ahead? 
Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, so you're right. Right now the market is largely unregulated and that creates the risk of fraud and manipulation. However, we don't expect imminent action, and it's just not a priority in the U.S. for Congress. That being said, if regulation does occur, we have an idea of what it could look like. We would expect to be led by the CFTC, which regulates the commodities markets. And we think that it would be focused on ensuring integrity in the market, creating a registration framework for the offsets and pursuing individual cases of fraud. Now, without formal regulation, there are few voluntary initiatives that have continued to set the standards in the industry. These organizations focus on the integrity of the market, they set principles to ensure that offsets are high quality, and they're even looking at labeling to mark credits as high integrity. So there's a lot of guidance out there, and it's constantly adapting to this evolving landscape. 
Stephen Byrd: Carolyn, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Carolyn Campbell: Great speaking with you today, Stephen. 
Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UNZuEWLNs4MahEg-xolWxV8MeAre79iHZMUINyhioM8Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:01:12 +0000gtyCompanies continue their attempts to mitigate their environmental impact. But are some merely buying their way out of the problem using carbon offsets? Global Head of Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Head of ESG Fixed-Income Research Carolyn...----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. 
Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. 
Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the voluntary carbon offset market and the role carbon offsets play in achieving companies' decarbonization goals. It's Thursday, February 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Stephen Byrd: As extreme weather becomes the new normal, and sustainability rises in importance on investors' agendas, many companies are working towards mitigating their environmental impact. But even so, there's persistent public concern that some companies claiming to be carbon neutral may in fact be "greenwashing" by purchasing so-called carbon offsets. So, Carolyn, let's start with the basics. What exactly are carbon offsets and why should investors care? 
Carolyn Campbell: So a carbon offset represents one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent removed, reduced or avoided in the atmosphere. Companies are buying offsets to neutralize their own emissions. They essentially subtract the amount of carbon offsets purchased from their total emissions, from their operations and supply chain. These offsets are useful because it allows a company to take action against their emissions now, while implementing longer term decarbonization strategies. However, there's concern that these companies are just buying their way out of the problem and are using these offsets that do not actually do anything with respect to actually limiting global warming. So, Stephen, some of these offsets focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, while others aim to directly remove these emissions from the atmosphere. Between these so-called avoidance and removal offsets, how do you see the market evolving for each over the next 5 to 10 years, let's say? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Carolyn, I think the balance is set to shift in favor of removal over the coming decade. So we developed an assessment of the potential mix shift from carbon avoidance to carbon removal projects, which shows the long term importance of removal projects as well as the near-term to medium term need for avoidance projects. We're bullish that over the long term removal projects, and think of these projects as projects that demonstrably and permanently take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, as generating enough carbon offset credits to reach company's net zero targets, again in the long term. However, over the near to medium term, call it the next 5 to 10 years, we expect the volume of removal projects to fall short. As a result, we think carbon avoidance projects, and these would be projects that avoid new atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide. These will play an important role as offset purchasers shift their mix of carbon offsets towards removal over the course of this decade. Carolyn, one of the big debates in the market around voluntary carbon offsets involves nature based projects versus technology based projects. Could you give us some examples of each and just talk through, is one type significantly better than the other? And which one do you think will likely gain the most traction? 
Carolyn Campbell: Sure. So on the one side, we've got these nature based projects which include things like reforestation, afforestation and avoided deforestation projects. In essence planting trees and protecting forests that are already there. There's also other projects related to grasslands and coastal conservation. On the other side, we've got these tech based projects which are actually quite wide ranging. This...]]>489false811fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-is-activity-about-to-pick-up--75654911----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Wednesday, February 22nd, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So, Jim, when we're looking at data on the housing market, it seems like it's all over the place. We've got home sale activity pointing one direction. We've got home prices doing other things. What's going on? You've had this bifurcation narrative. Is the bifurcation narrative still bifurcating? 
Jim Egan: So to remind our listeners, the bifurcation narrative for our housing forecasts is between home prices, which we thought were a lot more protected, and housing activity, so sales and housing starts where we thought you were going to see a lot more weakness. And I would say that bifurcation narrative still exists. But, as you're saying, the different data have been pointing to different things. For instance, purchase applications, they picked up sequentially in January from December. And after declining in every single month of 2022, the homebuilder confidence has increased in both January and February. 
Jay Bacow: All right. But when I think about what happened over that time period, mortgage rates fell almost 100 basis points from their highs in November, as you measure that purchase application pick up from December to January. Is that playing a role? Do you think that there are signs that maybe housing activity is going to pick back up? 
Jim Egan: So from a mortgage rate perspective, it'd be difficult for us to say it isn't. So we do think that that's playing a role, but we also think it's a little too early to say that housing activity is going to pick back up from here. For one thing, mortgage rates might have come down 100 basis points from mid-November into January, but they've also begun to move higher over the past few weeks. For another, the variables that we've been paying close attention to haven't really shown much improvement. 
Jay Bacow: Those variables, you mean affordability and supply. How are those looking now? 
Jim Egan: Exactly. Now let's think about what drove our bifurcation hypothesis in the first place. Because of the record growth in home prices that we saw in 2021 and 2022, combined with the sharp increase in mortgage rates in 2022. They were up almost 400 basis points before that 100 basis point decline that we talked about. Affordability deteriorated more than at any point in over three decades. In fact, the year over year deterioration was roughly three times what we experienced in the years leading up to the GFC. 
Jay Bacow: Now we want to remind our listeners that this affordability deterioration is really for first time homebuyers. Given the vast predominance of the fixed rate mortgage in the United States most homeowners have a low 30 year fixed rate mortgage with an average rate of about 3.5%. Obviously, their affordability didn't change. What did change was prospective homeowners that are looking to buy a house and now would have to take a mortgage at a higher rate. That does mean that those people with a low fixed rate mortgage, they've got low rates. 
Jim Egan: And that means that they simply have not been incentivized to list their homes for sale. The inventory of existing homes available for sale plummeted to over 40 year lows. And we only really have 40 years of data. More importantly for the drop in sales volumes that we've seen, if an existing homeowner is not selling their home, they're also not buying a home on the follow that further exaggerates the drop. But thinking about where we are today, affordability is no longer rapidly deteriorating. In fact, it's basically been unchanged over the past three months. And inventories, they remain near 40 year lows, but they're also no longer falling rapidly. If anything, they're actually kind of increasing on the margins. It is only on the margins because of that lock in effect that you mentioned Jay. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. But it is increasing slightly. So if you have a little bit of a pickup in inventory in basically unchanged affordability, what does that mean for home sales? 
Jim Egan: Affordability is challenged and supply is very tight, but both are no longer getting even more stretched. In other words, we don't see a catalyst for sales volumes to inflect higher from here, but we also don't think the ingredients are in place for large month over month declines to continue either. I wouldn't say that sales have bottomed, but I would lean more towards they are in the process of bottoming right now. We expect volumes to be weak in the first half of 2023, but perhaps not substantially weaker than they were in the fourth quarter of 2022, where volumes retraced all the way back to 2010 levels. We also want to emphasize that this will still result in significant year over year declines, given how strong the first half of 2022 was. The January purchase applications that I earlier stated were moving higher, they were down 40% year over year from January of 2022. And they also have started to come down a little bit in February. The existing home sales print that happened earlier this week for January, that was down 37% year over year. 
Jay Bacow: All right, so, home sale activity is in the process of bottoming, but it's down 37% to 40%, depending on what number that we're talking about. In order for things to bifurcate, we need another side. So what's happening with prices? 
Jim Egan: I would say that prices are still more protected. That doesn't mean the prices are going to continue to grow. When we think about year over year growth in prices, it continues to slow. We were down to 7.7% in the most recent print, which represents November home prices. We'll get the December print next week. We think it'll slow to roughly 6% when we get that. And month over month, home prices have been coming down. They're down about 3.5% from peak, which was June of 2022. We do think that year over year will still turn negative in 2023, the first time that's happened since 2012. But even if we get the 4% decline in home prices in 2023 that we're calling for, that would still only really bring us back to the end of 2021, which is up 30% from the onset of the pandemic in March of 2020. And as I mentioned earlier, sales volumes hit levels we hadn't seen since 2010. So, that bifurcation still exists. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So that bifurcation between home sales and home prices is still going to exist. Jim, always great talking to you. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/t5-4jT1XX1fB5hbO1Rx2HLlJ8B7RI9Q76Nm_81yKgYAWed, 22 Feb 2023 22:35:55 +0000gtyWith housing affordability plateauing and inventory picking up, sales could be poised to rise again in the near future. ----- Transcript ----- Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research...----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Wednesday, February 22nd, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So, Jim, when we're looking at data on the housing market, it seems like it's all over the place. We've got home sale activity pointing one direction. We've got home prices doing other things. What's going on? You've had this bifurcation narrative. Is the bifurcation narrative still bifurcating? 
Jim Egan: So to remind our listeners, the bifurcation narrative for our housing forecasts is between home prices, which we thought were a lot more protected, and housing activity, so sales and housing starts where we thought you were going to see a lot more weakness. And I would say that bifurcation narrative still exists. But, as you're saying, the different data have been pointing to different things. For instance, purchase applications, they picked up sequentially in January from December. And after declining in every single month of 2022, the homebuilder confidence has increased in both January and February. 
Jay Bacow: All right. But when I think about what happened over that time period, mortgage rates fell almost 100 basis points from their highs in November, as you measure that purchase application pick up from December to January. Is that playing a role? Do you think that there are signs that maybe housing activity is going to pick back up? 
Jim Egan: So from a mortgage rate perspective, it'd be difficult for us to say it isn't. So we do think that that's playing a role, but we also think it's a little too early to say that housing activity is going to pick back up from here. For one thing, mortgage rates might have come down 100 basis points from mid-November into January, but they've also begun to move higher over the past few weeks. For another, the variables that we've been paying close attention to haven't really shown much improvement. 
Jay Bacow: Those variables, you mean affordability and supply. How are those looking now? 
Jim Egan: Exactly. Now let's think about what drove our bifurcation hypothesis in the first place. Because of the record growth in home prices that we saw in 2021 and 2022, combined with the sharp increase in mortgage rates in 2022. They were up almost 400 basis points before that 100 basis point decline that we talked about. Affordability deteriorated more than at any point in over three decades. In fact, the year over year deterioration was roughly three times what we experienced in the years leading up to the GFC. 
Jay Bacow: Now we want to remind our listeners that this affordability deterioration is really for first time homebuyers. Given the vast predominance of the fixed rate mortgage in the United States most homeowners have a low 30 year fixed rate mortgage with an average rate of about 3.5%. Obviously, their affordability didn't change. What did change was prospective homeowners that are looking to buy a house and now would have to take a mortgage at a higher rate. That does mean that those people with a low fixed rate mortgage, they've got low rates. 
Jim Egan: And that means that they simply have not been incentivized to list their homes for sale. The inventory of existing homes available for sale plummeted to over 40 year lows. And we only really have 40 years of data. More importantly for the drop in sales volumes that we've seen, if an existing homeowner is not selling their home, they're also not buying a home on the follow that further exaggerates the drop. But thinking about where we...]]>392false810fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/graham-secker-are-european-equities-still-providing-safety--75654757----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the deflating safety cushion for European equities. It's Tuesday, February the 21st at 3 p.m. in London. 
With the benefit of hindsight, it's relatively easy to justify the European equity rally since the start of October, given that we've seen an improvement in the macro news flow against a backdrop of low valuation and depressed investor sentiment and positioning. While the macro outlook could continue to improve from here, we think the safety cushion that low valuation and depressed sentiment had previously provided has deflated considerably as investors have been drawn back into the market by rising price momentum. On valuation, the MSCI Europe Index still looks quite inexpensive on a next 12 month forward PE of 13, however the same ratio for Europe's median stock has risen to 16, which is at the upper end of its historic range. Admittedly, a less padded safety cushion is not necessarily a problem if the fundamental economic and earnings trends continue to improve. However, there is now considerably less margin for any disappointment going forward. 
This rebound in European equities has been led primarily by cyclical sectors who have outperformed their defensive peers by nearly 20% over the last six months. Historically, this pace of outperformance has tended to be a good sign, suggesting that we had started a new economic cycle with further upside for cyclical stocks ahead. However, while this sounds encouraging, we see three caveats that warrant caution rather than optimism at this point. 
First, we have seen no deterioration in cyclicals’ profitability yet, and the lack of any downturn now makes it harder to envisage an EPS upturn required to drive share prices higher going forward. 
Second, we get a very different message from the yield curve, which has consistently proved to be one of the best economic leading indicators over many cycles. Today's inverted yield curve is usually followed by a period of cyclical underperformance and not outperformance. 
And thirdly, cyclicals. Valuations look elevated, with the group trading in a similar price to book value as defensives. When this has happened previously, it usually signals cyclicals’ underperformance ahead. 
Given our cautious view on cyclicals, we prefer small and mid-cap stocks as a way to gain exposure to a European recovery. Having underperformed both large caps and cyclicals significantly over the last year, relative valuations for smaller stocks looks much more appealing, and relative performance looks like it is breaking out of its prior downtrend. In addition, we see two specific macro catalysts that should help smaller stocks in 2023, namely falling inflation and a rising euro. Historically, both these trends have tended to favor smaller companies over larger companies, and we expect the same to happen this year. 
At the country level we think the case for small and mid-cap stocks looks most compelling in Germany, where the relative index, the MDAX, has significantly lagged its larger equivalent, the DAX, such that relative valuations are close to a record low. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AvkmiJTAkQ8slm3d1XEi0NpbBEpWtONa-FvdovPKMgYTue, 21 Feb 2023 20:19:43 +0000gtyWhile the causes of the European equity rally have become more clear over time, so have the caveats that warrant caution over optimism for cyclical stocks. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the deflating safety cushion for European equities. It's Tuesday, February the 21st at 3 p.m. in London. 
With the benefit of hindsight, it's relatively easy to justify the European equity rally since the start of October, given that we've seen an improvement in the macro news flow against a backdrop of low valuation and depressed investor sentiment and positioning. While the macro outlook could continue to improve from here, we think the safety cushion that low valuation and depressed sentiment had previously provided has deflated considerably as investors have been drawn back into the market by rising price momentum. On valuation, the MSCI Europe Index still looks quite inexpensive on a next 12 month forward PE of 13, however the same ratio for Europe's median stock has risen to 16, which is at the upper end of its historic range. Admittedly, a less padded safety cushion is not necessarily a problem if the fundamental economic and earnings trends continue to improve. However, there is now considerably less margin for any disappointment going forward. 
This rebound in European equities has been led primarily by cyclical sectors who have outperformed their defensive peers by nearly 20% over the last six months. Historically, this pace of outperformance has tended to be a good sign, suggesting that we had started a new economic cycle with further upside for cyclical stocks ahead. However, while this sounds encouraging, we see three caveats that warrant caution rather than optimism at this point. 
First, we have seen no deterioration in cyclicals’ profitability yet, and the lack of any downturn now makes it harder to envisage an EPS upturn required to drive share prices higher going forward. 
Second, we get a very different message from the yield curve, which has consistently proved to be one of the best economic leading indicators over many cycles. Today's inverted yield curve is usually followed by a period of cyclical underperformance and not outperformance. 
And thirdly, cyclicals. Valuations look elevated, with the group trading in a similar price to book value as defensives. When this has happened previously, it usually signals cyclicals’ underperformance ahead. 
Given our cautious view on cyclicals, we prefer small and mid-cap stocks as a way to gain exposure to a European recovery. Having underperformed both large caps and cyclicals significantly over the last year, relative valuations for smaller stocks looks much more appealing, and relative performance looks like it is breaking out of its prior downtrend. In addition, we see two specific macro catalysts that should help smaller stocks in 2023, namely falling inflation and a rising euro. Historically, both these trends have tended to favor smaller companies over larger companies, and we expect the same to happen this year. 
At the country level we think the case for small and mid-cap stocks looks most compelling in Germany, where the relative index, the MDAX, has significantly lagged its larger equivalent, the DAX, such that relative valuations are close to a record low. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>195false809fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-falling-expectations-for-global-equities--75654885----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 17th at 2 p.m. in London. 
We recently moved to an underweight stance in global equities as part of our cross-asset allocations. I want to talk a bit about why we did this, why we did it recently and what we're watching. 
The 'why' behind this move is straightforward, global equities now have low risk-adjusted returns in our framework. Our expected return for global stocks is now below what we see for bonds in the U.S., Europe or emerging markets, and it's also lower than what we expect for U.S. dollar cash. With lower expected returns and higher expected volatility, we think it makes sense to hold a lower than normal amount of global equities, hence our underweight stance. 
In terms of why we've made this change recently, a few things have shifted. Per Morgan Stanley's forecast, we entered the year expecting low returns for U.S. equities, but higher returns for non-U.S. stocks. But as prices have gone up in 2023, our expected returns outside the U.S. have also fallen, while in the U.S. they're now negative. 
We also think about expected returns based on longer-run valuations, and then adjusting these for economic conditions. We frame those economic expectations through something we call our cycle indicator, which is trying to look at economic data through the lens of being either stronger or weaker than average, and improving or softening. That indicator recently flipped, indicating a regime where the data is still strong but it's no longer improving, and historically that's often meant lower than average equity returns. 
And all of this has happened at a time when yields have risen, which is improving expected returns for a lot of other assets. The U.S. aggregate bond index now yields about 4.7%, while 12 month U.S. Treasury bills yield about the same amount. That is raising the bar for what global equities need to return to be relatively more attractive within one's portfolio. 
For a change like this, what are the risks? Well, one would be a stronger economy, which tends to be better for stocks relative to other assets. And some recent data has been strong, especially related to the U.S. labor market and retail sales. 
Our economists, however, think the growth story is still murky. Recent economic data is being impacted by large seasonal adjustments, which may be accurate, but which could also be flattering January data if economic patterns have changed versus their pre-COVID trends. Meanwhile, other economic indicators from PMIs to the yield curve to commodity prices suggest a softer growth backdrop ahead. 
Falling expected returns for stocks relative to other assets have led us to downgrade global equities to underweight. A surprising rebound in global growth is a risk to this change, but for now, we see better risk adjusted reward elsewhere in one's portfolio. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MsGxktuJbfGiFrFXLtNhGT3P7bFMkZNmaCzND8I18U8Fri, 17 Feb 2023 20:11:35 +0000gtyAs our outlook for global equities becomes more cautious, what is influencing the move and what should investors watch as the story develops? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 17th at 2 p.m. in London. 
We recently moved to an underweight stance in global equities as part of our cross-asset allocations. I want to talk a bit about why we did this, why we did it recently and what we're watching. 
The 'why' behind this move is straightforward, global equities now have low risk-adjusted returns in our framework. Our expected return for global stocks is now below what we see for bonds in the U.S., Europe or emerging markets, and it's also lower than what we expect for U.S. dollar cash. With lower expected returns and higher expected volatility, we think it makes sense to hold a lower than normal amount of global equities, hence our underweight stance. 
In terms of why we've made this change recently, a few things have shifted. Per Morgan Stanley's forecast, we entered the year expecting low returns for U.S. equities, but higher returns for non-U.S. stocks. But as prices have gone up in 2023, our expected returns outside the U.S. have also fallen, while in the U.S. they're now negative. 
We also think about expected returns based on longer-run valuations, and then adjusting these for economic conditions. We frame those economic expectations through something we call our cycle indicator, which is trying to look at economic data through the lens of being either stronger or weaker than average, and improving or softening. That indicator recently flipped, indicating a regime where the data is still strong but it's no longer improving, and historically that's often meant lower than average equity returns. 
And all of this has happened at a time when yields have risen, which is improving expected returns for a lot of other assets. The U.S. aggregate bond index now yields about 4.7%, while 12 month U.S. Treasury bills yield about the same amount. That is raising the bar for what global equities need to return to be relatively more attractive within one's portfolio. 
For a change like this, what are the risks? Well, one would be a stronger economy, which tends to be better for stocks relative to other assets. And some recent data has been strong, especially related to the U.S. labor market and retail sales. 
Our economists, however, think the growth story is still murky. Recent economic data is being impacted by large seasonal adjustments, which may be accurate, but which could also be flattering January data if economic patterns have changed versus their pre-COVID trends. Meanwhile, other economic indicators from PMIs to the yield curve to commodity prices suggest a softer growth backdrop ahead. 
Falling expected returns for stocks relative to other assets have led us to downgrade global equities to underweight. A surprising rebound in global growth is a risk to this change, but for now, we see better risk adjusted reward elsewhere in one's portfolio. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>192false808fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/daniel-blake-the-end-of-an-era-for-japan--75654895----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss Japanese equity markets and the changing of the guard at the Bank of Japan. It's Thursday, February 16th at 8 a.m. in Singapore. 
March the 10th will mark the end of an era for Japan, with Haruhiko Kuroda completing his final meeting at the helm of the Bank of Japan. Alongside the late Shinzo Abe, Kuroda-san has been instrumental in creating and implementing the famous Abenomics program over the last decade, and we think he's been successful in bringing Japan out of its long running deflationary stance. And just this week we've had the nomination of his replacement, Kazuo Ueda, a well-respected University of Tokyo professor and former Bank of Japan board member. He may not be a household name outside of the economics community, but his central bank and policy bloodlines run deep, having studied a Ph.D. at MIT alongside former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and under the tutelage of Stanley Fischer, former Bank of Israel governor and vice Fed chair. 
So as we see a generational handover at the BoJ, what do we expect next and what does it imply for equity markets? 
Firstly, Japan has made a lot of progress, but we don't think the mission has been fully accomplished on the Bank of Japan's 2% inflation target. Current inflation is being driven by cost pressures and while wage growth is picking up, we don't think wages will move up to the levels needed to see inflation at 2% being sustained. So we don't expect the BoJ under Ueda-san to embark on a tightening cycle the way we have seen for the Fed and the ECB. However, we can look for some change and in particular we think Ueda-san will look to resolve some of the market dysfunction associated with the policy of yield curve control. This is where the BoJ looks to cap bond yields at the ten year maturity, around a target of 0%. We expect he'll exit this policy of yield curve control by summer 2023, allowing the curve to steepen. And thirdly, we'll be watching closely his perspective on negative interest rate policy as we weigh up the costs and benefits and the transmission of negative rates into the real economy, albeit at the cost of profitability impacts for the banking sector. His testimony before the DIT on February 24th and his approach to negative interest rates under his governorship will be important to watch. We expect negative interest rate policy to be dropped, but not until 2024 in our base case, but this remains a key debate. 
So in terms of implications, this is more evolution than revolution for macro policy in Japan. And importantly, we see fiscal policy remaining supportive as the program of new capitalism and Ueda-san looks to strengthen social safety nets and double defense spending from 1% of GDP. Secondly, for equity markets, we see a resilient but still range bound outlook for the benchmark TOPIX Index. Our base case target of 2020 for December 2023 implies it doesn't quite break the top of its three year trading range, but remains well supported. Finally, at a sector level, banks and insurers may benefit from a tilting policy away from yield curve control. Again, especially if followed by a move back to zero rates from negative rate policy. 
In summary, we'll be watching for any shifts in the BoJ reaction function under the new leadership of Kazuo Ueda, but we do not expect a macro shock to asset markets. Instead, some micro adjustment in the yield curve control policy, and potentially negative interest rates, could help the sustainability of very low interest rates in Japan. 
Thanks for listening and if you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0a7kQlvJrWW0JNzIMj6snW7NkV6v8M3AyEvum8yyiBcThu, 16 Feb 2023 21:10:58 +0000gtyNext month the leadership of the Bank of Japan will change hands, so what policy shifts might be in store and what does this imply for markets? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss Japanese equity markets and the changing of the guard at the Bank of Japan. It's Thursday, February 16th at 8 a.m. in Singapore. 
March the 10th will mark the end of an era for Japan, with Haruhiko Kuroda completing his final meeting at the helm of the Bank of Japan. Alongside the late Shinzo Abe, Kuroda-san has been instrumental in creating and implementing the famous Abenomics program over the last decade, and we think he's been successful in bringing Japan out of its long running deflationary stance. And just this week we've had the nomination of his replacement, Kazuo Ueda, a well-respected University of Tokyo professor and former Bank of Japan board member. He may not be a household name outside of the economics community, but his central bank and policy bloodlines run deep, having studied a Ph.D. at MIT alongside former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and under the tutelage of Stanley Fischer, former Bank of Israel governor and vice Fed chair. 
So as we see a generational handover at the BoJ, what do we expect next and what does it imply for equity markets? 
Firstly, Japan has made a lot of progress, but we don't think the mission has been fully accomplished on the Bank of Japan's 2% inflation target. Current inflation is being driven by cost pressures and while wage growth is picking up, we don't think wages will move up to the levels needed to see inflation at 2% being sustained. So we don't expect the BoJ under Ueda-san to embark on a tightening cycle the way we have seen for the Fed and the ECB. However, we can look for some change and in particular we think Ueda-san will look to resolve some of the market dysfunction associated with the policy of yield curve control. This is where the BoJ looks to cap bond yields at the ten year maturity, around a target of 0%. We expect he'll exit this policy of yield curve control by summer 2023, allowing the curve to steepen. And thirdly, we'll be watching closely his perspective on negative interest rate policy as we weigh up the costs and benefits and the transmission of negative rates into the real economy, albeit at the cost of profitability impacts for the banking sector. His testimony before the DIT on February 24th and his approach to negative interest rates under his governorship will be important to watch. We expect negative interest rate policy to be dropped, but not until 2024 in our base case, but this remains a key debate. 
So in terms of implications, this is more evolution than revolution for macro policy in Japan. And importantly, we see fiscal policy remaining supportive as the program of new capitalism and Ueda-san looks to strengthen social safety nets and double defense spending from 1% of GDP. Secondly, for equity markets, we see a resilient but still range bound outlook for the benchmark TOPIX Index. Our base case target of 2020 for December 2023 implies it doesn't quite break the top of its three year trading range, but remains well supported. Finally, at a sector level, banks and insurers may benefit from a tilting policy away from yield curve control. Again, especially if followed by a move back to zero rates from negative rate policy. 
In summary, we'll be watching for any shifts in the BoJ reaction function under the new leadership of Kazuo Ueda, but we do not expect a macro shock to asset markets. Instead, some micro adjustment in the yield curve control policy, and potentially negative interest rates, could help the sustainability of very low interest rates in Japan. 
Thanks for listening and if you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on...]]>217false807fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-understanding-the-impact-of-elections--75654815----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 15th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
With the news that Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, is now running for the Republican nomination for president, investors are starting to ask questions about how the 2024 race for the White House will drive markets. Well, in our view, it's not worth spending too much time on, at least not yet through the lens of an investor, particularly when compared to the very relevant debate about the path of monetary policy and inflation. Let me explain. 
When it comes to understanding the impact of elections on markets, it's all about the policy paths opened up by different outcomes. Markets would care deeply, for example, if information we had today, say about who's running for president, could reliably tell us something about whether there will be in 2025 changes in tax policy, existing and emerging trade barriers with China or policy toward Ukraine. But at this point, projecting such changes is nearly pure speculation. 
Consider that, this far ahead of the election, knowing who the declared candidates are doesn't give us a lot of new information about who will become president. Polls, while never a perfect predictor, have little predictive value this far ahead of an election. Look at Barack Obama and Donald Trump who, when they declared their candidacies, didn't have strong poll numbers but obviously found political success. 
Also, remember that knowing who will become president is only one piece of the puzzle in forecasting policy outcomes. We also need to assess whether the president's party will control Congress or not. If they do, the markets reasonably might want to present higher probabilities of more dramatic policy changes. But again, this far out, there are far too many variables to make this assessment. Consider we know little about potential congressional candidates, their policy positions, and even which policy issues will motivate the election, which is still over a year and a half away. 
So bottom line, while it's certainly not too early to think about the 2024 election as a voter, as an investor you're better served focusing elsewhere for the time being. We'll clue you in when there's more for investors to work with. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/daPwljJCuRpX5I-PHehUmJfwEqmh2yGEnENbpc84OwcWed, 15 Feb 2023 21:14:31 +0000gtyAs potential candidates begin to announce their presidential campaigns, is it time to start considering how the 2024 race will drive markets? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 15th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
With the news that Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, is now running for the Republican nomination for president, investors are starting to ask questions about how the 2024 race for the White House will drive markets. Well, in our view, it's not worth spending too much time on, at least not yet through the lens of an investor, particularly when compared to the very relevant debate about the path of monetary policy and inflation. Let me explain. 
When it comes to understanding the impact of elections on markets, it's all about the policy paths opened up by different outcomes. Markets would care deeply, for example, if information we had today, say about who's running for president, could reliably tell us something about whether there will be in 2025 changes in tax policy, existing and emerging trade barriers with China or policy toward Ukraine. But at this point, projecting such changes is nearly pure speculation. 
Consider that, this far ahead of the election, knowing who the declared candidates are doesn't give us a lot of new information about who will become president. Polls, while never a perfect predictor, have little predictive value this far ahead of an election. Look at Barack Obama and Donald Trump who, when they declared their candidacies, didn't have strong poll numbers but obviously found political success. 
Also, remember that knowing who will become president is only one piece of the puzzle in forecasting policy outcomes. We also need to assess whether the president's party will control Congress or not. If they do, the markets reasonably might want to present higher probabilities of more dramatic policy changes. But again, this far out, there are far too many variables to make this assessment. Consider we know little about potential congressional candidates, their policy positions, and even which policy issues will motivate the election, which is still over a year and a half away. 
So bottom line, while it's certainly not too early to think about the 2024 election as a voter, as an investor you're better served focusing elsewhere for the time being. We'll clue you in when there's more for investors to work with. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>154false806fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-consumer-what-s-coming-for-spending-in-2023--75654904----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how the U.S. consumer is faring. It's Tuesday, February 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: The health of the consumer is critical for the equity market, and consumer spending last year helped companies continue to grow their earnings. Sarah, can you give us a snapshot of the overall health of the U.S. consumer right now? Do people still have plenty of savings, and what are you expecting around consumer savings for the rest of the year? 
Sarah Wolfe: The U.S. consumer was extraordinarily strong in 2022, despite negative real disposable income growth. For perspective, spending was about 3% growth year over year in 2022, and real disposable income was negative 6.5%. Part of that was inflation eroding all income gains, but it was also a tough year as we lapped fiscal stimulus from 2021. So what got consumers through negative 6.5% real income growth? It was this excess savings story. Consumers tapped their excess savings pretty significantly, and we estimate that the drawdown was roughly 30% from its peak. However, when we look into 2023, we don't think consumers are going to be tapping into their savings reserves quite as much. 
Michelle Weaver: It sounds like households draw down quite a bit of their excess saving. Is there any danger that they're going to run out? And if that's the case, when do you think that will play out? 
Sarah Wolfe: So we don't think 100% of excess savings are going to get spent ever. Remember, savings is not cash in your wallet, it's just anything that hasn't been spent. So some of these savings have moved into longer term investment vehicles as well. We think that an additional 15% will get spent in 2023, and 10% in 2024, after 30% drawdown last year. This slower drawdown in the excess savings will allow the savings rate to recover after sitting at a two decade low in 2022 at roughly 3%. But there are important divergences when you look at the distributional holding of excess savings. For example, the bottom 25% has drawn down over 50% of their excess savings, compared to 30% overall. And we believe they're on track to run their savings dry by 2Q 2023. 
Michelle Weaver: Great. And then income, of course, is another really important source of spending for consumers. And the January jobs report we got was a big surprise. And the labor market continues to be pretty resilient without any clear signs of stopping. I run a proprietary survey in conjunction with our Alphawise team, and in our most recent wave we found that despite the tech layoffs that have been all over the news, 31% of people are actually less worried about losing their job now versus a year ago. Can you tell me a little bit about what your team expects for the labor market in 2023? 
Sarah Wolfe: Well, the February jobs report was a whopper by any standard, 517,000 jobs and the unemployment rate hitting all time lows at 3.4%. However, I think it's important to put these numbers into a bit of context. We identified three temporary factors that boosted nonfarm payrolls in January and that we think are unlikely to persist in February. The first is weather. A warmer than usual January added about 130,000 jobs last month. The return of strike workers added 36,000 jobs and seasonal factors added 3 million jobs. Typically, we see the shedding of a lot of workers in January after the holidays, so leisure and hospitality, retail workers, transportation. But because we're dealing with significant labor shortages, and as a result companies are hoarding workers, we're seeing a lot fewer layoffs than we typically would given this time of the year and as a result, the seasonal factors are adding too many jobs right now. We expect the February print to be about 200,000, which is more in line with the trend that we had seen from July until December of 2022. We continue to expect job growth to slow this year, hitting a low of 50,000 jobs a month in mid 2023, pushing the unemployment rate up to about 3.9% by the end of this year. Michelle, you mentioned that you have an alphawise survey. Could you tell us a little bit more about what the survey’s telling you about consumer spending plans? 
Michelle Weaver: Sure. So on this wave of the survey, we asked people to think about major purchases that they're planning on making over the next three months. And we defined a major purchase like a vehicle, large appliance or vacation. And we found that about a quarter of people are considering shifting to a cheaper alternative, while a third are expecting to delay the purchase altogether. We also asked several questions on everyday purchases, and our survey indicates that consumers are planning to spend less on more discretionary categories. So that would include tech products, electronics, clothing, alcohol and home improvement. 
Sarah Wolfe: Michelle, that makes a lot of sense, and it's great to see when the hard data matches the soft data. We've done a lot of modeling work on how higher interest rates impact consumer spending, and we see a similar response in those categories. In particular, consumers tend to pull back on durable goods consumption, including home furnishing, electronics and appliances and motor vehicles. We haven't really talked about the services side yet. There was a big travel boom, post-COVID, do we expect this to continue this year? 
Michelle Weaver: Stocks exposed to travel did really well post-COVID as people were excited to get out there and travel again. Last year, we saw international travel restrictions lifted, making it a big year for vacations. And so there is some reversion likely here. And our survey showed that consumers are less positive on travel spending this year versus last year, with 34% of people expecting to spend less on travel and only 23% expecting to spend more. 
Sarah Wolfe: That's a pretty big step down in spending intentions on travel that your survey work shows. It also looks like in the economic data that the strongest part of the services recovery is behind us. We saw 10% nominal spending growth on services in 2021 and 2022. So, it's no wonder that this should decelerate in 2023 as the labor market cools and we return back to normal spending behavior. 
Michelle Weaver: Finally, Sarah, let's talk about inflation. Inflation is something I've definitely felt a lot as a consumer. For example, when I go to the grocery store, egg prices seem to be out of control, but when I look at my energy bill, things seem to be getting a little bit better. Can you tell us what's going on here and what you expect on inflation for the rest of the year? 
Sarah Wolfe: Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of transparency on the future of food prices right now, but we have seen pretty remarkable progress in other components of inflation that were weighing on household wallets in 2022. The first and foremost being energy inflation, which has returned back to its pre-COVID levels. We've also seen nice progress on goods inflation, where price levels have been coming off, in particular on new and used motor vehicles. And then we are seeing a slowing among services prices as well. In fact, headline PCE inflation has moderated from 7% this past summer to 5% today. And while this is great progress, the job is not done yet. We think inflation does reach 2.5% by the end of 2023, but this is going to require more aggressive action by the Fed. We now have two more 25 basis point hikes from the Fed in March and in May, reaching a peak rate of 5.25%. And we think they're going to have to keep rates on hold at their peak through the end of the year in order to make sure that inflation is getting where it needs to be. 
Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. 
Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 
]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/OdWGWjLAmUAvcZyT7oCEx6ZKv3secn8MPScMN_y1qlQTue, 14 Feb 2023 20:45:32 +0000gtyThough U.S. consumer spending was surprisingly robust in 2022, this poses both new and continuing challenges as households draw down their excess savings. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver...----- Transcript -----
Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. 
Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. 
Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how the U.S. consumer is faring. It's Tuesday, February 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Michelle Weaver: The health of the consumer is critical for the equity market, and consumer spending last year helped companies continue to grow their earnings. Sarah, can you give us a snapshot of the overall health of the U.S. consumer right now? Do people still have plenty of savings, and what are you expecting around consumer savings for the rest of the year? 
Sarah Wolfe: The U.S. consumer was extraordinarily strong in 2022, despite negative real disposable income growth. For perspective, spending was about 3% growth year over year in 2022, and real disposable income was negative 6.5%. Part of that was inflation eroding all income gains, but it was also a tough year as we lapped fiscal stimulus from 2021. So what got consumers through negative 6.5% real income growth? It was this excess savings story. Consumers tapped their excess savings pretty significantly, and we estimate that the drawdown was roughly 30% from its peak. However, when we look into 2023, we don't think consumers are going to be tapping into their savings reserves quite as much. 
Michelle Weaver: It sounds like households draw down quite a bit of their excess saving. Is there any danger that they're going to run out? And if that's the case, when do you think that will play out? 
Sarah Wolfe: So we don't think 100% of excess savings are going to get spent ever. Remember, savings is not cash in your wallet, it's just anything that hasn't been spent. So some of these savings have moved into longer term investment vehicles as well. We think that an additional 15% will get spent in 2023, and 10% in 2024, after 30% drawdown last year. This slower drawdown in the excess savings will allow the savings rate to recover after sitting at a two decade low in 2022 at roughly 3%. But there are important divergences when you look at the distributional holding of excess savings. For example, the bottom 25% has drawn down over 50% of their excess savings, compared to 30% overall. And we believe they're on track to run their savings dry by 2Q 2023. 
Michelle Weaver: Great. And then income, of course, is another really important source of spending for consumers. And the January jobs report we got was a big surprise. And the labor market continues to be pretty resilient without any clear signs of stopping. I run a proprietary survey in conjunction with our Alphawise team, and in our most recent wave we found that despite the tech layoffs that have been all over the news, 31% of people are actually less worried about losing their job now versus a year ago. Can you tell me a little bit about what your team expects for the labor market in 2023? 
Sarah Wolfe: Well, the February jobs report was a whopper by any standard, 517,000 jobs and the unemployment rate hitting all time lows at 3.4%. However, I think it's important to put these numbers into a bit of context. We identified three temporary factors that boosted nonfarm payrolls in January and that we think are unlikely to persist in February. The first is weather. A warmer than usual January added about 130,000 jobs last month. The return of strike workers added 36,000 jobs and seasonal factors added 3 million jobs. Typically, we see the shedding of a lot of workers in January after the holidays, so leisure and hospitality, retail workers, transportation. But because we're dealing with significant labor shortages, and as a result companies are hoarding workers,...]]>464false805fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seth-carpenter-can-inflation-continue-to-come-down--75654887----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about inflation and the U.S. economy. It's Monday, February 13th at 10 a.m. in New York.
This past week, I was fortunate to be part of a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution, a research think tank in Washington, D.C. I was one of three economists in discussion with one of the White House's main economic advisers. Unsurprisingly, the topic of inflation came up.
One key chart from the White House economist juxtaposed services wage inflation with core services inflation, excluding housing. The key point of the chart was that falling wage inflation in the services sector may put some downward pressure on inflation in core services, excluding housing. This topic is timely because Chair Powell has repeatedly referenced services inflation, excluding housing, as a key risk to their goal for achieving price stability.
A couple of weeks ago I'd written on the same topic, and there we tried to show that even the link itself between wage inflation and services inflation is a bit tenuous. But just looking at the raw data, it is clear that the monthly run rate on other services remains elevated. But a question we have to ask ourselves is, 'is it elevated a lot or a little?'
Since June of last year, core services inflation, excluding housing, has trended down, and for December, it was at about 32 basis points on a month-over-month basis. That December pace is 3.9% in annual terms and would contribute about 2.1 percentage points to core PCE inflation. To put those numbers into context, recall that from 2013 to 2019, before COVID, core services inflation, excluding housing, averaged about 18 basis points a month or 2.2% at an annual rate. So yes, services inflation is higher than it has been historically, but it is nowhere near as high, relative to history, as housing inflation has been or core goods inflation has been, until recently. Indeed, from 2013 to 2019, core PCE inflation ran below the Fed's 2% inflation target. If goods inflation and housing inflation just went back to their averages from that period and services inflation, excluding housing, was at the rate that we saw in December, core PCE inflation would have overshot target, but by less than a half a percentage point. And we can't forget, for the past year, month-over-month services inflation, excluding housing, has been trending down.
So are we out of the woods? No. Clearly, services inflation, excluding housing, is still high and needs to come down over time for the Fed to hit its target. But goods inflation and housing inflation were much bigger drivers of the surge in inflation. So, we really need to consider what's the path from here.
Goods Inflation has been negative for the past few months, but used car prices look to have edged up a bit. Our US economics team expects the monthly change in core goods prices to be positive five basis points in January, interrupting that losing streak. We do not expect this reversion to last long, but the next couple of months could have some bumps in the path.
Similarly, for housing inflation, the data on current new leases clearly points to a sharp deceleration in housing inflation over the rest of this year. Although overall housing inflation should come down, the closely watched component of owners' equivalent rent will likely stay elevated a bit longer and possibly give markets a bit of a head fake. The details matter, as always.
The bottom line for us is twofold. First, inflation is coming down, but it will not be a smooth decline. A return to target for inflation was never very likely this year, so patience is required no matter what. Second, the recent high wage inflation does not spell failure for the Fed. Services inflation is not too far off target and the link between wages and inflation is there but it's small and both wage inflation and price inflation has been trending down despite the strong labor market.
I conclude with what might be the most underappreciated moment from Chair Powell's public comments last week. He said he sees inflation getting close to 2% in 2024. When the FOMC did their projections in December, the median forecast was for 3.5% inflation at the end of this year. So, it seems like, based on the incoming data, Chair Powell might be pointing to a meaningful downward revision to the March forecast for inflation.
Thanks for listening and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zYl_FaTM23NfXedzipfsRppEkMWoqtXqV0EFBDT6UFQMon, 13 Feb 2023 22:24:15 +0000gtyInflation was a key topic in a recent meeting at the Brookings Institution. While it has trended downward recently, the details are critical to tracking the path ahead. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about inflation and the U.S. economy. It's Monday, February 13th at 10 a.m. in New York.
This past week, I was fortunate to be part of a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution, a research think tank in Washington, D.C. I was one of three economists in discussion with one of the White House's main economic advisers. Unsurprisingly, the topic of inflation came up.
One key chart from the White House economist juxtaposed services wage inflation with core services inflation, excluding housing. The key point of the chart was that falling wage inflation in the services sector may put some downward pressure on inflation in core services, excluding housing. This topic is timely because Chair Powell has repeatedly referenced services inflation, excluding housing, as a key risk to their goal for achieving price stability.
A couple of weeks ago I'd written on the same topic, and there we tried to show that even the link itself between wage inflation and services inflation is a bit tenuous. But just looking at the raw data, it is clear that the monthly run rate on other services remains elevated. But a question we have to ask ourselves is, 'is it elevated a lot or a little?'
Since June of last year, core services inflation, excluding housing, has trended down, and for December, it was at about 32 basis points on a month-over-month basis. That December pace is 3.9% in annual terms and would contribute about 2.1 percentage points to core PCE inflation. To put those numbers into context, recall that from 2013 to 2019, before COVID, core services inflation, excluding housing, averaged about 18 basis points a month or 2.2% at an annual rate. So yes, services inflation is higher than it has been historically, but it is nowhere near as high, relative to history, as housing inflation has been or core goods inflation has been, until recently. Indeed, from 2013 to 2019, core PCE inflation ran below the Fed's 2% inflation target. If goods inflation and housing inflation just went back to their averages from that period and services inflation, excluding housing, was at the rate that we saw in December, core PCE inflation would have overshot target, but by less than a half a percentage point. And we can't forget, for the past year, month-over-month services inflation, excluding housing, has been trending down.
So are we out of the woods? No. Clearly, services inflation, excluding housing, is still high and needs to come down over time for the Fed to hit its target. But goods inflation and housing inflation were much bigger drivers of the surge in inflation. So, we really need to consider what's the path from here.
Goods Inflation has been negative for the past few months, but used car prices look to have edged up a bit. Our US economics team expects the monthly change in core goods prices to be positive five basis points in January, interrupting that losing streak. We do not expect this reversion to last long, but the next couple of months could have some bumps in the path.
Similarly, for housing inflation, the data on current new leases clearly points to a sharp deceleration in housing inflation over the rest of this year. Although overall housing inflation should come down, the closely watched component of owners' equivalent rent will likely stay elevated a bit longer and possibly give markets a bit of a head fake. The details matter, as always.
The bottom line for us is twofold. First, inflation is coming down, but it will not be a smooth decline. A return to target for inflation was never very likely this year, so patience is...]]>276false804fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-the-complexities-of-market-risk--75654906----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 10th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Markets have been fixated on the question of whether the U.S. and Europe will enter recession this year. With Europe benefiting from a fall in energy prices and the U.S. adding half a million jobs in January, it's tempting to think that recession risk is now lower and by extension, the risk to markets has passed. But the story may be more complicated. 
Near term, the risk of an economic contraction or recession has fallen. Europe has seen the largest swings here, where much lower energy prices, a result of a mild winter and plentiful supply from the United States, is leading to both less inflation and better growth, the proverbial 2-for-1 deal. 
Recession risk has also fallen a bit in the U.S., where our economists tracking estimate for U.S. GDP has been moving modestly higher. 
For markets, however, we fear that this story is getting oversimplified, to a recession is bad and no recession is good. At one level yes, avoiding a recession is definitely preferable. But markets often care most about the rate of change. It remains likely that U.S. growth will decelerate meaningfully this year, even in a scenario where a recession is avoided. 
For one, the idea that the U.S. avoids recession but still sees a meaningful slowdown in growth is the current forecast from Morgan Stanley's economists. And that's also the signal that we're getting from our market indicators. We classify an environment where leading economic data is strong but starting to soften as 'downturn'. That phase tends to see below average returns for stocks relative to bonds over the ensuing 6 to 12 months. We entered that phase recently. 
Of course, the U.S. economy has been defying predictions of a slowdown for many months now, and it could still have a few surprises up its sleeve. For now, however, we think favoring bonds over stocks is still consistent with our forecast for slowing growth, even if a recession is avoided. 
In Europe, we think the biggest beneficiary of lower energy prices and better growth prospects is the euro. What we think the euro performs well broadly, we think it does especially well versus the British pound, where economic challenges remain greater and our economists do forecast a recession this year. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or where ever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.  ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Adts5ZHQ6nkIymKdJDwJSEByHYMbtx8UTzILPMjK5E0Fri, 10 Feb 2023 18:53:51 +0000gtyWhile the risk of economic contraction has lessened in a few regions, is the story of recession and market risk being oversimplified? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 10th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Markets have been fixated on the question of whether the U.S. and Europe will enter recession this year. With Europe benefiting from a fall in energy prices and the U.S. adding half a million jobs in January, it's tempting to think that recession risk is now lower and by extension, the risk to markets has passed. But the story may be more complicated. 
Near term, the risk of an economic contraction or recession has fallen. Europe has seen the largest swings here, where much lower energy prices, a result of a mild winter and plentiful supply from the United States, is leading to both less inflation and better growth, the proverbial 2-for-1 deal. 
Recession risk has also fallen a bit in the U.S., where our economists tracking estimate for U.S. GDP has been moving modestly higher. 
For markets, however, we fear that this story is getting oversimplified, to a recession is bad and no recession is good. At one level yes, avoiding a recession is definitely preferable. But markets often care most about the rate of change. It remains likely that U.S. growth will decelerate meaningfully this year, even in a scenario where a recession is avoided. 
For one, the idea that the U.S. avoids recession but still sees a meaningful slowdown in growth is the current forecast from Morgan Stanley's economists. And that's also the signal that we're getting from our market indicators. We classify an environment where leading economic data is strong but starting to soften as 'downturn'. That phase tends to see below average returns for stocks relative to bonds over the ensuing 6 to 12 months. We entered that phase recently. 
Of course, the U.S. economy has been defying predictions of a slowdown for many months now, and it could still have a few surprises up its sleeve. For now, however, we think favoring bonds over stocks is still consistent with our forecast for slowing growth, even if a recession is avoided. 
In Europe, we think the biggest beneficiary of lower energy prices and better growth prospects is the euro. What we think the euro performs well broadly, we think it does especially well versus the British pound, where economic challenges remain greater and our economists do forecast a recession this year. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or where ever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.  ]]>159false803fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vishy-tirupattur-a-change-in-fed-policy-expectations--75654927----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research and Director of Quantitative Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss the market implications from the latest U.S. employment report. It's Thursday, February 9th at noon in New York. 
When it comes to economic data releases, there are surprises and there are shockers. Last Friday's U.S. employment report was clearly in the latter category. Ahead of the release, the market consensus estimate was for 185,000 new jobs based on Bloomberg's survey of 77 economists. And yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 517,000 new jobs added during the month, which is about eight and half standard deviations from the average expectation of the Bloomberg survey participants. By any measure, that's huge. 
The report showed strength across the board. Of course, there were some temporary drivers, like technical adjustments to seasonality factors, mild weather in January, and a resolution of certain strikes that contributed to this large scale boost to the January employment data. These things are unlikely to persist. Still, the U.S. labor market remains far more resilient than previously expected, with really no clear signs of stopping on the Monday following the January data release, Fed Chair Powell struck a more hawkish tone as he emphasized there is a significant road ahead before policymakers would be assured that inflation is returning to the 2% target. 
So what happens now? Even if the January employment report is not indicative of a change of trajectory in the U.S. labor market, it will likely take a few more months for the true underlying trends to emerge. Respecting the strength of the current labor market conditions, our U.S. economists believe that more evidence of labor market slowing is needed for the Fed to consider an end of the tightening cycle. Therefore, they now expect the Fed to deliver a 25 basis point hike, both in March and in May, that brings the peak policy rate to range of 5% to 5.25%, which would be in line with the FOMCs December projections. 
Given the change in the expectation for the Fed policy path, our strategists across multiple markets have revised many of our market goals. I would like to flag three key tactical changes. 
First, we turn neutral on U.S. Treasuries versus our previous overweight recommendation. Considering how big of an outlier the job number was, we think hard data is too strong for the Fed to look past it. With this realization, we think investors no longer assume that the interest rates have peaked. The market debate will likely turn into the interest rate sensitivity of the economy, and if the neutral rate should be higher than previously thought. Until we have greater clarity on these issues, we think being neutral is a better call on treasuries. 
Second, in the foreign exchange market, we turn neutral on the U.S. dollar, versus our previous call for a weakening dollar. The strong U.S. labor market data will likely cause investors to question whether the U.S. economy is slowing relative to the rest of the world. As a result, investors are likely to be a little more bullish in their U.S. dollar positioning. 
Third, in the agency mortgage market, we turned to underweight from neutral. The January employment report increases the uncertainty of the rate paths, which means higher interest rate volatility going forward, that's not great for agency MBS. Relative to other fixed income securities, we don't think investors are being compensated sufficiently for this higher interest rate uncertainty. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KFsWamrrI-ZQN0C7m7uvAkCved7HaBfs8AKLuLl9EfEThu, 09 Feb 2023 20:58:26 +0000gtyWith the latest U.S. employment report showing unexpected resilience in the labor market, what happens now for the Fed and the policy tightening cycle? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research and Director of Quantitative Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss the market implications from the latest U.S. employment report. It's Thursday, February 9th at noon in New York. 
When it comes to economic data releases, there are surprises and there are shockers. Last Friday's U.S. employment report was clearly in the latter category. Ahead of the release, the market consensus estimate was for 185,000 new jobs based on Bloomberg's survey of 77 economists. And yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 517,000 new jobs added during the month, which is about eight and half standard deviations from the average expectation of the Bloomberg survey participants. By any measure, that's huge. 
The report showed strength across the board. Of course, there were some temporary drivers, like technical adjustments to seasonality factors, mild weather in January, and a resolution of certain strikes that contributed to this large scale boost to the January employment data. These things are unlikely to persist. Still, the U.S. labor market remains far more resilient than previously expected, with really no clear signs of stopping on the Monday following the January data release, Fed Chair Powell struck a more hawkish tone as he emphasized there is a significant road ahead before policymakers would be assured that inflation is returning to the 2% target. 
So what happens now? Even if the January employment report is not indicative of a change of trajectory in the U.S. labor market, it will likely take a few more months for the true underlying trends to emerge. Respecting the strength of the current labor market conditions, our U.S. economists believe that more evidence of labor market slowing is needed for the Fed to consider an end of the tightening cycle. Therefore, they now expect the Fed to deliver a 25 basis point hike, both in March and in May, that brings the peak policy rate to range of 5% to 5.25%, which would be in line with the FOMCs December projections. 
Given the change in the expectation for the Fed policy path, our strategists across multiple markets have revised many of our market goals. I would like to flag three key tactical changes. 
First, we turn neutral on U.S. Treasuries versus our previous overweight recommendation. Considering how big of an outlier the job number was, we think hard data is too strong for the Fed to look past it. With this realization, we think investors no longer assume that the interest rates have peaked. The market debate will likely turn into the interest rate sensitivity of the economy, and if the neutral rate should be higher than previously thought. Until we have greater clarity on these issues, we think being neutral is a better call on treasuries. 
Second, in the foreign exchange market, we turn neutral on the U.S. dollar, versus our previous call for a weakening dollar. The strong U.S. labor market data will likely cause investors to question whether the U.S. economy is slowing relative to the rest of the world. As a result, investors are likely to be a little more bullish in their U.S. dollar positioning. 
Third, in the agency mortgage market, we turned to underweight from neutral. The January employment report increases the uncertainty of the rate paths, which means higher interest rate volatility going forward, that's not great for agency MBS. Relative to other fixed income securities, we don't think investors are being compensated sufficiently for this higher interest rate uncertainty. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the...]]>221false802fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-state-of-u-s-policy--75654822----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 8th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last night, President Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. Traditionally, this speech lays out the policy proposals of the administration. In the past, this hasn't signaled much, with only about 24% of proposals historically ending up enacted that year. As a recent 538.com study highlighted. But amidst the noise, there's some potential signal for investors to consider. Here's what we're watching. 
First, it's clear that U.S. policy will still drive the key investment themes of slowing globalization and the shift to a multipolar world. Biden's speech had much to say about the impact of recently enacted legislation like CHIPS+ and the Inflation Reduction Act, both of which included incentives to shift supply chains on key technologies back to the U.S. or friendly countries. One area this supports is the clean tech industry, which should see substantial demand for its U.S. produced products. 
Second, it's clear that investors need to keep paying attention to the debate on tech regulation. Biden referenced bipartisan antitrust legislation aimed at tech companies. While, as we previously discussed, there's a lot of details to be worked out before this type of legislation has a fighting chance of being enacted, the momentum behind it seems to be building. So it will be important to assess the impact of different types of regulation to large cap tech companies. 
Finally, and perhaps most important in the near term, the speech underscores something we've been flagging: the negotiation on how to raise the debt ceiling will be tricky and not solved in a timely manner. While calling for the debt ceiling to be raised without condition, Biden also seemed to concede there's room for negotiation on reducing the deficit. But in our view, that didn't signal a resolution was closer because the president also heavily referenced his desire for changes to the tax code to be part of that solution, something that's historically been a nonstarter for Republicans. In short, it appears in this negotiation so far, compromise has taken a backseat to rhetorical positioning by both sides. So as we stated here in the past, investors may want to prepare for an extended negotiation with a potentially late resolution, where knock-on effects to what is likely to be an already slowing economy are a distinct possibility. This is another reason our U.S. equity strategists continue to flag caution despite some solid recent performance in stocks. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/o4AMEaAeLVwiTWN_MPfta1a8CveBKi_PlS8dg19asWEWed, 08 Feb 2023 21:36:59 +0000gtyFollowing last night’s State of the Union Address by President Biden, what are some signals from the speech that investors should consider? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 8th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last night, President Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. Traditionally, this speech lays out the policy proposals of the administration. In the past, this hasn't signaled much, with only about 24% of proposals historically ending up enacted that year. As a recent 538.com study highlighted. But amidst the noise, there's some potential signal for investors to consider. Here's what we're watching. 
First, it's clear that U.S. policy will still drive the key investment themes of slowing globalization and the shift to a multipolar world. Biden's speech had much to say about the impact of recently enacted legislation like CHIPS+ and the Inflation Reduction Act, both of which included incentives to shift supply chains on key technologies back to the U.S. or friendly countries. One area this supports is the clean tech industry, which should see substantial demand for its U.S. produced products. 
Second, it's clear that investors need to keep paying attention to the debate on tech regulation. Biden referenced bipartisan antitrust legislation aimed at tech companies. While, as we previously discussed, there's a lot of details to be worked out before this type of legislation has a fighting chance of being enacted, the momentum behind it seems to be building. So it will be important to assess the impact of different types of regulation to large cap tech companies. 
Finally, and perhaps most important in the near term, the speech underscores something we've been flagging: the negotiation on how to raise the debt ceiling will be tricky and not solved in a timely manner. While calling for the debt ceiling to be raised without condition, Biden also seemed to concede there's room for negotiation on reducing the deficit. But in our view, that didn't signal a resolution was closer because the president also heavily referenced his desire for changes to the tax code to be part of that solution, something that's historically been a nonstarter for Republicans. In short, it appears in this negotiation so far, compromise has taken a backseat to rhetorical positioning by both sides. So as we stated here in the past, investors may want to prepare for an extended negotiation with a potentially late resolution, where knock-on effects to what is likely to be an already slowing economy are a distinct possibility. This is another reason our U.S. equity strategists continue to flag caution despite some solid recent performance in stocks. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>168false801fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/latin-america-economy-the-possibility-of-opportunity-in-2023--75654875----- Transcript -----
Gui Paiva: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Gui Paiva, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.  Andre Loes: And I'm Andre Loes, Morgan Stanley's Chief LatAm Economist.  Gui Paiva: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss this year's economic and equity outlook for Latin America. It is Tuesday, February 7th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andre Loes:] And noon in Sao Paulo. 
Gui Paiva: By all accounts, last year was a difficult one for global markets. Yet so far, 2023 is starting on a brighter note. There are reasons to be more optimistic with moderating inflation and the outlook for China and Europe solidifying the case for a weaker U.S. dollar. Overall, emerging markets look better positioned than developed markets, and within EM today we'll take a look specifically at Latin America. Andre, to set the stage can you give us a sense of how Latin America has fared post-COVID, and how it has dealt with the big global challenges of 2022? 
Andre Loes: Well Gui, the growth performance of the region was not particularly different from the other regions during the bulk of the COVID slump. But the levels of poverty in LatAm were already high at the beginning of the pandemic and the increase in unemployment in 2020 and 2021 aggravated that situation. The erosion of purchasing power stemming from accelerating inflation played an important role as well, and the result was mounting strain for political proposals backing more unorthodox ideas, especially a permanent rise in fiscal spending. So the policy reaction aiming to control inflation has been deployed amid these more challenging contexts. 
Gui Paiva: Well, you just mentioned policy reaction. Indeed, with rampant inflation in the region, Latin American central banks were probably ahead of the global curve in 2022, having started hiking interest rates in 21. Andre, how effective has their monetary policy been so far and what are your expectations for the rate cycle from here? 
Andre Loes: Well, the response of LatAm central banks came quite early and has been proving effective in most countries. One of the reasons central bankers of the region react promptly is related to the inflation prone past of the region, which is still fresh in the mind of many economic agents, which leads to de-anchoring of inflation expectations as soon as observed inflation accelerates. This means central banks need to react timely, and as a result, the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Peru started to hike rates still in the first half of 2021, with Colombia following early on the second half. 
With the exception of Colombia, inflation has peaked in all countries under our coverage where the central banks pursue an inflation target. With lower inflation we see an easy cycle is starting in all countries in the region, with Chile leading in the second quarter, Peru and Mexico in the third quarter, and Brazil and Colombia cutting towards year end. 
Gui Paiva: And what are your economic growth forecasts for the rest of this year and the longer term? 
Andre Loes: Growth in 2023 will show a deceleration compared to last year with both Brazil and Mexico slowing down from 3% in 2022 to 1.4% in the current year. Deceleration will be more intense in Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, with Chile effectively go into a strong recession, a contraction of around 2%, in order to regain both price and theoretical stability. Lower growth is mostly due to the lagged effects of the material monetary policy tightening we have just discussed. But lower global growth will also play a part on that, especially for Mexico, given the strong economic integration of this country with the U.S. For South America, China's recovery may prove a boon, as the Asian country is the main export destination for Brazil, Argentina, as well as the metro exporters Chile, Peru. 
But Gui, let me turn it over to you on the equities side. What are some of the key investment themes you are following this year? 
Gui Paiva: We forecast 20% dollar upside for Latin American equities in 2023. The reasons behind our optimism are the region's leverage to the global economic cycle and the price you currently pay for regional stocks. So let me expand on these topics. 
First about the leverage to the global economic cycle. Historically, LatAm equities tend to perform well during the early and mid stages of the global economic cycle. The region produces several important soft and hard commodities like grains, copper, steel and iron ore, as well as energy products like crude oil and natural gas. Therefore, a rising commodity prices produces a positive terms of trade shock, which leads to stronger domestic economic growth and benefits, both directly and indirectly the public traded companies across the region. 
Let me pivot now to the second topic, which is the price of currently pay for regional stocks. In my 20 years as an equity strategist, I have learned that the return in an investment is highly correlated to the price you pay for the assets. Therefore, current depressed valuations of Latin equities provide an interesting entry point for investors looking to gain exposure to the EM trade at a discount. 
Moreover, historically, Latin American equities have posted strong returns during the 12 months following an EM bear market trough boosted by both global and local cyclical sectors.  Andre Loes: Can you also walk us through some of the largest economies in the region and give us some color as to what's happening in the different LatAm markets? Maybe start with Mexico and in particular the nearshoring opportunities there. 
Gui Paiva: Sure Andre. In Mexico we struggle to have a positive structural view of our local equities over the past four years, because of the government's state centric approach to some of the key sectors in the economy, like energy and electricity. However, we are more optimistic now, and we believe economic growth could surprise to the upside from 2024 to 2030, and benefit the local stock market. 
First, if our U.S. house view is correct and the current bear market in U.S. equities finally ends in the first half of the year, Mexico should benefit in the second as a leveraged play on a potential 2024 U.S. economic recovery. Second, we have presidential elections in Mexico in mid 24, and we believe a newly elected government would likely take a less state centric approach to the key energy and electricity sectors, which would ultimately help boost private sector business confidence and thus investments. Last but not least, we see Mexico as potentially enjoying gains from the ongoing on and nearshoring manufacturing trends. 
If we are correct, then economic growth in Mexico shows surprise to the upside over the next six years and the current on and nearshoring investment theme in the country, which is limited to a handful of mid and small cap stocks, would broaden out, include some of the Mexican large caps.  
Andre Loes: And what about Brazil Gui? 
Gui Paiva: In Brazil, we have a neutral stance towards local equities because the current government has given signs that he intends to run a looser fiscal stance over the next few years, which should lead to a higher for longer monetary policy rate, higher real bond yields, which should undermine the apparently attractive valuation story for local equities. 
If we are correct in our assessment, the next few years should be good for Brazilian fixed income assets, but not necessarily for equities. However, we believe there are a few interesting investment themes in the local equity market and we are currently positioning some stocks which should benefit from them. For instance, we like private sector banks, insurance companies which tend to do well during periods of higher for longer interest rates. 
Andre Loes: Finally, what are some key upcoming events and catalysts our listeners should be aware of, Gui? 
Gui Paiva: Well, from a global perspective, Andre, we do expect the U.S. Fed to reach its peak rate of 4.625% in March and then stop. Therefore U.S. payrolls and inflation data are key for the outlook of U.S. monetary policy and therefore global risky assets. Meanwhile, in China, the latest batch of economic indicators has surprised to the upside, and we do expect the trend to continue in Q2. Finally, regionally, in Mexico, we expect the central bank, Banxico, to end the current monetary tightening cycle at 10.75% in February, while in Brazil, the newly elected government should try to push through Congress an important tax reform and a new long term fiscal framework during Q2. 
Gui Paiva: Andre, thanks very much for your questions and for taking the time to talk. 
Andre Loes: Great speaking with you Gui. 
Gui Paiva: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/JqoNZ7P1-xdDiltpeiJtgQoCsl4A0QrP2-bv6v6J-HITue, 07 Feb 2023 22:50:48 +0000gtyAs the outlook for 2023 shows emerging markets looking better positioned than developed markets, how is Latin America faring in this more optimistic story? Chief Latin American Equity Strategist Gui Paiva and Chief Latin American Economist Andre Loes...----- Transcript -----
Gui Paiva: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Gui Paiva, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.  Andre Loes: And I'm Andre Loes, Morgan Stanley's Chief LatAm Economist.  Gui Paiva: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss this year's economic and equity outlook for Latin America. It is Tuesday, February 7th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andre Loes:] And noon in Sao Paulo. 
Gui Paiva: By all accounts, last year was a difficult one for global markets. Yet so far, 2023 is starting on a brighter note. There are reasons to be more optimistic with moderating inflation and the outlook for China and Europe solidifying the case for a weaker U.S. dollar. Overall, emerging markets look better positioned than developed markets, and within EM today we'll take a look specifically at Latin America. Andre, to set the stage can you give us a sense of how Latin America has fared post-COVID, and how it has dealt with the big global challenges of 2022? 
Andre Loes: Well Gui, the growth performance of the region was not particularly different from the other regions during the bulk of the COVID slump. But the levels of poverty in LatAm were already high at the beginning of the pandemic and the increase in unemployment in 2020 and 2021 aggravated that situation. The erosion of purchasing power stemming from accelerating inflation played an important role as well, and the result was mounting strain for political proposals backing more unorthodox ideas, especially a permanent rise in fiscal spending. So the policy reaction aiming to control inflation has been deployed amid these more challenging contexts. 
Gui Paiva: Well, you just mentioned policy reaction. Indeed, with rampant inflation in the region, Latin American central banks were probably ahead of the global curve in 2022, having started hiking interest rates in 21. Andre, how effective has their monetary policy been so far and what are your expectations for the rate cycle from here? 
Andre Loes: Well, the response of LatAm central banks came quite early and has been proving effective in most countries. One of the reasons central bankers of the region react promptly is related to the inflation prone past of the region, which is still fresh in the mind of many economic agents, which leads to de-anchoring of inflation expectations as soon as observed inflation accelerates. This means central banks need to react timely, and as a result, the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Peru started to hike rates still in the first half of 2021, with Colombia following early on the second half. 
With the exception of Colombia, inflation has peaked in all countries under our coverage where the central banks pursue an inflation target. With lower inflation we see an easy cycle is starting in all countries in the region, with Chile leading in the second quarter, Peru and Mexico in the third quarter, and Brazil and Colombia cutting towards year end. 
Gui Paiva: And what are your economic growth forecasts for the rest of this year and the longer term? 
Andre Loes: Growth in 2023 will show a deceleration compared to last year with both Brazil and Mexico slowing down from 3% in 2022 to 1.4% in the current year. Deceleration will be more intense in Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, with Chile effectively go into a strong recession, a contraction of around 2%, in order to regain both price and theoretical stability. Lower growth is mostly due to the lagged effects of the material monetary policy tightening we have just discussed. But lower global growth will also play a part on that, especially for Mexico, given the strong economic integration...]]>523false800fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-pharmaceuticals-the-future-of-genetic-medicine--75654766----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. 
Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? 
Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. 
And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. 
So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? 
Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. 
Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. 
But I think before we go there, Matthew, obviously there are still some hurdles that needs to be addressed before we see a broader rollout here. So maybe you could touch on that for us. 
Matthew Harrison: You're right, there are some issues that we're still working through as we think about applying these technologies. The first one is really delivery. You obviously can't just inject some genes into the body and they'll know what to do. So you have to package them somehow. And there are a variety of techniques that are in development, whether using particles of fat to shield them or using inert viruses to send them into the body. But right now, we can't deliver to every tissue in every organ, and so that limits where you can send these medicines and how they can be effective. So there's still a lot of work to be done on delivery. 
And the second is when you go in and you edit a gene, even if you're very precise about where you want to edit, you might cause some what we call off target effects on the edges of where you've edited. And so there's concern about could those off target effects lead to safety issues. And then the third thing which we've touched on previously is durability. There's potentially a difference between gene therapy and gene editing, where gene editing may lead to a very long lasting cure, where different kinds of gene therapies may have longer term potential, but some may need to be redosed. 
Terence, as we turn back to thinking about the progress of the pipeline here, you know, what are the key catalysts you're watching over 23 and 24? 
Terence Flynn: You know, as everyone probably knows, biopharma is a highly regulated industry. We have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration here in the U.S., and we have the EMA in Europe. Those are the bodies that, you know, evaluate risk benefit of every therapy that's entering clinical trials and ultimately will reach the market. So this year we're expecting much of the focus for the gene editing companies to be broadly on regulatory progress. So again, this includes completion of regulatory filings here in the U.S. and Europe for the sickle cell disease drug that I mentioned before. And then something that's known as an IND filing. So essentially what companies are required to do is file that before they conduct clinical trials in humans in the U.S. There are companies that are pursuing this for hereditary angioedema and TTR amyloidosis. Those, if successful, would allow clinical trials to be conducted here in the U.S. and include U.S. patients. 
The other big thing we're watching is additional clinical data related to durability of efficacy. So, I think we've seen already with some of the gene therapies for hemophilia that we have durable efficacy out to five years, which is very exciting and promising. But the question is, will that last even longer? And how to think about gene therapy relative to gene editing on the durability side. And then lastly, I'd say safety. Obviously that's important for any therapy, but given some of the hurdles still that you mentioned, Matthew, that's obviously an important focus here as we look out over the longer term and something that the companies and the regulators are going to be following pretty closely. 
So again, as we think about the development of the field, one of the other key questions is access to patients. And so pricing reimbursement plays a key role here for any new therapy. There are some differences here, obviously, because we're talking about cures versus traditional chronic therapies. So maybe Matthew you could elaborate on that topic. 
Matthew Harrison: So as you think about these genetic medicines, the ones that we've seen approved have pretty broad price ranges, anywhere from a million to a few million dollars per patient, but you're talking about a potential cure here. And as I think about many of the chronic therapies, especially the more sophisticated ones that patients take, they can cost anywhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So you can see over a decade or more of use how they can actually eclipse what seems like a very high upfront price of these genetic medicines. 
Now, one of the issues obviously, is that the way the payers are set up is different in different parts of the world. So in Europe, for example, there are single payer systems for the patient never switches between health insurance carriers. And so therefore you can capture that value very easily. In the U.S., obviously it's a much more complicated system, many people move between payers as they switch jobs, as you change from, you know, commercial payers when you're younger to a government payer as you move into Medicare. And so there needs to be a mechanism worked out on how to spread that value out. And so I think that's one of the things that will need to evolve. 
But, you know, it's a very exciting time here in genetic medicine. There's significant opportunity and I think we're on the cusp of really seeing a robust expansion of this field and leading to many potential therapies in the years to come. 
Terence Flynn: That's great, Matthew. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk today. 
Matthew Harrison: Great speaking with you, Terrence. 
Terence Flynn: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/YcgWARxH63LjKK9IWcqbeUAQxJPwO9U4eicPrUQNziIMon, 06 Feb 2023 21:48:47 +0000gtyAs new gene therapies are researched, developed and begin clinical trials, what hurdles must genetic medicine overcome before these therapies are commonly available? Head of U.S. Pharmaceuticals Terence Flynn and Head of U.S. Biotech Matthew Harrison...----- Transcript -----
Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. 
Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. 
Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? 
Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. 
And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. 
So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? 
Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. 
Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. 
But I think before we go there, Matthew, obviously there are still some hurdles that...]]>473false799fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-where-could-market-strength-persist--75654861----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. 
2022 was a year where almost all assets fell. 2023 so far has been the opposite. Stocks in China, Japan, Europe and the U.S. are all off to unusually good starts. Meanwhile, U.S. long term bonds have actually risen more than the stock market. 
But behind this widespread strength are some rather different stories. I want to talk through these and how they inform our view of where this strength could continue, or not. 
One set of strength is coming out of Asia, where China's reopening from COVID has been much more aggressive than expected. This is a material change of policy in the world's second largest economy, which has persisted despite a large initial rise in case numbers. That persistence has made our analysts more confident that large amounts of consumer spending could still be unlocked. While valuations in emerging markets and China equities have risen as a result of this reopening, we think they remain reasonable, and therefore our overweight equities in China, Korea and Taiwan. 
The second story is Europe. China's rebound is part of the narrative here, but we think a larger driver is energy. A mild winter and abundant supplies of U.S. LNG have caused the price of natural gas in Europe to fall by more than 60% since early December, and by more than 80% since late August. This decline has specific benefits reducing inflation while simultaneously easing pressures on economic growth, a proverbial win-win. But falling energy prices also have a more general benefit. For much of the last six months, the specter of a severe energy shortage has hung over Europe, discouraging investment. With the existential threat of energy shortages easing, the region is once again attracting capital. Flows by U.S. investors into European stock ETFs, for example, is on the rise, and we think continued investment flows into the region will help boost the euro. 
The third story, the U.S. story, is different still. Better growth in China and Europe are part of this, but we think the bigger issue is growing confidence of a so-called soft landing, where growth slows enough to reduce inflation, but not so much to cause a recession. That soft landing scenario is the base case forecast of Morgan Stanley's economists. But on several key variables, major uncertainties remain. On the one hand, the index of economic leading indicators or measures of new manufacturing orders have been surprisingly weak. But today's U.S. labor market report was extremely strong, with the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. And while inflation has been easing, every update here will remain important, including the next reading of the Consumer Price Index on February 14th. 
Global markets have been almost universally strong, but the drivers are quite different. We think the stories in Asia and Europe have the best chance of persisting throughout the year, while the U.S. story remains more data dependent. Stay tuned. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/UhPYzD0yPaYCM2AnbNdC6OmaN5OJ_Y_hjsJPRk5Y-1kFri, 03 Feb 2023 20:27:28 +0000gtyAfter a year of falling assets, 2023 has started strong for global markets. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets outlines which markets could sustain their momentum. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. 
2022 was a year where almost all assets fell. 2023 so far has been the opposite. Stocks in China, Japan, Europe and the U.S. are all off to unusually good starts. Meanwhile, U.S. long term bonds have actually risen more than the stock market. 
But behind this widespread strength are some rather different stories. I want to talk through these and how they inform our view of where this strength could continue, or not. 
One set of strength is coming out of Asia, where China's reopening from COVID has been much more aggressive than expected. This is a material change of policy in the world's second largest economy, which has persisted despite a large initial rise in case numbers. That persistence has made our analysts more confident that large amounts of consumer spending could still be unlocked. While valuations in emerging markets and China equities have risen as a result of this reopening, we think they remain reasonable, and therefore our overweight equities in China, Korea and Taiwan. 
The second story is Europe. China's rebound is part of the narrative here, but we think a larger driver is energy. A mild winter and abundant supplies of U.S. LNG have caused the price of natural gas in Europe to fall by more than 60% since early December, and by more than 80% since late August. This decline has specific benefits reducing inflation while simultaneously easing pressures on economic growth, a proverbial win-win. But falling energy prices also have a more general benefit. For much of the last six months, the specter of a severe energy shortage has hung over Europe, discouraging investment. With the existential threat of energy shortages easing, the region is once again attracting capital. Flows by U.S. investors into European stock ETFs, for example, is on the rise, and we think continued investment flows into the region will help boost the euro. 
The third story, the U.S. story, is different still. Better growth in China and Europe are part of this, but we think the bigger issue is growing confidence of a so-called soft landing, where growth slows enough to reduce inflation, but not so much to cause a recession. That soft landing scenario is the base case forecast of Morgan Stanley's economists. But on several key variables, major uncertainties remain. On the one hand, the index of economic leading indicators or measures of new manufacturing orders have been surprisingly weak. But today's U.S. labor market report was extremely strong, with the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. And while inflation has been easing, every update here will remain important, including the next reading of the Consumer Price Index on February 14th. 
Global markets have been almost universally strong, but the drivers are quite different. We think the stories in Asia and Europe have the best chance of persisting throughout the year, while the U.S. story remains more data dependent. Stay tuned. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>195false798fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-garner-tracking-asia-and-em-outperformance--75654944----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and emerging market equity strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, in this episode I'll explain why the bull market in emerging market equities is still young. It's Thursday, 2nd of February at 8 a.m. in Singapore. 
In our view, the bull market in emerging market equities is still young. We entered a bull market, conventionally defined as up 20% from the trough, in the second week of January, having completed the bear market in mid-October. And bull markets typically last at least a year in our asset class, although the pace of recent market gains will probably slow. 
Unlike the U.S. market, earnings estimates revisions in Asia and emerging markets are now inflecting upwards, and that's why emerging equities are performing U.S. equities more rapidly even than in early 2009. And we think this outperformance is likely to continue a while longer. As we've entered a bull market the 52 week rolling beta, or measure of correlation of emerging markets versus U.S. equities, has undergone a regime shift falling from around 0.8 times in the third quarter last year to just 0.4 times currently. And even more striking, the beta of the Hang Seng index, at the leading edge of the current bull market in our asset class, compared to the S&P 500 has fallen close to zero. This is lower than at any point in the last 30 years of data and speaks to an environment of extreme decoupling and performance. 
These factors have led us to raise our growth stock exposure in recent months. Particularly in North Asia ex-Japan, so that's China, Korea and Taiwan, we expect those markets to continue to outperform, as is typical in the early phases of a bull market, whilst we expect Southeast Asian markets, ASEAN and India, which were defensive outperformers during the bear market to underperform as the bull market gets going. 
On the sector side, we're overweight semiconductors and technology hardware and think that the fourth quarter of 2022 was the trough for industry fundamentals, with recovery expected in the second half of this year as inventory reduces and demand recovers, particularly in China. Whilst we praised our emerging markets and China targets several times in recent months, we recently cut our Japan target for TOPIX given the headwind of yen strength. And we prefer Japan banks to the overall market as they're one of the few sectors that's positively leveraged to a stronger yen. 
Finally, we'd like to emphasize that China reopening is probably going to be more V-shaped than the consensus expects, with substantial excess savings in consumer pockets likely to support consumption through this year. Now, this factor is prima facie more bullish the energy sector, which we're also overweight, than the broad materials sector, which is more leveraged to property demand in China, which we think will be slower to recover. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/kw2k2NmdlSJ819wZp6VltCgsS08hZFMqdnHYpA7_sPMThu, 02 Feb 2023 21:19:48 +0000gtyEmerging markets are turning bullish and China’s reopening leaves room for an increase in consumption. What sectors and industries might benefit from this upturn? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and emerging market equity strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, in this episode I'll explain why the bull market in emerging market equities is still young. It's Thursday, 2nd of February at 8 a.m. in Singapore. 
In our view, the bull market in emerging market equities is still young. We entered a bull market, conventionally defined as up 20% from the trough, in the second week of January, having completed the bear market in mid-October. And bull markets typically last at least a year in our asset class, although the pace of recent market gains will probably slow. 
Unlike the U.S. market, earnings estimates revisions in Asia and emerging markets are now inflecting upwards, and that's why emerging equities are performing U.S. equities more rapidly even than in early 2009. And we think this outperformance is likely to continue a while longer. As we've entered a bull market the 52 week rolling beta, or measure of correlation of emerging markets versus U.S. equities, has undergone a regime shift falling from around 0.8 times in the third quarter last year to just 0.4 times currently. And even more striking, the beta of the Hang Seng index, at the leading edge of the current bull market in our asset class, compared to the S&P 500 has fallen close to zero. This is lower than at any point in the last 30 years of data and speaks to an environment of extreme decoupling and performance. 
These factors have led us to raise our growth stock exposure in recent months. Particularly in North Asia ex-Japan, so that's China, Korea and Taiwan, we expect those markets to continue to outperform, as is typical in the early phases of a bull market, whilst we expect Southeast Asian markets, ASEAN and India, which were defensive outperformers during the bear market to underperform as the bull market gets going. 
On the sector side, we're overweight semiconductors and technology hardware and think that the fourth quarter of 2022 was the trough for industry fundamentals, with recovery expected in the second half of this year as inventory reduces and demand recovers, particularly in China. Whilst we praised our emerging markets and China targets several times in recent months, we recently cut our Japan target for TOPIX given the headwind of yen strength. And we prefer Japan banks to the overall market as they're one of the few sectors that's positively leveraged to a stronger yen. 
Finally, we'd like to emphasize that China reopening is probably going to be more V-shaped than the consensus expects, with substantial excess savings in consumer pockets likely to support consumption through this year. Now, this factor is prima facie more bullish the energy sector, which we're also overweight, than the broad materials sector, which is more leveraged to property demand in China, which we think will be slower to recover. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today. ]]>196false797fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-u-s-policy-and-investment-restrictions-on-china--75654840----- Transcription -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The influence of U.S. policy deliberations on financial markets was once again on display this week. Fresh reports that the White House continues to consider implementing rules that would restrict some investments in China, shouldn't surprise regular listeners of this podcast. After all, the U.S. government has been quite public about its intention to keep U.S. resources from supporting the development of key technologies in China deemed critical to U.S. economic and national security. But what might be a bit surprising was a report suggesting that one approach to achieving this goal could be quite different than many anticipated. In particular, the White House is reportedly considering blanket bans on investing in certain sectors of concern, rather than a tailored investment by investment review. Following the news, China equity markets have moved lower and many of our clients see a link. 
However, we think investors shouldn't read too much into one media report. We emphasize that the media reports on this topic are full of hedged and subjective language. While it could very well be true that the administration is considering this more severe approach, policy deliberations of all kinds typically consider multiple options. So, the consideration of this approach doesn't inherently mean it's the most likely outcome. 
But we do think one reliable read through from this report is that the U.S. is likely to enact some form of investment restrictions with regard to China. So investors do need to grapple with what this could mean. It could drive concern among investors around impacts to tech concentrated and R&D heavy sectors of the China equity markets. But also consider that such actions underscore emerging opportunities in geographies our colleagues have become quite positive on, like Mexico and India, markets that could benefit from U.S. multinationals having to shift new tech sensitive production away from China. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/BhiGT6BVSyBWPE83n5jVtxI9E1Q4A-k9t5g9d68kfScWed, 01 Feb 2023 19:58:58 +0000gtyAs reports that the White House may be considering more impactful approaches to Chinese investment restrictions reach investors, how much should they be reading into these policy deliberations? ----- Transcription ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcription -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The influence of U.S. policy deliberations on financial markets was once again on display this week. Fresh reports that the White House continues to consider implementing rules that would restrict some investments in China, shouldn't surprise regular listeners of this podcast. After all, the U.S. government has been quite public about its intention to keep U.S. resources from supporting the development of key technologies in China deemed critical to U.S. economic and national security. But what might be a bit surprising was a report suggesting that one approach to achieving this goal could be quite different than many anticipated. In particular, the White House is reportedly considering blanket bans on investing in certain sectors of concern, rather than a tailored investment by investment review. Following the news, China equity markets have moved lower and many of our clients see a link. 
However, we think investors shouldn't read too much into one media report. We emphasize that the media reports on this topic are full of hedged and subjective language. While it could very well be true that the administration is considering this more severe approach, policy deliberations of all kinds typically consider multiple options. So, the consideration of this approach doesn't inherently mean it's the most likely outcome. 
But we do think one reliable read through from this report is that the U.S. is likely to enact some form of investment restrictions with regard to China. So investors do need to grapple with what this could mean. It could drive concern among investors around impacts to tech concentrated and R&D heavy sectors of the China equity markets. But also consider that such actions underscore emerging opportunities in geographies our colleagues have become quite positive on, like Mexico and India, markets that could benefit from U.S. multinationals having to shift new tech sensitive production away from China. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>141false796fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/matt-hornbach-a-narrative-of-declining-inflation--75654719----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about expectations for the Fed's monetary policy this year, and its impact on Treasury yields. It's Tuesday, January 31st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
So far, 2023 seems to be 2022 in reverse. High inflation, which defined most of last year, seems to have given way to a narrative of rapidly declining inflation. Wages, the Consumer Price index, data from the Institute of Supply Management, or ISM, and small business surveys all suggest softening. And Treasury markets have reacted with a meaningful decline in yield. 
We've now had three consecutive inflation reports, I think of them as three strikes, that did not highlight any major inflation concerns, with two of the reports being outright negative surprises. The Fed hasn't quite acknowledged the weakness in inflation, but will the third strike be enough to convince investors that inflation is slowing, so much so that the Fed may change its view on terminal rates and the path of rates thereafter? 
We think it is. With inflation likely on course to miss the Fed's December projections, the Fed may decide to make dovish changes to those projections at the March FOMC meeting. And in fact, the market is already pricing a deeper than expected rate cutting cycle, which aligns with the idea of lower than projected inflation. 
In anticipation of the March meeting, markets are pricing in nearly another 25 basis point rate hike, while our economists see a Fed that remains on hold. The driver of our economists view is that non-farm payroll gains will decelerate further, and core services ex housing inflation will soften as well, pushing the Fed to stay put with a target range between 4.5% and 4.75%.
In addition to all of this, it has become clear from our conversations with investors, and recent price action, that the markets of 2022 left fixed income investors with extra cash on the sidelines that's ready to be deployed in 2023. That extra cash is likely to depress term premiums in the U.S. Treasury market, especially in the belly -or intermediate sector- of the yield curve. 
Given these developments, we have revised lower our Treasury yield forecasts. We see the 10 year Treasury yield ending the year near 3%, and the 2 year yield ending the year near 3.25%. That would represent a fairly dramatic steepening of the Treasury yield curve in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Ofdn6YFT_n0wnhOAhw22bQ81cPpFm1833-2LzG7K7TkTue, 31 Jan 2023 21:17:41 +0000gtyAs the data continues to show a weakness in inflation, is it enough to convince investors that the Fed may turn dovish on monetary policy? And how are these expectations impacting Treasury yields? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about expectations for the Fed's monetary policy this year, and its impact on Treasury yields. It's Tuesday, January 31st at 10 a.m. in New York. 
So far, 2023 seems to be 2022 in reverse. High inflation, which defined most of last year, seems to have given way to a narrative of rapidly declining inflation. Wages, the Consumer Price index, data from the Institute of Supply Management, or ISM, and small business surveys all suggest softening. And Treasury markets have reacted with a meaningful decline in yield. 
We've now had three consecutive inflation reports, I think of them as three strikes, that did not highlight any major inflation concerns, with two of the reports being outright negative surprises. The Fed hasn't quite acknowledged the weakness in inflation, but will the third strike be enough to convince investors that inflation is slowing, so much so that the Fed may change its view on terminal rates and the path of rates thereafter? 
We think it is. With inflation likely on course to miss the Fed's December projections, the Fed may decide to make dovish changes to those projections at the March FOMC meeting. And in fact, the market is already pricing a deeper than expected rate cutting cycle, which aligns with the idea of lower than projected inflation. 
In anticipation of the March meeting, markets are pricing in nearly another 25 basis point rate hike, while our economists see a Fed that remains on hold. The driver of our economists view is that non-farm payroll gains will decelerate further, and core services ex housing inflation will soften as well, pushing the Fed to stay put with a target range between 4.5% and 4.75%.
In addition to all of this, it has become clear from our conversations with investors, and recent price action, that the markets of 2022 left fixed income investors with extra cash on the sidelines that's ready to be deployed in 2023. That extra cash is likely to depress term premiums in the U.S. Treasury market, especially in the belly -or intermediate sector- of the yield curve. 
Given these developments, we have revised lower our Treasury yield forecasts. We see the 10 year Treasury yield ending the year near 3%, and the 2 year yield ending the year near 3.25%. That would represent a fairly dramatic steepening of the Treasury yield curve in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>178false795fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-fighting-the-fear-of-missing-out--75654826----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 30th and 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
2023 is off to a much better start than most expected when we entered the year. Part of this was due to the fact that the consensus had adopted our more bearish view that we pivoted back to in early December. Fast forward three weeks, however, and that view has changed almost 180 degrees, with most investors now adopting the new, more positive narrative of the China reopening, falling inflation and U.S. dollar and the possibility of a Fed pause right around the corner. While we acknowledge these developments are real net positives, we remind listeners that these were essentially the exact same reasons we cited back in October when we turned tactically bullish. However, at that point, the S&P 500 was trading 500 points lower with valuations that were almost 20% lower than today. In other words, this new narrative that seems to be gaining wider attention has already been priced in our view. In fact, we exited our tactical trade at these same price levels in early December. What's happening now is just another bear market trap in our view, as investors have been forced once again to abandon their fundamental discipline in fear of falling behind or missing out. This FOMO has only been exacerbated by our observation that most missed the rally from October to begin with, and with the New Year beginning they can't afford to not be on the train if it's truly left the station. 
Another reason stocks are rallying to start the year is due to the January effect, a seasonal pattern that essentially boost the prior year's laggards, a pattern that can often be more acute following down years like 2022. We would point out that this past December did witness some of the most severe tax loss selling we've seen in years. Prior examples include 2000-2001, and 2018 and 19. In the first example, we experienced a nice rally that faded fast with the turn of the calendar month. The January rally was also led by the biggest laggards, the Nasdaq handsomely outperformed the Dow and S&P 500 like this past month. In the second example, the rally in January did not fade, but instead saw follow through to the upside in the following months. The Fed was pivoting to a more accommodative stance in both, but at a later point in the cycle in the 2001 example, which is more aligned with where we are today. In our current situation we have slowing growth and a Fed that is still tightening. As we have noted since October, we agree the Fed is likely to pause its rate hikes soon, but they are still doing $95 billion a month in quantitative tightening and potentially far from cutting rates. This is a different setup in these respects from January 2001 and 2019, and arguably much worse for stocks. A Fed pause is undoubtedly worth some lift to stocks, but once again we want to remind listeners that both bonds and stocks have rallied already on that conclusion. That was a good call in October, not today. 
The other reality is that growth is not just modestly slowing, but is in fact accelerating to the downside. Fourth quarter earnings season is confirming our negative operating leverage thesis. Furthermore, margin headwinds are not just an issue for technology stocks. As we have noted many times over the past year, the over-earning phenomena this time was very broad, as indicated by the fact that 80% of S&P 500 industry groups are seeing cost growth in excess of sales growth. 
Bottom line, 2023 is off to a good start for stocks, but we think this is simply the next and hopefully the last bear market rally that will then lead to the final lows being made in the spring, when the Fed tightening from last year is more accurately reflected in both valuations and growth outlooks. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pLo7rDz0kWO2MVLQ8mH-NmiXhcnFWpHLviOtQub21CkMon, 30 Jan 2023 21:48:21 +0000gtyStocks have seen a much better start to 2023 than anticipated. But can this upswing continue, or is this merely the last bear market rally before the market reaches its final lows? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 30th and 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
2023 is off to a much better start than most expected when we entered the year. Part of this was due to the fact that the consensus had adopted our more bearish view that we pivoted back to in early December. Fast forward three weeks, however, and that view has changed almost 180 degrees, with most investors now adopting the new, more positive narrative of the China reopening, falling inflation and U.S. dollar and the possibility of a Fed pause right around the corner. While we acknowledge these developments are real net positives, we remind listeners that these were essentially the exact same reasons we cited back in October when we turned tactically bullish. However, at that point, the S&P 500 was trading 500 points lower with valuations that were almost 20% lower than today. In other words, this new narrative that seems to be gaining wider attention has already been priced in our view. In fact, we exited our tactical trade at these same price levels in early December. What's happening now is just another bear market trap in our view, as investors have been forced once again to abandon their fundamental discipline in fear of falling behind or missing out. This FOMO has only been exacerbated by our observation that most missed the rally from October to begin with, and with the New Year beginning they can't afford to not be on the train if it's truly left the station. 
Another reason stocks are rallying to start the year is due to the January effect, a seasonal pattern that essentially boost the prior year's laggards, a pattern that can often be more acute following down years like 2022. We would point out that this past December did witness some of the most severe tax loss selling we've seen in years. Prior examples include 2000-2001, and 2018 and 19. In the first example, we experienced a nice rally that faded fast with the turn of the calendar month. The January rally was also led by the biggest laggards, the Nasdaq handsomely outperformed the Dow and S&P 500 like this past month. In the second example, the rally in January did not fade, but instead saw follow through to the upside in the following months. The Fed was pivoting to a more accommodative stance in both, but at a later point in the cycle in the 2001 example, which is more aligned with where we are today. In our current situation we have slowing growth and a Fed that is still tightening. As we have noted since October, we agree the Fed is likely to pause its rate hikes soon, but they are still doing $95 billion a month in quantitative tightening and potentially far from cutting rates. This is a different setup in these respects from January 2001 and 2019, and arguably much worse for stocks. A Fed pause is undoubtedly worth some lift to stocks, but once again we want to remind listeners that both bonds and stocks have rallied already on that conclusion. That was a good call in October, not today. 
The other reality is that growth is not just modestly slowing, but is in fact accelerating to the downside. Fourth quarter earnings season is confirming our negative operating leverage thesis. Furthermore, margin headwinds are not just an issue for technology stocks. As we have noted many times over the past year, the over-earning phenomena this time was very broad, as indicated by the fact that 80% of S&P 500 industry groups are seeing cost growth in excess of sales growth. 
Bottom line,...]]>225false794fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-the-choice-between-equities-and-cash--75654925----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 27th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Investing is about choices. In any market at any moment, an investor always has the option to hold a financial asset, like stocks or bonds, or hold cash. For much of the last decade, cash yielded next to nothing, or less than nothing if you were in the Eurozone. But cash rates have now risen substantially. 12-month Treasury bills now yield about 2.5% more than the S&P 500. 
When an asset yields less than what investors earn in cash, we say it has negative carry. For the S&P 500 that carry is now the worst since August of 2007. But this isn't only an equity story. A U.S. 30 year Treasury bond yields about 3.7%, much less than that 12 month Treasury bill at about 4.5%. 
Buying either U.S. stocks or bonds at current levels is asking investors to accept a historically low yield relative to short term cash. Just how low? For a 60/40 portfolio of the S&P 500 and 30 year Treasury bonds the yield, relative to those T-bills, is the lowest since January of 2001. 
To state the obvious low yields relative to what you can earn in cash isn't great for the story for either stocks or bonds. But we think bonds at least get an additional price boost if growth and inflation slow in line with our forecasts. It also suggests one may need to be more careful about picking one's spots within Treasury maturities. For example, we think 7 year treasuries look more appealing than the 30 year version. 
For stocks, we think carry is one of several factors that will support the outperformance of international over U.S. equities. Many non-U.S. stock markets still offer dividend yields much higher than the local cash rate, including indices in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Australia. This sort of positive carry has historically been a supportive factor for equity performance, and we think that applies again today. 
Investing is always about choices. For investors, rising yields on cash are raising the bar for what stocks and bonds need to deliver. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iLHnd5Pepag1qZHqhXKhsjR_x22kJ-mjGsuMQZ2FQ4YFri, 27 Jan 2023 19:58:26 +0000gtyInvesting is all about choices, so what should investors know when choosing between holding a financial asset or cash? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 27th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Investing is about choices. In any market at any moment, an investor always has the option to hold a financial asset, like stocks or bonds, or hold cash. For much of the last decade, cash yielded next to nothing, or less than nothing if you were in the Eurozone. But cash rates have now risen substantially. 12-month Treasury bills now yield about 2.5% more than the S&P 500. 
When an asset yields less than what investors earn in cash, we say it has negative carry. For the S&P 500 that carry is now the worst since August of 2007. But this isn't only an equity story. A U.S. 30 year Treasury bond yields about 3.7%, much less than that 12 month Treasury bill at about 4.5%. 
Buying either U.S. stocks or bonds at current levels is asking investors to accept a historically low yield relative to short term cash. Just how low? For a 60/40 portfolio of the S&P 500 and 30 year Treasury bonds the yield, relative to those T-bills, is the lowest since January of 2001. 
To state the obvious low yields relative to what you can earn in cash isn't great for the story for either stocks or bonds. But we think bonds at least get an additional price boost if growth and inflation slow in line with our forecasts. It also suggests one may need to be more careful about picking one's spots within Treasury maturities. For example, we think 7 year treasuries look more appealing than the 30 year version. 
For stocks, we think carry is one of several factors that will support the outperformance of international over U.S. equities. Many non-U.S. stock markets still offer dividend yields much higher than the local cash rate, including indices in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Australia. This sort of positive carry has historically been a supportive factor for equity performance, and we think that applies again today. 
Investing is always about choices. For investors, rising yields on cash are raising the bar for what stocks and bonds need to deliver. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>146false793fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/graham-secker-an-upturn-for-european-equities--75654956----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Sacker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the recent outperformance of European equities and whether this could be the start of a longer upturn. It's Thursday, January the 26th at 4 p.m. in London. 
After a tricky period through last summer, the fourth quarter of 2022 saw European equities enjoy their best period of outperformance over U.S. stocks in over 30 years. Such was the size of this rally that MSCI Europe ended last year as the best performing region globally in dollar terms for the first time since 2000. In addition, the relative performance of Europe versus U.S. stocks has recently broken above its hundred week moving average for the first time since the global financial crisis. We do not think this latter event necessarily signals the start of a multi-year period of European outperformance going forward, however we do think it marks the end of Europe's structural underperformance that started in 2008. 
When we analyze the drivers behind Europe's recent rally, we can identify four main catalysts. Firstly, the economic news flow is holding up better in Europe than the U.S., with traditional leading indicators such as the purchasing managers surveys stabilizing in Europe over the last few months, but they continue to deteriorate in the U.S. Secondly, European gas prices continue to fall. After hitting nearly $300 last August, the price of gas is now down into the $60's and our commodity strategist Martin Rats, forecasts it falling further to around $20 later this year. Thirdly, Europe is more geared to China than the U.S., both economically and also in terms of corporate profits. For example, we calculate that European companies generate around 8% of their sales from China, versus just 4% for U.S. corporates. And then lastly, companies in Europe have enjoyed better earnings revisions trends than their peers in the U.S., and that does tend to correlate quite nicely with relative price performance too. 
The one factor that has not contributed to Europe's outperformance is fund flows, with EPFR data suggesting that European mutual fund and ETF flows were negative for each of the last 46 weeks of 2022. A consistency and duration of outflows we haven't seen in 20 years, a period that includes both the global financial crisis and the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. 
While the pace of recent European equity outperformance versus the U.S. is now tactically looking a bit stretched, improving investor sentiment towards China and still low investor positioning to Europe should continue to provide support. In addition, European equities remain very inexpensive versus their U.S. peers across a wide variety of metrics. For example, Europe trades at a 29% discount to the U.S. on a next 12 month price to earnings ratio of less than 13 versus over 17 for the S&P. 
European company attitudes to buybacks have also started to change over the last few years, such that we saw a record $220 billion of net buyback activity in 2022, nearly double the previous high from 2019. At 1.7%. Europe's net buyback yield does still remain below the U.S. at around 2.6%. However, when we combine dividends and net buybacks together, we find that Europe now offers a higher total yield than the U.S. for the first time in over 30 years. 
For those investors who are looking to add more Europe exposure to their portfolios, first we are positive on luxury goods and semis. Two sectors in Europe that should be beneficiaries of improving sentiment towards China, and our U.S. strategists forecast that U.S. Treasury yields are likely to move down towards 3%. A move lower in yields should favor the longer duration growth stocks, of which luxury and semis are two high profile ones in Europe. Secondly, we continue to like European banks, given a backdrop of attractive valuations, high cash returns and superior earnings revisions. Third, we prefer smaller mid-caps over large caps given that the former traditionally outperform post a peak in inflation and in periods of euro currency strength. Our FX strategists expect euro dollar to rise further to 115 later this year. 
The bottom line for us is that we think there is a good chance that the recent outperformance of Europe versus U.S. equities can continue as we move through the first half of 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-BZXeya1mO-6evGyYiLbgDKLJQg0w0II5QdkTXaU-c8Thu, 26 Jan 2023 20:53:28 +0000gtyEuropean equities have been outperforming U.S. stocks. What’s driving the rally, and will it continue? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Sacker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Sacker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the recent outperformance of European equities and whether this could be the start of a longer upturn. It's Thursday, January the 26th at 4 p.m. in London. 
After a tricky period through last summer, the fourth quarter of 2022 saw European equities enjoy their best period of outperformance over U.S. stocks in over 30 years. Such was the size of this rally that MSCI Europe ended last year as the best performing region globally in dollar terms for the first time since 2000. In addition, the relative performance of Europe versus U.S. stocks has recently broken above its hundred week moving average for the first time since the global financial crisis. We do not think this latter event necessarily signals the start of a multi-year period of European outperformance going forward, however we do think it marks the end of Europe's structural underperformance that started in 2008. 
When we analyze the drivers behind Europe's recent rally, we can identify four main catalysts. Firstly, the economic news flow is holding up better in Europe than the U.S., with traditional leading indicators such as the purchasing managers surveys stabilizing in Europe over the last few months, but they continue to deteriorate in the U.S. Secondly, European gas prices continue to fall. After hitting nearly $300 last August, the price of gas is now down into the $60's and our commodity strategist Martin Rats, forecasts it falling further to around $20 later this year. Thirdly, Europe is more geared to China than the U.S., both economically and also in terms of corporate profits. For example, we calculate that European companies generate around 8% of their sales from China, versus just 4% for U.S. corporates. And then lastly, companies in Europe have enjoyed better earnings revisions trends than their peers in the U.S., and that does tend to correlate quite nicely with relative price performance too. 
The one factor that has not contributed to Europe's outperformance is fund flows, with EPFR data suggesting that European mutual fund and ETF flows were negative for each of the last 46 weeks of 2022. A consistency and duration of outflows we haven't seen in 20 years, a period that includes both the global financial crisis and the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. 
While the pace of recent European equity outperformance versus the U.S. is now tactically looking a bit stretched, improving investor sentiment towards China and still low investor positioning to Europe should continue to provide support. In addition, European equities remain very inexpensive versus their U.S. peers across a wide variety of metrics. For example, Europe trades at a 29% discount to the U.S. on a next 12 month price to earnings ratio of less than 13 versus over 17 for the S&P. 
European company attitudes to buybacks have also started to change over the last few years, such that we saw a record $220 billion of net buyback activity in 2022, nearly double the previous high from 2019. At 1.7%. Europe's net buyback yield does still remain below the U.S. at around 2.6%. However, when we combine dividends and net buybacks together, we find that Europe now offers a higher total yield than the U.S. for the first time in over 30 years. 
For those investors who are looking to add more Europe exposure to their portfolios, first we are positive on luxury goods and semis. Two sectors in Europe that should be beneficiaries of improving sentiment towards China, and our U.S. strategists forecast that U.S. Treasury yields are likely to move down towards 3%. A move lower in yields should favor the longer duration growth stocks, of which luxury...]]>263false792fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-economy-renegotiating-the-debt-ceiling--75654918----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. debt ceiling. It's Wednesday, January 25th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Michael Zezas: And 9 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: Mike, it's great to be here with you. I'm sure many listeners are familiar with the U.S. debt ceiling, but it's still probably worthwhile to spend 30 seconds on what it is and what hitting the debt ceiling really means. 
Michael Zezas: Well, in short, it means the government hit its legal limit, as set by Congress, to issue Treasury bonds. And when that happens, it can't access the cash it needs to make the payments it's mandated to make by Congress through appropriations. Hitting this limit isn't about the U.S. being unable to market its bonds, it's about Congress telling Treasury it can't do that until Congress authorizes it to have more bonds outstanding. Now, we hit the debt ceiling last week, but Treasury can buy time using cash management measures to avoid running out of money. And so what investors need to pay attention to is what's called the X date. So that's when there's actually not enough cash left on hand or coming in to pay all the obligations of the government. At that point, Treasury may need to prioritize some payments over others. That X date, it's a moving target and right now the estimates are that it will occur sometime this summer. 
Andrew Sheets: So I often see the debt ceiling and government shutdowns both used as reference points by investors, but the debt ceiling and government shutdowns are actually quite different things, right?
Michael Zezas: That's right. So take a step back, the easiest way to think about it is this: Congress makes separate laws dictating how much revenue the government can collect, so taxes, how much money the government has to spend, and then how much debt it's allowed to incur. So within that dynamic, a debt ceiling problem is effectively a financing problem created by Congress. This problem eventually occurs if Congress' approve spending in excess of the tax revenue it's also approved, that makes a deficit. If, in that case, if Congress hasn't also approved a high enough level of debt to allow Treasury to meet its legal obligation to make sure Congress's approved spending gets done. And if then you also pass the X date, you're unable to fund the full operations of the government, potentially including principal and interest on Treasury bonds. But alternately a government shutdown, that's a problem if Congress doesn't authorize new spending. So if Congress says the government's authorized to spend X amount of dollars until a certain date, after that date, the government can't legally spend any more money with the exception of certain mandated items like principal and interest and entitlement programs. So in that case, the government shuts down until Congress can agree on a new spending plan.
Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, let's bring this forward to where we are today in the current setup. How would you currently summarize the view of each camp when it comes to the debt ceiling? 
Michael Zezas: Well, Republicans say they won't raise the debt ceiling unless it comes with future spending cuts to reduce the budget deficit. Democrats say they just want a clean, no strings attached hike to the debt ceiling because the debate about how much money to spend is supposed to happen when Congress passes its budget, not afterwards, using the government's creditworthiness as a bargaining chip. But these positions aren't new. What's new here are two factors that we think means investors need to take the debt ceiling risk more seriously than at any point since the original debt ceiling crisis back in 2011. The first factor is that like in 2011, the debt ceiling negotiation is happening at a time when the U.S .economy is already flirting with recession. So any debt ceiling resolution that ends with reduced government spending could, at least in the near-term, cause some market concern that GDP growth could go negative. The second factor is the political dynamic, which is trickier than at any point since 2011. So Democrats control the White House and Senate, where Republicans have a slim majority in the House. And House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, he's in a tenuous position. So per the rules he agreed to with his caucus, any one member can call for a vote of no confidence to try and remove him from the speakership. And public reports are that he promised he wouldn't allow the debt ceiling to be raised without spending cuts. So the dynamic here is that both Republicans and Democrats are motivated to bring this negotiation to the brink. And because there's no obvious compromise, they'll have to improvise their way out. 
Andrew Sheets: So this idea of bringing things to the brink Mike, is I think a really nice segue to the next thing I wanted to discuss. There is a little bit of a catch 22 here where markets currently seem relatively relaxed about this risk. But the more relaxed markets are when it comes to the debt ceiling, the less urgency there might be to act, because one of the reasons to act is this risk that a default for the world's largest borrower would be a major financial disruption. So it's almost as if things might need to get worse in order to catalyze a resolution for things to get better. 
Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right. And as you recall, that's pretty much what happened in 2011. The debt ceiling was a major story in May and June with extraordinary measures set to run out in early August. But markets remained near their highs until late July on continued hope that lawmakers would work something out. And this dynamic has been repeated around subsequent debt ceiling crisis over the last 11 or 12 years, and markets have almost become conditioned to sort of ignore this dynamic until it gets really close to being a problem. 
Andrew Sheets: And that's a great point, because I do think it's worth going back to 2011, as you mentioned, you know, there you had a situation by which you needed Congress and the White House to act by early August. And then it was only then, at kind of the last moment, that things got volatile in a hurry. You know, over the course of two weeks, starting in late July of 2011, the U.S. stock market dropped 17% and U.S. bond yields fell almost 1%. 
Michael Zezas: Right. And the fact that government bond yields fell, which meant government bond prices went up as the odds of default went up, it's a bit counterintuitive, right? 
Andrew Sheets: Yes. I think one would be forgiven for thinking that's an unusual result, given that the issue in question was a potential default by the issuer of those bonds, the U.S. government. But, you know, I actually think what the market was thinking was that the near-term nonpayment risk would be relatively short lived, that maybe there would be a near-term disruption, but Congress and the government would eventually reach a conclusion, especially as market volatility increased. But that the economic impact of that would be longer lasting, would lead to weaker growth over the long term, which generally supports lower bond yields. So, you know, I think that's something that's worth keeping in mind when thinking about the debt ceiling and what it means for portfolios. The most recent major example of the debt ceiling causing disruption was equities lower, but bond prices higher. 
Michael Zezas: So, Andrew, then, given that dynamic, is there really anything investors can do right now other than watch and wait and be prepared to see how this plays out? 
Andrew Sheets: Well, I do think 2011 carries some important lessons to it. One, it does say that the debt ceiling is an important issue. It really mattered for markets. It caused really large moves lower in stocks, in large moves higher in bond prices. But it also was one where the market didn't really have that reaction until almost the last minute, almost up until a couple of weeks before that final possible deadline. So I think that suggests that this is an important issue to keep an eye on. I think it suggests that if one is trying to invest over the very short term, other issues are very likely to overwhelm it. But I also think this generally is one more reason why we're approaching 2023, relatively cautious on U.S. assets. And we generally expect Bonds to do well now. Now, the debt ceiling is not the primary reason for that, but we do think that bonds are going to benefit from an environment of continued volatility and also slower growth over the course of this year. On a narrower level, this is an event that could cause disruption depending on what the maturity of the government bond in question is. And I think we've seen in prior instances where there's been some question over delays or payment, that delay matters a lot more for a 3 month bond that is expecting to get that money back quite quickly than a 10 year or a 30 year bond that is much more of an expression of where the market thinks interest rates will be over a longer period of time. So, again, you know, I think if we look back to 2011, 2011 turned out to be quite good for long term bonds of a lot of different stripes, but it certainly could pertain to some more disruption at the very front end of the bond market if that's where you happen to be to be investing. 
Andrew Sheets: Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Michael Zezas: Andrew,]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qoOIEbageCs1ITIxsndkI8NLOhtmo91meJuvZUrGVWIWed, 25 Jan 2023 22:24:25 +0000gtyLast week, the U.S. Treasury hit the debt ceiling. How will markets respond as Congress decides how to move forward? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas discuss. -----...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. debt ceiling. It's Wednesday, January 25th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Michael Zezas: And 9 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: Mike, it's great to be here with you. I'm sure many listeners are familiar with the U.S. debt ceiling, but it's still probably worthwhile to spend 30 seconds on what it is and what hitting the debt ceiling really means. 
Michael Zezas: Well, in short, it means the government hit its legal limit, as set by Congress, to issue Treasury bonds. And when that happens, it can't access the cash it needs to make the payments it's mandated to make by Congress through appropriations. Hitting this limit isn't about the U.S. being unable to market its bonds, it's about Congress telling Treasury it can't do that until Congress authorizes it to have more bonds outstanding. Now, we hit the debt ceiling last week, but Treasury can buy time using cash management measures to avoid running out of money. And so what investors need to pay attention to is what's called the X date. So that's when there's actually not enough cash left on hand or coming in to pay all the obligations of the government. At that point, Treasury may need to prioritize some payments over others. That X date, it's a moving target and right now the estimates are that it will occur sometime this summer. 
Andrew Sheets: So I often see the debt ceiling and government shutdowns both used as reference points by investors, but the debt ceiling and government shutdowns are actually quite different things, right?
Michael Zezas: That's right. So take a step back, the easiest way to think about it is this: Congress makes separate laws dictating how much revenue the government can collect, so taxes, how much money the government has to spend, and then how much debt it's allowed to incur. So within that dynamic, a debt ceiling problem is effectively a financing problem created by Congress. This problem eventually occurs if Congress' approve spending in excess of the tax revenue it's also approved, that makes a deficit. If, in that case, if Congress hasn't also approved a high enough level of debt to allow Treasury to meet its legal obligation to make sure Congress's approved spending gets done. And if then you also pass the X date, you're unable to fund the full operations of the government, potentially including principal and interest on Treasury bonds. But alternately a government shutdown, that's a problem if Congress doesn't authorize new spending. So if Congress says the government's authorized to spend X amount of dollars until a certain date, after that date, the government can't legally spend any more money with the exception of certain mandated items like principal and interest and entitlement programs. So in that case, the government shuts down until Congress can agree on a new spending plan.
Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, let's bring this forward to where we are today in the current setup. How would you currently summarize the view of each camp when it comes to the debt ceiling? 
Michael Zezas: Well, Republicans say they won't raise the debt ceiling unless it comes with future spending cuts to reduce the budget deficit. Democrats say they just want a clean, no strings attached hike to the debt ceiling because the debate about how much money to spend is supposed to happen when Congress passes its budget, not afterwards, using the government's creditworthiness as...]]>567false791fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-retail-a-tale-of-two-halves--75654789----- Transcript -----
Jenna Giannelli: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of Retail and Consumer Credit within Morgan Stanley's Fixed Income Research. 
Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Soft Lines Retail Equity Analyst. 
Jenna Giannelli: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market we'll discuss soft lines from two different but complementary perspectives, equity and corporate credit. It's Tuesday, January 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Jenna Giannelli: Our economists here at Morgan Stanley believe that tighter monetary policy and a slowing labor market will be the key drivers of consumption in the U.S. this year. Against this still uncertain backdrop where we're cautious on the health of the U.S. consumer, we're at an interesting moment to think about the soft lines industry. So let's start with the equity side. Alex, you recently said that you see 2023 as a 'tale of two halves' when it comes to soft lines. What do you mean by that and when do you see the inflection point? 
Alex Straton: So, Jenna, that's right, we are describing 2023 as a 'tale of two halves'. That's certainly one of the taglines we're using, the other being 'things are going to go down before they go up'. So let's start with a 'tale of two halves'. I say that because in the first half what retailers are facing are harder compares from a PNL perspective, an ongoing excess inventory overhang and likely recessionary conditions from a macro perspective. On top of that, what we've got is 2023 street EPS estimates sitting about 15% too high across our coverage. As we know, earnings revisions are the number one driver of stock prices in our space. So if we have negative revisions ahead, it's likely that we're also going to have our stocks move downwards, hence the bottom I'm calling for some time here in the first quarter, while that may seem like a pretty negative view to start the year, the story is actually very different when we move to the back half of the year. Hence, the 'tale of two halves' narrative and the 'down before up'. So what do I mean by that? In the back half, really, what we're facing is retailers with easier top line compares and returns that should enjoy year over year margin relief. That's on freight, cotton, promotions, there's a number of others there. On top of that, what we've got is inventory that should be mostly normalized. And then finally a recovering macro, I think with this improving backdrop and the fact that our stocks are the quintessential early cycle outperformers, they could quickly pivot off these bottoms and see some nice gains. 
Jenna Giannelli: Okay, Alex, that all makes a lot of sense. So what are the key factors that you're watching for to know when we've hit that bottom? 
Alex Straton: So on our end, it's really a few things. I think first it's where 2023 guidance comes in across our space. And, I think secondly, its inventory levels. Cleaner levels are essential for us to have a view on how long this margin risk we've seen in the back half of 2022 could potentially linger into this year. And then really finally, it's a few macro data points that will confirm that, you know, a recession is here, an early cycle is on the horizon. 
Jenna Giannelli: I mean, look, you touched on a bit just on inventory, but last year there was a lot of discussion around the inventory problem, right, which was seen as a key risk to earnings with oversupply, lagging demand weighing on margins. Where are we, in your view, on this issue now? And specifically, what is your outlook on inventory for the rest of the year? 
Alex Straton: So look, retailers and department stores, they made really nice progress in the third quarter. They worked levels down by about a little over ten points. But then from the preannouncements we had at ICR and using our work around our expectations for inventory normalization, it really seems like retailers might be able to bring that down by another ten points in the fourth quarter. But even though, you know, this rate of trend and clean up is good and people are getting a little bullish on that, I wouldn't say we're clean by any means. Inventory  to forward sales spreads are still nearly just as wide as they were at the peak of last year. And to give people a perspective there, what a retailer wants to be to assume that inventory levels are clean is that the inventory growth should be in line with forward sales growth. But I think looking ahead, you know, department stores could be in good shape as soon as this upcoming quarter, that's a fourth quarter, so really remarkable there. It'll then probably be followed by the specialty retailers in the first quarter. And then finally it'll be most of the brands in the second quarter or later. The one exception though, is the off price. And these businesses have suffered from arguably the opposite problem in the last couple of years, which is no inventory because of all the supply chain problems and the fact that it's just become this year when inventory’s been realized as a problem. So let me turn it over to you, Jenna, and shift our focus to high yield retail. The high yield retail market is often fertile ground for finding equity-like returns, and you believe there are a number of investment opportunities today. So tell me, what's your view on the high yield retail sector and what are the key factors that are informing that view? 
Jenna Giannelli: So, look, we have a very nuanced and very bottoms up company specific approach to the sector, we're looking at cash flow, we're looking at liquidity, we're looking at balance sheets and all in all in the whole for 23 things look okay. And so that's our starting point. So going into 2023, we're taking a slightly more constructive approach that there are some companies in certain categories, in certain channels up in quality that actually could provide nice returns for investors. So from a valuation standpoint, you know, look, I think that the primary drivers of what frame our view are very similar to yours, Alex. It really comes down to fundamentals and valuation. From the valuations and retail credit, levels are attractive versus historical standpoints. So to give some context, the high yield market was down 11% last year, high yield retail was down 21%. And this significant underperformance is still despite the fact that the overall balance sheet health of the average credit quality right now in this sector is better than in the five years leading up to COVID. So essentially, simply put, it means you're getting paid more to invest in this sector than you would have historically, despite balance sheets being in a generally better place. You know, from a fundamental standpoint, we fully incorporate caution on the consumer in 2023. We do take a slightly more constructive view on the higher end consumer. Taking that all together, you know, valuation’s more attractive, earnings outlook is actually neutral when we look at the full 2023 with pressure in the first half and expected improvement in the second half. 
Alex Straton: All right, Jenna, that's a helpful backdrop for how you're thinking about the year. I think maybe taking a step back, can you walk us through what the framework is that you use as you assess these companies more broadly? 
Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So we use a framework that we've dubbed our five C's, and this is really our assessment of the five key factors that allow us to rank order our preference from, you know, favorite to least favorite of all the companies in our coverage universe. So when we think about it, what are those five C's? What are these most important factors? They're content, they're category, channel, catalysts, and compensation. You know, in the case of content, this is probably the most intangible, but we're looking at brand value, brand trajectory and how that company's product really speaks to the consumer. Oftentimes when I talk to investors we're discussing: does it have an identity, what is the company and who do they and what do they represent? In the category bucket we're assessing whether the business is in a category that's growing or outperforming, like beauty is one that we've been very constructive on, or if it's heavily concentrated in mid-tier apparel, which has been, you know, underperforming. In the case of channel, look, we like diversification. That's the primary driver. So those that offer their products everywhere, similar to what the consumer would want. When we're thinking about catalysts for a company, as this is very important on the kind of the shorter term horizon, what are the events that are pending, whether with, you know, company management acquisition or restructuring related. And then of course, finally on compensation, this may be the more obvious, but are we getting paid appropriately versus the peer set? And in the context of the, you know, the risk of the company? And if you don't rank highly, at least in most or all of those boxes, we're probably not going to have a favorable outlook on the company. 
Alex Straton: Now, maybe using these five C's and applying them across your space, what are the biggest opportunities that you're seeing? 
Jenna Giannelli: So we definitely are more constructive on the categories, like a beauty or in casual footwear, right? Companies that fall in that arena. Or again, that have exposure to more luxury, luxury as a category. Look, there's been a lot of debate around the high end consumer and whether we're going to see, ya know, start to see softening there. Within our recommendations, we are less constructive]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/j8kxbtKvK7rS8uFhOgKbKY_5Tq174oM2iXREYkayFvsTue, 24 Jan 2023 22:53:03 +0000gtyAs economic pressures continue to drive consumption in the U.S., how will the health of the economy influence the soft lines industry? Head of Retail and Consumer Credit for Fixed Income Research Jenna Giannelli and U.S. Soft Lines Retail Equity...----- Transcript -----
Jenna Giannelli: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of Retail and Consumer Credit within Morgan Stanley's Fixed Income Research. 
Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Soft Lines Retail Equity Analyst. 
Jenna Giannelli: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market we'll discuss soft lines from two different but complementary perspectives, equity and corporate credit. It's Tuesday, January 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Jenna Giannelli: Our economists here at Morgan Stanley believe that tighter monetary policy and a slowing labor market will be the key drivers of consumption in the U.S. this year. Against this still uncertain backdrop where we're cautious on the health of the U.S. consumer, we're at an interesting moment to think about the soft lines industry. So let's start with the equity side. Alex, you recently said that you see 2023 as a 'tale of two halves' when it comes to soft lines. What do you mean by that and when do you see the inflection point? 
Alex Straton: So, Jenna, that's right, we are describing 2023 as a 'tale of two halves'. That's certainly one of the taglines we're using, the other being 'things are going to go down before they go up'. So let's start with a 'tale of two halves'. I say that because in the first half what retailers are facing are harder compares from a PNL perspective, an ongoing excess inventory overhang and likely recessionary conditions from a macro perspective. On top of that, what we've got is 2023 street EPS estimates sitting about 15% too high across our coverage. As we know, earnings revisions are the number one driver of stock prices in our space. So if we have negative revisions ahead, it's likely that we're also going to have our stocks move downwards, hence the bottom I'm calling for some time here in the first quarter, while that may seem like a pretty negative view to start the year, the story is actually very different when we move to the back half of the year. Hence, the 'tale of two halves' narrative and the 'down before up'. So what do I mean by that? In the back half, really, what we're facing is retailers with easier top line compares and returns that should enjoy year over year margin relief. That's on freight, cotton, promotions, there's a number of others there. On top of that, what we've got is inventory that should be mostly normalized. And then finally a recovering macro, I think with this improving backdrop and the fact that our stocks are the quintessential early cycle outperformers, they could quickly pivot off these bottoms and see some nice gains. 
Jenna Giannelli: Okay, Alex, that all makes a lot of sense. So what are the key factors that you're watching for to know when we've hit that bottom? 
Alex Straton: So on our end, it's really a few things. I think first it's where 2023 guidance comes in across our space. And, I think secondly, its inventory levels. Cleaner levels are essential for us to have a view on how long this margin risk we've seen in the back half of 2022 could potentially linger into this year. And then really finally, it's a few macro data points that will confirm that, you know, a recession is here, an early cycle is on the horizon. 
Jenna Giannelli: I mean, look, you touched on a bit just on inventory, but last year there was a lot of discussion around the inventory problem, right, which was seen as a key risk to earnings with oversupply, lagging demand weighing on margins. Where are we, in your view, on this issue now? And specifically, what is your outlook on inventory for the rest of the year? 
Alex Straton: So look, retailers and...]]>604false790fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-a-shift-in-recession-views--75654842----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 23rd at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Coming into this year, the number one investor concern was that everyone seemed to have the same outlook for U.S. equities - a tough first half followed by a strong finish. Views varied on the degree of the drawdown expected and magnitude of the rebound, but a majority expected a U.S. recession to begin sooner rather than later. Fast forward just a few weeks and the consensus view has shifted materially, particularly as it relates to the recession view. More specifically, while more investors are starting to entertain a soft landing for the economy, many others have pushed out the timing of a recession to the second half of the year. This change is due in part to China's reopening gaining steam and the sharp decline in European natural gas prices. 
While these are valid considerations for investors to modify their views, we think that price action has been the main influence. The rally this year has been led by low quality and heavily shorted stocks. It's also witnessed a strong move in cyclical stocks relative to defensive ones. This cyclical rotation in particular is convincing investors they are missing the bottom and they must reposition. Truth be told, it has been a powerful shift, but we also recognize that bear markets have a way of fooling everyone before they're done. The final stages of the bear are always the trickiest. In bear markets like last year, when just about everyone loses money, Investors lose confidence. They question their process as the price action and cross-currents in the data create a hall of mirrors. This hall of mirrors only increases the confusion. This is exactly the time one must trust their own work and ignore the noise. Suffice it to say we're not biting on this recent rally because our work in process is so convincingly bearish on earnings. 
Importantly, our call on earnings is not predicated on the timing of a recession or even if one occurs this year. Our work continues to show further erosion with the gap between our model and the forward estimates as wide as it's ever been. Could our model be wrong? Of course, but given its track record, we don't think it will be wrong directionally, particularly given the collection of leading series and models we published that point to a similar outcome. This is simply a matter of timing and magnitude, and we think the timing is imminent. We find the shift in investor tone helpful for our call for new lows in the S&P 500, which will finish this bear market later this quarter or early in the second quarter. 
Getting more specific, our forecasts are predicated on margin disappointment and the evidence in that regard is increasing. When costs are growing faster than sales, margins erode. This is very typical during any unexpected revenue slowdown. Recessions in particular lead to significant negative operating leverage for that very reason. In other words, sales fall off quickly and unexpectedly, while costs remain sticky in the short term. Inventory bloating, less productive headcount and other issues are the primary culprits. This is exactly what is happening in many industries already, and this is without a recession. It's also right in line with our forecast and the thesis that companies would regret adding costs so aggressively a year ago when sales and demand were running so far above trend. 
Bottom line, after a very challenging 2022, many investors are still bearish fundamentally, but are questioning whether negative fundamentals have already been priced into stocks. Our view has not changed as we expect the path and earnings in the U.S. to disappoint the consensus, expectations and current valuations. In fact, we welcome the change in sentiment positioning over the past few weeks as a necessary development for the last stage of this bear market to play out. Bear markets are like a hall of mirrors designed to confuse investors and take their money. We advise staying focused on the fundamentals and ignoring the false signals and misleading reflections. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bhYvESOXbhEUI_uhKQvRRPuCHgswJNOBxvhnn0RRG_gMon, 23 Jan 2023 22:06:32 +0000gtyWhile there seemed to be a consensus that U.S. Equities will struggle through the first half of the year before finishing strong, views are now varying on the degree and timing of a potential recession. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 23rd at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. 
Coming into this year, the number one investor concern was that everyone seemed to have the same outlook for U.S. equities - a tough first half followed by a strong finish. Views varied on the degree of the drawdown expected and magnitude of the rebound, but a majority expected a U.S. recession to begin sooner rather than later. Fast forward just a few weeks and the consensus view has shifted materially, particularly as it relates to the recession view. More specifically, while more investors are starting to entertain a soft landing for the economy, many others have pushed out the timing of a recession to the second half of the year. This change is due in part to China's reopening gaining steam and the sharp decline in European natural gas prices. 
While these are valid considerations for investors to modify their views, we think that price action has been the main influence. The rally this year has been led by low quality and heavily shorted stocks. It's also witnessed a strong move in cyclical stocks relative to defensive ones. This cyclical rotation in particular is convincing investors they are missing the bottom and they must reposition. Truth be told, it has been a powerful shift, but we also recognize that bear markets have a way of fooling everyone before they're done. The final stages of the bear are always the trickiest. In bear markets like last year, when just about everyone loses money, Investors lose confidence. They question their process as the price action and cross-currents in the data create a hall of mirrors. This hall of mirrors only increases the confusion. This is exactly the time one must trust their own work and ignore the noise. Suffice it to say we're not biting on this recent rally because our work in process is so convincingly bearish on earnings. 
Importantly, our call on earnings is not predicated on the timing of a recession or even if one occurs this year. Our work continues to show further erosion with the gap between our model and the forward estimates as wide as it's ever been. Could our model be wrong? Of course, but given its track record, we don't think it will be wrong directionally, particularly given the collection of leading series and models we published that point to a similar outcome. This is simply a matter of timing and magnitude, and we think the timing is imminent. We find the shift in investor tone helpful for our call for new lows in the S&P 500, which will finish this bear market later this quarter or early in the second quarter. 
Getting more specific, our forecasts are predicated on margin disappointment and the evidence in that regard is increasing. When costs are growing faster than sales, margins erode. This is very typical during any unexpected revenue slowdown. Recessions in particular lead to significant negative operating leverage for that very reason. In other words, sales fall off quickly and unexpectedly, while costs remain sticky in the short term. Inventory bloating, less productive headcount and other issues are the primary culprits. This is exactly what is happening in many industries already, and this is without a recession. It's also right in line with our forecast and the thesis that companies would regret adding costs so aggressively a year ago when sales and demand were running so far above trend. 
Bottom line, after a very challenging 2022, many investors are...]]>238false789fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-what-is-an-optimal-asset-allocation--75654856----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 20th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The financial landscape is filled with predictions about what markets will do. But how are these predictions used? Today, I want to take you through a quick journey through how Morgan Stanley research thinks about forecasting, and how those numbers can help put a portfolio together. 
Forecasting is difficult and as such it's always easier to be more vague when talking about the future. But when we think about market expectations, being specific is essential. That not only gives an expectation of which direction we think markets will go, but by how much and over a specific 12 month horizon. 
Details here can also really matter. For example, making sure you add dividends back to equity returns, adjusting bond forecasts for where the forwards are, and thinking about all asset classes in the same currency. In this case, U.S. dollars. 
Consistency in assumptions is another factor that is difficult but important. We try to set all of our forecasts to scenarios from our global economics team. That is more likely to produce asset class returns that are consistent with each other and to the economy we expect. 
With these returns in hand, we can then ask, "what's an optimal asset allocation based on our forecasts?" Now, everyone's investment objectives are different. So in this case we'll define optimal as a portfolio that will generate higher returns than a benchmark with a similar or better ratio of return to volatility. This type of analysis will consider expected return and historical risk, but also how well different asset classes diversify each other. 
As Morgan Stanley's forecasts currently stand this approach suggests U.S. equities are relatively unattractive. Sitting almost exactly at the year end price target of my colleague Mike Wilson, our U.S. Equity Strategist, expected returns are low, while volatility is high and U.S. stocks offer minimal benefits for diversification. Stocks in Japan and emerging markets look better by comparison. 
But the real winner of this approach continues to be fixed income. Morgan Stanley's rate strategists in the U.S. and Europe continue to think that moderating inflation in 2023 will help bond yields either hold around current levels, or push lower, resulting in returns that are better than equities with less volatility. Our expected returns for emerging market bonds are also higher, with less volatility than U.S. and European stocks. 
Forecasting the future is difficult, and it's very possible that either our market forecasts or the economic assumptions to back them will be off to some degree. Still, considering what is optimal based on these best estimates, is a useful anchor when thinking about strategy. And for the moment, this still favors bonds over stocks. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/hy30g4qhGA7iKGUBZSK23ixA2EY0EQmnwzdeR0QLonsFri, 20 Jan 2023 21:01:09 +0000gtyThe financial landscape is filled with predictions about what comes next for markets, but how do investors use these forecasts to put a portfolio together? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 20th at 2 p.m. in London. 
The financial landscape is filled with predictions about what markets will do. But how are these predictions used? Today, I want to take you through a quick journey through how Morgan Stanley research thinks about forecasting, and how those numbers can help put a portfolio together. 
Forecasting is difficult and as such it's always easier to be more vague when talking about the future. But when we think about market expectations, being specific is essential. That not only gives an expectation of which direction we think markets will go, but by how much and over a specific 12 month horizon. 
Details here can also really matter. For example, making sure you add dividends back to equity returns, adjusting bond forecasts for where the forwards are, and thinking about all asset classes in the same currency. In this case, U.S. dollars. 
Consistency in assumptions is another factor that is difficult but important. We try to set all of our forecasts to scenarios from our global economics team. That is more likely to produce asset class returns that are consistent with each other and to the economy we expect. 
With these returns in hand, we can then ask, "what's an optimal asset allocation based on our forecasts?" Now, everyone's investment objectives are different. So in this case we'll define optimal as a portfolio that will generate higher returns than a benchmark with a similar or better ratio of return to volatility. This type of analysis will consider expected return and historical risk, but also how well different asset classes diversify each other. 
As Morgan Stanley's forecasts currently stand this approach suggests U.S. equities are relatively unattractive. Sitting almost exactly at the year end price target of my colleague Mike Wilson, our U.S. Equity Strategist, expected returns are low, while volatility is high and U.S. stocks offer minimal benefits for diversification. Stocks in Japan and emerging markets look better by comparison. 
But the real winner of this approach continues to be fixed income. Morgan Stanley's rate strategists in the U.S. and Europe continue to think that moderating inflation in 2023 will help bond yields either hold around current levels, or push lower, resulting in returns that are better than equities with less volatility. Our expected returns for emerging market bonds are also higher, with less volatility than U.S. and European stocks. 
Forecasting the future is difficult, and it's very possible that either our market forecasts or the economic assumptions to back them will be off to some degree. Still, considering what is optimal based on these best estimates, is a useful anchor when thinking about strategy. And for the moment, this still favors bonds over stocks. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>182false788fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-will-activity-continue-to-slow--75654894----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Thursday, January 19th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: So, Jim, the housing data hasn't been looking all that great recently. We've talked about this bifurcated outlook for the U.S. housing market, still holding that view? 
Jim Egan: So to catch people up, the bifurcated housing narrative was between housing activity. And by that we mean sales and housing starts and home prices. We thought there was going to be a lot more weakness in sales and starts at the end of 2022 and throughout 2023, then home prices, which we thought would be more protected. Since we came out with that outlook, it's safe to say that sales have been materially weaker than we thought they'd be. To put that into a little bit of context, existing home sales for the most recent month of data, which was November, showed the largest year over year decrease for that time series since the early 1980s. Pending home sales, we only have that data going back to 2001, but pending home sales just showed their weakest November in the entire history of that time series, so weaker than it was during the great financial crisis. Now, Jay, when we talk about those kind of weaker than anticipated sales volumes, what does that mean for your markets? 
Jay Bacow: Right. So while homeowners clearly are going to care about home prices, mortgage investors care more about the housing activity. And they care about that because that housing activity, those home sales, that results in supply to the market and it actually results in supply to the market from two different sides. There's the organic net supply from home sales. And then furthermore, because the Fed is doing QT, the faster the pace of home sales, the more the Fed balance sheet runoff is. And so as those home sales numbers come down, you get less supply to the market, which is inarguably good for mortgage investors. Now, the problem is mortgage spreads have repriced to reflect that at this point. 
Jim Egan: Now Jay, a lot of things have repriced. 
Jay Bacow: Right. And I think the question now is, is that going to keep up? But turning it over to you, what's causing this slowdown in home sales? And do we think that's going to continue? 
Jim Egan: I think in a word, it's affordability. A lot of the underlying premises behind our bifurcated narrative, we still see those there they're just impacting the market a little bit more than we thought they would. From an affordability perspective, and we've said this on this podcast before, the monthly mortgage payment as a percentage of household income has deteriorated more over the past year than really any year we have on record. From a numbers perspective, that payment's gone up over $700. That's a 58% increase. That's making it more difficult for first time buyers to buy homes and therefore pulling sales activity down. But where the bifurcation part of this narrative comes from, a lot of current homeowners have very low, call it maybe 3-3.5%, 30 year fixed rate mortgages. They're not incentivized to list their homes in this current environment and we're seeing that. Listing volumes are close to 40 year lows. In a month in which sales fall as sharply as they just did, we would expect months of supply at least to move higher and that roughly stayed flat. And so you have this lack of inventory, people aren't selling their homes, that means they're also not buying a home on the follow which pulls sales volumes down, leading to some of those numbers we talked about on top of just how long it's been since we've seen sales fall as sharply as they have. But on the other side of the equation, that's also keeping home prices a little bit more protected. 
Jay Bacow: Okay. So you mentioned affordability is impacting home sales, but then what's happening to actual home prices? Are they holding up then? 
Jim Egan: We think they will now. Don't hear what I'm not saying, that doesn't mean that home prices keep climbing. It just means that the pace with which they're going to slow down or the pace with which they're going to fall isn't as substantial as what we're going to see on the activity front. Now year over year HPA most recently up 9.2%. We think in the next month's print, that's going to slow to a little bit below 8% down to 7.9%. On a month over month basis from peak in June of 2022, home prices are off 3%. We think they'll fall a further 4% in 2023. But to kind of put some guardrails around that bifurcation narrative, that drop only brings us to the fourth quarter of 2021. That's 30% above where home prices were onset of the pandemic in March of 2020. On the sale side, our base case was that we were going to fall back to 2013 levels of transactions. And given how data has come in since then, it looks like we're heading lower than that. 
Jay Bacow: All right. So we think housing activity is going to continue to fall, but that slowdown in housing activity means that home prices, while seeing the first year on year decline since 2012, are going to be well supported. 
Jay Bacow [00:04:51] Jim, always a pleasure talking to you. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/tW5QPzsJmzb7c57vo26WMqB5ZUFLcrhPgCN9gGOA-AcThu, 19 Jan 2023 21:05:50 +0000gtyWith housing data from the last few months of 2022 coming in weaker than expected, what might be in store for mortgage investors? Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss. ----- Transcript ----- Jim Egan: Welcome...----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Thursday, January 19th at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: So, Jim, the housing data hasn't been looking all that great recently. We've talked about this bifurcated outlook for the U.S. housing market, still holding that view? 
Jim Egan: So to catch people up, the bifurcated housing narrative was between housing activity. And by that we mean sales and housing starts and home prices. We thought there was going to be a lot more weakness in sales and starts at the end of 2022 and throughout 2023, then home prices, which we thought would be more protected. Since we came out with that outlook, it's safe to say that sales have been materially weaker than we thought they'd be. To put that into a little bit of context, existing home sales for the most recent month of data, which was November, showed the largest year over year decrease for that time series since the early 1980s. Pending home sales, we only have that data going back to 2001, but pending home sales just showed their weakest November in the entire history of that time series, so weaker than it was during the great financial crisis. Now, Jay, when we talk about those kind of weaker than anticipated sales volumes, what does that mean for your markets? 
Jay Bacow: Right. So while homeowners clearly are going to care about home prices, mortgage investors care more about the housing activity. And they care about that because that housing activity, those home sales, that results in supply to the market and it actually results in supply to the market from two different sides. There's the organic net supply from home sales. And then furthermore, because the Fed is doing QT, the faster the pace of home sales, the more the Fed balance sheet runoff is. And so as those home sales numbers come down, you get less supply to the market, which is inarguably good for mortgage investors. Now, the problem is mortgage spreads have repriced to reflect that at this point. 
Jim Egan: Now Jay, a lot of things have repriced. 
Jay Bacow: Right. And I think the question now is, is that going to keep up? But turning it over to you, what's causing this slowdown in home sales? And do we think that's going to continue? 
Jim Egan: I think in a word, it's affordability. A lot of the underlying premises behind our bifurcated narrative, we still see those there they're just impacting the market a little bit more than we thought they would. From an affordability perspective, and we've said this on this podcast before, the monthly mortgage payment as a percentage of household income has deteriorated more over the past year than really any year we have on record. From a numbers perspective, that payment's gone up over $700. That's a 58% increase. That's making it more difficult for first time buyers to buy homes and therefore pulling sales activity down. But where the bifurcation part of this narrative comes from, a lot of current homeowners have very low, call it maybe 3-3.5%, 30 year fixed rate mortgages. They're not incentivized to list their homes in this current environment and we're seeing that. Listing volumes are close to 40 year lows. In a month in which sales fall as sharply as they just did, we would expect months of supply at least to move higher and that roughly stayed flat. And so you have this lack of inventory, people aren't selling their homes, that means they're also not buying a home on...]]>320false787fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-year-of-the-long-term-investor--75654882----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, January 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
What do you get when 45 global research analysts gather in a room for two days to debate secular market trends? A plan. In particular, a plan to deal with a world where key underpinnings of the global political economy are changing rapidly. For investors, we think that means concentrating on multi-year secular trends as an opportunity. In markets where short-term focus has become the norm, it stands to reason that there's less competition and more potential outperformance to be earned by analyzing the market impacts of longer-term trends. That's why we recently gathered analysts from around the globe to identify the key secular themes that Morgan Stanley research should focus on this year. 
The agenda for our meeting included over 30 topics, but the discussion gravitated around a smaller subset of themes whose potential market impact was substantial, but perhaps beyond what analysts could plausibly perceive or analyze individually. Understanding these three global transitions appeared central to the questions of inflation, interest rates and the structure of markets themselves. 
The first is rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world, one with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, where companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. We've spoken much about that in this space, but our analysts believe the practical implications of this trend are not yet well understood. 
The second is decarbonization. While this isn't a new theme, we think investors need to shift from debating whether it will be meaningfully attempted to sizing up the impact of that attempt. After all, 2022 saw both U.S. and European policymakers putting the power of government behind decarbonization. Now we'll focus on helping investors grapple with both the positive and negative market impacts of this transition, which the International Energy Agency estimates could cost about $70 trillion over the next 30 years. Identifying the companies, sectors and macro markets that will benefit, or face fresh challenges, is thus essential work. 
Finally, we'll remain focused on tech diffusion. Once again, not a new theme, but what is new is the speed and breadth with which tech diffusion can impact sectors that were previously untouched. Fragmented industries or those with high regulatory barriers look poised for a multi-year transition via tech diffusion. Opportunities may appear in finance, health care and biopharma. We expect the next five years of tech diffusion to move meaningfully faster than the last five, and so we'll focus on delivering important market related insights. 
So, you'll be hearing more from us over the course of 2023 on these three transitions and their impacts on markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DGivKbPN_le8-6W_Z9kWg_n339CSInfaaBN28EJioNoWed, 18 Jan 2023 20:26:23 +0000gtyAt a recent meeting of analysts from around the globe, we identified three central transitions for 2023 that may help investors shift towards a focus on long-term trends as opportunities. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, January 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
What do you get when 45 global research analysts gather in a room for two days to debate secular market trends? A plan. In particular, a plan to deal with a world where key underpinnings of the global political economy are changing rapidly. For investors, we think that means concentrating on multi-year secular trends as an opportunity. In markets where short-term focus has become the norm, it stands to reason that there's less competition and more potential outperformance to be earned by analyzing the market impacts of longer-term trends. That's why we recently gathered analysts from around the globe to identify the key secular themes that Morgan Stanley research should focus on this year. 
The agenda for our meeting included over 30 topics, but the discussion gravitated around a smaller subset of themes whose potential market impact was substantial, but perhaps beyond what analysts could plausibly perceive or analyze individually. Understanding these three global transitions appeared central to the questions of inflation, interest rates and the structure of markets themselves. 
The first is rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world, one with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, where companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. We've spoken much about that in this space, but our analysts believe the practical implications of this trend are not yet well understood. 
The second is decarbonization. While this isn't a new theme, we think investors need to shift from debating whether it will be meaningfully attempted to sizing up the impact of that attempt. After all, 2022 saw both U.S. and European policymakers putting the power of government behind decarbonization. Now we'll focus on helping investors grapple with both the positive and negative market impacts of this transition, which the International Energy Agency estimates could cost about $70 trillion over the next 30 years. Identifying the companies, sectors and macro markets that will benefit, or face fresh challenges, is thus essential work. 
Finally, we'll remain focused on tech diffusion. Once again, not a new theme, but what is new is the speed and breadth with which tech diffusion can impact sectors that were previously untouched. Fragmented industries or those with high regulatory barriers look poised for a multi-year transition via tech diffusion. Opportunities may appear in finance, health care and biopharma. We expect the next five years of tech diffusion to move meaningfully faster than the last five, and so we'll focus on delivering important market related insights. 
So, you'll be hearing more from us over the course of 2023 on these three transitions and their impacts on markets. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>189false786fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ed-stanley-key-themes-for-2023--75654813----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing 10 key themes for 2023. It's Tuesday, January the 17th at 2 p.m. in London. 
At the start of the New Year, we identify 10 overarching, long-term themes that we believe will command investor attention throughout the year and beyond. If you're a regular listener to the show, you may have heard my colleagues and I discussing some of these topics over the past year. We will certainly revisit them in 2023 as we develop new insights, but let me offer you a roadmap to navigate these themes in the coming months. 
First, company earnings and margins are likely to come under pressure this year as pricing power declines and costs remain sticky. Both the U.S. and Europe look at risk from this theme. The S&P 500 earnings will likely face significant pressure and enter an earnings recession, and Europe earnings similarly will likely fall 10%. 
Second is inflation. Last year we flagged that inventory had grown sharply, while demand, especially demand for goods, is falling. In 2023, companies will need to decide how they want to handle that excess inventory, and we believe many will turn to aggressive discounting. 
Up next is China. We've talked a lot over the last few months about China's expected reopening, and we believe a V-shaped recovery in China's growth is now likely, given the sudden change in prior COVID zero policy. We expect a 5.4% GDP growth for China in 2023. 
Our fourth theme is ESG. We think that what we call ESG rate of change, i.e. companies that are leaders in improving environmental, social and governance metrics, will be a critical focus for investors looking to identify opportunities that can both generate alpha on the one hand and ESG impact on the other. 
Next, in Q4 last year, you may have heard us talk about Earthshots, which is our fifth theme. These are radical technological decarbonization accelerants or warming mitigants. Clean tech funding is one of the most resilient segments in venture, and breakthroughs are becoming more frequent. We're keeping a close eye on the key technologies that we think will hold the greatest decarbonization potential in 2023 and beyond. 
Sixth, we're in the upswing of unicorns, i.e. privately held startup companies with a valuation over $1 billion, needing to re raise capital to maintain operations and growth. In the absence of unicorn consolidation, we expect money to flow out of public equities to support or compensate for the weakness in private investments. This will be the year of the down round, in our view, where companies need to raise additional funds at lower valuations than prior rounds. But also we expect it to be a year of opportunity for crossover investors and a potential reopening of the IPO market. 
Next, I've already mentioned our China forecasts, but we are also in the early innings of the "India Decade", which is our seventh theme. India has the conditions in place for an economic boom fueled by offshoring, investment in manufacturing, the energy transition and the country's advanced digital infrastructure. This is an underappreciated multi-year theme, but importantly one that is gathering momentum right now. 
Our other regional theme to watch this year is Saudi Arabia, which is also undergoing an unprecedented transformation with sweeping social and economic reforms. With about $1 trillion in "gigaproject" commitments, and rapid demographic shifts, it's our eighth big theme. And one that we think could easily leave people behind given the blistering speed of change. 
Penultimately, with the emergence of ChatGPT, the future of work is set to be further disrupted. We believe that we are on a secular trajectory towards the workforce, particularly the younger Gen Z, entering what we call the "multi-earner era" - one where workers pursue multiple earning streams rather than a single job. There are a vast array of enabler stocks for this multi-year era, in our view.  
And finally, last but not least, we believe obesity is the "new hypertension" and that investing in obesity medication is moving from a linear secular theme to an exponential one, with social media creating a virtuous feedback loop of education, word of mouth, and heightened demand for weight loss drugs. 
So that's it. Hopefully we've given you some thought provoking macro, micro, regional and ESG ideas for the year ahead. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2er0oFA2N1yVTJx-CLd3rnBm_kLasqwxI40yLgYpGewTue, 17 Jan 2023 21:43:09 +0000gtyAt the start of each new year, we identify 10 overarching themes for the year and beyond. So what should investors be keeping an eye on in the coming months? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing 10 key themes for 2023. It's Tuesday, January the 17th at 2 p.m. in London. 
At the start of the New Year, we identify 10 overarching, long-term themes that we believe will command investor attention throughout the year and beyond. If you're a regular listener to the show, you may have heard my colleagues and I discussing some of these topics over the past year. We will certainly revisit them in 2023 as we develop new insights, but let me offer you a roadmap to navigate these themes in the coming months. 
First, company earnings and margins are likely to come under pressure this year as pricing power declines and costs remain sticky. Both the U.S. and Europe look at risk from this theme. The S&P 500 earnings will likely face significant pressure and enter an earnings recession, and Europe earnings similarly will likely fall 10%. 
Second is inflation. Last year we flagged that inventory had grown sharply, while demand, especially demand for goods, is falling. In 2023, companies will need to decide how they want to handle that excess inventory, and we believe many will turn to aggressive discounting. 
Up next is China. We've talked a lot over the last few months about China's expected reopening, and we believe a V-shaped recovery in China's growth is now likely, given the sudden change in prior COVID zero policy. We expect a 5.4% GDP growth for China in 2023. 
Our fourth theme is ESG. We think that what we call ESG rate of change, i.e. companies that are leaders in improving environmental, social and governance metrics, will be a critical focus for investors looking to identify opportunities that can both generate alpha on the one hand and ESG impact on the other. 
Next, in Q4 last year, you may have heard us talk about Earthshots, which is our fifth theme. These are radical technological decarbonization accelerants or warming mitigants. Clean tech funding is one of the most resilient segments in venture, and breakthroughs are becoming more frequent. We're keeping a close eye on the key technologies that we think will hold the greatest decarbonization potential in 2023 and beyond. 
Sixth, we're in the upswing of unicorns, i.e. privately held startup companies with a valuation over $1 billion, needing to re raise capital to maintain operations and growth. In the absence of unicorn consolidation, we expect money to flow out of public equities to support or compensate for the weakness in private investments. This will be the year of the down round, in our view, where companies need to raise additional funds at lower valuations than prior rounds. But also we expect it to be a year of opportunity for crossover investors and a potential reopening of the IPO market. 
Next, I've already mentioned our China forecasts, but we are also in the early innings of the "India Decade", which is our seventh theme. India has the conditions in place for an economic boom fueled by offshoring, investment in manufacturing, the energy transition and the country's advanced digital infrastructure. This is an underappreciated multi-year theme, but importantly one that is gathering momentum right now. 
Our other regional theme to watch this year is Saudi Arabia, which is also undergoing an unprecedented transformation with sweeping social and economic reforms. With about $1 trillion in "gigaproject" commitments, and rapid demographic shifts, it's our eighth big theme. And one that we think could easily leave people behind given the blistering speed of change. 
Penultimately, with the emergence of ChatGPT, the future of...]]>290false785fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-will-emerging-market-outperformance-hold--75654696----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 13th at 2 p.m. in London. 
A common question when talking about almost any market is whether the view holds for the short term or the long term. Call it a question of whether to "rent" versus "own". Is this a strategy that could work over the next six months or is it geared to the next six years? This question comes up most frequently when we discuss emerging market or EM assets. 
We like EM on a cross-asset basis. We think equities in EM outperform those in the U.S. We think EM currencies outperform the U.S. dollar and the British pound. And we think EM sovereign bonds perform well on an outright basis and also relative to U.S. high yield. 
Several factors underlie this positive view. First, as we've discussed in this program before, a number of key themes for 2023 look like the mirror image of 2022. Last year saw U.S. growth outperform China, inflation rise sharply and central banks hike aggressively, a combination that was pretty tough in emerging market assets. But this year we see growth in China accelerating while the U.S. slows, inflation falling and central banks pausing, a reversal that would seem much better for EM. 
And this is all happening at a time when EM assets still enjoy a valuation advantage. Emerging market equities, currencies and sovereign bonds all still trade at larger than average discounts to their U.S. peers. 
All of that supports the near-term case for outperformance in emerging markets, in our view. But what about the longer term story? Here we admit there are still some uncertainties. On one hand, there are some countries where there's a quite positive long run outlook in the eyes of my research colleagues. I'd highlight Mexico here, a country that we think could be a major long term beneficiary of U.S. companies looking to shorten supply chains and bring more production back from Asia. 
But there are also major long term uncertainties, especially related to earnings power. The case for EM equities is often based around the idea that you get the higher growth of the developing world at lower valuations, an attractive combination that offsets the higher political and economic volatility. But as my colleague Jonathan Garner, Head of Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy, has noted, earnings for the EM market have been surprisingly weak over the long run and are still at levels similar to 2010. Growth so far has been elusive. 
Uncertainty around that long term earnings power is one of several reasons that it may be too early to say that EM will be a multiyear outperformer. But for the time being, we think those longer term concerns will be secondary to near-term support and continue to expect cross-asset outperformance from EM assets this year. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ibXR8bjuX6JMAflc1GijzRLH-ZTkiN4ZtsZrh98zM5cFri, 13 Jan 2023 20:55:20 +0000gtyOne of the frequent questions regarding Emerging Markets is whether outperformance will hold for the short term or the long term. So what factors should investors consider when evaluating the cross asset performance of EM? ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 13th at 2 p.m. in London. 
A common question when talking about almost any market is whether the view holds for the short term or the long term. Call it a question of whether to "rent" versus "own". Is this a strategy that could work over the next six months or is it geared to the next six years? This question comes up most frequently when we discuss emerging market or EM assets. 
We like EM on a cross-asset basis. We think equities in EM outperform those in the U.S. We think EM currencies outperform the U.S. dollar and the British pound. And we think EM sovereign bonds perform well on an outright basis and also relative to U.S. high yield. 
Several factors underlie this positive view. First, as we've discussed in this program before, a number of key themes for 2023 look like the mirror image of 2022. Last year saw U.S. growth outperform China, inflation rise sharply and central banks hike aggressively, a combination that was pretty tough in emerging market assets. But this year we see growth in China accelerating while the U.S. slows, inflation falling and central banks pausing, a reversal that would seem much better for EM. 
And this is all happening at a time when EM assets still enjoy a valuation advantage. Emerging market equities, currencies and sovereign bonds all still trade at larger than average discounts to their U.S. peers. 
All of that supports the near-term case for outperformance in emerging markets, in our view. But what about the longer term story? Here we admit there are still some uncertainties. On one hand, there are some countries where there's a quite positive long run outlook in the eyes of my research colleagues. I'd highlight Mexico here, a country that we think could be a major long term beneficiary of U.S. companies looking to shorten supply chains and bring more production back from Asia. 
But there are also major long term uncertainties, especially related to earnings power. The case for EM equities is often based around the idea that you get the higher growth of the developing world at lower valuations, an attractive combination that offsets the higher political and economic volatility. But as my colleague Jonathan Garner, Head of Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy, has noted, earnings for the EM market have been surprisingly weak over the long run and are still at levels similar to 2010. Growth so far has been elusive. 
Uncertainty around that long term earnings power is one of several reasons that it may be too early to say that EM will be a multiyear outperformer. But for the time being, we think those longer term concerns will be secondary to near-term support and continue to expect cross-asset outperformance from EM assets this year. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>185false784fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-bringing-semiconductors-to-north-america--75654913----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, January 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
This week, the presidents of the United States, Canada and Mexico gathered for the North American Leaders Summit. For investors, the key result was a commitment by the countries to work together to boost the semiconductor industry in North America. While the practical details of this commitment will matter greatly, the agreement in principle underscores a few key themes for investors. 
The first is that the trend toward a multipolar world is ongoing, one where geopolitics increase commercial barriers and create the need for multiple supply chains, product standards and economic ecosystems. So countries and companies must rewire their own approach to production in order to cope. This semiconductor commitment is the result of a determination by the U.S. that it's in its own interest to develop a substantial and secure semiconductor industry in its own backyard, in order to mitigate supply chain risks to key industries like automobile production. In this way, the country's economy is less susceptible to overseas disruptions. And the U.S. was likely able to achieve this commitment with its neighbors by enacting the CHIPS+ legislation with bipartisan support. You may recall that legislation appropriated money to attract the construction of semiconductor facilities in the U.S. 
This brings us to our second point, which is that this commitment underscores the opportunity for Mexico to benefit from U.S. led nearshoring. As we've discussed on this podcast with our Mexico strategist, Nik Lippman, Mexico has a sizable manufacturing labor force and proximity to the U.S. For semiconductors, that means Mexico could potentially be a supplier or at least a supplier of the goods materials that go into fabrication. It's one of the key reasons that Nik has upgraded Mexico stocks to overweight. 
So in short, this meeting was another step on the path toward a multipolar world, a key trend we're tracking in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/0iJs4zNzfzCpg4UhmoOVc4EjBgZ2uWd8jptMIlmXK2gThu, 12 Jan 2023 18:11:31 +0000gtyAt this week’s North American Leaders Summit, the U.S., Canada and Mexico committed to boosting the semiconductor industry in another key step on the path towards a multipolar world. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, January 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. 
This week, the presidents of the United States, Canada and Mexico gathered for the North American Leaders Summit. For investors, the key result was a commitment by the countries to work together to boost the semiconductor industry in North America. While the practical details of this commitment will matter greatly, the agreement in principle underscores a few key themes for investors. 
The first is that the trend toward a multipolar world is ongoing, one where geopolitics increase commercial barriers and create the need for multiple supply chains, product standards and economic ecosystems. So countries and companies must rewire their own approach to production in order to cope. This semiconductor commitment is the result of a determination by the U.S. that it's in its own interest to develop a substantial and secure semiconductor industry in its own backyard, in order to mitigate supply chain risks to key industries like automobile production. In this way, the country's economy is less susceptible to overseas disruptions. And the U.S. was likely able to achieve this commitment with its neighbors by enacting the CHIPS+ legislation with bipartisan support. You may recall that legislation appropriated money to attract the construction of semiconductor facilities in the U.S. 
This brings us to our second point, which is that this commitment underscores the opportunity for Mexico to benefit from U.S. led nearshoring. As we've discussed on this podcast with our Mexico strategist, Nik Lippman, Mexico has a sizable manufacturing labor force and proximity to the U.S. For semiconductors, that means Mexico could potentially be a supplier or at least a supplier of the goods materials that go into fabrication. It's one of the key reasons that Nik has upgraded Mexico stocks to overweight. 
So in short, this meeting was another step on the path toward a multipolar world, a key trend we're tracking in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>144false783fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/quantitative-strategies-a-2023-return--75654962----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's head of fixed income research and director of Quantitative Research.
Stephan Kessler And I'm Stephan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's global head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research.
Vishy Tirupattur And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the return of quantitative investing. It's Wednesday, January 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York.
Stephan Kessler And 3 p.m. in London.
Vishy Tirupattur Stephan, 2022 was a pretty dismal year for traditional investment strategies across various asset classes. You know, equities, credit, government bonds—all of them had negative total returns for the year. And in fact, for traditional investment strategies, there really was nowhere to hide. That said, 2022 turned out to be a pretty decent year for systematic investing or factor investing or quantitative investing strategies. So can you start us off by giving us an overview of what systematic factor strategies are and how they performed in 2022 versus traditional investment strategies?
Stephan Kessler Absolutely. So, if you look at quant strategies, or systematic strategies, key is 'systematic.' So we look at repetitive, persistent patterns in the markets which can be beneficial for investors. Usually they're data driven. So we look at data which can be price data, fundamental data like economic growth data and the like, which then gives us signals for our investment. Those strategies tend to have low long-term exposures to traditional markets such as equities and fixed income. So they work as diversifiers and the rationale for why they work comes from academic theory, by and large, where we look at risk premia, we look at structural or behavioral patterns that are well known in the academic world. So common strategies that investors apply can be carry investing, for example. So we benefit here from interest rate differentials where we borrow, for example, money in low yielding regions or currencies, and then we invest in high yielding currencies, clipping the difference in the interest rate between these regions. Value investing is another important style that investors implement, where they simply identify undervalued investments, undervalued assets by looking at price to book ratios, by looking at dividend yields, for example, to identify what appears to be cheap. Momentum investing is probably the third most important strategy here, which is where we benefit from the price trends in markets which we know to be persistent. So those are the, I think, the important styles—carry, value and momentum—but there are also more complex strategies where we model and identify very minute details in markets. We go really deep into the functionality of markets. Then the final point I would make is that these strategies tend to be long-short so they are not long biased as traditional investing is, but they can go really both directions in terms of their positioning.
Vishy Tirupattur Investors often ask how quant strategies, that are typically predicated on historical data patterns, can handle volatile market environments with very few historical precedents. 2022 was anything but normal. Don't such market aberrations break quant strategies?
Stephan Kessler That's a really good question. If you look at it from the higher level, it does seem like this was a unique market that actually should be challenging for systematic strategies which look at historical patterns. When you dig a little bit deeper, it becomes actually more nuanced. So the strong outperformance of quant in '22, we think is driven by the different catalysts that we saw in the markets. So for example, the tightening by central banks led to substantial and durable macro trends that can be captured by trend following. We saw a reemergence of interest rates across the globe through this monetary policy, which sparked the revival of carry investing. And then equity value investing reemerged as higher rates forced investors to focus more on fundamental valuations, and that led to an increase in efficiency of the value factor.
Vishy Tirupattur Will any of the performance patterns that you saw in 2022 carry over into 2023? Or do you think the investment landscape for quant investors would be very different in this year?
Stephan Kessler 2023 we think we'll look, of course, different from the past year. So, we'll move into an environment of low inflation where terminal rates are going to be reached by many central banks. And then equities will start the year in Q1 likely down to then end the year rather flat according to our equity strategists. Now, from a quant perspective, while this is different in terms of the actual dynamics, what remains is that we are likely to see market swings, which tend to favor short- to mid-term trend following strategies. The differences in central bank policies are also likely to remain so there's going to be a dispersion in rates and this dispersion in rates will help, in our expectation, carry strategies. It makes carry strategies attractive. Indeed, if you think about being exposed to, say, for example, carry in fixed income, where we go long bonds with high yields, we go short bonds with low yields and clip the difference, those bonds with particularly high interest rates are likely to also benefit from a normalization of rates. So, you could actually see an additional benefit where being invested in high yielding bonds will be then doubly positive because you earn the carry, but you also benefit from a normalization of rates and the increase in prices of those bonds. And finally, when we look at, you know, value investing, we think that is also likely to remain important because higher rates simply force investors to be focused on the valuations, to be focused on the financing of business activities, to be focused on healthy companies. And so we think that the market dynamics, while different, will continue to favor quant investing.
Vishy Tirupattur So Stephan, you talked about a wide range of investment strategies within the quant world. Which of those strategies, what kinds of strategies do you think will drive outperformance in 2023?
Stephan Kessler Yeah, I think it's specific forms of what I've mentioned is generally strategies which will do well. So, you know, if we start again with trend following, the market should be positive for it. There are though iterations of trend falling where we bias. And we think these types of biases—we have a long-bias or as we call it defensively-biased trend following strategies—those will be particularly positively performing because they will benefit from the higher rates that we see. We also think that some of the pricing out of inflation and then eventually in terms of the lower rates that we see, that should be beneficial for rates value strategies, where rates converge to longer term levels. And then something we haven't talked much about yet; volatility carry we feel is particularly interesting. Volatility carry means we are selling options in the markets. We sell a call option, a put option in the market, we earn the premium and then we hedge the beta that is embedded. So, we essentially try to earn the option premium without taking directional market risk, which works quite well in terms of harvesting a carry in calm market environments. But it tends to be causing negative returns, when you see spikes in volatility, when you see jumps in markets. We think that this is going to be an interesting investment opportunity, first on the Treasury side and then, once equity markets through this more difficult slowdown that we see at the moment, we also think volatility should get lower and that should benefit generally volatility carry in equities. So, selling equity options into the market. So those would be the particularly strong strategies. And then, as I already mentioned, there's this crossing of equity value and quality is a theme that we believe is particularly well-suited for the environment.
Vishy Tirupattur If you're thinking about the outlook for 2023 for quant investors, what are the real risks? What can go wrong?
Stephan Kessler So I think there's, of course, a range of things that can go wrong in such a dynamic and fluid market environment as we are at the moment. So one is that rates could continue to increase more than we expect at the moment, possibly driven by inflation being more resilient. That would not be good for rates carry strategies which tend to underperform in such environments because they are long. And so as those assets build up further, as the rates go up, the price of those assets would be hit. And on the back of that, the carry strategies would suffer. We also think that against all odds, growth is very resilient. There's a growth rally. That would, of course, hurt value type strategies, maybe through higher efficiency or resilience of tech stocks, for example. And then finally, if markets become to gap-y, i.e., if they don't trend but they really jump around through this market environment, that that might actually be negative for trend following strategies.
Vishy Tirupattur Looks like 2023 will be a fascinating year ahead for quant investing strategies. So, Stephan, thanks for taking the time to talk to us.
Stephan Kessler Great speaking with you, Vishy.
Vishy Tirupattur And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/njaCTmF_LRjxlYRyLlcysnU1EtZ1X_yLGN5yagPghp4Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:59:21 +0000gtyIn 2022 it seemed like there was nowhere to hide from the negative returns in traditional investing. But if we look to quantitative strategies, we may find more flexibility for the year ahead. ----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur Welcome to Thoughts...----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's head of fixed income research and director of Quantitative Research.
Stephan Kessler And I'm Stephan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's global head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research.
Vishy Tirupattur And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the return of quantitative investing. It's Wednesday, January 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York.
Stephan Kessler And 3 p.m. in London.
Vishy Tirupattur Stephan, 2022 was a pretty dismal year for traditional investment strategies across various asset classes. You know, equities, credit, government bonds—all of them had negative total returns for the year. And in fact, for traditional investment strategies, there really was nowhere to hide. That said, 2022 turned out to be a pretty decent year for systematic investing or factor investing or quantitative investing strategies. So can you start us off by giving us an overview of what systematic factor strategies are and how they performed in 2022 versus traditional investment strategies?
Stephan Kessler Absolutely. So, if you look at quant strategies, or systematic strategies, key is 'systematic.' So we look at repetitive, persistent patterns in the markets which can be beneficial for investors. Usually they're data driven. So we look at data which can be price data, fundamental data like economic growth data and the like, which then gives us signals for our investment. Those strategies tend to have low long-term exposures to traditional markets such as equities and fixed income. So they work as diversifiers and the rationale for why they work comes from academic theory, by and large, where we look at risk premia, we look at structural or behavioral patterns that are well known in the academic world. So common strategies that investors apply can be carry investing, for example. So we benefit here from interest rate differentials where we borrow, for example, money in low yielding regions or currencies, and then we invest in high yielding currencies, clipping the difference in the interest rate between these regions. Value investing is another important style that investors implement, where they simply identify undervalued investments, undervalued assets by looking at price to book ratios, by looking at dividend yields, for example, to identify what appears to be cheap. Momentum investing is probably the third most important strategy here, which is where we benefit from the price trends in markets which we know to be persistent. So those are the, I think, the important styles—carry, value and momentum—but there are also more complex strategies where we model and identify very minute details in markets. We go really deep into the functionality of markets. Then the final point I would make is that these strategies tend to be long-short so they are not long biased as traditional investing is, but they can go really both directions in terms of their positioning.
Vishy Tirupattur Investors often ask how quant strategies, that are typically predicated on historical data patterns, can handle volatile market environments with very few historical precedents. 2022 was anything but normal. Don't such market aberrations break quant strategies?
Stephan Kessler That's a really good question. If you look at it from the higher level, it does seem like this was a unique market that actually should be challenging for systematic strategies which look at historical patterns. When you dig a little bit deeper, it becomes actually more nuanced. So the strong outperformance of quant in '22, we think is driven by the different catalysts that we saw in the markets. So for example, the tightening by central...]]>573market-trendsfalse782fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-challenging-the-consensus-on-2023--75654873----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, January 10th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.
To start the year, we return to a busy week of client meetings and calls. While our conversations ranged across a wide swath of topics, the most consistently asked question was, "if everybody has the same view, how can that be right?" The view I'm referring to is that most sell-side strategists and buy-side investors believe the first half of the year will be a challenging one, but the second half will be much better. Wrapped into this view is the notion that we will experience a mild recession starting in the first half. The Fed will cut rates in response and a new bull market will begin. Truth be told, this is generally our view too. So, how do we reconcile this dilemma of how the consensus can be right? We think the answer is that the consensus can be right directionally, but it will be wrong in the magnitude and rationale which may inhibit its ability to monetize the swings we envision. More importantly, our biggest issue with the consensus view is how nonchalant many investors seem to be about the risk of a recession. When we ask investors how low they think the S&P 500 will trade in a mild recession, most suggest 35-3600 will suffice, and the October lows will hold. One rationale for this more constructive view is that we are closer to a Fed pause, and that pivot will put a floor under stock valuations.
The other reason we hear is that everyone is already bearish and expects a recession. Therefore, it must already be priced. We would caution against those conclusions as recessions are never priced until they arrive and we're not so sure the Fed is going to be coming to the rescue as fast as usual, given the inflation dynamics unique to this cycle.
The other way we think the consensus is likely to be wrong is on earnings. With or without an economic recession, the earnings forecasts for 2023 remain materially too high in our view. Our base case forecast for 2023 S&P 500 earnings per share is $195, and this assumes no recession, while our bear case forecast of a recession leads to $180. This compares to the bottoms up consensus forecast of $230, which nearly every institutional investor agrees is too high. However, most are in the camp that the S&P 500 earnings per share won't be as bad as we think, with the average client around $210-$215. Coincidentally, this is in line with the consensus sell-side strategists' forecast of $210 as well. In summary, even if we don't experience an economic recession, investor expectations for earnings remain too high based on our forecasts and conversations with clients. This leaves equity prices unattractive at current levels.
Our well-below-consensus earnings forecast is centered around a theme of negative operating leverage driven by falling inflation. One of the most consistent pieces of pushback we have received to our negative earnings outlook centers around the idea that higher inflation means higher nominal GDP and therefore revenue growth that can remain positive even in the event of a mild real GDP recession. Therefore, earnings should hold up better than usual. While we agree with the premise of this view that revenue growth can remain positive this year, even if we have a mild recession, it ignores the fact that margins are likely to materially disappoint. This is because the rate of change on cost inflation exceeds the rate of change on sales. Indeed, margins have started to fall and the consensus forecasts for fourth quarter results currently assume negative operating leverage. But we think this dynamic is likely to get much worse before it gets better.
The bottom line, equity markets still appear to be overly focused on inflation and the Fed, as evidenced by the still meaningfully negative correlation between real yields and equity returns. Last week, we saw expectations improve slightly for inflation and the Fed's reaction to it. And stocks rallied sharply into the end of the week. We think this ignores the ramifications of falling prices on profit margins, which is likely to outweigh any benefit from increased Fed dovishness.
In short, we think we're quickly approaching the point where bad news on growth is bad. And we see 3900 on the S&P 500 as a good level to be selling into again in front of what is likely to be another weak earnings season led by poor profitability and the broader introduction of 2023 guidance.
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/-8PEnLXkRjnMf2yIhpdJQPcyC6v3osMDEEE6OOjQBpYTue, 10 Jan 2023 21:20:16 +0000gtyAs 2023 begins, most market participants agree the first half of the year could be challenging. But when we dig into the details, that's where the agreement ends. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, January 10th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.
To start the year, we return to a busy week of client meetings and calls. While our conversations ranged across a wide swath of topics, the most consistently asked question was, "if everybody has the same view, how can that be right?" The view I'm referring to is that most sell-side strategists and buy-side investors believe the first half of the year will be a challenging one, but the second half will be much better. Wrapped into this view is the notion that we will experience a mild recession starting in the first half. The Fed will cut rates in response and a new bull market will begin. Truth be told, this is generally our view too. So, how do we reconcile this dilemma of how the consensus can be right? We think the answer is that the consensus can be right directionally, but it will be wrong in the magnitude and rationale which may inhibit its ability to monetize the swings we envision. More importantly, our biggest issue with the consensus view is how nonchalant many investors seem to be about the risk of a recession. When we ask investors how low they think the S&P 500 will trade in a mild recession, most suggest 35-3600 will suffice, and the October lows will hold. One rationale for this more constructive view is that we are closer to a Fed pause, and that pivot will put a floor under stock valuations.
The other reason we hear is that everyone is already bearish and expects a recession. Therefore, it must already be priced. We would caution against those conclusions as recessions are never priced until they arrive and we're not so sure the Fed is going to be coming to the rescue as fast as usual, given the inflation dynamics unique to this cycle.
The other way we think the consensus is likely to be wrong is on earnings. With or without an economic recession, the earnings forecasts for 2023 remain materially too high in our view. Our base case forecast for 2023 S&P 500 earnings per share is $195, and this assumes no recession, while our bear case forecast of a recession leads to $180. This compares to the bottoms up consensus forecast of $230, which nearly every institutional investor agrees is too high. However, most are in the camp that the S&P 500 earnings per share won't be as bad as we think, with the average client around $210-$215. Coincidentally, this is in line with the consensus sell-side strategists' forecast of $210 as well. In summary, even if we don't experience an economic recession, investor expectations for earnings remain too high based on our forecasts and conversations with clients. This leaves equity prices unattractive at current levels.
Our well-below-consensus earnings forecast is centered around a theme of negative operating leverage driven by falling inflation. One of the most consistent pieces of pushback we have received to our negative earnings outlook centers around the idea that higher inflation means higher nominal GDP and therefore revenue growth that can remain positive even in the event of a mild real GDP recession. Therefore, earnings should hold up better than usual. While we agree with the premise of this view that revenue growth can remain positive this year, even if we have a mild recession, it ignores the fact that margins are likely to materially disappoint. This is because the rate of change on cost inflation exceeds the rate of change on sales. Indeed, margins have started to fall and the consensus forecasts for fourth...]]>259market-trendsfalse781fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/martijn-rats-the-2023-global-oil-outlook--75654979----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some of the key uncertainties that the global oil market will likely face in 2023. It's Monday, January 9th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Looking back, 2022 was an eventful year for the oil market. The post-COVID demand recovery of 2021 continued during the first half and by June demand was back to 2019 levels. For a brief period the demand recovery appeared complete. Over the same period non-OPEC supply growth mostly disappointed, OPEC's spare capacity declined and inventories drew. Which eventually meant that oil markets had to start searching for the price level where demand destruction kicked in. Eventually, this forced prices of key oil products such as gasoline and diesel, to record levels of around $180-$290 a barrel in June. 
Clearly, those prices did the trick. Together with new mobility restrictions in China, aggressive rate hikes by central banks and rising risk of recession, particularly in Europe, they effectively stalled the oil demand recovery. And by September, global oil demand was once again below September 2019 levels. By late 2022, brent prices that retraced much of their earlier gains and other indicators, such as time spreads and refining margins, had softened too. 
Now, looking into 2023 we don't see this changing soon. Counting barrels of supply and demand suggest that the first quarter will still be modestly oversupplied. Also, declining GDP expectations, falling PMIs and central bank tightening are still weighing heavily on the oil market today. Eventually, however, we see a more constructive outlook emerging, say from the spring onwards. First, we expect to see a recovery in aviation. Global jet fuel consumption is still well below 2019 levels, and we think that a substantial share of that demand will return this year. Another key development will be China's reopening. At the end of 2022 China's oil demand was still well below 2020 and 2021 levels, held back by lockdowns and mobility restrictions. We expect China's oil demand to start recovering after the first quarter of this year. 
Shifting over to Europe and the EU embargo on Russian oil, as of last November, the EU still imported 2.2 million barrels a day of Russian crude oil and oil products. Now, especially after the EU's embargo on the import of oil product kicks in, which will be on February 5th, Russia will need to find other buyers and the EU will need to find other suppliers for much of this oil. Now, some of this has already been happening, but the full rearrangement of oil flows around the world as a result of this issue will probably not be full, smooth, fast and without price impact. As a result, we expect that some Russian oil will be lost in the process and Russian oil production is likely to decline in coming months. 
In the U.S., capital discipline and supply chain bottlenecks have already held back the growth in U.S. shale production. However, well performance and drilling inventory depth are emerging additional concerns putting further downward pressure on the production outlook. Eventually, the slowdown in U.S. shale will put OPEC in the driver's seat of the oil market. Also last year saw an unprecedented release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But this source of supply is now ended and the U.S. Energy Department will likely start buying back some of this oil in coming months. 
Finally, investment in new oil and gas production is rebounding, but it comes from a very low base and the recovery has so far been modest. Much of it is simply to absorb cost inflation that has also happened in the industry. In other words, the industry isn't investing heavily in new oil production, which has implications for the longer term outlook for oil supply. 
Eventually, we think these factors will combine in a set of tailwinds for oil prices. If we are wrong on those, the market would be left with the status quo, which would be neutral. But we believe that these risks will eventually skew positively later in 2023. We expect the oil market to return to balance in the second quarter, and be undersupplied in the second half of this year. With a limited supply buffer only, we think brent will return to over $100 a barrel by the middle of the year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/uQ6bYKmGmXAzKJ268DH6NvvEOvfAro--Gtxsc8YKzvMMon, 09 Jan 2023 21:16:52 +0000gtyWith an eventful year for the oil market behind us, what are the factors that might influence the supply, demand, and ultimately the pricing of oil and gas in 2023? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some of the key uncertainties that the global oil market will likely face in 2023. It's Monday, January 9th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Looking back, 2022 was an eventful year for the oil market. The post-COVID demand recovery of 2021 continued during the first half and by June demand was back to 2019 levels. For a brief period the demand recovery appeared complete. Over the same period non-OPEC supply growth mostly disappointed, OPEC's spare capacity declined and inventories drew. Which eventually meant that oil markets had to start searching for the price level where demand destruction kicked in. Eventually, this forced prices of key oil products such as gasoline and diesel, to record levels of around $180-$290 a barrel in June. 
Clearly, those prices did the trick. Together with new mobility restrictions in China, aggressive rate hikes by central banks and rising risk of recession, particularly in Europe, they effectively stalled the oil demand recovery. And by September, global oil demand was once again below September 2019 levels. By late 2022, brent prices that retraced much of their earlier gains and other indicators, such as time spreads and refining margins, had softened too. 
Now, looking into 2023 we don't see this changing soon. Counting barrels of supply and demand suggest that the first quarter will still be modestly oversupplied. Also, declining GDP expectations, falling PMIs and central bank tightening are still weighing heavily on the oil market today. Eventually, however, we see a more constructive outlook emerging, say from the spring onwards. First, we expect to see a recovery in aviation. Global jet fuel consumption is still well below 2019 levels, and we think that a substantial share of that demand will return this year. Another key development will be China's reopening. At the end of 2022 China's oil demand was still well below 2020 and 2021 levels, held back by lockdowns and mobility restrictions. We expect China's oil demand to start recovering after the first quarter of this year. 
Shifting over to Europe and the EU embargo on Russian oil, as of last November, the EU still imported 2.2 million barrels a day of Russian crude oil and oil products. Now, especially after the EU's embargo on the import of oil product kicks in, which will be on February 5th, Russia will need to find other buyers and the EU will need to find other suppliers for much of this oil. Now, some of this has already been happening, but the full rearrangement of oil flows around the world as a result of this issue will probably not be full, smooth, fast and without price impact. As a result, we expect that some Russian oil will be lost in the process and Russian oil production is likely to decline in coming months. 
In the U.S., capital discipline and supply chain bottlenecks have already held back the growth in U.S. shale production. However, well performance and drilling inventory depth are emerging additional concerns putting further downward pressure on the production outlook. Eventually, the slowdown in U.S. shale will put OPEC in the driver's seat of the oil market. Also last year saw an unprecedented release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But this source of supply is now ended and the U.S. Energy Department will likely start buying back some of this oil in coming months. 
Finally, investment in new oil and gas production is rebounding, but it comes from a very low base and the recovery has so far been modest. Much of it is simply to absorb cost inflation that has also happened in the industry. In other...]]>264market-trendsfalse780fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-lessons-from-last-year--75654939----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 6th at 2 p.m. in London.
For the year ahead, we think U.S. growth slows while China accelerates, inflation moderates and central banks pause their rate hikes while keeping policy restrictive enough to slow growth. We think that backdrop favors bonds over stocks, emerging over developed markets and international over U.S. equities.
But there'll be plenty of time to discuss those views and more in the coming weeks. Today, I wanted to take a step back and talk a little about the year that was. 2022 was historic and within these unusual swings are some important lessons for the year ahead.
First, for the avoidance of doubt, 2022 was not normal. It was likely the first year since at least the 1870s that both U.S. stocks and long-term bonds fell more than 10% in the same calendar year. We don't think that repeats and forecast small positive total returns for both U.S. stocks and bonds in the year ahead.
Second, it was a year that challenged some conventional wisdom about what counts as a risky part of one's portfolio. So-called defensive stocks—those in consumer staples, health care and utilities—outperformed significantly, which isn't a surprise given the poor market environment. But other things were more unusual. Small cap stocks and value stocks, which are often seen as riskier, actually outperformed. Financial equities were the second-best performing sector in Europe, Japan and emerging markets despite being seen as a riskier sector. And both the stock market and currencies of Mexico and Brazil, markets that are seen as high beta, gained in dollar terms despite the historically difficult market environment.
This is all a great reminder that the riskiness of an asset class is not set in stone. And it shows the importance of valuation. Small caps, value stocks and Mexico and Brazilian assets all entered 2022 with large historical valuation discounts, which may help explain why they were able to hold up so well. For this year, we think attractive relative valuation could mean international equities are actually less risky than U.S. equities, bucking some of the historical trends.
Finally, 2022 was a great year for the so called 'momentum factor.' Factor investing is the idea that you favor a certain characteristic over and over. So, for example, always buying assets that are cheaper, the 'value factor,' buying assets that pay you more, the 'carry factor,' or always buying assets that are doing better, the 'momentum factor.'
In 2022, buying what had been rising, both outright or relative to its peers, worked pretty well across assets despite the simplicity of this strategy. Our work has suggested that momentum has a lower return than these other factors but is often very helpful in more difficult market environments. It's a good reminder that it's not always best to be contrarian and sometimes going with the trend is a simple but effective strategy, especially in commodities and short-term interest rates.
2022 is in the record books. It was an unusual year but one that still provides some useful and important lessons for the year that lies ahead.
Happy New Year and thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us to review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Aq0lPrzFK-OOVRDbjeJPJaOp_CW6oDc1VOP5yMK3rMsFri, 06 Jan 2023 21:21:41 +0000gtyDiscover what 2022, a historic year for markets, can teach investors as they navigate the new year. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues,...----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 6th at 2 p.m. in London.
For the year ahead, we think U.S. growth slows while China accelerates, inflation moderates and central banks pause their rate hikes while keeping policy restrictive enough to slow growth. We think that backdrop favors bonds over stocks, emerging over developed markets and international over U.S. equities.
But there'll be plenty of time to discuss those views and more in the coming weeks. Today, I wanted to take a step back and talk a little about the year that was. 2022 was historic and within these unusual swings are some important lessons for the year ahead.
First, for the avoidance of doubt, 2022 was not normal. It was likely the first year since at least the 1870s that both U.S. stocks and long-term bonds fell more than 10% in the same calendar year. We don't think that repeats and forecast small positive total returns for both U.S. stocks and bonds in the year ahead.
Second, it was a year that challenged some conventional wisdom about what counts as a risky part of one's portfolio. So-called defensive stocks—those in consumer staples, health care and utilities—outperformed significantly, which isn't a surprise given the poor market environment. But other things were more unusual. Small cap stocks and value stocks, which are often seen as riskier, actually outperformed. Financial equities were the second-best performing sector in Europe, Japan and emerging markets despite being seen as a riskier sector. And both the stock market and currencies of Mexico and Brazil, markets that are seen as high beta, gained in dollar terms despite the historically difficult market environment.
This is all a great reminder that the riskiness of an asset class is not set in stone. And it shows the importance of valuation. Small caps, value stocks and Mexico and Brazilian assets all entered 2022 with large historical valuation discounts, which may help explain why they were able to hold up so well. For this year, we think attractive relative valuation could mean international equities are actually less risky than U.S. equities, bucking some of the historical trends.
Finally, 2022 was a great year for the so called 'momentum factor.' Factor investing is the idea that you favor a certain characteristic over and over. So, for example, always buying assets that are cheaper, the 'value factor,' buying assets that pay you more, the 'carry factor,' or always buying assets that are doing better, the 'momentum factor.'
In 2022, buying what had been rising, both outright or relative to its peers, worked pretty well across assets despite the simplicity of this strategy. Our work has suggested that momentum has a lower return than these other factors but is often very helpful in more difficult market environments. It's a good reminder that it's not always best to be contrarian and sometimes going with the trend is a simple but effective strategy, especially in commodities and short-term interest rates.
2022 is in the record books. It was an unusual year but one that still provides some useful and important lessons for the year that lies ahead.
Happy New Year and thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us to review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>206market-trendsfalse779fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chetan-ahya-has-inflation-in-asia-peaked--75654702----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our 2023 outlook for Asia economics. It's Thursday, January 5th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
If 2022 was all about inflation, we believe 2023 will be about the aftermath of this battle with inflation. All eyes are now on how the world's largest economies will stack up after this battle with inflation. While Asia, along with the rest of the world, face multiple stagflationary shocks in 2022, we think that Asia weathered these shocks better. Indeed, we believe Asia will enter a rapid phase of disinflation and is well-positioned for growth outperformance in 2023. 
The step up in Asia's inflation was smaller compared to other regions. Furthermore, Asia's inflation had more of a cost-push element, meaning it was driven to a large extent by increases in cost of raw materials. And we believe Asia's inflation already peaked in third quarter of 2022. 
Asia's inflation should be rapidly returning towards central bank's comfort zone. We expect this to be the case for 90% of Asian economies by mid 2023. Cost-push factors are fading, resulting in lower food and energy inflation. Core good prices are descending rapidly, given the deflation in goods demand. Moreover, labor markets were not that tight in Asia, and wage growth has remained below its pre-COVID rates. Because of this backdrop, we've argued that central banks in Asia do not need to take policy rates deeper into restrictive territory. 
In fact, all of the central banks in the region will likely stop tightening in first quarter of 2023. This pause in Asia's rate hiking cycle, coupled with an easing in U.S. 10 year bond yields and with the peak of USD behind us, should lead to easier financial conditions in 2023. 
While weak external demand will remain a drag at least through the first half of 2023, Asia's domestic demand is supported by three factors. First, the easing of financial conditions will lift the private sector sentiment. Second, we are witnessing a strong uplift in large economies like India and Indonesia, supported by healthy balance sheets. Finally, China's reopening will lift consumption growth and have a positive effect on economies in the region, principally via the trade channel, helping Asian economies to get onto the path of growth outperformance. We expect Asia's growth to improve from a trough of 2.8% in first quarter of 2023, to 4.9% in second half of 2023, while DM growth will slow from 0.9% in first quarter of 2023 to 0.3% in second half of 23. Growth differentials will likely swing back in Asia's favor, rising back towards the levels last seen in 2017 and 2018. 
There are, of course, risks to our optimistic outlook for Asia. If U.S. inflation stays elevated for longer, this would lead to more tightening by the Fed than is expected and could drive renewed strength in the USD. This in turn would prolong the rate hike cycle in Asia, keeping financial conditions tight and exert downward pressures on growth. A delayed reopening in China could impact China's growth trajectory with adverse spillover implications for the rest of the region. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9kNoO265xl2W3NpZc3aCh_PIMwirjfYtcDtT7QwqKQcThu, 05 Jan 2023 19:56:12 +0000gtyWith the fight against inflation quieting down in many regions, Asia saw a relatively small step up in inflation. Will that leave 2023 open to the possibility of growth outperformance? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our 2023 outlook for Asia economics. It's Thursday, January 5th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
If 2022 was all about inflation, we believe 2023 will be about the aftermath of this battle with inflation. All eyes are now on how the world's largest economies will stack up after this battle with inflation. While Asia, along with the rest of the world, face multiple stagflationary shocks in 2022, we think that Asia weathered these shocks better. Indeed, we believe Asia will enter a rapid phase of disinflation and is well-positioned for growth outperformance in 2023. 
The step up in Asia's inflation was smaller compared to other regions. Furthermore, Asia's inflation had more of a cost-push element, meaning it was driven to a large extent by increases in cost of raw materials. And we believe Asia's inflation already peaked in third quarter of 2022. 
Asia's inflation should be rapidly returning towards central bank's comfort zone. We expect this to be the case for 90% of Asian economies by mid 2023. Cost-push factors are fading, resulting in lower food and energy inflation. Core good prices are descending rapidly, given the deflation in goods demand. Moreover, labor markets were not that tight in Asia, and wage growth has remained below its pre-COVID rates. Because of this backdrop, we've argued that central banks in Asia do not need to take policy rates deeper into restrictive territory. 
In fact, all of the central banks in the region will likely stop tightening in first quarter of 2023. This pause in Asia's rate hiking cycle, coupled with an easing in U.S. 10 year bond yields and with the peak of USD behind us, should lead to easier financial conditions in 2023. 
While weak external demand will remain a drag at least through the first half of 2023, Asia's domestic demand is supported by three factors. First, the easing of financial conditions will lift the private sector sentiment. Second, we are witnessing a strong uplift in large economies like India and Indonesia, supported by healthy balance sheets. Finally, China's reopening will lift consumption growth and have a positive effect on economies in the region, principally via the trade channel, helping Asian economies to get onto the path of growth outperformance. We expect Asia's growth to improve from a trough of 2.8% in first quarter of 2023, to 4.9% in second half of 2023, while DM growth will slow from 0.9% in first quarter of 2023 to 0.3% in second half of 23. Growth differentials will likely swing back in Asia's favor, rising back towards the levels last seen in 2017 and 2018. 
There are, of course, risks to our optimistic outlook for Asia. If U.S. inflation stays elevated for longer, this would lead to more tightening by the Fed than is expected and could drive renewed strength in the USD. This in turn would prolong the rate hike cycle in Asia, keeping financial conditions tight and exert downward pressures on growth. A delayed reopening in China could impact China's growth trajectory with adverse spillover implications for the rest of the region. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.]]>214market-trendsfalse778fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-gridlock-in-the-house-of-representatives--75654973----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, January 4th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The focus in D.C. this week has been on choosing the new speaker of the House of Representatives. Choosing this leader, who largely sets the House's voting and workflow agenda, is a necessary first step to opening a new Congress following an election. This process is usually uneventful, with the party in the majority typically having decided who they'll support long before any formal vote. But this week, something happened, which hasn't in 100 years. The House failed to choose a speaker on the first ballot. As of this recording, we're now three ballots in and the Republican majority has yet to agree on its choice. 
So is this just more DC noise? Or do investors need to be concerned? While it's too early to tell, and there don't appear to be any imminent risks, we think investors should at least take it seriously. The House of Representatives will eventually find a way to choose a speaker, but the Republicans' rare difficulty in doing so suggests it's worth tracking governance risk to the U.S. economic outlook that could manifest later in the year. 
To understand this, we must consider why Republicans have had difficulty choosing a speaker. In short, there's plenty of intraparty disagreement on policy priorities and governance style. And with a thin majority, that means small groups of Republican House members can create the kind of gridlock we're seeing in the speaker's race. This dynamic certainly isn't new, but the speaker's situation suggests it may be worse than in recent years. So whoever does become the next speaker of the House could have, even by recent standards, a higher degree of difficulty keeping their own position and holding the Republican coalition together. 
That's a tricky dynamic when it comes to negotiating on politically complex but economically impactful issues, such as raising the debt ceiling and keeping the government funded, two votes that will likely take place after the summer. 
On both counts, some conservatives have in the past been willing to say they will vote against those actions and in some cases have actually followed through. But aside from the debt ceiling situation in 2011, these votes have largely been protests and did not result in key policy changes. That's still the most likely outcome this year. And as listeners of this podcast are aware, we've typically dismissed debt ceiling and shutdown risks as noise that's not worth much investor attention. But we're not ready to say that today. Because while policymakers are likely to find a path to raising the debt ceiling, this negotiation could look and feel a lot more like the one in 2011 where party disagreements appeared intractable, even if they ultimately were not. That could remind investors that the compromise involved contractionary fiscal policy, which could weigh on markets if the U.S. economy is also slowing considerably per our expectations. This is a risk both our Chief Global Economist, Seth Carpenter, and I flagged in the run up to the recent U.S. midterm election. 
Of course, it's only January, and 6 to 9 months is a lifetime in politics. So, we don't think there's anything yet for investors to do but monitor this dynamic carefully. We'll be doing the same and we'll keep you in the loop. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/7co1hSMQVss2XIJdSUmQjI0UNcMyvpoR0VrD6xNL7bMWed, 04 Jan 2023 21:34:46 +0000gtyThe House of Representatives continues its struggle to appoint a new Republican Speaker. What should investors consider as this discord sets the legislative tone for the year? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, January 4th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
The focus in D.C. this week has been on choosing the new speaker of the House of Representatives. Choosing this leader, who largely sets the House's voting and workflow agenda, is a necessary first step to opening a new Congress following an election. This process is usually uneventful, with the party in the majority typically having decided who they'll support long before any formal vote. But this week, something happened, which hasn't in 100 years. The House failed to choose a speaker on the first ballot. As of this recording, we're now three ballots in and the Republican majority has yet to agree on its choice. 
So is this just more DC noise? Or do investors need to be concerned? While it's too early to tell, and there don't appear to be any imminent risks, we think investors should at least take it seriously. The House of Representatives will eventually find a way to choose a speaker, but the Republicans' rare difficulty in doing so suggests it's worth tracking governance risk to the U.S. economic outlook that could manifest later in the year. 
To understand this, we must consider why Republicans have had difficulty choosing a speaker. In short, there's plenty of intraparty disagreement on policy priorities and governance style. And with a thin majority, that means small groups of Republican House members can create the kind of gridlock we're seeing in the speaker's race. This dynamic certainly isn't new, but the speaker's situation suggests it may be worse than in recent years. So whoever does become the next speaker of the House could have, even by recent standards, a higher degree of difficulty keeping their own position and holding the Republican coalition together. 
That's a tricky dynamic when it comes to negotiating on politically complex but economically impactful issues, such as raising the debt ceiling and keeping the government funded, two votes that will likely take place after the summer. 
On both counts, some conservatives have in the past been willing to say they will vote against those actions and in some cases have actually followed through. But aside from the debt ceiling situation in 2011, these votes have largely been protests and did not result in key policy changes. That's still the most likely outcome this year. And as listeners of this podcast are aware, we've typically dismissed debt ceiling and shutdown risks as noise that's not worth much investor attention. But we're not ready to say that today. Because while policymakers are likely to find a path to raising the debt ceiling, this negotiation could look and feel a lot more like the one in 2011 where party disagreements appeared intractable, even if they ultimately were not. That could remind investors that the compromise involved contractionary fiscal policy, which could weigh on markets if the U.S. economy is also slowing considerably per our expectations. This is a risk both our Chief Global Economist, Seth Carpenter, and I flagged in the run up to the recent U.S. midterm election. 
Of course, it's only January, and 6 to 9 months is a lifetime in politics. So, we don't think there's anything yet for investors to do but monitor this dynamic carefully. We'll be doing the same and we'll keep you in the loop. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find...]]>205market-trendsfalse777fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/terence-flynn-the-next-blockbuster-for-pharma--75654827----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Pharma Sector for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the global obesity challenge and some of the key developments we expect in 2023. It's Tuesday, January 3rd, at 4 p.m. in New York. 
If you're like most people, you're probably seeing a lot of post-holiday ads for gym memberships, diet apps and nutrition services. So this seems like a relevant time to provide an update on obesity. A few months ago, we hosted an episode on this show discussing the global obesity epidemic and how it's now reached an inflection point because of new weight management drugs that show a lot of promise and benefits. 
We continue to believe that obesity is the "new hypertension or high blood pressure", and that it looks set to become the next blockbuster pharma category. Obesity has been classified by the American Medical Association, and more recently the European Commission, as a chronic disease, and its treatment is on the cusp of moving into mainstream primary care management. Essentially, the obesity market is where the treatment of high blood pressure was in the mid to late 80's, before it transformed into a $30 Billion market by the end of the 90's. 
One of the main reasons the narrative around obesity is inflecting is because the focus is shifting to the upstream cause, as opposed to the downstream consequences of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Now, given this change in focus, we expect excess weight to become a treatment target. The World Health Organization estimates that about 650 million people are living with obesity, and the associated personal, social and economic costs are significant. Over time, we're expecting about a quarter of obese individuals will engage with physicians, up from about 7% currently. Now, this compares to approximately 80% for high blood pressure and diabetes. Furthermore, well over 300 million of these people could potentially receive a new anti-obesity medicine. 
Looking back historically, previous medicines for obesity had minimal efficacy and were plagued by safety issues, which also contributed to limited reimbursement coverage. In our view, this is all poised to change as the more efficacious GLP-1 drugs are adopted and utilized and the companies begin to generate outcomes data to support the derivative benefits of these drugs beyond weight loss. 
Of course, as with biopharma, there are many de-risking clinical, regulatory and commercial steps in the development of the obesity market. This year, we're most focused on a key phase three outcomes trial called "SELECT", which we expect to read out this summer to conclude that "weight management saves lives". 
Furthermore, we think the innovation wave should continue as companies are working on a next generation of injectable combo drugs that could come to the market later this decade for obesity and Type two diabetes. And beyond the possibility of turning the tide on the obesity epidemic, it's also exciting to see room in the markets for multiple players and investment opportunities in a market that could reach over $50 billion by 2030. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bcwdB87FNNWxh4HIhzgQh0hCRdQWNU1o4zWTxyCQ4L0Tue, 03 Jan 2023 22:44:49 +0000gtyAs new weight management medications are being developed, might the obesity market parallel the likes of hypertension or high blood pressure to become the next blockbuster Pharma category? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Pharma Sector for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the global obesity challenge and some of the key developments we expect in 2023. It's Tuesday, January 3rd, at 4 p.m. in New York. 
If you're like most people, you're probably seeing a lot of post-holiday ads for gym memberships, diet apps and nutrition services. So this seems like a relevant time to provide an update on obesity. A few months ago, we hosted an episode on this show discussing the global obesity epidemic and how it's now reached an inflection point because of new weight management drugs that show a lot of promise and benefits. 
We continue to believe that obesity is the "new hypertension or high blood pressure", and that it looks set to become the next blockbuster pharma category. Obesity has been classified by the American Medical Association, and more recently the European Commission, as a chronic disease, and its treatment is on the cusp of moving into mainstream primary care management. Essentially, the obesity market is where the treatment of high blood pressure was in the mid to late 80's, before it transformed into a $30 Billion market by the end of the 90's. 
One of the main reasons the narrative around obesity is inflecting is because the focus is shifting to the upstream cause, as opposed to the downstream consequences of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Now, given this change in focus, we expect excess weight to become a treatment target. The World Health Organization estimates that about 650 million people are living with obesity, and the associated personal, social and economic costs are significant. Over time, we're expecting about a quarter of obese individuals will engage with physicians, up from about 7% currently. Now, this compares to approximately 80% for high blood pressure and diabetes. Furthermore, well over 300 million of these people could potentially receive a new anti-obesity medicine. 
Looking back historically, previous medicines for obesity had minimal efficacy and were plagued by safety issues, which also contributed to limited reimbursement coverage. In our view, this is all poised to change as the more efficacious GLP-1 drugs are adopted and utilized and the companies begin to generate outcomes data to support the derivative benefits of these drugs beyond weight loss. 
Of course, as with biopharma, there are many de-risking clinical, regulatory and commercial steps in the development of the obesity market. This year, we're most focused on a key phase three outcomes trial called "SELECT", which we expect to read out this summer to conclude that "weight management saves lives". 
Furthermore, we think the innovation wave should continue as companies are working on a next generation of injectable combo drugs that could come to the market later this decade for obesity and Type two diabetes. And beyond the possibility of turning the tide on the obesity epidemic, it's also exciting to see room in the markets for multiple players and investment opportunities in a market that could reach over $50 billion by 2030. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>193market-trendsfalse776fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-2023-global-macro-outlook-a-different-kind-of-year--75654949----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. 
Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. 
Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and year on year increases that we were seeing for a lot of this year. Now, when we think about core inflation, I like to separate things out between goods and services inflation. For goods, the story over the past year and a half has been global supply chains and we know looking at all sorts of data that global supply chains are not fixed yet, but they are getting better. The key exception there that remains to be seen is automobiles, where we have still seen supply chain issues. But by and large, we think consumer goods are going to come down in price and with it pull inflation down overall. I think the key then is what goes on in services and here the story is just different across different economies because it is very domestic. But the key here is if we see the kind of slowing down in economies, especially in developed market economies where monetary policy will be restrictive, we should see less aggregate demand, weaker labor markets and with it lower services inflation. 
Andrew Sheets: How do you think central banks respond to this backdrop? The Fed is going to have to balance what we see is some moderation of inflation and the ECB as well, with obvious concerns that because forecasting inflation was so hard this year and because central banks underestimated inflation, they don't want to back off too soon and usher in maybe more inflationary pressure down the road. So, how do you think central banks will think about that risk balance and managing that? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We have seen some surprises, the upside in terms of commodity market prices, but we've also been surprised at just the persistence of some of the components of inflation. And so central banks are very well advised to be super cautious with what's going on. As a result. What we think is going to happen is a few things. Policy rates are going to go into restrictive territory. We will see economies slowing down and then we think in general. Central banks are going to keep their policy in that restrictive territory basically over the balance of 2023, making sure that that deceleration in the real side of the economy goes along with a continued decline in inflation over the course of next year. If we get that, then that will give them scope at the end of next year to start to think about normalizing policy back down to something a little bit more, more neutral. But they really will be paying lots of attention to make sure that the forecast plays out as anticipated. However, where I want to stress things is in the euro area, for example, where we see a recession already starting about now, we don't think the ECB is going to start to cut rates just because they see the first indications of a recession. All of the indications from the ECB have been that they think some form of recession is probably necessary and they will wait for that to happen. They'll stay in restrictive territory while the economy's in recession to see how inflation evolves over time. 
Andrew Sheets: So I think one of the questions at the top of a lot of people's minds is something you alluded to earlier, this question of whether or not the US sees a recession next year. So why do you think a recession being avoided is a plausible scenario indeed might be more likely than a recession, in contrast maybe to some of that recent history? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. Let's talk about this in a few parts. First, in the U.S. relative to, say, the euro area, most of the slowing that we are seeing now in the economy and that we expect to see over time is coming from monetary policy tightening in the euro area. A lot of the slowing in consumer spending is coming because food prices have gone up, energy prices have gone up and confidence has fallen and so it's an externally imposed constraint on the economy. What that means for the U.S. is because the Fed is causing the slowdown, they've at least got a fighting chance of backing off in time before they cause a recession. So that's one component. I think the other part to be made that's perhaps even more important is the difference between a recession or not at this point is almost semantic. We're looking at growth that's very, very close to zero. And if you're in the equity market, in fact, it's going to feel like a recession, even if it's not technically one for the economy. The U.S. economy is not the S&P 500. And so what does that mean? That means that the parts of the U.S. economy that are likely to be weakest, that are likely to be in contraction, are actually the ones that are most exposed to the equity market and so for the equity market, whether it's a recession or not, I think is a bit of a moot point. So where does that leave us? I think we can avoid a recession. From an economist perspective, I think we can end up with growth that's still positive, but it's not going to feel like we've completely escaped from this whole episode unscathed. 
Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. So I maybe want to close with talking about risks around that outlook. I want to talk about maybe one risk to the upside and then two risks that might be more serious to the downside. So, one of the risks to the upside that investors are talking about is whether or not China relaxes zero COVID policy, while two risks to the downside would be that quantitative tightening continues to have much greater negative effects on market liquidity and market functioning. We're going through a much faster shrinking of central bank balance sheets than you know, at any point in history, and then also that maybe a divided US government leads to a more challenging fiscal situation next year. So, you know, as you think about these risks that you hear investors citing China, quantitative tightening, divided government, how do you think about those? How do you think they might change the base case view? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think there are two-way risks as usual. I do thi]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/C7iSkbS18f4u3tmuphu04TYAaqFTFWJBOWXepP5JATIFri, 30 Dec 2022 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on November 15th, 2022: As we look ahead to 2023, we see a divergence away from the trends of 2022 in key areas across growth, inflation, and central bank policy. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. 
Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. 
Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not...]]>692false775fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-global-thematics-what-s-behind-india-s-growth-story--75654825----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Chief India Equity Strategist. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss India's growth story over the next decade and some key investment themes that global investors should pay attention to. It's Wednesday, December 7th, at 7 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: Our listeners are likely well aware that over the past 25 years or so, India's growth has lagged only China's among the world's largest economies. And here at Morgan Stanley, we believe India will continue to outperform. In fact, India is now entering a new era of growth, which creates a once in a generation shift in opportunities for investors. We estimate that India's GDP is poised to more than doubled to $7.5 trillion by 2031, and its market capitalization could grow 11% annually to reach $10 trillion. Essentially, we expect India to drive about a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. So Ridham, what in your view are the main drivers behind India's growth story? 
Ridham Desai: Mike, the full global trends of demographics, digitalization, decarbonization and deglobalization that we keep discussing about in our research files are favoring this new India. The new India, we argue, is benefiting from three idiosyncratic factors. The first one is India is likely to increase its share of global exports thanks to a surge in offshoring. Second, India is pursuing a distinct model for digitalization of its economy, supported by a public utility called India Stack. Operating at population scale India stack is a transaction led, low cost, high volume, small ticket size system with embedded lending. The digital revolution has already changed the way India handles documents, the way it invests and makes payments and it is now set to transform the way it lends, spends and ensures. With private credit to GDP at just 57%, a credit boom is in the offing, in our view. The third driver is India's energy consumption and energy sources, which are changing in a disruptive fashion with broad economic benefits. On the back of greater access to energy, we estimate per capita energy consumption is likely to rise by 60% to 1450 watts per day over the next decade. And with two thirds of this incremental supply coming from renewable sources, well in short, with this self-help story in play as you said, India could continue to outperform the world on GDP growth in the coming decade. 
Michael Zezas: So let's dig into some of the specifics here. You mentioned the big surge in offshoring, which has resulted in India's becoming "the office of the world". Will this continue long term? 
Ridham Desai: Yes, Mike. In the post-COVID environment, global CEOs appear more comfortable with work from home and also work from India. So the emergence of distributed delivery models, along with tighter labor markets globally, has accelerated outsourcing to India. In fact, the number of global in-house captive centers that opened in India over the past two years was double of that in the prior four years. During the pandemic years, the number of people employed in this industry in India rose by almost 800,000 to 5.1 million. And India's share in global services trade rose by 60 basis points to 4.3%. In the coming decade we think the number of people employed in India for jobs outside the country is likely to at least double to 11 million. And we think that global spending on outsourcing could rise from its current level of U.S. dollar 180 billion per year to about 1/2 trillion U.S. dollars by 2030. 
Michael Zezas: In addition to being "the office of the world", you see India as a "factory to the world" with manufacturing going up. What evidence are we seeing of India benefiting from China moving away from the global supply chain and shifting business activity away from China? 
Ridham Desai: We are anticipating a wave of manufacturing CapEx owing to government policies aimed at lifting corporate profits share and GDP via tax cuts, and some hard dollars on the table for investing in specific sectors. Multinationals are more optimistic than ever before about investing in India, and that's evident in the all-time high that our MNC sentiment index shows, and the government is encouraging investments by building both infrastructure as well as supplying land for factories. The trends outlined in Morgan Stanley's Multipolar World Thesis, a document that you have co authored, Mike, and the cheap labor that India is now able to offer relative to, say, China are adding to the mix. Indeed, the fact is that India is likely to also be a big consumption market, a hard thing for a lot of multinational corporations to ignore. We are forecasting India's per capita GDP to rise from $2,300 USD to about $5,200 USD in the next ten years. This implies that India's income pyramid offers a wide breadth of consumption, with the number of rich households likely to quintuple from 5 million to 25 million, and the middle class households more than doubling to 165 million. So all these are essentially aiding the story on India becoming a factory to the world. And the evidence is in the sharp jump in FDI that we are already seeing, the daily news flows of how companies are ramping up manufacturing in India, to both gain access to its market and to export to other countries. 
Michael Zezas: So given all these macro trends we've been discussing, what sectors within India's economy do you think are particularly well-positioned to benefit both short term and longer term? 
Ridham Desai: Three sectors are worth highlighting here. The coming credit boom favors financial services firms. The rise in per capita income and discretionary income implies that consumer discretionary companies should do well. And finally, a large CapEx cycle could lead to a boom for industrial businesses. So financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. 
Michael Zezas: Finally, what are the biggest potential impediments and risks to India's success? 
Ridham Desai: Of course, things could always go wrong. We would include a prolonged global recession or sluggish growth, adverse outcomes in geopolitics and/or domestic politics. India goes to the polls in 2024, so another election for the country to decide upon. Policy errors, shortages of skilled labor, I would note that as a key risk. And steep rises in energy and commodity prices in the interim as India tries to change its energy sources. So all these are risk factors that investors should pay attention to. That said, we think that the pieces are in place to make this India's decade.
Michael Zezas: Ridham, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ridham Desai: Great speaking with you, Mike. 
Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ddvGsZZgqY5NrtR7tdSv2goG6ioVCR1SXRONuRQ5QxIThu, 29 Dec 2022 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on December 7th, 2022: As India enters a new era of growth, investors will want to know what’s driving this growth and how it may create once-in-a-generation opportunities. Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Chief India Equity Strategist. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss India's growth story over the next decade and some key investment themes that global investors should pay attention to. It's Wednesday, December 7th, at 7 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: Our listeners are likely well aware that over the past 25 years or so, India's growth has lagged only China's among the world's largest economies. And here at Morgan Stanley, we believe India will continue to outperform. In fact, India is now entering a new era of growth, which creates a once in a generation shift in opportunities for investors. We estimate that India's GDP is poised to more than doubled to $7.5 trillion by 2031, and its market capitalization could grow 11% annually to reach $10 trillion. Essentially, we expect India to drive about a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. So Ridham, what in your view are the main drivers behind India's growth story? 
Ridham Desai: Mike, the full global trends of demographics, digitalization, decarbonization and deglobalization that we keep discussing about in our research files are favoring this new India. The new India, we argue, is benefiting from three idiosyncratic factors. The first one is India is likely to increase its share of global exports thanks to a surge in offshoring. Second, India is pursuing a distinct model for digitalization of its economy, supported by a public utility called India Stack. Operating at population scale India stack is a transaction led, low cost, high volume, small ticket size system with embedded lending. The digital revolution has already changed the way India handles documents, the way it invests and makes payments and it is now set to transform the way it lends, spends and ensures. With private credit to GDP at just 57%, a credit boom is in the offing, in our view. The third driver is India's energy consumption and energy sources, which are changing in a disruptive fashion with broad economic benefits. On the back of greater access to energy, we estimate per capita energy consumption is likely to rise by 60% to 1450 watts per day over the next decade. And with two thirds of this incremental supply coming from renewable sources, well in short, with this self-help story in play as you said, India could continue to outperform the world on GDP growth in the coming decade. 
Michael Zezas: So let's dig into some of the specifics here. You mentioned the big surge in offshoring, which has resulted in India's becoming "the office of the world". Will this continue long term? 
Ridham Desai: Yes, Mike. In the post-COVID environment, global CEOs appear more comfortable with work from home and also work from India. So the emergence of distributed delivery models, along with tighter labor markets globally, has accelerated outsourcing to India. In fact, the number of global in-house captive centers that opened in India over the past two years was double of that in the prior four years. During the pandemic years, the number of people employed in this industry in India rose by almost 800,000 to 5.1 million. And India's share in global services trade rose by 60 basis points to 4.3%. In the coming decade we think the number of people employed in India for jobs outside the country is likely to at least double to 11 million. And we think that global spending on outsourcing could rise from its...]]>452false774fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-ellen-zentner-is-the-u-s-headed-for-a-soft-landing--75654982----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, December 2nd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Let's start with the Fed and the role higher interest rates play in the overall growth outlook. The Fed has delivered the fastest pace of policy tightening on record and now feels comfortable to begin slowing the pace of interest rate increases. We expect it to step down the pace to 50 basis points at its meeting later this month and then deliver a final hike in January to a peak rate of between 4.5 and 4.75%. But in order to keep inflation on a downward trajectory, the Fed will likely keep rates at that peak level for most of next year. This shift to a more cautious stance from the Fed we think will help the U.S. economy narrowly miss recession in 2023. And we think only in the back half of 2024 will the pace of growth pick back up as the Fed gradually reduces the policy rate back toward neutral, which is around 2.5%. Altogether, we forecast 2023 GDP growth of just 0.3% before rebounding modestly to 1.4% in 2024. 
One bright spot in the outlook is that inflation seems to have reached a turning point. Mounting evidence points to a slowing in housing prices and rents, though they continue to drive above target inflation. Core goods inflation should turn to disinflation as supply chains normalize and demand shifts to services and away from goods. Used vehicle prices are a big contributor to lower overall inflation in our forecast, as our motor vehicle analysts believe that used car prices could be down as much as 10 to 20% next year. So overall, we expect core PCE - or personal consumption expenditures inflation - to slow from 5% this year, to 2.9% in 2023, and further to 2.4% in 2024. 
Throughout 2022, rising interest rates have raised borrowing costs, which has weighed on consumption. And we expect that to continue into 2023 as the cumulative effects of past policy hikes continue to flow through to households. On the income side, we expect a rebound in real disposable income growth in 23, because inflation pressures abate while job growth continues to be positive. So if I put those together, slower consumption and rising incomes should lift the savings rate from 3.2% this year, to 5.1% in 2023, and 6.2% in 2024. So households will start to rebuild that cushion. 
Now we're in the midst of a sharp housing correction, and we expect a double digit decline in residential investment to continue. But we don't expect a commensurate drop in home valuations. Our housing strategies predict just a 4% drop in national home prices in 2023, and further price declines are likely in the years ahead, but that's a much milder drop in home valuations compared with the magnitude of the drop off in housing activity. So we think that residential wealth, real estate wealth will continue to be a strong backdrop for household balance sheets. Now going forward, mortgage rates will start to fall again after reaching these peaks around 7%. And with healthy job gains, and that increase in real disposable income growth affordability should begin to ease somewhat, we think starting in the back half of 2024. 
Turning to the labor market, while signs of falling inflation is important to the Fed, so are signs that the labor market is softening and we expect softer demand for labor and further labor supply gains to create the slack in the labor market the Fed is looking for. So we expect job growth will likely fall below the replacement rate by the second quarter of 2023, pushing up the unemployment rate to 4.3% by the end of next year and 4.4% by the end of 2024. 
In sum, we think the U.S. economy is at a turning point, but not a turning point toward recession, a turning point toward what is likely to prove to be two sluggish years of growth in the economy. The Fed's hiking cycle is working as it should. The labor market is softening. The inflation rate is coming down. And we think that puts the U.S. economy on track for a soft landing in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/CrGkyIzdRv29u_X0R66ZOok3VV57svmYkWD1y6lTJAEWed, 28 Dec 2022 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on December 2nd, 2022: While 2022 saw the fastest pace of policy tightening on record, has the Fed’s hiking cycle properly set the U.S. economy up for a soft landing in 2023? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, December 2nd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Let's start with the Fed and the role higher interest rates play in the overall growth outlook. The Fed has delivered the fastest pace of policy tightening on record and now feels comfortable to begin slowing the pace of interest rate increases. We expect it to step down the pace to 50 basis points at its meeting later this month and then deliver a final hike in January to a peak rate of between 4.5 and 4.75%. But in order to keep inflation on a downward trajectory, the Fed will likely keep rates at that peak level for most of next year. This shift to a more cautious stance from the Fed we think will help the U.S. economy narrowly miss recession in 2023. And we think only in the back half of 2024 will the pace of growth pick back up as the Fed gradually reduces the policy rate back toward neutral, which is around 2.5%. Altogether, we forecast 2023 GDP growth of just 0.3% before rebounding modestly to 1.4% in 2024. 
One bright spot in the outlook is that inflation seems to have reached a turning point. Mounting evidence points to a slowing in housing prices and rents, though they continue to drive above target inflation. Core goods inflation should turn to disinflation as supply chains normalize and demand shifts to services and away from goods. Used vehicle prices are a big contributor to lower overall inflation in our forecast, as our motor vehicle analysts believe that used car prices could be down as much as 10 to 20% next year. So overall, we expect core PCE - or personal consumption expenditures inflation - to slow from 5% this year, to 2.9% in 2023, and further to 2.4% in 2024. 
Throughout 2022, rising interest rates have raised borrowing costs, which has weighed on consumption. And we expect that to continue into 2023 as the cumulative effects of past policy hikes continue to flow through to households. On the income side, we expect a rebound in real disposable income growth in 23, because inflation pressures abate while job growth continues to be positive. So if I put those together, slower consumption and rising incomes should lift the savings rate from 3.2% this year, to 5.1% in 2023, and 6.2% in 2024. So households will start to rebuild that cushion. 
Now we're in the midst of a sharp housing correction, and we expect a double digit decline in residential investment to continue. But we don't expect a commensurate drop in home valuations. Our housing strategies predict just a 4% drop in national home prices in 2023, and further price declines are likely in the years ahead, but that's a much milder drop in home valuations compared with the magnitude of the drop off in housing activity. So we think that residential wealth, real estate wealth will continue to be a strong backdrop for household balance sheets. Now going forward, mortgage rates will start to fall again after reaching these peaks around 7%. And with healthy job gains, and that increase in real disposable income growth affordability should begin to ease somewhat, we think starting in the back half of 2024. 
Turning to the labor market, while signs of falling inflation is important to the Fed, so are signs that the labor market is softening and we expect softer demand for labor and further labor supply gains to create the slack in the labor market the Fed is looking for. So we expect job growth will likely fall below the replacement rate by the second quarter of 2023, pushing up the unemployment rate to 4.3% by the end of next year and 4.4% by...]]>294false773fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-u-s-outlook-what-are-the-key-debates-for-2023--75654847----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the key debates underpinning Morgan Stanley's 2023 year ahead outlook. It's Tuesday, November 22nd at 3 p.m. in London. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, within Morgan Stanley research we collaborate a lot, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say that when we sit down to write our year ahead outlooks for strategy and economics, it's probably one of the most collaborative exercises that we do. Part of that is some pretty intense debate. So that's what I was hoping to talk to you about, kind of give listeners some insight into what are the types of things that Morgan Stanley research analysts were debating when thinking about 2023 and how we resolved some of those issues. And I think maybe the best place to start is just this question of inflation, right? Inflation was the big surprise of 2022. We underestimated it. A lot of forecasters underestimated inflation. As we look into 2023, Morgan Stanley's economists are forecasting inflation to come down. So, how did that debate go? Why do we have conviction that this time inflation really is going to moderate? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. And it is absolutely the case that challenging each other's view is critically important and not a surprise that we spent a lot of time on inflation. Given that we have many upside surprises to inflation throughout the year, you know, there was understandable skepticism about the forecasts that US inflation will show a steady decline over the course of 2023. Our economists, clearly, acknowledge the uncertainty associated with it, but they took some comfort in a few things. One in the base effect. Two, normalizing supply chains and weaker labor markets. They also saw that in certain goods, certain core goods, such as autos, for example, they expect to see deflation, not just disinflation. And there's also a factor of medical services, which has a reset in prices that will exert a steady drag on the core inflation. So all said and done, there is significant uncertainty, but there are still clearly some reasons why our economists expect to see inflation decline. 
Andrew Sheets: I think that's so interesting because even after we published this outlook, it's fair to say that a lot of investor skepticism has related to this idea that inflation can moderate. And another area where I think when we've been talking to investors there's some disagreement is around the growth outlook, especially for the U.S. economy. You know, we're forecasting what I would describe as a soft landing, i.e., U.S. growth slows but you do not see a U.S. recession next year. A lot of investors do expect a U.S. recession. So why did we take a different view? Why do we think the U.S. economy can kind of avoid this recessionary path? 
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key point here is the U.S. economy slows down quite substantially. It barely skirts recession. So a 0.5% growth expectation for 2023 for the U.S. is not exactly robust growth. I think basically our economists think that the tighter monetary policy will stop tightening incrementally early in 2023, and that will play out in slowing the economy substantially without outright jumping into contraction mode. Although we all agree that there is a considerable uncertainty associated with it. 
Andrew Sheets: We've talked a bit about U.S. inflation and U.S. growth. These things have major implications for the U.S. dollar. Again, I think an area that was subject to a lot of debate was our forecast that the dollar's going to decline next year. And so, given that the U.S. is still this outperforming economy, that's avoiding a recession, given that it still offers higher interest rates, why don't we think the dollar does well in that environment? 
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key to this out-of-consensus view on dollar is that the decline in inflation, as our economists forecast and as we just discussed, we think will limit the potential for US rates going much higher. And furthermore, given that the monetary policy is in restrictive territory, we think there is a greater chance that we will see more downside surprises in individual data points. And while this is happening, the outlook for China, right, even though it is still challenging, appears to be shifting in the positive direction. There's a decent chance that the authorities will take steps towards ending the the "zero covid" policy. This would help bring greater balance to the global economy, and that should put less upward pressure on the dollar. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, another question that generated quite a bit of debate is that next year you continue to see quantitative tightening from the Fed, the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is shrinking, it's owning fewer bonds and yet we're also forecasting U.S. bond yields to fall. So how do you square those things? How do you think it's consistent to be forecasting lower bond yields and yet less Federal Reserve support for the bond market? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, there are two important points here. The first one is that when QT ends, really, history is really not much of a guide here. You know, we really have one data point when QT ended, before rate cuts started happening. And the thinking behind our thoughts on QT is that the Fed sees these two policy tools as being independent. And stopping QT depends really on the money market conditions and the bank demand for reserves. And therefore, QT could end either before or after December 2023 when we anticipate normalization of interest rate policy to come into effect. So, the second point is that why we think that the interest rates are going to rally is really related to the expectation of significant slowing in the economic growth. Even though the U.S. economy does not go into a contraction mode, we expect a significant slowing of the U.S. economy to 0.5% GDP growth and the economy growing below potential even into 2024 as the effects of the tighter monetary policy conditions begin to play out in the real economy. So we think the rally in U.S. rates, especially in the longer end, is really a function of this. So I think we need to keep the two policy tools a bit separate as we think about this. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, I wanted us to put our credit hats on and talk a little bit about our expectations for default rates. And I think here, ironically, when we've been talking to investors, there's been disagreement on both sides. So, you know, we're forecasting a default rate for the U.S. of around 4-4.5% Next year for high yield, which is about the historical average. And you get some investors who say, that expectation is too cautious and other investors who say, that's too benign. So why is 4-4.5% reasonable and why is it reasonable in the context of those, you know, investor concerns? 
Vishy Tirupattur: It's interesting, Andrew, when you expect that some some people will think that the our expectations are too tight and others think that they are too wide and we end up somewhat in the middle of the pack, I think we are getting it right. The key point here is that the the maturity walls really are pretty modest over the next two years. The fundamentals, in terms of coverage ratios, leverage ratio, cash on balance sheets, are certainly pretty decent, which will mitigate near-term default pressures. However, as the economy begins to slow down and the earnings pressures come into play, we will expect to see the market beginning to think about maturity walls in 2025 onwards. All that means is that we will see defaults rise from the extremely low levels that we are at right now to long-term average levels without spiking to the kinds of default rates we have seen in previous economic slowdowns or recessions. 
Andrew Sheets: You know, we've had this historic rise in mortgage rates and we're forecasting a really dramatic drop in housing activity. And yet we're not forecasting nearly as a dramatic drop in U.S. home prices. So Vishy, I wanted to put this question to you in two ways. First, how do we justify a much larger decrease in housing activity relative to a more modest decrease in housing prices? And then second, would you consider our housing forecast for prices bullish or bearish relative to the consensus? 
Vishy Tirupattur: So, Andrew, the first point is pretty straightforward. You know, as mortgage rates have risen in response to higher interest rates, affordability metrics have dramatically deteriorated. The consequence of this, we think, is a very significant slowing of housing activity in terms of new home sales, housing starts, housing permits, building permits and so on. The decline in those housing activity metrics would be comparable to the kind of decline we saw after the financial crisis. However, to get the prices down anywhere close to the levels we saw in the wake of the financial crisis, we need to see forced sales. Forced sales through foreclosures, etc. that we simply don't expect to see happen in the next few years because the mortgage lending standards after the financial crisis had been significantly tighter. There exists a substantial equity in many homes today. And there's also this lock-in effect, where a large number of current mortgage holders h]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/QqX25eggzeN395L6ODRh7MwUzwUpduu57bCKhkt_vRkTue, 27 Dec 2022 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on November 22nd, 2022: The year ahead outlook is a process of collaboration between strategists and economists from across the firm, so what were analysts debating when thinking about 2023, and how were those debates resolved? Chief...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the key debates underpinning Morgan Stanley's 2023 year ahead outlook. It's Tuesday, November 22nd at 3 p.m. in London. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, within Morgan Stanley research we collaborate a lot, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say that when we sit down to write our year ahead outlooks for strategy and economics, it's probably one of the most collaborative exercises that we do. Part of that is some pretty intense debate. So that's what I was hoping to talk to you about, kind of give listeners some insight into what are the types of things that Morgan Stanley research analysts were debating when thinking about 2023 and how we resolved some of those issues. And I think maybe the best place to start is just this question of inflation, right? Inflation was the big surprise of 2022. We underestimated it. A lot of forecasters underestimated inflation. As we look into 2023, Morgan Stanley's economists are forecasting inflation to come down. So, how did that debate go? Why do we have conviction that this time inflation really is going to moderate? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. And it is absolutely the case that challenging each other's view is critically important and not a surprise that we spent a lot of time on inflation. Given that we have many upside surprises to inflation throughout the year, you know, there was understandable skepticism about the forecasts that US inflation will show a steady decline over the course of 2023. Our economists, clearly, acknowledge the uncertainty associated with it, but they took some comfort in a few things. One in the base effect. Two, normalizing supply chains and weaker labor markets. They also saw that in certain goods, certain core goods, such as autos, for example, they expect to see deflation, not just disinflation. And there's also a factor of medical services, which has a reset in prices that will exert a steady drag on the core inflation. So all said and done, there is significant uncertainty, but there are still clearly some reasons why our economists expect to see inflation decline. 
Andrew Sheets: I think that's so interesting because even after we published this outlook, it's fair to say that a lot of investor skepticism has related to this idea that inflation can moderate. And another area where I think when we've been talking to investors there's some disagreement is around the growth outlook, especially for the U.S. economy. You know, we're forecasting what I would describe as a soft landing, i.e., U.S. growth slows but you do not see a U.S. recession next year. A lot of investors do expect a U.S. recession. So why did we take a different view? Why do we think the U.S. economy can kind of avoid this recessionary path? 
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key point here is the U.S. economy slows down quite substantially. It barely skirts recession. So a 0.5% growth expectation for 2023 for the U.S. is not exactly robust growth. I think basically our economists think that the tighter monetary policy will stop tightening incrementally early in 2023, and that will play out in slowing the economy substantially without outright jumping into contraction mode. Although we all agree that there is a considerable uncertainty...]]>618false772fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/end-of-year-encore-u-s-housing-how-far-will-the-market-fall--75654980----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our year ahead outlook for the U.S. housing market for 2023. It's Thursday, November 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: So Jim, it's outlook season. And when we think about the outlook for the housing market, we’re not just looking in 2023, people live in their houses for their whole lives.
Jim Egan: Exactly. We are contemplating what's going to happen to the housing market, not just in 23, but beyond in this year's version of the outlook. But just to remind the listeners, we have talked about this on this podcast in the past, but our view for 2023 hasn't changed all that much. What we think we're going to see is a bifurcation narrative in the housing market between activity, so home sales and housing starts, and home prices. The biggest driver of that bifurcation, affordability. Because of the increase in prices, because of the incredible increase in mortgage rates that we've seen this year, affordability has been deteriorating faster than we've ever seen it. That's going to bring sales down. But the affordability for current homeowners really hasn't changed all that much. We're talking about deterioration for first time homebuyers, for prospective homebuyers. Current homeowners in a lot of instances have locked in very low 30 year fixed rate mortgages. We think they're just incentivized to keep their homes off the market, they're locked into their current mortgage, if you will. That keeps supply down, that also means they're not buying a home on the follow, so it means that sales fall even faster. Sales have outpaced the drop during the great financial crisis. We think that continues through the middle of next year. We think sales ultimately fall 11% next year from an already double digit decrease in 2022 on a year over year basis. But we do think home prices are more protected. We think they only fall 4% year over year next year, but when we look out to 2024, it's that same affordability metric that we really want to be focused on. And, home prices plays a role, but so do mortgage rates. Jay, how are we thinking about the path for mortgage rates into 2024? 
Jay Bacow: Right. So obviously the biggest driver of mortgage rates are first where Treasury rates are and then the risk premium between Treasury rates and mortgages. The drive for Treasury rates, among other things, is expectations for Fed policy. And our economists are expecting the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points in every single meeting in 2024, bringing the Fed rate 200 basis points lower. When you overlay the fact that the yield curve is inverted and our interest rate strategists are expecting the ten year note to fall further in 2023, and risk premia on mortgages is already pretty wide and we think that spread can narrow. We think the mortgage rate to the homeowner can go from a peak of a little over 7% this year to perhaps below 6% by 2024. Jim, that should help affordability right, at least on the margins. 
Jim Egan: It should. And that is already playing a role in our sales forecasts and our price forecasts. I mentioned that sales are falling faster than they did during the great financial crisis. We think that that pace of change really inflects in the second half of next year. Not that home sales will increase, we think they'll still fall, they're just going to fall on a more mild or more modest pace. Home prices, the trajectory there also could potentially be more protected in this improved affordability environment because I don't get the sense that inventories are really going to increase with that drop in mortgage rates. 
Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in America right now, it's not uniformly distributed. The average mortgage rate is 3.5%, but right now when we think how many homeowners have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance, which is generally the minimum threshold, it rounds to 0.0%. If mortgage rates go down to 4%, about 2.5 points below where they are right now, we're still only at about 10% of the universe has incentive to refinance. So while rates coming down will help, you're not going to get a flood of supply. 
Jim Egan: We think that’s important when it comes to just how far home prices can fall here. The lock in effect will still be very prevalent. And we do think that that continues to support home prices, even if they are falling on a year over year basis as we look out beyond 2023 into 2024 and further than that. Now, the biggest pushback we get to this outlook when we talk to market participants is that we're too constructive. People think that home prices can fall further, they think that home prices can fall faster. And one of the reasons that tends to come up in these conversations is some anchoring to the great financial crisis. Home prices fell about 30% from peak to trough, but we think it's important to note that that took over five years to go from that peak to that trough. In this cycle home prices peaked in June 2022, so December of next year is only 18 months forward. The fastest home prices ever fell, or the furthest they ever fell over a 12 month period, 12.7% during the great financial crisis. And that took a lot of distress, forced sellers, defaults and foreclosures to get to that -12.7%. We think that without that distress, because of how robust lending standards have been, the down 4% is a lot more realistic for what we could be over the course of next year. Going further out the narrative that we'll hear pretty frequently is, well, home prices climbed 40% during the pandemic, they can reverse out the entirety of that 40%. And we think that that relies on kind of a faulty premise that in the absence of COVID, if we never had to deal with this pandemic for the past roughly three years, that home prices would have just been flat. If we had this conversation in 2019, we were talking about a lot of demand for shelter, we were talking about a lack of supply of shelter. Not clearly the imbalance that we saw in the aftermath of the pandemic, but those ingredients were still in place for home prices to climb. If we pull trend home price growth from 2015 to 2019, forward to the end of 2023, and compare that to where we expect home prices to be with the decrease that we're already forecasting, the gap between home prices and where that trend price growth implies they should have been, 9%. Till the end of 2024 that gap is only 5%. While home prices can certainly overcorrect to the other side of that trend line, we think that the lack of supply that we're talking about because of the lock in effect, we think that the lack of defaults and foreclosures because of how robust lending standards have been, we do think that that leaves home prices much more protected, doesn't allow for those very big year over year decreases. And we think peak to trough is a lot more control probably in the mid-teens in this cycle. 
Jay Bacow: So when we think about the outlook for the U.S. housing market in 2023 and beyond, home sale activity is going to fall. Home prices will come down some, but are protected from the types of falls that we saw during the great financial crisis by the lock in effect and the better outlook for the credit standards in the U.S. housing market now than they were beforehand. 
Jay Bacow: Jim, always greatv talking to you. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/RNhzE0Xprb_qOhDmxsoA3gRS7Z8P5f9XlK6ZTRMAiRkFri, 23 Dec 2022 18:00:00 +0000gtyOriginal Release on November 17th, 2022: With risks to both home sales and home prices continuing to challenge the housing market, investors will want to know what is keeping the U.S. housing market from a sharp fall mirroring the great financial...----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our year ahead outlook for the U.S. housing market for 2023. It's Thursday, November 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: So Jim, it's outlook season. And when we think about the outlook for the housing market, we’re not just looking in 2023, people live in their houses for their whole lives.
Jim Egan: Exactly. We are contemplating what's going to happen to the housing market, not just in 23, but beyond in this year's version of the outlook. But just to remind the listeners, we have talked about this on this podcast in the past, but our view for 2023 hasn't changed all that much. What we think we're going to see is a bifurcation narrative in the housing market between activity, so home sales and housing starts, and home prices. The biggest driver of that bifurcation, affordability. Because of the increase in prices, because of the incredible increase in mortgage rates that we've seen this year, affordability has been deteriorating faster than we've ever seen it. That's going to bring sales down. But the affordability for current homeowners really hasn't changed all that much. We're talking about deterioration for first time homebuyers, for prospective homebuyers. Current homeowners in a lot of instances have locked in very low 30 year fixed rate mortgages. We think they're just incentivized to keep their homes off the market, they're locked into their current mortgage, if you will. That keeps supply down, that also means they're not buying a home on the follow, so it means that sales fall even faster. Sales have outpaced the drop during the great financial crisis. We think that continues through the middle of next year. We think sales ultimately fall 11% next year from an already double digit decrease in 2022 on a year over year basis. But we do think home prices are more protected. We think they only fall 4% year over year next year, but when we look out to 2024, it's that same affordability metric that we really want to be focused on. And, home prices plays a role, but so do mortgage rates. Jay, how are we thinking about the path for mortgage rates into 2024? 
Jay Bacow: Right. So obviously the biggest driver of mortgage rates are first where Treasury rates are and then the risk premium between Treasury rates and mortgages. The drive for Treasury rates, among other things, is expectations for Fed policy. And our economists are expecting the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points in every single meeting in 2024, bringing the Fed rate 200 basis points lower. When you overlay the fact that the yield curve is inverted and our interest rate strategists are expecting the ten year note to fall further in 2023, and risk premia on mortgages is already pretty wide and we think that spread can narrow. We think the mortgage rate to the homeowner can go from a peak of a little over 7% this year to perhaps below 6% by 2024. Jim, that should help affordability right, at least on the margins. 
Jim Egan: It should. And that is already playing a role in our sales forecasts and our price forecasts. I mentioned that sales are falling faster than they did during the great financial crisis. We think that that pace of change really inflects in the second half of next year. Not that home sales will increase, we think they'll still fall, they're just going to fall on a more...]]>446false771fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-which-economic-indicators-are-the-most-useful--75654959----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, December 22nd at 2 p.m. in London. 
At the heart of investment strategy is trying to determine what the global economy will look like and what that could mean to markets. But this question has a catch. Market prices often move well ahead of the economic data, partly because markets are anticipatory and partly because it takes time to collect that economic data, creating lags. When thinking about all the economic indicators that an investor can look at, a consistent question is which of these are most and least useful in divining the future? 
One early indicator we think has relatively powerful forecasting properties is the yield curve, specifically the difference between short term and long term government borrowing costs. These differences can tell us quite a bit about what the bond market thinks the economy and monetary policy is going to do in the future, and can move before broader market pricing. One example of this, as we discussed on the program last week, is that an inverted yield curve like we see today tends to mean that the end of Fed rate hikes are less helpful to global stock markets than they would be otherwise. 
But at the other end of the spectrum is data on the labor market, which tends to be much more lagging. At first glance, that seems odd. After all, jobs and wages are very important to the economy, why aren't they more effective in forecasting cross-asset returns? 
But drill deeper and we think the logic becomes a little bit more clear. As the economy initially weakens, most businesses try to hang on to their workers for as long as possible, since firing people is expensive and disruptive. As such, labor markets often respond later as growth begins to slow down. And the reverse is also true, coming out of a recession corporate confidence is quite low, making companies hesitant to add new workers even as conditions are recovering. Indeed, with hindsight, one of the ironies of market strategy is it's often been best to sell stocks when the labor market is at its strongest, and buy them when the labor market is weakest. 
And then there's wages. Wage growth is currently quite high, and there's significant concern that high wage growth will lead to excess inflation, forcing the Federal Reserve to keep raising interest rates aggressively. While that's possible, history actually points in a different direction. In 2001, 2007, and 2019, the peak in U.S. wage growth occurred about the same time that the Federal Reserve was starting to cut interest rates. In other words, by the time that wage growth on a year over year basis hit its zenith, other parts of the economy were already showing signs of slowing, driving a shift towards easier central bank policy. 
Investors face a host of economic indicators to follow. Among all of these, we think the yield curve is one of the most useful leading indicators, and labor market data is often some of the most lagging. 
Happy holidays from all of us here at Thoughts on the Market. We'll be back in the new year with more new episodes. And thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/MgkbvgfdlOBifkbMorzgGXjzoigH2JFjGKAbXl6diTIThu, 22 Dec 2022 18:05:14 +0000gtyWhen attempting to determine what the global economy looks like, some economic indicators at an investors disposal may be more useful, while others lag behind. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, December 22nd at 2 p.m. in London. 
At the heart of investment strategy is trying to determine what the global economy will look like and what that could mean to markets. But this question has a catch. Market prices often move well ahead of the economic data, partly because markets are anticipatory and partly because it takes time to collect that economic data, creating lags. When thinking about all the economic indicators that an investor can look at, a consistent question is which of these are most and least useful in divining the future? 
One early indicator we think has relatively powerful forecasting properties is the yield curve, specifically the difference between short term and long term government borrowing costs. These differences can tell us quite a bit about what the bond market thinks the economy and monetary policy is going to do in the future, and can move before broader market pricing. One example of this, as we discussed on the program last week, is that an inverted yield curve like we see today tends to mean that the end of Fed rate hikes are less helpful to global stock markets than they would be otherwise. 
But at the other end of the spectrum is data on the labor market, which tends to be much more lagging. At first glance, that seems odd. After all, jobs and wages are very important to the economy, why aren't they more effective in forecasting cross-asset returns? 
But drill deeper and we think the logic becomes a little bit more clear. As the economy initially weakens, most businesses try to hang on to their workers for as long as possible, since firing people is expensive and disruptive. As such, labor markets often respond later as growth begins to slow down. And the reverse is also true, coming out of a recession corporate confidence is quite low, making companies hesitant to add new workers even as conditions are recovering. Indeed, with hindsight, one of the ironies of market strategy is it's often been best to sell stocks when the labor market is at its strongest, and buy them when the labor market is weakest. 
And then there's wages. Wage growth is currently quite high, and there's significant concern that high wage growth will lead to excess inflation, forcing the Federal Reserve to keep raising interest rates aggressively. While that's possible, history actually points in a different direction. In 2001, 2007, and 2019, the peak in U.S. wage growth occurred about the same time that the Federal Reserve was starting to cut interest rates. In other words, by the time that wage growth on a year over year basis hit its zenith, other parts of the economy were already showing signs of slowing, driving a shift towards easier central bank policy. 
Investors face a host of economic indicators to follow. Among all of these, we think the yield curve is one of the most useful leading indicators, and labor market data is often some of the most lagging. 
Happy holidays from all of us here at Thoughts on the Market. We'll be back in the new year with more new episodes. And thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>194market-trendsfalse770fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-legislation-to-watch-in-2023--75654963----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, December 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. 
As Congress wraps up its business for the year, it's a good time to level-set on what investors should watch out for out of D.C. in 2023. While it's not an election year, and a divided government means legislative achievements will be tough to come by, it's always a good idea to be prepared. So here's three things to watch for. 
First, cryptocurrency regulations. Turmoil in the crypto market seems to have accelerated lawmaker interest in tackling the thorny issue. And even if Democrats and Republicans can't come together on regulation, the Biden administration has been studying how regulators could use existing laws to roll out new rules. For investors, the most tangible takeaway from our colleagues is that crypto regulation could support large cap financials by evening the regulatory playing field with the crypto firms. 
Second, watch for permitting reform on oil and gas exploration. While a late year effort led by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin didn't muster enough votes for passage. It's possible Republicans may be willing to revisit the issue in 2023 when they control the House of Representatives. If this were to pass, watch the oil markets, which might be sensitive to perceptions of future increased supply, supporting the recent downtrend in prices. 
Lastly, keep an eye out for the U.S. to raise more non-tariff barriers with regard to China. While we're not aware of any specific deadlines in play, many of the laws passed in recent years that augment potential actions like export controls put the U.S. government on a sustained path toward drawing up more tariff barriers. Hence the continued momentum toward restricting many types of trade around semiconductors. We'll be particularly interested in 2023 if the U.S. takes actions that start to relate to other industries, which would reflect a broadening scope of U.S. intentions and the US-China trade conflict. That is potentially a challenge to our strategists' currently constructive view on China equities. 
Of course, these aren't the only three things out of D.C. that investors should watch for, and history tells us to expect the unexpected. We'll do just that and keep you in the loop here. In the meantime, happy holidays and have a safe and blessed new year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/zeKAijdGmtq-n8ZM1M4x5LNi2birQOoCmgaEuqwSm48Wed, 21 Dec 2022 19:48:50 +0000gtyAs congress wraps up for 2022, and we look towards a divided government in 2023, there are a few possible legislative moves on the horizon that investors will want to be prepared for. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, December 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. 
As Congress wraps up its business for the year, it's a good time to level-set on what investors should watch out for out of D.C. in 2023. While it's not an election year, and a divided government means legislative achievements will be tough to come by, it's always a good idea to be prepared. So here's three things to watch for. 
First, cryptocurrency regulations. Turmoil in the crypto market seems to have accelerated lawmaker interest in tackling the thorny issue. And even if Democrats and Republicans can't come together on regulation, the Biden administration has been studying how regulators could use existing laws to roll out new rules. For investors, the most tangible takeaway from our colleagues is that crypto regulation could support large cap financials by evening the regulatory playing field with the crypto firms. 
Second, watch for permitting reform on oil and gas exploration. While a late year effort led by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin didn't muster enough votes for passage. It's possible Republicans may be willing to revisit the issue in 2023 when they control the House of Representatives. If this were to pass, watch the oil markets, which might be sensitive to perceptions of future increased supply, supporting the recent downtrend in prices. 
Lastly, keep an eye out for the U.S. to raise more non-tariff barriers with regard to China. While we're not aware of any specific deadlines in play, many of the laws passed in recent years that augment potential actions like export controls put the U.S. government on a sustained path toward drawing up more tariff barriers. Hence the continued momentum toward restricting many types of trade around semiconductors. We'll be particularly interested in 2023 if the U.S. takes actions that start to relate to other industries, which would reflect a broadening scope of U.S. intentions and the US-China trade conflict. That is potentially a challenge to our strategists' currently constructive view on China equities. 
Of course, these aren't the only three things out of D.C. that investors should watch for, and history tells us to expect the unexpected. We'll do just that and keep you in the loop here. In the meantime, happy holidays and have a safe and blessed new year. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>154market-trendsfalse769fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-thematics-a-breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion--75654779----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and North American Clean Energy Research. 
Ed Stanley: And I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. 
Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the potential of nuclear fusion technology in light of a key recent breakthrough in the space. It's Tuesday, December 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ed Stanley: And 2 p.m. in London. 
Stephen Byrd: Ed, you recently came to this podcast to discuss your team's work on "Earthshots", technologies that can accelerate the pace of decarbonization and mitigate some of the climate change that's occurring as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, trapping the sun's heat. In a sense, Earthshots can be defined as urgent solutions to an intensifying climate crisis and nuclear fusion as one of these potential radical decarbonization technologies. So, Ed, I wondered if you could just start by explaining how nuclear fusion fits into your excellent Earthshots framework. 
Ed Stanley: Absolutely. So in Earthshots we laid out six technologies we thought could be truly revolutionary and changed the course of decarbonization. Three of those were environmental and three were biological innovations. In order of investability, horizon carbon capture was first, smart grids were next, and then further out was nuclear fusion on the environmental side. In early December the U.S. Department of Energy announced the achievement of fusion ignition at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. So Steve, passing back to you, can you give us a sense of why this was considered such an important moment? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah Ed, you know, as you mentioned, ignition was achieved at the government lab. And this is very exciting because this shows the potential for fusion to create net energy as a result of achieving fusion. So essentially what happened was two megajoules of energy went into the process of creating the ignition, and three megajoules of energy were produced as a result. So a very exciting development. But as we'll discuss, a lot of additional milestones yet to achieve. 
Ed Stanley: And there's been significant debates around nuclear fusion in recent days caused by this. And from the perspective of a seasoned utilities analyst, but also with your ESG hat on, is fusion the Holy Grail it's often touted to be, or do you think it's more of a pipe dream? And compared to nuclear fission, how much of a step change would it be? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, that's a fascinating question in terms of the long term potential of fusion. I do see immense long term potential for fusion, but I do want to emphasize long term. I think, again, we have many steps to achieve, but let's talk fundamentally about what is so exciting about fusion energy. The first and foremost is abundant energy. As I mentioned, you know, small amount of energy in produces a greater amount of energy out, and this can be scaled up. And so this could create plentiful energy that's exciting. It's no carbon dioxide, that's also very exciting. No long live radioactive waste, add that to the list of exciting things. A very limited risk of proliferation, because fusion does not employ fissile materials like uranium, for example. So tremendous potential, but a long way to go likely until this is actually put into the field. So in the meantime, we have to be looking to other technologies to help with the energy transition. So Ed, just building on what we're going to really need to achieve the energy transition and thinking through the development of fusion, what are some of the upcoming milestones and technology advancements that you're thinking about for the development and deployment of fusion energy? 
Ed Stanley: The technology milestones to watch for, I think, are generally known and ironically, actually relatively simple for this topic. We need more power out than in, and we need more controlled energy output, and certain technology breakthroughs can help with that. But we also need more time, more money, more computation, more facilities with which to try this technology out. But importantly, I think the next ten years is going to look very different from the last ten years in terms of these milestones and breakthroughs. I think that's going to be formed by four different things: the frequency, geographically, disciplinary and privately. And by those I mean on frequency it took about 25 years for JET in 2020 to break its own output record that it set in 1995. And then all of a sudden in 2021, 22, we saw four more notable records broken. Geographically, two of those records broken were in China, which is incredibly interesting because it shows that international competition is clearly on the rise. Third, we're seeing interdisciplinary breakthroughs to your point on integrating new types of technology. And finally, the emergence of increasingly well-funded private facilities. And this public private competition can and should accelerate the breakthroughs occurring in unexpected locations. But Stephen, I suppose if we cut to the chase on the when, how long do you think commercial scale fusion will take to come to fruition? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, it's a great question Ed. I think the Department of Energy officials that gave the press release on this technology development highlighted some of the challenges ahead. Let me talk through three big technology challenges that will need to be overcome. The first is what I think of as sort of true net energy production. So I mentioned before that it just took two mega jewels to ignite the fuel and then the output was three megajoules. That's very exciting. However, the total energy needed to power the lasers was 300 megajoules, so a massive amount. So we need to see tremendous efficiency improvements, that's the first challenge. The second challenge would be what we think of as repeatable ignition. That relates to creating a consistent, stable set of fusion, which to date has not been possible. Lastly, for Tokamak Technologies, Tokamaks are essentially magnetic bottles. The crucial element for commercialization is making these high temperature superconducting magnets stronger. That would enable everything else to be smaller and that would lead to cost improvements. So I think we have a long way to go. So Ed, just building on that idea of commercialization, you know, with the economics of fusion technologies looking more attractive now than previously given this breakthrough that we've seen at the U.S. DOE lab, what's happening on the policy and regulatory side. Do you see support for nuclear fusion? And if you do, in which countries do you see that support? 
Ed Stanley: I mean, it's a great question. And governments and electorates around the world, particularly in Europe, where I'm sitting, have what can only be described as a complicated relationship with nuclear energy. But on support for fusion broadly, yes, I think there is tentative support. It depends on the news flow and I think excitement last week shows exactly that. But personally, I think we are still too early to worry too much about policy and regulation. In simple terms, you can't actually regulate and promote and subsidize something where the technology isn't actually ready yet, which is part of the point you've made throughout. But that question also reminds me of a time about 15 years ago when I received national security clearance to visit the U.K.'s Atomic Energy Authority in Europe. And at that time, they were the clear global leader in fusion research. Obviously, that was hugely exciting as a young teenager. But something that the lead scientist said to me at that point struck me and it remains true today, that no R&D project on the planet receives as much funding relative to its frequency of breakthroughs as Fusion does. Which tells you just how committed that governments and now corporates around the world are in trying to unlock carbon free nuclear waste, free energy. But as you have said, quite rightly, that has taken and it will continue to take patience. 
Stephen Byrd: That's great. Ed, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ed Stanley: It's great speaking with you, Stephen. 
Stephen Byrd: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/srV7u0pN_OQxvpU0ee4bKUk5RKGwKOTv17uMEUsluBUTue, 20 Dec 2022 23:35:45 +0000gtyWith the recent breakthrough in fusion energy technology, the debate around the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a commercialized energy source may leave investors wondering, is it a holy grail or a pipe dream? Global Head of Sustainability Research...----- Transcript -----
Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and North American Clean Energy Research. 
Ed Stanley: And I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. 
Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the potential of nuclear fusion technology in light of a key recent breakthrough in the space. It's Tuesday, December 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ed Stanley: And 2 p.m. in London. 
Stephen Byrd: Ed, you recently came to this podcast to discuss your team's work on "Earthshots", technologies that can accelerate the pace of decarbonization and mitigate some of the climate change that's occurring as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, trapping the sun's heat. In a sense, Earthshots can be defined as urgent solutions to an intensifying climate crisis and nuclear fusion as one of these potential radical decarbonization technologies. So, Ed, I wondered if you could just start by explaining how nuclear fusion fits into your excellent Earthshots framework. 
Ed Stanley: Absolutely. So in Earthshots we laid out six technologies we thought could be truly revolutionary and changed the course of decarbonization. Three of those were environmental and three were biological innovations. In order of investability, horizon carbon capture was first, smart grids were next, and then further out was nuclear fusion on the environmental side. In early December the U.S. Department of Energy announced the achievement of fusion ignition at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. So Steve, passing back to you, can you give us a sense of why this was considered such an important moment? 
Stephen Byrd: Yeah Ed, you know, as you mentioned, ignition was achieved at the government lab. And this is very exciting because this shows the potential for fusion to create net energy as a result of achieving fusion. So essentially what happened was two megajoules of energy went into the process of creating the ignition, and three megajoules of energy were produced as a result. So a very exciting development. But as we'll discuss, a lot of additional milestones yet to achieve. 
Ed Stanley: And there's been significant debates around nuclear fusion in recent days caused by this. And from the perspective of a seasoned utilities analyst, but also with your ESG hat on, is fusion the Holy Grail it's often touted to be, or do you think it's more of a pipe dream? And compared to nuclear fission, how much of a step change would it be? 
Stephen Byrd: You know, that's a fascinating question in terms of the long term potential of fusion. I do see immense long term potential for fusion, but I do want to emphasize long term. I think, again, we have many steps to achieve, but let's talk fundamentally about what is so exciting about fusion energy. The first and foremost is abundant energy. As I mentioned, you know, small amount of energy in produces a greater amount of energy out, and this can be scaled up. And so this could create plentiful energy that's exciting. It's no carbon dioxide, that's also very exciting. No long live radioactive waste, add that to the list of exciting things. A very limited risk of proliferation, because fusion does not employ fissile materials like uranium, for example. So tremendous potential, but a long way to go likely until this is actually put into the field. So in the meantime, we have to be looking to other technologies to help with the energy transition. So Ed, just building on...]]>485market-trendsfalse768fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-have-markets-fully-priced-an-earnings-decline--75654868----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 19th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
While many commentators blame last week's selloff in stocks on the Fed, we think it was more about the equity market looking ahead to the oncoming earnings recession that we think is getting worse. The evidence for this conclusion is last week's drop in valuations, which was driven exclusively by a rising equity risk premium as 10 year yields remain flat. In fact, since mid-November, the equity risk premium has risen 50 basis points to 2.5%. While still very low relative to where we think it will eventually settle out next year, it's a good step in the right direction that tells us the equity market is at least contemplating the earnings risk. Until now, all of the bear market valuation compression has been about inflation, the Fed's reaction to it and the rise in interest rates. 
While we called for the end of the tactical rally two weeks ago, last week's price action provided the technical reversal to confirm it. Specifically, the softer than expected inflation report on Tuesday drove the equity markets up sharply in the morning, only to fail at the key resistance levels we highlighted two weeks ago. More importantly, the price action left a negative tactical pattern that looks like the mere image of the pattern back in October, when the September inflation report came in hotter than expected. We made our tactical rally call on the back of that positive technical action in October and last week provides the perfect bookend to our trade. 
Seasonally, the setup is now bearish too. At the end of every calendar quarter, many asset managers play a game of chasing markets higher or lower to protect or enhance their relative year to date performance. Most years, the equity markets tend to drift higher into year end, as liquidity dries up, asset managers are able to push prices higher of the stocks they own. However, in down years like 2022, the ability and/or willingness to do that is lower, which reduces the odds of a year end rally lasting all the way until December 31st. This is the other reason we pulled the plug on our tactical rally call. With last week's technical reversal so clear, we think the set up is now more bearish than bullish. Meanwhile, we are feeling more confident about our 2023 forecast for S&P 500 earnings per share of $195. This remains well below both the bottoms up consensus of $231 and the top down forecasts of $215. In fact, the leading macro survey data has continued to weaken. I bring this up because we often hear from clients that everyone knows earnings are too high next year, and therefore the market has priced it. However, we recall hearing similar things in August of 2008, the last time the spread between our earnings model and the street consensus was this wide. 
The good news is that we don't expect a balance sheet recession next year or systemic financial risk. Nevertheless, the earnings recession by itself could be similar to what transpired in 2008 and 09. The main message of today's podcast is don't assume the market prices this negative of an earnings outcome until it happens. Secondarily, if our earnings forecast proves to be correct, the price declines for equities will be much worse than what most investors are expecting. Based on our conversations, the consensus view on the buy side is now that we won't make new lows on the S&P 500 next year, but will instead defend the October levels or the 200 week moving average, approximately 3500 to 3600 on the S&P 500. We remain decidedly in the 3000 to 3300 camp with a bias toward the low end given our view on earnings. With the year end Santa Claus rally now fading, there is reason to believe the decline from last week is the beginning of the move lower into the first quarter for stocks that we've been expecting, and when a more sustainable low is likely to be made. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/DCt-3p5_x5raSfJ2ZhfoGhriSDuTYAg1Gz0xqNScju0Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:47:55 +0000gtyAs focus begins to shift from inflation and interest rates to a possible oncoming earnings recession, what has the market already priced in? And what should investors be looking at as risk premiums begin to rise? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 19th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
While many commentators blame last week's selloff in stocks on the Fed, we think it was more about the equity market looking ahead to the oncoming earnings recession that we think is getting worse. The evidence for this conclusion is last week's drop in valuations, which was driven exclusively by a rising equity risk premium as 10 year yields remain flat. In fact, since mid-November, the equity risk premium has risen 50 basis points to 2.5%. While still very low relative to where we think it will eventually settle out next year, it's a good step in the right direction that tells us the equity market is at least contemplating the earnings risk. Until now, all of the bear market valuation compression has been about inflation, the Fed's reaction to it and the rise in interest rates. 
While we called for the end of the tactical rally two weeks ago, last week's price action provided the technical reversal to confirm it. Specifically, the softer than expected inflation report on Tuesday drove the equity markets up sharply in the morning, only to fail at the key resistance levels we highlighted two weeks ago. More importantly, the price action left a negative tactical pattern that looks like the mere image of the pattern back in October, when the September inflation report came in hotter than expected. We made our tactical rally call on the back of that positive technical action in October and last week provides the perfect bookend to our trade. 
Seasonally, the setup is now bearish too. At the end of every calendar quarter, many asset managers play a game of chasing markets higher or lower to protect or enhance their relative year to date performance. Most years, the equity markets tend to drift higher into year end, as liquidity dries up, asset managers are able to push prices higher of the stocks they own. However, in down years like 2022, the ability and/or willingness to do that is lower, which reduces the odds of a year end rally lasting all the way until December 31st. This is the other reason we pulled the plug on our tactical rally call. With last week's technical reversal so clear, we think the set up is now more bearish than bullish. Meanwhile, we are feeling more confident about our 2023 forecast for S&P 500 earnings per share of $195. This remains well below both the bottoms up consensus of $231 and the top down forecasts of $215. In fact, the leading macro survey data has continued to weaken. I bring this up because we often hear from clients that everyone knows earnings are too high next year, and therefore the market has priced it. However, we recall hearing similar things in August of 2008, the last time the spread between our earnings model and the street consensus was this wide. 
The good news is that we don't expect a balance sheet recession next year or systemic financial risk. Nevertheless, the earnings recession by itself could be similar to what transpired in 2008 and 09. The main message of today's podcast is don't assume the market prices this negative of an earnings outcome until it happens. Secondarily, if our earnings forecast proves to be correct, the price declines for equities will be much worse than what most investors are expecting. Based on our conversations, the consensus view on the buy side is now that we won't make new lows on the S&P 500 next year, but will instead defend the October...]]>239market-trendsfalse767fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-what-will-the-end-of-rate-hikes-mean--75654938----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 16th, at 3 p.m. in London. 
We expect the Federal Reserve to make its last rate hike in the first quarter of next year. What does that mean? Aggressive rate increases from the Fed this year have corresponded to weak cross-asset performance, leading to a lot of hope that the end of these rate hikes will provide a major boost to markets, especially to riskier, more volatile assets like stocks and high yield bonds. 
But the lessons of history are more complicated. While on average, both stocks and bonds do well once the Fed stops raising rates, there's an important catch. Stock performance is weaker in the handful of instances where the Fed has stopped while short term yields are higher than long term yields. That so-called inverted yield curve is exactly what we see today and suggests it's not so straightforward to say that the end of rate hikes means that stocks outperform. 
Specifically, we can identify 11 instances since 1980 when the Federal Reserve was raising rates and then stopped. In most of these instances, the yield curve was flat and slightly upward sloping, which means 2 year yields were a little bit lower than 10 year yields. That means  the market thought that interest rates at the time of the last Fed rate hike could stay at those levels for some time, applying that they were in a somewhat stable equilibrium and that the economy wouldn't see major change. Unsurprisingly, the markets seemed to like that stability, with global equities up about 15% over the next year in these instances. 
But there's another, somewhat rare set of observations where the last Fed rate hike has occurred with short term interest rates higher than expected rates over the long term. That happened in 1980, 1981, 1989, and the year 2000, and suggests that the market at that time thought that interest rates were not in a stable equilibrium, would not stay at current levels, and might need to adjust down rather significantly. That's more consistent of bond markets being concerned about slower growth. And in these four instances, global equity markets did much worse, falling about 3% over the following 12 month period. 
We see a couple of important implications for that. First, as we sit today, the yield curve is inverted, suggesting that that rarer but more challenging set of scenarios could be at work. My colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Equity Strategist and CIO, is forecasting S&P 500 to end 2023 at similar levels to where it is today, suggesting that the equity outlook isn't as simple as the market rallying after the Fed stops raising rates. 
Secondly, for bond markets, returns are more consistently strong after the last Fed rate hike, whether the yield curve is inverted or not. From a cross-asset perspective, we continue to prefer investment grade bonds over equities in both the U.S. and Europe. 
Questions of when the Fed stops raising rates and what this means remains a major debate for the year ahead. While an end to rate hikes is often a broad based positive, this impact isn't as strong when the yield curve is inverted like it is today. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/W1wk3eXImi2tNVgqnfxu3ojtGnnY6hcLsbhc1CfFzEoFri, 16 Dec 2022 20:18:47 +0000gtyAs cross-asset performance has continued to be weak, there is hope that the end of the Fed’s rate hiking cycle could give markets the boost they need, but does history agree with these investor’s hopes? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 16th, at 3 p.m. in London. 
We expect the Federal Reserve to make its last rate hike in the first quarter of next year. What does that mean? Aggressive rate increases from the Fed this year have corresponded to weak cross-asset performance, leading to a lot of hope that the end of these rate hikes will provide a major boost to markets, especially to riskier, more volatile assets like stocks and high yield bonds. 
But the lessons of history are more complicated. While on average, both stocks and bonds do well once the Fed stops raising rates, there's an important catch. Stock performance is weaker in the handful of instances where the Fed has stopped while short term yields are higher than long term yields. That so-called inverted yield curve is exactly what we see today and suggests it's not so straightforward to say that the end of rate hikes means that stocks outperform. 
Specifically, we can identify 11 instances since 1980 when the Federal Reserve was raising rates and then stopped. In most of these instances, the yield curve was flat and slightly upward sloping, which means 2 year yields were a little bit lower than 10 year yields. That means  the market thought that interest rates at the time of the last Fed rate hike could stay at those levels for some time, applying that they were in a somewhat stable equilibrium and that the economy wouldn't see major change. Unsurprisingly, the markets seemed to like that stability, with global equities up about 15% over the next year in these instances. 
But there's another, somewhat rare set of observations where the last Fed rate hike has occurred with short term interest rates higher than expected rates over the long term. That happened in 1980, 1981, 1989, and the year 2000, and suggests that the market at that time thought that interest rates were not in a stable equilibrium, would not stay at current levels, and might need to adjust down rather significantly. That's more consistent of bond markets being concerned about slower growth. And in these four instances, global equity markets did much worse, falling about 3% over the following 12 month period. 
We see a couple of important implications for that. First, as we sit today, the yield curve is inverted, suggesting that that rarer but more challenging set of scenarios could be at work. My colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Equity Strategist and CIO, is forecasting S&P 500 to end 2023 at similar levels to where it is today, suggesting that the equity outlook isn't as simple as the market rallying after the Fed stops raising rates. 
Secondly, for bond markets, returns are more consistently strong after the last Fed rate hike, whether the yield curve is inverted or not. From a cross-asset perspective, we continue to prefer investment grade bonds over equities in both the U.S. and Europe. 
Questions of when the Fed stops raising rates and what this means remains a major debate for the year ahead. While an end to rate hikes is often a broad based positive, this impact isn't as strong when the yield curve is inverted like it is today. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>209market-trendsfalse766fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/sarah-wolfe-are-consumers-going-to-pull-back-on-spending--75654943----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will give you a year end 2022 update on the U.S. consumer with a bit of our outlook for 2023. It's Thursday, December 15th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
So it's very clear the consumer has been a pillar of strength this year amid a very tough macro environment, but as rates keep rising and the labor market slows, consumers will likely need to find ways to cut costs. We are already seeing some weakness in subprime consumers and trade down among middle and higher income households. 
While the wallet shift away from goods and towards services is definitely playing out, we continue to see relatively more strength than expected from consumers across both categories. This is because households have lowered their savings rates significantly as they draw down excess savings. We do not expect a material drawdown in excess savings, however, into next year as savings dwindle. We are already seeing it this morning in the November retail sales data, where spending slowed down fairly dramatically across most goods categories. We're talking about home furnishing, electronics and appliances, sporting goods, motor vehicles. On the other hand, the one category of retail sales that reflects the services side of the economy, dining out, was very strong in the retail sales report and has continued to be very strong. 
Looking at the trends that will  force consumers to spend less, rising interest rates are lifting the direct costs of new borrowing and slowly feeding through into higher overall debt service costs. For example, new car loan rates are at their highest level since 2010, mortgage rates are at 20 year highs, they've come off a little bit,  and commercial bank interest rates on credit card plans are at 30 year highs. It takes time for new debt issued at higher rates to lift household debt service costs, especially as over 90% of outstanding household debt is locked in at a fixed rate. But it's happening. 
Looking at the data by household income shows more stress from higher rates among subprime borrowers. Credit card delinquencies are modestly below pre-COVID levels, but are accelerating at the fastest pace since the financial crisis. In the auto space, delinquencies across subprime auto ABS surpassed 2019 levels earlier this year and have stabilized at relatively high rates over the last six months. 
Lower income households are also most affected by the combination of higher interest rates and higher inflation. They rely more heavily on higher interest rate loan products and variable rate credit card lines. Consider this, the bottom 20% income quintile spend 94% of their disposable income on essential items, including food, energy and shelter. This compares to only 20% of disposable income for the top 20% income quintile. As such, higher inflation on essential items weighs more heavily on lower income households. Higher inflation is also pushing lower income households to buy fewer full price items and wait for promotions. They are also choosing smaller items, value packs, or less expensive brands. 
While price inflation has turned a corner, it's not enough to ease the pressure on consumers from elevated price levels, rising rates and additionally a decelerating labor market. We expect labor income growth to slow next year alongside a weakening labor market, troughing in mid 2023, in line with sharply slower payroll growth and softer wage gains. Wage pressures are coming off in industries that saw the largest wage gains over the past year due to labor shortages, including leisure and hospitality and wholesale trade. But for the moment, with jobs still growing, consumer spending remains positive as well. Together, our base case for real spending is a weak 1% year over year growth in 2023, down from 2.6% this year. In the end, the extent that consumers pull back spending will hinge on how the labor market fares. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/pEg6nCRkWsgWaL_bjxK6AS5sbHynnS_Pi9FlO8bLnXQThu, 15 Dec 2022 20:04:06 +0000gtyWhile the consumer has been a pillar of strength this year, continued high inflation, household debt and slowing payroll growth could pose challenges to consumer spending.  ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will give you a year end 2022 update on the U.S. consumer with a bit of our outlook for 2023. It's Thursday, December 15th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
So it's very clear the consumer has been a pillar of strength this year amid a very tough macro environment, but as rates keep rising and the labor market slows, consumers will likely need to find ways to cut costs. We are already seeing some weakness in subprime consumers and trade down among middle and higher income households. 
While the wallet shift away from goods and towards services is definitely playing out, we continue to see relatively more strength than expected from consumers across both categories. This is because households have lowered their savings rates significantly as they draw down excess savings. We do not expect a material drawdown in excess savings, however, into next year as savings dwindle. We are already seeing it this morning in the November retail sales data, where spending slowed down fairly dramatically across most goods categories. We're talking about home furnishing, electronics and appliances, sporting goods, motor vehicles. On the other hand, the one category of retail sales that reflects the services side of the economy, dining out, was very strong in the retail sales report and has continued to be very strong. 
Looking at the trends that will  force consumers to spend less, rising interest rates are lifting the direct costs of new borrowing and slowly feeding through into higher overall debt service costs. For example, new car loan rates are at their highest level since 2010, mortgage rates are at 20 year highs, they've come off a little bit,  and commercial bank interest rates on credit card plans are at 30 year highs. It takes time for new debt issued at higher rates to lift household debt service costs, especially as over 90% of outstanding household debt is locked in at a fixed rate. But it's happening. 
Looking at the data by household income shows more stress from higher rates among subprime borrowers. Credit card delinquencies are modestly below pre-COVID levels, but are accelerating at the fastest pace since the financial crisis. In the auto space, delinquencies across subprime auto ABS surpassed 2019 levels earlier this year and have stabilized at relatively high rates over the last six months. 
Lower income households are also most affected by the combination of higher interest rates and higher inflation. They rely more heavily on higher interest rate loan products and variable rate credit card lines. Consider this, the bottom 20% income quintile spend 94% of their disposable income on essential items, including food, energy and shelter. This compares to only 20% of disposable income for the top 20% income quintile. As such, higher inflation on essential items weighs more heavily on lower income households. Higher inflation is also pushing lower income households to buy fewer full price items and wait for promotions. They are also choosing smaller items, value packs, or less expensive brands. 
While price inflation has turned a corner, it's not enough to ease the pressure on consumers from elevated price levels, rising rates and additionally a decelerating labor market. We expect labor income growth to slow next year alongside a weakening labor market, troughing in mid 2023, in line with sharply slower payroll growth and softer wage gains. Wage pressures are coming off in industries that saw the largest wage gains over the past year due to labor shortages, including leisure and hospitality and wholesale trade. But for the moment, with...]]>243market-trendsfalse765fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-thematics-earthshots-take-on-climate-change--75654961----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Ed Stanley: And I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the potential of "Earthshots" as an investment theme in the face of intensifying climate concerns. It's Wednesday, December 14th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ed Stanley: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Michael Zezas: While climate continues to be a key political and economic debate, it's clear we're moving into a new phase of climate urgency. There's a significant mismatch between the pace of climate technology adoption, and the planet's need for those solutions. Here at Morgan Stanley we've done work around "Moonshots", ambitious and radical solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology. There are some big hurdles with moonshots, however. First, they require significant political support. Also, the process of gradual, iterative decarbonization technology adoption will occur more slowly than investors expect. Given this backdrop, there's a growing need for urgent solutions. Enter what we call "Earthshots". 
Michael Zezas: Ed, can you maybe start by explaining what Earthshots are and what the framework for identifying these Earthshots is relative to Moonshots? 
Ed Stanley: So a Moonshot is an early stage technology with high uncertainty, but also high potential to solve a very difficult problem. And for Moonshots, the key investments are in R&D and proof of concept. An Earthshot, on the other hand, is more of a middle stage technology with generally lower uncertainty, proven potential and Earthshots the key investment here is really around scaling the technology quickly and cheaply. And Earthshots are more radical alternatives to otherwise slow and steady status quo in the decarbonization world. And we think about them broadly in two sets. Some are nearer term decarbonization accelerants, and others are longer term warming mitigations and adaptations. And I guess we can get into a bit more detail on examples in a minute. But to your question on frameworks, it's exactly the same framework that we used in Moonshots, and that is academia, patenting, venture capital and then public markets. Academia around breaking new ground and how quickly that's happening. Patenting to protect that intellectual property. Then venture steps in to provide some proof of concept for that idea. And then public investment is typically needed to scale it. And you can track almost any invention over time using that sequence of events all the way back to the patent for the light bulb in 1880, all the way up to carbon capture today. 
Michael Zezas: Ed, what types of specific problems are Earthshots trying to solve, and which ones should investors pay particular attention to, both near-term and longer term? 
Ed Stanley: So if you look at the nearly 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions that we put into the atmosphere every year and you split it by industry, our Earthshot technologies catered to over 80% of those emissions. Be it electrification, manufacturing, food emissions, there's a radical Earthshot technology for decarbonizing each of those. But if we break them down into two categories, we have environmental Earthshots and biological Earthshots. On the environmental side, we have carbon capture, smart grids, fusion energy. And on the biological, we have cell based meat, synthetic biology and disease re-engineering. If we go into a bit more detail on the environmental Earthshots, there's been a lot of noise in fusion in recent days. But I think carbon capture for now is where investors need to focus. And for those thinking how is carbon capture an Earthshot, we've been hearing about this technology for years now, well, the unit economics and tech maturity are only really now getting to that critical balance where it can scale. And the 21 facilities globally that are doing this only capture around 0.1% of global emissions. The largest project in Iceland annually captures around 3 seconds worth of global emissions. So we're still very early days and it's all about scale, scale, scale now. On the biological side, I think the $4 trillion TAM in synthetic biology, which is the harnessing of biology and molecules to create net carbon negative products, is truly fascinating. But the one that piqued my interest the most doing this research, and has actually seen comparatively negligible funding is disease re-engineering. And if the planet does continue to warm, despite our best efforts in decarbonizing and carbon capture, then another 720 million people by 2050 will be in zones that are susceptible to malaria, mainly in Europe and the U.S. And companies using gene editing are having great success. There's a 99.9% efficiency and efficacy of wiping out malaria in the zones that these trials have taken place. Perhaps less pressing immediately than carbon capture, but from a social perspective, with half a million people dying per year from malaria and that number set to grow if warming grows, I don't think it's a theme that investors can ignore for very much longer. 
Michael Zezas: Got it. And Ed, it's often said that each decade has one investment theme that outpaces others. And while this decade's in its early innings, there's several contenders. There's the new commodity supercycle, there's digitalized assets and cybersecurity. Another theme in the running is Clean Transition Technologies. How does Earthshots fit into the investment megatrends for the next decade? 
Ed Stanley: I mean, that's absolutely fair. Markets move in ebbs and flows of macro themes and micro themes being the winning investment each decade. We had gold in the seventies, oil in the 2000, and then interspersed with that Japanese equities and U.S. Tech in the eighties and nineties respectively. And we do appreciate it's rare when you look back in time for hard assets, which clean tech and Earthshot technologies typically are, for hard assets to win that secular theme crown, so to speak. But we're already seeing a changing of the guards in private markets away from long secular bets on technology, SAS, fintech towards hard assets and security infrastructure. So that is the shift in investing from bits to atoms, which is well underway. And that's happening because not since the Industrial Revolution really have we been so uniformly mobilized to transition to a new paradigm in such a short space of time. But opposing that, I guess we should ask where could we be wrong? Well, for climate tech to be the winning investment trade of the next ten years, the irony is that this trade no longer lies in the tech proving itself necessarily or reaching cost parity. I think we've done that in many cases, that is in the bag. The success or otherwise of this being the secular investment theme for the 2020s will lie much more in reducing permitting bottlenecks, for example, and skills bottlenecks around the installation of some of this Earthshot technology. And that, too, actually is where investors can find opportunities in vast reskilling that's needed. But on balance, yes, this, in my view anyway, is the secular trade of the next decade. 
Michael Zezas: And you've argued that a challenging macro environment is precisely the time to dig into Moonshots. It seems that would even be truer of Earthshots, would you agree? 
Ed Stanley: I think that's a reasonable assumption, yes. If you look at companies over time, over 30% of Fortune 500 companies were founded during recession years, and many more of those were founded coming out of recessions as well. And crudely, the reasons are twofold. One, product market fit and unit economics have to be ideal in a downturn when you have consumers feeling the pinch and business customers reining back on spending. But secondly, investors pull back on their duration and risk appetite, clearly, and capital becomes more concentrated, and the R&D bang for your buck you get in downturns, ironically, is better. But when you add on to that current stimulus packages like the IRA in the US, you have all of the component parts you need for innovation breakthrough. And I would actually stress even more simply, we need some of these breakthroughs, more physical world breakthroughs than digital ones. Because without these breakthroughs, we simply won't have enough lithium for the EV rollout, for example, we'll be 22% light. It's not just will this happen in a downturn, it has to happen in a downturn, irrespective of the macro. So, yes, now I think is an excellent time to be looking at Earthshots and not simply just at the peak of frothy markets. 
Michael Zezas: Well, Ed, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ed Stanley: It's great speaking with you, Mike. 
Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/s66QTuvfVm-J3VZ5InLL97w77Jit71GRrGlgsg95V10Wed, 14 Dec 2022 22:15:11 +0000gtyWhile “Moonshots” attempt to address climate concerns with disruptive technology, more immediate solutions are needed, so what are “Earthshots”? And which ones should investors pay attention to? Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Ed Stanley: And I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the potential of "Earthshots" as an investment theme in the face of intensifying climate concerns. It's Wednesday, December 14th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ed Stanley: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Michael Zezas: While climate continues to be a key political and economic debate, it's clear we're moving into a new phase of climate urgency. There's a significant mismatch between the pace of climate technology adoption, and the planet's need for those solutions. Here at Morgan Stanley we've done work around "Moonshots", ambitious and radical solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology. There are some big hurdles with moonshots, however. First, they require significant political support. Also, the process of gradual, iterative decarbonization technology adoption will occur more slowly than investors expect. Given this backdrop, there's a growing need for urgent solutions. Enter what we call "Earthshots". 
Michael Zezas: Ed, can you maybe start by explaining what Earthshots are and what the framework for identifying these Earthshots is relative to Moonshots? 
Ed Stanley: So a Moonshot is an early stage technology with high uncertainty, but also high potential to solve a very difficult problem. And for Moonshots, the key investments are in R&D and proof of concept. An Earthshot, on the other hand, is more of a middle stage technology with generally lower uncertainty, proven potential and Earthshots the key investment here is really around scaling the technology quickly and cheaply. And Earthshots are more radical alternatives to otherwise slow and steady status quo in the decarbonization world. And we think about them broadly in two sets. Some are nearer term decarbonization accelerants, and others are longer term warming mitigations and adaptations. And I guess we can get into a bit more detail on examples in a minute. But to your question on frameworks, it's exactly the same framework that we used in Moonshots, and that is academia, patenting, venture capital and then public markets. Academia around breaking new ground and how quickly that's happening. Patenting to protect that intellectual property. Then venture steps in to provide some proof of concept for that idea. And then public investment is typically needed to scale it. And you can track almost any invention over time using that sequence of events all the way back to the patent for the light bulb in 1880, all the way up to carbon capture today. 
Michael Zezas: Ed, what types of specific problems are Earthshots trying to solve, and which ones should investors pay particular attention to, both near-term and longer term? 
Ed Stanley: So if you look at the nearly 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions that we put into the atmosphere every year and you split it by industry, our Earthshot technologies catered to over 80% of those emissions. Be it electrification, manufacturing, food emissions, there's a radical Earthshot technology for decarbonizing each of those. But if we break them down into two categories, we have environmental Earthshots and biological Earthshots. On the environmental side, we have carbon capture, smart grids, fusion energy. And on the biological, we have cell based meat, synthetic biology and disease re-engineering. If we go into...]]>561market-trendsfalse764fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ravi-shanker-a-bullish-outlook-for-airlines--75654926----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shankar, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the airline space and some key takeaways for investors. 
As 2022 draws to a close, the outlook for airlines going into next year continues to be bullish. We think that 2023 is going to be what we call a "Goldilocks" year for the airlines, simply because we go from three years of conditions being either too cold during the pandemic, or too hot last year, to conditions being just right. This should be enough for the airlines to remain stable and to top 2019 levels in terms of profitability. However, the biggest question in the space is about the macro backdrop and consumer resilience. 
Everything we are seeing so far suggests that there are no real cracks in terms of the demand environment. We expect a slight cool down on the leisure side, but some uptick on the corporate and international side going into next year. 
As for pricing, when the irresistible force of demand met the immovable object of capacity restrictions in 2022, the net result was a significant increase in price, which was up 20 to 25% above pre-pandemic levels. This is arguably the biggest debate between the bulls and the bears in the space, regarding where the industry eventually ends up. We believe the pricing environment will cool slightly sequentially as capacity incrementally returns, but will stabilize well above 2019 levels. In addition, the return of corporate and international travel will be a mixed tailwind to yield in 2023. 
Costs have been another big debate for the space over the last 18 to 24 months. New pilot contracts are one of the things that we are closely tracking. And we do think that inflation should start to moderate in the back half of the year as we lap some really difficult comps in the cost side, but also as airlines get a little more capacity in the sky with the delivery of new, larger gauge planes and the return of some pilots. There might be some risk for the space in 2024 and beyond, but for 23 we still think that capacity is going to be relatively constrained in the first half of the year, and only start to really ease up in the second half of the year. 
And lastly, jet fuel has been very volatile for much of 2022. Given this, we model jet fuel flat versus current levels, but continue to expect volatility in price and note that current levels already imply a year over year tailwind for most of 2023. 
So all in all, we do expect that 2023 earnings will be above 2019 levels. And we point out that the market has not yet priced this into the airline stocks, which are currently trading at roughly year end 2020 levels. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/GjJScICtgp99-Y0R9Ydx_pnE2XCBR-zN5xhXn2JoTlATue, 13 Dec 2022 19:08:31 +0000gtyOver the past few years, the airline industry has faced fluctuations between too hot and too cold across demand, capacity and costs. Could conditions in 2023 be just right for increased profitability? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shankar, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the airline space and some key takeaways for investors. 
As 2022 draws to a close, the outlook for airlines going into next year continues to be bullish. We think that 2023 is going to be what we call a "Goldilocks" year for the airlines, simply because we go from three years of conditions being either too cold during the pandemic, or too hot last year, to conditions being just right. This should be enough for the airlines to remain stable and to top 2019 levels in terms of profitability. However, the biggest question in the space is about the macro backdrop and consumer resilience. 
Everything we are seeing so far suggests that there are no real cracks in terms of the demand environment. We expect a slight cool down on the leisure side, but some uptick on the corporate and international side going into next year. 
As for pricing, when the irresistible force of demand met the immovable object of capacity restrictions in 2022, the net result was a significant increase in price, which was up 20 to 25% above pre-pandemic levels. This is arguably the biggest debate between the bulls and the bears in the space, regarding where the industry eventually ends up. We believe the pricing environment will cool slightly sequentially as capacity incrementally returns, but will stabilize well above 2019 levels. In addition, the return of corporate and international travel will be a mixed tailwind to yield in 2023. 
Costs have been another big debate for the space over the last 18 to 24 months. New pilot contracts are one of the things that we are closely tracking. And we do think that inflation should start to moderate in the back half of the year as we lap some really difficult comps in the cost side, but also as airlines get a little more capacity in the sky with the delivery of new, larger gauge planes and the return of some pilots. There might be some risk for the space in 2024 and beyond, but for 23 we still think that capacity is going to be relatively constrained in the first half of the year, and only start to really ease up in the second half of the year. 
And lastly, jet fuel has been very volatile for much of 2022. Given this, we model jet fuel flat versus current levels, but continue to expect volatility in price and note that current levels already imply a year over year tailwind for most of 2023. 
So all in all, we do expect that 2023 earnings will be above 2019 levels. And we point out that the market has not yet priced this into the airline stocks, which are currently trading at roughly year end 2020 levels. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.]]>189market-trendsfalse763fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2023-emerging-markets-outlook-brighter-days-ahead--75654990----- Transcript -----
James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Head of FX and EM Strategy. 
Simon Waever: And I'm Simon Waever, Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. 
James Lord: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our 2023 outlook for global emerging markets and fixed income assets and what investors should pay close attention to next year. 
Simon Waever: It's Monday, December 12th, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
James Lord: A big theme from Morgan Stanley's year ahead outlook is the outperformance we're expecting to see from emerging markets. This isn't just about emerging market fixed income, though, which is what Simon and I focus on, but also equities. So across the board, we're expecting much brighter days ahead for EM assets. 
Simon Waever: And of course, the dollar is always key and it has been extremely strong this year. But what about next year? What do you think? 
James Lord: Yeah. So we are expecting the dollar to head down over 2023. In fact, it's already losing ground against a variety of G10 and EM currencies, and we're expecting this process to continue. So why do we think that? Well, there are a few key reasons. First, U.S. CPI should fall significantly over the next 12 months. This is because economic growth should slow as the rate hikes delivered this year by the U.S. Fed begin to bite. Supply chains are also finally normalizing as the world is getting back to normal following the pandemic. This should also help the Fed to stop hiking rates, and this has been a big reason for the dollar's rally this year. 
Simon Waever: Right. So that's in the U.S., but what about the rest of the world? And what about China specifically? 
James Lord: Yeah so, inflation is expected to fall across the whole world as well. And that is going to be a stepping stone towards a global economic recovery. Global economic recovery is usually something that helps to push the dollar down. So this is something that will be very helpful for our call. And third, we see growth outside of the U.S. doing better than the U.S. itself. This is something that will be led by China and other emerging markets. China is moving away from its zero-covid strategy and as they do so over the coming quarters, economic activity should rebound, benefiting a whole range of different economies, emerging markets included. So all of that points us in the direction of U.S. dollar weakness and EM currency strength over 2023. Simon, how does EM look from your part of the world? 
Simon Waever: Right, so away from effects, the main way to invest in EM fixed income are sovereign bonds and they can be either in local currency or hard currency. And the hard currency bond asset class is also known as EM sovereign credit, and these are bonds denominated in U.S. dollar or euro. We think sovereign credit will do very well in 2023 and we kept our bullish view that we've had since August. I would say external drivers were key this year in explaining why the asset class was down 27% at its worst. So that included hawkish global central banks, higher U.S. real yields, wider U.S. credit spreads and a stronger dollar. We think the same external factors will be key next year, but now they're going to be much more supportive as a lot of them reverses. 
James Lord: What about fundamentals, Simon? How are they looking in emerging markets? 
Simon Waever: Right. They do deserve a lot of focus themselves as well because after all, debt is very high across EM, far from all have access to financing and growth is not what it used to be. But they're also very dispersed across countries. For instance, you have the investment grade countries that despite not growing as high as they used to, still have resilient credit profiles and only smaller external imbalances this time around. Then you have the oil exporters that clearly benefit from high oil prices. Of course, there are issues in particularly those countries that have borrowed a lot in dollars but now have lost market access due to the very high cost. Some have, in fact, already defaulted, but on the other hand, a lot are also being helped by the IMF. And if we look ahead to 2023, there are actually not that many debt maturities for the riskiest countries. 
James Lord: And what about valuation, Simon? Is the asset class still cheap? 
Simon Waever: Yeah, I would say the asset class is still cheap despite the recent rebound, and that's both outright and versus other credit asset classes. We also see positioning as light, which is a result of the significant outflows from EM this year and investors having moved into safer and higher rated countries. So putting all that together, it leaves us projecting tighter EM sovereign credit spreads, and for the asset class to outperform within global bonds. And that includes versus U.S. corporate credit and U.S. treasuries. Within the asset class, we also expect high yield to outperform investment grade. But that's it for the hard currency bonds, what about the local currency ones? 
James Lord: Local currency denominated bonds could be a great way to position in emerging markets because you get both the currency and currency exposure, as well as the potential for bond prices to actually rise too. The bonds that you were just talking about Simon, are mostly dollar denominated, so you don't get that currency kicker. So not only do we think EM currencies should rally against the U.S. dollar, but yields should also come lower too, as inflation drops in emerging markets and central banks start cutting interest rates over the course of 2023, and do so much earlier than central banks in developed economies. We've also seen very little in the way of inflows into this part of the asset class over the past five years or so. So if the outlook improves, we could start seeing asset allocators taking another look, resulting in larger inflows over 2023. 
James Lord: Simon, thanks very much for taking the time to talk. 
Simon Waever: Great speaking with you, James. 
James Lord: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts' app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bSHR403sX8_lGy2h2PkvRIbbHiPtIwCtID6TyuD0VDMMon, 12 Dec 2022 22:52:30 +0000gtyLooking to 2023, Emerging Markets and fixed income assets are forecasted to outperform, so what should investors pay close attention to in the new year? Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy Simon Waever...----- Transcript -----
James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Head of FX and EM Strategy. 
Simon Waever: And I'm Simon Waever, Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. 
James Lord: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our 2023 outlook for global emerging markets and fixed income assets and what investors should pay close attention to next year. 
Simon Waever: It's Monday, December 12th, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
James Lord: A big theme from Morgan Stanley's year ahead outlook is the outperformance we're expecting to see from emerging markets. This isn't just about emerging market fixed income, though, which is what Simon and I focus on, but also equities. So across the board, we're expecting much brighter days ahead for EM assets. 
Simon Waever: And of course, the dollar is always key and it has been extremely strong this year. But what about next year? What do you think? 
James Lord: Yeah. So we are expecting the dollar to head down over 2023. In fact, it's already losing ground against a variety of G10 and EM currencies, and we're expecting this process to continue. So why do we think that? Well, there are a few key reasons. First, U.S. CPI should fall significantly over the next 12 months. This is because economic growth should slow as the rate hikes delivered this year by the U.S. Fed begin to bite. Supply chains are also finally normalizing as the world is getting back to normal following the pandemic. This should also help the Fed to stop hiking rates, and this has been a big reason for the dollar's rally this year. 
Simon Waever: Right. So that's in the U.S., but what about the rest of the world? And what about China specifically? 
James Lord: Yeah so, inflation is expected to fall across the whole world as well. And that is going to be a stepping stone towards a global economic recovery. Global economic recovery is usually something that helps to push the dollar down. So this is something that will be very helpful for our call. And third, we see growth outside of the U.S. doing better than the U.S. itself. This is something that will be led by China and other emerging markets. China is moving away from its zero-covid strategy and as they do so over the coming quarters, economic activity should rebound, benefiting a whole range of different economies, emerging markets included. So all of that points us in the direction of U.S. dollar weakness and EM currency strength over 2023. Simon, how does EM look from your part of the world? 
Simon Waever: Right, so away from effects, the main way to invest in EM fixed income are sovereign bonds and they can be either in local currency or hard currency. And the hard currency bond asset class is also known as EM sovereign credit, and these are bonds denominated in U.S. dollar or euro. We think sovereign credit will do very well in 2023 and we kept our bullish view that we've had since August. I would say external drivers were key this year in explaining why the asset class was down 27% at its worst. So that included hawkish global central banks, higher U.S. real yields, wider U.S. credit spreads and a stronger dollar. We think the same external factors will be key next year, but now they're going to be much more supportive as a lot of them reverses. 
James Lord: What about fundamentals, Simon? How are they looking in emerging markets? 
Simon Waever: Right. They do deserve a lot of focus themselves as well because after all, debt is very high across EM, far from all have access to financing and growth is not what it used to be. But they're also very dispersed across countries. For instance,...]]>334market-trendsfalse762fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-a-more-promising-start-to-2023--75654969----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 9th, at 5 p.m. in London. 
We try to be forward looking on this program, but let's take a moment to appreciate just how deeply unusual this year has been. Looking back over the last 150 years of U.S. equity and long term bond performance, 2022 is currently the only year where both stocks and long term bonds are down more than 10%. 
Several factors conspired to create such an unusual outcome. To start, valuations for both stocks and bonds were expensive. Growth was weak in China, but surprisingly resilient in the developed markets. That resilient growth helped drive the highest rates of U.S. inflation in 40 years. And that high inflation invited a strong response from central banks, with the Federal Reserve's target rate rising at its fastest pace, over a 12 month period, since the early 1980s. 
Looking ahead, the next 12 months look different across all of those factors. 
First, starting valuations look different. U.S. BBB-rated corporate bonds began the year yielding just 3.3%, they currently yield 5.4%. The S&P 500 stock index began the year at 22x forward earnings, that's now fallen to 17.5x. And U.S. Treasury yields relative to inflation, the so-called real yield, have gone from -1% to positive 1.1%. 
Second, the mix of growth changes on Morgan Stanley's forecasts. After 12 months where U.S. growth outperformed China, U.S. growth should now decelerate while growth in China picks up as the country exits zero-covid. We think growth in Europe is likely to see a recession, further emphasizing a shift from developed market to emerging market leadership in global growth. 
That weaker developed market growth should mean weaker developed market inflation. After hitting 40 year highs in 2022, our forecasts show U.S. headline inflation falling sharply next year, with U.S. CPI hitting a year on year rate of just 1.9% by the end of 2023. Weaker demand, high inventories, lower commodity prices, healing supply chains, a cooler housing market, and easier year on year comparisons, are all part of Morgan Stanley's lower inflation forecast. 
As growth slows and inflation moderates, central banks will likely gain more confidence that they have taken rates high enough. After the fastest rate hiking cycle in 40 years, the next 12 months could see both the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank make their final rate hike in the first quarter of 2023. 
We think different dynamics should mean different results. After a run of underperformance, we think these changes will help emerging market assets now do better and outperform developed market assets. After an unusually bad year for bonds, we continue to think that these shifts will support high grade fixed income. While the future is always hard to predict, we think investors should prepare for some very different stories. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ldBvsi4I5Osn3Jdu2DJGHIOaCAQ1niKTQzIzGWrtpfAFri, 09 Dec 2022 21:01:02 +0000gty2022 was an unusual year for stocks and bonds, and while the future is hard to predict, the start of 2023 is shaping up to look quite different across several metrics. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 9th, at 5 p.m. in London. 
We try to be forward looking on this program, but let's take a moment to appreciate just how deeply unusual this year has been. Looking back over the last 150 years of U.S. equity and long term bond performance, 2022 is currently the only year where both stocks and long term bonds are down more than 10%. 
Several factors conspired to create such an unusual outcome. To start, valuations for both stocks and bonds were expensive. Growth was weak in China, but surprisingly resilient in the developed markets. That resilient growth helped drive the highest rates of U.S. inflation in 40 years. And that high inflation invited a strong response from central banks, with the Federal Reserve's target rate rising at its fastest pace, over a 12 month period, since the early 1980s. 
Looking ahead, the next 12 months look different across all of those factors. 
First, starting valuations look different. U.S. BBB-rated corporate bonds began the year yielding just 3.3%, they currently yield 5.4%. The S&P 500 stock index began the year at 22x forward earnings, that's now fallen to 17.5x. And U.S. Treasury yields relative to inflation, the so-called real yield, have gone from -1% to positive 1.1%. 
Second, the mix of growth changes on Morgan Stanley's forecasts. After 12 months where U.S. growth outperformed China, U.S. growth should now decelerate while growth in China picks up as the country exits zero-covid. We think growth in Europe is likely to see a recession, further emphasizing a shift from developed market to emerging market leadership in global growth. 
That weaker developed market growth should mean weaker developed market inflation. After hitting 40 year highs in 2022, our forecasts show U.S. headline inflation falling sharply next year, with U.S. CPI hitting a year on year rate of just 1.9% by the end of 2023. Weaker demand, high inventories, lower commodity prices, healing supply chains, a cooler housing market, and easier year on year comparisons, are all part of Morgan Stanley's lower inflation forecast. 
As growth slows and inflation moderates, central banks will likely gain more confidence that they have taken rates high enough. After the fastest rate hiking cycle in 40 years, the next 12 months could see both the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank make their final rate hike in the first quarter of 2023. 
We think different dynamics should mean different results. After a run of underperformance, we think these changes will help emerging market assets now do better and outperform developed market assets. After an unusually bad year for bonds, we continue to think that these shifts will support high grade fixed income. While the future is always hard to predict, we think investors should prepare for some very different stories. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>198market-trendsfalse761fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2023-chinese-economic-outlook-the-path-towards-reopening--75654916----- Transcript -----
Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. 
Robin Xing: I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. 
Laura Wang: On this special episode of the podcast we'll discuss our 2023 outlook for China's economy and equity market, and what investors should focus on next year. It's Thursday, December 8th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Laura Wang: So, Robin, China's reopening is a top most investor concern as we head into next year. You've had a long standing call that China will be reopening by spring of 2023. Is that still your view, given the recent COVID policy changes? 
Robin Xing: Yes, that's still our view. In fact, recent developments have strengthened our conviction on that reopening view. After several weeks of twists and turns following the initial relaxation on COVID management on November 10th, we think policymakers have made clear their intent to stay on the reopening path. We have seen larger cities, including Beijing, Guangzhou and Chongqing, all relaxed COVID restrictions in last week. We have seen the top policymakers confirmed shift in the country's COVID doctrine in public communication, and COVID Zero slogan is officially removed from any press conference or official document. They started the vaccination campaign, and last but not least, we have also see a clear focus on how to shift the public perception with a more balanced assessment of the virus. All of these enhanced our conviction of a spring reopening from China. 
Laura Wang: What are some of the key risks to this view? 
Robin Xing: Well, I think the key risk is the path towards a reopening. Before full reopening in the spring, China will try to flatten the curve in this winter. That is, to prevent hospital resources being overwhelmed, thus limiting access and mortality during the reopening process. This is because the vaccination ratio among the elderly remains low, with only 40% of people aged 80 plus have received the booster shot. Meanwhile, the medical resources in China are unevenly distributed between larger cities and the lower tier areas. As a result, we do expect some lingering measures during the initial phase of reopening. Restrictions that could still tighten dynamically in lower tier cities should hospitalizations surge, but we will likely see more incremental relaxation in large cities. So cases might rise to a high level, before a more nonlinear increase occurs after the spring full reopening. So this is our timeline of reopening, basically flattening the curve in the winter when the medical system is ready, to a proper full reopening in the spring. 
Laura Wang: That's wonderful. We are finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. With all of these moving parts, if China does indeed reopen on this expected timeline, what is your growth outlook for Chinese economy both near-term and longer term? 
Robin Xing: Well, given this reopening timeline, we expect that GDP growth in China to remain subpar in near term. The economy is likely to barely grow in the fourth quarter this year, corresponding to a 2.8% year over year. Growth were likely improved marginally in the spring, but still subpar as the continued fear of the virus on the part of the population will likely keep consumption at a subpar level up to early second quarter. But as normalization unfolds from the spring, the economy will rebound more meaningfully in the second half. Our full year forecast for the Chinese growth is around 5%, which is above market consensus, and that will be largely led by private consumption. We are expecting pent up demand to be unleashed once the economy is fully reopened by summertime. 
Robin Xing: So Laura, the macro backdrop we have been discussing have made for a volatile 2022 in the Chinese equity market. With widely anticipated policy shifts on the horizon, what is your outlook for Chinese equities within the global EM framework, both in near-term and the longer term? 
Laura Wang: This is actually perfect timing to discuss it as we have just upgraded Chinese equities to overweight within the global emerging market context, after staying relatively cautious for almost two years since January 2021. We now see multiple market influential factors improving at the same time, which is for the very first time in the last two years. Latest COVID policy pivot, as you just pointed out, and property market stabilization measures will help facilitate macro recovery and will also alleviate investors concerns about policy priority. Fed rate hikes cycle wrapping up will improve the liquidity environment, stronger Chinese yuan against U.S. dollar will also improve the attractiveness for Chinese assets. Meanwhile, we are also seeing encouraging signs on geopolitical tension front, as well as the regulatory reset completion front. Therefore, we believe China will start to outperform the broader emerging market again. We expect around 14% upside towards the end of the year with MSCI China Index. 
Robin Xing: How should investors be positioned in the year ahead and what effects do you think will be the biggest beneficiaries of China's reopening? 
Laura Wang: Two things to keep in mind. Number one, for the past three years, we've been overweight A-Shares versus offshore space, which had worked out extremely well with CSI 300 outperforming MSCI China by close to a 20% on the currency hedged basis over the last 12 months. We believe this is a nice opportunity for the relative performance to reverse given offshore's bigger exposure to reopening consumption, higher sensitivity to Chinese yuan strengthening and to the uplifting effect from the PCAOB positive result. Secondly, it is time to overweight consumer discretionary with focus on services and durables. Consumption recovery is on the way. 
Robin Xing: What are some of the biggest risks to your outlook for 2023, both positive and negative? 
Laura Wang: I would say the positive risks are more associated with earlier and faster reopening progress, whereas the negative risk would be more around higher fatality and bigger drag to economy, which means social uncertainty as well as bigger macro and earnings pressure will amount. And then geopolitical tension is also worth monitoring in the course of the next 12 to 24 months. 
Laura Wang: Robin, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Robin Xing: Great speaking with you, Laura. 
Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleagues today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/V8k7JJdL6kyUBV5xZC0qa5YDinsyA0-3EQu3VnwABeEThu, 08 Dec 2022 22:38:44 +0000gtyAs investors have kept China’s road to reopening top of mind, what comes after reopening and how might the Chinese economy and equity markets be impacted? Chief China Economist Robin Xing and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discuss. -----...----- Transcript -----
Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. 
Robin Xing: I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. 
Laura Wang: On this special episode of the podcast we'll discuss our 2023 outlook for China's economy and equity market, and what investors should focus on next year. It's Thursday, December 8th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
Laura Wang: So, Robin, China's reopening is a top most investor concern as we head into next year. You've had a long standing call that China will be reopening by spring of 2023. Is that still your view, given the recent COVID policy changes? 
Robin Xing: Yes, that's still our view. In fact, recent developments have strengthened our conviction on that reopening view. After several weeks of twists and turns following the initial relaxation on COVID management on November 10th, we think policymakers have made clear their intent to stay on the reopening path. We have seen larger cities, including Beijing, Guangzhou and Chongqing, all relaxed COVID restrictions in last week. We have seen the top policymakers confirmed shift in the country's COVID doctrine in public communication, and COVID Zero slogan is officially removed from any press conference or official document. They started the vaccination campaign, and last but not least, we have also see a clear focus on how to shift the public perception with a more balanced assessment of the virus. All of these enhanced our conviction of a spring reopening from China. 
Laura Wang: What are some of the key risks to this view? 
Robin Xing: Well, I think the key risk is the path towards a reopening. Before full reopening in the spring, China will try to flatten the curve in this winter. That is, to prevent hospital resources being overwhelmed, thus limiting access and mortality during the reopening process. This is because the vaccination ratio among the elderly remains low, with only 40% of people aged 80 plus have received the booster shot. Meanwhile, the medical resources in China are unevenly distributed between larger cities and the lower tier areas. As a result, we do expect some lingering measures during the initial phase of reopening. Restrictions that could still tighten dynamically in lower tier cities should hospitalizations surge, but we will likely see more incremental relaxation in large cities. So cases might rise to a high level, before a more nonlinear increase occurs after the spring full reopening. So this is our timeline of reopening, basically flattening the curve in the winter when the medical system is ready, to a proper full reopening in the spring. 
Laura Wang: That's wonderful. We are finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. With all of these moving parts, if China does indeed reopen on this expected timeline, what is your growth outlook for Chinese economy both near-term and longer term? 
Robin Xing: Well, given this reopening timeline, we expect that GDP growth in China to remain subpar in near term. The economy is likely to barely grow in the fourth quarter this year, corresponding to a 2.8% year over year. Growth were likely improved marginally in the spring, but still subpar as the continued fear of the virus on the part of the population will likely keep consumption at a subpar level up to early second quarter. But as normalization unfolds from the spring, the economy will rebound more meaningfully in the second half. Our full year forecast for the Chinese growth is around 5%, which is above market consensus, and that will be largely led by private consumption. We are expecting pent up demand to be unleashed once the economy is fully...]]>416market-trendsfalse760fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-thematics-what-s-behind-india-s-growth-story--75654879----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Chief India Equity Strategist. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss India's growth story over the next decade and some key investment themes that global investors should pay attention to. It's Wednesday, December 7th, at 7 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: Our listeners are likely well aware that over the past 25 years or so, India's growth has lagged only China's among the world's largest economies. And here at Morgan Stanley, we believe India will continue to outperform. In fact, India is now entering a new era of growth, which creates a once in a generation shift in opportunities for investors. We estimate that India's GDP is poised to more than doubled to $7.5 trillion by 2031, and its market capitalization could grow 11% annually to reach $10 trillion. Essentially, we expect India to drive about a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. So Ridham, what in your view are the main drivers behind India's growth story? 
Ridham Desai: Mike, the full global trends of demographics, digitalization, decarbonization and deglobalization that we keep discussing about in our research files are favoring this new India. The new India, we argue, is benefiting from three idiosyncratic factors. The first one is India is likely to increase its share of global exports thanks to a surge in offshoring. Second, India is pursuing a distinct model for digitalization of its economy, supported by a public utility called India Stack. Operating at population scale India stack is a transaction led, low cost, high volume, small ticket size system with embedded lending. The digital revolution has already changed the way India handles documents, the way it invests and makes payments and it is now set to transform the way it lends, spends and ensures. With private credit to GDP at just 57%, a credit boom is in the offing, in our view. The third driver is India's energy consumption and energy sources, which are changing in a disruptive fashion with broad economic benefits. On the back of greater access to energy, we estimate per capita energy consumption is likely to rise by 60% to 1450 watts per day over the next decade. And with two thirds of this incremental supply coming from renewable sources, well in short, with this self-help story in play as you said, India could continue to outperform the world on GDP growth in the coming decade. 
Michael Zezas: So let's dig into some of the specifics here. You mentioned the big surge in offshoring, which has resulted in India's becoming "the office of the world". Will this continue long term? 
Ridham Desai: Yes, Mike. In the post-COVID environment, global CEOs appear more comfortable with work from home and also work from India. So the emergence of distributed delivery models, along with tighter labor markets globally, has accelerated outsourcing to India. In fact, the number of global in-house captive centers that opened in India over the past two years was double of that in the prior four years. During the pandemic years, the number of people employed in this industry in India rose by almost 800,000 to 5.1 million. And India's share in global services trade rose by 60 basis points to 4.3%. In the coming decade we think the number of people employed in India for jobs outside the country is likely to at least double to 11 million. And we think that global spending on outsourcing could rise from its current level of U.S. dollar 180 billion per year to about 1/2 trillion U.S. dollars by 2030. 
Michael Zezas: In addition to being "the office of the world", you see India as a "factory to the world" with manufacturing going up. What evidence are we seeing of India benefiting from China moving away from the global supply chain and shifting business activity away from China? 
Ridham Desai: We are anticipating a wave of manufacturing CapEx owing to government policies aimed at lifting corporate profits share and GDP via tax cuts, and some hard dollars on the table for investing in specific sectors. Multinationals are more optimistic than ever before about investing in India, and that's evident in the all-time high that our MNC sentiment index shows, and the government is encouraging investments by building both infrastructure as well as supplying land for factories. The trends outlined in Morgan Stanley's Multipolar World Thesis, a document that you have co authored, Mike, and the cheap labor that India is now able to offer relative to, say, China are adding to the mix. Indeed, the fact is that India is likely to also be a big consumption market, a hard thing for a lot of multinational corporations to ignore. We are forecasting India's per capita GDP to rise from $2,300 USD to about $5,200 USD in the next ten years. This implies that India's income pyramid offers a wide breadth of consumption, with the number of rich households likely to quintuple from 5 million to 25 million, and the middle class households more than doubling to 165 million. So all these are essentially aiding the story on India becoming a factory to the world. And the evidence is in the sharp jump in FDI that we are already seeing, the daily news flows of how companies are ramping up manufacturing in India, to both gain access to its market and to export to other countries. 
Michael Zezas: So given all these macro trends we've been discussing, what sectors within India's economy do you think are particularly well-positioned to benefit both short term and longer term? 
Ridham Desai: Three sectors are worth highlighting here. The coming credit boom favors financial services firms. The rise in per capita income and discretionary income implies that consumer discretionary companies should do well. And finally, a large CapEx cycle could lead to a boom for industrial businesses. So financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. 
Michael Zezas: Finally, what are the biggest potential impediments and risks to India's success? 
Ridham Desai: Of course, things could always go wrong. We would include a prolonged global recession or sluggish growth, adverse outcomes in geopolitics and/or domestic politics. India goes to the polls in 2024, so another election for the country to decide upon. Policy errors, shortages of skilled labor, I would note that as a key risk. And steep rises in energy and commodity prices in the interim as India tries to change its energy sources. So all these are risk factors that investors should pay attention to. That said, we think that the pieces are in place to make this India's decade.
Michael Zezas: Ridham, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Ridham Desai: Great speaking with you, Mike. 
Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/qY5Uxt8pXVrL32b22TMQEgrGyLzBvxgQ1rzhWkkjDNQWed, 07 Dec 2022 22:43:47 +0000gtyAs India enters a new era of growth, investors will want to know what’s driving this growth and how it may create once-in-a-generation opportunities. Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Chief India Equity Strategist...----- Transcript -----
Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. 
Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Chief India Equity Strategist. 
Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss India's growth story over the next decade and some key investment themes that global investors should pay attention to. It's Wednesday, December 7th, at 7 a.m. in New York. 
Michael Zezas: Our listeners are likely well aware that over the past 25 years or so, India's growth has lagged only China's among the world's largest economies. And here at Morgan Stanley, we believe India will continue to outperform. In fact, India is now entering a new era of growth, which creates a once in a generation shift in opportunities for investors. We estimate that India's GDP is poised to more than doubled to $7.5 trillion by 2031, and its market capitalization could grow 11% annually to reach $10 trillion. Essentially, we expect India to drive about a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. So Ridham, what in your view are the main drivers behind India's growth story? 
Ridham Desai: Mike, the full global trends of demographics, digitalization, decarbonization and deglobalization that we keep discussing about in our research files are favoring this new India. The new India, we argue, is benefiting from three idiosyncratic factors. The first one is India is likely to increase its share of global exports thanks to a surge in offshoring. Second, India is pursuing a distinct model for digitalization of its economy, supported by a public utility called India Stack. Operating at population scale India stack is a transaction led, low cost, high volume, small ticket size system with embedded lending. The digital revolution has already changed the way India handles documents, the way it invests and makes payments and it is now set to transform the way it lends, spends and ensures. With private credit to GDP at just 57%, a credit boom is in the offing, in our view. The third driver is India's energy consumption and energy sources, which are changing in a disruptive fashion with broad economic benefits. On the back of greater access to energy, we estimate per capita energy consumption is likely to rise by 60% to 1450 watts per day over the next decade. And with two thirds of this incremental supply coming from renewable sources, well in short, with this self-help story in play as you said, India could continue to outperform the world on GDP growth in the coming decade. 
Michael Zezas: So let's dig into some of the specifics here. You mentioned the big surge in offshoring, which has resulted in India's becoming "the office of the world". Will this continue long term? 
Ridham Desai: Yes, Mike. In the post-COVID environment, global CEOs appear more comfortable with work from home and also work from India. So the emergence of distributed delivery models, along with tighter labor markets globally, has accelerated outsourcing to India. In fact, the number of global in-house captive centers that opened in India over the past two years was double of that in the prior four years. During the pandemic years, the number of people employed in this industry in India rose by almost 800,000 to 5.1 million. And India's share in global services trade rose by 60 basis points to 4.3%. In the coming decade we think the number of people employed in India for jobs outside the country is likely to at least double to 11 million. And we think that global spending on outsourcing could rise from its current level of U.S. dollar 180 billion per...]]>442market-trendsfalse759fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/matt-hornbach-key-currency-trends-for-2023--75654972----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about our 2023 outlook and how investors should view some key macro trends. It's Tuesday, December 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, central banks provided the global economy a safety net with uber-accommodative interest rate and balance sheet policies. In 2022, central banks started to aggressively pull away that safety net. In 2023, we expect central banks to finish the job. And in 2024, central banks will likely start to roll out that safety net again, namely by lowering interest rates. 
Bond markets, which are forward looking discounting machines, are already pricing in the final stages of what central banks will likely do in 2023. The prospect of easier central bank policies should bring with it newfound demand for long term government bonds, just at a time when supply of these bonds is falling from decade long highs seen in 2021 and 2022. 
Central bank balance sheets will continue to shrink in 2023, meaning central banks are not aggressively buying bonds - but investors shouldn't be intimidated. These expected reductions in central bank purchases are already well understood by market participants and largely in the price already. In addition, for the largest central bank balance sheets, the reductions we forecast simply take them back to the pre-pandemic trend. 
Of course, for central bank policies and macro markets alike, the path of inflation and associated expectations will exert the most influence. We think inflation will fall faster than investors expect, even if it doesn't stabilize at or below pre-pandemic run rates. 
Lower inflation around the world should allow central banks to stop their policy tightening cycles. As lower U.S. inflation brings a less hawkish Fed to bear, the markets should price lower policy rates and a weaker U.S. dollar. Lower inflation in Europe and the U.K. should encourage a less hawkish ECB and Bank of England. This should help growth expectations rebound in those vicinities as rates fall, which will result in euro and sterling currency strength. 
We do think the U.S. dollar has already peaked and will decline through 2023. A fall in the U.S. dollar is usually something that reflects, and also contributes to, positive outcomes in the global economy. Typically, the U.S. dollar falls during periods of rising global growth and rising global growth expectations. 
As we anticipate the dollar's decline through 2023, it's worth noting that in emerging markets, U.S. dollar weakness and EM currency strength actually tend to loosen financial conditions within emerging market economies, not tighten them. Emerging markets that have U.S. dollar debt will also see their debt to GDP ratios fall as their currencies rise, further helping to lower borrowing costs and, in turn, boosting growth. 
In a nutshell, we see the negative feedback loops that were in place in 2022 reversing, at least somewhat in 2023 via virtuous cycles led by lower U.S. inflation, lower U.S. interest rates, and a weaker U.S. dollar. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/794UemJzwwNdFZryXL6Uqsq1V-TsNoiINi0BJ2V6YnoTue, 06 Dec 2022 20:42:43 +0000gtyAs bond markets appear to have already priced in what central banks will likely do in 2023, how will this path impact inflation and currencies around the world? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about our 2023 outlook and how investors should view some key macro trends. It's Tuesday, December 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, central banks provided the global economy a safety net with uber-accommodative interest rate and balance sheet policies. In 2022, central banks started to aggressively pull away that safety net. In 2023, we expect central banks to finish the job. And in 2024, central banks will likely start to roll out that safety net again, namely by lowering interest rates. 
Bond markets, which are forward looking discounting machines, are already pricing in the final stages of what central banks will likely do in 2023. The prospect of easier central bank policies should bring with it newfound demand for long term government bonds, just at a time when supply of these bonds is falling from decade long highs seen in 2021 and 2022. 
Central bank balance sheets will continue to shrink in 2023, meaning central banks are not aggressively buying bonds - but investors shouldn't be intimidated. These expected reductions in central bank purchases are already well understood by market participants and largely in the price already. In addition, for the largest central bank balance sheets, the reductions we forecast simply take them back to the pre-pandemic trend. 
Of course, for central bank policies and macro markets alike, the path of inflation and associated expectations will exert the most influence. We think inflation will fall faster than investors expect, even if it doesn't stabilize at or below pre-pandemic run rates. 
Lower inflation around the world should allow central banks to stop their policy tightening cycles. As lower U.S. inflation brings a less hawkish Fed to bear, the markets should price lower policy rates and a weaker U.S. dollar. Lower inflation in Europe and the U.K. should encourage a less hawkish ECB and Bank of England. This should help growth expectations rebound in those vicinities as rates fall, which will result in euro and sterling currency strength. 
We do think the U.S. dollar has already peaked and will decline through 2023. A fall in the U.S. dollar is usually something that reflects, and also contributes to, positive outcomes in the global economy. Typically, the U.S. dollar falls during periods of rising global growth and rising global growth expectations. 
As we anticipate the dollar's decline through 2023, it's worth noting that in emerging markets, U.S. dollar weakness and EM currency strength actually tend to loosen financial conditions within emerging market economies, not tighten them. Emerging markets that have U.S. dollar debt will also see their debt to GDP ratios fall as their currencies rise, further helping to lower borrowing costs and, in turn, boosting growth. 
In a nutshell, we see the negative feedback loops that were in place in 2022 reversing, at least somewhat in 2023 via virtuous cycles led by lower U.S. inflation, lower U.S. interest rates, and a weaker U.S. dollar. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.]]>216market-trendsfalse758fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-why-did-treasury-bonds-rally--75654953----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 5th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.  
Last week, the tactical rally in stocks took another step forward after Fed Chair Jay Powell's speech at the Brookings Institution. After his comments and interview, long term Treasury yields came down sharply and continued into the end of the week. This sparked a similar boost higher in equities, led by the most interest rate sensitive and heavily shorted stocks. This fits nicely with our view from a few weeks ago, which suggests that any further rally would require lower long term interest rates. It also makes sense in the context of what we think has been driving this tactical rally in the first place - the growing hope for a Fed pivot that kick saves the economic cycle from a recession. 
So maybe the biggest question is why did Treasury bonds rally so much? First, we think it mostly had to do with Powell now pushing back on the recent loosening of financial conditions. Many investors we spoke with early last week thought Powell would try to cool some of the recent excitement, to help the Fed get inflation under control. Furthermore, investors seem positioned for that kind of hawkish rhetoric, so when that didn't happen we were off to the races in both bonds and stocks. 
Second, the jobs data on Friday were stronger than expected, which sparked a quick sell off in bonds and stocks on Friday, but neither seemed to gain any momentum to the downside. Instead, bonds rallied back sharply, with longer term bonds ending up on the day. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 held its 200 day moving average after briefly looking like a failed breakout on Friday morning. In short, the surprising strength in the labor market did not scare away the newly minted bond bulls, which is more focused on growth slowing next year and the Fed pausing its rate hikes. 
A few weeks ago, we highlighted how breadth in the equity market has improved significantly since the rally began in October. In fact, breath for all the major averages is now well above the levels reached during the summer rally. This is a net positive that cannot be ignored. It's also consistent with our view that even if the S&P 500 makes a new low next year as we expect, the average stock likely will not. This is typically how bear markets end with the darlings of the last bull finally underperforming to the degree that is commensurate with their outperformance during the prior bull market. Third quarter earnings season was just the beginning of that process, in our view. In other words, improving breadth isn't unusual at the end of a bear market. 
Given our negative outlook for earnings next year, even if we skirt an economic recession, the risk reward of playing for any further upside in U.S. equities is poor. This is especially true when considering we are now right into the original resistance levels of 4000 to 4150 we projected when we made the tactically bullish call seven weeks ago. 
Bottom line, the bear market rally we called for seven weeks ago is running out of steam. While there could be some final vestiges of strength in the year end, the risk reward of trying to play forward is deteriorating materially given our confidence in our well below consensus earnings forecast for next year. From a very short term perspective, we think 4150 is the upside this rally can achieve and we would not rule that out over the next week or so. Conversely, a break of last week's low, which coincides with the 150 day moving average around 3940, would provide some confirmation that the bear market is ready to reassert the downtrend in earnest. 
Defensively oriented stocks should continue to outperform until more realistic earnings expectations for next year are better discounted. We expect that to occur during the first quarter and possibly into the spring. At that point, we will likely pivot more bullish structurally. Until then, bonds and defensively oriented bond proxies like defensive stocks should prove to be the best harbor for this storm. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/j-Vl-OAAFtyBZHvoVpkbZRJZ1ark4rxbMfJrSZZbLWQMon, 05 Dec 2022 22:22:58 +0000gtyThe tactical rally in stocks has continued and treasury bonds have experienced their own rally, leaving investors to wonder when this bear market might run out of steam. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 5th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.  
Last week, the tactical rally in stocks took another step forward after Fed Chair Jay Powell's speech at the Brookings Institution. After his comments and interview, long term Treasury yields came down sharply and continued into the end of the week. This sparked a similar boost higher in equities, led by the most interest rate sensitive and heavily shorted stocks. This fits nicely with our view from a few weeks ago, which suggests that any further rally would require lower long term interest rates. It also makes sense in the context of what we think has been driving this tactical rally in the first place - the growing hope for a Fed pivot that kick saves the economic cycle from a recession. 
So maybe the biggest question is why did Treasury bonds rally so much? First, we think it mostly had to do with Powell now pushing back on the recent loosening of financial conditions. Many investors we spoke with early last week thought Powell would try to cool some of the recent excitement, to help the Fed get inflation under control. Furthermore, investors seem positioned for that kind of hawkish rhetoric, so when that didn't happen we were off to the races in both bonds and stocks. 
Second, the jobs data on Friday were stronger than expected, which sparked a quick sell off in bonds and stocks on Friday, but neither seemed to gain any momentum to the downside. Instead, bonds rallied back sharply, with longer term bonds ending up on the day. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 held its 200 day moving average after briefly looking like a failed breakout on Friday morning. In short, the surprising strength in the labor market did not scare away the newly minted bond bulls, which is more focused on growth slowing next year and the Fed pausing its rate hikes. 
A few weeks ago, we highlighted how breadth in the equity market has improved significantly since the rally began in October. In fact, breath for all the major averages is now well above the levels reached during the summer rally. This is a net positive that cannot be ignored. It's also consistent with our view that even if the S&P 500 makes a new low next year as we expect, the average stock likely will not. This is typically how bear markets end with the darlings of the last bull finally underperforming to the degree that is commensurate with their outperformance during the prior bull market. Third quarter earnings season was just the beginning of that process, in our view. In other words, improving breadth isn't unusual at the end of a bear market. 
Given our negative outlook for earnings next year, even if we skirt an economic recession, the risk reward of playing for any further upside in U.S. equities is poor. This is especially true when considering we are now right into the original resistance levels of 4000 to 4150 we projected when we made the tactically bullish call seven weeks ago. 
Bottom line, the bear market rally we called for seven weeks ago is running out of steam. While there could be some final vestiges of strength in the year end, the risk reward of trying to play forward is deteriorating materially given our confidence in our well below consensus earnings forecast for next year. From a very short term perspective, we think 4150 is the upside this rally can achieve and we would not rule that out over the next week or so. Conversely, a break of last week's low, which coincides with the 150 day moving...]]>233market-trendsfalse757fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/ellen-zentner-is-the-u-s-headed-for-a-soft-landing--75654967----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, December 2nd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Let's start with the Fed and the role higher interest rates play in the overall growth outlook. The Fed has delivered the fastest pace of policy tightening on record and now feels comfortable to begin slowing the pace of interest rate increases. We expect it to step down the pace to 50 basis points at its meeting later this month and then deliver a final hike in January to a peak rate of between 4.5 and 4.75%. But in order to keep inflation on a downward trajectory, the Fed will likely keep rates at that peak level for most of next year. This shift to a more cautious stance from the Fed we think will help the U.S. economy narrowly miss recession in 2023. And we think only in the back half of 2024 will the pace of growth pick back up as the Fed gradually reduces the policy rate back toward neutral, which is around 2.5%. Altogether, we forecast 2023 GDP growth of just 0.3% before rebounding modestly to 1.4% in 2024. 
One bright spot in the outlook is that inflation seems to have reached a turning point. Mounting evidence points to a slowing in housing prices and rents, though they continue to drive above target inflation. Core goods inflation should turn to disinflation as supply chains normalize and demand shifts to services and away from goods. Used vehicle prices are a big contributor to lower overall inflation in our forecast, as our motor vehicle analysts believe that used car prices could be down as much as 10 to 20% next year. So overall, we expect core PCE - or personal consumption expenditures inflation - to slow from 5% this year, to 2.9% in 2023, and further to 2.4% in 2024. 
Throughout 2022, rising interest rates have raised borrowing costs, which has weighed on consumption. And we expect that to continue into 2023 as the cumulative effects of past policy hikes continue to flow through to households. On the income side, we expect a rebound in real disposable income growth in 23, because inflation pressures abate while job growth continues to be positive. So if I put those together, slower consumption and rising incomes should lift the savings rate from 3.2% this year, to 5.1% in 2023, and 6.2% in 2024. So households will start to rebuild that cushion. 
Now we're in the midst of a sharp housing correction, and we expect a double digit decline in residential investment to continue. But we don't expect a commensurate drop in home valuations. Our housing strategies predict just a 4% drop in national home prices in 2023, and further price declines are likely in the years ahead, but that's a much milder drop in home valuations compared with the magnitude of the drop off in housing activity. So we think that residential wealth, real estate wealth will continue to be a strong backdrop for household balance sheets. Now going forward, mortgage rates will start to fall again after reaching these peaks around 7%. And with healthy job gains, and that increase in real disposable income growth affordability should begin to ease somewhat, we think starting in the back half of 2024. 
Turning to the labor market, while signs of falling inflation is important to the Fed, so are signs that the labor market is softening and we expect softer demand for labor and further labor supply gains to create the slack in the labor market the Fed is looking for. So we expect job growth will likely fall below the replacement rate by the second quarter of 2023, pushing up the unemployment rate to 4.3% by the end of next year and 4.4% by the end of 2024. 
In sum, we think the U.S. economy is at a turning point, but not a turning point toward recession, a turning point toward what is likely to prove to be two sluggish years of growth in the economy. The Fed's hiking cycle is working as it should. The labor market is softening. The inflation rate is coming down. And we think that puts the U.S. economy on track for a soft landing in 2023. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/AT7eoJA-CV_GavZDfFs5LmoH_f5ZE6Z1eOW9yemSGQIFri, 02 Dec 2022 20:30:15 +0000gtyWhile 2022 saw the fastest pace of policy tightening on record, has the Fed’s hiking cycle properly set the U.S. economy up for a soft landing in 2023? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, December 2nd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Let's start with the Fed and the role higher interest rates play in the overall growth outlook. The Fed has delivered the fastest pace of policy tightening on record and now feels comfortable to begin slowing the pace of interest rate increases. We expect it to step down the pace to 50 basis points at its meeting later this month and then deliver a final hike in January to a peak rate of between 4.5 and 4.75%. But in order to keep inflation on a downward trajectory, the Fed will likely keep rates at that peak level for most of next year. This shift to a more cautious stance from the Fed we think will help the U.S. economy narrowly miss recession in 2023. And we think only in the back half of 2024 will the pace of growth pick back up as the Fed gradually reduces the policy rate back toward neutral, which is around 2.5%. Altogether, we forecast 2023 GDP growth of just 0.3% before rebounding modestly to 1.4% in 2024. 
One bright spot in the outlook is that inflation seems to have reached a turning point. Mounting evidence points to a slowing in housing prices and rents, though they continue to drive above target inflation. Core goods inflation should turn to disinflation as supply chains normalize and demand shifts to services and away from goods. Used vehicle prices are a big contributor to lower overall inflation in our forecast, as our motor vehicle analysts believe that used car prices could be down as much as 10 to 20% next year. So overall, we expect core PCE - or personal consumption expenditures inflation - to slow from 5% this year, to 2.9% in 2023, and further to 2.4% in 2024. 
Throughout 2022, rising interest rates have raised borrowing costs, which has weighed on consumption. And we expect that to continue into 2023 as the cumulative effects of past policy hikes continue to flow through to households. On the income side, we expect a rebound in real disposable income growth in 23, because inflation pressures abate while job growth continues to be positive. So if I put those together, slower consumption and rising incomes should lift the savings rate from 3.2% this year, to 5.1% in 2023, and 6.2% in 2024. So households will start to rebuild that cushion. 
Now we're in the midst of a sharp housing correction, and we expect a double digit decline in residential investment to continue. But we don't expect a commensurate drop in home valuations. Our housing strategies predict just a 4% drop in national home prices in 2023, and further price declines are likely in the years ahead, but that's a much milder drop in home valuations compared with the magnitude of the drop off in housing activity. So we think that residential wealth, real estate wealth will continue to be a strong backdrop for household balance sheets. Now going forward, mortgage rates will start to fall again after reaching these peaks around 7%. And with healthy job gains, and that increase in real disposable income growth affordability should begin to ease somewhat, we think starting in the back half of 2024. 
Turning to the labor market, while signs of falling inflation is important to the Fed, so are signs that the labor market is softening and we expect softer demand for labor and further labor supply gains to create the slack in the labor market the Fed is looking for. So we expect job growth will likely fall below the replacement rate by the second quarter of 2023, pushing up the unemployment rate to 4.3% by the end of next year and 4.4% by the end of 2024. 
In sum, we think...]]>284market-trendsfalse756fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/jonathan-garner-a-bullish-turn-on-asia-and-emerging-markets--75654957----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, in this episode on our 2023 outlook, I'll focus on why we recently turned more bullish on our coverage. It's Thursday, 1st of December at 8 a.m. in Singapore. 
2022 was a year of major adjustment, with accelerating geopolitical shifts towards a multipolar world, alongside macro volatility caused by a surge in developed markets inflation, and the sharpest Fed tightening cycle since the Paul Volcker era 40 years ago. This took the U.S. dollar back to early 1980s peaks in real terms, and global equities fell sharply, with most markets down by double digit percentages. North Asian markets performed worse as a slowdown in tech spending, and persistently weak growth in China, weighed on market sentiment. But structural improvement in macro stability and governance frameworks was rewarded for Japan equities, as well as markets in Brazil, India and Indonesia. 
Our 2023 global macro outlook paints a much less daunting picture for equity markets, despite a slower overall GDP growth profile globally than in 2022. Current market concerns are anchored on inflation and that central banks will keep hiking until the cycle ends with a deep recession, a financial accident en route, or perhaps worse - that they leave the job half done. But, and crucially, our economists forecast that U.S. core PCE inflation will fall to 2.5% annualized in the second half of next year. Alongside slowing labor market indicators, our team sees January as the last Fed hike, with rates cuts coming as soon as the fourth quarter of 2023, down to a rate of 2.375% at the end of 2024. 
Meanwhile, inflation pressures in Asia remain more subdued than elsewhere. This top down outlook of growth, inflation and interest rates all declining in the U.S. and continued reasonable growth and inflation patterns in Asia should lead to a weaker trend in the U.S. dollar, which tends to be associated with better performance from Asia and emerging market equities.
Meanwhile, for the China economy, we think a gradual easing of COVID restrictions and credit constraints on the property sector deliver a cyclical recovery, which drives growth reacceleration from 3.2% in 2022 to 5.0% in 2023. Consumer discretionary spending, which is well represented in the offshore China equity markets, should show the greatest upturn year on year as 2023 progresses. Crucially, this means that we expect corporate return on equity in China, which has declined in both absolute and relative terms in recent years, to pick up on a sustained basis from the current depressed level of 9.5%. 
We also think that end market weakness in semiconductors and technology spending, consequent upon the reversal of the COVID era boom, should gradually abate. Our technology and hardware teams expect PC and server end markets to trough in the fourth quarter of this year, whereas smartphone has already bottomed in the third quarter. They recommend looking beyond the near-term weakness to recognize upside risks, with valuations for the sector now at prior market troughs and the current pain and fundamentals priced in by recent earnings estimates downgrades in our view. We therefore upgraded Korea and Taiwan and the overall Asia technology sector in early October and expect these parts of our coverage to lead the new bull market into 2023. 
Finally, given greater GDP growth resilience and less sector exposure to global downturns, Southeast Asian markets such as Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, collectively ASEAN, tend to outperform emerging markets in Asia during bear markets, but underperform in bull markets given their low beta nature. Having seen a sharp spike in ASEAN versus Asia, relative performance in the prior bear market, which we think is now ending, our view is that the trend should reverse from here. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/iPjPchS1BiSiefAYA7UiGVoK2bTVw3ly-gBNXt1Qbq8Thu, 01 Dec 2022 22:23:45 +0000gtyAs Asia and Emerging Markets move from a year of major adjustment in 2022 towards a less daunting 2023, investors may want to change their approach for the beginning of a new bull market. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, in this episode on our 2023 outlook, I'll focus on why we recently turned more bullish on our coverage. It's Thursday, 1st of December at 8 a.m. in Singapore. 
2022 was a year of major adjustment, with accelerating geopolitical shifts towards a multipolar world, alongside macro volatility caused by a surge in developed markets inflation, and the sharpest Fed tightening cycle since the Paul Volcker era 40 years ago. This took the U.S. dollar back to early 1980s peaks in real terms, and global equities fell sharply, with most markets down by double digit percentages. North Asian markets performed worse as a slowdown in tech spending, and persistently weak growth in China, weighed on market sentiment. But structural improvement in macro stability and governance frameworks was rewarded for Japan equities, as well as markets in Brazil, India and Indonesia. 
Our 2023 global macro outlook paints a much less daunting picture for equity markets, despite a slower overall GDP growth profile globally than in 2022. Current market concerns are anchored on inflation and that central banks will keep hiking until the cycle ends with a deep recession, a financial accident en route, or perhaps worse - that they leave the job half done. But, and crucially, our economists forecast that U.S. core PCE inflation will fall to 2.5% annualized in the second half of next year. Alongside slowing labor market indicators, our team sees January as the last Fed hike, with rates cuts coming as soon as the fourth quarter of 2023, down to a rate of 2.375% at the end of 2024. 
Meanwhile, inflation pressures in Asia remain more subdued than elsewhere. This top down outlook of growth, inflation and interest rates all declining in the U.S. and continued reasonable growth and inflation patterns in Asia should lead to a weaker trend in the U.S. dollar, which tends to be associated with better performance from Asia and emerging market equities.
Meanwhile, for the China economy, we think a gradual easing of COVID restrictions and credit constraints on the property sector deliver a cyclical recovery, which drives growth reacceleration from 3.2% in 2022 to 5.0% in 2023. Consumer discretionary spending, which is well represented in the offshore China equity markets, should show the greatest upturn year on year as 2023 progresses. Crucially, this means that we expect corporate return on equity in China, which has declined in both absolute and relative terms in recent years, to pick up on a sustained basis from the current depressed level of 9.5%. 
We also think that end market weakness in semiconductors and technology spending, consequent upon the reversal of the COVID era boom, should gradually abate. Our technology and hardware teams expect PC and server end markets to trough in the fourth quarter of this year, whereas smartphone has already bottomed in the third quarter. They recommend looking beyond the near-term weakness to recognize upside risks, with valuations for the sector now at prior market troughs and the current pain and fundamentals priced in by recent earnings estimates downgrades in our view. We therefore upgraded Korea and Taiwan and the overall Asia technology sector in early October and expect these parts of our coverage to lead the new bull market into 2023. 
Finally, given greater GDP growth resilience and less sector exposure to global downturns, Southeast Asian markets such as Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, collectively ASEAN, tend to outperform emerging markets in Asia during bear markets, but...]]>256market-trendsfalse755fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-what-will-china-s-reopening-mean-for-the-u-s--75654790----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 30th, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Investors remain intently focused on China's COVID policies, as the tightening and loosening of travel and quarantine policies has implications for key drivers of markets. Namely the outlook for global inflation, monetary policy and global growth. We're paying close attention, and here's what we think you need to know. 
Importantly, our China economics team thinks that China's restrictive COVID zero policy will be a thing of the past come spring of 2023, but there will be many fits and starts along the way. Increased vaccination, availability of medical treatment and public messaging about the lessening of COVID dangers will be signposts for a full reopening of China, but we should expect episodic returns to restrictions in the meantime as China tries to smooth out its COVID caseload. 
This dynamic is important to understand for its implications to the outlook for the global economy and key markets. For example, the economic growth story for Asia should be weak in the near term, but begin to improve and outperform the rest of the world from the second quarter of 2023 through the balance of the year. In the U.S., the reopening of the China economy should help ease inflation as the supply of core goods picks up with supply chains running more smoothly. This, in turn, supports the notion that the Fed will be able to slow and eventually pause its rate hikes in 2023, even if headline inflation sees a rebound via higher gas prices from higher China demand for oil. And where might this overall economic dynamic be most visible to investors? Look to the foreign exchange markets. China's currency should relatively benefit, particularly if reopening leads investors back to its equity markets. The U.S. dollar, however, should peak, as the Fed approaches pausing its interest rate hikes and, accordingly, ceasing the increase in the interest rate advantage for holding U.S. dollar assets versus the rest of the world. 
Of course, the evolution of the COVID pandemic has been anything but straightforward. So we'll keep monitoring the situation with China and adjust our market views as needed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/SOtlO3sHwtdKKyde2RGTQKQUipee0_bcn9d6UlgptHsWed, 30 Nov 2022 20:39:57 +0000gtyAs China tries to smooth out its COVID caseload, investors should take note of the impacts those COVID policies have on global economies and key markets. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 30th, at 11 a.m. in New York. 
Investors remain intently focused on China's COVID policies, as the tightening and loosening of travel and quarantine policies has implications for key drivers of markets. Namely the outlook for global inflation, monetary policy and global growth. We're paying close attention, and here's what we think you need to know. 
Importantly, our China economics team thinks that China's restrictive COVID zero policy will be a thing of the past come spring of 2023, but there will be many fits and starts along the way. Increased vaccination, availability of medical treatment and public messaging about the lessening of COVID dangers will be signposts for a full reopening of China, but we should expect episodic returns to restrictions in the meantime as China tries to smooth out its COVID caseload. 
This dynamic is important to understand for its implications to the outlook for the global economy and key markets. For example, the economic growth story for Asia should be weak in the near term, but begin to improve and outperform the rest of the world from the second quarter of 2023 through the balance of the year. In the U.S., the reopening of the China economy should help ease inflation as the supply of core goods picks up with supply chains running more smoothly. This, in turn, supports the notion that the Fed will be able to slow and eventually pause its rate hikes in 2023, even if headline inflation sees a rebound via higher gas prices from higher China demand for oil. And where might this overall economic dynamic be most visible to investors? Look to the foreign exchange markets. China's currency should relatively benefit, particularly if reopening leads investors back to its equity markets. The U.S. dollar, however, should peak, as the Fed approaches pausing its interest rate hikes and, accordingly, ceasing the increase in the interest rate advantage for holding U.S. dollar assets versus the rest of the world. 
Of course, the evolution of the COVID pandemic has been anything but straightforward. So we'll keep monitoring the situation with China and adjust our market views as needed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>148market-trendsfalse754fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/stephen-byrd-a-new-approach-to-esg--75654974----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on our new approach to identifying opportunities that can generate both Alpha and ESG impact. It's Tuesday, November 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
On previous episodes of this podcast we've discussed how, although sustainable investing has been a trend over the past decade, it has faced significant pushback from critics arguing that ESG strategies - or environmental, social and governance - sacrifice long term returns in favor of the pursuit of certain ESG objectives. We have done some new work here at Morgan Stanley, suggesting that it is possible to identify opportunities that can deliver excess returns, or alpha, and make an ESG impact. 
Our research found that what we call "ESG rate of change", companies that are leaders on improving ESG metrics, should be a critical focus for investors looking to identify companies that meet both criteria. What do we mean by "ESG rate of change"? Traditional ESG screens focus on "ESG best-in-class" metrics. That is, companies that are already scoring well on sustainability factors. But there is a case to be made for companies that are making significant improvements. For example, we find that there are companies using innovative technologies that can reduce costs and improve efficiency. These companies, which we call deflation enablers, generally screen very favorably on a range of ESG metrics and are reaping the financial benefits of improved efficiency. A surprisingly broad range of technologies are dropping in cost to such an extent that they offer significant net benefits, both financial and ESG oriented. Some examples of such technologies are very cheap solar, wind and clean hydrogen, energy storage cost reductions, cheaper carbon capture, improved molecular plastics recycling, more efficient electric motors, a wide range of recycling technologies, and a range of increasingly inexpensive waste to energy technology. 
To get even more specific, as we look at these various technologies and the sectors they touch, we think the utility sector is arguably the most advantaged among the carbon heavy sectors in terms of its ESG potential. Why is that? Because many utilities have the potential to create an "everybody wins" outcome in which customer bills are lower, CO2 emissions are reduced, and utility earnings per share growth is enhanced. This is a rare combination. In the U.S. utility sector many management teams are shutting down expensive coal fired power plants and building renewables, energy storage and transmission, which achieve superior earnings per share growth. Many of these stocks would screen negatively on classic ESG metrics such as carbon intensity, but these ESG improvers may be positioned to deliver superior stock returns and play a critical role in the transition to clean energy. 
As with most things, applying this new strategy we're proposing isn't simply a matter of looking at companies with improving ESG metrics. It's about really understanding what's driving these changes. Here's where sector specific expertise is key. In fact, we believe that in the absence of fundamental insight, ESG criteria can be misapplied and could lead to unintended outcomes. The potential for enhanced performance, in our view, comes from a true marriage of ESG investing principles and deep sector expertise. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XANfoV-LhaUCx4OPBBOdfpIS39z1UbqUR5F20AdMi8UTue, 29 Nov 2022 20:59:25 +0000gtyTraditional ESG investing strategies highlight companies with top scores across ESG metrics, but new research shows value in focusing instead on those companies who have a higher rate of change as they improve their ESG metrics. ----- Transcript -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on our new approach to identifying opportunities that can generate both Alpha and ESG impact. It's Tuesday, November 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
On previous episodes of this podcast we've discussed how, although sustainable investing has been a trend over the past decade, it has faced significant pushback from critics arguing that ESG strategies - or environmental, social and governance - sacrifice long term returns in favor of the pursuit of certain ESG objectives. We have done some new work here at Morgan Stanley, suggesting that it is possible to identify opportunities that can deliver excess returns, or alpha, and make an ESG impact. 
Our research found that what we call "ESG rate of change", companies that are leaders on improving ESG metrics, should be a critical focus for investors looking to identify companies that meet both criteria. What do we mean by "ESG rate of change"? Traditional ESG screens focus on "ESG best-in-class" metrics. That is, companies that are already scoring well on sustainability factors. But there is a case to be made for companies that are making significant improvements. For example, we find that there are companies using innovative technologies that can reduce costs and improve efficiency. These companies, which we call deflation enablers, generally screen very favorably on a range of ESG metrics and are reaping the financial benefits of improved efficiency. A surprisingly broad range of technologies are dropping in cost to such an extent that they offer significant net benefits, both financial and ESG oriented. Some examples of such technologies are very cheap solar, wind and clean hydrogen, energy storage cost reductions, cheaper carbon capture, improved molecular plastics recycling, more efficient electric motors, a wide range of recycling technologies, and a range of increasingly inexpensive waste to energy technology. 
To get even more specific, as we look at these various technologies and the sectors they touch, we think the utility sector is arguably the most advantaged among the carbon heavy sectors in terms of its ESG potential. Why is that? Because many utilities have the potential to create an "everybody wins" outcome in which customer bills are lower, CO2 emissions are reduced, and utility earnings per share growth is enhanced. This is a rare combination. In the U.S. utility sector many management teams are shutting down expensive coal fired power plants and building renewables, energy storage and transmission, which achieve superior earnings per share growth. Many of these stocks would screen negatively on classic ESG metrics such as carbon intensity, but these ESG improvers may be positioned to deliver superior stock returns and play a critical role in the transition to clean energy. 
As with most things, applying this new strategy we're proposing isn't simply a matter of looking at companies with improving ESG metrics. It's about really understanding what's driving these changes. Here's where sector specific expertise is key. In fact, we believe that in the absence of fundamental insight, ESG criteria can be misapplied and could lead to unintended outcomes. The potential for enhanced performance, in our view, comes from a true marriage of ESG investing principles and deep sector expertise. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>222market-trendsfalse753fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2023-european-outlook-recession-beyond--75654985----- Transcript -----Graham Secker Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist.
Jens Eisenschmidt And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Economist.
Graham Secker And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our 2023 outlook for Europe's economy and equity market, and what investors should pay close attention to next year. It's Monday, November the 28th, at 3 p.m. in London.
Graham Secker So Jens, Europe faces multiple challenges right now. Inflation is soaring, energy supply is uncertain, and financial conditions are tightening. This very tricky environment has already impacted the economy of the euro area, but is Europe headed into a recession? And what is your growth outlook for the year ahead?
Jens Eisenschmidt So yes, we do see a recession coming. In year-on-year terms we see negative growth of minus 0.2% next year. There's heterogeneity behind that, Germany is most affected of the large countries, Spain is least affected. In general, the drivers are that you mentioned, we have inflation that eats into real disposable income that is bad for consumption. We have the energy situation, which is highly uncertain, which is not great for investment. And we do have monetary policy that's starting to get restrictive, leading to a tightening in financial conditions which is actually already priced into markets. And, you know, that's the transmission lack of monetary policy. So that leads to lower growth predominantly in 23 and 24.
Graham Secker And maybe just to drill into the inflation side of that a little bit more. Specifically, do you expect inflation to rise further from here? And then when you look into the next 12 months, what are the key drivers of your inflation profile?
Jens Eisenschmidt So inflation will rise, according to our forecast, a little bit further, but not by an awful lot. We really see it peaking in December on headline terms. Just to remind you, we had an increase to 10.7 in October that was predominantly driven by energy and food inflation, so around 70% of that was energy and food. And of course, it's natural to look into these two components to see what's going to happen in the future. Here we think food inflation probably has still some time to go because there is some delayed response to the input prices that have peaked already at some point past this year. But energy is probably flat from here or maybe even slightly falling, which then gets you some base effects which will lead and are the main driver of our forecast for a lower headline inflation in the next year. Core inflation will be probably more sticky. We see 4% this year and 4% next. And here again, we have these processes like food inflation, services inflation that react with some lag to input prices coming down. So, it will take some time. Further out in the profile, we do see core inflation remaining above 2% simply because there will be a wage catch up process.
Graham Secker And with that core inflation profile, what does that mean for the ECB? What are your forecasts for the ECB's monetary policy path from here?
Jens Eisenschmidt We really think that the ECB needs to have seen the peak in inflation, and that's probably you're right, both core and headline. We see a peak, as I said, in December, core similarly, but at a high level and, you know, convincingly only coming down afterwards. So, the ECB will have to see it in the rear mirror and be very, very clear that inflation now is really falling before they can stop their rate hike cycle, which we think will be April. So, we see another 50 basis point increase in December 25, 25 in February, in March for the ECB then to really stop its hiking cycle in April having reached 2.5% on the deposit facility rate, which is already in restrictive territory. So, Graham, turning to you, bearing in mind all that just said about the macro backdrop, how will it impact European equities both near-term and longer term?
Graham Secker Having been bearish on European equities for much of this year, at the beginning of October we shifted to a more neutral stance on European equities specifically. But we've had pretty strong rally over the course of the last couple of months, which sets us up, we think, for some downside into the first quarter of next year. In my mind, I really have the profile that we saw in 2008, 2009 around the global financial crisis. Then equity valuations, the price to earnings ratio troughed in October a weight, the market rallies for a couple of months, but then as the earnings downgrades kicked in the start of 2009, the actual index itself went back down to the lows. So, it was driven by earnings and that's what we can see happening again now. So perhaps Europe's PE ratio troughed at the end of September. But once the earnings downgrades start in earnest, which we think probably happens early in 2023, we can see that taking European equities back down towards the lows again. On a 12-month view from here we see limited upside. We have 1-2% upside to our index target by the end of next year. But obviously, hopefully if we do get that correction in the first quarter, then there'll be more to play for. We just got a time entry point.
Jens Eisenschmidt Right. So how should I, as an investor, be positioned then in the year ahead?
Graham Secker From a sector perspective, we would be underweight cyclicals. We think European earnings next year will fall by about 10% and we think cyclicals will be the key area of earnings disappointment. So, we want to be underweight the cyclicals until we get much closer to the economic and earnings trough. Having been positive on defensives for much of this year, we've recently moved them to neutral. We've upgraded the European tech sector, the medtech sector, and also luxury goods as well.
Jens Eisenschmidt So what are the biggest risks then to your outlook for 23, both on the positive and the negative side?
Graham Secker So on the positive side, I'd highlight two. Firstly, we have the proverbial soft landing when it comes to the economic backdrop, whether that's European and or global. That would be particularly helpful for equities, if that was accompanied by a bigger downward surprise on inflation. So, if inflation falls more quickly and growth holds up, that would be pretty positive for equity markets. A second positive would be any form of geopolitical de-escalation that would be very helpful for European risk appetites. And then on the negative side, the first one would be a bigger profit recession. If earnings do fall 10% next year, which is our projection, that would be very mild in the context of previous downturns. So in our base case, we see European earnings falling 20%, not the 10% decline that we see in that base case. The other negatives that I think a little bit about is whether or not what we've seen in the UK over the last couple of months could happen elsewhere. I.e., interest rates start to put more and more pressure on government finances and budget deficits, and we start to see a shift in that environment. So that could be something that could weigh on markets next year as well.
Graham Secker But, Jens, thanks for taking the time to talk today.
Jens Eisenschmidt Great speaking with you, Graham.
Graham Secker And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/KAagq2DFNpB81cG0TWqpImqIeC_D9d0uM5netWoA9yEMon, 28 Nov 2022 21:20:07 +0000gtyAs we head into a new year, Europe faces multiple challenges across inflation, energy and financial conditions, meaning investors will want to keep an eye on recession risk, the ECB, and European equities. Chief European Equity Strategist Graham...----- Transcript -----Graham Secker Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist.
Jens Eisenschmidt And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Economist.
Graham Secker And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our 2023 outlook for Europe's economy and equity market, and what investors should pay close attention to next year. It's Monday, November the 28th, at 3 p.m. in London.
Graham Secker So Jens, Europe faces multiple challenges right now. Inflation is soaring, energy supply is uncertain, and financial conditions are tightening. This very tricky environment has already impacted the economy of the euro area, but is Europe headed into a recession? And what is your growth outlook for the year ahead?
Jens Eisenschmidt So yes, we do see a recession coming. In year-on-year terms we see negative growth of minus 0.2% next year. There's heterogeneity behind that, Germany is most affected of the large countries, Spain is least affected. In general, the drivers are that you mentioned, we have inflation that eats into real disposable income that is bad for consumption. We have the energy situation, which is highly uncertain, which is not great for investment. And we do have monetary policy that's starting to get restrictive, leading to a tightening in financial conditions which is actually already priced into markets. And, you know, that's the transmission lack of monetary policy. So that leads to lower growth predominantly in 23 and 24.
Graham Secker And maybe just to drill into the inflation side of that a little bit more. Specifically, do you expect inflation to rise further from here? And then when you look into the next 12 months, what are the key drivers of your inflation profile?
Jens Eisenschmidt So inflation will rise, according to our forecast, a little bit further, but not by an awful lot. We really see it peaking in December on headline terms. Just to remind you, we had an increase to 10.7 in October that was predominantly driven by energy and food inflation, so around 70% of that was energy and food. And of course, it's natural to look into these two components to see what's going to happen in the future. Here we think food inflation probably has still some time to go because there is some delayed response to the input prices that have peaked already at some point past this year. But energy is probably flat from here or maybe even slightly falling, which then gets you some base effects which will lead and are the main driver of our forecast for a lower headline inflation in the next year. Core inflation will be probably more sticky. We see 4% this year and 4% next. And here again, we have these processes like food inflation, services inflation that react with some lag to input prices coming down. So, it will take some time. Further out in the profile, we do see core inflation remaining above 2% simply because there will be a wage catch up process.
Graham Secker And with that core inflation profile, what does that mean for the ECB? What are your forecasts for the ECB's monetary policy path from here?
Jens Eisenschmidt We really think that the ECB needs to have seen the peak in inflation, and that's probably you're right, both core and headline. We see a peak, as I said, in December, core similarly, but at a high level and, you know, convincingly only coming down afterwards. So, the ECB will have to see it in the rear mirror and be very, very clear that inflation now is really falling before they can stop their rate hike cycle, which we think will be April. So, we see another 50 basis...]]>427market-trendsfalse752fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michelle-weaver-a-very-different-holiday-shopping-season--75655007----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley's U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our outlook for holiday spending in the U.S. It's Friday, November 25th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
With the holiday shopping season just around the corner, we collaborated with the Morgan Stanley U.S. economics team and several of the consumer teams, namely airlines, consumer goods, e-commerce and electronics, to analyze our consumer survey data around holiday spending. The big takeaway is that this year's holiday shopping season is going to be quite different from the one we had last year. 
In 2021, we saw major supply chain malfunctions that impacted inventories and caused shoppers to start buying much earlier in the season. Limited supplies also gave companies a lot of pricing power, and this year the situation looks like it is shaping up to be the exact opposite. High inventory levels should push stores to offer discounts as they attempt to clear merchandise off shelves. Companies offering the biggest discounts will be able to grab the largest wallet share, but this will likely be a hit to their profit margins. 
Additionally, inflation has weighed heavily on consumers throughout the year, and it remains their number one concern heading into the holiday shopping season. This year, we're likely to see a very bargain savvy consumer. Our survey showed that 70% of shoppers are waiting for stores to offer discounts before they begin their holiday shopping, and the majority are waiting to see deals in excess of 20%. Additionally, consumers are likely to be more price sensitive this year. About a third of consumers said they would buy a lot less gifts and holiday products if stores raise prices. 
U.S. consumers are largely expecting to spend about the same amount on holiday gifts and products this year versus last year. So retailers will be competing for a similarly sized pool of revenue as last year, and will have to offer competitive prices to get shoppers to choose their products. This creates a really tough environment for profit margins. 
We also asked consumers specifically if they are planning to spend more or less this year in a variety of popular gift areas. The biggest spending declines are expected for luxury gifts, sports equipment, home and kitchen and electronics, all areas where we saw overconsumption during lockdown. 
Looking at the industry implications, services are expected to hold up better than goods overall. Department stores and specialty retailers, consumer durable goods, large volume retailers and tech hardware are all likely to face a more challenging season. On the other hand, demand for travel and flights remains very strong, and the Morgan Stanley transportation team remains bullish on the U.S. airlines overall, as they believe travel interest remains resilient despite consumer and macro fears. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/SLtLfNCZ5-hb5UmWBjp6ORKnn6GKPKWWzp9JGMUMjGMFri, 25 Nov 2022 19:00:00 +0000gtyAs we enter the holiday shopping season, the challenges facing consumers and retailers look quite different from 2021, so how will inflation and high inventory impact profit margins? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley's U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our outlook for holiday spending in the U.S. It's Friday, November 25th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
With the holiday shopping season just around the corner, we collaborated with the Morgan Stanley U.S. economics team and several of the consumer teams, namely airlines, consumer goods, e-commerce and electronics, to analyze our consumer survey data around holiday spending. The big takeaway is that this year's holiday shopping season is going to be quite different from the one we had last year. 
In 2021, we saw major supply chain malfunctions that impacted inventories and caused shoppers to start buying much earlier in the season. Limited supplies also gave companies a lot of pricing power, and this year the situation looks like it is shaping up to be the exact opposite. High inventory levels should push stores to offer discounts as they attempt to clear merchandise off shelves. Companies offering the biggest discounts will be able to grab the largest wallet share, but this will likely be a hit to their profit margins. 
Additionally, inflation has weighed heavily on consumers throughout the year, and it remains their number one concern heading into the holiday shopping season. This year, we're likely to see a very bargain savvy consumer. Our survey showed that 70% of shoppers are waiting for stores to offer discounts before they begin their holiday shopping, and the majority are waiting to see deals in excess of 20%. Additionally, consumers are likely to be more price sensitive this year. About a third of consumers said they would buy a lot less gifts and holiday products if stores raise prices. 
U.S. consumers are largely expecting to spend about the same amount on holiday gifts and products this year versus last year. So retailers will be competing for a similarly sized pool of revenue as last year, and will have to offer competitive prices to get shoppers to choose their products. This creates a really tough environment for profit margins. 
We also asked consumers specifically if they are planning to spend more or less this year in a variety of popular gift areas. The biggest spending declines are expected for luxury gifts, sports equipment, home and kitchen and electronics, all areas where we saw overconsumption during lockdown. 
Looking at the industry implications, services are expected to hold up better than goods overall. Department stores and specialty retailers, consumer durable goods, large volume retailers and tech hardware are all likely to face a more challenging season. On the other hand, demand for travel and flights remains very strong, and the Morgan Stanley transportation team remains bullish on the U.S. airlines overall, as they believe travel interest remains resilient despite consumer and macro fears. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>188market-trendsfalse751fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-mixed-news-from-the-u-s-china-meeting--75654977----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on  the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 23rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week, many of my colleagues and I were in Singapore meeting with clients for Morgan Stanley's annual Asia Pacific Summit. Top of mind for many was the recent meeting between U.S. President Biden and China's President Xi. In particular, there was much Thanksgiving that the two sides seemed to agree on a few points that would create some near-term stability in the relationship. But we caution investors not to read more into their meeting beyond that, and accordingly continue to prepare for a multipolar world where the U.S. and China disassociate in key economic areas. 
True, there were statements of respect for each other's position on Taiwan, a return to key policy dialogs, and a recognition on both sides of the importance of the bilateral relationship to the well-being of the wider world. But that doesn't mean the two sides found a way to remain interconnected economically. Rather, it just signals that economic disconnection may be orderly and spread out as opposed to disorderly and quick. Look beyond the soothing statements from the meeting, and you see policies on both sides showing work toward economic disconnection with industrial policies and trade barriers aimed at creating separate economic and technological ecosystems. An orderly transition to this state may be costly, but it need not be disruptive. 
This dynamic still leaves plenty of cross-currents for markets. It's good news overall for the macroeconomic outlook as it takes a potential growth shock off the table. It's also good for key geographies that will benefit from investment towards supply chain realignment, such as Mexico, as we recently highlighted in collaborative research with our Mexico strategist. But it poses challenges for companies that will be compelled to take on higher labor and CapEx costs as the U.S. seeks distance from China on key technologies. Semiconductors have been and will continue to be a key space to watch as the sector incrementally shifts production to higher cost areas in order to comply with U.S. regulatory demands. 
So bottom line, we should all feel a bit better about the outlook for markets following the Biden/Xi meeting, but just a bit. The U.S.-China relationship isn't going back to its inter-connected past, and the cost of disconnecting in key areas is sure to hurt some investments and help others. 
With Thanksgiving this week, I want to take a moment to thank you, our listeners, for sharing this podcast with your friends and colleagues. As we pass another exciting milestone of 1 million downloads in a single month, we hope you continue to tune in to thoughts on the market as we navigate our ever changing world. Happy Thanksgiving from all of us here at Morgan Stanley.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/rYX-hoLIpMl0JmYN2grl-5xBw_M1pZwh0t7ty7r-PlUWed, 23 Nov 2022 18:06:54 +0000gtyWhile the recent meeting between U.S. President Biden and China’s President Xi has signaled near term stability for the relationship between the two countries, investors will need to understand what this means for future economic disconnection. -----...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on  the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 23rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Last week, many of my colleagues and I were in Singapore meeting with clients for Morgan Stanley's annual Asia Pacific Summit. Top of mind for many was the recent meeting between U.S. President Biden and China's President Xi. In particular, there was much Thanksgiving that the two sides seemed to agree on a few points that would create some near-term stability in the relationship. But we caution investors not to read more into their meeting beyond that, and accordingly continue to prepare for a multipolar world where the U.S. and China disassociate in key economic areas. 
True, there were statements of respect for each other's position on Taiwan, a return to key policy dialogs, and a recognition on both sides of the importance of the bilateral relationship to the well-being of the wider world. But that doesn't mean the two sides found a way to remain interconnected economically. Rather, it just signals that economic disconnection may be orderly and spread out as opposed to disorderly and quick. Look beyond the soothing statements from the meeting, and you see policies on both sides showing work toward economic disconnection with industrial policies and trade barriers aimed at creating separate economic and technological ecosystems. An orderly transition to this state may be costly, but it need not be disruptive. 
This dynamic still leaves plenty of cross-currents for markets. It's good news overall for the macroeconomic outlook as it takes a potential growth shock off the table. It's also good for key geographies that will benefit from investment towards supply chain realignment, such as Mexico, as we recently highlighted in collaborative research with our Mexico strategist. But it poses challenges for companies that will be compelled to take on higher labor and CapEx costs as the U.S. seeks distance from China on key technologies. Semiconductors have been and will continue to be a key space to watch as the sector incrementally shifts production to higher cost areas in order to comply with U.S. regulatory demands. 
So bottom line, we should all feel a bit better about the outlook for markets following the Biden/Xi meeting, but just a bit. The U.S.-China relationship isn't going back to its inter-connected past, and the cost of disconnecting in key areas is sure to hurt some investments and help others. 
With Thanksgiving this week, I want to take a moment to thank you, our listeners, for sharing this podcast with your friends and colleagues. As we pass another exciting milestone of 1 million downloads in a single month, we hope you continue to tune in to thoughts on the market as we navigate our ever changing world. Happy Thanksgiving from all of us here at Morgan Stanley.]]>171market-trendsfalse750fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-outlook-what-are-the-key-debates-for-2023--75655000----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the key debates underpinning Morgan Stanley's 2023 year ahead outlook. It's Tuesday, November 22nd at 3 p.m. in London. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, within Morgan Stanley research we collaborate a lot, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say that when we sit down to write our year ahead outlooks for strategy and economics, it's probably one of the most collaborative exercises that we do. Part of that is some pretty intense debate. So that's what I was hoping to talk to you about, kind of give listeners some insight into what are the types of things that Morgan Stanley research analysts were debating when thinking about 2023 and how we resolved some of those issues. And I think maybe the best place to start is just this question of inflation, right? Inflation was the big surprise of 2022. We underestimated it. A lot of forecasters underestimated inflation. As we look into 2023, Morgan Stanley's economists are forecasting inflation to come down. So, how did that debate go? Why do we have conviction that this time inflation really is going to moderate? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. And it is absolutely the case that challenging each other's view is critically important and not a surprise that we spent a lot of time on inflation. Given that we have many upside surprises to inflation throughout the year, you know, there was understandable skepticism about the forecasts that US inflation will show a steady decline over the course of 2023. Our economists, clearly, acknowledge the uncertainty associated with it, but they took some comfort in a few things. One in the base effect. Two, normalizing supply chains and weaker labor markets. They also saw that in certain goods, certain core goods, such as autos, for example, they expect to see deflation, not just disinflation. And there's also a factor of medical services, which has a reset in prices that will exert a steady drag on the core inflation. So all said and done, there is significant uncertainty, but there are still clearly some reasons why our economists expect to see inflation decline. 
Andrew Sheets: I think that's so interesting because even after we published this outlook, it's fair to say that a lot of investor skepticism has related to this idea that inflation can moderate. And another area where I think when we've been talking to investors there's some disagreement is around the growth outlook, especially for the U.S. economy. You know, we're forecasting what I would describe as a soft landing, i.e., U.S. growth slows but you do not see a U.S. recession next year. A lot of investors do expect a U.S. recession. So why did we take a different view? Why do we think the U.S. economy can kind of avoid this recessionary path? 
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key point here is the U.S. economy slows down quite substantially. It barely skirts recession. So a 0.5% growth expectation for 2023 for the U.S. is not exactly robust growth. I think basically our economists think that the tighter monetary policy will stop tightening incrementally early in 2023, and that will play out in slowing the economy substantially without outright jumping into contraction mode. Although we all agree that there is a considerable uncertainty associated with it. 
Andrew Sheets: We've talked a bit about U.S. inflation and U.S. growth. These things have major implications for the U.S. dollar. Again, I think an area that was subject to a lot of debate was our forecast that the dollar's going to decline next year. And so, given that the U.S. is still this outperforming economy, that's avoiding a recession, given that it still offers higher interest rates, why don't we think the dollar does well in that environment? 
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key to this out-of-consensus view on dollar is that the decline in inflation, as our economists forecast and as we just discussed, we think will limit the potential for US rates going much higher. And furthermore, given that the monetary policy is in restrictive territory, we think there is a greater chance that we will see more downside surprises in individual data points. And while this is happening, the outlook for China, right, even though it is still challenging, appears to be shifting in the positive direction. There's a decent chance that the authorities will take steps towards ending the the "zero covid" policy. This would help bring greater balance to the global economy, and that should put less upward pressure on the dollar. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, another question that generated quite a bit of debate is that next year you continue to see quantitative tightening from the Fed, the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is shrinking, it's owning fewer bonds and yet we're also forecasting U.S. bond yields to fall. So how do you square those things? How do you think it's consistent to be forecasting lower bond yields and yet less Federal Reserve support for the bond market? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, there are two important points here. The first one is that when QT ends, really, history is really not much of a guide here. You know, we really have one data point when QT ended, before rate cuts started happening. And the thinking behind our thoughts on QT is that the Fed sees these two policy tools as being independent. And stopping QT depends really on the money market conditions and the bank demand for reserves. And therefore, QT could end either before or after December 2023 when we anticipate normalization of interest rate policy to come into effect. So, the second point is that why we think that the interest rates are going to rally is really related to the expectation of significant slowing in the economic growth. Even though the U.S. economy does not go into a contraction mode, we expect a significant slowing of the U.S. economy to 0.5% GDP growth and the economy growing below potential even into 2024 as the effects of the tighter monetary policy conditions begin to play out in the real economy. So we think the rally in U.S. rates, especially in the longer end, is really a function of this. So I think we need to keep the two policy tools a bit separate as we think about this. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, I wanted us to put our credit hats on and talk a little bit about our expectations for default rates. And I think here, ironically, when we've been talking to investors, there's been disagreement on both sides. So, you know, we're forecasting a default rate for the U.S. of around 4-4.5% Next year for high yield, which is about the historical average. And you get some investors who say, that expectation is too cautious and other investors who say, that's too benign. So why is 4-4.5% reasonable and why is it reasonable in the context of those, you know, investor concerns? 
Vishy Tirupattur: It's interesting, Andrew, when you expect that some some people will think that the our expectations are too tight and others think that they are too wide and we end up somewhat in the middle of the pack, I think we are getting it right. The key point here is that the the maturity walls really are pretty modest over the next two years. The fundamentals, in terms of coverage ratios, leverage ratio, cash on balance sheets, are certainly pretty decent, which will mitigate near-term default pressures. However, as the economy begins to slow down and the earnings pressures come into play, we will expect to see the market beginning to think about maturity walls in 2025 onwards. All that means is that we will see defaults rise from the extremely low levels that we are at right now to long-term average levels without spiking to the kinds of default rates we have seen in previous economic slowdowns or recessions. 
Andrew Sheets: You know, we've had this historic rise in mortgage rates and we're forecasting a really dramatic drop in housing activity. And yet we're not forecasting nearly as a dramatic drop in U.S. home prices. So Vishy, I wanted to put this question to you in two ways. First, how do we justify a much larger decrease in housing activity relative to a more modest decrease in housing prices? And then second, would you consider our housing forecast for prices bullish or bearish relative to the consensus? 
Vishy Tirupattur: So, Andrew, the first point is pretty straightforward. You know, as mortgage rates have risen in response to higher interest rates, affordability metrics have dramatically deteriorated. The consequence of this, we think, is a very significant slowing of housing activity in terms of new home sales, housing starts, housing permits, building permits and so on. The decline in those housing activity metrics would be comparable to the kind of decline we saw after the financial crisis. However, to get the prices down anywhere close to the levels we saw in the wake of the financial crisis, we need to see forced sales. Forced sales through foreclosures, etc. that we simply don't expect to see happen in the next few years because the mortgage lending standards after the financial crisis had been significantly tighter. There exists a substantial equity in many homes today. And there's also this lock-in effect, where a large number of current mortgage holders have low mortgage rates locked in. And rem]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/2Elogy83vV82_NRicDo1h4W047BhVvyJwz4GqKOkyBUTue, 22 Nov 2022 21:56:54 +0000gtyThe year ahead outlook is a process of collaboration between strategists and economists from across the firm, so what were analysts debating when thinking about 2023, and how were those debates resolved? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the key debates underpinning Morgan Stanley's 2023 year ahead outlook. It's Tuesday, November 22nd at 3 p.m. in London. 
Vishy Tirupattur: And 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, within Morgan Stanley research we collaborate a lot, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say that when we sit down to write our year ahead outlooks for strategy and economics, it's probably one of the most collaborative exercises that we do. Part of that is some pretty intense debate. So that's what I was hoping to talk to you about, kind of give listeners some insight into what are the types of things that Morgan Stanley research analysts were debating when thinking about 2023 and how we resolved some of those issues. And I think maybe the best place to start is just this question of inflation, right? Inflation was the big surprise of 2022. We underestimated it. A lot of forecasters underestimated inflation. As we look into 2023, Morgan Stanley's economists are forecasting inflation to come down. So, how did that debate go? Why do we have conviction that this time inflation really is going to moderate? 
Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. And it is absolutely the case that challenging each other's view is critically important and not a surprise that we spent a lot of time on inflation. Given that we have many upside surprises to inflation throughout the year, you know, there was understandable skepticism about the forecasts that US inflation will show a steady decline over the course of 2023. Our economists, clearly, acknowledge the uncertainty associated with it, but they took some comfort in a few things. One in the base effect. Two, normalizing supply chains and weaker labor markets. They also saw that in certain goods, certain core goods, such as autos, for example, they expect to see deflation, not just disinflation. And there's also a factor of medical services, which has a reset in prices that will exert a steady drag on the core inflation. So all said and done, there is significant uncertainty, but there are still clearly some reasons why our economists expect to see inflation decline. 
Andrew Sheets: I think that's so interesting because even after we published this outlook, it's fair to say that a lot of investor skepticism has related to this idea that inflation can moderate. And another area where I think when we've been talking to investors there's some disagreement is around the growth outlook, especially for the U.S. economy. You know, we're forecasting what I would describe as a soft landing, i.e., U.S. growth slows but you do not see a U.S. recession next year. A lot of investors do expect a U.S. recession. So why did we take a different view? Why do we think the U.S. economy can kind of avoid this recessionary path? 
Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key point here is the U.S. economy slows down quite substantially. It barely skirts recession. So a 0.5% growth expectation for 2023 for the U.S. is not exactly robust growth. I think basically our economists think that the tighter monetary policy will stop tightening incrementally early in 2023, and that will play out in slowing the economy substantially without outright jumping into contraction mode. Although we all agree that there is a considerable uncertainty associated with it. 
Andrew Sheets: We've...]]>609market-trendsfalse749fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-when-will-market-volatility-subside--75654858----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 21st, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week, we published our 2023 U.S. equities outlook. In it, we detail the path to our 2023 year end S&P 500 price target of 3900. While the price may seem unexciting relative to where we're currently trading, we think the path will be quite volatile with several key inflection points investors will need to trade to make above average returns next year. The main pushback in focus from investors has centered around the first inflection - the near-term tactical upside call we made about a month ago.
Let's review a few key points of the call as we discuss how the rest of the year may play out. First, the primary tactical driver to our bullish call was simply respecting the 200 week moving average. As noted when we made the call last month, the 200 week moving average does not give way for the S&P 500 until a recession is undeniable. In short, until it is clear we are going to have a full blown labor cycle where the unemployment rate rises by at least 1-1.5%, the S&P 500 will give the benefit of the doubt to the soft landing outcome. A negative payroll release also does the trick. 
Second, in addition to the 200 week moving averages key support, falling interest rate volatility led to higher equity valuations that are driving this rally. Much like with the 200 week moving average, though, this factor can provide support for the higher PE's achieved over the past month, but is no longer arguing for further upside. In other words, both the 200 week moving average and the interest rate volatility factors have run their course, in our view. 
However, a third factor market breadth has emerged as a best tactical argument for higher prices before the fundamentals take over again. Market breadth has improved materially over the past month. As noted last week, both small caps and the equal weighted S&P 500 have outperformed the market weighted index significantly during this rally. In fact, the equal weighted S&P 500 has been outperforming since last year, while the small caps have been outperforming since May. Importantly, such relative moves by the small caps and average stocks did not prevent the broader market from making a new low this fall. However, the improvement in breadth is a new development, and that indicator does argue for even higher prices in the broader market cap weighted S&P 500 before this rally is complete. 
Bottom line tactically bullish calls are difficult to make, especially when they go against one's fundamental view that remains decidedly bearish. When we weigh the tactical evidence, we remain positive for this rally to continue into year end even though the easy money has likely been made. From here, we expect more choppiness and misdirection with respect to what's leading. For example, from the October lows it's been a cyclical, smallcap led rally with the longer duration growth stocks lagging. If this rally is to have further legs, we think it will have to be led by the Nasdaq, which has been the laggard. 
In the end, investors should be prepared for volatility to remain both high intraday and day to day with swings in leadership. After all, it's still a bear market, and that means it's not going to get any easier before the fundamentals take over to complete this bear market next year. 
As we approach the holiday, I want to say a special thank you to our listeners. We've recently passed an exciting milestone of over 1 million downloads in a single month, and it's all made possible by you tuning in and sharing the podcast with friends and colleagues. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your families.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VmBnbWePFqDF91JeCW_bQO8yduT12fwlrkuUzAuV7p0Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:55:38 +0000gtyWhile the outlook for 2023 may seem relatively unexciting, investors will want to prepare for a volatile path to get there, and focus on some key inflection points. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 21st, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week, we published our 2023 U.S. equities outlook. In it, we detail the path to our 2023 year end S&P 500 price target of 3900. While the price may seem unexciting relative to where we're currently trading, we think the path will be quite volatile with several key inflection points investors will need to trade to make above average returns next year. The main pushback in focus from investors has centered around the first inflection - the near-term tactical upside call we made about a month ago.
Let's review a few key points of the call as we discuss how the rest of the year may play out. First, the primary tactical driver to our bullish call was simply respecting the 200 week moving average. As noted when we made the call last month, the 200 week moving average does not give way for the S&P 500 until a recession is undeniable. In short, until it is clear we are going to have a full blown labor cycle where the unemployment rate rises by at least 1-1.5%, the S&P 500 will give the benefit of the doubt to the soft landing outcome. A negative payroll release also does the trick. 
Second, in addition to the 200 week moving averages key support, falling interest rate volatility led to higher equity valuations that are driving this rally. Much like with the 200 week moving average, though, this factor can provide support for the higher PE's achieved over the past month, but is no longer arguing for further upside. In other words, both the 200 week moving average and the interest rate volatility factors have run their course, in our view. 
However, a third factor market breadth has emerged as a best tactical argument for higher prices before the fundamentals take over again. Market breadth has improved materially over the past month. As noted last week, both small caps and the equal weighted S&P 500 have outperformed the market weighted index significantly during this rally. In fact, the equal weighted S&P 500 has been outperforming since last year, while the small caps have been outperforming since May. Importantly, such relative moves by the small caps and average stocks did not prevent the broader market from making a new low this fall. However, the improvement in breadth is a new development, and that indicator does argue for even higher prices in the broader market cap weighted S&P 500 before this rally is complete. 
Bottom line tactically bullish calls are difficult to make, especially when they go against one's fundamental view that remains decidedly bearish. When we weigh the tactical evidence, we remain positive for this rally to continue into year end even though the easy money has likely been made. From here, we expect more choppiness and misdirection with respect to what's leading. For example, from the October lows it's been a cyclical, smallcap led rally with the longer duration growth stocks lagging. If this rally is to have further legs, we think it will have to be led by the Nasdaq, which has been the laggard. 
In the end, investors should be prepared for volatility to remain both high intraday and day to day with swings in leadership. After all, it's still a bear market, and that means it's not going to get any easier before the fundamentals take over to complete this bear market next year. 
As we approach the holiday, I want to say a special thank you to our listeners. We've recently passed an exciting milestone of over...]]>215market-trendsfalse748fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/robin-xing-china-s-20th-party-congress-commits-to-growth--75654966----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss the outlook for China after the 20th Party Congress. It's Friday, November 18th, at 8 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
China's Communist Party convenes a national Congress every five years to unveil mid to long term policy agenda and reshuffle its leadership. The one concluded two weeks ago marks the 20th Congress since the party's founding in 1921. One of the key takeaways is that economic growth remains the Chinese government's top priority, even as national security and the supply chain self-sufficiency have gained more importance. The top leadership's goal is to grow China to an income level on par with medium developed country by 2035. We think this suggests a per capita GDP target of $20,000, up from $12,000 today, and it would require close to 4% average growth in GDP in the coming decade. 
Well, this growth target is achievable, but only with continued policy focus on growth. While China's economy has grown 6.7% a year over the last decade, its potential growth has likely entered a downward trajectory, trending toward 3% at the end of this decade, there is aging of the Chinese population, which is a main structure headwind. That could reduce labor input and the pace of capital accumulation. Meanwhile, productivity growth might also slow as geopolitical tensions increase the trend towards what Morgan Stanley terms slowbalization. The result of which is reduced foreign direct investment, particularly among sectors considered sensitive to national security. In this context, we believe Beijing will remain pragmatic in dealing with geopolitical tensions because of its reliance on key commodities and the fact exports account for a quarter of Chinese employment. So China is very intertwined with global economy and it relies a lot on the access to global market. 
Another issue of concern to global investors is China's regulatory reset since 2020 and its impact on the private sector. It seems to have entered a more stable stage. We don't expect major regulatory surprises from here considering that the party Congress didn't identify any new areas with major challenges domestically, except for population aging and the self-sufficiency of supply chain. 
As investors adopt a "seeing is believing" mentality towards their long term concerns around China's growth, policy, geopolitics, the more pressing near-term risk remains COVID zero. This is likely the biggest overhang on Chinese economic growth and the news flow around reopening have tended to trigger market volatility. We see rising urgency for an exit from COVID zero in the context of its economic cost, including lower income growth, elevated youth unemployment and even fiscal sustainability risks. We think Beijing will likely aim for a calibrated COVID exit, and the three key signposts are necessary to facilitate a smooth reopening, elderly vaccination, availability of domestic COVID treatment pills and facilities, and continued effort to steer public opinion away from fear of the virus. 
Considering it could take 3 to 6 months for the key signposts to play out, we expect a full reopening next spring at the earliest. This underpins our forecast of a modest recovery starting in the second quarter of 2023, led by private consumption. Before a full reopening, we see growth continue to muddle through at the subpar level, sustained mainly by public CapEx. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/214StasWoyHiWj5u1p_jRZOF7bPHMp5rkqGQ-Wq6tsUFri, 18 Nov 2022 21:18:02 +0000gtyAt the recent 20th Party Congress in China, policy makers made economic growth a top priority, but what are the roadblocks that may be of concern to global investors? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robin Xing, Morgan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss the outlook for China after the 20th Party Congress. It's Friday, November 18th, at 8 a.m. in Hong Kong. 
China's Communist Party convenes a national Congress every five years to unveil mid to long term policy agenda and reshuffle its leadership. The one concluded two weeks ago marks the 20th Congress since the party's founding in 1921. One of the key takeaways is that economic growth remains the Chinese government's top priority, even as national security and the supply chain self-sufficiency have gained more importance. The top leadership's goal is to grow China to an income level on par with medium developed country by 2035. We think this suggests a per capita GDP target of $20,000, up from $12,000 today, and it would require close to 4% average growth in GDP in the coming decade. 
Well, this growth target is achievable, but only with continued policy focus on growth. While China's economy has grown 6.7% a year over the last decade, its potential growth has likely entered a downward trajectory, trending toward 3% at the end of this decade, there is aging of the Chinese population, which is a main structure headwind. That could reduce labor input and the pace of capital accumulation. Meanwhile, productivity growth might also slow as geopolitical tensions increase the trend towards what Morgan Stanley terms slowbalization. The result of which is reduced foreign direct investment, particularly among sectors considered sensitive to national security. In this context, we believe Beijing will remain pragmatic in dealing with geopolitical tensions because of its reliance on key commodities and the fact exports account for a quarter of Chinese employment. So China is very intertwined with global economy and it relies a lot on the access to global market. 
Another issue of concern to global investors is China's regulatory reset since 2020 and its impact on the private sector. It seems to have entered a more stable stage. We don't expect major regulatory surprises from here considering that the party Congress didn't identify any new areas with major challenges domestically, except for population aging and the self-sufficiency of supply chain. 
As investors adopt a "seeing is believing" mentality towards their long term concerns around China's growth, policy, geopolitics, the more pressing near-term risk remains COVID zero. This is likely the biggest overhang on Chinese economic growth and the news flow around reopening have tended to trigger market volatility. We see rising urgency for an exit from COVID zero in the context of its economic cost, including lower income growth, elevated youth unemployment and even fiscal sustainability risks. We think Beijing will likely aim for a calibrated COVID exit, and the three key signposts are necessary to facilitate a smooth reopening, elderly vaccination, availability of domestic COVID treatment pills and facilities, and continued effort to steer public opinion away from fear of the virus. 
Considering it could take 3 to 6 months for the key signposts to play out, we expect a full reopening next spring at the earliest. This underpins our forecast of a modest recovery starting in the second quarter of 2023, led by private consumption. Before a full reopening, we see growth continue to muddle through at the subpar level, sustained mainly by public CapEx. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>252market-trendsfalse747fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-housing-how-far-will-the-market-fall--75654899----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our year ahead outlook for the U.S. housing market for 2023. It's Thursday, November 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: So Jim, it's outlook season. And when we think about the outlook for the housing market, we’re not just looking in 2023, people live in their houses for their whole lives.
Jim Egan: Exactly. We are contemplating what's going to happen to the housing market, not just in 23, but beyond in this year's version of the outlook. But just to remind the listeners, we have talked about this on this podcast in the past, but our view for 2023 hasn't changed all that much. What we think we're going to see is a bifurcation narrative in the housing market between activity, so home sales and housing starts, and home prices. The biggest driver of that bifurcation, affordability. Because of the increase in prices, because of the incredible increase in mortgage rates that we've seen this year, affordability has been deteriorating faster than we've ever seen it. That's going to bring sales down. But the affordability for current homeowners really hasn't changed all that much. We're talking about deterioration for first time homebuyers, for prospective homebuyers. Current homeowners in a lot of instances have locked in very low 30 year fixed rate mortgages. We think they're just incentivized to keep their homes off the market, they're locked into their current mortgage, if you will. That keeps supply down, that also means they're not buying a home on the follow, so it means that sales fall even faster. Sales have outpaced the drop during the great financial crisis. We think that continues through the middle of next year. We think sales ultimately fall 11% next year from an already double digit decrease in 2022 on a year over year basis. But we do think home prices are more protected. We think they only fall 4% year over year next year, but when we look out to 2024, it's that same affordability metric that we really want to be focused on. And, home prices plays a role, but so do mortgage rates. Jay, how are we thinking about the path for mortgage rates into 2024? 
Jay Bacow: Right. So obviously the biggest driver of mortgage rates are first where Treasury rates are and then the risk premium between Treasury rates and mortgages. The drive for Treasury rates, among other things, is expectations for Fed policy. And our economists are expecting the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points in every single meeting in 2024, bringing the Fed rate 200 basis points lower. When you overlay the fact that the yield curve is inverted and our interest rate strategists are expecting the ten year note to fall further in 2023, and risk premia on mortgages is already pretty wide and we think that spread can narrow. We think the mortgage rate to the homeowner can go from a peak of a little over 7% this year to perhaps below 6% by 2024. Jim, that should help affordability right, at least on the margins. 
Jim Egan: It should. And that is already playing a role in our sales forecasts and our price forecasts. I mentioned that sales are falling faster than they did during the great financial crisis. We think that that pace of change really inflects in the second half of next year. Not that home sales will increase, we think they'll still fall, they're just going to fall on a more mild or more modest pace. Home prices, the trajectory there also could potentially be more protected in this improved affordability environment because I don't get the sense that inventories are really going to increase with that drop in mortgage rates. 
Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in America right now, it's not uniformly distributed. The average mortgage rate is 3.5%, but right now when we think how many homeowners have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance, which is generally the minimum threshold, it rounds to 0.0%. If mortgage rates go down to 4%, about 2.5 points below where they are right now, we're still only at about 10% of the universe has incentive to refinance. So while rates coming down will help, you're not going to get a flood of supply. 
Jim Egan: We think that’s important when it comes to just how far home prices can fall here. The lock in effect will still be very prevalent. And we do think that that continues to support home prices, even if they are falling on a year over year basis as we look out beyond 2023 into 2024 and further than that. Now, the biggest pushback we get to this outlook when we talk to market participants is that we're too constructive. People think that home prices can fall further, they think that home prices can fall faster. And one of the reasons that tends to come up in these conversations is some anchoring to the great financial crisis. Home prices fell about 30% from peak to trough, but we think it's important to note that that took over five years to go from that peak to that trough. In this cycle home prices peaked in June 2022, so December of next year is only 18 months forward. The fastest home prices ever fell, or the furthest they ever fell over a 12 month period, 12.7% during the great financial crisis. And that took a lot of distress, forced sellers, defaults and foreclosures to get to that -12.7%. We think that without that distress, because of how robust lending standards have been, the down 4% is a lot more realistic for what we could be over the course of next year. Going further out the narrative that we'll hear pretty frequently is, well, home prices climbed 40% during the pandemic, they can reverse out the entirety of that 40%. And we think that that relies on kind of a faulty premise that in the absence of COVID, if we never had to deal with this pandemic for the past roughly three years, that home prices would have just been flat. If we had this conversation in 2019, we were talking about a lot of demand for shelter, we were talking about a lack of supply of shelter. Not clearly the imbalance that we saw in the aftermath of the pandemic, but those ingredients were still in place for home prices to climb. If we pull trend home price growth from 2015 to 2019, forward to the end of 2023, and compare that to where we expect home prices to be with the decrease that we're already forecasting, the gap between home prices and where that trend price growth implies they should have been, 9%. Till the end of 2024 that gap is only 5%. While home prices can certainly overcorrect to the other side of that trend line, we think that the lack of supply that we're talking about because of the lock in effect, we think that the lack of defaults and foreclosures because of how robust lending standards have been, we do think that that leaves home prices much more protected, doesn't allow for those very big year over year decreases. And we think peak to trough is a lot more control probably in the mid-teens in this cycle. 
Jay Bacow: So when we think about the outlook for the U.S. housing market in 2023 and beyond, home sale activity is going to fall. Home prices will come down some, but are protected from the types of falls that we saw during the great financial crisis by the lock in effect and the better outlook for the credit standards in the U.S. housing market now than they were beforehand. 
Jay Bacow: Jim, always greatv talking to you. 
Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. 
Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/9M1yDZIJznHl1sVGvr-Yddi1jNyiPuUqlzD85Cjm-1EThu, 17 Nov 2022 22:00:48 +0000gtyWith risks to both home sales and home prices continuing to challenge the housing market, investors will want to know what is keeping the U.S. housing market from a sharp fall mirroring the great financial crisis? Co-heads of U.S. Securitized Products...----- Transcript -----
Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. 
Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-head of U.S. Securities Products Research. 
Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our year ahead outlook for the U.S. housing market for 2023. It's Thursday, November 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. 
Jay Bacow: So Jim, it's outlook season. And when we think about the outlook for the housing market, we’re not just looking in 2023, people live in their houses for their whole lives.
Jim Egan: Exactly. We are contemplating what's going to happen to the housing market, not just in 23, but beyond in this year's version of the outlook. But just to remind the listeners, we have talked about this on this podcast in the past, but our view for 2023 hasn't changed all that much. What we think we're going to see is a bifurcation narrative in the housing market between activity, so home sales and housing starts, and home prices. The biggest driver of that bifurcation, affordability. Because of the increase in prices, because of the incredible increase in mortgage rates that we've seen this year, affordability has been deteriorating faster than we've ever seen it. That's going to bring sales down. But the affordability for current homeowners really hasn't changed all that much. We're talking about deterioration for first time homebuyers, for prospective homebuyers. Current homeowners in a lot of instances have locked in very low 30 year fixed rate mortgages. We think they're just incentivized to keep their homes off the market, they're locked into their current mortgage, if you will. That keeps supply down, that also means they're not buying a home on the follow, so it means that sales fall even faster. Sales have outpaced the drop during the great financial crisis. We think that continues through the middle of next year. We think sales ultimately fall 11% next year from an already double digit decrease in 2022 on a year over year basis. But we do think home prices are more protected. We think they only fall 4% year over year next year, but when we look out to 2024, it's that same affordability metric that we really want to be focused on. And, home prices plays a role, but so do mortgage rates. Jay, how are we thinking about the path for mortgage rates into 2024? 
Jay Bacow: Right. So obviously the biggest driver of mortgage rates are first where Treasury rates are and then the risk premium between Treasury rates and mortgages. The drive for Treasury rates, among other things, is expectations for Fed policy. And our economists are expecting the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points in every single meeting in 2024, bringing the Fed rate 200 basis points lower. When you overlay the fact that the yield curve is inverted and our interest rate strategists are expecting the ten year note to fall further in 2023, and risk premia on mortgages is already pretty wide and we think that spread can narrow. We think the mortgage rate to the homeowner can go from a peak of a little over 7% this year to perhaps below 6% by 2024. Jim, that should help affordability right, at least on the margins. 
Jim Egan: It should. And that is already playing a role in our sales forecasts and our price forecasts. I mentioned that sales are falling faster than they did during the great financial crisis. We think that that pace of change really inflects in the second half of next year. Not that home sales will increase, we think they'll still fall, they're just going to fall on a more mild or more modest pace. Home prices, the...]]>437market-trendsfalse746fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2023-global-strategy-outlook-big-shifts-in-dynamics--75654983----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And on part two of this special two-part episode of the podcast, we're going to focus on Morgan Stanley's Year Ahead strategy outlook. It's Wednesday, November 16th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: Andrew, on the first part of this, you spent a bunch of time asking me questions about the outlook for the global economy. I'm going to turn the tables on you and start to ask you questions about how investors should be thinking about different asset prices going forward. There really was a big change this year, we came out of last year with big growth, things slowed down, but inflation surprised everyone to the upside. Central banks around the world started hiking rates aggressively. We've seen massive moves in FX markets, especially in the dollar. Things look very, very different. If you were to say, looking forward from here to the next year, what the biggest conviction call you have in terms of asset allocation, what would it be? 
Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. It's that high grade bonds do very well. You know, I think this is a backdrop where 2022 was defined by surprisingly resilient growth, surprisingly high inflation, and surprisingly hawkish monetary policy relative to where I think a lot of investors thought the year would start. And, you know, if I think about 2023 and what you and the economics team are forecasting, it's big shifts to all three of those dynamics. It's much softer growth, it's softer inflationary pressure. And it's central banks pausing their tightening cycles and then ultimately easing as we look further ahead. So, you know, 2022 is exceptionally bad for high grade bonds, investment grade rated bonds, whether they're governments or mortgages or securitized bonds or municipals. So as the economy slows, as investors are looking for some safety amidst all that economic uncertainty, we think high grade bonds will be the place to be. 
Seth Carpenter: What is it that's so special about investment grade bonds as opposed to, for example, high yield bonds? And what is it about fixed income securities instead of equities that you think is so attractive? 
Andrew Sheets: Yeah. Thanks, Seth. So I do think there's an important distinction here because, you know, if I think about a lot of different assets in the market, I think there are a lot of assets that are primarily concerned at the moment with rate uncertainty or policy uncertainty. When will the ECB finally stop hiking rates? When will the Fed finally stop hiking rates? How high will Fed funds go? Now there's another group of assets, and I think you could put the S&P 500 here, U.S. high yield bonds here that are concerned about those questions of interest rates. Obviously, interest rates matter for these markets, but those markets are also concerned about the economic slowdown and how much will the economy slow. So I think when people look into the year ahead, what you want to focus on are assets that are much more about whether or not rate uncertainty falls than they are about how much will the economy decelerate. So we think of high grade bonds as a perfect example of an asset class that cares quite a bit about interest rate uncertainty while being a lot less vulnerable to the risk that the economy slows. And I think emerging market assets are also an example of an asset class that's really sensitive, maybe more sensitive to the question of how high will the Fed hike rates? And just given where it's currently priced, given how much it's already declined this year, might be a lot less sensitive of that question of, you know, whether or not the U.S. goes into recession or whether or not Europe goes into recession. So good for high grade bonds and then we think good for emerging market assets. 
Seth Carpenter: Okay. That makes a lot of sense. High grade bonds, fixed income, obviously, you talked a little bit about where some of the risks are. And whenever I think about fixed income securities and I think about risk, how are you advising clients to think about market-based risks around the world as we're going into the next year?  
Andrew Sheets: I think you a point that you and your team have made that central banks, especially the Fed, are very aware of the liquidity risks around quantitative tightening and might modify it if they felt it was starting to lead to less functional markets. I think that's important. I think if that's our assumption, then investors shouldn't avoid these markets simply because there's a possibility that they could have a more liquidity challenge backdrop. Secondly, and I think this is also an important point, while central banks are going to be backing away from the government bond markets, we think there's a good chance that households and other investors will be moving towards these markets. So, you know, we think that there's actually some pretty good potential for households to do a little bit of reallocation, to have less money in equities, to have a little bit more money in bonds, and that the much higher yields that these households are seeing could be a catalyst for that. 
Seth Carpenter: We're sitting here having a conversation, looking around the world. One of the natural topics to get on to if you're thinking globally is about currencies and exchange rates. How should we be thinking about where currency markets will be going from here forward into next year? What's the outlook for different currencies? Is there a set of currencies that might outperform? Are there ones where investors still need to be very wary? 
Andrew Sheets: Yeah. So I think when talking about currencies, we have to start with the dollar, which in some ways is the benchmark against which everything else is measured. And you know, our foreign exchange strategists do think the dollar has peaked. Looking into next year, if we see slower growth, less inflation, less hawkish policy, you know, we think that will be less good for the dollar, maybe even negative for the dollar. So we see the dollar peaking and declining over the course of 2023. We think the euro does better, as we do think investors will look to reengage in European assets next year and so investment flows can be more supportive. We do think some of the more cyclical currencies, things like the Australian dollar and New Zealand dollar can do a little bit better as the market gets maybe a little bit more optimistic about better Chinese growth next year. And we think some of the large EM currencies can also outperform relative to their forward. 
Seth Carpenter: That makes a lot of sense. I guess the other point that you and I discussed in the first part of this podcast is about inflation and how commodity prices have factored into the evolution of inflation over the past couple of years. How should we be thinking about commodities for investors going into 2023 as a place to step back from risk? What do you think? 
Andrew Sheets: So commodities were an asset class that we liked at this time last year when we wrote our 2022 outlook. It was an asset class that we were overweight and we maintained that position through this year. But I think that picture is changing a little bit. You know, first, the attractiveness of other asset classes is now better because those other asset classes have fallen a lot relative to commodities over the course of 2022. And, you know, commodities are an asset class that can be sensitive to when growth actually slows. They tend to be less anticipatory. And so they've held up well, I think even as other asset classes have become more worried about the prospect of a recession. And so if the odds of a recession are rising, even if they're not the base case in the US and then they are the base case in Europe, maybe that presents a little bit more danger. But that needs to be balanced against the fact that commodities do have a number of attractive properties. They provide a hedge against inflation and some commodities, especially energy commodities, pay a quite high carry or a quite high yield for holding them, buying them on a forward basis and holding them to maturity. In the case of oil, we think prices will come in well ahead, more than 20% ahead of where kind of the market is implying the price next year. So it's a more nuanced story. It's a story where we think energy continues to outperform metals within the commodities complex, but more of a relative value story than a directional story for the year ahead. 
Seth Carpenter: So what I'm taking away from what you've told me so far, that if a shift to a year of fixed income, maybe the dollar has peaked, and then a more nuanced story when it comes to commodities, what would you leave our listeners with as a closing story? Where would you want to wrap things up in terms of leaving our listeners with advice? Where do they need to be the most cautious? And are we going to go into a year where volatility finally comes down from the sort of tumult that we've seen this year? 
Andrew Sheets: So I think this idea that we might not have an all clear on recession risk in the US kind of well into the start of 2023, the idea that Europe will be in recession at the start of 2023, I think that makes us a little bit cautious to buy cyclical assets here and I think that applies to things like metals, copper, that applies to high yield bonds and loans. And then we think the S&P 500 will also be tricky. So we think]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/bR_uoC5Z08v2J9TdQRxhKNRETe5IbKCmfbSKeYr7t58Thu, 17 Nov 2022 00:15:20 +0000gtyIn looking ahead to 2023, the big dynamics of this year are poised to shift and investors will want to look for safety amidst the coming uncertainty. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss. -----...----- Transcript -----
Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And on part two of this special two-part episode of the podcast, we're going to focus on Morgan Stanley's Year Ahead strategy outlook. It's Wednesday, November 16th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: Andrew, on the first part of this, you spent a bunch of time asking me questions about the outlook for the global economy. I'm going to turn the tables on you and start to ask you questions about how investors should be thinking about different asset prices going forward. There really was a big change this year, we came out of last year with big growth, things slowed down, but inflation surprised everyone to the upside. Central banks around the world started hiking rates aggressively. We've seen massive moves in FX markets, especially in the dollar. Things look very, very different. If you were to say, looking forward from here to the next year, what the biggest conviction call you have in terms of asset allocation, what would it be? 
Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. It's that high grade bonds do very well. You know, I think this is a backdrop where 2022 was defined by surprisingly resilient growth, surprisingly high inflation, and surprisingly hawkish monetary policy relative to where I think a lot of investors thought the year would start. And, you know, if I think about 2023 and what you and the economics team are forecasting, it's big shifts to all three of those dynamics. It's much softer growth, it's softer inflationary pressure. And it's central banks pausing their tightening cycles and then ultimately easing as we look further ahead. So, you know, 2022 is exceptionally bad for high grade bonds, investment grade rated bonds, whether they're governments or mortgages or securitized bonds or municipals. So as the economy slows, as investors are looking for some safety amidst all that economic uncertainty, we think high grade bonds will be the place to be. 
Seth Carpenter: What is it that's so special about investment grade bonds as opposed to, for example, high yield bonds? And what is it about fixed income securities instead of equities that you think is so attractive? 
Andrew Sheets: Yeah. Thanks, Seth. So I do think there's an important distinction here because, you know, if I think about a lot of different assets in the market, I think there are a lot of assets that are primarily concerned at the moment with rate uncertainty or policy uncertainty. When will the ECB finally stop hiking rates? When will the Fed finally stop hiking rates? How high will Fed funds go? Now there's another group of assets, and I think you could put the S&P 500 here, U.S. high yield bonds here that are concerned about those questions of interest rates. Obviously, interest rates matter for these markets, but those markets are also concerned about the economic slowdown and how much will the economy slow. So I think when people look into the year ahead, what you want to focus on are assets that are much more about whether or not rate uncertainty falls than they are about how much will the economy decelerate. So we think of high grade bonds as a perfect example of an asset class that cares quite a bit about interest rate uncertainty while being a lot less vulnerable to the risk that the economy slows. And I think emerging market assets are also an example of an asset class that's really sensitive, maybe more sensitive to the question of how high will the Fed hike rates? And just given...]]>601market-trendsfalse745fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/2023-global-macro-outlook-a-different-kind-of-year--75655006----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. 
Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. 
Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and year on year increases that we were seeing for a lot of this year. Now, when we think about core inflation, I like to separate things out between goods and services inflation. For goods, the story over the past year and a half has been global supply chains and we know looking at all sorts of data that global supply chains are not fixed yet, but they are getting better. The key exception there that remains to be seen is automobiles, where we have still seen supply chain issues. But by and large, we think consumer goods are going to come down in price and with it pull inflation down overall. I think the key then is what goes on in services and here the story is just different across different economies because it is very domestic. But the key here is if we see the kind of slowing down in economies, especially in developed market economies where monetary policy will be restrictive, we should see less aggregate demand, weaker labor markets and with it lower services inflation. 
Andrew Sheets: How do you think central banks respond to this backdrop? The Fed is going to have to balance what we see is some moderation of inflation and the ECB as well, with obvious concerns that because forecasting inflation was so hard this year and because central banks underestimated inflation, they don't want to back off too soon and usher in maybe more inflationary pressure down the road. So, how do you think central banks will think about that risk balance and managing that? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We have seen some surprises, the upside in terms of commodity market prices, but we've also been surprised at just the persistence of some of the components of inflation. And so central banks are very well advised to be super cautious with what's going on. As a result. What we think is going to happen is a few things. Policy rates are going to go into restrictive territory. We will see economies slowing down and then we think in general. Central banks are going to keep their policy in that restrictive territory basically over the balance of 2023, making sure that that deceleration in the real side of the economy goes along with a continued decline in inflation over the course of next year. If we get that, then that will give them scope at the end of next year to start to think about normalizing policy back down to something a little bit more, more neutral. But they really will be paying lots of attention to make sure that the forecast plays out as anticipated. However, where I want to stress things is in the euro area, for example, where we see a recession already starting about now, we don't think the ECB is going to start to cut rates just because they see the first indications of a recession. All of the indications from the ECB have been that they think some form of recession is probably necessary and they will wait for that to happen. They'll stay in restrictive territory while the economy's in recession to see how inflation evolves over time. 
Andrew Sheets: So I think one of the questions at the top of a lot of people's minds is something you alluded to earlier, this question of whether or not the US sees a recession next year. So why do you think a recession being avoided is a plausible scenario indeed might be more likely than a recession, in contrast maybe to some of that recent history? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. Let's talk about this in a few parts. First, in the U.S. relative to, say, the euro area, most of the slowing that we are seeing now in the economy and that we expect to see over time is coming from monetary policy tightening in the euro area. A lot of the slowing in consumer spending is coming because food prices have gone up, energy prices have gone up and confidence has fallen and so it's an externally imposed constraint on the economy. What that means for the U.S. is because the Fed is causing the slowdown, they've at least got a fighting chance of backing off in time before they cause a recession. So that's one component. I think the other part to be made that's perhaps even more important is the difference between a recession or not at this point is almost semantic. We're looking at growth that's very, very close to zero. And if you're in the equity market, in fact, it's going to feel like a recession, even if it's not technically one for the economy. The U.S. economy is not the S&P 500. And so what does that mean? That means that the parts of the U.S. economy that are likely to be weakest, that are likely to be in contraction, are actually the ones that are most exposed to the equity market and so for the equity market, whether it's a recession or not, I think is a bit of a moot point. So where does that leave us? I think we can avoid a recession. From an economist perspective, I think we can end up with growth that's still positive, but it's not going to feel like we've completely escaped from this whole episode unscathed. 
Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. So I maybe want to close with talking about risks around that outlook. I want to talk about maybe one risk to the upside and then two risks that might be more serious to the downside. So, one of the risks to the upside that investors are talking about is whether or not China relaxes zero COVID policy, while two risks to the downside would be that quantitative tightening continues to have much greater negative effects on market liquidity and market functioning. We're going through a much faster shrinking of central bank balance sheets than you know, at any point in history, and then also that maybe a divided US government leads to a more challenging fiscal situation next year. So, you know, as you think about these risks that you hear investors citing China, quantitative tightening, divided government, how do you think about those? How do you think they might change the base case view? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think there are two-way risks as usual. I do think in the current circumstances, the upsi]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/XmRu2p5oMgVGlQMSNn5rYtAQSzccbt8PS9_2xndSWE4Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:57:24 +0000gtyAs we look ahead to 2023, we see a divergence away from the trends of 2022 in key areas across growth, inflation, and central bank policy. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. 
Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. 
Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. 
Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. 
Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. 
Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? 
Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and...]]>681market-trendsfalse744fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-dealing-with-the-late-cycle-stage--75654975----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, chief investment officer and chief U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 14th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last year's fire and ice narrative worked so well, we decided to dust off another Robert Frost jewel to describe this year's outlook, with The Road Not Taken. As described by many literary experts, and Frost himself, the poem presents the dilemma we all face in life that different choices lead to different outcomes, and while the road taken can be a good one, these choices create doubt and even remorse about the road not taken. For the year ahead, we think investors will need to be more tactical with their views on the economy, policy, earnings and valuation. This is because we are closer to the end of the cycle at this point, and that means that trends in these key variables can zig and zag before the final path is clear. In other words, while flexibility is always important to successful investing, it's critical now. 
In contrast, the set-up was so poor a year ago that the trends in all of the variables mentioned above were headed lower in our view. Therefore, the right choice or strategy was about managing or profiting from the new downtrend. After all, Fire and Ice the poem is not a debate about the destination, it's about the path to that destination. In the case of our bear market call, it was a combination of both fire and ice - inflation and slowing growth, a bad combination for stocks. As it turned out, the cocktail has been just as bad for bonds, at least so far. However, as the ice overtakes the fire and inflation cools off, we're becoming more confident that bonds should beat stocks in this final verse that has yet to fully play out. That divergence can create new opportunities and confusion about the road we are on, and why we have recently pivoted to a more bullish tactical view on equities. 
In the near term, we maintain our tactically bullish call as we transition from fire to ice, a window of opportunity when long term interest rates typically fall prior to the magnitude of the slowdown being reflected in earnings estimates. This is the classic late cycle period between the Fed's last hike and the recession. Historically, this period is a profitable one for stocks. Three months ago, we suggested the Fed's pause would coincide with the arrival of a recession this cycle, given the extreme inflation dynamics. In short, the Fed would not be able to pause until payrolls were negative, the unequivocal indicator of a recession, but too late to kick save the cycle or the downtrend for stocks. However, the jobs market has remained stronger for longer, even in the face of weakening earnings. More importantly, this may persist into next year, leaving the window open for a period when the Fed can slow or pause rate hikes before we see an unemployment cycle emerge. That's what we think is behind the current rally, and we think it can go higher. We won't have evidence of the hard freeze for a few more months, and markets can dream of a less hawkish Fed, lower interest rates and resilient earnings in the interim. Last week's softer than expected inflation report was a critically necessary data point to fuel that dream for longer. We expect long duration growth stocks to lead the next phase of this rally as interest rates fall further. That means Nasdaq should catch up to the Dow's outsized move higher so far. 
Unfortunately, we have more confidence today than we did a few months ago in our well below consensus earnings forecast for next year, and that means the bear market will likely resume once this rally is finished. Bottom line, the path forward is much more uncertain than a year ago and likely to bring several twists and periods of remorse for investors wishing they had traded it differently. If one were to take our 12 month S&P 500 bear, base and bull targets of 3500, 3900, and 4200 at face value, they might say it looks like we are expecting a generally boring year. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we would argue the past 12 months have been boring because a bear market was so likely we simply set our defensive strategy and stayed with it. That strategy has worked well all year, even during this recent rally. But that kind of strategy won't work over the next 12 months, in our view. Instead, investment success will require one to turn over the portfolio more frequently as we finish one cycle and begin another. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/4gFaN_WkJt64cfp3xskV6-h-EJEul_cFzeD6xmabzAIMon, 14 Nov 2022 22:59:36 +0000gtyAs we transition away from our fire and ice narrative and into the late cycle stage, investors will want to change up their strategies as we finish one cycle and begin another. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, chief investment officer and chief U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 14th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last year's fire and ice narrative worked so well, we decided to dust off another Robert Frost jewel to describe this year's outlook, with The Road Not Taken. As described by many literary experts, and Frost himself, the poem presents the dilemma we all face in life that different choices lead to different outcomes, and while the road taken can be a good one, these choices create doubt and even remorse about the road not taken. For the year ahead, we think investors will need to be more tactical with their views on the economy, policy, earnings and valuation. This is because we are closer to the end of the cycle at this point, and that means that trends in these key variables can zig and zag before the final path is clear. In other words, while flexibility is always important to successful investing, it's critical now. 
In contrast, the set-up was so poor a year ago that the trends in all of the variables mentioned above were headed lower in our view. Therefore, the right choice or strategy was about managing or profiting from the new downtrend. After all, Fire and Ice the poem is not a debate about the destination, it's about the path to that destination. In the case of our bear market call, it was a combination of both fire and ice - inflation and slowing growth, a bad combination for stocks. As it turned out, the cocktail has been just as bad for bonds, at least so far. However, as the ice overtakes the fire and inflation cools off, we're becoming more confident that bonds should beat stocks in this final verse that has yet to fully play out. That divergence can create new opportunities and confusion about the road we are on, and why we have recently pivoted to a more bullish tactical view on equities. 
In the near term, we maintain our tactically bullish call as we transition from fire to ice, a window of opportunity when long term interest rates typically fall prior to the magnitude of the slowdown being reflected in earnings estimates. This is the classic late cycle period between the Fed's last hike and the recession. Historically, this period is a profitable one for stocks. Three months ago, we suggested the Fed's pause would coincide with the arrival of a recession this cycle, given the extreme inflation dynamics. In short, the Fed would not be able to pause until payrolls were negative, the unequivocal indicator of a recession, but too late to kick save the cycle or the downtrend for stocks. However, the jobs market has remained stronger for longer, even in the face of weakening earnings. More importantly, this may persist into next year, leaving the window open for a period when the Fed can slow or pause rate hikes before we see an unemployment cycle emerge. That's what we think is behind the current rally, and we think it can go higher. We won't have evidence of the hard freeze for a few more months, and markets can dream of a less hawkish Fed, lower interest rates and resilient earnings in the interim. Last week's softer than expected inflation report was a critically necessary data point to fuel that dream for longer. We expect long duration growth stocks to lead the next phase of this rally as interest rates fall further. That means Nasdaq should catch up to the Dow's outsized move higher so far. 
Unfortunately, we have more confidence today than we did a few months ago in our well below consensus earnings forecast for next year, and that means...]]>261market-trendsfalse743fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/global-tech-what-s-next-for-edtech--75654978----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Products for European Equity Research. 
Miriam Josiah: And I'm Miriam Josiah, Head of the European Internet Services Team within Morgan Stanley Research. 
Paul Walsh: And on this very special episode of the podcast series, we'll be talking about the long-term outlook for education technology, or EdTech. It's Friday, it's the 11th of November, and it's 2 p.m. here in London. 
Paul Walsh: So Miriam, next week you'll be heading to Barcelona for Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media and Telecom Conference, which focuses on key debates and trends in these industries. EdTech, while still in its infancy, is a segment where your team sees a lot of potential for growth. But before we get there, let's please start with the basics. What exactly is EdTech? 
Miriam Josiah: So people often think of it as online learning for K-12 or university students. But we found EdTech to be quite a broad term for the digitalization of learning. So there are actually dozens of segments within EdTech. One of them is workforce education, which we think is particularly interesting and underappreciated. 
Paul Walsh: And certainly many of us got a firsthand look at EdTech during COVID-19 lockdowns, whether through our children—as was the case for me personally—work related training or for our own amusement. And not surprisingly, companies in the education technology space saw a huge spike from pandemic-driven demand. So what's happening now that schools and businesses have reopened? 
Miriam Josiah: So here's one of the reasons our team looked closely at EdTech. Essentially, even as we've returned to in-person training and education, the demand for remote learning hasn't dropped off. Yes, COVID 19 accelerated industry growth by about two years, but the global EdTech market, currently valued at $300 billion, is still expected to grow at an annual rate of 16% to reach $400 billion by 2025. So this demand is here to stay. 
Paul Walsh: It sounds like it, and that's tremendously interesting. So can you explain why that is, please? 
Miriam Josiah: So we think there are a few reasons EdTech demand will continue to grow. Firstly, the pandemic changed our behaviors in many ways, including how we think about learning. For example, in many classrooms, students watch the lecture on their own time and use the classroom for more hands-on learning. This is one reason demand is still growing, particularly within K-12 education. 
Paul Walsh: And if we take a step back, Miriam, does a challenging macroeconomic environment help or hurt the outlook for EdTech? And can you help us understand why? 
Miriam Josiah: So, in many ways, we think it helps. You have global teacher shortages, rising school costs and, in the case of workplace, there's a need to reskill and upskill workers. So these are a few of the important drivers. Meanwhile, there's a few other positives for EdTech, such as a growing global population and lower penetration rates. To put things in perspective, global spending on education is around $6.5 trillion a year and even with double digit growth over the next few years, EdTech will only represent around 5% of total education spending in 2025. Suffice to say, we are in the very early stages of growth. 
Paul Walsh: Yeah, absolutely. It sounds like it. And thinking about stock valuations, they soared for companies that saw surging demand during the pandemic. And since then, we've seen that trend reverse, in some cases really quite dramatically. So where does that leave us today? 
Miriam Josiah: So one thing to note is that this segment is very fragmented with many small companies, some of which are not publicly traded. Among the larger players in the space, we've seen a similar trend with stock prices soaring and now correcting. And so valuations are attractive. And we think this is a good entry point for investors, especially if they have a longer time horizon. At the same time, the market's seeing a fair bit of M&A activity, which may present opportunities for upside for investors. 
Paul Walsh: Absolutely no doubt. Industries that are fragmented, hard to define and still in their infancy can really be fertile ground for investors who have the time and the wherewithal to research and invest in individual companies. So what are the biggest risks to your growth outlook for the EdTech industry? 
Miriam Josiah: So firstly, as I mentioned, a lot of the sector is made up of private companies and a lot of these are loss-making startups. So in an environment of tighter access to capital, this may be a growth inhibitor for some of the startups and we're already seeing companies starting to trim headcount as a way to cut costs. Another risk is government budget cuts. Remember, education spending is around 4% of GDP, and so cuts here could impact the B2B market in particular. The counter is that tighter budgets could lead to schools turning to EdTech instead, but this still does remain a risk. And then finally, the consumer willingness to pay is also being questioned in a recessionary environment. 
Paul Walsh: Miriam, that's really clear. I want to thank you very much for taking the time to talk. It's obviously been quite educational. Good luck with the TMT Conference in Barcelona next week. 
Miriam Josiah: Thank you. Great chatting with you, Paul. 
Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.  ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZwI8Z7bbYYt3pfFTC4P5pKunV1IiEx6gJVHl50jrx5kFri, 11 Nov 2022 17:00:00 +0000gtyEducation technology, or EdTech, saw significant adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet opportunity remains in this still young industry if one looks long-term. Head of Products for European Equity Research Paul Walsh and Head of the European...----- Transcript -----
Paul Walsh:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Products for European Equity Research. 
Miriam Josiah: And I'm Miriam Josiah, Head of the European Internet Services Team within Morgan Stanley Research. 
Paul Walsh: And on this very special episode of the podcast series, we'll be talking about the long-term outlook for education technology, or EdTech. It's Friday, it's the 11th of November, and it's 2 p.m. here in London. 
Paul Walsh: So Miriam, next week you'll be heading to Barcelona for Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media and Telecom Conference, which focuses on key debates and trends in these industries. EdTech, while still in its infancy, is a segment where your team sees a lot of potential for growth. But before we get there, let's please start with the basics. What exactly is EdTech? 
Miriam Josiah: So people often think of it as online learning for K-12 or university students. But we found EdTech to be quite a broad term for the digitalization of learning. So there are actually dozens of segments within EdTech. One of them is workforce education, which we think is particularly interesting and underappreciated. 
Paul Walsh: And certainly many of us got a firsthand look at EdTech during COVID-19 lockdowns, whether through our children—as was the case for me personally—work related training or for our own amusement. And not surprisingly, companies in the education technology space saw a huge spike from pandemic-driven demand. So what's happening now that schools and businesses have reopened? 
Miriam Josiah: So here's one of the reasons our team looked closely at EdTech. Essentially, even as we've returned to in-person training and education, the demand for remote learning hasn't dropped off. Yes, COVID 19 accelerated industry growth by about two years, but the global EdTech market, currently valued at $300 billion, is still expected to grow at an annual rate of 16% to reach $400 billion by 2025. So this demand is here to stay. 
Paul Walsh: It sounds like it, and that's tremendously interesting. So can you explain why that is, please? 
Miriam Josiah: So we think there are a few reasons EdTech demand will continue to grow. Firstly, the pandemic changed our behaviors in many ways, including how we think about learning. For example, in many classrooms, students watch the lecture on their own time and use the classroom for more hands-on learning. This is one reason demand is still growing, particularly within K-12 education. 
Paul Walsh: And if we take a step back, Miriam, does a challenging macroeconomic environment help or hurt the outlook for EdTech? And can you help us understand why? 
Miriam Josiah: So, in many ways, we think it helps. You have global teacher shortages, rising school costs and, in the case of workplace, there's a need to reskill and upskill workers. So these are a few of the important drivers. Meanwhile, there's a few other positives for EdTech, such as a growing global population and lower penetration rates. To put things in perspective, global spending on education is around $6.5 trillion a year and even with double digit growth over the next few years, EdTech will only represent around 5% of total education spending in 2025. Suffice to say, we are in the very early stages of growth. 
Paul Walsh: Yeah, absolutely. It sounds like it. And thinking about stock valuations, they soared for companies that saw surging demand during the pandemic. And since then, we've seen that trend reverse, in some cases really quite dramatically. So where does that leave us today? 
Miriam Josiah: So one...]]>307market-trendsfalse742fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-the-midterm-elections-market-impact--75654995----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Jesus, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, November 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. 
It's nearly two full days after polls closed across America, and we still don't know which party will control Congress. But for investors, we very likely know all we need to know at this point. Let me explain. 
It may take several days, maybe weeks to determine which party will control the Senate. But knowing which party controls the Senate won't matter much if Republicans gain a majority in the House of Representatives, as they appear likely to do as of this recording. That's because Republicans controlling at least one chamber of Congress is enough to yield a divided government, meaning that the party in control of the White House is not also in control of Congress and so can't unilaterally choose its legislative path. 
For bond markets, this is a mostly friendly outcome. It takes off the table the scenario that could have led to fiscal policy from Congress that would cut against the Fed's inflation goals. That scenario would have been one where Democrats keep control of the House and expand their Senate majority. That outcome might have suggested inflation was less a political and electoral concern than previously thought, and through a broader Senate majority, given Democrats more room to legislate. If markets perceived that combination of a willingness and ability to legislate as increasing the probability of enacting spending measures, like a child tax credit, that would support aggregate demand in the US economy, then investors would also have to price in the possibility of a higher than expected peak Fed funds rate, pushing Treasury yields higher. Of course, this appears not to be what happened. 
So, the bottom line, the election outcome is important and still up in the air, but markets may know enough to move on. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/VErU59lY7gS8mwZBCmiK3oUgHFaGkhlmjRB4jDzQ3vIThu, 10 Nov 2022 21:44:04 +0000gtyIt’s almost two full days after the midterm elections in the U.S. and while we still don’t know the outcome, markets may know enough to forecast its impact. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Jesus, Head of Global...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Jesus, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, November 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. 
It's nearly two full days after polls closed across America, and we still don't know which party will control Congress. But for investors, we very likely know all we need to know at this point. Let me explain. 
It may take several days, maybe weeks to determine which party will control the Senate. But knowing which party controls the Senate won't matter much if Republicans gain a majority in the House of Representatives, as they appear likely to do as of this recording. That's because Republicans controlling at least one chamber of Congress is enough to yield a divided government, meaning that the party in control of the White House is not also in control of Congress and so can't unilaterally choose its legislative path. 
For bond markets, this is a mostly friendly outcome. It takes off the table the scenario that could have led to fiscal policy from Congress that would cut against the Fed's inflation goals. That scenario would have been one where Democrats keep control of the House and expand their Senate majority. That outcome might have suggested inflation was less a political and electoral concern than previously thought, and through a broader Senate majority, given Democrats more room to legislate. If markets perceived that combination of a willingness and ability to legislate as increasing the probability of enacting spending measures, like a child tax credit, that would support aggregate demand in the US economy, then investors would also have to price in the possibility of a higher than expected peak Fed funds rate, pushing Treasury yields higher. Of course, this appears not to be what happened. 
So, the bottom line, the election outcome is important and still up in the air, but markets may know enough to move on. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>130market-trendsfalse741fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/stephan-kessler-what-does-the-future-hold-for-esg-investing--75654869----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the value of a quantitative approach to low carbon investing. It's Wednesday, November 9th, at 2 p.m. in London. 
Sustainable investing has been a hot trend over the past decade, and most recently the new Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. has brought it into even sharper focus. Short for environmental, social and governance, ESG covers a broad range of topics and themes, for example, carbon emissions, percentage of waste recycled, employee engagement scores, human rights policies, independent board members, and shareholder rights. This breadth, however, has made defining sustainable investing a key challenge for investors. Furthermore, critics of ESG have also pushed back, arguing that ESG strategies sacrifice long term performance in favor of alignment with what has been disparagingly termed "woke capitalism". 
This ongoing market debate shows no sign of abating any time soon, and so investors are looking for rigorous ways to assess ESG factors, with decarbonization being top of mind. In some recent work by quant analyst Jacob Lorenzen and myself, we decided to focus on climate change and more specifically carbon emissions as the key metric. Our systematic approach uses mathematic modeling to analyze how investors can integrate a low carbon tilt in various strategy portfolios and what kind of results they can expect. 
So what did this analysis tell us? Essentially, we found little evidence that incorporating an ESG tilt substantially affects a risk adjusted performance of equity portfolios, positively or negatively. While potentially disappointing to investors looking for outperformance via ESG overlays, this conclusion may be encouraging to others because it suggests that investors can create low carbon portfolios without sacrificing performance. In other words, our results for equity benchmark, smart beta and long/short portfolios argue that environmentally aware investing could be considered one of the few "free lunches" in finance. 
Our framework focused on carbon reduction portfolios, but also takes other ESG aspects into account. When screening companies for environmental harm, fossil fuel revenue, or non ESG climate considerations, our results are robust. This result is important as it shows that investors can focus on a broad range of ESG criteria or carbon alone- in all cases, the performance impact on portfolios is minimal. Thus, investors can adapt our framework to their objectives without needing to worry about returns. 
And so what does the future hold for ESG investing? While overall we find ESG to have a minor impact on performance, their investment strategies and time periods of the past decade where it did matter and created positive returns. One possible explanation for this effect is a build up of an ESG valuation premium. ESG may have been riding its own wave as global investors increasingly incorporated ESG into their investments, whether for value alignment or in search of outperformance. As we look ahead, the long run outperformance of broad ESG strategies may be more muted. In fact, ESG guidelines and requirements may even require companies causing significant environmental harm to pay a premium for market access. However, we do believe there are potential alpha opportunities using specialized screens, or in specific industries such as utilities and clean tech. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/6Oio99T6PHNAl0atFNXJ2hIA-_GqAdnYB4-YMYzWb8cWed, 09 Nov 2022 21:04:33 +0000gtyCritics of sustainable investing have said that Environmental, Social, and Governance strategies require investors to sacrifice long-term returns, but is this really the case? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephan...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the value of a quantitative approach to low carbon investing. It's Wednesday, November 9th, at 2 p.m. in London. 
Sustainable investing has been a hot trend over the past decade, and most recently the new Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. has brought it into even sharper focus. Short for environmental, social and governance, ESG covers a broad range of topics and themes, for example, carbon emissions, percentage of waste recycled, employee engagement scores, human rights policies, independent board members, and shareholder rights. This breadth, however, has made defining sustainable investing a key challenge for investors. Furthermore, critics of ESG have also pushed back, arguing that ESG strategies sacrifice long term performance in favor of alignment with what has been disparagingly termed "woke capitalism". 
This ongoing market debate shows no sign of abating any time soon, and so investors are looking for rigorous ways to assess ESG factors, with decarbonization being top of mind. In some recent work by quant analyst Jacob Lorenzen and myself, we decided to focus on climate change and more specifically carbon emissions as the key metric. Our systematic approach uses mathematic modeling to analyze how investors can integrate a low carbon tilt in various strategy portfolios and what kind of results they can expect. 
So what did this analysis tell us? Essentially, we found little evidence that incorporating an ESG tilt substantially affects a risk adjusted performance of equity portfolios, positively or negatively. While potentially disappointing to investors looking for outperformance via ESG overlays, this conclusion may be encouraging to others because it suggests that investors can create low carbon portfolios without sacrificing performance. In other words, our results for equity benchmark, smart beta and long/short portfolios argue that environmentally aware investing could be considered one of the few "free lunches" in finance. 
Our framework focused on carbon reduction portfolios, but also takes other ESG aspects into account. When screening companies for environmental harm, fossil fuel revenue, or non ESG climate considerations, our results are robust. This result is important as it shows that investors can focus on a broad range of ESG criteria or carbon alone- in all cases, the performance impact on portfolios is minimal. Thus, investors can adapt our framework to their objectives without needing to worry about returns. 
And so what does the future hold for ESG investing? While overall we find ESG to have a minor impact on performance, their investment strategies and time periods of the past decade where it did matter and created positive returns. One possible explanation for this effect is a build up of an ESG valuation premium. ESG may have been riding its own wave as global investors increasingly incorporated ESG into their investments, whether for value alignment or in search of outperformance. As we look ahead, the long run outperformance of broad ESG strategies may be more muted. In fact, ESG guidelines and requirements may even require companies causing significant environmental harm to pay a premium for market access. However, we do believe there are potential alpha opportunities using specialized screens, or in specific industries such as utilities and clean tech. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. ]]>210market-trendsfalse740fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-s-media-will-streaming-overtake-traditional-cable--75654859----- Transcript -----
Ben Swinburne: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ben Swinburne, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Media Analyst. 
Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet Analyst. 
Ben Swinburne: On this special episode of the podcast we'll focus on connected TV and the changing television space. It's Tuesday, November 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ben Swinburne: Consumer behavior in the television space has been changing rapidly over the past decade, and the COVID pandemic further accelerated this trend. While most people still watch traditional linear TV through their cable and satellite subscription, consumers are shifting to streaming at a rapid pace. In fact, most of our listeners probably use some sort of connected TV, or CTV device at home that allows their television to support video content streaming. As our media analyst, I've watched how this has led to widespread "cord cutting", as an increasing number of customers cancel their traditional subscriptions in favor of only using these streaming or video on demand formats. So let's dig into the opportunities and challenges within the connected TV space and particularly interconnected TV advertising. Brian, let's start with some definitions. What is CTV advertising, what's so great about it? 
Brian Nowak: CTV advertising is nothing more than adding advertising to all that streaming engagement that you mentioned earlier. You talked about how people are increasingly watching connected television through streaming devices, through their televisions. The idea of showing ads around it is CTV advertising. As far as what's so great about it, for years traditional linear television has largely been driven by branded advertising to reach people. The hope with connected television over time is that not only will connected television enable you to have reach and strong branding capabilities, but also the potential for better targeting, a more direct link between an advertising dollar and an actual transaction from those ads. And the vision of connected television advertising over time is we may be able to have broad based performance advertising across all of the streaming television engagement. So with that as a backdrop Ben, who benefits in your view, from connected television? And which companies may be most at risk from this transition? 
Ben Swinburne: Well Brian, you talked about both targeting and performance ads, things that are not typically associated with broadcast or linear television advertising. So I have to say the biggest beneficiary of the shift to connected TV from an advertising point of view are marketers. Not only are marketers looking for ways to spend their money with a better return on an advertising spend, but they're facing rapidly declining audiences, meaning it's harder and harder to reach the audiences that they want to reach. Connected TV brings the promise of both greater audience, particularly "cord cutters", but also reaching them more effectively with performance based and targeting tools that don't exist in linear. Speaking of which, when we think about who may be at risk, well we don't think it's a complete zero sum game. And we do think connected TV expands the television ad market over the long term. We think the largest area of market share risk is linear television. 
Brian Nowak: So let's dig a little more into your point about linear television Ben. How do you think about the market share between linear television and connected television the next 5 to 10 years? And what role do sports and live sports play into that overall market share? 
Ben Swinburne: So we expect connected TV advertising to reach and ultimately surpass linear television by the end of the decade. It could happen faster, particularly we're focused on local markets, which right now connected TV doesn't really reach. And it it could also happen faster if sports moves quickly over from linear into streaming. Right now, live sports really dominates linear television. It is the by far source of the largest audiences, and those audiences are live, and it's really holding up the linear bundle more than any other kind of programing. But we are certainly starting to see sports content leak out into streaming services, which has both the potential to erode those live audiences that advertisers value so much, but also bring them into a streaming environment which would create more opportunities to use targeting and performance based tools. Brian, what are some of the challenges of connected TV advertising relative to linear? 
Brian Nowak: In the near term macro. Over the longer term proof that the technology works. As with any new, less proven advertising media, weaker macro backdrops can prove to be challenging. It is more difficult for advertisers to move large amounts of experimental dollars into new media when macro times are weaker. And if we think 2023 will be a more challenging macro backdrop, that could lead to slower overall adoption within the connected TV space. Over the long term, the technology has to be proven to work. We talked earlier about proving performance based advertising better, more directly linking advertising dollars to transactions. That technology has to be proven and built out. When you see an ad and you see an ad for a product directly linking that ad to the person actually buying that product is something that still has to be developed by some of the connected TV leaders. And so we're going to need to have better tools with more targeting, better attribution and scalability of the ad buys to really hit some of our longer term connected TV ad forecasts. 
Ben Swinburne: So Brian, you mentioned some of the macro weakness that we're seeing in the marketplace. What is the size of connected TV advertising right now, given that macro backdrop? And what's your near-term and long term outlook for online advertising more broadly and connected TV within that? 
Brian Nowak: In the United States the connected TV advertising market is currently about $17 billion. And as we look ahead, we expect the overall industry to grow at sort of a mid-teens rate, reaching $30 billion plus by 2026. And from a market share perspective, we do think that the largest four players across traditional media and big tech are going to drive a majority of that overall growth. 
Ben Swinburne: Brian, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Brian Nowak: Great speaking with you, Ben. 
Ben Swinburne: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/8ynJxhsJhlYajwS57emgPeAExHHkVB682OOQsbQ_RAgTue, 08 Nov 2022 22:35:05 +0000gtyIncreasingly, consumers are moving from traditional cable and satellite subscriptions to connected TV devices, so where do the advertisers go from here? U.S. Media Analyst Ben Swinburne and U.S. Internet Analyst Brian Nowak discuss. ----- Transcript...----- Transcript -----
Ben Swinburne: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ben Swinburne, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Media Analyst. 
Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet Analyst. 
Ben Swinburne: On this special episode of the podcast we'll focus on connected TV and the changing television space. It's Tuesday, November 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Ben Swinburne: Consumer behavior in the television space has been changing rapidly over the past decade, and the COVID pandemic further accelerated this trend. While most people still watch traditional linear TV through their cable and satellite subscription, consumers are shifting to streaming at a rapid pace. In fact, most of our listeners probably use some sort of connected TV, or CTV device at home that allows their television to support video content streaming. As our media analyst, I've watched how this has led to widespread "cord cutting", as an increasing number of customers cancel their traditional subscriptions in favor of only using these streaming or video on demand formats. So let's dig into the opportunities and challenges within the connected TV space and particularly interconnected TV advertising. Brian, let's start with some definitions. What is CTV advertising, what's so great about it? 
Brian Nowak: CTV advertising is nothing more than adding advertising to all that streaming engagement that you mentioned earlier. You talked about how people are increasingly watching connected television through streaming devices, through their televisions. The idea of showing ads around it is CTV advertising. As far as what's so great about it, for years traditional linear television has largely been driven by branded advertising to reach people. The hope with connected television over time is that not only will connected television enable you to have reach and strong branding capabilities, but also the potential for better targeting, a more direct link between an advertising dollar and an actual transaction from those ads. And the vision of connected television advertising over time is we may be able to have broad based performance advertising across all of the streaming television engagement. So with that as a backdrop Ben, who benefits in your view, from connected television? And which companies may be most at risk from this transition? 
Ben Swinburne: Well Brian, you talked about both targeting and performance ads, things that are not typically associated with broadcast or linear television advertising. So I have to say the biggest beneficiary of the shift to connected TV from an advertising point of view are marketers. Not only are marketers looking for ways to spend their money with a better return on an advertising spend, but they're facing rapidly declining audiences, meaning it's harder and harder to reach the audiences that they want to reach. Connected TV brings the promise of both greater audience, particularly "cord cutters", but also reaching them more effectively with performance based and targeting tools that don't exist in linear. Speaking of which, when we think about who may be at risk, well we don't think it's a complete zero sum game. And we do think connected TV expands the television ad market over the long term. We think the largest area of market share risk is linear television. 
Brian Nowak: So let's dig a little more into your point about linear television Ben. How do you think about the market share between linear television and connected television the next 5 to 10 years? And what role do sports and live sports play into that overall market share? 
Ben Swinburne: So we expect connected TV advertising to reach and ultimately surpass linear television...]]>383market-trendsfalse739fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-is-the-u-s-equity-rally-over--75654932----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 7th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week's pullback in major U.S. stock indices was not a surprise as the Fed remained committed to its mandate of getting inflation under control. However, if our tactical rally in U.S. stocks is going to have legs, 10 year U.S. Treasury yields will need to come down from current levels. Otherwise, it will be difficult to see higher prices for the S&P 500, given how sensitive this large cap growth index is to interest rates. Furthermore, we remain of the view that 2023 earnings forecasts are as much as 20% too high, so it will be difficult for stocks to move higher without valuations expanding. 
Does this mean the U.S. equity rally is over? We don't think so, but it's going to remain very noisy in the near term. First, we have two more important events this week to contend with: the Consumer Price Index release on Thursday and the midterm elections on Tuesday. On the former, we aren't that focused on it because it tells us little about the trajectory of inflation going forward. Nevertheless, we appreciate that the bond market remains fixated on such data points and will trade it. Therefore, it's likely to keep interest rate volatility high through Thursday. If interest rate volatility falls with the passing of these data, equity valuations can then expand further. 
In terms of interest rate levels, we think next week's midterms could play a bigger role. Should the polls prove correct, the Republicans are likely to win at least one chamber of Congress. This should throw a wrench into the aggressive fiscal spending plans the Democrats would still like to get done. Furthermore, Republican leadership has talked about freezing spending via the debt ceiling, much like they did with the Budget Control Act in 2011. This would be a sharp reversal from the past few years when budget deficits reached levels not seen since World War II. In our view, a clean sweep by the Republicans on Tuesday could greatly raise the odds of such an outcome. Such a decisive win should invoke the kind of rally and 10 year Treasury bonds to keep the equity market moving higher. One caveat to consider is that the election results may not be clear on Tuesday night, given the delay in counting mail in ballots. That means we can expect price volatility in equity markets will remain high and provide fodder for bears and bulls alike. 
Bottom line, we remain tactically bullish on U.S. equities, assuming longer term interest rate levels begin to fall. This week's midterm elections provide a potential catalyst in that regard. If the Republicans win decisive control of both the House and Senate, as some polls and betting markets are suggesting. Because this is purely a tactical trading view and not in line with our core fundamental view which remains bearish, we will remain disciplined on how much leash to give it. 
Last week we said that 3700 on the S&P 500 is our stop loss level for this rally, and markets traded exactly to that level after Friday's strong labor report before recovering nicely. For this week, we think that level could be challenged again given the uncertainty around election results. Anxiety around the Consumer Price Index Thursday morning is another reason to think both interest rate and equity volatility will remain high. Therefore, we are willing to give a bit more wiggle room to our stop loss level for next week, something like 3625 to 3650, assuming the 10 year Treasury yields don't make a new high. Conversely, if 10 year Treasury yields do trade about 4.35% and the S&P 500 tests 3625, we would suggest clients to exit bullish trades at that point. In short, the bear market rally is likely to hang around for longer than most expect if it can survive this week's test. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/FJQE-bQNfy5JyiKg1pLpLX-m3Dyteju3SChyH9yMk0IMon, 07 Nov 2022 20:41:05 +0000gtyWith the Fed continuing to focus on inflation and the upcoming midterm elections suggesting market volatility, investors may be wondering, is the U.S. equity market rally really over? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 7th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week's pullback in major U.S. stock indices was not a surprise as the Fed remained committed to its mandate of getting inflation under control. However, if our tactical rally in U.S. stocks is going to have legs, 10 year U.S. Treasury yields will need to come down from current levels. Otherwise, it will be difficult to see higher prices for the S&P 500, given how sensitive this large cap growth index is to interest rates. Furthermore, we remain of the view that 2023 earnings forecasts are as much as 20% too high, so it will be difficult for stocks to move higher without valuations expanding. 
Does this mean the U.S. equity rally is over? We don't think so, but it's going to remain very noisy in the near term. First, we have two more important events this week to contend with: the Consumer Price Index release on Thursday and the midterm elections on Tuesday. On the former, we aren't that focused on it because it tells us little about the trajectory of inflation going forward. Nevertheless, we appreciate that the bond market remains fixated on such data points and will trade it. Therefore, it's likely to keep interest rate volatility high through Thursday. If interest rate volatility falls with the passing of these data, equity valuations can then expand further. 
In terms of interest rate levels, we think next week's midterms could play a bigger role. Should the polls prove correct, the Republicans are likely to win at least one chamber of Congress. This should throw a wrench into the aggressive fiscal spending plans the Democrats would still like to get done. Furthermore, Republican leadership has talked about freezing spending via the debt ceiling, much like they did with the Budget Control Act in 2011. This would be a sharp reversal from the past few years when budget deficits reached levels not seen since World War II. In our view, a clean sweep by the Republicans on Tuesday could greatly raise the odds of such an outcome. Such a decisive win should invoke the kind of rally and 10 year Treasury bonds to keep the equity market moving higher. One caveat to consider is that the election results may not be clear on Tuesday night, given the delay in counting mail in ballots. That means we can expect price volatility in equity markets will remain high and provide fodder for bears and bulls alike. 
Bottom line, we remain tactically bullish on U.S. equities, assuming longer term interest rate levels begin to fall. This week's midterm elections provide a potential catalyst in that regard. If the Republicans win decisive control of both the House and Senate, as some polls and betting markets are suggesting. Because this is purely a tactical trading view and not in line with our core fundamental view which remains bearish, we will remain disciplined on how much leash to give it. 
Last week we said that 3700 on the S&P 500 is our stop loss level for this rally, and markets traded exactly to that level after Friday's strong labor report before recovering nicely. For this week, we think that level could be challenged again given the uncertainty around election results. Anxiety around the Consumer Price Index Thursday morning is another reason to think both interest rate and equity volatility will remain high. Therefore, we are willing to give a bit more wiggle room to our stop loss level for next week, something like 3625 to 3650, assuming the 10...]]>238market-trendsfalse738fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-sheets-a-swing-towards-bonds--75654686----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 4th, at 2 p.m. in London. 
The market is a funny thing. Relative to January 1st of this year, the U.S. 30 year Treasury bond is set to pay out all of the same coupons, and return the exact same amount of principal when it matures in 2052. But the market has decided that that same bond today is worth 36% less than at the start of the year. 
So what happened? Well, yields rose. That 30 year U.S. bond might be the exact same entity, but investors now need all of those future payments to yield 4.2% per year, not the 1.9% they needed on January 1st. It's another way of saying that there's been a major change in what's considered the minimal accepted return on safe assets. And that large jump in yields has led to the largest drop in bond prices that we've seen in recorded history. 
But the implications are broader. Many assets have bond-like characteristics, where you pay money today for a string of payments in the future. Whether it's an office building, a rental unit or a company with a future set of earnings, you can get very different current values for the exact same asset today by varying what sort of yield it's required to produce. And so if bonds are now priced lower to generate higher returns in the future, so should many other assets that have similar bond-like characteristics. 
For markets, we see a couple of implications. First, these rising yields have made bonds increasingly competitive relative to stocks. Currently, $100 of the S&P 500 is expected to yield about $6.25 of earnings next year. $100 of U.S. 1 to 5 year corporate bonds yields about $6 of interest, despite having just one sixth the volatility of the stock market. It's been 14 years since the earnings yield on stocks and the yield on corporate bonds has been so similar. 
Higher yields on safe assets may also shift broader asset allocation decisions. At this time last year, 30 year BBB- rated investment grade bonds yielded just 3.3%. Given such low returns, it's no wonder that many asset allocators, especially those with longer time horizons, pushed into alternative asset classes and private markets in an effort to generate higher returns. 
But that calculus now looks different. Yields on those same investment grade bonds have risen from that 3.3% to 6.3%. With public markets now offering many more opportunities for a safe, reliable, long run return, we'd expect asset allocators to start to swing back in this direction, especially favoring various forms of investment grade debt. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/y3e83fgCZH7reJlC9toDQf1EsS3VRlkKVT07ju-ArLoFri, 04 Nov 2022 18:03:44 +0000gtyAs prices for bonds go down and yields go up, investors may be asking why the price is so low, and what this shift may do to the broader market and asset allocation. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 4th, at 2 p.m. in London. 
The market is a funny thing. Relative to January 1st of this year, the U.S. 30 year Treasury bond is set to pay out all of the same coupons, and return the exact same amount of principal when it matures in 2052. But the market has decided that that same bond today is worth 36% less than at the start of the year. 
So what happened? Well, yields rose. That 30 year U.S. bond might be the exact same entity, but investors now need all of those future payments to yield 4.2% per year, not the 1.9% they needed on January 1st. It's another way of saying that there's been a major change in what's considered the minimal accepted return on safe assets. And that large jump in yields has led to the largest drop in bond prices that we've seen in recorded history. 
But the implications are broader. Many assets have bond-like characteristics, where you pay money today for a string of payments in the future. Whether it's an office building, a rental unit or a company with a future set of earnings, you can get very different current values for the exact same asset today by varying what sort of yield it's required to produce. And so if bonds are now priced lower to generate higher returns in the future, so should many other assets that have similar bond-like characteristics. 
For markets, we see a couple of implications. First, these rising yields have made bonds increasingly competitive relative to stocks. Currently, $100 of the S&P 500 is expected to yield about $6.25 of earnings next year. $100 of U.S. 1 to 5 year corporate bonds yields about $6 of interest, despite having just one sixth the volatility of the stock market. It's been 14 years since the earnings yield on stocks and the yield on corporate bonds has been so similar. 
Higher yields on safe assets may also shift broader asset allocation decisions. At this time last year, 30 year BBB- rated investment grade bonds yielded just 3.3%. Given such low returns, it's no wonder that many asset allocators, especially those with longer time horizons, pushed into alternative asset classes and private markets in an effort to generate higher returns. 
But that calculus now looks different. Yields on those same investment grade bonds have risen from that 3.3% to 6.3%. With public markets now offering many more opportunities for a safe, reliable, long run return, we'd expect asset allocators to start to swing back in this direction, especially favoring various forms of investment grade debt. 
Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.]]>183market-trendsfalse737fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/labor-are-people-returning-to-work--75654992----- Transcript -----
Julian Richers: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Julian Richers from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics Team. 
Markus Guetschow: And I'm Markus Guetschow from the European Economics Team. 
Julian Richers: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of labor force participation across developed markets and its broader economic implications. It's Thursday, November 3rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Markus Guetschow: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Markus Guetschow: It's no secret that the COVID pandemic profoundly disrupted labor markets across the globe. Labor shortages, rather than unemployment, have now become the key challenge to economies everywhere, and the 'great resignation' has become a catchphrase. In the U.K. and U.S. in particular, are experiencing a slow recovery in labor participation post-COVID, which is adding to an already complex set of policy trade offs by the Fed and the Bank of England. At the same time, Europe looks like a bright spot. So Julian, 'nobody wants to work anymore' has become a punchline. What kind of picture do the data on labor supply really paint in the U.S.? 
Julian Richers: In the U.S. at least we have seen a massive decline in labor force participation at the onset of the pandemic and really an incomplete recovery so far. Less immigration and more retirements have been major contributors to that drop initially, but since then it also is that prime age workers, so workers age 25 to 54, have been slow to come back. Now in contrast to the U.S., I think your analysis shows that labor supply in the euro area has already fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels. What drove that faster rebound and what's your outlook for the euro area from here? Can we learn something about what this may mean for other countries? 
Markus Guetschow: We've seen a remarkably quick bounce back in the labor market in the euro area after the pandemic recession, with participation already one percentage point above pre-pandemic levels by mid 22, and also about the level implied by pre-crisis trends. We think that furlough schemes that kept workers in the jobs during COVID were a key supporting factor here. We don't expect to return to pre-crisis labor supply growth, however, with increasing headwinds from immigration and demographics increasingly a factor in the euro area. The U.K. had a similarly generous furlough scheme, but dynamics are in many ways more similar to the U.S., with participation almost one percentage point below 4Q 19 levels in the middle of 2022. Post-Brexit migration flows are one obvious reasons, but we also point to a record number of workers out of the labor force due to health reasons. But let me turn back to the U.S. What makes the US labor market so challenging right now, and how would a potential rise in labor supply affect the economic growth outlook and the Fed's monetary policy? 
Julian Richers: Well, really, the U.S. labor market has just remained extremely resilient, even though the overall economy has clearly slowed. The U.S. economy is also now producing a lot more output with about the same amount of workers as we did before the pandemic. So structurally, labor demand is still high. At the same time, a lot of the losses in participation among older workers will not reverse. But prime age workers have been coming back and there is still more room for them to go. So prime age, labor force participation should be increasing and that will be key for some relaxation in the labor market. For the Fed that's key, right? Removing pressure from the labor market is very important to feel more confident about the inflation outlook. Wage growth has been extremely high because there still is a pretty significant shortage of workers, and workers are quitting at high rates to go to higher paying jobs. Now, as the economy slows more and labor demand begins to cool, that should lessen. But really, getting more people into the labor force is just going to be key to see wage growth moderate and the unemployment rate go up for good reasons and not for job cuts. So an expansion in labor supply in particular, if it's coming from more primary workers, is really key to manage a soft landing the Fed is looking for. Marcus, how about the ECB in the Bank of England? Maybe walk us through the thinking there and give us a sense of the outlook for the U.K. and the euro area into 2023. 
Markus Guetschow: So the ECB is facing a different set of issues altogether. Labor market supply is closely monitored, but with rates growth really rather modest to date, despite record low unemployment, much less of a focus for monetary policy. Instead, with rates still arguably in stimulating territory, the near-term focus continues to be on policy normalization, eventually also QT, while fending off concerns about fragmentation. The picture for the Bank of England is somewhat more similar to the one faced by the Fed. The more labor supply bounces back, the less the Bank of England has to lean against demand. With recession ahead and a bearish outlook on participation, most of the slackening will likely be done via the demand channel, however. 
Julian Richers: Marcus, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Markus Guetschow: Great speaking to you, Julian. 
Julian Richers: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ruoa17U6mTFx-EfH23wUmDv8T86MtLEqWe8pJECbbq0Thu, 03 Nov 2022 22:02:34 +0000gtyAs developed markets heal from the pandemic, labor force participation has recovered in some areas faster than others, so how will a return to work impact the broader economy in places like the U.K. and the U.S.? U.S. Economist Julian Richers and...----- Transcript -----
Julian Richers: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Julian Richers from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics Team. 
Markus Guetschow: And I'm Markus Guetschow from the European Economics Team. 
Julian Richers: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of labor force participation across developed markets and its broader economic implications. It's Thursday, November 3rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
Markus Guetschow: And 3 p.m. in London. 
Markus Guetschow: It's no secret that the COVID pandemic profoundly disrupted labor markets across the globe. Labor shortages, rather than unemployment, have now become the key challenge to economies everywhere, and the 'great resignation' has become a catchphrase. In the U.K. and U.S. in particular, are experiencing a slow recovery in labor participation post-COVID, which is adding to an already complex set of policy trade offs by the Fed and the Bank of England. At the same time, Europe looks like a bright spot. So Julian, 'nobody wants to work anymore' has become a punchline. What kind of picture do the data on labor supply really paint in the U.S.? 
Julian Richers: In the U.S. at least we have seen a massive decline in labor force participation at the onset of the pandemic and really an incomplete recovery so far. Less immigration and more retirements have been major contributors to that drop initially, but since then it also is that prime age workers, so workers age 25 to 54, have been slow to come back. Now in contrast to the U.S., I think your analysis shows that labor supply in the euro area has already fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels. What drove that faster rebound and what's your outlook for the euro area from here? Can we learn something about what this may mean for other countries? 
Markus Guetschow: We've seen a remarkably quick bounce back in the labor market in the euro area after the pandemic recession, with participation already one percentage point above pre-pandemic levels by mid 22, and also about the level implied by pre-crisis trends. We think that furlough schemes that kept workers in the jobs during COVID were a key supporting factor here. We don't expect to return to pre-crisis labor supply growth, however, with increasing headwinds from immigration and demographics increasingly a factor in the euro area. The U.K. had a similarly generous furlough scheme, but dynamics are in many ways more similar to the U.S., with participation almost one percentage point below 4Q 19 levels in the middle of 2022. Post-Brexit migration flows are one obvious reasons, but we also point to a record number of workers out of the labor force due to health reasons. But let me turn back to the U.S. What makes the US labor market so challenging right now, and how would a potential rise in labor supply affect the economic growth outlook and the Fed's monetary policy? 
Julian Richers: Well, really, the U.S. labor market has just remained extremely resilient, even though the overall economy has clearly slowed. The U.S. economy is also now producing a lot more output with about the same amount of workers as we did before the pandemic. So structurally, labor demand is still high. At the same time, a lot of the losses in participation among older workers will not reverse. But prime age workers have been coming back and there is still more room for them to go. So prime age, labor force participation should be increasing and that will be key for some relaxation in the labor market. For the Fed that's key, right? Removing pressure from the labor market is very important to feel more confident about the inflation...]]>298market-trendsfalse736fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-preparing-for-an-uncertain-election--75654991----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
On Tuesday, Americans will cast their ballots for members of Congress. Well, most Americans will. Many will have already voted by mail. And that's important to know, because it means that, like in 2020, investors may have to wait days to reliably know who will control Congress. And that uncertainty could spell volatility in the bond markets, under the right conditions. Allow me to explain. 
Like in 2020, the increased use of vote by mail means that early vote counts reported may not be a good indicator of who's winning a particular race, especially in races expected to be close. Mailin ballots are typically cast more often by Democrats than Republicans, and in many jurisdictions are counted after in-person voting. That means that early reported results may look favorable to Republicans, but like in 2020, leads can vanish over time. And so we'll need to reserve judgment on which party seems poised to control Congress. 
While that uncertainty is playing out, it helps to know which outcomes would be market movers and which ones might have no immediate impact. For example, let's consider what it would mean if Republicans take back control of one or both houses of Congress, which polls and prediction markets are pointing to as the most likely outcome. We wouldn't anticipate this 'divided government' outcome being a market mover, at least not in the near term. That's because the most we can take away from this are some hypothetical concerns. A divided government tends to deliver a weaker fiscal response to a recession. And Republicans have publicly touted their intent to use the debt ceiling and government funding deadlines as negotiating points to reduce government spending in 2023 and 2024. But in recent years, markets have dismissed those types of negotiations as political theater. So perhaps these events would only matter in the moment if the economy and or markets were already showing substantial weakness. 
But what if instead Democrats do what the polling data suggests they're very unlikely to do, not only keep control of Congress, but expand their majorities. If the early vote counting makes this seem like a real possibility, perhaps because Democrats outperform in early tallies in places like Pennsylvania, then expect market gyrations, particularly in the bond market. That's because if Democrats were to pull off such an outcome, bond markets could come to see a risk  that fiscal policy will be pulling in a different direction than monetary policy, meaning the Fed could have to hike rates even more than currently expected to bring inflation down to target. Expanded Democratic majorities could be a signal that inflation was not the electoral challenge many feared. Without that political constraint, investors could equate these expanded majorities with an increased chance that Democrats would revisit many of their previously abandoned spending plans. 
So bottom line, be prepared. The polls are showing Democrats are unlikely to expand majorities, but the history of markets is rife with examples of unexpected outcomes creating market volatility. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us for a view on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Ck3fowteGzqfbQ2fhHJMhsgGtyBIjngOaKgiSJdpWpoWed, 02 Nov 2022 20:56:32 +0000gtyThis coming Tuesday is the midterm election in the U.S., so what should investors watch out for as the results roll in? And which outcomes might influence market moves? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. 
On Tuesday, Americans will cast their ballots for members of Congress. Well, most Americans will. Many will have already voted by mail. And that's important to know, because it means that, like in 2020, investors may have to wait days to reliably know who will control Congress. And that uncertainty could spell volatility in the bond markets, under the right conditions. Allow me to explain. 
Like in 2020, the increased use of vote by mail means that early vote counts reported may not be a good indicator of who's winning a particular race, especially in races expected to be close. Mailin ballots are typically cast more often by Democrats than Republicans, and in many jurisdictions are counted after in-person voting. That means that early reported results may look favorable to Republicans, but like in 2020, leads can vanish over time. And so we'll need to reserve judgment on which party seems poised to control Congress. 
While that uncertainty is playing out, it helps to know which outcomes would be market movers and which ones might have no immediate impact. For example, let's consider what it would mean if Republicans take back control of one or both houses of Congress, which polls and prediction markets are pointing to as the most likely outcome. We wouldn't anticipate this 'divided government' outcome being a market mover, at least not in the near term. That's because the most we can take away from this are some hypothetical concerns. A divided government tends to deliver a weaker fiscal response to a recession. And Republicans have publicly touted their intent to use the debt ceiling and government funding deadlines as negotiating points to reduce government spending in 2023 and 2024. But in recent years, markets have dismissed those types of negotiations as political theater. So perhaps these events would only matter in the moment if the economy and or markets were already showing substantial weakness. 
But what if instead Democrats do what the polling data suggests they're very unlikely to do, not only keep control of Congress, but expand their majorities. If the early vote counting makes this seem like a real possibility, perhaps because Democrats outperform in early tallies in places like Pennsylvania, then expect market gyrations, particularly in the bond market. That's because if Democrats were to pull off such an outcome, bond markets could come to see a risk  that fiscal policy will be pulling in a different direction than monetary policy, meaning the Fed could have to hike rates even more than currently expected to bring inflation down to target. Expanded Democratic majorities could be a signal that inflation was not the electoral challenge many feared. Without that political constraint, investors could equate these expanded majorities with an increased chance that Democrats would revisit many of their previously abandoned spending plans. 
So bottom line, be prepared. The polls are showing Democrats are unlikely to expand majorities, but the history of markets is rife with examples of unexpected outcomes creating market volatility. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us for a view on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. ]]>196market-trendsfalse735fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/private-markets-uncertainty-in-the-golden-age--75654947----- Transcript -----
Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head of Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Team. 
Bruce Hamilton: And I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Asset Managers, the exchanges and Diversified Financials Research. 
Mike Cyprys: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll talk about our outlook on the private markets industry against an uncertain macro backdrop and market upheaval. It's Tuesday, November 1st at noon in New York. 
Bruce Hamilton: And 4 p.m. in London. 
Mike Cyprys: We spend most of our time on this podcast talking about public markets, which are stocks and bonds traded on public exchanges like Nasdaq and Euronext. But today, we're going to talk a little bit about the private markets, which are equity and debt of privately owned companies. You probably know it as private equity, venture capital and private credit, but it also encompasses private real estate and infrastructure investments, all of this largely held in funds owned by institutions such as pension funds and endowments and increasingly high net worth investors. Today, there is nearly 10 trillion of assets held across these funds globally. But despite the different structure, private markets have been faced with the same macro challenges facing public markets here in 2022. So Bruce, before we get into some of the specifics, let's maybe set the context for our listeners. How have private markets fared vis a vis public markets over the last decade? 
Bruce Hamilton: So the industry has grown at around 12% per annum on average over the past decade in terms of asset growth and a faster 17% over the past three years, driven by increasing allocations from institutional investors attracted to the historic outperformance of private markets versus public markets, a smoother ride on valuations given that assets are not mark to market, unlike public markets, and an ability to source a more diversified set of exposures, including the faster growth in earlier stage companies. 
Mike Cyprys: And what are some of the near-term specific risks facing private markets right now amidst this challenging market backdrop? 
Bruce Hamilton: The near-term concerns really focus around the implications of a tougher economic environment, impacting corporate earnings growth at the same time that increasing central bank interest rates across the globe are feeding into increased borrowing costs for these companies. This raises questions on how this will impact the profitability and investment returns from these companies and whether investors will continue to view the private markets as an attractive place to allocate capital. The uncertain economic outlook has dramatically reduced the appetite to finance new private market deals. However, there are factors that mitigate the risks forced to refinance in the short term. Secondly, corporate balance sheets are in relatively good health in terms of profits to cover interest payments or interest cover. Moreover, flexibility built into financing structures such as hedging to lock in lower interest rates should reduce the impact of rising rates. Importantly, the private market industry also has significant dry powder, or available capital, to invest in new opportunities or protect existing investments. For players active in the private markets. We think that there are undoubtedly risks in the near term, linked to congested fundraising with many private market firms seeking to raise capital from clients against a decline in public markets, which has left clients with less money in their pockets. From the performance of existing portfolio companies, given the more difficult market and economic environment and from subdued company disposal and investment activity linked to the more difficult financing markets. This has kept us pretty cautious on the sector this year. 
Bruce Hamilton: But Mike, despite these near-term risks and concerns, you remain convicted in your bullish outlook on the next five years. In a recent work, you've outlined five key themes that you see lifting private markets to your 17 trillion assets under management forecast. What are these themes and how do you see them playing out over time? 
Mike Cyprys: Look, clearly, I would echo your concerns in the short term. And I do think growth moderates after an exceptional period here. But we do see a number of growth drivers that we feel are more enduring. Specifically, five key engines of growth, if you will. First is democratization of private markets that we think can spur retail growth and unlock a $17 trillion addressable market or TAM. This is the single largest growth contributor to our outlook. Product development, investor education and technological innovation are all helping unlock access here as retail investors look to the private markets for income and capital appreciation in addition to a smooth ride with lower volatility versus the public markets. The second growth zone is private credit that we think is poised to penetrate a $23 trillion TAM as traditional bank lenders retrench, providing an opportunity for private lenders to step in. For corporate issuers, private credit offers greater flexibility on structure and terms, and provides greater certainty of execution. For investors, it can provide higher yields and diversification from public credit. The third growth zone is infrastructure investing, which we think can help solve for decades-long underinvestment and addresses a $15 trillion funding gap over the next 20 years. This is underpinned by structural tailwinds for the 3 Ds of digitization, decarbonization and deglobalization. The fourth growth zone is around liquidity solutions. As you know, the private markets are illiquid. And so as the asset class grows, we do expect some investors will want to find ways to access some degree of liquidity over time. And that's where solutions such as secondaries and NAV based lending can be helpful. The fifth and final growth zone is around impact in ESG investing. In public markets, we've seen significant asset flows into ESG and impact investing strategies as investors look to have a positive impact on society. And we expect that this will also play a role in the private markets, though it's a bit earlier days. Today we estimate about 200 billion invested in private market impact strategies, and we think that can reach about 850 billion in five years time. 
Mike Cyprys: So for investors, this does boil down to an impact on publicly traded companies. Given the specific challenges of the current environment, Bruce, which business models do you think are best positioned to succeed both near-term and longer term? And what should investors be looking at? 
Bruce Hamilton: Well, Mike, whilst we think the challenging macro conditions could continue to weigh on the sector near-term, we think that investors may want to look at companies with the best exposure to the five growth themes that you mentioned, who are building out global multi-asset investment franchises with diverse earnings streams, a high proportion of durable management fee related earnings—rather than heavy reliance or more volatile carry or performance fees—and deployment skewed to inflation protected sectors like infrastructure or real estate. 
Mike Cyprys: Bruce, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Bruce Hamilton: Great speaking with you, Mike. 
Mike Cyprys: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ew6WlpLtrgrcSgBKOJk6Sssglsxrl4C5jgVjv37U5DsTue, 01 Nov 2022 21:28:23 +0000gtyOver the last decade private markets have outperformed versus public markets, but given the recent public market volatility, will private markets continue to attract investors? Head of Brokers, Asset Managers, and the Exchanges Team Mike Cyprys and...----- Transcript -----
Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head of Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Team. 
Bruce Hamilton: And I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Asset Managers, the exchanges and Diversified Financials Research. 
Mike Cyprys: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll talk about our outlook on the private markets industry against an uncertain macro backdrop and market upheaval. It's Tuesday, November 1st at noon in New York. 
Bruce Hamilton: And 4 p.m. in London. 
Mike Cyprys: We spend most of our time on this podcast talking about public markets, which are stocks and bonds traded on public exchanges like Nasdaq and Euronext. But today, we're going to talk a little bit about the private markets, which are equity and debt of privately owned companies. You probably know it as private equity, venture capital and private credit, but it also encompasses private real estate and infrastructure investments, all of this largely held in funds owned by institutions such as pension funds and endowments and increasingly high net worth investors. Today, there is nearly 10 trillion of assets held across these funds globally. But despite the different structure, private markets have been faced with the same macro challenges facing public markets here in 2022. So Bruce, before we get into some of the specifics, let's maybe set the context for our listeners. How have private markets fared vis a vis public markets over the last decade? 
Bruce Hamilton: So the industry has grown at around 12% per annum on average over the past decade in terms of asset growth and a faster 17% over the past three years, driven by increasing allocations from institutional investors attracted to the historic outperformance of private markets versus public markets, a smoother ride on valuations given that assets are not mark to market, unlike public markets, and an ability to source a more diversified set of exposures, including the faster growth in earlier stage companies. 
Mike Cyprys: And what are some of the near-term specific risks facing private markets right now amidst this challenging market backdrop? 
Bruce Hamilton: The near-term concerns really focus around the implications of a tougher economic environment, impacting corporate earnings growth at the same time that increasing central bank interest rates across the globe are feeding into increased borrowing costs for these companies. This raises questions on how this will impact the profitability and investment returns from these companies and whether investors will continue to view the private markets as an attractive place to allocate capital. The uncertain economic outlook has dramatically reduced the appetite to finance new private market deals. However, there are factors that mitigate the risks forced to refinance in the short term. Secondly, corporate balance sheets are in relatively good health in terms of profits to cover interest payments or interest cover. Moreover, flexibility built into financing structures such as hedging to lock in lower interest rates should reduce the impact of rising rates. Importantly, the private market industry also has significant dry powder, or available capital, to invest in new opportunities or protect existing investments. For players active in the private markets. We think that there are undoubtedly risks in the near term, linked to congested fundraising with many private market firms seeking to raise capital from clients against a decline in public markets, which has left clients with less money...]]>409market-trendsfalse734fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-has-the-fed-gone-far-enough--75654976----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 31st at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Two weeks ago, we turned tactically bullish on U.S. equities. Some clients felt this call came out of left field, given our well-established bearish view on the fundamentals. To be clear, this call is based almost entirely on technicals rather than the fundamentals which remain unsupportive of most equity prices and the S&P 500. 
Today, we will put some meat around the fundamental drivers for why this call can work for longer than most expect. Last week was the biggest one for third quarter earnings season in terms of market cap reporting. More specifically it included all of the mega-cap tech stocks that make up much of the S&P 500. On one hand, these companies did not disappoint the fundamental bears like us who've been expecting weaker earnings to finally emerge. In fact, several of these large tech stocks reported third quarter results that were even worse than we were expecting. Furthermore, the primary driver of the downside was due to negative operating leverage, which is a core part of our thesis on earnings as described in the fire and ice narrative. However, these large earnings misses and poor stock performance did not translate into negative price performance for the S&P 500 or even the NASDAQ 100. 
This price action is very much in line with our tactical bullish call a few weeks ago. In addition to the supportive tactical picture we discussed in prior notes, we fully expected third quarter results to be weak. However, we also expected most companies would punt on providing any material guidance for 2023, leaving the consensus forward 12 month earnings per share estimates relatively unchanged. This is why the primary index didn't go down in our view, and actually rose 4%. 
The other driver for why the S&P 500 rose, in our view, is tied to the upcoming Fed meeting this week. While the Fed has hawkishly surprised most investors this year, we've now reached a point where both bond and stock markets may be pricing in too much hawkishness. First, other central banks are starting to slow their rate of tightening. Second, there are growing signs the labor market is finally at risk of a downturn as earnings disappoint and job openings continue to fall. Third, the 3 month 10 year yield curve is finally inverted, and that is one item Fed Chair Jay Powell has said he's watching closely as a sign the Fed has gone far enough. 
However, the best evidence the Fed has already done enough to beat inflation comes from the simple fact that money supply growth has collapsed over the past year. Money supply is now growing just 2.5% year over year. This is down from a peak of 27% year over year back in March of 2021. A monetarist which suggests inflation is likely to fall just as rapidly as it tends to lag money supply growth by 16 months. This means longer term interest rates are likely to follow, which can serve as a driver of higher valuations until the forward earnings per share estimates fall more meaningfully. 
What this all means for equity markets is that we have a window where stocks can rally on the expectation inflation is coming down, which allows the Fed to pause its rate hikes at some point in the near future, if not this week. Moreover, this pause must occur while earnings forecasts remain high. The bottom line is that we continue to think there's further upside toward 4000 - 4150 from the current 3900 level. However, for that to happen, longer term interest rates will need to come down, and that will likely require a less hawkish message from the Fed. That puts a lot of pressure on this week's Fed meeting for our tactical call to keep working. If the Fed comes in hawkish and squashes any hopes for a pause before it's too late, the rally could very well be over. More practically, anyone who jumped on board this tactical trade should use 3700 on the S&P 500 as a stop loss for remaining bullish. Conversely, should longer term interest rates fall after Wednesday's meeting, we would gain more confidence in our 4150 upside target for the trade and even consider further upside depending on the message from the Fed. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. ]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/Mvnm3FMjsYQTs5E4CF1eufbF5dPE0yAVQvqntdQVYaUMon, 31 Oct 2022 20:36:06 +0000gtyDespite companies beginning to report earnings misses and poor stock performance, the S&P 500 is on the rise, leading many to wonder how the Fed will react to this new data in their coming meeting. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 31st at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Two weeks ago, we turned tactically bullish on U.S. equities. Some clients felt this call came out of left field, given our well-established bearish view on the fundamentals. To be clear, this call is based almost entirely on technicals rather than the fundamentals which remain unsupportive of most equity prices and the S&P 500. 
Today, we will put some meat around the fundamental drivers for why this call can work for longer than most expect. Last week was the biggest one for third quarter earnings season in terms of market cap reporting. More specifically it included all of the mega-cap tech stocks that make up much of the S&P 500. On one hand, these companies did not disappoint the fundamental bears like us who've been expecting weaker earnings to finally emerge. In fact, several of these large tech stocks reported third quarter results that were even worse than we were expecting. Furthermore, the primary driver of the downside was due to negative operating leverage, which is a core part of our thesis on earnings as described in the fire and ice narrative. However, these large earnings misses and poor stock performance did not translate into negative price performance for the S&P 500 or even the NASDAQ 100. 
This price action is very much in line with our tactical bullish call a few weeks ago. In addition to the supportive tactical picture we discussed in prior notes, we fully expected third quarter results to be weak. However, we also expected most companies would punt on providing any material guidance for 2023, leaving the consensus forward 12 month earnings per share estimates relatively unchanged. This is why the primary index didn't go down in our view, and actually rose 4%. 
The other driver for why the S&P 500 rose, in our view, is tied to the upcoming Fed meeting this week. While the Fed has hawkishly surprised most investors this year, we've now reached a point where both bond and stock markets may be pricing in too much hawkishness. First, other central banks are starting to slow their rate of tightening. Second, there are growing signs the labor market is finally at risk of a downturn as earnings disappoint and job openings continue to fall. Third, the 3 month 10 year yield curve is finally inverted, and that is one item Fed Chair Jay Powell has said he's watching closely as a sign the Fed has gone far enough. 
However, the best evidence the Fed has already done enough to beat inflation comes from the simple fact that money supply growth has collapsed over the past year. Money supply is now growing just 2.5% year over year. This is down from a peak of 27% year over year back in March of 2021. A monetarist which suggests inflation is likely to fall just as rapidly as it tends to lag money supply growth by 16 months. This means longer term interest rates are likely to follow, which can serve as a driver of higher valuations until the forward earnings per share estimates fall more meaningfully. 
What this all means for equity markets is that we have a window where stocks can rally on the expectation inflation is coming down, which allows the Fed to pause its rate hikes at some point in the near future, if not this week. Moreover, this pause must occur while earnings forecasts remain high. The bottom line is that we continue to think there's further upside toward 4000 - 4150 from the current 3900 level....]]>256market-trendsfalse733fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-k-economy-volatility-s-impact-across-markets--75654986----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the market implications of the latest political, economic and market developments in the U.K. It's Friday, October. 28th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Bruna Skarica: So Andrew, we already discussed the economic outlook for the U.K., and today I'd like to turn our conversation to you and your cross asset views. Obviously the current economic and political situation in the U.K. has a very significant impact on both macro and micro markets. Let's start with one of the number one investor questions around the U.K., which is the mortgage market. Roughly one in four mortgages has a variable rate and current estimates suggest that more than a third of UK mortgage holders will see their rates rise from under two to over 6% over the next year. What is your outlook for the mortgage market and its impact on the U.K. consumer, especially amid what is already severe cost of living crisis? 
Andrew Sheets: Like the U.S. most household debt in the U.K. is held in the form of mortgages. Unlike t,vhe U.S., though, those mortgages tend to have a quite short period where the rate is fixed. The typical U.K. mortgage, the rate is only fixed for 2 to 5 years. Which means that if you bought a house in 2020 or 2021, a lot of those mortgages are coming due for a reset very soon. And that reset is large. The mortgage, when it was taken out in 2020, might have had a rate of 2%. The current rate that it will reset to is closer to 6%. So that's a tripling of the interest rate that these homeowners face. So this is a very severe consumer shock, especially if you layer it on top of higher utility bills. This is, I think, a big challenge that, as you correctly identified in our conversation yesterday, that the Bank of England is worried about. And, you know, this is one reason why we think the pound will weaken. I'm sure we'll talk about the pound more, but if rate rises in the U.K. work their way into the household much faster because the mortgage fixed period is much shorter, maybe that means the Bank of England can't hike as much as markets expect. Whereas the Fed can because the dynamics in the mortgage market are so much different. 
Bruna Skarica: Indeed. Now, aside from that, U.K. rates have also seen a historical level of volatility this year. The pound as well has been weak all year, even though it has rallied a bit recently. Perhaps let's focus on the currency first. How do you see the pound from here? Do you think the downside risks have subsided or the structural risks still remain? 
Andrew Sheets: So the pound is a very inexpensive currency. It's inexpensive on a number of the different valuation measures that we look at, purchasing power parity, a real effective exchange rate and it's certainly fallen a lot. But our view is that the pound will fall further and that this temporary bounce that the pound has enjoyed in the aftermath of another new leadership team in the country is ultimately going to be short lived. A lot of the economic challenges that were there before the mini budget are still there. Weak economic growth, a large current account deficit, trade friction coming out of Brexit. And also I think this part about the Bank of England maybe not raising rates as much as the market expects, there's that much less interest income for investors for holding the pound. We forecast a medium term level for the pound relative to the dollar, about 1.05, so still lower from here. And we do think the pound will be the underperformer across U.K. assets. 
Bruna Skarica: Now aside from the pound I've mentioned, investors have been very focused on the UK rates market where we have indeed seen a lot of volatility in recent weeks. Now what do valuations look like here after all the fiscal U-turns? And is Morgan Stanley still bearish on gilts? 
Andrew Sheets: It's common to talk about historic moves in the global market and sometimes you realize you're talking about a market that's been around for 10 years or 20 years. The U.K. bond market's been around for hundreds of years. And we saw some of the largest moves in that history over the last 2 months. So these have been really extreme moves, both up and down, as a result of the fallout from that mini budget. But going forward we think U.K. rates will rise further from here, we think bonds will underperform and there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the real interest rate on U.K. gilts, the yield above expected inflation, it's not very high, it's about zero actually. Whereas if I invest in a U.S. inflation protected security, I get about 1.5% more than the inflation rate. And then I think you add on this challenge of it's a smaller market, you add on the challenge of there's more political uncertainty, and then you add in the the risk that inflation stays higher than the Bank of England expects, that core inflation remains more persistent. And I think all of these are reasons why the market could inject a little bit more risk premium into the gilt market. One other thing that's been highlighted by our colleagues in interest rate strategy, is just simply there's a lot of supply gilts. There's supply of gilts not just because the governments running a deficit, but there's supply because the Bank of England was a major buyer and a major holder of gilts during the year of quantitative easing and it's shifting towards quantitative tightening. So heavy supply, low real rates, and I think a potential for kind of a higher risk premium are all reasons why we think gilts underperform both bonds and treasuries. 
Bruna Skarica: Now that you mentioned quantitative tightening, of course, the Bank of England is planning to sell its credit holdings as well. What is the situation in the sterling credit market? Can you walk us through the challenges and opportunities there right now for both domestic and foreign investors? 
Andrew Sheets: Yeah. So I think the credit market in the U.K. is actually one of the better stories in this market. Now it's not particularly liquid. But I think where sterling credit has some advantages is, one, it's actually a relatively international market. Only about half of it references U.K. companies, the other half of it is global companies, including a lot of U.S. issuers. So the credit market is not a particularly domestically focused index to the extent people are worried about the U.K. domestic situation. It's a market that trades at a spread discount to the U.S., both because of some of the recent volatility and the fact it's a little bit less liquid. this is a market that yields around 6.5% - 6.75% on investment grade credit. That's, I think, a pretty good return relative to expected inflation, relative to where we think credit risk is in that market. So, you know, amidst some other more difficult stories, we think the credit market might end up being a relatively better one. 
Bruna Skarica: Finally, let's take a step back perhaps, and take a look at some of the U.K.'s structural vulnerabilities. The U.K. has a very weak net international investment position, it's reliant on foreign money to fund some of its deficit and despite the recent fiscal U-turns, the U.K.'s fiscal deficit is still relatively large. In the context of these vulnerabilities, can you maybe discuss how recent events have affected foreign investors' confidence, and how do you see things going forward? 
Andrew Sheets: Yes, so I think this is a really important issue and maybe a good one to close on. The U.K., as you just mentioned, runs a very large current account deficit. It imports much more than it exports, and when you do that you need to attract foreign capital to make up that difference. Now the U.S. also imports more than it exports, the U.S. also runs a large current account deficit, but because the U.S. is this large deep capital market, it's seen as a relative winner in the global economy in terms of both the makeup of its companies and its longer term growth it tends to have an easier time attracting that foreign capital. The U.K. has more challenges there. It's a much smaller market, it doesn't have the same sort of tech leadership that you see in the U.S. and in terms of attracting the foreign capital into the equity market, well, that's been more difficult because you've had some uncertainty over what U.K. corporate tax policy will be. The U.K. equity market also tends to be quite energy and commodity focused. So in an ESG focused world, it's more complicated to attract inward investment. And then on the bond market side, the U.K.'s bonds don't yield more than U.K. inflation at the moment. So again, that's probably worked against attracting foreign investment. So maybe one other factor there that is important and we've touched this in a glancing way throughout this conversation, is brexit. That the U.K.'s exit from the European union does still present a number of big uncertainties around how U.K. companies and the U.K. economy will operate relative to its largest trading partner. And so, again, we can see a scenario where just simply higher risk premiums or lower valuations are ultimately needed to clear the market. 
Andrew Sheets: So Bruna, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Bruna Skarica: Thanks, Andrew. 
Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the p]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/wtufs8QdvfwG_nIB68wxeFfH-4Sk14iaPSiJjtI7ImYFri, 28 Oct 2022 21:20:38 +0000gtyAs the U.K. grapples with structural, political, and economic issues, how are markets affected across assets, and what stories may look better for investors than others? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and U.K. Economist Bruna Skarica...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the market implications of the latest political, economic and market developments in the U.K. It's Friday, October. 28th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Bruna Skarica: So Andrew, we already discussed the economic outlook for the U.K., and today I'd like to turn our conversation to you and your cross asset views. Obviously the current economic and political situation in the U.K. has a very significant impact on both macro and micro markets. Let's start with one of the number one investor questions around the U.K., which is the mortgage market. Roughly one in four mortgages has a variable rate and current estimates suggest that more than a third of UK mortgage holders will see their rates rise from under two to over 6% over the next year. What is your outlook for the mortgage market and its impact on the U.K. consumer, especially amid what is already severe cost of living crisis? 
Andrew Sheets: Like the U.S. most household debt in the U.K. is held in the form of mortgages. Unlike t,vhe U.S., though, those mortgages tend to have a quite short period where the rate is fixed. The typical U.K. mortgage, the rate is only fixed for 2 to 5 years. Which means that if you bought a house in 2020 or 2021, a lot of those mortgages are coming due for a reset very soon. And that reset is large. The mortgage, when it was taken out in 2020, might have had a rate of 2%. The current rate that it will reset to is closer to 6%. So that's a tripling of the interest rate that these homeowners face. So this is a very severe consumer shock, especially if you layer it on top of higher utility bills. This is, I think, a big challenge that, as you correctly identified in our conversation yesterday, that the Bank of England is worried about. And, you know, this is one reason why we think the pound will weaken. I'm sure we'll talk about the pound more, but if rate rises in the U.K. work their way into the household much faster because the mortgage fixed period is much shorter, maybe that means the Bank of England can't hike as much as markets expect. Whereas the Fed can because the dynamics in the mortgage market are so much different. 
Bruna Skarica: Indeed. Now, aside from that, U.K. rates have also seen a historical level of volatility this year. The pound as well has been weak all year, even though it has rallied a bit recently. Perhaps let's focus on the currency first. How do you see the pound from here? Do you think the downside risks have subsided or the structural risks still remain? 
Andrew Sheets: So the pound is a very inexpensive currency. It's inexpensive on a number of the different valuation measures that we look at, purchasing power parity, a real effective exchange rate and it's certainly fallen a lot. But our view is that the pound will fall further and that this temporary bounce that the pound has enjoyed in the aftermath of another new leadership team in the country is ultimately going to be short lived. A lot of the economic challenges that were there before the mini budget are still there. Weak economic growth, a large current account deficit, trade friction coming out of Brexit. And also I think this part about the Bank of England maybe not raising rates as much as the market expects, there's that much less interest income for investors for holding the pound. We forecast a medium term level for the pound relative to the dollar, about 1.05,...]]>554false732fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/u-k-economy-all-eyes-on-the-u-k--75655001----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be focused on the latest political, economic and market developments in the United Kingdom and how investors should think about the situation now and going forward. It's Thursday, October 27th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Andrew Sheets: So Bruna, the world's eyes have been on the U.K. over the last couple of months, not only because it's the world's sixth largest economy, but because it's been experiencing an unprecedented level of market volatility, and it also has had an unusually large amount of political volatility. So I think a good place to start this discussion is just taking a step back. How would you currently frame the economic challenges facing the U.K.? 
Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the level of volatility has truly been historic, both in the macro space, in the market and in politics. Now, in terms of what Prime Minister Sunak has on his tray coming into number 10, first let me mention the fiscal challenges. Chancellor Hunt, who's currently in number 11, has already reversed nearly all the measures from the mini budget, which was the catalyst of all this turbulence. Still, there is more to come. We think another £30 billion of fiscal tightening will be needed to stabilize debt to GDP ratio in the medium term. So more austerity, which of course, will be negative for growth. Now, this fiscal tightening, of course, comes in order to facilitate Bank of England's monetary tightening and help return inflation to the 2% target. The Bank of England has already hiked the bank rate to 2.25%, and we expect further hikes to come. So a lot of monetary tightening weighing on growth, too. And all of this is coming in the context of a very large external shock, that is the energy price move that has led to a spike in utility bills that the state is helping to counter, but that is weighing on UK's disposable income.
Andrew Sheets: Given all of these challenges, how do you think the Bank of England is going to react? They have an upcoming meeting on November 3rd, and they’re facing a backdrop where on the one hand the U.K. has some of the highest core inflation in the developed world, and on the other hand it has a number of these risks to growth which you just outlined. How do you think they try to thread that needle and what do you think they ultimately do?
Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the Bank of England has this year had a really complicated task at its hand. What started as the energy shock to inflation first impacting headline inflation, then spread on to pretty much every part of the consumer basket. The Bank of England we think has no choice but to tighten further from here. Chief Economist Pearl, in the aftermath of the mini budget, said that there will be a significant monetary response to the fiscal news and financial market volatility. As I mentioned, the mini budget was almost entirely scrapped, volatility subsided and so we think this significant response on November 3rd will come in the form of a 75 basis point hike. And we also see clear messaging from the Bank of England next week that this should be perceived as a one off level shift and that the pace of tightening will slow from December, as a lot of monetary tightening has already been delivered. We're expecting a 50 basis point move from the bank then and then two more 25 basis points hikes in the first quarter of next year, leaving the terminal rate at 4%. 
Andrew Sheets: In the Bank of England's thinking, how does inflation come down? You know, because you still have imported inflation from a weak currency, you still have some of the higher friction cost to trade coming through from Brexit, you still have quite high core inflation. What do you think the Bank of England is looking at that gives it conviction? Alternatively, what do you think is the most likely way those predictions could be wrong? 
Bruna Skarica: Well, the first thing to mention is the energy price inflation. It is true that our in-house Morgan Stanley view is that energy prices, for example natural gas prices, will not meaningfully correct from here. However, even if they stay at their current levels, inflation itself is going to slow and that's going to be a big drag on headline inflation over the course of next year and more so into 2024 and 2025. Additionally, the U.K. has seen a very sharp increase in traded goods inflation and our Morgan Stanley in-house view is that some of this is going to come off next year in the U.S. and the DM space more broadly, which we think will help lower U.K.'s headline and core inflation over the course of next year too. We do think services inflation will remain stickier. We think it's going to average around 5% next year actually, because our labor market's very tight and wage growth will remain at levels that are not consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target. However, the traded goods and energy prices we think should help with lowering headline inflation, and that is what the Bank of England is reflecting in its forecasts.
Andrew Sheets: So Bruna you mentioned the strength of the U.K. labor market holding up despite, you know, a number of these macroeconomic challenges. What's going on there? What do you think explains the strength and how big of a problem do you think that is for the Bank of England's policy challenges? 
Bruna Skarica: That's a great question because our employment levels are actually not yet back to where they were pre-COVID. So a question arises as to why is our labor market this tight? And it's all about supply, really. The U.K.'s participation rate has been very subdued in the aftermath of the COVID shock. Some of it has to do with Brexit, a slowdown in migration flows from the EU from 2020 onwards because of course we've seen COVID and the Brexit shock coincide. However, much of it is to do with the drop in participation of U.K. born labor. For example, we now have a record high number of potential workers out with the labor force due to self-reported health issues. The health care backlog and NHS waiting lists are at an all time high and we now seem to have very limited fiscal space to address this. So we actually took down our own labor supply growth forecasts recently. This means that we do expect the slowdown in employment growth and when the recession comes shedding of employees over the course of next year, and that to be the main factor driving the rise in the unemployment rate. 
Andrew Sheets: So you have been calling for a recession around the end of the year in the U.K. and weak growth really through the middle of 2023. Is that still your forecast and what are the most likely factors that could change it? 
Bruna Skarica: Yes, that is still the case. We are looking for a 1% contraction in 2023 and for a recession to kick off in the second half of 2022. In terms of positive catalysts, I would say if natural gas prices fall further, the government will have more fiscal space to support the economy as opposed to using the funds to counter the external energy price hit. It would, of course, help with keeping the inflation somewhat lower. More resilient consumer spending, perhaps as some of those pandemic excess savings are spent, is another upside risk. But we see a very low probability of this happening. And finally, a more aggressive global disinflation, something I've mentioned when it comes to global traded goods inflation, leading to a faster return to positive real income growth, that's another factor to think about, and that would be beneficial for consumers and of course for overall U.K. GDP growth. So those are the main positive factors, I would say. 
Andrew Sheets: Bruna, thanks for taking the time to talk. 
Bruna Skarica: Great speaking with you, Andrew. 
Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Be sure to tune in for the upcoming Part two of our conversation about the U.K. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/fpxoVnZ6yj3O7tG9WGCHlod72hHhqmrdEYJs0jfjk-UThu, 27 Oct 2022 23:12:25 +0000gtyAs the U.K. deals with a bout of market volatility, political transitions, and sticky inflation, how will policy makers and the Bank of England respond, and where might the U.K. economy be headed from here? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets...----- Transcript -----
Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. 
Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. 
Andrew Sheets: And on this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be focused on the latest political, economic and market developments in the United Kingdom and how investors should think about the situation now and going forward. It's Thursday, October 27th at 2 p.m. in London. 
Andrew Sheets: So Bruna, the world's eyes have been on the U.K. over the last couple of months, not only because it's the world's sixth largest economy, but because it's been experiencing an unprecedented level of market volatility, and it also has had an unusually large amount of political volatility. So I think a good place to start this discussion is just taking a step back. How would you currently frame the economic challenges facing the U.K.? 
Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the level of volatility has truly been historic, both in the macro space, in the market and in politics. Now, in terms of what Prime Minister Sunak has on his tray coming into number 10, first let me mention the fiscal challenges. Chancellor Hunt, who's currently in number 11, has already reversed nearly all the measures from the mini budget, which was the catalyst of all this turbulence. Still, there is more to come. We think another £30 billion of fiscal tightening will be needed to stabilize debt to GDP ratio in the medium term. So more austerity, which of course, will be negative for growth. Now, this fiscal tightening, of course, comes in order to facilitate Bank of England's monetary tightening and help return inflation to the 2% target. The Bank of England has already hiked the bank rate to 2.25%, and we expect further hikes to come. So a lot of monetary tightening weighing on growth, too. And all of this is coming in the context of a very large external shock, that is the energy price move that has led to a spike in utility bills that the state is helping to counter, but that is weighing on UK's disposable income.
Andrew Sheets: Given all of these challenges, how do you think the Bank of England is going to react? They have an upcoming meeting on November 3rd, and they’re facing a backdrop where on the one hand the U.K. has some of the highest core inflation in the developed world, and on the other hand it has a number of these risks to growth which you just outlined. How do you think they try to thread that needle and what do you think they ultimately do?
Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the Bank of England has this year had a really complicated task at its hand. What started as the energy shock to inflation first impacting headline inflation, then spread on to pretty much every part of the consumer basket. The Bank of England we think has no choice but to tighten further from here. Chief Economist Pearl, in the aftermath of the mini budget, said that there will be a significant monetary response to the fiscal news and financial market volatility. As I mentioned, the mini budget was almost entirely scrapped, volatility subsided and so we think this significant response on November 3rd will come in the form of a 75 basis point hike. And we also see clear messaging from the Bank of England next week that this should be perceived as a one off level shift and that the pace of tightening will slow from December, as a lot of monetary tightening has already been delivered. We're expecting a 50 basis point move from the bank then and then two more 25 basis points hikes in the first quarter of next year, leaving the terminal rate at 4%. 
Andrew...]]>484market-trendsfalse731fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/seth-carpenter-the-next-steps-for-the-bank-of-england--75654945----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about recent developments in the U.K. and what the implications might be for other economies. It's Wednesday, October 26th, at 10 a.m. in New York.
The political environment in the U.K. is fluid, to say the least. For markets, the most important shift was the fiscal policy U-turn. The tax cuts proposed by former Chancellor Kwarteng have been withdrawn apart from  two measures related to the National Health Service and property taxes. In total, the reversal of the mini budget tax cuts brings in £32 billion of revenue for the Treasury. Media reports suggested that Chancellor Hunt was told by the fiscal watchdog, the OBR, that medium term stability of the debt to GDP ratio would require about £72 billion of higher revenue. There's a gap of about £40 billion implying tighter fiscal policy to come. 
The clearest market impact came from the swings in gilt yields following the original fiscal announcement. The 80 basis point sell off in 30 year gilts prompted the Bank of England to announce an intervention to restore financial stability for a central bank about to start actively selling bonds to change course and begin buying anew was a delicate proposition. But so far, the needle appears to have been threaded. 
And yet, despite the recent calm, the majority of client conversations over the past month have included concern about other possible market disruptions. Part of the proposed fiscal plan was meant to address surging energy prices. Inflation in the UK is 10.1% of which only 6.5% is core inflation. The large share of inflation from food and energy prices works like a tax. From a household perspective, the average British household has a disposable income of approximately £31,000 a year and went from paying just over £1,000 a year for electricity and gas to roughly £4,000. Households lost 10% of their disposable income. 
Of course, the inflation dynamics in the U.K. resemble those in the euro area, in the latter headline inflation is 10%, but core inflation constitutes just under half of that. The hit to discretionary income is even larger for the continent. Our Europe growth forecasts have been below consensus for this reason. We look for more fiscal measures there, but our basic view is that fiscal support can only mitigate the depth of the recession, not avoid it entirely. 
Central banks are tightening monetary policy to restrain demand and thereby bring down inflation. The necessary outcome, then, is a shortfall in economic activity. For the U.K. the structural frictions from Brexit exacerbate the issue and the Bank of England, like our U.K. team, expect the labor force itself to remain inert. Consequently, after the recession, even when growth resumes, we expect the level of GDP to be about one and a half percent below the pre-COVID trend at the end of 2023. 
For the Bank of England, we are looking for the bank rate to rise to 4%, below market expectations. The shift in the fiscal stance tipped the balance for our U.K. economist Bruna Skarica. She revised her call for the next meeting down to 75 basis points from 100 basis points. And so while the next meeting may be a close call, in the bigger picture we think there will be less tightening than markets are pricing in because of the tighter fiscal outlook. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/WAVxWrqEarn4BykAWcwtR7V8BpFWVnvn5RVun9hdNoEWed, 26 Oct 2022 19:44:03 +0000gtyAs the U.K. attempts stabilize its debt to GDP ratio, as well as curb inflation, the question becomes, to what extent will the Bank of England continue to tighten monetary policy? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about recent developments in the U.K. and what the implications might be for other economies. It's Wednesday, October 26th, at 10 a.m. in New York.
The political environment in the U.K. is fluid, to say the least. For markets, the most important shift was the fiscal policy U-turn. The tax cuts proposed by former Chancellor Kwarteng have been withdrawn apart from  two measures related to the National Health Service and property taxes. In total, the reversal of the mini budget tax cuts brings in £32 billion of revenue for the Treasury. Media reports suggested that Chancellor Hunt was told by the fiscal watchdog, the OBR, that medium term stability of the debt to GDP ratio would require about £72 billion of higher revenue. There's a gap of about £40 billion implying tighter fiscal policy to come. 
The clearest market impact came from the swings in gilt yields following the original fiscal announcement. The 80 basis point sell off in 30 year gilts prompted the Bank of England to announce an intervention to restore financial stability for a central bank about to start actively selling bonds to change course and begin buying anew was a delicate proposition. But so far, the needle appears to have been threaded. 
And yet, despite the recent calm, the majority of client conversations over the past month have included concern about other possible market disruptions. Part of the proposed fiscal plan was meant to address surging energy prices. Inflation in the UK is 10.1% of which only 6.5% is core inflation. The large share of inflation from food and energy prices works like a tax. From a household perspective, the average British household has a disposable income of approximately £31,000 a year and went from paying just over £1,000 a year for electricity and gas to roughly £4,000. Households lost 10% of their disposable income. 
Of course, the inflation dynamics in the U.K. resemble those in the euro area, in the latter headline inflation is 10%, but core inflation constitutes just under half of that. The hit to discretionary income is even larger for the continent. Our Europe growth forecasts have been below consensus for this reason. We look for more fiscal measures there, but our basic view is that fiscal support can only mitigate the depth of the recession, not avoid it entirely. 
Central banks are tightening monetary policy to restrain demand and thereby bring down inflation. The necessary outcome, then, is a shortfall in economic activity. For the U.K. the structural frictions from Brexit exacerbate the issue and the Bank of England, like our U.K. team, expect the labor force itself to remain inert. Consequently, after the recession, even when growth resumes, we expect the level of GDP to be about one and a half percent below the pre-COVID trend at the end of 2023. 
For the Bank of England, we are looking for the bank rate to rise to 4%, below market expectations. The shift in the fiscal stance tipped the balance for our U.K. economist Bruna Skarica. She revised her call for the next meeting down to 75 basis points from 100 basis points. And so while the next meeting may be a close call, in the bigger picture we think there will be less tightening than markets are pricing in because of the tighter fiscal outlook. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.]]>216market-trendsfalse730fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/michael-zezas-policy-pressure-from-the-u-s-to-china--75654993----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Tuesday, October 25th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
On October 7th, the Biden administration announced another round of controls on the export of advanced computing and semiconductor equipment to China. The stated goal is to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by limiting China's ability to develop cutting edge chip and computing technology. This news drove volatility in equity markets in China recently, but we think it shouldn't come as a surprise to investors. In fact, we argue that investors should expect the U.S. to continue pressing forward with trade restrictions on China. 
It's all part of our slowbalization and multipolar world frameworks. In short, as China's economy grows into a legit challenger to U.S. hegemony, U.S. policy has changed to protect its economic and military advantages. Export controls are one of those policies springing from a law passed in 2018, one of the few pieces of legislation that received bipartisan support during the Trump administration. And this law gives broad authority to the executive branch to decide what's in scope for export restrictions. So as the competition between the U.S. and China grows and new technologies over time become old technologies, expect export controls and other non-tariff barriers to spread across multiple industries. Other policy barriers could arise, too. As we've stated in prior podcasts, we still see scope for Congress to create an outbound investment control function for the White House. All in all, the net result is a managed delinking of the U.S. and China economies in some key sectors. 
For investors, the read through is clear; the policy pressure from the U.S. and China is unlikely to abate any time soon. The bad news from this? It means new costs to fund the supply chains that will have to be built, a particular challenge for tech hardware companies globally. The good news? This isn't a hard decoupling of the U.S. and China. Slowly but surely, these measures set up new rules of engagement and coexistence for the U.S. and China economies, meaning the worst outcomes for the global economy are likely to be avoided. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/ZzoOdETrboIoDwTLpVqMMD72pAOv-63eiLQGAdjC47ETue, 25 Oct 2022 20:34:04 +0000gtyThe Biden administration recently imposed new trade restrictions on exports to China, but what sectors will be impacted and will we continue to see more policy pressure from the U.S. to China? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the market....----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Tuesday, October 25th, at 10 a.m. in New York. 
On October 7th, the Biden administration announced another round of controls on the export of advanced computing and semiconductor equipment to China. The stated goal is to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by limiting China's ability to develop cutting edge chip and computing technology. This news drove volatility in equity markets in China recently, but we think it shouldn't come as a surprise to investors. In fact, we argue that investors should expect the U.S. to continue pressing forward with trade restrictions on China. 
It's all part of our slowbalization and multipolar world frameworks. In short, as China's economy grows into a legit challenger to U.S. hegemony, U.S. policy has changed to protect its economic and military advantages. Export controls are one of those policies springing from a law passed in 2018, one of the few pieces of legislation that received bipartisan support during the Trump administration. And this law gives broad authority to the executive branch to decide what's in scope for export restrictions. So as the competition between the U.S. and China grows and new technologies over time become old technologies, expect export controls and other non-tariff barriers to spread across multiple industries. Other policy barriers could arise, too. As we've stated in prior podcasts, we still see scope for Congress to create an outbound investment control function for the White House. All in all, the net result is a managed delinking of the U.S. and China economies in some key sectors. 
For investors, the read through is clear; the policy pressure from the U.S. and China is unlikely to abate any time soon. The bad news from this? It means new costs to fund the supply chains that will have to be built, a particular challenge for tech hardware companies globally. The good news? This isn't a hard decoupling of the U.S. and China. Slowly but surely, these measures set up new rules of engagement and coexistence for the U.S. and China economies, meaning the worst outcomes for the global economy are likely to be avoided. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.]]>149market-trendsfalse729fullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/mike-wilson-what-is-causing-the-market-rally--75655005----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 24th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week, we made a tactically bullish call for U.S. equities, and stocks did not disappoint us. The S&P 500 had its best week since June 24th, which was the beginning of the big summer rally. As a reminder, this is a tactical call based almost purely on technicals rather than fundamentals, which remain unsupportive of higher equity prices over the next 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the price action of the markets has become more technical than normal, and investors are forced to do things they don't want to, both on the upside and the downside. Witness September, which resulted in the worst month for U.S. equities since the COVID lockdowns in March of 2020. The same price action can happen now on the upside, and one needs to respect that in the near term, in our view. 
As noted last week, the 200 week moving average is a powerful technical support level for stocks, particularly in the absence of an outright recession, which we don't have yet. While some may argue a recession is inevitable over the next 6 to 12 months, the market will not price it, in our view, until it's definitive. The typical signal required for that can only come from the jobs market. While nonfarm payrolls is a lagging indicator that gets revised later, the equity market tends to be focused on it. More specifically, it usually takes a negative payroll reading for the market to fully price a recession. Today, that number is a positive 265,000, and it's unlikely we get a negative payroll number in the next month or two. Of course, we also appreciate the fact that if one waits for such data to arrive, the opportunity to trade it will be missed. The question is one of timing. In the absence of hard data from either companies cutting guidance significantly for 2023 or unemployment claims spiking, the door is left open for a tactical trade higher before reality sets in. 
Finally, as we begin the transition from fire to ice, falling inflation expectations could lead to a period of falling interest rates that may be interpreted by the equity market as bullish, until the reality of what that means for earnings is fully revealed. Given the strong technical support just below current levels, the S&P 500 can continue to rally toward 4000 or 4150 in the absence of capitulation from companies on 2023 earnings guidance. Conversely, should interest rates remain sticky at current levels, all bets are off on how far this equity rally can go beyond current prices. As a result, we stay tactically bullish as we enter the meat of what is likely to be a sloppy earnings season. We just don't have the confidence that there will be enough capitulation on 2023 earnings to take 2023 earnings per share forecasts down in the manner that it takes stocks to new lows. Instead, our base case is, that happens in either December when holiday demand fails to materialize or during fourth quarter earnings season in January and February, when companies are forced to discuss their outlooks for 2023 decisively. In the meantime, enjoy the rally. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>gid://art19-episode-locator/V0/HKC1vfctwE0dRSbygG7iMfQqPvcRz2D6RiabhKNKwq8Mon, 24 Oct 2022 21:36:28 +0000gtyAs equities enjoy their best week since the summer highs in June, investors seem at the mercy of powerful market trends, so when might these trends take a turn to the downside? ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson,...----- Transcript -----
Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 24th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 
Last week, we made a tactically bullish call for U.S. equities, and stocks did not disappoint us. The S&P 500 had its best week since June 24th, which was the beginning of the big summer rally. As a reminder, this is a tactical call based almost purely on technicals rather than fundamentals, which remain unsupportive of higher equity prices over the next 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the price action of the markets has become more technical than normal, and investors are forced to do things they don't want to, both on the upside and the downside. Witness September, which resulted in the worst month for U.S. equities since the COVID lockdowns in March of 2020. The same price action can happen now on the upside, and one needs to respect that in the near term, in our view. 
As noted last week, the 200 week moving average is a powerful technical support level for stocks, particularly in the absence of an outright recession, which we don't have yet. While some may argue a recession is inevitable over the next 6 to 12 months, the market will not price it, in our view, until it's definitive. The typical signal required for that can only come from the jobs market. While nonfarm payrolls is a lagging indicator that gets revised later, the equity market tends to be focused on it. More specifically, it usually takes a negative payroll reading for the market to fully price a recession. Today, that number is a positive 265,000, and it's unlikely we get a negative payroll number in the next month or two. Of course, we also appreciate the fact that if one waits for such data to arrive, the opportunity to trade it will be missed. The question is one of timing. In the absence of hard data from either companies cutting guidance significantly for 2023 or unemployment claims spiking, the door is left open for a tactical trade higher before reality sets in. 
Finally, as we begin the transition from fire to ice, falling inflation expectations could lead to a period of falling interest rates that may be interpreted by the equity market as bullish, until the reality of what that means for earnings is fully revealed. Given the strong technical support just below current levels, the S&P 500 can continue to rally toward 4000 or 4150 in the absence of capitulation from companies on 2023 earnings guidance. Conversely, should interest rates remain sticky at current levels, all bets are off on how far this equity rally can go beyond current prices. As a result, we stay tactically bullish as we enter the meat of what is likely to be a sloppy earnings season. We just don't have the confidence that there will be enough capitulation on 2023 earnings to take 2023 earnings per share forecasts down in the manner that it takes stocks to new lows. Instead, our base case is, that happens in either December when holiday demand fails to materialize or during fourth quarter earnings season in January and February, when companies are forced to discuss their outlooks for 2023 decisively. In the meantime, enjoy the rally. 
Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.]]>201market-trendsfalse728full